University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL TO IMPROVE
LEARNING FOR STRUGGLING READERS:
WHAT IS ADEQUATE?

by

Franklin E. Donavan

_________________________________________________________

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 2010

Copyright 2010 Franklin E. Donavan

ii
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to four generations of family members that have
greatly influenced my life. To my maternal grandmother, Roselyn Borba King, who
instilled in me the value of education and the importance of contributing to the
greater good. To my mother, Patricia Leigh Donavan, who continues to model the
virtues of integrity, perseverance, and compassion. To my incredibly intelligent and
beautiful wife, Monique Rachelle Donavan, who supported me throughout this
process and inspired me to follow in her footsteps in earning a doctoral degree. And
to the future of our family lineage, my talented, vibrant, and intelligent daughter
Kennedy Adelle Donavan, whose innocence and passion for life motivates me to
always do my best and to instill in her the value of education.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my Dissertation Chair, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, for his
ongoing support and encouragement throughout this process. His ability to blend
complex financial concepts with current educational issues is without precedent. Dr.
Picus’ incredible knowledge and positive attitude greatly contributed to my success
in this program.
My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Sharon Nordheim, Superintendent of the
Westminster School District, for encouraging me to fulfill my goal of earning a
doctorate. Sharon is an outstanding role model and I will be forever in awe of her
commitment to education.
Many thanks go to my dedicated dissertation committee members. Dr.
Brewer, who guided me through the process of asking the right questions during the
principal interviews, and Dr. Nelson, who provided me with much-needed feedback
on how to explain the fiscal anomalies related to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. I would also like to thank Dr. Hentschke for his dedication and
willingness to participate in the doctoral defense via teleconference from Saudi
Arabia.
I am very thankful to the Rossier Graduate School of Education at the
University of Southern California for developing an unsurpassed educational
leadership program that addresses the systemic problems that currently exist in
public education.

iv
I am also very thankful to the principals at the schools used in this study. All
five of them are living proof that high-minority, high-poverty schools can also be
high achieving.
Finally, I would like to thank my fellow cohort members who supported me
and persevered through the challenging and demanding requirements of the doctoral
degree. All of them are now lifelong friends.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………... ...ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………....iii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. ...vi
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………… ...xi
Abstract………………………………………………………………………… ...xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………. ...1
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………….....22
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………. ...62
Chapter 4: Findings…………………………………………………………....72
Chapter 5: Discussion………………………………………………………...131
References……………………………………………………………………... ...148
Appendices
Appendix A: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol - School Sites…….. ...158
Appendix B: Data Collection Protocol…………………………………... ...161
Appendix C: Data Collection Codebook………………………………… ...172
Appendix D: Resource Comparison……………………………………... ...183
Appendix E: Case Study One……………………………………………. ...185
Appendix F: Case Study Two…………………………………………… ...210
Appendix G: Case Study Three………………………………………….. ...238
Appendix H: Case Study Four…………………………………………… ...267
Appendix I: Case Study Five…………………………………………… ...295

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. California Student Demographics………………………………... ...23
Table 2.2. California Students in Special Programs…………………………....23
Table 2.3. Comparison of Selected Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels in….. ...26
Selected Counties, 1968-69

Table 2.4. Federal Funding Loss for Special Education in the United States, ...32
2005-09
Table 2.5. Federal Funding Loss for Special Education in California,……… ...32
2005-09

Table 2.6. Largest Significant Subgroups in California……………………......34
Table 2.7. Schools in Program Improvement……………………………….. ...35
Table 2.8. Percent of Schools that Made AMOs and AYP from 2006-07…... ...36
to 2007-08

Table 2.9. Subgroups’ Results on Tests Used for AYP 2007-08……………. ...40
Table 3.1. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance………….. ...65
Table 3.2. 2008-09 School API Growth and Targets Met……………………...67
Table 4.1. Characteristics of Study Schools…………………………………....74
Table 4.2. Demographic Trends of Study Schools, 1994-2009………………...75
Table 4.3. Comparison of Significant Subgroups of Study Schools, 2008-09 ...76
Table 4.4. Percentage of English Learners by Language, 2008-09………….....76
Table 4.5. Overall API Scores for Study Schools, 2000-09…………………....78
Table 4.6. API Scores for Hispanic Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09…....80
Table 4.7. API Scores for EL Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09……….....82

vii
Table 4.8. Percentage of English Learners Reclassified as Fluent English…. ...83
Proficient, 2005-09

Table 4.9. API Scores for SED Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09……... ...84
Table 4.10. Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study……… ...86
Schools, 2005-09

Table 4.11. Hispanic-Asian Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study……… ...88
Schools, 2005-09

Table 4.12. Overall Percentages of Students Proficient and Advanced on……...90
CST, 2005-09

Table 4.13. Hispanic Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST, 2005-09... ...92
Table 4.14. EL Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST, 2005-09……… ...94
Table 4.15. SED Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST, 2005-09……. ...96
Table 4.16. Core and Specialist Teachers – EBM v. Actual………………… ...123
Table 4.17. Personnel Resources--Extended Day, Summer School, Tutors… ...124
– EBM v. Actual

Table 4.18. EL. Special Education, Aides, Vocation and Gifted Programs…....125
– EBM v. Actual

Table 4.19. Support Staff, Librarians, and Secretaries – EBM v. Actual…… ...126
Table 4.20. Substitutes and Professional Development – EBM v. Actual……...128
Table 4.21. Administration and Instructional Coaches – EBM v. Actual……...130
Table D.1. Middle School and Evidence-Based Model for Adequate……… ...183
School Resources

Table E.1. Change in Demographics at AIS from 1994 to 2009…………… ...186
Table E.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups…………………………….. ...187
Table E.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at AIS from 2005.....188
to 2009

viii
Table E.4. AIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups……………....188
Table E.5. Achievement Gap at AIS from 2005 to 2009……………………...191
Table E.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at AIS...192
Table E.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced ...193
on CSTs at AIS

Table E.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at AIS to Evidence-Based…... ...198
Model

Table E.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance………… ...209
Table F.1. Change in Demographics at BIS from 1994 to 2009…………… ...211
Table F.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups…………………………….. ...212
Table F.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at BIS from 2005 ...213
to 2009

Table F.4. BIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups……………. ...213
Table F.5. Achievement Gap at BIS from 2005 to 2009……………………...217
Table F.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at BIS...218
Table F.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced ...219
on CSTs at BIS

Table F.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at BIS to Evidence-Based……...224
Model

Table F.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance………… ...237
Table G.1. Change in Demographics at CIS from 1994 to 2009…………… ...239
Table G.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups…………………………….. ...240
Table G.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at EIS from 2005 ...241
to 2009

Table G.4. CIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups……………. ...242

ix
Table G.5. Achievement Gap at CIS from 2005 to 2009……………………...245
Table G.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at CIS...247
Table G.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced ...248
on CSTs at CIS

Table G.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at CIS to Evidence-Based……...254
Model

Table G.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance………… ...266
Table H.1. Change in Demographics at DIS from 1994 to 2009…………… ...268
Table H.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups…………………………….. ...269
Table H.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at DIS from 2005.....270
to 2009

Table H.4. DIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups……………....271
Table H.5. Achievement Gap at DIS from 2005 to 2009……………………...274
Table H.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at DIS...275
Table H.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced...276.
on CSTs at DIS

Table H.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at DIS to Evidence-Based….. ....281
Model

Table H.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance………… ...293
Table I.1. Change in Demographics at EIS from 1994 to 2009…………… ...296
Table I.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups…………………………….. ...297
Table I.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at EIS from 2005.. ...298
to 2009

Table I.4. EIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups……………. ...299
Table I.5. Achievement Gap at EIS from 2005 to 2009…………………… ...302

x
Table I.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at EIS...303
Table I.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced ...306
on CSTs at EIS

Table I.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at EIS to Evidence-Based……...313
Model

Table I.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance………… ...324

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Special Education Encroachment on the General Fund in………...31
California, 2005-2008

Figure 2.2. The Evidence-Based Model…………………………………….. ...55
Figure 4.1. Overall API Scores for Study Schools, 2000-09………………......79
Figure 4.2. API Scores for Hispanic Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09......81
Figure 4.3. API Scores for EL Subgroups at Study Schools, 2005-09………...82
Figure 4.4. API Scores for SED Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09……. ...84
Figure 4.5. Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study…….. ...86
Schools, 2005-09

Figure 4.6. Hispanic-Asian Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study……......88
Schools, 2005-09

Figure 4.7. Percentages of Students Proficient and Advanced on CST-ELA, ...90
2005-09

Figure 4.8. Percentages of Hispanic Subgroups Proficient and Advanced…. ...93
on CST- ELA, 2005-09

Figure 4.9. Percentages of EL Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on…….....95
CST-ELA, 2005-09

Figure 4.10. Percentages of SED Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on…... ...97
CST-ELA, 2005-09

Figure 4.11. The Evidence-Based Model—Middle School Staffing and……...121
Support

Figure E.1. Student Demographics at AIS from 1994 to 2009…………….. ...186
Figure E.2. AIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009…………………………… ...189
Figure F.1. Student Demographics at BIS from 1994 to 2009…………….. ...211
Figure F.2. BIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009……………………………....215

xii
Figure G.1. Student Demographics at CIS from 1994 to 2009…………….. ...239
Figure G.2. CIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009……………………………....243
Figure H.1. Student Demographics at DIS from 1994 to 2009…………….. ...268
Figure H.2. DIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009…………………………… ...272
Figure I.1. Student Demographics at EIS from 1994 to 2009…………….. ...296
Figure I.2. EIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009……………………………....300

xiii
ABSTRACT
Using the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) as a
conceptual framework in correlation with the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009) for comparison, this study examines the school-level
resource allocation strategies used to improve learning for struggling readers in high-
minority, high-poverty, urban middle schools that have made significant progress in
closing the achievement gap. The results of this study support the current research on
the effectiveness of inclusive, push-in models that place struggling students in core
academic classes with comprehensive interventions that include the use of both
formative and summative assessments, targeted interventions, frequent progress
monitoring, and additional layers of resources including extended learning
opportunities and additional support from specialists.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
California’s diverse student population creates many challenges for school
district administrators. One of the many challenges is allocating an adequate amount
of resources to meet student needs, particularly for struggling readers. “Now that
states have set ambitious performance goals for their students, the push is on to link
education spending to academic results” (Olson, 2005, p. 2). Student performance
varies greatly within school districts, even though most schools within a district
receive the same amount of funds based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Some
schools do receive additional categorical funds such as Title I for students that
qualify for free and reduced lunch, but the decision as to how those funds are
allocated is typically made at the district office. While resource allocation at the
school level varies by school district and school site, many schools have little if any
say in the amount of funding they receive and how they allocate those funds (Goertz
& Duffy, 1999). Understanding how resources are allocated at the school level to
successfully raise the achievement level of all students, particularly struggling
readers, is extremely important.
California has the largest K-12 student population and more students who
speak English as a second language than any other state (EdSource, 2008a).
Educating a large, diverse student population makes the allocation of resources a
challenging and difficult process. According to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), California is among the lowest ranking states in

2
student achievement and ranks below the national average on per-pupil funding
(EdSource, 2008a). More than half (53.7%) of the students in California qualify for
free and reduced lunch under Title I (California Department of Education, 2009a).
While Title I is a federal program that brings in additional funding for schools that
qualify, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) outlines sanctions for schools that
fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Low-performing schools are not immune from public scrutiny. Most major
newspapers publish school rankings on an annual basis. School rankings are based
on the Academic Performance Index (API) and/or AYP, and parents often view these
rankings as the sole indicator of school quality (Webster, 1981).
This study will examined five middle schools that met their API growth
targets and AYP requirements for their significant subgroups for the 2008-09 school
year even though they have a large number of students from diverse backgrounds
that were two or more years below grade level in English Language Arts; these
students are referred to as struggling readers (Lovett et al., 2008; Triplett, 2007). The
first section of this chapter provides a historical overview of school finance in
California and how California compares to other states in student demographics,
achievement, and funding. After reviewing the background information of school
finance in California, an explanation of the problem will be discussed. The purpose
of this study and the research questions this study sought to address will be
presented, and the methodology used to investigate the research problem will be

3
explained. This chapter will conclude with the limitations, delimitations,
assumptions, and definition of terms used in this study.
Background of the Problem
The funding of public education in the United States is a dynamic and
complex process that varies by state, county, city, district, school, and student. This
lack of consistency is best described by reviewing one of the most commonly used
definitions of “economics,” which is “the study of the allocation of scarce means to
satisfy competing ends” (Becker, 1971). The term “scarce means” refers to the funds
allocated to schools and “competing ends” refers to the varying costs needed to
adequately educate various student populations. School districts are faced with the
daunting task of allocating scarce resources to fund different—and often
competing—programs within the educational system. For example, English
Learners, Free and Reduced Lunch, Gifted and Talented Education, Special
Education, and many other “labeled” subgroups often require additional resources.
School district and school-site administrators must decide how to allocate resources
to serve a dynamic student population with a broad range of needs. Determining how
to allocate scarce resources based on student need at the school level involves issues
of equity and adequacy.
Odden and Picus (2008) define equity as “issues related to widely varying
education expenditures per pupil across districts within a state...” (p. 1). Adequacy is
best described as the relationship between the “use of funds and student
achievement…” (Odden, & Picus, 2008, p. 1). While few would argue that the

4
funding of our nation’s public schools is not important, there are many opposing
views related to how schools should be funded and what constitutes an equitable and
adequate level of funding. “While some researchers in the 1980s and 1990s
suggested that school funding levels and student achievement are largely unrelated
[Hanushek, 1981; Hanushek, 1989], more recent studies have contradicted this
claim” (Carey, 2002, p. 1). The decision as to how resources at the school level are
used to improve learning for struggling readers is either made by school-district
administrators or school-site administrators.
Site-based management implies that school-site administrators have the
authority to decide now to run their schools. Typically, school districts that practice
site-based management do allow school-site administrators to make decisions
regarding the use of instructional strategies, curricula, and intervention programs for
struggling readers; however, very few of these school districts include school-based
budgeting with the exception of some categorical funding such as Title I (Goertz &
Duffy, 1999). In an era of accountability, and at the risk of falling into Program
Improvement (PI), school-site administrators have very little say in how they allocate
their resources.
The majority of school-site resources are allocated by the district, but
typically absent from school-site budgets. Shared district resources such as staff,
program funding, and other school-site expenditures are allocated by the district
office, but not reported in school-site budgets even though these funds represent a
substantial portion of the funds allocated to school sites (Miller, Rosa, & Swartz,

5
2004). There is clearly a need to monitor these funds in order to determine if the
resource allocations provided to school sites are equitable and adequate, and how the
level of resources allocated impacts student learning.
Historical overview.
The landmark Serrano v. Priest decisions of 1971 and 1976 were intended to
“equalize” school funding from property tax revenue (Odden, & Picus, 2008).
Proposition 13 passed in 1978 and took the Serrano concept one step further by
ending the disparities of the unequal share of property tax revenue that school
districts receive based on property values within school district boundaries
(EdSource, 2006). Proposition 98 passed in 1988 and resulted in minimum state
funding levels of school districts’ general fund allocations (Odden, & Picus, 2008).
These measures along with several others were enacted to ensure equal and adequate
school funding for all California school districts.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) known as PL 94-
142 was enacted in 1975 and mandated that all public schools in the United States
provide all students, including those with severe disabilities, a Free and Appropriate
Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). As a result of
this federal legislation, reauthorized in 1997 as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to educate all students with disabilities
ranging from mild to severe (Parrish, Chambers, Guarino, 1999). The original
legislation, PL 94-142, allocated an additional 40% of the base revenue, or Average
Daily Attendance (ADA), per student with a disability (Parrish et al., 1999). In other

6
words, school districts were to receive an additional 40% of the excess costs per
disabled student in federal dollars in order to fund the education of students with
special needs. Even though this federal funding decision for special education was
determined in 1975, as of the 2007-2008 school year, the average federal
compensation in California was merely 18% (Huntoon & Kubinec, 2008). While the
recent passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009
provided a one-time increase in IDEA funding from a national average of 17.5% to
34% (Griffith, McFadden, & Mack, 2009). The ARRA funds must be expended by
September 2011 at which time the federal funding for special education will return to
a national average of approximately 17.5%. Due to the fact that these funds have yet
to be expended, and most school districts have received less than half of their
apportionments, the impact of these funds on school district and site-level resource
allocations remains to be seen.
Until the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, student
outcomes for specific subgroups including struggling readers were not a high priority
for most school districts. With the passage of NCLB and the reauthorization of IDEA
in 2004, school districts were suddenly held accountable for the academic
achievement of all students including their subgroups (Handler, 2006). Even though
NCLB requires that all students score proficient or advanced on state testing based
on federal AYP guidelines, more and more schools and districts continue to fall into
Program Improvement (PI) status for failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) for their subgroups (Crane, Huang, Derby, Makkonen, & Goel, 2008). While

7
the pendulum has swung from no real accountability for the academic achievement
of students classified into subgroups, to full accountability for student achievement
as measured by AYP, school districts are scrambling to ensure that all of their
students are provided with effective and efficient programs that improve learning.
Adequacy.
In order to determine an adequate level of school funding, and in response to
dozens of legal cases, several models for “costing out” resources have been utilized
across the United States. According to Rebell (2007), “courts in over 25 states have
ruled claims that state systems for financing public education deny many students the
resources they need for a constitutionally ‘adequate’ education…plaintiffs have
prevailed in 75 percent of these cases” (p. 1304). While legal cases regarding
adequacy have influenced state and local education agencies to scrutinize how
resources are allocated, there are other contributing factors (Lindseth, 2006).
The standards-based reform movement that started in the 1990s and
continues today—particularly in California—has increased the level of
accountability and raised the bar on student achievement (Odden, 2003). Federal
legislation such as NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) both require the use of peer-
reviewed, research-based teaching strategies and curricula, and both shift the focus
from access to education, to outcomes from education (Handler, 2006). More than
ever before, school districts and school sites must effectively and efficiently
determine how to allocate resources in order to ensure that all students are receiving
an adequate education.

8
During the 1980s, Jay Chambers and Thomas Parrish developed a “Resource
Cost Model” (“RCM”); “The RCM was an input-oriented model that organized
panels of superintendents, administrators, and teachers to develop ‘appropriate’
service delivery systems” (Rebell, 2007, p. 1307). The model evolved into what is
known as the “professional judgment” model. In response to an order from the
Wyoming Supreme Court, in Campbell County School District v. Wyoming (1995),
the professional judgment model was utilized to determine the level of resources
needed to provide an appropriate education to all students including subgroups such
as EL and special education (Rebell, 2007).
A second “costing out” model, the “successful school district” method, was
also developed based on a legal decision. In De Rolph v. State (1997) the Ohio
Supreme Court ordered the use of the successful school district method in an effort
to determine the adequacy of the State’s educational funding model (Rebell, 2007;
Odden, 2003). This approach uses data from school districts that are deemed
“successful” and are meeting state standards. Other school districts are then funded
based on the average level of funding allocated to the successful schools.
Two other models include the “expert judgment” model and the “cost
function” model. The expert judgment model is similar to the professional judgment
model; although instead of using educators from public education, expert researchers
make decisions based on empirical research regarding resource allocation (Rebell,
2007). The “cost function” model utilizes sophisticated econometric methods that are

9
often used in private industry and then applies those methods to resource allocation
in education (Rebell, 2007).
While these four “costing out” models provide strategies to determine an
adequate level of resources for school districts and school sites, they do not address
the allocation of resources within school sites. Starting with the standards-based
reform of the 1990s and the shift from access to outcomes under NCLB, resource
allocation within school sites is becoming more and more important. With the NCLB
goal of all students scoring proficient or advanced by 2014, and the risk of federal
sanctions for schools that fail to make AYP, educators and researchers are
scrambling to determine what is needed to improve student learning at the school
site.
One approach to school funding that starts at the school site and has been
used in multiple states across the nation is known as the “Evidenced-Based Model”
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Developed by Lawrence O. Picus and Allan Odden, “this
approach identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a high-quality,
comprehensive, schoolwide instructional program” (Odden, 2003, p. 123). The
Evidence-Based Model, also referred to as the “expert-judgment model” (Rebell,
2007), provides a scripted approach to resource allocation at the school site that
includes a staffing ratio designed to address the needs of all students, including
struggling readers.
Regardless of what funding model is used, data on school-level resource
allocation as it relates to student outcomes is necessary at all levels. According to

10
Busch and Odden (1997) “school-level data can help analysts and policymakers
provide answers to new questions related to many different facets of education…”
(p. 227). In order to improve student performance and address an increasingly
diverse student population, school-site administrators must be able to adequately
allocate resources to improve student learning (Picus, Tetreault, & Murphy, 1996).
“If improving student performance is the goal, adequate resources are necessary and
could better be estimated from actual behavior of resource use below the district
level, such as the school site” (Busch & Odden, 1997, p.233).
Understanding how resource allocation at the school site can improve student
learning is an important step in closing the achievement gap. Several studies exist in
this area. Brinson and Mellor (2005) used a structured interview process to examine
the relationship between site-level resource allocation and teaching strategies at
high-performing schools. Brinson and Mellor (2005) found that staff development
and training opportunities led to effective teaching strategies that improved student
learning. Miller et al. (2004) discuss the importance of monitoring resource
allocation at the school site in order to improve student learning at under-performing
schools. Odden et al. (2006) studied 11 elementary schools in four states that utilized
the School-Level Expenditure Structure (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, & Gross,
2003) to examine the differences in the implementation of school site resource
allocation and student achievement scores. The results indicate the need for school-
level analysis of the use of resources in order to improve student achievement.

11
California’s school demographics are changing. Subgroups for EL and low
income or Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) students continue to increase
in size. In order to provide an adequate education, improve student learning, and
address the diverse needs of the student population in California, resource allocation
at the school level must be understood and monitored. Struggling readers are
represented in all subgroups, which is why understanding how to adequately allocate
resources to address the needs of this population is important. The challenge is to
identify what works in some schools and what does not work in others.
Reeves (2000) identified what he calls “90/90/90” schools where 90% of the
students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, 90% are from ethnic minorities, and
90% are achieving high academic standards. Reeves (2000) discovered that the large
number of schools that he has classified as “90/90/90” schools do not all have the
same academic intervention programs, but they do all have targeted interventions for
low-achieving students including struggling readers. Marzano (2003) explains the
importance of school-level, student-level, and teacher-level factors that lead to
improved student learning, particularly for low performing students. There is a
tremendous amount of research that indicates that under-performing students and
under-performing schools can improve and achieve at high levels (Odden, 2009;
Odden, & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2004); however, more research in the area of
school-site resource allocation strategies to improve learning for struggling readers is
needed.

12
Statement of the Problem
School districts and school sites are faced with the challenge of educating an
increasingly diverse student population with less and less resources. The nationwide
shift from access to education, or equity, to outcomes from education, or adequacy,
has forced schools to raise the achievement of all students including those classified
into subgroups. Struggling readers are represented in all subgroups and strategies to
raise the achievement level of this population vary greatly. Research on how
resources are allocated at the school level to successfully raise the achievement level
of struggling readers and close the achievement gap is needed.
Purpose of the Study
Using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework,
this study examined the school level resource allocation strategies used to improve
learning for struggling readers at five middle schools that have a high number of
Hispanic, EL, and SED students and met their API growth targets and AYP
requirements for the 2008-09 school year. Even though similar schools within the
same school district often receive the same amount of funding, student achievement
varies greatly (EdSource, 2007a). Some schools effectively raise the achievement
levels of struggling readers, while others do not. The current literature on strategies
to improve learning for all students including struggling readers is extensive;
however, the current literature on how resources are allocated at the school level to
improve learning for struggling readers is limited. The research questions used to
guide this study are as follows:

13
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
Model?
Importance of the Study
The changing student demographics in California create many challenges for
the public school system. Other states continue to outperform California in student
achievement. As California continues to decline in the nationwide achievement
rankings, successful resource allocation strategies that improve learning for
struggling readers must be identified. With the risk of federal sanctions for schools
and districts that fail to make AYP, schools must consider more than curricula,
pedagogy, and interventions for struggling readers. Declining enrollment, funding
reductions, and budget shortfalls, require schools to carefully monitor how resources
are allocated to address the needs of struggling readers.
In order to earn a high school diploma in California, students must pass the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). One of the components of the
CAHSEE is reading. Students that enter high school without adequate reading skills

14
are faced with the dilemma of trying to fulfill their course requirements for
graduation and pass the CAHSEE. Effective strategies to improve learning for
struggling readers must begin as early as possible, preferably at the preschool level;
however, due to many factors such as poverty, high transiency, language barriers,
and a growing number of students that are recent immigrants, many students in
California enter high school as struggling readers. Due to the importance of
preparing students for high school and due to the fact that there are proportionately
many more middle schools in Year 5 Program Improvement (PI) than elementary or
high schools, middle schools that successfully improved learning for struggling
readers were used in this study (EdSource, 2009a).
This study examined the resource allocation practices at the school level to
improve learning at five middle schools that met their API growth targets and AYP
requirements for the 2008-09 school year, even though they had a high percentage of
struggling readers. Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance as a framework
for comparison, case studies of each school were developed (see Appendices F-J) in
an effort to provide effective school level resource allocation models that can be
implemented at other schools. The results of this study have important policy
implications at the federal, state, and local level. Determining how to adequately
allocate resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers will
help close the achievement gap.

15
Limitations
Comparing the school level resource allocation practices of five middle
schools in southern California to the Evidence-Based Model had several limitations.
One limitation was the small sample size of the study. Due to the small sample size,
another limitation was the researcher’s ability to generalize the findings of the study
to other schools, locations, and/or student populations. All of the schools used in this
study are located in southern California. Due to the limited geographical area used in
this study, the results may not generalize to other geographical areas. While the
methodology used was qualitative, the schools chosen for this study were not
randomly selected.
Another limitation to this study was the success of the sample schools. All
five schools were more than 50% Hispanic, EL, and SED, and all five met their API
growth targets and AYP requirement for these subgroups. Since schools with similar
demographics that did not make AYP for these subgroups were not included in this
study, a comparison was not possible. This limits the ability to generalize the results
from this study to schools that did not meet their API growth targets and AYP
requirements for their Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups.
President Obama’s passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) contributed to another limitation of this study. The influx of federal dollars
to school districts across the nation has resulted in a fiscal anomaly of one-time
funds that may impact the long-term projections of resource allocation practices at
the school level as reported in this study. The lack of consistency in the methods

16
used by districts and schools in allocating and spending the ARRA funds may hinder
an accurate analysis of the impact of the current fiscal crisis. This has led to the
dichotomy of an increase of one-time federal funds concurrently with a decrease in
state funds. School districts across the State continue to cut their budgets even
though the federal ARRA funds are still being dispersed.
Delimitations
This study also had several delimitations. Travel and time constraints were
delimitations that led to the decision to examine middle schools located only in
southern California. All of the middle schools used in the study had similar student
demographics. All of the schools used in this study had a majority of Hispanic
students, and significant Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups.
Assumptions
This study relied upon the honesty and sincerity of the interviewees. While
the answers of the interviewees were not confirmed through other sources, it was
assumed that the answers and information provided were accurate. The findings of
this study were reported based on the assumption that there will not be an increase in
state or federal funding in the near future.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): “The API is a single-number indicator
of the performance of a school’s students on state Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program tests administered each spring” (EdSource, 2009b)

17
Achievement Gap: The difference, or gap, in academic achievement among
different groups of students. Johnson (2002) describes the achievement gap as
follows:
The gaps in achievement appear by income and by race and ethnicity. Large
percentages of low-income, African American, Latino, and Native American
students are at the low end of the achievement ladder, and large percentages
of middle- and high-income white and Asian students are at the top of the
achievement ladder. (p. 4).

Adequacy: The funding, resources, and support necessary for student’s to
achieve academic performance expectations as determined by a state’s curriculum
standards, NCLB, and measured by a state’s testing system with a goal that all but
the most severely disabled students will achieve at proficient or advanced levels
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A goal of the 2001 federal law No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) that requires schools and districts to measure and report
students’ annual progress toward proficiency in English/language arts and
mathematics by 2013-14. Progress is based on whether the school or district met its
Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated 95% participation on standardized
tests, achieved its target on the Academic Performance Index and, for high schools,
met target graduation rates (Ed-Data, 2008).
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): The federal stimulus
package enacted by President Obama in March, 2009 that allocated additional, one-
time funds to school districts across the United States (Griffith et al., 2009).

18
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The total number of days of student
attendance divided by the total number of days in the regular school year. A student
attending every school day would equal one ADA. Generally, ADA is lower than
enrollment due to such factors as transience, dropouts, and illness. A school district’s
revenue limit income is based on its ADA. The State collects ADA counts at the
district but not the school level (Ed-Data, 2008).
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): A test given to all high school
students in California to measure proficiency in English and math. Passing the
CAHSEE is a requirement for graduation from high school for all students except
those with disabilities. An exemption to the CAHSEE was enacted in June, 2009 that
eliminates the ability of school districts to require students with disabilities, as
outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, to pass the CAHSEE in order to receive a diploma.
Categorical Funds: State and federal funds allocated for specific students and
programs such as free and reduced lunch and special education. These funds are
above and beyond the funds allocated for average daily attendance (ADA).
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA): Title of PL 94-142
passed in 1975 that guarantees all children with disabilities a free and appropriate
public education in the least restrictive environment from birth to age 22 (Harr,
Parrish, Chambers, Levin, & Segarra, 2006).
English Learners (EL): Current term for students that are not proficient in the
English language. Proficiency is measured annually.

19
Equity: Providing all students an adequate and appropriate education. Odden
and Picus (2008) define equity as “issues related to widely varying education
expenditures per pupil across districts within a state...” (p. 1).
Evidence-Based Model (EBM): A comprehensive school resource allocation
model that takes into account the diverse and dynamic student population in
California; “the Evidence-Based approach identifies a comprehensive set of school-
level elements that are required to deliver a comprehensive and high-quality
instructional program within a school...”(Odden & Picus, 2008, p. 1).
Expert Judgment Model: A school funding model that relies upon expert
researchers to make decisions based on empirical research regarding school resource
allocation (Rebell, 2007).
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): The term used in PL 94-142
that requires schools to provide an adequate education to students with disabilities
(Harr et al., 2006).
Free and Reduced Lunch: A program under Title I of the federal regulations
that provides nutritious, low-cost, or free meals to children from low income families
that qualify.
General Fund: Federal and state funds that are non-categorical and not
restricted or required to be spent on specific student populations or programs.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, known as PL 94-142, was reauthorized as the Individual
with Disabilities Education Act (Harr et al., 2006).

20
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Term used in Education for the All
Handicapped Children Act, known as PL 94-142, later termed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, that mandates that schools place students with disabilities
in classrooms or settings that are not more severe and/or segregated than the student
requires (Harr et al., 2006).
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Federal policy passed in 2001 that
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and requires that
all students make Adequate Yearly Progress and reach proficiency on state
standardized tests by 2014 (Scott, 2006).
PL 94-142: Federal legislation entitled the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act passed in 1975 that guarantees all children with disabilities a free and
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment from birth to age 22
(Harr et al., 2006).
Professional Judgment Model: A school funding model that utilizes a group
of experts to determine an adequate amount of resources to achieve identified student
outcomes (Odden, 2003).
Program Improvement (PI): Classification for schools that receive Title I
funds that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress in the same content area district-
wide or for any significant subgroup for two consecutive years or more (EdSource,
2009a).

21
Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED): Students from low-income
families that qualify for the free and reduced lunch program under Title I of the
federal regulations.
Special Education: Programs, placement, and services provided by public
schools to students with identified disabilities in accordance with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (Harr et al., 2006).
Struggling Readers: Students that are below their grade and/or age-level in
reading (Zorfass & Urbano, 2008).
Successful School District Model: A school funding model that “seeks to
identify those school districts that are currently meeting state standards and then to
use their average expenditures as a fair estimate of the actual cost of an adequate
education…” (Rebell, 2007, p. 1307)
Targeted Interventions: Educational strategies and programs designed to
improve learning for specific student needs (Fielding, Kerr, & Rossier, 2007).
Title I: Federal program that provides categorical funds to school districts
based on the number of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch (Manna,
2008).
90/90/90 Schools: Term used by Doug Reeves (2000) to describe schools that
have high minority, high poverty and high academic achievement.

22
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
School administrators must understand the dynamic process of allocating
resources to improve learning for struggling readers. California’s student
demographics are changing as more and more students are classified into subgroups
due to their low level of English language (EL) proficiency and/or low socio-
economic status. Students that are from low socio-economic status families are
referred to as socio-economically disadvantaged (SED). Ironically, the overall
student population in California is decreasing while the number of subgroups
particularly Hispanic and SED is increasing (see Table 2.1, EdSource, 2009c). As
indicated in Table 2.2, California has a large number of students that are classified
into special programs (EdSource, 2009c). Another subgroup that has a high
percentage of struggling readers is special education (SPED). The majority of
students classified into subgroups are struggling readers, or below their grade and/or
age-level in reading (EdSource, 2009b; Zorfass & Urbano, 2008). With decreasing
state funding, budget reductions, and a shift from access to outcomes under NCLB,
understanding how to effectively allocate resources to address the needs of
struggling readers is important due to the fact that struggling readers are represented
in every subgroup and often classified into multiple subgroups (Torgesen, 2004).

23
Table 2.1. California Student Demographics

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Hispanic
2,961,104
(46.8%)
3,003,716
(47.6%)
3,026,956
(48.1%)
3,056,616
(48.7%)
3,064,614
(49.0%)
White
1,981,547
(31.3%)
1,915,491
(30.3%)
1,849,078
(29.4%)
1,790,513
(28.5%)
1,741,664
(27.9%)
Asian/Pacific
Islander
550,083
(8.7%)
557,558
(8.8%)
549,232
(8.7%)
555,946
(8.9%)
526,403
(8.4%)
African
American
505,221
(8.0%)
495,017
(7.8%)
477,776
(7.6%)
466,141
(7.4%)
454,781
(7.3%)
Filipino
163,151
(2.6%)
165,572
(2.6%)
165,480
(2.6%)
167,385
(2.7%)
168,112
(2.7%)
Native
American/
Alaskan
51,821
(0.8%)
50,758
(0.8%)
48,383
(0.8%)
47,543
(0.8%)
46,446
(0.7%)
Multiple/No
Response
109,214
(1.7%)
124,324
(2.0%)
170,038
(2.7%)
191,325
(3.0%)
210,501
(3.4%)
Total
Enrollment
6,322,141 6,312,436 6,286,943 6,275,469 6,252,031
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a)
Note: The percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Table 2.2. California Students in Special Programs

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged
(SED)
3,127,202
(49.9%)
3,164,384
(51.1%)
3,149,361
(50.8%)
3,118,053
(50.9%)
3,284,120
(53.7%)
English Learners
(EL)
1,591,525
(25.2%)
1,570,424
(24.9%)
1,568,738
(25.0%)
1,553,091
(24.7%)
1,515,074
(24.2%)
Special Education
(Age 0-22)
681,969
(10.8%)
683,178
(10.8%)
679,648
(10.8%)
677,875
(10.8%)
678,105
(10.8%)
Gifted and Talented
(GATE)
481,958
(7.6%)
501,230
(7.9%)
512,698
(8.2%)
527,020
(8.4%)
533,614
(8.5%)
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a)
Note: Not all subgroups are included.

24
This chapter reviews the current literature in five key areas. The first section
reviews school funding in California. The second section examines accountability
and the shift under NCLB from access to education, to outcomes from education for
all students including struggling readers. The third section provides a detailed
analysis of struggling readers, including the definition and the importance of
understanding the needs of this student population as well as the strategies currently
being used to successfully address those needs. The fourth section examines school-
level funding and the relevance to this study. The fifth section reviews adequacy and
four major funding models used by school districts to allocate resources with a focus
on the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). This chapter concludes with a
summary that explains how the literature reviewed contributes to this study.
School Funding in California
Many efforts have been made to equalize school funding in California. With
an increasingly diverse population, California is a model of extremes. From extreme
poverty to extreme wealth and from schools with predominately English-speaking
students to schools with students that predominately speak English as a second
language, public schools in California must carefully allocate their scarce resources
in order to effectively and adequately address the dynamic needs of all students. The
disparities that exist in California have led to several measures to ensure that the
resources allocated to school districts are equitable and adequate.
Beginning in the late 1960s the disparities in school funding among several
high-wealth and low-wealth school districts led to a series of legal decisions that

25
collectively became known as the Serrano (1971, 1976) decision (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009). Prior to Serrano (1971, 1976), school districts were funded
primarily by local property tax revenue. This led to what is referred to as high-wealth
and low-wealth school districts (Timar, 2006). For example, as indicated in Table 2.3
(Timar, 2006), during the late 1960s in northern California, Emery Unified School
District with 586 students generated $2,223 per ADA from property tax revenue due
to a large industrial complex that generated a large tax base. Newark Unified School
District with 8,638 students generated a much lower amount of property tax revenue
at $616 per ADA due to lower property values and more students. A similar example
in southern California can be seen in Table 2.3 (Timar, 2006) by comparing Beverly
Hills Unified with Baldwin Park Unified. While Beverly Hills Unified had only
5,542 students with a tax rate of $2.38 per ADA, the school district generated $1,232
in expenditures per ADA. At the other end of the spectrum, Baldwin Park Unified
had 13,108 students with a tax rate of $5.48, but only generated $577 in expenditures
per ADA.

26
Table 2.3. Comparison of Selected Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels in Selected
Counties, 1968-69

(1968-69) County
ADA
Assessed Value
per ADA
Tax Rate
Expenditure
per ADA
Alameda
Emery Unified 586 $100,187 $2.57 $2,223
Newark Unified 8,638 6,042 6.65 616
Fresno
Coalinga Unified 2,640 33,244 2.17 963
Clovis Unified 8,144 6,480 4.28 568
Kern
Rio Bravo Elem. 122 136,271 1.05 1,545
Lamont Elem. 1,847 5,971 3.06 533
Los Angeles
Beverly Hills Unified 5,542 50,885 2.38 1,232
Baldwin Park Unified 13,108 3,706 5.48 577
Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office (1971), Public School Finance, Part V, Current Issues in
Educational Finance. From (Timar, 2006, p. 8).

In an effort to remedy the inequities in school funding based on property
taxes, the California State Supreme Court ruled that school districts’ reliance on
property tax revenues violated the “Equal Protection” clause of the California
Constitution due to the fact that low-wealth school districts did not receive the same
funding as high-wealth school districts (Timar, 2006, p. 6). In 1971, the California
State Supreme Court ruled in Serrano v. Priest that the inequities in school funding
in California were unconstitutional (Lindseth, 2006; McDonald, Kaplow, &
Chapman, 2006; Timar, 2006). This ruling became known as Serrano I. In 1976, the
California State Supreme Court ruled again in Serrano v. Priest that the State of

27
California must take action to reduce the disparities (Timar, 2006). This ruling
became known as Serrano II. Even though the California State Supreme Court ruled
in Serrano II that the California State Legislature must take action to resolve the
inequities in school funding, a class action lawsuit, Gonzalez v. Riles, was filed in
1983 by the parents of students who attended low-wealth school districts alleging
that the rulings in Serrano II had not been enacted (McDonald et al., 2006;
EdSource, 1983).
The Serrano (1971, 1976) decision led to several other measures to equalize
school funding in California. Senate Bill 90 (1972) established a system that limited
school districts’ general fund revenues based on the amount of funding received
from the State and property taxes received in 1972-73 (Timar, 2006). A formula was
included in Senate Bill 90 (SB 90) that provided for increases based on inflation with
higher wealth districts receiving lower yearly adjustments and lower wealth districts
receiving higher adjustments. “The strategy was known as the ‘squeeze formula’…
critics at the time estimated that this method would take 40 years to achieve the level
of equalization the court required” (Timar, 2006, p. 7). SB 90 did not result in parity
in school funding across California, but it did shift school financing from the school
districts to the State (Timar, 2006).
Another step in the equalization of school funding in California occurred with
the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. This legislation added Article XIII to the
California Constitution, which limited increases in annual property tax rates (Timar,
2006). “With Proposition 13, voters also approved Proposition 4 which came to be

28
known as the ‘Gann Limit’ (Article XIII B of the State Constitution) and required the
State to reimburse local governments for all state mandated costs” (Timar, 2006, p.
8). Proposition 13 and the Gann Limit increased the role of the State in school
funding by greatly decreasing the funding of school districts from local property tax
revenues, and greatly increasing the funding by the State (Timar, 2006).
With the intent of ensuring a guaranteed funding source for school districts in
California, Proposition 98 was passed in 1988. Proposition 98 relies on three
different measures or tests “to guarantee a predictable share of state revenue for
schools under various economic conditions…” (Timar, 2006, p. 9). Test one was
developed for the original implementation of Proposition 98 by guaranteeing a
minimum of 39 percent of school districts’ general fund from local tax dollars. Test 2
guarantees a minimum level of funding based on growth in the economy and ADA,
and Test 3 was developed with the passage of Proposition 111 (1990) and involves a
complex formula to accommodate changes in funding by growth and ADA when
state tax revenue is less than personal income growth. While the details of
Proposition 98 are complex the intent was to provide a guaranteed, minimum level of
state and local funding for school districts. This is referred to as the “Maintenance
Factor” due to the fact that Proposition 98 was developed to ensure that school
districts maintain an adequate level of school funding and not exceed that level
(Timar, 2006). When the economy experiences tremendous growth and revenue
exceeds what is adequate then Proposition 98 can be suspended. While Proposition
98 provides a formula for school funding from both state and local revenue, the

29
allocation of funds to school districts continues to be determined by the Governor of
California and the State legislature.
Special Education
With the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, known
as PL 94-142, in 1975, all public schools in the United States are required to provide
a Free and Appropriate Public Education to all students with disabilities (Parrish et
al., 1999). While additional funding of 40% of the excess costs per student with a
disability was outlined in PL 94-142, the average federal funding in California today
is approximately 17.5% (Griffith et al., 2009). The recent passage of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), often referred to as the Federal Stimulus
Plan, provided a one-time increase to approximately 34%; however, once these funds
are expended the federal funding will return to approximately 17.5% (Griffith et al.,
2009). The shortage of funding to educate students with disabilities creates many
challenges. In California, schools must educate students with severe disabilities that
are often very costly, and the number of students with severe disabilities continues to
rise (Harr et al., 2006). The original federal legislation, PL 94-142, was reauthorized
as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 and again in 2004.
Similar to NCLB (2001), the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA requires school districts
to improve the outcomes for students with disabilities (Handler, 2006).
Providing a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least
Restrictive Environment (LRE) for students with special needs in California is
costly. In 1997, a new funding model for special education was enacted with the

30
passage of AB 602 (Huntoon & Kubinec, 2008). This legislation funded special
education in California based on each school district’s total K-12 ADA, instead of
the number of students identified for special education services. This concept, known
as census-based funding, does not take into account the uneven distribution of
students with severe and high-cost disabilities (Harr et al., 2006)). A clause in AB
602 does allow for a Special Disabilities Adjustment (SDA) for high cost disabilities,
but the amount is minimal and does not adequately cover the costs of educating
students with severe disabilities (Harr et al., 2006). Prior to AB 602, schools received
additional funding based on the number of students with disabilities. This model of
funding, known as J-50 funding, was thought by many to create a financial incentive
to over identify the number of students with disabilities in order to acquire additional
funds (Parrish et al., 1999). Census-based funding under AB 602 was implemented
in an effort to remove the incentive to over-identify. Funding under AB 602 is based
on total K-12 ADA of all students, including general education and special education
students. One of the many problems with this funding model is the uneven
distribution of students with disabilities—particularly those with significant or high
cost disabilities (Odden & Picus, 2008; Harr et al., 2006). The current level of
special education funding in California does not adequately address the increasing
number of students with severe, high cost needs, which has led to an increasing level
of encroachment upon the general fund (see Table 2.3). In addition, an increasing
number of schools and school districts have fallen into PI status for failing to make
AYP for their special education subgroups (Crane et al., 2008).

31
Figure 2.1. Special Education Encroachment on the General Fund in California,
2005-2008

Source: California Department of Education, Report on the Budget Act, (2008a).

While the level of encroachment continues to rise, so does the cumulative
funding loss from the federal government. As previously stated, the original funding
for special education as outlined in PL 94-142, was an additional 40% of the excess
costs for each student identified for special education services (Parrish et al., 1999).
According to the Governor’s Adequacy Study for Special Education (2008), the
cumulative funding loss for the 2008/09 school year in the United States was over
ten billion dollars (see Table 2.4), and close to one billion dollars in California (see
Table 2.5).

32
Table 2.4. Federal Funding Loss for Special Education in the United States, 2005-09

Year
IDEA
Authorization
Actual
Appropriation
Cumulative
Funding Loss
FY 2005 $12,358,376,571 $10,589,746,000 $1,768,630,571
FY 2006 $14,648,647,143 $10,582,961,000 $4,065,686,143
FY 2007 $16,938,917,714 $10,782,961,000 $6,155,956,714
FY 2008 $19,229,188,286 $10,947,511,000 $8,281,677,286
FY 2009 est. $21,519,458,857 $11,284,511,000 $10,234,947,857
Source: Governor’s Adequacy Study for Special Education, (2008).

Table 2.5. Federal Funding Loss for Special Education in California, 2005-09

Year
California IDEA
Authorization
Actual
Appropriation
Cumulative
Funding Loss
FY 2005 $1,235,837,657 $1,132,572,659 $103,264,998
FY 2006 $1,464,864,714 $1,130,940,237 $333,924,477
FY 2007 $1,639,891,771 $1,150,175,848 $543,715,923
FY 2008 $1,922,918,829 $1,165,972,611 $756,946,218
FY 2009 est. $2,151,945,886 $1,198,275,741 $953,670,145
Source: Governor’s Adequacy Study for Special Education, (2008).

Struggling readers are often over-identified for special education services
(Torgesen, 1998). In a study of 166 struggling readers that included a broad range of
EL and English proficient students, Lovett et al. (2008) found that research-based
reading interventions were more effective than special education services. All of the
students identified for the study met the criteria for special education due to reading
deficiencies. Students took part in either one of three different reading intervention
programs or a special education program. The students in the reading intervention
programs showed much greater growth in reading proficiency than the students in

33
the special education program. The shift from access to outcomes under NCLB and
IDEA has greatly increased the need to provide effective reading interventions for all
students including struggling readers.
Accountability and Student Outcomes
Just as the shift from local tax revenue to state funding increased the State’s
control of school funding, a similar pattern occurred at the federal level in the area of
accountability for student achievement. The standards-based reform movement in
California shifted the focus from access to education to outcomes from education
(Odden, 2003). The passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) in 1965, and the evolution of the ESEA into the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 brought groups of students that were previously marginalized into the
forefront of public education (Handler, 2006). With the passage of NCLB school
districts are now held accountable for the academic achievement of all students
including those classified into subgroups (Handler, 2006). In California the largest
subgroups are Hispanic, SED, EL, white, and SPED (see Table 2.6, EdSource,
2009c).

34
Table 2.6. Largest Significant Subgroups in California

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged
(SED)
3,127,202
(49.9%)
3,164,384
(51.1%)
3,149,361
(50.8%)
3,118,053
(50.9%)
3,284,120
(53.7%)
Hispanic
2,961,104
(46.8%)
3,003,716
(47.6%)
3,026,956
(48.1%)
3,056,616
(48.7%)
3,064,614
(49.0%)
White
1,981,547
(31.3%)
1,915,491
(30.3%)
1,849,078
(29.4%)
1,790,513
(28.5%)
1,741,664
(27.9%)
English Learners
(EL)
1,591,525
(25.2%)
1,570,424
(24.9%)
1,568,738
(25.0%)
1,553,091
(24.7%)
1,515,074
(24.2%)
Special Education
(Age 0-22)
681,969
(10.8%)
683,178
(10.8%)
679,648
(10.8%)
677,875
(10.8%)
678,105
(10.8%)
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a)
Note: Not all subgroups are included.

Similar to NCLB, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
was reauthorized in 2004 and it too mandated a shift from access to outcomes for
students with disabilities (Handler, 2006). Two accountability measures, including
the Academic Performance Index (API) in California and the federal Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) measure as outlined in NCLB are used to monitor the
progress of all students. While the shift from access to outcomes has led to school
districts being held accountable for the academic achievement of all students, an
increasing number of school districts are failing to make AYP for their subgroups
and are falling into Program Improvement (see Table 2.7, EdSource, 2009a).

35
Table 2.7. Schools in Program Improvement

2008-09 Elementary Middle High Total
Number of Schools 5,973 1,469 2,413 9,855
Number of Title I Schools 4,113 872 1,039 6,024
Title I Schools in Program Improvement
Year 1 179 54 88 321
Year 2 255 46 68 369
Year 3 247 73 73 393
Year 4 183 46 36 265
Year 5 491 343 81 915
Total 1,355 562 346 2,263
Source: EdSource, (2009a).
Note: Some schools have been in “Year 5” for more than one year.

As indicated in Table 2.8, the number of Title I middle schools that are in
Year 5 is proportionally much higher than elementary schools and high schools. Out
of 872 Title I middle schools in California, 343 are in Year 5 Program Improvement
and a total of 562 are in Program Improvement. This equates to 64 percent of all
Title I middle schools being in Program Improvement, compared to 33 percent of
elementary schools and 33 percent of high schools (EdSource, 2009a). The
disproportionate number of middle schools that are in PI in comparison to
elementary schools and high schools is one of many reasons why understanding
effective methods to allocate resources to improve learning for struggling readers is
extremely important.

36
Table 2.8. Percent of Schools that Made AMOs and AYP from 2006-07 to 2007-08

Percent of Schools that Met AMOs
Elementary Middle High All
2007-08 58.8% 34.9% 73.9% 58.9%
2006-07 78.4% 46.7% 87.3% 75.8%
Percent of Schools that Made AYP
2007-08 57.4% 33.7% 48.2% 51.6%
2006-07 76.2% 44.0% 58.5% 67.1%
Source: EdSource, (2009d).

More than 53% of California students come from low-income families
(EdSource, 2009c). During the 1960s, federal legislation was passed to provide
additional funding to school districts that serve children from low-income families.
This legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965
started the process of addressing the needs of students that require additional support
(Debray-Pelot, 2009). Title I funding provides additional funding to school districts
based on the number of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. The passage
of ESEA and Title I was the beginning of the federal government acknowledging
that not all school districts are the same and therefore some school districts do
require additional funding (Manna, 2008).
While the passage of NCLB in 2001 and the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004
has led to greater accountability for all students, the guidelines requiring all students
to be proficient in both reading and math by the 2013-14 school year has created
several challenges (Handler, 2006). In California, proficiency is measure by the
California Standards Test (CST) for elementary and middle school students.

37
Proficiency for high school students is determined by math and reading scores on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). With the recent CAHSEE exemption
for students with disabilities it is unknown how proficiency levels for high schools
will be affected. While the goal of proficiency for all students as outlined in NCLB
has led to greater accountability for students classified into subgroups, no additional
funding is included. This makes NCLB an unfunded mandate with tremendous
expectations placed on school districts without additional funding to assist in the
improvement of the academic achievement for all students.
In order to comply with NCLB regulations, California has implemented an
accountability measure known as the Academic Performance Index (API). The API
rankings range from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) and is used to rank schools with
similar demographics (EdSource, 2009b). Schools in California use what is known as
their base API based on CST scores from the previous year, and the growth API
scores that come out the following year. This makes API a two-year process that
measures growth.
While API measures academic growth for all students in California from
second to eleventh grade, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a federal mandate that
measures the amount of progress schools and school districts are making towards
proficiency for all students (EdSource, 2009d). This is accomplished by setting
specific annual benchmarks or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) that outline
the number of students that must reach proficiency (EdSource, 2009d). This
calculation includes the overall number of students per school district and per school,

38
and it also includes the number of students in each significant subgroup. While the
goal is to ensure that all students including those categorized into subgroups make
adequate progress towards reaching proficiency, the result has been an increasing
number of schools and districts being placed into Program Improvement (PI)
(EdSource, 2009a). While more and more schools and school districts are being
placed into PI, fewer and fewer are getting out of PI and those schools and districts
that are in Year 5 are the least likely to get out. During the 2007-08 school year only
seven of the 577 schools in Year 5 got out of PI (EdSource, 2009a). Schools that
receive additional funding under Title I as outlined in NCLB can be placed into
Program Improvement (PI) for failing to make AYP (EdSource, 2009d; Scott, 2006).
This occurs when a school or school district fails to make AYP for two years in the
same content area (e.g. English or math) for any significant subgroup (EdSource,
2009a). While NCLB does not provide additional funding for schools and/or school
districts to make AYP, it does outline consequences for school districts that are
placed into PI and continue to fail to make AYP. Some of those consequences
include notifying parents, allowing for school transfers, tutoring, and professional
development for school staff (Scott, 2006). These consequences become more severe
based on the number of years a school or school district is in PI. Schools and/or
school districts that reach year four in PI must develop a plan to restructure the
school for year five (Scott, 2006). As indicated in Table 2.8, the longer a school is in
PI the chances of getting out decrease significantly.

39
Struggling Readers
With the passage of NCLB and the increasing number of schools and school
districts being placed into PI for failing to make AYP, school site administrators are
under tremendous pressure to efficiently use their scarce resources to improve
learning for all students. Some schools with high numbers of struggling readers
continue to make AYP, while other schools with similar student populations do not
(EdSource, 2007b; Kelly, Budicin-Senters, & King, 2005). As indicated in Table 2.8
the number of schools in California that met their Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMOs) and made AYP in 2007-08 decreased from 2006-07 to 2007-08.
In order to make AYP, schools and school districts must have at least 95%
participation in state testing for all students including significant subgroups
(EdSource, 2009d). The four largest subgroups in California are comprised of
students that are not reaching proficiency levels in English Language Arts. These
students are struggling readers. This student population is increasing in size, while
also increasing the number of schools that are placed in PI for not making AYP
(EdSource, 2009d). As indicated in Table 2.9, proficiency rates in English Language
as measured by CSTs or CAHSEE for significant subgroups in California are lowest
for SPED, EL, SED, and Hispanic subgroups.

40
Table 2.9. Subgroups’ Results on Tests Used for AYP 2007-08

Groups
% Proficient in English
(met target of 34.0%)
% Proficient in Math
(met target of 34.6%)
All Students 48.2 (yes) 51.0 (yes)
Students with Disabilities 24.1 (no) 27.5 (no)
English Learners 29.0 (no) 38.6 (yes)
Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged
33.8 (no) 39.7 (yes)
Hispanic/Latino 34.6 (yes) 40.0 (yes)
African American 35.5 (yes) 34.0 (no)
Native American/Alaskan 42.4 (yes) 42.5 (yes)
Pacific Islander 45.9 (yes) 49.2 (yes)
Filipino 65.7 (yes) 67.7 (yes)
White 66.2 (yes) 64.8 (yes)
Asian 71.8 (yes) 78.8 (yes)
Source: EdSource, (2009d).
Note: Students with severe disabilities that take the California Alternate Performance Assessment
(CAPA) are not included in the figures above.

One common variable among the lowest achieving subgroups is low
academic achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) also referred to as English.
The causes of low performance in reading achievement are dynamic and include
many factors, such as limited prior knowledge, limited exposure to reading materials,
limited exposure to the English language, low academic achievement, low
socioeconomic status, mobility issues, attendance problems, behavior problems, lack
of opportunity, lack of early intervention that includes intensive instruction during
the primary grades, and often times poor reading instruction (Brownell, 2000;
Massey, 2003; Pardo, 2004; Slavin & Madden, 1989). Some struggling readers do

41
have identified or unidentified learning disabilities, but even students with mild
learning disabilities can achieve at high levels (Lovett et al., 2008; Odden & Picus,
2008; Reeves, 1998,2000, 2002,2004; Torgesen, 1998, 2004).
For various reasons students that have reading difficulties often lack the
foundational skills necessary to develop proficiency in English (Torgesen, 1998.
2004). These skills are typically developed in the primary grades. Middle school
students who lack these skills often develop serious reading difficulties (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998). “Struggling readers can include students with learning
disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, English language learners, and
others with diverse reading needs who are at risk for failure” (Zorfass & Urbano,
2008, p. 1). In California struggling readers are represented in all four of the lowest
achieving subgroups (see Table 2.10); often times, struggling readers are represented
in multiple subgroups. For example, one student can be categorized in the SPED, EL,
SED, and Hispanic subgroups.
Strategies to improve learning for struggling readers vary greatly, and some
schools do much better in improving the academic achievement of students than
others (Duke, 2006). A comprehensive study of 237 elementary schools in California
identified four key areas that led to higher achievement for EL students (EdSource,
2007b):
• Use of assessment and data to drive instruction
• Sufficient resources including textbooks, adequate facilities, highly-
trained staff

42
• Comprehensive curriculum and instruction that is directly aligned with
state standards
• Setting priorities for student achievement by both teachers and
administration
Using data to drive instruction and make decisions about student learning ensures
that students receive appropriate instruction and/or interventions. Frequent progress
monitoring and ongoing communication and collaboration among staff often results
in improved academic performance for struggling readers (Griffiths, VanDerHeyden,
Parson, & Burns, 2006; Reeves, 2000; Tilly, 2006). Sufficient resources including
textbooks and highly-trained staff are directly correlated with improved academic
performance (EdSource, 2007b; Kelly et al., 2005; Miles & Darling-Hammond,
1997); however, the correlation of the quality of school facilities and the level of
student performance has not been established (Picus, Marion, Calvo, & Glen, 2005).
Setting priorities, or goals, for student achievement is a key ingredient in improving
student performance (Marzano, 2003; Odden, 2009; Reeves, 2000, 2004).
One example of a school district that greatly improved student achievement
occurred in Kennewick, Washington. In 1995, out of Kennewick’s 15,000 students,
25% were ethnic minorities and 48% were eligible for free and reduced lunch
(Fielding et al., 2007). The Kennewick School Board developed and adopted a goal
in 1995 that 90% of all third graders would read at or above their grade level in three
years (Fielding, Kerr, & Rossier, 1998). Even though the Kennewick School Board
developed and implemented this goal years before NCLB, there are many similarities

43
such as high academic achievement for all students. Using a four-step process, the
Kennewick Model includes “diagnostic testing, proportional increases in
instructional time, focused teaching to the deficient sub-skill, and retesting to assure
that learning has actually occurred…” (Fielding et al., 2007, p. 19). In 1995 when the
Kennewick school district first implemented this goal, 57% of their third-grade
students were reading at or above grade level (Fielding et al., 2007). One of the key
strategies used in Kennewick involved adding new layers of resources, including
additional specialists and additional time, for struggling students (Senge, 1990). Over
the years the reading levels in Kennewick continued to climb. In 2000 they reached
77% and in 2004 they reached 88%. By 2006 the students reading at or above their
grade level was 90%.
Schools that have high minority, high poverty and high academic
achievement have been referred to as “90/90/90” schools (Reeves, 2000, p. 185).
Dispelling the myth that schools with high minority and high poverty cannot also be
high performing as measured by API and AYP, Doug Reeves has examined dozens
of schools with student populations that include more than 90% minority, 90% free
and reduced lunch, and 90% meeting high academic standards (Reeves, 1998, 2000,
2002, 2004). While some schools allow teachers to make decisions in isolation as to
how to improve student learning, Reeves (2000) outlines specific guidelines that
include accountability at the district, school, and classroom levels. According to
Allan Odden (2009), “the general strategies schools and districts have used to
produce large, measurable gains in student performance are quite similar, regardless

44
of school size, metropolitan or geographic location or socio-demographic
characteristics…” (p. 2).
One of the most comprehensive strategies to improve student performance
was developed by Allan Odden (2009). Based on information gathered from
educational leaders from across the nation, including “a group of leading educators
in Wyoming convened in late 2008 by Picus and Associates…” (p. 191), the
following is a list of what Odden (2009) identified as “the ten core elements of the
improving school” (p. 191):
1. Understanding the Performance Situation
2. Set High Goals
3. Adopt New Curriculum Materials and Create a Point of View about
Instruction
4. Data-Based Decision Making
5. Professional Development
6. Use Time Effectively
7. Interventions
8. Leadership and Professional Culture
9. A Professional Organization
10. Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
In conjunction with the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) these ten
strategies developed by Odden (2009) served as the framework for this study. By
examining the school-level resource allocation strategies at five diverse middle

45
schools that have improved student learning for struggling readers, this study adds to
the research on what successful schools do to help all students learn and close the
achievement gap.
School Level Funding
Arguably, there has never been a more important time to understand school-
level resource allocation to improve learning for all students including struggling
readers. The changing demographics of the student population in California and the
requirements of high achievement for all students under NCLB have created a sense
of urgency for schools to improve student learning in order to reach the goal of all
students reaching proficiency by 2014. “This goal has shifted the orientation of the
education system from inputs to outcomes, specifically student achievement to
rigorous performance standards, with an attendant accountability focus at the school
site” (Odden, 2004, p. 2). The shift from access to outcomes for student achievement
has led to an increased need to effectively and efficiently allocate resources to
improve student learning at the school-site level.
“The prime education goal in the 21
st
century is to educate the vast majority
of all children to rigorous student performance levels. This goal includes high levels
of attainment for low-income and minority students” (Odden, 2009, p. 2). As
indicated in Table 2.10, struggling readers account for the largest percentage of
students classified into the four lowest subgroups in California (EdSource, 2009d).
Defying the odds, some schools are able to improve learning for struggling readers
and make AYP for their significant subgroups (EdSource, 2007b; Kelly et al., 2005;

46
Reeves, 2000, 2004). Understanding the resource allocation practices at these
successful schools may help more schools experience the same results.
Research on school finance has evolved over the past fifty years from a
macro view to a micro view. A shift from state expenditures to district expenditures
began to occur during the early 1990s. One example of this shift is outlined by
Lawrence O. Picus (1993a) in his comprehensive study of the resource allocation
practices of more than 4,000 school districts across the United States. While several
studies have been conducted on resource allocation at the State level (Barro, 1992),
Picus (1993a) provided a comprehensive study that focused on resource allocation at
the district level. The findings indicate “substantial intra-state variations in school
district expenditure patterns, both in terms of total expenditures and in the way those
funds are used…” (Picus, 1993a, p. 19). While the focus has shifted from the State to
the district level, the variations of student demographics and achievement within
California require a focus on school level resource allocation to improve learning for
all students (Odden, 2004).
California is currently experiencing a fiscal crisis. Public schools are facing
unprecedented budget shortfalls. With increasing accountability and decreasing
funds, schools in California must learn to do more with less. In order to increase the
academic achievement of all students, efficient and effective resource allocation
practices at the school level are necessary. One approach to improving student
learning without additional funding involves reallocating current resources. “Because
personnel costs comprise the bulk of a school’s budget, reallocation is essentially an

47
issue of using school staffing resources more effectively” (Odden, & Archibald,
2000a, p. 6). Due to the dynamic student needs within schools, decisions to
reallocate resources are more effective when those decisions are made at the school-
site level (Odden, & Archibald, 2000b).
Strategies to improve student learning may not always be understood outside
of individual school sites (Busch & Odden, 1997). Service-delivery models for
struggling readers often vary greatly. Some schools provide additional support within
the classroom in what is known as a “push-in” method of intervention, while others
provide additional support outside of the classroom in a “pull-out” setting (Odden &
Picus, 2008). While studying the resource reallocation practices at a large school
district in the Midwest, Odden and Archibald (2001a) “found that test scores not
only differed by student demographic characteristics, but also [by] their service
strategy…” (in Odden, & Archibald, 2009, p. 21). School-site administrators are not
always given the authority to allocate resources at the school site (Goertz & Duffy,
1999). Decisions regarding strategies to address the unique needs of struggling
readers are often made at the district office instead of the school site.
In order to improve learning for all students, including struggling readers,
school site resource allocation decisions are critical. Busch and Odden (1997) state
“that school-level data are needed to advance knowledge about the efficiency and
effectiveness of resource utilization as it relates to student achievement…” (p. 229).
Picus (1997) recommends more school-level data regarding student achievement and
resource allocation in order to better understand the correlation between school

48
finance and educational practice. Miller et al. (2004) compared two schools within
the Denver public school system and found that many resources and expenses at the
school site are not reported in school budgets even though these funds are often
substantial. In their study the authors identified a clear need for a methodology that
tracks the use of school-level resources in order to gather data that can be used to
analyze valuable information regarding successful resource use strategies to improve
student learning (Miller et al., 2004). If school site administrators have the authority
to make these important decisions then resource allocation at the school site can
change in a timely manner as needed. For example, if a reading intervention group
becomes smaller and smaller due to more and more students reaching proficiency
then those resources can be shifted within the school instead of out of the school. In
order to ensure efficiency and consistency, a resource allocation formula is needed.
Adequacy
Determining what resource allocation model to use is the first step in
ensuring an adequate amount of resources at the school level to improve learning for
struggling readers. In order to improve student learning for struggling readers, school
sites need a consistent structure to allocate resources (Odden, & Archibald, 2001b;
Picus, 1993b). Determining an adequate level of resources without using a resource
allocation model is subjective and can lead to disparities within school districts and
schools. At the State level, school finance allocation models are under constant
scrutiny which has resulted in several legal cases (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009;
Lindseth, 2006). At the school-district level, resource allocation is often viewed in

49
terms of perceived equity that involves each school getting their “fair share” based
on overall ADA. Even though the allocation of resources within a school to improve
student learning is critical, school sites often have very little say in the amount of
resources they receive from school districts (Goertz & Duffy, 1999). At many school
sites in California, the dynamic and diverse needs of the student population coupled
with the shift from access to outcomes under NCLB, make the allocation of
resources an increasingly important endeavor.
While the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) decision is often
remembered as the landmark legal case that ended the Jim Crow doctrine resulting
from the Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the original intent of
Brown was to ensure that every child regardless of their race be provided with an
equitable education (Jackson, 2008; McDonald et al., 2006). This movement from
“Separate, but Equal” to “Equal” was a major shift in the history of the United States
(Jackson, 2008). “The Brown ruling, and others that followed, mandated schools to
provide equitable offerings to all students and set in motion an even greater fiscal
responsibility of states for children’s education” (McDonald et al., 2006, p. 2). The
Brown decision was the first major step in ensuring that all public schools provide
access to all students.
After the Brown decision a second shift occurred in public schools. Equity
issues shifted from race to wealth as reflected in several legal cases across the nation.
The first legal challenge occurred in 1968 when “the Detroit School Board brought a
suit against the state of Michigan asking that the state be required to disperse funds

50
according to the educational needs of the particular school districts” (McDonald et
al., 2006. p. 3). Even though this case failed, it was the first legal challenge to fund
education based on the needs of students (McDonald et al., 2006). Two additional
cases occurred shortly after the Michigan case. McInnis v. Shapiro (1969) in Illinois,
and Burruss v. Wilkerson (1969) in Virginia challenged state funding systems and
claimed that school funds were inequitably distributed (McDonald et al., 2006). Both
of these cases failed. In Burruss v. Wilkerson (1969) the ruling from the court stated
that a “need standard is impossible for judicial measurement or implementation due
to a lack of manageable standards” (LaMorte, 1996, p. 341, in McDonald et al.,
2006, p. 3).
Even though these legal challenges failed they did set the precedent for the
Serrano v. Priest (1971, 1976) cases in California that started the shift in school
funding from local tax revenues to state funding (Timar, 2006). This movement
continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s as the constitutionality of school finance
systems was challenged in 17 states (McDonald et al., 2006). Seven states including
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming were determined by the courts to have school finance systems that were
both inequitable and inadequate and therefore unconstitutional (McDonald et al.,
2006).
As school finance systems transitioned from equity to adequacy, different
funding models arose (Hanushek, & Rivkin, 1997). This shift coincided with the
standards-based reform movement and the goal of high academic achievement for all

51
students. According to Odden (2003) “the equity part of the goal requires
dramatically diminishing the ‘achievement gap’ between low-income and minority
students and all other students” (p. 120). Closing the achievement gap requires a
school finance system that provides an adequate level of funding for all students
including those that need additional resources in order to reach proficiency as
required under NCLB and state requirements (Odden, 2003).
In California the question of adequacy was answered when a class action
lawsuit was filed against the State of California. In Eliezer Williams et al., v. State of
California (2000), a group of nearly 100 San Francisco County students charged the
State with failing to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide adequate
instructional materials, learning facilities, and qualified teachers (Timar, 2005). The
case was eventually settled and resulted in the State agreeing to pay nearly two
billion dollars to ensure that schools have adequate instructional materials, facilities,
and teachers (Timar, 2006). While public schools in California are more aware of the
importance of providing adequate resources due to the Williams settlement, the
impact on school funding and actual resource allocation has not been significant
(Glenn & Picus, 2007).
Partly in response to these legal decisions, four major school funding models
have been developed and implemented across the nation. All four models were
designed in an effort to adequately allocate school district resources. The four
models include the successful district approach, the cost function approach, the
professional judgment approach, and the evidence-based approach (Odden, 2003).

52
The successful school district approach “seeks to identify those school
districts that are currently meeting state standards and then to use their average
expenditures as a fair estimate of the actual cost of an adequate education…”
(Rebell, 2007, p. 1307). This approach reviews typical schools. Outliers such as
high-spending, low-spending, high-wealth, and low-wealth school districts are
usually excluded from the calculation (Odden, 2003). Urban school districts are not
typically used in the calculation. The successful school district approach has been
used in several states including Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio (Odden,
2003). The school districts used often have homogenous demographics and spending
patterns that are below the State average. Generalizing the results of non-urban, non-
rural, and non-diverse school districts to urban, rural, and/or diverse school districts
is just one of the many criticisms of this approach (Odden, 2003).
Another school funding model that is designed with adequacy in mind is the
cost function approach. This method utilizes a complex statistical formula that
involves regression analysis with per-pupil expenditures based on the school
district’s characteristics and the level of student performance the district hopes to
achieve (Odden, 2003). The results provide what is determined to be an average per
pupil expenditure that is then adjusted for student need and school size. One of the
problems with this approach is that the formula results in a broad range of
recommended per-pupil funding levels. “This kind of analysis usually produces an
adjustment for city districts of two to three times the average expenditure level,
which, when combined with the complex, statistical analysis, makes its use

53
problematic in a real political context” (Odden, 2003, p. 122). Currently, no states
use this model, but several states including New York, Wisconsin, Texas, and
Illinois, have conducted studies using the cost function approach (Odden, 2003).
Unlike the successful school district approach and the cost function approach,
the professional judgment approach to school funding does not outline a direct
connection to student performance (Odden, 2003). However, this approach does
identify specific strategies to address the needs of students in grades K-12 including
students identified for special education services. This model has been used in
several states including Kansas, Maryland, Oregon, and Wyoming, and it involves a
group of educational experts to identify effective educational strategies. “Then the
experts specify the ingredients required for each, attach a price to each ingredient,
and finally sum everything up to obtain a total expenditure per pupil” (Odden, 2003,
p. 123). One of the strengths of this model is that it does identify the strategies that
are needed to improve student performance. One of the disadvantages is that the
panel of experts can vary from panel to panel and the recommendations made by the
experts can be subjective and are not necessarily consistent (Rebell, 2007).
Developed by Odden and Picus (2008), the Evidence-Based Model provides
a comprehensive school funding formula that is designed to meet the varying needs
of all students (Odden, 2003). In comparison to other school funding models, “the
evidence-based approach more directly identifies educational strategies that produce
desired results, so it also helps guide schools in the most effective use of their
dollars” (Odden, 2003, p. 123). By providing a guide to school-level funding that

54
includes the number of teachers, coaches, and specialists per student, as well as
recommendations for staff development, technology, after-school programs and
summer school, the Evidence-Based Model includes resources and supports to
improve student learning for all students. As indicated in Figure 2.1 the Evidenced-
Based Model provides schools with a thorough framework to adequately allocate
resources to improve student performance.
Since staffing is the most expensive resource in school funding, and due to
the fact that school staffing has a direct impact on student achievement, the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) recommends adequate staffing to improve student
learning (Odden, 2003). Figure 2.1 outlines the elements of the EBM. Starting at the
center of Figure 2.1 and working outward, the classroom or “Core” is the
recommended class size. Middle school classrooms are staffed at 25 to 1. The next
layer of the EBM includes “Specialists” with a ratio of 20% of the school size. For
example, a middle school with 1,000 students would have twenty fully credentialed
specialists that would teach non-core or elective courses such as art, music, and
physical education (Odden & Picus, 2008). Additionally, the EBM recommends that
specialists provide each core teacher one period per day of relief time for
professional development and collaborative planning (Odden & Picus, 2008). While
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) have been shown to be an effective
vehicle for collaboration and instructional planning one of the challenges is
providing teachers and school staff with additional time to work together ( DuFour,
DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). The EBM outlines a structure for specialists to

55
provide teachers with additional time to work with other staff members for planning
and professional development, as well as additional time to work directly with
struggling students (Odden & Picus, 2008).

Figure 2.2. The Evidence-Based Model

Inst ruc t i onal
M at eri al s
Pupi l Support :
Parent /Com muni t y
Out reac h/
Invol vement
Gifted
Tut or s and pupil suppor t :
1 per 100 at r isk
El em
20%
M i ddl e
20%
Hi gh Sc hool 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Perfo rmance
K-3: 15 t o 1
4-12: 25 t o 1
State and CESAs
Di st ri c t Admi n
Si t e-based Leadershi p
Teac her
Compensat i on
ELL
1 per
100
Tec hnol ogy

Source: Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan, and Fermanich, (2006).

Students who require additional support such as struggling readers are
provided intensive support under the EBM. According to Odden and Picus (2008), in
order to help these students meet state standards the EBM recommends the following
(Chapter 4, p. 13):

56
• Tutoring for struggling students
• Sheltered English and direct ESL instruction for EL students
• Extended Day Programs
• Summer school for students who require additional support
• Special education funding by the State for students with moderate-to-
severe needs
Under the EBM, “these programs all extend the learning time for struggling
students” (Odden & Picus, 2008, p. 13).
One of the most powerful methods to help students who require additional
support is individual tutoring (Parker, Hasbrouck, & Denton, 2002; Shanahan, 1998).
The EBM recommends one tutor for every one hundred students that qualify for free
and reduced lunch (Odden and Picus, 2008). The tutors are highly trained and tutor
students individually for 20 minutes per day. This allows each tutor to provide direct
support to a large number of students. Only students that truly require intensive
support receive tutoring under the EBM, and the idea is to provide intensive support
early and then fade the support as soon as possible based on frequent assessment and
monitoring.
While the EBM does recommend tutoring for EL students, additional support
is also recommended. Since EL students often arrive at different times of the school
year, the EBM outlines a system that includes “some combination of small classes,
English as a second language classes, professional development for teachers to help
them teach ‘sheltered’ English classes, and ‘reception’ centers for districts with large

57
numbers of [EL] students…” (Odden & Picus, 2008, p. 17). In order to provide this
additional support, one FTE position for every 100 EL students is recommended.
Research shows that students that require additional support often require
additional instructional time (Fielding et al., 2007; Torgesen, 1998, 2004). The EBM
recommends full-day preschool, full-day kindergarten for all students, and extended-
day and summer school programs for students that require additional support such as
struggling readers (Odden & Picus, 2008). The EBM recommends summer school
with class sizes of 15 students for six hours per day for eight weeks for those
students that require intensive support to achieve state standards and/or advance
grade levels (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Special education was originally intended to provide strategic services to
students with identified disabilities (Harr et al., 2006). Due to many factors including
language proficiency, socio-economic status, and early exposure to academic
language, many students are over-identified for special education services (Lovett et
al., 2008). Struggling readers are often inappropriately identified as disabled and
placed in segregated special day classes away from typical peers with minimal
exposure to the core curriculum. “Many mild and moderate disabilities, particularly
those associated with students learning to read, are correctable through strategic
early intervention…” (Odden & Picus, 2008, p. 22). Odden and Picus (2008) state
the following:
Several studies (e.g. Landry, 1999) have documented that through a series of
intensive instructional interventions nearly 75 percent of struggling readers
identified in kindergarten and first grade can be brought up to grade level

58
without the need for placement in special education. In many instances this
approach requires that school-level staff change their practice and cease to
function in ‘silos’ serving children in ‘pull-out’ programs identified by the
funding source of the staff member (e.g. General Fund, Special Education,
Title I). Instead, all staff would team closely with the regular classroom
teacher to identify deficits and work together to correct them as quickly as
possible. (p. 22).

The EBM provides a framework to allow all staff members to work together to
provide support to all students including struggling readers.
While professional development is recommended by many experts and is one
of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Elmore, 2002; Miles,
Odden, Fermanich, & Archibald, 2004; Odden, 2009), ongoing support is needed to
make professional development effective and sustainable (Elmore, 2002; Odden &
Picus, 2008). The EBM recommends instructional coaches at a ratio of one coach for
every 100 students and one technology facilitator to provide direct support to
teachers and staff. Coaches spend the majority of their time in classrooms modeling
lessons and providing direct feedback to teachers to improve student learning and
technology facilitators ensure that technology is used effectively to improve student
learning (Odden & Picus, 2008).
As shown in Figure 2.1, the outer layers of the EBM provide targeted support
for specialists, tutors, summer school, extended day, EL, special education, gifted,
career and technical education, trainers, instructional coaches, professional
development, and parent and community involvement (Odden & Picus, 2008).
English Learners, special education, and SED students all receive intensive support
and additional instructional time under the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008). As

59
previously discussed, providing additional layers of support that includes specialists
and additional time for struggling students was one of the key strategies used
successfully in the Kennewick School District and many others (Fielding et al.,
2007; Reeves, 2000).
The EBM recommends intensive early intervention including comprehensive
reading instruction for students that need additional academic support. The EBM
staffing ratio and extra support for EL, special education, and SED students are
designed to improve student achievement and reduce the need for special education
services (Odden & Picus, 2008). The outer layer of the EBM includes intensive
professional development, instructional coaches at the rate of one coach for every
100 students, technology support, and parent and community outreach and
involvement (Odden & Picus, 2008). As outlined in Figure 2.1, the EBM is
comprehensive with a focus on improving student learning for all students including
struggling readers.
While the EBM does provide a comprehensive framework to allocate
resources at the school level to improve student learning, there are some critics of the
model. As discussed in this chapter the adequacy of school funding has been
influenced by several legal decisions. According to Hanushek (2006), “instead of
flowing through the political process, determinations of adequate appropriations
come from judges who are informed by paid consultants” (p. 73). Hanushek (2006)
claims that many of the adequacy studies conducted by the authors of the EBM are

60
similar and that some of the recommendations to improve student learning such as
full-day kindergarten and summer school are not supported by current research.
Conclusion
Critics aside, a framework to adequately allocate resources at the school level
to improve student learning is a positive step in closing the achievement gap. The
literature reviewed in this chapter serves as the foundation for the research that was
conducted for this study at five middle schools that were more than 50% Hispanic,
EL, and SED, and made their API growth targets and AYP requirements for these
significant subgroups for the 2008-09 school year. The results of the document
analysis and interviews of the principals from each of the middle schools used in the
study are presented in detail in individual case studies (see Appendices E-I).
The results of this study add to the current research in several areas.
Analyzing the resource allocation practices at five diverse and successful middle
schools provides current information on the evolving school funding model in
California. Understanding how schools with high percentages of Hispanic, EL, and
SED students that are able to meet their API growth targets and AYP requirements
has important policy implications at the local, state, and federal levels, and may help
other schools and school districts improve student outcomes and reach their
accountability goals.
By focusing on struggling readers, this study adds to a unique body of
research that covers all significant subgroups in California and provides insight on
effective resource allocation strategies to improve student learning. Just as the shift

61
in school finance has changed from access to adequacy, the shift from access to
outcomes in student achievement for all students has increased the need to narrow
the resource-allocation focus from the State, to the district, to the school site. This
study adds to the research on resource allocation strategies at the school site. At the
center of determining how to adequately allocate resources at the school level to
improve learning for struggling readers is identifying an effective resource allocation
framework for school administrators. By utilizing the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) in correlation with the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009), this study contributes to a growing body of research on
the effectiveness of the Evidence-Based Model. The goal of this study was simple:
help close the achievement gap.
The following chapter describes the methodology used for this study. The
research questions this study sought to address and the sample used for this study
will be explained. The Evidence-Based Model framework and how it was used in
correlation with the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009)
to guide this study is explained in detail.

62
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Using the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus
(2008) as a conceptual framework in correlation with the Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) for comparison, this study examined
the school level resource allocation methods used to improve learning for struggling
readers at five middle schools that met or exceeded their API growth targets and
AYP requirements for their Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups for the 2008-09
school year (California Department of Education, 2009). All of the schools used in
this study had Hispanic, EL, and SED significant subgroups that represented more
than 50% of the total student population. As previously mentioned, struggling
readers are represented in all subgroups, which is why understanding how to improve
the academic achievement of this population is very important.
While similar schools within the same school district typically receive the
same amount of funding, student achievement within school districts often varies
greatly (EdSource, 2007b; Kelly et al., 2005; Zorfass, & Urbano, 2008). Some
schools are able to effectively raise the achievement levels of struggling readers, but
many others are not (Kelly et al., 2005). As previously stated, the current literature
on strategies to improve learning for all students including struggling readers is
extensive; however, the current literature on how resources are allocated at the

63
school level to improve learning for struggling readers is limited. The research
questions used to guide this study are as follows:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
Model?
The results of this study provide school-level data on the resource allocation
strategies used in middle schools that have large Hispanic, EL, and SED significant
subgroups that comprise more than 50% of the student population and are able to
meet or exceed their API growth targets and AYP requirements. Analyzing how
schools allocate resources to improve learning for struggling readers is a dynamic
process that requires the use of qualitative and quantitative data. With the use of a
structured interview protocol (see Appendix C) the principals at all of the schools
used in this study were interviewed. The data from the interviews of the principals
were compared to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009). This chapter provides
an overview of the methodology used for this study including how the sample was

64
selected, how the study was conducted, and how the data were collected and
analyzed.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) provides a
comprehensive school resource allocation framework that takes into account the
diverse and dynamic student population in California. With many components from
the “How People Learn” framework (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005) and provisions for resources to support student
subgroups including EL, SED, and special education, the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM) was used to compare how the middle schools used in this study compared to
each other and to the EBM framework (see Appendices E-I). With a focus on the
allocation of resources to improve student learning the EBM provides a structure to
analyze the allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for
struggling readers. In order to provide an additional point of reference regarding
student performance, the educational strategies utilized by the middle schools in this
study were also compared to Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (see Table 3.1). After interviewing the principals and completing the
individual case studies. Table 3.1 was used to compare the relationship between the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance and the strategies used at each of
the schools in this study to improve learning for struggling readers.

65
Table 3.1. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Area Addressed
During Interview
Example Comments
1. Understanding the Performance Situation
2. Set High Goals
3. Adopt New Curriculum Materials & Create a
Point of View about Instruction

4. Data-Based Decision Making
5. Professional Development
6. Use Time Effectively
7. Interventions
8. Leadership and Professional Culture
9. A Professional Organization
10. Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
Source: Odden (2009).

Sample and Population
This study used a purposeful sample of five middle schools that met their API
growth targets and AYP requirements for their significant Hispanic, EL, and SED
subgroups for the 2008-09 school year (California Department of Education, 2009).
All of the schools used in the study are public with no entrance requirements, and all
of the schools serve students in grades seventh and eighth. Even though these
schools may not be considered “high performing,” the academic achievement of their
significant subgroups demonstrated considerable growth as measured by 2008-09
API results in comparison to their 2007-08 API results (see Table 3.2). Due to
variability in the number of students, level of severity, and regionalization of
programs, special education subgroups were not included in this study.

66
The middle schools chosen for this study had many similarities. As shown in
Table 3.2, five middle schools were used in this study. All of the middle schools
used in this study had Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups that represented more than
50% of their total student population, and all of the schools met or exceeded their
overall 2008-09 API growth targets and AYP requirements for these significant
subgroups. While the quantitative data represented in the API growth from all of the
schools were used to select the schools in this study, both qualitative and quantitative
data were used to analyze how these schools allocate resources to improve learning
for struggling readers. Using a mixed-methods approach provided rich data that can
be used at the federal, state, and local level to inform policy makers and help school
administrators make better use of their limited resources.
In order to protect the identity and privacy of all students and staff involved
in this study, pseudonyms have been used in place of the actual school names.

67

Table 3.2. 2008-09 School API Growth and Targets Met

School Total Students and
Subgroups
Number of Students
Included in 2009 API
Growth
2009 API Growth
2008 API
Base
2008-09 API Growth
Target
2008-09 API Growth
Met School wide and
Subgroup Growth Targets
AIS All 1552 680 668 7 12 No*
Hispanic 1451 676 664 7 12 Yes
SED 1414 674 656 7 18 Yes
EL 1255 658 639 8 19 Yes
BIS All 1140 722 683 6 39 Yes
Hispanic 817 689 652 7 37 Yes
SED 783 691 655 7 36 Yes
EL 655 685 631 8 54 Yes
CIS All 1199 700 688 6 12 No*
Hispanic 933 673 662 7 11 Yes
SED 901 680 667 7 13 Yes
EL 834 669 646 8 23 Yes
DIS All 794 829 812 A 17 Yes
Hispanic 462 773 753 5 20 Yes
SED 590 805 789 5 16 Yes
EL 420 772 750 5 22 Yes
EIS All 615 787 774 5 13 Yes
Hispanic 456 752 741 5 11 Yes
SED 468 770 753 5 17 Yes
EL 349 724 703 5 21 Yes
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
Note: “A” means the school or subgroups scored above the statewide performance target of 800 in
2009. An asterisk* is used for schools that did not make AYP for their Special Education subgroups.

68
Instruments and Data Collection
As part of a thematic dissertation group at the University of Southern
California, this study was one of eleven similar studies. In an attempt to standardize
the data collection techniques used among the eleven researchers, eight hours of
training was provided by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus during the month of May, 2009.
The training included a data collection protocol (see Appendix B) and codebook (see
Appendix C) developed by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates that was used to enter
the data from this study into a database. The data collection protocol includes
information regarding how the school sites and schools districts were contacted via
letter, telephone, and personal contact. The training also covered the pre-interview
data collection and actual interview, as well as how to analyze the results.
In order to obtain approval from the Institutional Review Board, an online
training was completed during the month of September 2009 by all of the
researchers. On October 15, 2009 all eleven researchers were informed by the
University Park Institutional Review Board that the research study was not
considered to be a human subjects research project. An exemption was granted from
the Institutional Review Board (IRB). After receiving approval to go forward with
the study from the IRB, the principals were contacted to schedule the interviews.
After a careful and comprehensive document analysis of the API and AYP
results of all of the middle schools in southern California, ten middle schools were
identified that had student populations that were more than 50% Hispanic, EL, and
SED, and met or exceeded their API growth targets and AYP requirements for the

69
2008-09 school year. Of the ten schools seven were located in Orange County and
Los Angeles County, California. Due to the delimitations of time and travel
constraints only those seven middle schools were chosen for this study. After
multiple attempts to contact the principals at the seven sample middles schools, five
of the principals agreed to participate in this study.
After all pre-interview data were collected the interviews were conducted.
Using a structured interview protocol (see Appendix A), the interviews took place
over several days and took approximately four hours each to complete. This
pragmatic approach “is a very practical side to qualitative methods that simply
involves asking open-ended questions of people and observing matters of interest in
real world settings in order to solve problems, improve programs, or develop
policies” (Patton, 2002, p. 136). All of the interviews included detailed discussions
regarding how resources were allocated at the school level to improve learning for
struggling readers. The four research questions used for this study were addressed,
and the resulting information was placed into a database created by Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
Data Analysis
Analyzing the data from the interviews involved many steps. First, the
qualitative information gathered from the principal interviews along with the
quantitative data regarding student demographics and academic achievement scores
gathered from the California Department of Education, Policy and Evaluation
Division (2009) were uploaded into the database created by Lawrence O. Picus and

70
Associates. Second, using the structured interview protocol (see Appendix A), the
information gleaned from the principal interviews was compared to the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009) and then written into individual case studies for each of
the schools used in this study. Third, upon completion of the case studies, gaps in the
research and missing data were identified and follow-up contacts with the principals
were completed. Finally, the follow up information gathered from the principals was
added to the case studies and presented in the findings of this study.
The strategies implemented at each of the middle schools used in this study to
address the needs of struggling readers were analyzed and similarities and
differences were identified. How the resources were allocated to fund the strategies
were identified with the hopes of adding to the current literature on this important
subject. In an effort to provide a conceptual framework for comparison, the strategies
and resource allocation practices at each of the schools were compared to the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009). Given the impact of the current fiscal crisis on
school districts throughout California, the decrease of state funding for school
districts was examined as it relates to the allocation of resources to improve learning
for struggling readers. The resulting data from this study have important policy
implications at the federal, state, and local level. Determining how to adequately
allocate resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers will

71
help close the achievement gap. The next chapter will present the findings of the
individual case studies.

72
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
The first three sections of this chapter present the findings of the study with
an overview of the characteristics, demographics, and performance data of the five
schools. In the following sections the research questions are used as a framework to
review the findings from the schools with sections on the improvement strategies
used at the school level, how resources were used to implement the schools’
instructional improvement plans, how the allocation of resources has been impacted
by the current fiscal crisis, and how the actual resource strategies at the school sites
compare to the strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model. The findings are based
on a comprehensive review of documents and in-depth interviews that were
conducted using structured protocols to ensure consistency at each of the school
sites. Detailed information in the form of individual case studies on each of the
schools is provided in Appendices E-I.
Summary of Sample Selection for Study Schools
The schools in this study were selected because they met several criteria.
First, all five of the schools are middle schools that serve students in grades 7-8.
Second, all of the schools have Hispanic, English Learner (EL), and Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged (SED) significant subgroups that represent more than
50% of the total student population. Finally, all of the schools successfully met their
annual Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets and Adequate Yearly

73
Progress (AYP) requirements for their Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups for the
2008-09 school year. Middle school API scores are primarily based on scores from
the California Standards Tests (CST). The following section of this chapter will
review the characteristics and demographics of the five middle schools used in this
study.
Characteristics and Demographics of Study Schools
With the exception of student enrollment all five schools in this study had
similar characteristics (see Table 4.1). The enrollment at the study schools ranged
from 700 to 1,600 students with an average school size of 1,140 students. Four of the
schools in this study were comprised of approximately 90% minority students and
one school was comprised of 97% minority students. All five schools had Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged (SED) student populations of 60% or more based on
their participation in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program under Title I of the
federal regulations. At one school 88% of the student population was in the SED
subgroup. At three of the schools more than 70% of the students were in the SED
subgroups, and at one school 60% of the students were in the SED subgroup. All of
the schools in this study received Title I funding. Only one school received
additional funding through the Quality Education Investment Act.
The demographic trends of the study schools that have occurred over the past
sixteen years are shown in Table 4.2. All of the schools have experienced substantial
increases in the number of Hispanic students and substantial decreases in the number
of white students. The number of Asian students at each school has remained

74
relatively steady. The changes in student demographics have been significant and
have resulted in a majority of Hispanic students at all five schools.

Table 4.1. Characteristics of Study Schools

School Grades Enrollment
% Minority
(Non-White)
% SED
Title I
Funding
QEIA
Funding
AIS 7-8 1,600 97.0 88.0 Yes Yes
BIS 7-8 1,300 89.7 60.2 Yes No
CIS 7-8 1,200 90.0 75.1 Yes No
DIS 7-8 900 90.7 72.0 Yes No
EIS 7-8 700 92.0 73.0 Yes No
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

The purpose of this study was to examine the resource allocation strategies
used at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers. The Hispanic, EL,
and SED subgroups were the focus of this study. Table 4.3 provides a comparison of
these subgroups in comparison to the white and Asian subgroups at all of the study
schools with those of the State. Struggling readers are represented in all subgroups
and often in multiple subgroups, which is why identifying resource allocation
strategies that successfully meet the needs of these students is very important.
Special education subgroups were not included in this study due to the variability in
programs, placement, and services that exists within the school districts.

75

Table 4.2. Demographic Trends of Study Schools, 1994-2009

School 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
AIS
Hispanic 78.5% 84.8% 90.4% 90.7% 91.6% 92.8%
Asian 3.1% 3.1% 2.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.6%
White 13.7% 8.5% 5.8% 5.2% 4.4% 2.1%
All Others 4.7% 3.6% 3.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.1%
BIS
Hispanic 37.1% 45.9% 51.9% 57.5% 67.4% 69.1%
Asian 11.3% 11.4% 9.1% 8.4% 7.3% 6.5%
White 42.4% 32.4% 28.4% 24.6% 15.6% 10.8%
All Others 9.2% 10.3% 10.6% 9.5% 9.7% 13.6%
CIS
Hispanic 43.3% 54.8% 63.8% 68.5% 75.2% 75.7%
Asian 11.7% 10.5% 7.2% 6.9% 6.4% 6.0%
White 38.2% 28.6% 24.2% 18% 12.9% 9.4%
All Others 6.8% 6.1% 4.8% 6.6% 5.5% 8.9%
DIS
Hispanic 37.3% 40.8% 42.9% 52.0% 57.8% 58.8%
Asian 21.9% 27.4% 25.9% 24.8% 25.7% 27.1%
White 34.9% 27.1% 25.6% 17.9% 11.9% 9.3%
All Others 5.9% 4.7% 6.6% 5.3% 4.6% 4.8%
EIS
Hispanic 45.8% 55.4% 58.6% 68.6% 74.2% 74.9%
Asian 17.4% 17.1% 15.5% 10.7% 14.7% 15.2%
White 33.2% 24.1% 20.8% 14.6% 8.2% 7.0%
All Others 3.6% 3.4% 5.1% 6.1% 2.9% 2.9%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

76
Table 4.3. Comparison of Significant Subgroups of Study Schools, 2008-09

School Hispanic Asian White EL SED
AIS 92.8% 1.6% 2.1% 41.3% 87.1%
BIS 68.1% 6.3% 11.2% 55.0% 65.3%
CIS 78.0% 6.2% 1.0% 36.0% 75.1%
DIS 58.8% 27.1% 9.3% 42.0% 72.0%
EIS 74.9% 15.2% 7.0% 44.0% 73.0%
California 49.0% 8.4% 27.9% 24.2% 52.3%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Reviewing the primary languages of the EL subgroups provides another
perspective of the characteristics of the study schools. As indicated in Table 4.4 the
EL subgroups at all of the study schools were comprised of primarily Hispanic
students whose first language was Spanish. However, at one school 18% of the EL
students spoke Vietnamese as their primary language and at another other school
approximately 10% of the students spoke Vietnamese as their primary language.

Table 4.4. Percentage of English Learners by Language, 2008-09

Spanish Vietnamese Tagalog Korean Arabic Other
AIS 97.1 0.4 0.3 0 0 1.6
BIS 90.6 2.5 1.9 1.1 2.2 1.7
CIS 93.9 2.0 1.1 0 1.4 1.6
DIS 71.6 18.0 1.1 4.6 0.3 4.4
EIS 86.1 9.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.3
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

77
The characteristics of the study schools have many similarities. All of the
schools had Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups that exceeded the statewide average
as a percentage of the overall student population. Hispanic students represented a
majority of the student population at all five schools, and Spanish wais the primary
language of the EL subgroups at all of the schools. All of the schools received Title I
funding.
While all five of the study schools were similar there were some noted
differences. Student enrollment varied among the schools, and two of the schools
had Asian populations that represented more than 15% of the students. Only one
school received QEIA funding and that school received more than $1,000,000 from
that funding source. The next section reviews the student performance data at all of
the study schools.
Performance Data of Study Schools
This section provides data on several areas of student performance of the
study schools. First, overall API scores are presented in an effort to provide an
overview of school-wide performance. Second, API scores are presented for the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups. Third, the progress the study schools have made
in closing the achievement gap for Hispanic students is reviewed. Finally, the
percentages of students scoring proficient and advanced on both the ELA and math
sections of the CST are reviewed starting with the overall student populations and
then for the Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups. In an effort to provide a comparative
and structured format for reviewing the student performance data, all schools are

78
listed together in each of the following tables and figures. Again, detailed case
studies on each of the study schools can be found in Appendices E-I.
All of the schools have made significant gains in API scores for their overall
student populations. From 2000 to 2009 all of the schools increased their API scores
by more than 100 points (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.1). Three of the schools
increased their API scores by more than 150 points. The school that had the greatest
increase, AIS, was also the largest school with the highest percentage of Hispanic
and SED students. With an enrollment of 1,600 and a student population that was
more than 92% Hispanic and more than 87% SED, the API scores at AIS increased
by 190 points over the past ten years.

Table 4.5. Overall API Scores for Study Schools, 2000-09

School 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2000 to 2009
AIS 490 530 542 574 577 614 623 624 668 680 190
BIS 564 596 595 618 672 683 689 674 683 722 158
CIS 582 596 603 634 663 688 693 656 688 700 118
DIS 672 671 660 697 708 737 779 779 812 829 157
EIS 651 672 656 684 702 724 735 748 774 787 136
CA* -- -- -- -- -- 703 715 720 735 754 --
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
*Note: California did not calculate statewide API scores before 2005.

79
Figure 4.1. Overall API Scores for Study Schools, 2000-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As shown in Table 4.6 the API scores for the Hispanic subgroups at all of the
study schools have shown significant growth. In fact, from 2000 to 2009 the
Hispanic subgroups at each of the study schools outperformed the overall student
populations in API growth. The API scores at three of the study schools increased by
200, 207, and 220 points respectively. The two other schools each increased their
API scores for their Hispanic subgroups by 166 points. Three of the schools
experienced continual growth in API scores over the past ten years for their Hispanic
subgroups. Two of the schools experienced a drop in scores from 2006 to 2007, but
both of these schools continued to increase their scores from 2007 to 2009 (see
Figure 4.2).
The success of the Hispanic subgroups at each of the study schools is
significant for several reasons. First, the Hispanic subgroup is the largest subgroup in

80
California. In 2009 the statewide Hispanic subgroup failed to make AYP in ELA and
math. Similarly, many schools and school districts are not making AYP for their
significant subgroups and are falling into Program Improvement (PI). In 2009 there
were 2,263 schools in California that were in Program Improvement and 562 of
those schools were middle schools (EdSource, 2009). Second, as indicated in Table
4.2, the Hispanic student population in California is increasing so understanding how
schools are successfully improving student outcomes for this growing population
may provide insight for other schools. Third, the success of the schools used in this
study has important implications at the federal, state, county, and local level, which
will be discussed in the following chapter of this study.

Table 4.6. API Scores for Hispanic Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09

School 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2000 to 2009
AIS 476 515 529 562 567 607 617 620 664 676 200
BIS 482 522 542 560 622 643 652 640 652 689 207
CIS 507 534 548 590 627 660 662 626 662 673 166
DIS 553 569 576 623 647 669 720 722 753 773 220
EIS 586 616 620 648 669 688 703 722 741 752 166
CA* -- -- -- -- -- 630 642 651 669 690 --
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
*Note: California did not calculate statewide API scores before 2005.

81
Figure 4.2. API Scores for Hispanic Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

The academic achievement of the EL subgroups varied at the study schools
(see Figure 4.3). As indicated in Table 4.7, the school with the greatest increase in
API scores, DIS, increased their EL subgroup API scores by 117 points over the past
five years and is now over the statewide goal of 800. The lowest scoring school for
this subgroup in terms of growth in API scores from 2005 to 2009 was CIS and that
school only increased their API scores by 13 points over the past five years.
However, after experiencing a drop in scores from 2006 to 2007, CIS increased their
API scores from 2007 to 2009 more than any of the other study schools and more
than the statewide average for EL students.
Over the past five years the rate of growth in API scores for the EL
subgroups at four of the study schools has not been substantial. Even though only
one school made significant growth over the past five years, all five of the schools

82
were above the 2009 statewide average of 655. Furthermore, all but one school
made more growth over the past five years than the statewide average (see Table
4.7).

Table 4.7. API Scores for EL Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09

Schools 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
AIS 592 599 604 639 658 66
BIS 638 650 632 631 685 47
CIS 656 653 614 646 669 13
DIS 688 769 762 789 805 117
EIS 674 719 736 703 724 50
CA 611 620 623 637 655 44
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure 4.3. API Scores for EL Subgroups at Study Schools, 2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

83
Examining the number of EL students that are reclassified each year as
Fluent English Proficient at each of the study schools provides another perspective of
the academic progress of this significant subgroup. Once EL students reach
proficiency in the English language as measured by CELDT scores they are
reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). As shown in Table 4.8 in 2009
three of the study schools were above the statewide average in the number of EL
students they reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). While the number of
students reclassified over the past five years varied among the study schools, AIS
was below the statewide average for the past five years and EIS has been below the
statewide average for the past four years.

Table 4.8. Percentage of English Learners Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient,
2005-09

Schools 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AIS 3.6% 8.8% 7.3% 7.4% 7.8%
BIS 7.2% 12.6% 15.5% 15.9% 15.7%
CIS 4.4% 11.6% 6.5% 12.7% 12.2%
DIS 12.4% 7.3% 10.2% 9.2% 14.0%
EIS 11.3% 8.3% 6.9% 4.5% 10.4%
CA 9.0% 9.6% 9.2% 9.6% 10.8%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

From 2000 to 2009 the SED subgroups at the study schools showed
significant growth in API scores (see Figure 4.4). As shown in Table 4.9, all of the
study schools increased their API scores for their SED subgroups by at least 155

84
points and the largest school, AIS, increased their scores by 198 points. Even though
all of the schools made tremendous growth only three were above the 2009 statewide
average of 686 and none of the schools have reached the statewide goal of 800 for
this subgroup.

Table 4.9. API Scores for SED Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09

Schools
and State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
from 2000
to 2009
AIS 476 514 529 566 565 606 614 613 656 674 198
BIS 512 550 557 577 633 649 658 645 655 691 179
CIS 520 541 562 599 631 663 669 639 667 680 160
DIS 603 608 617 669 685 714 750 748 750 772 169
EIS 615 634 624 664 681 705 712 731 753 770 155
CA* -- -- -- -- -- 627 639 647 665 686 --
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
*Note: California did not calculate state-wide API scores before 2005.

Figure 4.4. API Scores for SED Subgroups at Study Schools, 2000-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

85
Due to the low number of white students at each of the study schools and in
order to provide a consistent and accurate measure of the achievement gap between
Hispanic and white students at all of the study schools, the API scores for the
Hispanic subgroups from the study schools were compared with the district-wide
white subgroups. As shown in Figure 4.5 the progress made over the past five years
in closing the achievement gap in API scores between Hispanic and white students
varied among the five study schools. From 2005 to 2009 four of the study schools
made progress in closing the achievement gap and that progress ranged from a
decrease of 59 points at DIS to a decrease of 4 points at BIS (see Table 4.10).
The progress the schools made in closing the gap in API scores between
Hispanic and white students improved from 2007 to 2009 (see Figure 4.5). At CIS
the achievement gap increased dramatically from 82 points in 2005 to 145 points in
2007, but from 2007 to 2009 the achievement gap at CIS closed by 34 points. As
shown in Table 4.10 the progress made in closing the achievement gap from 2007 to
2009 was significant at four of the study schools. From 2007 to 2009 the
achievement gap at AIS, BIS, CIS, and DIS closed by 43, 39, 34, and 32 points
respectively. From 2007 to 2009 the school that showed the least amount of progress
in closing the achievement gap between Hispanic and white students was EIS where
the gap closed by 11 points.

86
Table 4.10. Hispanic-White* Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study Schools,
2005-09

School 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
AIS 135 135 151 122 108 (27)
BIS 99 100 131 134 95 (04)
CIS 82 90 145 124 111 29
DIS 113 79 86 58 54 (59)
EIS 94 96 86 70 75 (19)
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
*Note: School-wide Hispanic subgroup compared to district-wide white subgroup.

Figure 4.5. Hispanic-White Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study Schools,
2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Due to the low number of Asian students at the study schools and in order to
provide a consistent and accurate measure of the achievement gap between Hispanic
and Asian students at all of the study schools, the API scores for the Hispanic

87
subgroups from the study schools were compared with the district-wide Asian
subgroups. As shown in Table 4.11 the achievement gap in API scores between
Hispanic and Asian students over the past five years has decreased at three of the
study schools. At DIS, EIS, and AIS, the achievement gap in API scores between
Hispanic and Asian students closed by 53, 21, and 13 points respectively. During the
same period of time the achievement gap increased by 35 points at CIS and by 2
points at BIS.
Similar to the pattern of progress in closing the Hispanic-white achievement
gap, from 2007 to 2009 all of the study schools made progress in closing the
Hispanic-Asian achievement gap. As shown in Table 4.11, from 2007 to 2009 the
achievement gap in API scores between Hispanic and Asian students closed by 33
points at AIS, 27 points at DIS, 26 points at BIS, 24 points at CIS, and 6 points at
EIS. Four of the study schools made more progress over the past two years in closing
the Hispanic-Asian achievement gap than they did over the past five years. The
exception to this pattern was DIS. From 2005 to 2009 the Hispanic-Asian
achievement gap at DIS closed by 53 points and from 2007 to 2009 by 27 points.

88
Table 4.11. Hispanic-Asian* Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study Schools,
2005-09

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
AIS 240 248 252 222 219 (21)
BIS 204 213 232 234 206 02
CIS 187 203 246 224 222 35
DIS 170 140 144 125 117 (53)
EIS 151 157 144 137 138 (13)
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
*Note: School-wide Hispanic subgroup compared to district-wide Asian subgroup.

Figure 4.6. Hispanic-Asian Achievement Gap in API Scores at Study Schools,
2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

One of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is that all
students will be proficient or advanced as measured by API and AYP by 2014. This
requirement applies to all students including subgroups. Proficiency is measured by

89
student achievement scores on all applicable sections of the California Standards
Test (CST). As shown in Table 4.12 all of the study schools have made progress over
the past five years in increasing the number of students that scored proficient and
advanced on the English Language Arts (ELA) section of the CST, but that progress
does not apply to the math section of the CST.
As mentioned, from 2005 to 2009 all of the study schools increased their
school-wide percentages of students scoring proficient and advanced on the ELA
section of the CST (see figure 4.7). The rate of growth at three of the schools
exceeded that of the statewide average. At AIS the percentage of students that scored
proficient and advanced increased from 22% in 2005 to 31% in 2009 for a net
increase of 9%. During that same period of time DIS and EIS increased their
percentages by 11% and 9% respectively. The statewide average during this time
increased from 40% to 48% for a net increase of 8%. In 2009 two schools, DIS and
EIS, had higher percentages of students scoring proficient and advanced than the
statewide average.
From 2005 to 2009 the percentage of students at the study schools that scored
proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST was very low (see Table
4.12). At two of the schools the percentages actually declined. The three other
schools showed minimal increases. From 2005 to 2009 the number of students at
AIS that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST increased
from 24% to 26% for a net increase of 2%. At BIS the increase was 4%, and at EIS
the increase was 1%. Only one school, DIS with 49%, was above the statewide

90
average in 2009, but that school actually had a higher percentage in 2005 when 50%
of the students scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST.

Table 4.12. Overall Percentages of Students Proficient and Advanced on CST,
2005-09

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient and
Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AIS 22 22 23 28 31 24 24 17 31 26
BIS 33 34 31 38 40 29 29 32 28 33
CIS 33 35 26 33 37 33 35 27 31 24
DIS 46 50 50 57 57 50 55 47 48 49
EIS 40 43 43 47 49 39 36 37 38 40
California 40 42 43 46 48 38 40 40 43 46
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure 4.7. Percentages of Students Proficient and Advanced on CST-ELA, 2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

91
As shown in Table 4.13, from 2005 to 2009 the percentage of Hispanic
students scoring proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST improved
substantially at two of the study schools. Both DIS and EIS have stayed above the
statewide average for the past five years (see Figure 4.8). In 2005 the percentage of
Hispanic students at DIS that scored proficient or advanced on the ELA section of
the CST was 32% and that percentage climbed to 45% in 2009 for a net gain of 13%.
During the same period of time the statewide average climbed from 27% to 39% for
a net gain of 12%. Even though the rate of growth at EIS was slightly less than the
statewide average the Hispanic subgroup at that school had a higher percentage of
Hispanic students that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section than the
statewide average for the past five years.
From 2005 to 2009 three of the study schools were below the statewide
average in the percentage of Hispanic students that scored proficient and advanced
on the ELA sections of the CST. At AIS the percentage rose by 9%, from 21% in
2005 to 30% in 2009. The Hispanic subgroup at AIS was below the statewide
average by 9% in 2009. The Hispanic subgroup at CIS was below the statewide
average by 8% in 2009, and BIS was below the statewide average by 6%. Not only is
the low percentage of Hispanic students that scored proficient and advanced at the
three schools concerning, their inability to keep up with the statewide rate of growth
in this area could lead to these schools falling farther behind.
Similar to the overall student population at each school, the percentage of
Hispanic students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the

92
CST was well below the statewide average at four of the study schools (see Table
4.13). From 2005 to 2009 CIS and EIS decreased in the percentage of Hispanic
students that scored proficient and advanced, and AIS and BIS increased their
percentages by 2% and 5% respectively. The lone exception to this lack of
performance was DIS where the percentage of Hispanic students that scored
proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST increased from 36% in 2005
to 45% in 2009 and was above the statewide average in 2009.

Table 4.13. Hispanic Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST, 2005-09

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AIS 21 21 22 27 30 23 23 16 30 25
BIS 25 28 25 31 33 22 22 26 22 27
CIS 28 30 20 27 31 27 30 23 26 20
DIS 32 38 39 46 45 36 42 32 34 45
EIS 31 36 37 40 41 33 28 30 29 32
California 27 30 31 35 39 33 36 37 40 43
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

93
Figure 4.8. Percentages of Hispanic Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST-
ELA, 2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As shown in Figure 4.9, from 2005 to 2009 the percentage of EL students at
the study schools that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST
varied greatly. As shown in Table 4.14, at AIS 17% of the EL subgroup scored
proficient and advanced in 2005 and that percentage rose to 26% in 2009, while the
statewide average rose from 22% to 33% during the same period of time. The
percentage of EL students at BIS dropped from 9% in 2005 to 7% in 2009. The
percentages at CIS, DIS, and EIS all increased from 2005 to 2009, but only DIS
stayed above the statewide average. At EIS the percentage of EL students that scored
proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST climbed to a high of 41% in
2007, well above the statewide average, to a low of 33% in 2009, which was the
statewide average for that year (see Table 4.14).

94
Following the same pattern previously discussed for the overall student
populations and Hispanic subgroups at the study schools, the low percentage of EL
students that scored advanced and proficient on the math section of the CST is
concerning. As shown in table 4.14, three of the schools decreased in the percentage
of EL students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST
from 2005 to 2009 and four of the schools were well below the statewide average in
2009. Once again, the lone exception was DIS where the EL subgroup stayed well
above the statewide average for the past five years. In 2009 49% of the EL subgroup
at DIS scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST compared to
the statewide average of 29%.

Table 4.14. EL Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST, 2005-09

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AIS 17 18 18 21 26 21 21 15 27 23
BIS 09 09 08 10 07 16 09 11 14 14
CIS 27 27 17 24 30 27 29 22 26 22
DIS 32 45 46 42 42 40 53 44 39 49
EIS 24 39 41 32 33 30 36 35 22 29
California 22 24 26 29 33 32 35 36 39 43
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

95
Figure 4.9. Percentages of EL Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST-ELA,
2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As shown in Table 4.15 the percentage of SED students that scored proficient
and advanced on the ELA section of the CST varied among the study schools. From
2005 to 2009 all of the schools increased their percentages. At CIS 28% of the SED
subgroup scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST in 2005 and
that percentage increased to 33% in 2009 for a net increase of 5%. At BIS the
percentages rose from 26% to 33% during the same period of time for a net increase
of 7%. At AIS the percentages rose from 21% in 2005 to 29% in 2009 for a net
increase of 8%, and at EIS the percentages increased from 36% to 43% for a net
increase of 8%. The school with the greatest rate of growth and highest percentage of
SED students scoring proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST was

96
DIS where the percentages climbed from 41% in 2005 to 50% in 2009 for a net
increase of 9%.
From 2005 to 2009 four of the schools increased their percentages of SED
students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST (see
Table 4.15). One school declined in the percentage of SED students that scored
proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST from 2005 to 2009. From
2005 to 2009 none of the schools had continual growth in this area (see Figure 4.10).
In 2009 only one DIS was above the statewide average in the number of students that
scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST.

Table 4.15. SED Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST, 2005-09

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AIS 21 20 21 25 29 23 23 16 29 24
BIS 26 28 25 31 33 23 25 27 22 29
CIS 28 30 23 29 33 27 30 25 28 22
DIS 41 43 45 53 50 46 50 41 43 55
EIS 36 39 40 43 43 36 32 32 34 37
California 27 29 30 34 38 33 36 37 40 44
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

97
Figure 4.10. Percentages of SED Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CST-ELA,
2005-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Research Questions
The remaining sections of the chapter will address the research questions
using information and data from the case studies found in Appendices E-I. The
research questions used in this study serve as headings for each of the following four
sections. The first question examines the improvement strategies used at the school
sites. The second question discusses how resources were used to implement each
school’s instructional improvement plan. The third section provides an overview of
how the allocation of resources has been impacted by the current fiscal crisis. The
final section examines how the actual resource use strategies at the school sites
compare to the strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model.

98
What are the Current Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies at the School
Level?
This section reviews the improvement strategies identified through data
collection and interviews that took place at each of the study schools. Upon
completion of the individual case studies, located in Appendices E-I, several
common themes related to the improvement process at the study schools were
identified. The following improvement strategies, or key elements in the
improvement process, are listed below:
• Leadership
• Collaboration
• High Expectations
• Data-Driven Instruction
• Interventions
• Professional Development
The six key elements that were identified in the improvement process at the study
schools are used as headings for the following subsections.
Leadership.
All of the study schools have principals with strong leadership skills.
Marzano (2003) states that “leadership could be considered the single most important
aspect of effective school reform…” (p. 172). During the interviews several forms of
leadership were identified. Those leadership styles included unilateral leadership,
shared leadership, preventative leadership, reactive leadership, and leadership for

99
change. These five forms of leadership were often interrelated and none of them
were found in isolation.
One example of unilateral leadership was found at CIS. When the principal
arrived at CIS three years ago he carefully reviewed student data and identified what
he believed were significant weaknesses. Without any input from the staff members
he made a unilateral decision to restructure the school’s intervention programs. He
enlisted the help of the Director of Student Services from the district office, but only
after he had made this decision. After developing a comprehensive intervention plan
he contacted several key stakeholders at the school to help with the implementation
of the plan. This led to a shift from unilateral leadership to shared leadership.
At EIS the principal enlisted the help of experts from the district office and
the county office of education to improve student learning. The principal started this
process by focusing on improving the level of collaboration among the staff
members. His ultimate goal was to restructure the processes used to improve student
learning so he enlisted the help of six teachers who were then trained as instructional
coaches. With the help of a Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) from the district
office, the in-house instructional coaches took the lead in developing and facilitating
school-wide trainings and in providing direct support to individual teachers. This
form of shared leadership was also an example of preventative leadership due to the
focus on building the teachers’ capacity to effectively address the needs of all of the
students in the school including struggling readers.

100
An example of preventative leadership was found at BIS where the principal
implemented a comprehensive parent training program. In an effort to improve
student learning, particularly for struggling readers, the principal provided parent
trainings on several topics including reading and English classes and how to access
community resources. The parent trainings had implicit benefits such as an increase
in parent involvement and a decrease in student discipline problems at the school.
While this form of preventative leadership was implemented to improve the parents’
abilities to help their children with homework and other school related topics, the
reason the parent training program was implemented was in reaction to low test
scores and poor student outcomes for struggling students.
An example of reactive leadership was found at AIS. When the principal first
came to the school it was in Program Improvement (PI). One of the PI requirements
involved the use of outside assistance. As part of the improvement process,
consultants from Action Learning and the county office of education came in and
outlined an improvement plan for the school to follow. Several elements of the
improvement plan included staff training on using data to drive instruction,
identifying essential standards, and administering quarterly benchmark assessments.
The use of the outside consultants was in reaction to the low test scores and student
performance.
In the area of developing and implementing improvement strategies to
address the needs of struggling readers all five of the principals were examples of
leadership for change. According to Fullan (2003), “the principal as instructional

101
leader is too narrow a concept to carry the weight of the kinds of reforms that we
need for the future…we need, instead, leaders who can create a fundamental
transformation in the learning cultures of the school” (p. 92). While all of the
principals interviewed for this study practiced different combinations of leadership,
all of them shared the goal of developing and implementing effective improvement
strategies to address the needs of all students. These interrelated forms of school
leadership were all used to implement the improvement strategies discussed in the
following subsections of this chapter.
Collaboration.
All five of the schools in this study identified collaboration as a key element
in the improvement process. As part of the improvement strategies at each of the
study schools, collaboration was either a main area of focus or a method for
implementing the strategies in the improvement plans. The common themes related
to collaboration included changing the practice of staff working in isolation,
developing and implementing Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to review
student progress and make instructional decisions, and providing time for staff to
collaborate.
Changing the practice of staff working in isolation to staff working
collaboratively to improve student learning was a main area of focus at four of the
five study schools. At AIS, the largest of the study schools, the principal stated that
one of his top goals was to improve the level of collaboration among staff members
in order to increase the level of staff ownership of all students. As AIS transitioned

102
from removing struggling students from core academic classes and placing them in
remedial classes, to an inclusive model that involved all students taking core
academic classes with additional reading intervention classes as needed, it was
important for staff to work together to successfully make this change. The principal
at EIS also reported that shifting from staff working in isolation to staff working in
collaboration was part of the improvement plan.
Both CIS and DIS identified the development of PLCs as key elements in
their improvement plans. In order to add structure and create a purpose at the
regularly scheduled staff meetings, the PLC process was used to review student data,
make instructional decisions, and place students in and out of intervention classes. At
DIS the PLC process was also used to review student data and make instructional
decisions, but the emphasis was on addressing the needs of EL students and ensuring
that staff members were making collaborative decisions regarding the level of
interventions needed for struggling students.
Even though the principal at BIS did not indicate that collaboration was a
main area of focus in the improvement plan he did state that it was an area of
concern. The principal reported that he was aware of the low level of collaboration at
BIS and he was in the process of developing strategies to address this concern. The
principal was in the process of changing the practice of teachers sending students out
of their classrooms for minor disciplinary problems. He was also in the process of
trying to create a positive school culture, but improving the level of collaboration
among the staff was not in the improvement plan at BIS.

103
High expectations.
A common theme in the improvement strategies at all five of the study
schools was high expectations for staff and students. All of the schools emphasized
the importance of all students having access to the core curriculum. Struggling
students at four of the study schools took core academic classes and were then placed
in additional reading intervention classes as needed. The reading intervention classes
took the place of electives and/or were held before and after school. All of the
schools had Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) programs that
provided extra support and helped students prepare for college. At BIS the theme of
the school was that all students will go to college.
The high expectations that were set for the staff members at the study schools
focused on all students learning and all students taking core academic classes. At
some of the schools this was a major change due to the past practice of pulling
struggling students out of core ELA classes and placing them in remedial ELA, ELD,
and reading classes. This change in the service-delivery model created high
expectations for staff members since all of them were responsible for all students
including struggling students. BIS was the only school that continued to provide
ELD classes in separate classrooms that took the place of core ELA classes.
Data-driven instruction.
The use of data to drive and inform instruction was a common theme at all of
the study schools and a key element in the improvement plan at four of the schools.
The improvement strategies at the school sites that involved the use of data included

104
the use of formative and summative assessments, interventions, student placement,
and collaborative-decision making. The use of data at all of the study schools was
instrumental in addressing the needs of struggling students and in improving student
outcomes for all students, although this practice was not as strong or consistent at
BIS as it was at the other four schools.
A key component in effectively using data to improve teacher practice and
student outcomes at all of the schools was using multiple measures to assess
students. As part of the improvement process all of the principals at the study schools
emphasized the importance of using formative assessments in addition to summative
assessments to make placement decisions and monitor progress. As the intervention
programs at the schools transitioned from pulling students out of core ELA classes to
pushing those students into core academic classes and adding reading intervention
classes in place of electives and/or before and afterschool, the use of data was used
to make important instructional decisions.
Another change involving the use of data at each of the schools was
providing a format for teachers to make collaborative decisions on student
interventions and placement. All of the principals reported that prior to changing to
data-based decision making, student interventions and placement decisions were
made subjectively by individual teachers. As part of the improvement process four of
the schools provided staff training related to effectively using student data. At AIS,
staff training on how to effectively use data was provided by Action Learning as the
first step in the PI process. With the exception of BIS, all of the schools had

105
regularly scheduled staff meetings where staff members met to review and discuss
student data.
All of the schools had systems in place to effectively use data. All five of the
study schools used pacing calendars, quarterly benchmarks, and formative and
summative assessments as part of the instructional process. Data Director was used
at all of the schools to organize and keep track of student data, and four of the
schools had regularly-scheduled staff meetings to review student data and make
instructional decisions. Only one school, BIS, reported that the use of data to inform
and drive instruction was not consistent among all staff members.
Interventions.
Comprehensive intervention programs for English Language Arts (ELA) and
reading was a key element in the improvement process at all five of the study
schools. The common themes for interventions in the improvement process at the
study schools included providing all students access to the core curriculum in ELA,
providing additional academic support to struggling students, and developing
systems to identify, monitor, and effectively address the needs of struggling students.
The study schools varied in the level and intensity of these common themes, but all
of them had at least some portion in place.
The most prevalent theme that was included in the improvement process at
all of the study schools was providing all students access to the core curriculum.
With the exception of BIS, all of the schools developed intervention programs that
included all struggling students in core academic classes with reading and ELD

106
intervention classes in place of electives and/or provided before or after school. BIS
was the only school in this study that had separate ELD classes for ELA that
included a double-block of ELD and reading, although struggling readers that were
not classified as EL students were placed in core ELA classes with additional reading
classes as needed.
Another common theme that was included in the improvement plans at each
of the study schools was the development of comprehensive intervention systems.
Four of the schools had assessment screenings in place to determine the needs of
struggling students, and two targeted specific student populations. At CIS struggling
readers were identified by CST scores and benchmark testing in order to determine
the level and duration of reading interventions needed. At DIS the EL population
was the main focus of the school’s improvement plan and the entire staff was trained
to use specific strategies to address the needs of this population.
Professional development.
Perhaps the most varied improvement strategy at the study schools was
professional development. While all of the schools provided intensive staff
development to staff members at some point in the past, all but one of the schools
had comprehensive staff development plans for the 2008-09 school year. The type of
staff development provided to staff members and the frequency and duration of the
trainings varied greatly at all five of the study schools.
As part of the PI process, AIS included several professional development
trainings and activities in their improvement process. With the highest enrollment,

107
largest SED student population, and a multi-million dollar school budget that
included Title I and QEIA funds, AIS was able to develop a comprehensive
professional development plan as part of its improvement plan. In addition to the two
district-wide staff development days the improvement plan at AIS included four
additional days for a total of six staff development days for every staff member.
Three of the study schools focused on the development and implementation
of PLCs as part of their improvement strategies. At AIS, CIS, and DIS, systems were
developed to utilize the PLC process at the regularly-scheduled staff meetings to
review student data and make instructional decisions. These three schools and EIS all
included regular collaboration time in their improvement strategies.
This section identified the key elements that were included in the
improvement strategies at each of the study schools. The instructional visions at each
of the schools focused on the key elements included in their improvement plans. The
six key elements reviewed in this section included summaries of the improvement
strategies for all of the schools. The following section reviews how resources were
used to implement each school’s improvement plan.

How are Resources used to Implement the School’s Instructional Improvement Plan?
In order to provide a comparative framework to describe how resources were
used to implement the study schools’ improvement plans a comprehensive strategy
developed by Allan Odden (2009) for doubling student performance is used in this
section. The following ten subsections are comprised of what Odden (2009)

108
identified as “the ten core elements of the improving school” (p. 191). Each of the
following subsection headings is one of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009). In an effort to describe how close the study schools
came to implementing the Ten Strategies that characterize what Odden (2009) refers
to as the “Dramatically Improving School” (p. 191) brief summaries of the findings
of this study are provided in comparison to each of the Ten Strategies. Detailed
information that compares each of the study schools’ resource implementation to
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance is provided in the
individual case studies located in Appendices E-I.
Understanding the performance situation.
The first strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is understanding the performance situation. Odden (2009) states that
“the Dramatically Improving School begins [its] process of improvement by
understanding it has a performance problem and that current levels of performance
are far from desired levels” (p. 191). Odden (2009) describes some of the key
elements of this strategy as using student data to create curriculum maps that provide
direction and align with state standards.
All of the principals at the study schools clearly understood the performance
situation at their schools. The resources allocated at each school to address the
performance situation varied, but there were some commonalities. At AIS key
stakeholders including teachers, support staff, parents, and site council members met
for a full day during the summer to develop a comprehensive action plan to address

109
low test scores. At BIS the principal met with the ELA department and a decision
was made to continue to place EL students in pull-out ELD classes for ELA, while
struggling students that were not EL were included in the core ELA classes.
Additional reading classes were added to take the place of electives for struggling
students at BIS and the other four schools. At CIS the principal unilaterally decided
to revise the intervention programs and he then brought in key stakeholders to assist
in the implementation process. In an effort to address the performance situation of
the EL subgroup at DIS, intensive training was provided to all staff members that
involved Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies
and specific curricula such as High Point and Language. In order to address the
performance situation at EIS in-house instructional coaches were trained and
provided with release days to provide on-going support to staff in collaboration with
a TOSA from the district office.
Set high goals.
The second strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance involves setting high goals for all students. Odden (2009) describes this
strategy as a way for schools to move towards proficiency for all students. According
to Odden (2009), this strategy also involves setting goals to reduce achievement gaps
for underperforming students and subgroups.
This strategy was evident at all of the study schools. While all of the schools
had goals that included all students improving by at least one performance band as
measured by the CST, one school also included a goal for EL students to improve by

110
at least one performance band as measured by the CELDT. All of the schools had
benchmark assessments and used the results of those assessments to monitor student
progress. Four of the schools had specific training on the use of formative
assessments and data to inform and drive instruction.
Adopt new curriculum materials and create a point of view about instruction.
The third strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance involves adopting new curriculum materials and creating a point of
view about instruction. Odden (2009) describes this step as multi-faceted and
comprehensive. According to Odden (2009), adopting a new curriculum alone is not
the answer. This strategy involves the use of a “balanced” reading program that has
all five of the key reading components, and it also involves quality instructional
methodologies. Odden (2009) states that “to achieve greatness, the school recognizes
that it needs an essential curriculum, an essential core set of instructional practices,
and essential common assessments, used by all teachers and reinforced in multiple
ways” (p. 196).
All of the study schools implemented varying levels of this strategy. The
school that came the closest to utilizing all aspects of this strategy also had the
greatest gains in API scores over the past five years (see Table 4.5). As part of the
improvement process AIS trained staff on the use of formative assessments and
differentiated instruction, and then adopted new supplementary reading programs
such as READ 180 to compliment the core ELA program. All students at AIS were
included in core ELA classes and reading intervention classes were provided in place

111
of electives and/or before or after school. AIS and the four other schools put systems
in place to create a point of view about instruction that involved improving student
outcomes for all students.
Data-based decision making.
The fourth strategy identified by Odden (2009), Data-Based Decision
Making, involves much more than student data. Odden (2009) describes this strategy
as group or team of teachers working collaboratively to develop lessons, teaching
strategies, and assessments to improve student learning. Odden (2009) goes on to
explain how these teams often include instructional coaches for on-going teacher
support.
This strategy was evident at all of the study schools. All of the study schools
had systems in place that included formative and summative assessments, pacing
calendars, quarterly benchmarks, and data management systems. Four of the schools
had regularly-scheduled staff meetings where staff members met to review student
data and make collaborative decisions regarding student interventions and
placement. Only one school had instructional coaches that included a TOSA
assigned from the district for one day per week and six in-house teachers that were
released two days per month to provide support and training to other staff members.
Professional development.
The fifth strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is Professional Development. This strategy involves intensive staff
development in specific areas of need on an on-going basis. According to Odden

112
(2009), this training is not voluntary and often includes the help of instructional
coaches. Odden (2009) states that the professional development should include
regular staff meetings where staff members work collaboratively to analyze student
data, as well as intensive summer institutes where staff members receive intensive
training that cover core content areas.
Four of the study schools were strong in this area. AIS provided four
additional staff development days per teacher and provided comprehensive staff
development in several areas on an on-going basis. Three of the schools used the
PLC process to review student data and make collaborative decisions regarding
student learning, and one of the schools developed a comprehensive staff
development plan. At DIS, the two staff development days were used to bring in
specialists from the district office and the county office of education to train the staff
on several topics including the use of formative assessments, data, and specific
teaching strategies to address the needs of EL students. In order to ensure that the
strategies learned in the trainings were implemented correctly, and to provide on-
going support to teachers, several additional trainings were held during the regularly-
scheduled staff meetings at DIS throughout the year. At EIS a district TOSA was
provided as an instructional coach for one day per week and six in-house
instructional coaches were trained and each of them were provided with two release
days per month to provide on-going training and support to the staff.

113
Use time effectively.
The sixth strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is Use Time Effectively. Odden (2009) lists several components to this
strategy. Some of the components include the efficient use of the regular
instructional day, providing “double” periods of core classes to struggling students,
and devising ways to increase time for teachers to collaborate.
All of the study schools used various methods to provide interventions to
struggling students. Due to the current fiscal crisis two of the study schools
eliminated their after-school intervention programs. The three other schools were
concerned that they would soon lose their after-school intervention programs.
Providing intervention programs before and/or after school enabled the schools to
extend the instructional day for those students that needed additional support. All of
the schools provided additional reading intervention classes during the school day.
This was accomplished by placing struggling students in reading intervention classes
in place of elective classes in addition to their core ELA classes. The only exception
was at BIS where EL students were placed in ELD classes in place of their core ELA
classes.
Another area where this strategy was evident was in the amount of time
provided to teachers to work collaboratively. Four of the schools provided regularly-
scheduled collaboration time. The amount of time varied from weekly to bi-weekly.
The four schools that provided time for staff to collaborate reported that this was one
of the key elements in the improvement process.

114
Interventions.
The seventh strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is Interventions. Odden (2009) explains how successful schools focus
on the core academic classroom as the first step for all students except those students
with severe disabilities. This strategy recommends a continuum of interventions that
start in the regular classroom and then advance to differing levels of intensity that
include differentiation and small group settings within the classroom, to additional
instruction outside of the classroom either during the school day or before or after
school.
All of the schools had comprehensive reading intervention programs. AIS
used Title I and QEIA funds to hire four additional reading teachers. CIS used Title I
funds to hire two additional reading teachers. All of the schools provided reading
intervention classes in place of electives, with the exception of BIS where EL
students were pulled out of the core ELA classes and placed in ELD classes. Three
of the schools offered after-school intervention classes and one of those schools also
offered before-school intervention classes.
Leadership and professional culture.
The eighth strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is Leadership and Professional Culture. Odden (2009) states that at
successful schools “leadership is provided by all levels of the system and by all
actors in the system…” (p. 202). This can involve many different strategies including

115
the use of grade-level teams, departmental teams, and instructional coaches. Odden
(2009) reports that a common method that reflects this strategy is the use of PLCs.
All of the schools had some form of grade-level or departmental teams that
met to review student progress and make instructional decisions. Only one school did
not have regularly-scheduled staff meetings, but even that school had teacher teams
that provided support to other teachers and met, somewhat infrequently, to review
student data. Three of the schools utilized the PLC process, and one of those schools
sent a team of twenty teachers to the DuFour Summit to learn how to effectively
utilize the PLC process to improve student learning.
The leadership styles of the five principals varied greatly, but all shared one
common strategy. They all believed in building the capacity of the school staff.
Some schools used outside experts to provide school-wide training and then follow
this up with on-going training provided by in-house staff. One school only used in-
house staff for training, and another school had six in-house instructional coaches
that worked collaboratively with a TOSA from the district office. Elmore (2003)
states that “to lay new resources on school systems, without requiring them to
reallocate their own resources toward improvements in capacity is to reinforce their
own prior inefficiencies” (p. 28). All of the schools focused on using their own
resources in the form of in-house experts to provide on-going support to the entire
teaching staff.

116
A professional organization.
The ninth strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is A Professional Organization. Odden (2009) states that “the
Dramatically Improving School is professional in the best sense of the term” (p.
203). This strategy involves being aware of the current research and understanding
the research-based strategies that effectively improve student learning. This strategy
also involves calling in specialists including private consultants to provide training
and support.
All of the schools in this study were professional organizations. All of the
schools relied upon the expertise of specialists from the district office and county
office of education, and four of the school used private consultants to train staff and
provide advice on how to improve student learning. One school had a school-wide
practice of reading the latest research on effective teaching and learning strategies
and then meeting to discuss what was learned. Three of the schools had partnerships
with local universities to provide support in the improvement process, and all of the
schools had large AVID programs that provided direct support to students in the
form of tutoring, academic workshops, and understanding college entrance
requirements.
Address talent and human capital issues.
The tenth strategy identified by Odden (2009) for doubling student
performance is Address Talent and Human Capital Issues. Odden (2009) describes
this strategy as a practice of doing what is necessary to hire talented teaches and

117
administrators and then hold them accountable to high standards. The goal is to
create a professional culture that promotes student learning with high standards for
staff and students.
While all of the study schools had professional cultures that had high
standards for students, the standards for teachers were not high at all of the study
schools. Three of the schools had very high standards for teachers that included
regularly-scheduled staff meetings, collaborative-decision making, and use of the
PLC process. One school had somewhat high standards, but not as high as the other
three since several teachers often opted out of the staff meetings and trainings.
Another school had fairly low standards and did not have regularly-scheduled staff
meetings.
This section reviewed how resources were used to implement the study
schools’ instructional improvement plan in comparison to Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. The results indicate that all of the
schools implemented at least some portion of each of the Ten Strategies, although
the level of implementation varied greatly among the schools. The next section
provides an overview of how the resource use patterns at each of the schools
changed in response to the recent budget reductions.

How did the use of Resources Change in Response to the Recent Budget Reductions?
The impact of the current fiscal crisis in California has had a tremendous
impact on many school districts across the State. The impact on the five middle

118
schools used in this study was not substantial for the 2008-09 school year. With the
recent influx of federal dollars as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA), many schools have been “propped up” by the one-time funding. This
one-time funding is likely to create many problems in the near future as the funding
runs out.
Two of the schools in this study eliminated their after-school intervention
programs for the 2008-09 school year due to budget reductions. In both cases the
decision was made by the district office. The impact on student performance from
this loss remains to be seen, but it is likely to have a negative impact.
During the interviews all of the principals reported that they were very
concerned about the impact of future budget reductions. At AIS the principal
reported that he is concerned about the stability of the large amount of QEIA funds
that his school receives. The principal at CIS reported that he has been informed by
the district office that he will need to reduce the number of counselors at his school
by one full-time position. The principal at DIS reported that he is concerned about
any reductions in staff. He stated that all of the staff members are working at full
capacity and any reduction in staff could be the tipping point that causes a loss in
momentum among the staff. The principal at EIS reported that he is concerned about
losing the after-school intervention program and possibly even staff members.
The current fiscal crisis in California is like a wave that is building and
getting ready to swamp school districts. All five of the study schools are reliant on
Title I funding and other categorical funding sources. With the end of the ARRA

119
funds in 2011 and the ability of school districts to “flex” categorical funding streams,
it is likely that the Title I funds at all of the study schools will be used differently in
the near future. While the impact of future budget reductions remains to be seen,
staff reductions and the elimination of intervention programs could have a negative
impact on staffing ratios and student performance.
The following section examines how resources were allocated at each of the
study schools in comparison to the resource allocation strategies used in the
Evidence-Based Model.

How are the Actual Resource use Patterns at the School Sites Aligned with or
Different from the Resource use Strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model?
This section begins with a brief overview of the Evidence-Based Model
developed by Allan Odden and Lawrence O. Picus (2008) and how it can be used to
efficiently allocate resources at the school level to improve student learning. This is
followed by an examination of how each of the five study schools allocated
resources in comparison to the Evidence-Based Model recommendations. Additional
informational information on how the study schools’ resource allocation strategies
compare to the strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model can be found in
Appendices E-I.
The Evidence-Based Model can be used to determine an adequate level of
funding for schools based on the unique needs of each school. The number of
students in specific subgroups including Special Education, Socio-Economically

120
Disadvantaged (SED), English Learners (EL), and minorities (non-white) are all
included in the formula. The Evidence-Based Model resource allocation
recommendations are based on the number of students in the subgroups and the
grade levels of the school. The Evidence-Based Model provides different resource
allocation recommendations for Elementary, Middle, and High School.
Unlike other school funding models the Evidence-Based Model takes into
consideration the needs of various subgroups. Odden (2004) describes the Evidence-
Based Model as follows:
This approach summarizes research and best practices evidence on the major
dimensions of schools that have cost implications—school size, class size,
core instruction, specialist instruction, extra help for struggling students,
professional development, administration, etc.—and identifies for each
school in a state a level of ‘adequate’ resources (p. 6).

With consideration for struggling students, and due to the fact that staffing is the
most expensive resource in school funding, the Evidence-Based Model provides
recommendations for school staffing that includes all of the layers of school-site
personnel.
As shown in Figure 4.11 the Evidence-Based Model recommends specific
resources for middle school staffing and student support. Starting with core academic
classes, a 25-to-1student ratio is recommended. Specialists, or non-core teachers, are
recommended at no more than 20% of the total teaching staff. Additional layers of
support are then recommended including summer school, extended day, EL teachers,
tutors, and pupil support, and included in the formula. Specialized education for

121
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), Career and Technical, and Special
Education are also included.

Figure 4.11. The Evidence-Based Model—Middle School Staffing and Support

Specialized Education
• Gifted
• Career & Technical
• Special Education

Extended Support
• Summer School
• Summer and
Extended School
• English Learner
Support
• Tutors and Pupil
Support
• Instructional
Coaches

Specialists
• Middle School:
20% of Teachers

Core
• Middle School:
25:1 Teacher-
Student Ratio

122
The following section compares the actual resource use strategies at the each
of the study schools with those recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. In an
effort to provide a comparative and structured format for reviewing the resource
allocation strategies of the study schools, all schools are listed together in each of the
following tables. Again, detailed case studies on each of the study schools can be
found in Appendices E-I.
The Evidence-Based Model recommends that a prototypical middle school
have 450 students. As shown in Table 4.16, all of the middle schools used in this
study are much larger. EIS was the smallest school used in this study with an
enrollment of 700 students, which is 350 more students than the Evidence-Based
Model recommends. The largest school used in this study was AIS and with 1,600
students it is three and half times larger than what the Evidence-Based Model
recommends.
All of the study schools had core class sizes that were larger than what the
Evidence-Based Model recommends. As shown in Table 4.16, the class sizes at the
study schools had a minimum of 32 students compared to the recommended 25. At
all of the study schools the number of core teachers was substantially less than what
is recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. Although at one school, EIS the
recommended ratio of core teachers to specialist teachers (non-core) was nearly the
same as what the Evidence-Based Model recommends with 79% of the teachers
allocated to teach core subjects and 21% allocated to teach non-core subjects.
Interestingly, the number of specialist teachers at all of the study schools was higher

123
than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends and at two schools there were
nearly double the recommended number of non-core teachers.

Table 4.16. Core and Specialist Teachers – EBM v. Actual

Core Class Size Core Teacher FTEs
Specialist Teacher
FTEs
School Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
(83.3%)
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
(16.7%)
Actual
School
AIS 1600 25 33 64
55
(71%)
12.8
23
(29%)
BIS 1300 25 32 52
37
(71.2%)
10.4
15
(28.8%)
CIS 1200 25 33 48
38
(73%)
9.6
14
(27%)
DIS 900 25 32 36
23
(74.2%)
7.2
8
(25.8%)
EIS 700 25 32 28
22
(79%)
5.6
6
(25.8%)

Three of the study schools offered extended day programs, but with fewer
hours and significantly less staff than recommended by the Evidence-Based Model.
All of the schools offered summer school, but with substantially more students and
substantially less teachers than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends. It
should be noted that at all of the study schools’ summer school is offered only for
those students that are at risk of failing and/or as part of their special education
programs. The Evidence-Based Model recommends tutors with teaching credentials
to work with struggling students. While none of the study schools had fully
credentialed tutors, all of them did have classified tutors and as shown in Table 4.17

124
four of the schools had significantly less than what the Evidence-Based Model
recommends.

Table 4.17. Personnel Resources--Extended Day, Summer School, Tutors – EBM v.
Actual

Extended Day FTEs
Summer School
FTEs
*Tutors for
Struggling Students
School Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
AIS 1600 11.8 0.3 11.8 3.3 7.8 3.5
BIS 1300 6.5 0 6.5 0.8 5.3 7.8
CIS 1200 7.5 0 7.5 0.9 7.8 3.0
DIS 900 5.4 0.1 5.4 0.7 6.5 2.0
EIS 700 4.3 0.4 4.3 1.2 5.1 4.0
*Note: The Evidence-Based Model recommends tutors that hold teaching credentials. None
of the study schools had tutors that met these qualifications.

As shown in Table 4.18 the number of EL Teachers was significantly less at
all of the study schools than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends.
However, four of the schools implemented a “push-in” service delivery model that
includes EL students in core ELA classes with additional reading classes as needed.
The one study school that had a “pull-out” ELD program was BIS and the number of
EL teachers at that school was significantly less than what the Evidence-Based
Model recommends.
The number of Special Education teachers, Non-Instructional Aides, and
funding for Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs varied among the

125
study schools. Four of the study schools had less Special Education teachers than
what the Evidence-Based Model recommends; although, one school, BIS, had 0.3
more Special Education teachers than the model recommends. All of the schools had
less Non-Instructional Aides than the Evidence-Based Model recommends, and all of
the schools had substantially less funding for GATE programs than the model
recommends.

Table 4.18. EL. Special Education, Aides, Vocation and Gifted Programs – EBM v.
Actual

English Learner
FTEs
Special Education
FTEs
Non-Instructional
Aides
Gifted Funds
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
AIS 12.5 3.0 10.5
9.0 +
SPED
counted
in Core
7.0 4.0 $40,000 $9,000
BIS 6.5 2.0 8.7
9.0 +
SPED
counted
in Core
5.8 2.0 $32,500 $7,000
CIS 9.0 2.0 8.0
7.0 +
SPED
counted
in Core
5.3 3.0 $30,000 $5,500
DIS 3.8 2.0 6.0
4.0 +
SPED
counted
in Core
4.0 1.0 $22,500 $4,800
EIS 3.1 1.0 4.7
3.0 +
SPED
counted
in Core
3.1 2.0 $17,500 $4,200

126
The number of support staff, librarians, and secretaries varied greatly among
the five study schools (see Table 4.19). Four of the study schools had less support
staff than the Evidence-Based Model recommends. One school, BIS, had
significantly more support staff than the model recommends including nearly double
the allocation for counselors. All of the schools had less librarians and media
specialists than the model recommends. Interestingly, all of the schools had more
secretaries and clerks than the model recommends, and this could be attributed to the
high number of attendance clerks at each of the study schools.

Table 4.19. Support Staff, Librarians, and Secretaries – EBM v. Actual

Pupil Support Staff FTEs
Librarians & Media
Specialists FTEs
Secretaries & Clerks
FTEs
School Enrollment EBM Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
AIS 1600
6.4 Counselors1
4.1 Support Staff
4.0
Counselors
4.0 Support
Staff
3.5
1.0
Librarian,
1.5 Media
7.0 9.0
BIS 1300
3.0 Counselors
2.8 Support Staff
5.2
Counselors
7.8 Support
Staff
2.9
1.0
Librarian,
0.5 Media
5.8 7.0
CIS 1200
4.8 Counselors
9.0 Support Staff
3.0
Counselors
2.5 Support
Staff
4.1
1.0
Librarian,
1 Media
5.3 7.0
DIS 900
4.8 Counselors
6.48 Support
Staff
1.0
Counselors
1.1 Support
Staff
2.0
0.5
Librarian,
0.5 Media
4.0 6.0
EIS 700
3.0 Counselors
2.5 Support Staff
1.0
Counselors
1.0 Support
Staff
2.3
0.5
Librarian
3.1 5.0

127
The number of work days and substitute allocations were fairly consistent at
the five study schools (see Table 4.20). Two schools had 185 day teacher contracts
and three of the schools had 184 days. The number of teacher work days at all of the
study schools was less than the 200 days recommended by the Evidence-Based
Model. All five of the schools provided 10 days for substitutes for illness or personal
necessity, but one school, AIS, provided an additional four days for professional
development.
Possibly the greatest variation in resource allocation among the five study
schools was in the area of professional development. All of the schools provided two
district-wide staff development days that took place over the summer. As mentioned,
at AIS an additional four days of substitute coverage for staff development were
provided to all of the teachers. AIS also had the largest staff development budget of
over $120,000. The school with the second largest professional development budget
was DIS with a budget of over $75,000. All of the schools had staff development
budgets that were significantly less than what the Evidence-Based Model
recommends and none of the schools provided ten days of intensive summer training
as recommended by the model.
Comparing the professional development budgets with the API growth rates
of the study schools indicates some significant findings. One of the significant
findings of this study is that the largest school, AIS, with the largest Hispanic, EL,
and SED subgroups in this study also had the greatest rate of growth in API scores
for the overall student populations and the SED subgroups (see Tables 4.5 and 4.9).

128
AIS also had the second highest rate of growth in API scores for the Hispanic
subgroups (see Table 4.6). The school with the second largest budget for
professional development, DIS, had the greatest rate of growth in API scores for the
Hispanic and EL subgroups.

Table 4.20. Substitutes and Professional Development – EBM v. Actual

Number of Teacher Work
Days
Substitutes Professional Development
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual School
EBM
Suggests
Actual School
AIS
200,
including 10
days for
intensive
training
184,
including 10
days for
Illness and
Personal
Necessity
10 days per
Teacher
10 for Illness
and Personal
Necessity, 4
for PD
10 days PD,
$160,000
for PD
6 days PD +
15 hours
Collaboration
Time,
$121,000 for
PD
BIS
200,
including 10
days for
intensive
training
184,
including 10
days for
Illness and
Personal
Necessity
10 days per
Teacher
10 for Illness
and Personal
Necessity
10 days PD,
$130,000
for PD
2 days PD +
15 hours
Collaboration
Time,
$11,400 for
PD
CIS
200,
including 10
days for
intensive
training
184,
including 10
days for
Illness and
Personal
Necessity
10 days per
Teacher
10 for Illness
and Personal
Necessity
10 days PD,
$120,000
for PD
2 days PD +
20.5 hours
Collaboration
Time,
$22,200 for
PD
DIS
200,
including 10
days for
intensive
training
185,
including 10
days for
Illness and
Personal
Necessity
10 days per
Teacher
10 for Illness
and Personal
Necessity
10 days PD,
$181,500
2 days PD +
1 day
Preparation,
20 hours
Collaboration
Time,
$75,200 for
PD
EIS
200,
including 10
days for
intensive
training
185,
including 10
days for
Illness and
Personal
Necessity
10 days per
Teacher
10 for Illness
and Personal
Necessity
10 days PD,
$70,000 for
PD
2 days PD +
1 day
Preparation,
20 hours
Collaboration
Time,
$49,800 for
PD

129
The number of administrators at the study schools was fairly consistent. All
of the study schools had one principal as recommended by the Evidence-Based
Model, and all had fewer Assistant Principals than the model recommends (see Table
4.21). Only one school had Instructional Coaches, but the allocation was
significantly less than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends.
While the performance data in terms of rate of growth in API scores did not
substantiate the use of the Instructional Coaches at EIS, there are three key issues
that may impact this correlation. First, the Instructional Coaches have only been in
place for one year. Second, the allocation is far less than what is recommended by
the Evidence-Based Model. Finally, the model used at EIS involves in-house
Instructional Coaches that are also teachers. The in-house Instructional Coaches are
released for two days per month to support other teachers. Two days per month is far
less than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends, and when in-house
Instructional Coaches are released from their classrooms their students are taught by
substitutes that are not always highly qualified.

130
Table 4.21. Administration and Instructional Coaches – EBM v. Actual

Principal Assistant Principal
Instructional Coach
FTEs
School Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
AIS 1600 1.0 1.0 3.5 3.0 8.0 0
BIS 1300 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.5 0
CIS 1200 1.0 1.0 2.7 2.0 6.0 0
DIS 900 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.5 0
EIS 700 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 3.5 0.8

Summary
The five middle schools in this study are vastly different than the prototypical
middle school recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. All of the schools are
much larger than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends and all have larger
classes and fewer core academic teachers. All five of the schools have more
specialists, or non-core, teachers than what the model recommends. Only three of the
schools have extended day programs, but those programs have fewer teachers than
the Evidence-Based Model recommends. All of the schools have summer school
programs, but those programs have more students and fewer teachers than the
Evidence-Based Model recommends. None of the schools have fully-credentialed
tutors, and only one has Instructional Coaches, although at far less the allocation than
the Evidence-Based Model Recommends. Additionally, the schools have fewer
support providers, fewer professional development days, less time for collaboration,
and substantially less funding than the Evidence-Based Model recommends.

131
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a brief overview of the study followed by a summary
of the findings, implications for practice and policy, and recommendations for
additional research. This study addressed the following research questions:
• What are the Current Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies at
the School Level?
• How are Resources used to Implement the School’s Instructional
Improvement Plan?
• How did the use of Resources Change in Response to the Recent Budget
Reductions?
• How are the Actual Resource use Patterns at the School Sites Aligned
with or Different from the Resource use Strategies used in the Evidence-
Based Model?
Overview of the Study
This study used a purposeful sample of five middle schools with similar
characteristics and demographics. All five of the study schools have significant
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups that represent more than 50% of the student
population. All five of the study schools met their Academic Performance Index
(API) growth targets and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements for the
2008-09 school year for their Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups.

132
The purpose of this study was to examine the allocation of resources at the
school level to improve learning for struggling readers in an effort to provide insight
into adequate resource allocation strategies for significant and often under-
represented subgroups. Schools in California that have high numbers of Hispanic,
EL, and SED students often struggle to meet their API growth targets and AYP
requirements. Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups typically have a proportionally high
number of struggling readers. The research questions were used to guide this study in
an attempt to determine how middle schools can adequately allocate resources to
improve student learning. In order to provide a conceptual framework, Odden’s
(2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance were used to compare how
the study schools developed and implemented their improvement plans. Finally, the
actual resource allocation strategies at the schools were compared to those of the
Evidence-Based Model.
Chapter one of this study provided an introduction of the main issues in
determining school-level resource allocation strategies to improve student learning.
This included an overview of the changing student demographics in California and
the increasing needs of the student population such as high poverty and limited
English language proficiency. Then the background of the problem was explained
including how the focus of school funding has evolved from providing students
access to education to the adequacy of education. The next section discussed the shift
from access to outcomes in education including the No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
requirement for all students to reach proficiency including those categorized into

133
subgroups by 2014. The importance of understanding how to adequately allocate
resources to improve learning for struggling readers was also discussed. Finally, the
strategies used to provide interventions to address the needs of struggling readers
were presented.
Chapter two of this study reviewed the current literature as it relates to the
allocation of resources at the school level to improve student learning. An overview
of the legal decisions related to adequacy was provided including the development
and implementation of policies to equalize school funding such as the Serrano
decision, Proposition 13, and Proposition 98. An in-depth analysis of struggling
readers was presented including research that shows how the needs of this population
can be addressed effectively by providing research-based interventions (EdSource,
2007b; Fielding et al., 2007; Lovett et al., 2008; Odden & Picus, 2008; Reeves, 1998,
2000, 2002, 2004; Torgesen, 1998, 2004). Several resource allocation strategies were
reviewed including an examination of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) and how
this model can help schools determine an efficient and adequate amount of resources
to improve learning for struggling students.
Chapter three described the methodology used for this study including how
the sample was selected and how the data were collected and analyzed. This was
followed by the actual process of identifying the schools used in this study and how
the principals at those schools were contacted. Then the protocol used to interview
the principals and the methods used to collect the data were explained. Chapter three

134
concluded with a description of the structure and format used to complete the
individual case studies.
Chapter four presented the findings of this study. First, a comparison of the
characteristics and demographics of the study schools was presented. Second, a
comparison of the performance data was provided that included the Academic
Performance Index (API) scores of the overall student populations and the significant
subgroups at each of the schools. The percentages of students that scored proficient
and advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) was also reviewed, and the
achievement gaps in API scores between Hispanic and white students, and Hispanic
and Asian students were discussed. Third, the research questions were addressed and
several common themes or key elements in the improvement strategies among the
study schools were identified. This included an examination of how resources were
allocated as part of each school’s improvement plan in comparison to Odden’s
(2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, and the impact the current
budget crisis has had on each of the schools. Finally, the actual resource allocation
strategies used at each of the study schools was compared to the Evidence-Based
Model. A summary of the key findings from chapter four is presented in the next
section of this chapter.
Summary of Findings
The findings of this study indicate that none of the five study schools had the
level of resources recommended by the Evidence-Based Model, and none of the
schools fully implemented all of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student

135
Performance (Odden, 2009). However, the findings of this study also indicate that
the study schools that were closer to the resource allocation strategies recommended
by the Evidence-Based Model had higher levels of student achievement. Similarly,
the findings also indicate that those schools that developed and implemented
improvement plans with higher implementation levels of the Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) also had greater increases in student
progress.
The results of this study correlate with the common themes found in the
strategies research has shown to be effective in improving student learning for
struggling students. As discussed in the review of literature in this study, Kennewick,
Washington is one example of a school district that developed and implemented a
systemic and comprehensive intervention program that greatly improved student
learning. An interesting aspect of the success in Kennewick is that it started in 1995,
years before the 2001 enactment of NCLB. With a population of 15,000 students of
which 25 percent were ethnic minorities and 48 percent were eligible for free and
reduced price lunch, the Kennewick School District implemented an improvement
plan that had many of the elements discussed in this study including those found in
the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) and the
Evidence-Based Model. The improvement process in Kennewick involved the
following four key elements: comprehensive use of both formative and summative
assessments, targeted interventions, frequent progress monitoring, and additional
layers of resources including additional specialists and additional time for

136
instruction. The four key elements that were used in the improvement process in the
Kennewick School District are used to summarize the findings of this study and
serve as headings for the following subsections.
Comprehensive use of assessments.
As mentioned in the individual case studies (see Appendices E-I) all of the
principals of the study schools emphasized the importance of using both formative
and summative assessments to identify student needs and to evaluate student
progress. All of the schools had varying levels of assessment systems in place that
included pacing calendars, quarterly benchmark testing, curriculum-based measures,
and software to organize the data. The findings indicate that those schools that
provided training on formative assessment to inform instruction and data to drive
instruction had higher levels of student achievement.
The two schools, AIS and DIS, in this study that had the highest rate of
growth in API scores provided comprehensive staff training on how to conduct and
use formative and summative assessments and how to use the resulting data to
improve instruction and student learning. Both schools used outside specialists for
the trainings and both schools provided regularly-scheduled collaboration time for
staff members to discuss the data and make decisions about student interventions and
placement. The staff trainings at both schools included an initial day of training over
the summer and then several on-going trainings that were held throughout the school
year.

137
A review of the progress made by the Hispanic subgroups at both AIS and
DIS provides insight into the effectiveness of using a comprehensive assessment
system and the resulting data to improve student learning. In 2009 at AIS
approximately 93% of the students were Hispanic, the highest percentage of all of
the study schools. From 2000 to 2009 the overall API scores at AIS increased by 190
points, the greatest increase in this study. During the same period of time the API
scores for the Hispanic subgroup at AIS increased by 200 points, which was the
second highest increase in this study. When reviewing the school-wide student
progress at DIS an argument can be made that the school’s Hispanic subgroup, as a
percentage of the school’s total student population, was the smallest among the study
schools at approximately 59% and the Asian subgroup was the largest at
approximately 27% of the total student population. However, the Hispanic subgroup
at DIS had the highest increase in API scores in this study with an increase of 220
points from 2000 to 2009. DIS also made the most progress towards closing the
Hispanic-white achievement gap with a 59 point reduction in the difference in API
scores from 2005 to 2009.
Targeted interventions.
All of the schools in this study had intervention programs in place for both
reading and English Language Development (ELD). The reading intervention
programs at all of the study schools included double blocks of ELA and reading that
involved struggling students taking an additional reading class in place of an
elective. All of the study schools had summer school programs for struggling

138
students and three of the study schools had extended learning opportunities during
the school year. The focus of the intervention programs at the study schools ranged
from broad to specific.
The school that showed the greatest growth in API scores for the EL
subgroups in this study was DIS. As mentioned, DIS also showed the greatest growth
in API scores for the Hispanic subgroups. From 2005 to 2009 the API scores for the
EL subgroup at DIS increased by 117 points, which was a much greater increase than
any of the other schools—more than double the increase of three of the schools. The
intervention program at DIS was vastly different than any of the other study schools.
The intervention program at DIS included a targeted population, comprehensive staff
training, on-going use of formative and summative assessments, and regularly-
scheduled staff meetings to review student progress.
The two key elements that set the intervention program at DIS apart from the
other schools were the targeted population and the comprehensive staff training. As
part of the improvement process at DIS the principal made the decision to focus on
the EL subgroup. The entire staff was trained on Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies so that EL teaching strategies would be
used by all teachers in all subjects. During the regular school day there were no
separate English Language Development (ELD) classes. All EL students were in
core academic classes and struggling students were placed in reading intervention
classes that took the place of electives and had three levels of intensity ranging from
intensive to strategic to emerging. Additional instructional time for struggling

139
students was also provided after school with the same levels of reading intervention
classes as those provided during the school day.
Frequent progress monitoring.
Four of the study schools had regularly-scheduled staff meetings that ranged
from weekly to bi-weekly. Three of schools used the PLC process to conduct the
meetings. The study schools that showed the greatest gains in student achievement
were those schools that used the regularly-scheduled staff meetings to review student
data, monitor student progress, and make collaborative decisions on student
interventions.
One anomaly found in this study was that the school that placed the highest
emphasis on reading interventions actually showed the least amount of growth in
API scores. With the second highest Hispanic student population in this study the
API scores for the Hispanic subgroup at CIS did increase by 166 points from 2000 to
2009, but from 2005 to 2009 the API scores for the EL subgroup only increased by
13 points. Even though the increase in API scores at CIS for the Hispanic subgroup
was the lowest in this study, it is still impressive growth; however, the rate of growth
in API scores for the EL subgroup at the four other study schools was at least three
times greater than CIS. In addition, and unlike any of the other schools in this study,
the Hispanic-white achievement gap at CIS as measured by API scores actually
increased by 29 points from 2005 to 2009.
The lack of progress at CIS is a significant finding in this study. Several key
elements were in place at CIS including staff training on the use of the PLC process

140
and the use of reading intervention programs. A review of what was not in place at
CIS may provide insight into the lack of progress for the EL subgroup. While staff
members met regularly to review student progress they were not provided with
specific training on how to use formative assessments to inform instruction or
strategies to address the unique needs of EL students, and there were no before or
after school intervention classes.
Additional layers of resources.
Several findings in this study indicate the effectiveness of providing
additional resources to improve student learning. When comparing the resource
allocation strategies at the study schools to those recommended in the Evidence-
Based Model the schools that were closer to the Evidence-Based Model showed the
greatest amount of student progress. Additionally, those schools that showed greater
use of Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance as part of
their resource use strategies also showed greater student progress.
One of the significant findings of this study supports the literature on the
importance and effectiveness of professional development. The two schools in this
study that allocated the most resources to professional development had the most
significant gains in API scores and made the most progress in closing the Hispanic-
white achievement gap. The school that was closest to the Evidence-Based Model in
funding for professional development showed the greatest increase in overall API
scores, and the school that was the second closest had the second highest increase in
overall API scores. Both of these schools were more reliant on the use of outside

141
experts to provide staff training than the other schools; furthermore, AIS, provided
an additional four days of professional development days per year.
The findings of this study indicate that none of the study schools had
extended learning opportunities or additional support for struggling students at the
levels recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. However, all of the study
schools did have some form of additional support for struggling students. As
previously mentioned, three of the study schools had afterschool intervention classes
and one of those schools, AIS, also had a before-school program.
Another significant finding of this study was the correlation of the intensity
of extended learning opportunities with student achievement. The study schools that
hired additional reading intervention teachers and provided the greatest number of
before and afterschool reading intervention classes showed the greatest increases in
API scores and the most progress in closing the Hispanic-white achievement gap.
AIS had more before and afterschool intervention classes than any of the other
schools and also had the greatest growth in overall API scores. All of the schools had
summer school programs for struggling students. All of the schools also had tutors
that worked with struggling students, but none of the schools had certificated tutors
as recommended by the Evidence-Based Model.
An important layer of resources that is recommended by the Evidence-Based
Model, but was missing at all but one of the study schools is instructional coaches.
The two schools that had the greatest academic growth in this study did not have
instructional coaches. The one school in this study that had instructional coaches,

142
AIS, had a much lower ratio than what the Evidence-Based Model recommends and
the type of coaches was not the same. The six coaches at EIS were teachers that were
trained to be instructional coaches and were provided with two release days per
month to train and support other teachers in collaboration with a Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA) from the district office who was assigned to EIS for one day per
week. The coaches at EIS had only been in place for one year, the 2008-09 school
year, so it is difficult to determine their effectiveness in improving student learning,
although the overall API scores from 2008 to 2009 showed the third highest gains in
this study with an increase of 13 points. The principal reported that there were
multiple benefits to having instructional coaches including on-going staff training
and support and an increase in the quality and consistency of instructional
methodologies.
While all of the schools in this study made significant growth as measured by
API scores, the two schools that made the most growth had higher implementation
levels of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) and
utilized resource allocation strategies that were more closely aligned to the Evidence-
Based Model than the other three schools. The results of this study correlate with the
current research regarding the importance of the effective use of resources to
improve student learning (EdSource, 2007b; Kelly et al., 2005; Miles & Darling-
Hammond, 1997). The improvement in student outcomes in the Kennewick School
District dramatically improved student outcomes by focusing on comprehensive
assessments, targeted interventions, frequent progress monitoring, and additional

143
layers of resources. With varying degrees the four key elements in the improvement
process at Kennewick were evident in the five schools used in this study; however, at
DIS, which had the greatest growth in API scores for the Hispanic and EL subgroups
in this study, all of the Kennewick elements were in place.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The results of this study have implications for policy and practice. First, the
changing student demographics in California require progressive teaching strategies
that effectively address the needs of the dynamic student population. Second, the
interventions used to address the needs of the dynamic student population must be
research-based, data-driven, and monitored frequently. Finally, with no end in sight
to the fiscal crisis that is currently impacting all aspects of public education, and as
more and more schools and school districts continue to fall into Program
Improvement, school-site administrators must understand how to efficiently and
adequately allocate resources to improve learning for struggling readers.
As discussed throughout this study the student demographics in California
have changed dramatically over the past two decades. Many of the challenges for
today’s school leaders involve issues related to the values and beliefs of the staff. All
five of the principals interviewed for this study discussed the difficulties they faced
in trying to change the service-delivery model at their schools. In order to effectively
meet the needs of the dynamic student population in California school leaders and
policy makers must understand the importance of changing instructional
methodologies, curricula, and intervention systems to improve student learning.

144
School leaders and policy makers must help today’s teachers understand that is not
just possible for all students to achieve at high levels, it is mandatory. The results of
this study add to the current research on schools that are high poverty, high minority,
and high achieving (Fielding et al., 2007; Odden & Picus, 2008; Reeves, 1998, 2000,
2002, 2004; Torgesen, 1998, 2004).
The results of this study support the current research on the effectiveness of
comprehensive interventions that include the placement of struggling students in
core academic classes with extended learning opportunities and additional support
from specialists. In order to improve student learning and close the achievement gap
school leaders and policy makers must ensure that public schools have the resources
needed to meet the needs of struggling students. School leaders and policy makers
should consider the ineffectiveness of segregating students based on ability levels
and encourage practices that include the reallocation of resources at the school-site
level. This will enable schools-site administrators to develop and implement
intervention strategies that support the core curriculum and prevent the over-
identification of students for special education services and placement.
The results of this study indicated varying degrees of intervention programs
at different schools within the same school districts. Due to the inconsistencies in the
use of interventions for struggling students, school leaders and policy makers should
consider the creation of district-wide intervention programs that are implemented at
the school site. For example, the Kennewick School District developed a student
intervention system that was eventually implemented at all 20 schools in the district.

145
As part of a comprehensive intervention program extended learning opportunities in
the form of before and afterschool programs, intensive summer school programs, and
parent training should be considered in order to adequately address the increasing
number of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch and the high number of
students that are English Learners in California.
Perhaps the most important issue that school leaders and policy makers
should consider is the importance of ensuring that school-site administrators
understand how to adequately allocate resources to improve student learning. With
the budget deficit growing exponentially in California it is urgent that school-site
administrators understand all aspects of their school budgets. Most school-site
administrators do not understand the fiscal side of education, which is why intensive
training is needed in this area. While site-based management rarely includes site-
based control over large expenditures such as staffing, the research supports the
effectiveness of school-site administrators having more control over their budgets in
order to improve the efficiency and adequacy of the allocation and re-allocation of
resources at the school-site level to improve student learning (Busch, & Odden,
1997; Goertz, & Duffy, 1999; Miller et al., 2004; Odden, & Archibald, 2006).
Recommendations for Additional Research
In order to assist schools successfully and adequately allocate resources to
improve student learning additional research is needed in this area. While there is a
tremendous amount of research on strategies to address the needs of struggling
readers, there is a shortage in the literature on how successful schools actually

146
allocate resources to improve student learning. The results from this study found
wide variations in the resource allocation strategies used at the five study schools. A
narrower focus on this topic is needed. For example, additional studies on the
resource allocation strategies used for extended learning opportunities would be
beneficial, or an examination of the actual costs associated with implementing a
specific curriculum would also be beneficial. Additional research is also needed in
the areas of math proficiency, math intervention programs, and successful resource
allocation strategies used to address the needs of struggling students in the area of
math.
Conclusion
One of the many great features of the United States of America is the public
school system. The public school system serves the greater good of society and
provides an opportunity for all children to become successful productive citizens.
The diversity and dynamic needs of the student population in California require
educational leaders that are both progressive and efficient. Progressive educational
leaders are needed in order to assist in a much-needed improvement process of the
public education system. Efficient educational leaders are needed in order to
accomplish more work than ever before with less funds than in years past. In order to
adequately meet the needs of the changing student population in California, public
education needs to change. What is needed to expedite the change process is an
overall paradigm shift in public education. The need for this paradigm shift is best
explained by visualizing a classroom and an operating room one-hundred years ago,

147
and then visualizing those same two rooms today. One of those rooms has certainly
changed more than the other. Understanding the importance of the adequate
allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers
will enable today’s educational leaders to lead in the systems-change process and
close the achievement gap.

148
REFERENCES
Barro, S. M. (1992). Cost of education differentials across the states. Draft report to
the National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: SMB
Economic Research, Inc.

Becker, G. (1971). Economic theory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

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

Brinson, V. R., & Mellor, L. (2005, March). How are high-performing schools
spending their money? A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY. Retrieved
February 1, 2009, from
http://www.nc4ea.org/files/Atlantic.pdf#search=%22How%20are%20high-
performing%20schools%20spending%20their%20money%3F%22.

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

Brownell, M. T. (2000). An Interview With Dr. Michael Pressley. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 36(2), 105-108.

Burruss v. Wilkerson, 301 U.S. 1,237 (1969).

Busch, C. & Odden, A. (1997). Special issue: Collection of school-level finance
data. Journal of Education Finance, 22(3).

California Department of Education (2008a). Report on the Budget Act (2004-2008).
Retrieved on May 17, 2009, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/documents/budgetreport08.pdf

California Department of Education (2009a). Schoolwide programs: Title I vision
for school reform in California. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/rt/.

California Department of Education (2008b). Special Education Division. Retrieved
on May 17, 2009, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level=District&subject=SpecEd&su
bmit1=Submit

149
California Department of Education (2009a). 2007-08 Accountability progress
reporting system: 2008 growth Academic Performance Index report.
Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2008

Cambell County School District v. Wyoming, 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995).

Carey, K. (2002). Education funding and low-income children: A review of current
research. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others
don’t. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Crane, E. W., Huang, C. -W., Derby, K., Makkonen, R., & Goel, A. M. (2008).
Characteristics of California school districts in program improvement
(Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008-No. 055). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory West. Retrieved on April 15, 2009, from
http://ies.ed.gov./ncee/edlabs

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Indianapolis,
IN: Jossey-Bass.

Debray-Pelot, E. (2009). The new politics of education. Educational Policy, 23(1),
15-42.

DeRolph V. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997)

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

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

Dutro, S. & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An
architectural approach. In G.G. Garcia (Ed.), English Learners (pp. 227-258).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Ed-Data (2008). Glossary of terms. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from, http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/glossary.asp.

150
EdSource Report. (2008a). How California Compares: Demographics, Resources,
and Student Achievement. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource Report. (2003). Serrano 1983. Menlo Park, CA: California Coalition for
Fair School Finance.

EdSource Report. (2006). Proposition 98 Guarantees a Minimum Level of Funding
for Public Schools. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource Report. (2007a). Trends and Comparisons in California School Finance.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource Report. (2007b). Similar English Learners, Different Results: Why Do
Some Schools Do Better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource

EdSource Report. (2008). California school finance: California’s school finance
system: California school finance history. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from
http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/FinanceSystem/History/tabid/68/Def
ault.aspx.

EdSource. (2009a). Program Improvement. Resource Cards on California Schools,
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource Report. (2009b). Academic Performance Index. Resource Cards on
California Schools, Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource Report. (2009c). Student Demographics. Resource Cards on California
Schools, Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource Report. (2009d). No Child Left Behind. Resource Cards on California
Schools, Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Eliezer Williams et al., v. State of California (2000)

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R.F. (2003). The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability
systems. In S. Fuhrman and R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Reading accountability
systems (pp. 274-297). New York: Teachers College Press.

151
Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rossier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up
growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New Foundation
Press, Inc.

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rossier, P. (1998). The 90% reading goal. Kennewick,
WA: The New Foundation Press, Inc.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A
framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Glenn, W. J., and Picus, L. O. (2007). The “Williams” settlement and the prospects
for future school finance adequacy litigation in California. Journal of
Education Finance, 32(3), 382-394.

Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. (1999). Resource allocation in reforming schools. In M.
E. Goertz & A. Odden (Eds.), School-based financing (pp. 215-244).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Governor’s Adequacy Study for Special Education (2008). Governor’s Committee
on Education Excellence (Reports, 2005-2007). Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research.

Griffith, S. S., McFadden, B., & Mack, A., (2009). Policy Advisory Part Two
ARRA/IDEA and Title I Guidance (May 14, 2009). Governmental Relations
Advisory, Association of California School Administrators. Retrieved on
May 28, 2009, from
http://www.acsa.org/MainMenuCategories/Advocacy/State-Fiscal-
Stabilization-Funds-.aspx

Griffiths, A. J., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Parson, L. B., Burns, M. K. (2006). Practical
applications of response-to-intervention research. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 32(1), 50-57.

Handler, B. R. (2006). Two acts, one goal: Meeting the shared vision of No Child
Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004. A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(1), 5-8.

Hanushek, E. A. (1981). Throwing money at schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 1, 19-41.

Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school
performance. Educational Researcher, 18, 45-65.

152
Hanushek, E. A., and Rivkin, S.G. (1997). Understanding the Twentieth-Century
growth in U.S. school spending. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(1),
35-68. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/146240.

Hanushek, E. A. (2006). The confidence men: Selling adequacy, making millions.
Education Next, Summer, 73-78.

Hanushek, E. A., and Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harr, J. J., Parrish, T., Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Segarra, M. (2006). Considering
Special Education Adequacy in California (Report). Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research. Retrieved on April 1, 2009, from
http://www.air.org/publications/documents/SE%20Adequacy.pdf

Hasbrouck, J. & Denton, C. (2005). The reading coach: A how-to manual for
success. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Huntoon, M., & Kubinec, J. (2008). Special education--both sides of the equation.
Presentation by School Services of California. Garden Grove, CA.

Jackson, B.L. (2008). Race, education, and the politics of fear. Educational Policy,
22(1), 130-154.

Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Kelly, P. R., Budicin-Senters, A., King, L. M. (2005). The little district that could:
Literacy reform leads to higher achievement in California district. ERS
Spectrum, 23(3), 15-25.

Kise, J. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knight J. (2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership. Journal
of Staff Development, 25(2), 32-37.

Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching: Eight factors for realizing better classroom
teaching through support, feedback and intensive, individual professional
learning. The School Administrator, 63(4), 36-40.

LaMorte, M.W. (1996). School law. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

153
Landry, S. H. (1999). "Issues in Developing Effective Interventions for Children
With Developmental Disorders. In S. Broman & M. Fletcher, (Eds.), The
Changing Nervous System: Neurobehavioral Consequences of Early Brain
Disorders (pp. 341-364). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Legislative Analyst’s Office. Analysis of the Budget, 2005-06. Sacramento, CA:
Legislative Analyst’s Office. http://www.lao.ca.gov/

Lindseth, Alfred A. (2006). The legal backdrop to adequacy. In Hanushek, E.
(2006). Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’ good
intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J, Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, et al.
(2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to
intervention to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333-353.

Manna, P. (2008). Federal aid to elementary and secondary education: Premises,
effects, and major lessons learned. Washington, DC: Center on Education
Policy.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Massey, D. D. (2003). A comprehension checklist: What if it doesn’t make sense?
The Reading Teacher, September 2003, 81-85. (get volume #)

McDonald, J., Kaplow, R., Chapman, P. (2006). School finance reform: The role of
the U.S. courts from 1968 – 1998. National Forum of Educational
Administration and Supervision Journal [Electronic Version], 23(4), 1-13.

McInnis v. Shapiro, 394 U.S. 322 (1969).

Miller, L., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost allocation model for shared district
resources: A means for comparing spending across schools. (CRPE Working
Paper 2004-4). Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education,
University of Washington.

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

154
Miles, K. H., Odden, A. R., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S. (2004). Inside the black
box of school district spending on professional development: Lessons
learned from five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.

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

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

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. (2000a). Investing in learning: How schools can
reallocate resources to support student achievement. School Spending: The
Business of Education.

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. (2000b). The dynamics of school resource
reallocation. In (author, year) A better return on investment: Reallocating
resources to improve student achievement. Oak Brook, IL: North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory.

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. (2001a). Committing to Class-Size Reduction and
Finding the Resources to Implement It: A Case Study of Resource
Reallocation in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
9(30). Online journal: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n30.html.

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. (2001b). Reallocating resources: How to boost
student achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

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

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

Odden, A. R., Monk, D. Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). “The Story of the Education
Dollar: No Academy Awards and No Fiscal Smoking Guns.” Phi Delta
Kappan, 77(2), 161-168.

155
Odden, A. R. (2004). Summary and reflections on 14 years of CPRE school finance
redesign research. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.

Odden, A. R. (2009). Ten strategies for doubling student performance. (In Print).

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. (2009) Doubling student performance and finding the
resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. R., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy in Washington. North
Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Retrieved on August 2,
2009 from
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/EvidenceBasedReportFinal9-
11-06_000.pdf

Olson, L. (2005). Financial evolution. Ed Week, 24(17), 8-12.

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The
Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272-281.

Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Denton, C. (2002). How to tutor students with
reading comprehension problems. Preventing School Failure, 47(1), 37-41.

Parrish, T. B., Chambers, J. G., & Guarino, C.M. (1999). Funding special education:
Nineteenth annual yearbook of the American education finance association.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

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

Payne, R. K. (2006). A framework for understanding poverty (5
th
ed.). Highlands,
TX: aha! Process, Inc.

Picus, L. O. (1993a). The allocation and use of educational resources: School level
evidence from the Schools and Staffing Survey (Working Paper No. 37). Los
Angeles: USC Center for Research in Education Finance.

Picus, L. O. (1993b). The allocation and use of educational resources: District level
evidence from California. Los Angeles: The Finance Center of CPRE,
Working Paper.

156
Picus, L. O. (1997). Using school-level finance data: Endless opportunity or
bottomless pit? Journal of Education Finance. 22, 317–330. [check quotation
marks]

Picus, L. O., Tetreault, D. R. & Murphy, J. (1996). What money buys: Understanding the
allocation and use of educational resources in California. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium
for Policy Research in Education.

Picus, L. O., Marion, S., Calvo, N. and Glenn, W. (2005). Understanding the
relationship between student achievement and the quality of educational
facilities: Evidence from Wyoming. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3),
71-95.

Plessy v. Furgeson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher
College Record 109(6).

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

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

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

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

Scott, C. (2006). Wrestling the devil in the details: An early look at restructuring in
California. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971) and 557 P.2d 929 (1976).

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading.
Review of Research in Education, 23, 217-234.

157
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research
synthesis. Educational Leadership, March, 1989, 4-13. (get volume #).

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Tilly, W.D. (2006). Response to intervention: An overview: What is it? Why do it?
Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2), 1-10.

Timar, T. (2005). Exploring the limits of entitlement: Williams v. State of California.
Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 126-153.

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

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. American Educator, 22(2), 32-
39.

Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral. American
Educator, 28(3), 6-19, 45-47.

Triplett, C. F. (2007). The social construction of “struggle”: Influences of school literacy
contexts, curriculum, and relationships. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 95-
126.

Webster, D. (1981). Advantages and disadvantages of methods of assessing quality.
Change, 13(7), 22.

Zorfass, J., & Urbano, C. (2008). A description of foundation skills interventions for
struggling middle-grade readers in four urban Northeast and Islands Region
school districts (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008-No. 042). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

158
APPENDIX A
OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL - SCHOOL SITES
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on
this protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on
getting the key elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis
on the process aspect.

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.

A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)

2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)

3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching?

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

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

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

159
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?

2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?

3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day K-3 or reading only with 15)

4. Professional Development:
• When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, In-service Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)

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

6. Parent outreach or community involvement

7. Technology

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

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

160

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

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

161
APPENDIX B
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School Pseudonym

Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

162

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

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

163

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

164

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of ELL Students

Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch
(FRL)

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:

165

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular
Education) FTEs
Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:

166

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:

NOTES:

167

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:

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

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds

Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

NOTES:

168

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

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program

Teacher Contract Minutes per Week

Extended day Teachers

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

Minutes per Week of Summer School

Length of Session (# of Weeks)

School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

169

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

Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

NOTES:

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

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants

Administration

Travel

Materials, Equipment and Facilities

Tuition & Conference Fees

Other Professional Development

Other Professional Development Staff
Funded with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

170

Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:

NOTES:

171

Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special
Education

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8

172
APPENDIX C
DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
This Codebook identifies data collection items and their definitions. This document
is organized according to the corresponding Data Collection Protocol and the web
portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

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

A. School Name: Each researcher has developed his/her own criteria to
identify California schools to include in this study.
B. School State ID: This is the CDS identification number that the state has
assigned the school.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA”
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will
include the principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you
interview should also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about
this person (E.g. phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes
sections, as well as what the data source is.

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

173
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “CA”
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile
A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
B. District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has
assigned to the district within which the school resides.

IV. District Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should
also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as
what the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael
instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “CA”
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

174

V. School Resource Indicators
School resource indicators should be collected for the 2008-09 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school
on the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in
any pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit.
These students should not be included in the previous category, Current
Student Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary
schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in.
(E.g. K-5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the
number of students eligible for services as an English language learner
(ELL) as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Wy_ELD_ELA.pdf).
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the
site visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education
services. (This will most likely be a larger number than the number of
students who are in a self-contained special education classroom.) Does
not include gifted and talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of
students in the school with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
indicating their eligibility for special education services and who learn
primarily (at least 60% of the school day*) outside of a regular education
classroom.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (E.g. If the school
day begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the
school day is 405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the
school bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch,
and passing periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This
calculation is different from how the state measures the “instructional
day.” (E.g. If the length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the

175
students have 20 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the
length of the instructional day is 360 minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially
grouped for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per
day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading,
English, and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods
when students are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction.
(E.g. reading, writing, comprehension) Report an average per day
length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per
day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction.
Report an average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”

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

176

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

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

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

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

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

177

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

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of
2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of
2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title
I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language
(ESL) classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach
them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students
in the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program
for the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)

178
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra
help staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provide supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other”
extra help classified staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for
most or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified
version of a school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their
students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who
assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have
physical or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students
generally have “less severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in
self-contained special education classrooms and work with “severely”
disabled students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally
have “less severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education
aides who provide small groups of students in special education with
extra help in specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate
in the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per
week that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week
in the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.

179
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of
classified staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in
session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number
of students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer
school program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards
in the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

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

A. Consultants (other than pd contracted services): Dollar amount for all
other consultants other than professional development contracted
services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not
included in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction,
but were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes
who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace
teachers who are participating in professional development.)

180

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs
This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development
of a school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it.
Professional development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents
(FTEs), and cost figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which
may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to
the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff
member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract:
Number of days the teacher contract specifies for professional
development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional
development. For time outside the regular contract day when students are
not present before or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half
days or early release days, the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying
the teachers’ hourly salary times the number of student-free hours used
for professional development. For planning time within the regular
contract, the dollar amount is calculated as the cost of the portion of the
salary of the person used to cover the teachers’ class during planning time
used for professional development. For other time during the regular
school day, including release time provided by substitutes, cost is
calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school day,
including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on
the hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their
time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional
facilitators and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district
coaches (though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded).
Outside consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an
estimated FTE amount depending on how much time they spend at the
school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from
the district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the
specific school should be recorded).

181
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or
other costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is,
and indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff
This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as
well as school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics.
Student services staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs),
which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

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

182
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff
member does.

XIII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s
name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this
category sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries. (12 month employees)
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members. (10 month
employees)
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and
high schools.)
Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but
other times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many
students are in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a
(preferably electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data.
When entering the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every
class that is taught at the school. Click on the Class Size option from the
main menu and a new menu will be displayed on the left. This menu will
have options for grades Pre-8 plus Special Education. When you click on a
grade, the page with that grade's sections will be displayed where you can
enter the individual class sizes.

183
APPENDIX D
RESOURCE COMPARISON
Table D.1. Middle School and Evidence-Based Model for Adequate School
Resources

School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
Middle School –
Current Resource
Status
MS – EBM Comparison
& Resource EBM
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School configuration
School size
Class Size
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count

Number of ELL
Students

Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers
2. Specialist / Elective
Teachers

Total Teachers
3. Instructional Coaches
4. Tutors
5. Teachers for ELL
Students

6. Extended Day
7. Summer School
8. Alternative Schools
9a. Learning- and
mildly disabled students

9b. Severely disabled
students

10. Services for gifted
students

11. Career/ Technical
Education

12. Substitutes

184
Table D.1., Continued

13. Pupil Support Staff
14. Non-Instructional
Aides

15. Instructional Aides
16. Librarians / Media
Specialists

17. Principal
18. School Site
Secretary

19. Professional
Development

Dollar/Pupil Resources
20. Technology
21. Instructional
Materials
Formative Assessments
Library Materials

22. Student Activities

185
APPENDIX E
CASE STUDY ONE
AIS: Focus on All Students
School Background and Data
AIS is a middle school that serves students in grades 7-8 and is part of a large
high school district located in Orange County, California. The District consists of
eight middle schools, ten high schools, five continuation high schools, and one adult
education school. The district’s enrollment is 37,000 students, and AIS serves 1,600
of those students. School size across the district ranges from 1,100 to 4,000 students.
While the district covers both urban and suburban areas, AIS is located in an urban
area. Four of the schools in this study are located in this district. Over the past two
decades the district has experienced an increase in the number of Hispanic students
and a decrease in the number of white students.
As shown in Table E.1, from 1994 to 2009 the student demographics at AIS
have changed. There has been a continual increase in the number of Hispanic
students (see Figure E.1). The number of Asian students has remained relatively
constant with a slight decrease from 1994 to 2009. The number of white students has
shown a continual decrease from 1994 to 2009.

186
Table E.1. Change in Demographics at AIS from 1994 to 2009

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
Hispanic 78.5% 84.8% 90.4% 90.7% 91.6% 92.8%
Asian 3.1% 3.1% 2.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.6%
White 13.7% 8.5% 5.8% 5.2% 4.4% 2.1%
All Others 4.7% 3.6% 3.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.1%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure E.1. Student Demographics at AIS from 1994 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table E.2, the demographics of the district are 59.2%
Hispanic, 11.2% Asian, 15.4% white, 23.8% EL, and 52.3% SED. The demographics
of AIS are 92.8% Hispanic, 1.6% Asian, 2.1% white, 41.3% EL, and 87.1% SED.
The EL population listed in Table E.2 does not include those students that have been

187
reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). At AIS, 47.4% of the students are
RFEP, which brings the total EL population up to 88.7% of the school.

Table E.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups

AIS District California
Hispanic 92.8% 59.2% 49%
Asian 1.6% 11.2% 8.4%
White 2.1% 15.4% 27.9%
*EL 41.3% 23.8% 24.2%
SED 87.1% 52.3% 52.3%
Source: from www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
Note: *Does not include those EL students reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP).
At AIS, 47.4% of all students are RFEP. This brings the total EL population at AIS up to
88.7%.

As shown in Table E.3, the overwhelming majority of EL students at AIS
speak Spanish as their primary language. The number of EL students at AIS that
speak Spanish as their primary language has remained relatively constant over the
past five years. Less than 1.0% of EL students at AIS speak Vietnamese as their
primary language.

188
Table E.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at AIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Spanish 98.8% 98.6% 97.8% 98.5% 97.7%
Vietnamese 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4%
Filipino 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%
All Others 0.6% 0.2% 0.7% 0.7% 1.6%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

One of the key ingredients to the improvement process at AIS was a shift
from segregation to inclusion for struggling students including Hispanic, EL, and
SED students that are struggling readers. The purpose of this case study is to uncover
the resource allocation strategies that have led to increasing API scores for Hispanic,
EL, and SED subgroups. Once the successful strategies at AIS are identified they
will be compared to the resource allocation formula recommended by the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009).

Table E.4. AIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
from 2000
to 2009
All
Students
490 530 542 574 577 614 623 624 668 680 190
Hispanic 476 515 529 562 567 607 617 620 664 676 200
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 592 599 604 639 658 66
SED 476 514 529 566 565 606 614 613 656 674 198
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

189
Even though AIS is in its second year of Year 5 Program Improvement, the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups have made growth as measured by API (see Table
E.4). The API scores for the Hispanic subgroup have increased by 200 points over
the past ten years. The API scores for the EL subgroup have increased by 66 points
over the past five years, and the API scores for the SED subgroup have increased by
198 points over the past ten years. While this growth is not enough to reach the
statewide goal of 800, it is significant when the characteristics of the student
population including the high number of SED and EL students are taken into
consideration. As indicated in Figure E.2, the progress for the Hispanic, EL, and
SED subgroups at AIS has been steady, although somewhat slow.

Figure E.2. AIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

190
While API scores and slow and steady growth are one measure of academic
performance for significant subgroups, another measure is the achievement gap
between Hispanic and EL students and white and Asian students. Since the majority
of students at AIS are Hispanic, reviewing the achievement gap for both the Hispanic
and EL subgroups provides greater insight into the academic achievement of these
subgroups. The white and Asian populations at AIS are not large enough to be
categorized as significant subgroups. Table E.5 provides a comparison between the
Hispanic and EL subgroups at AIS and the white and Asian subgroups of the entire
district. Over the past five years the achievement gap between the Hispanic subgroup
at AIS and the white subgroup across the district has decreased by 27 points as
measured by API, and the gap between the EL subgroup at AIS and the white
subgroup across the district has decreased by 24 points. While the gap is closing, the
progress is slow; however, by looking at the progress made in terms of gains in API
scores the Hispanic and EL subgroups at AIS outperformed the white and Asian
subgroups across the district. As indicated in Table E.5 the Hispanic and EL
subgroups at AIS increased their API scores by 69 and 66 points over the past five
years, while the white and Asian district-wide subgroups only increased their API
scores by 42 and 48 points over the same period of time. With this perspective the
academic growth made by the Hispanic and EL subgroups at AIS was much greater
than the academic growth made by the white and Asian subgroups across the district.

191
Table E.5. Achievement Gap at AIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
AIS API Scores for Hispanic and EL Subgroups
Hispanic 607 617 620 664 676 69
EL 592 599 604 639 658 66
District API Scores for White and Asian Subgroups
White 742 752 771 786 784 42
Asian 847 865 872 886 895 48
Achievement Gap
Hisp/White
Gap
135 135 151 122 108 (-27)
EL/White
Gap
150 153 167 147 126 (-24)
Hisp/Asian Gap 240 248 252 222 219 (-21)
EL/Asian 255 266 268 247 237 (-18)
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
Note: School versus District comparison.

Another measure of the academic growth made at AIS can be seen by
comparing the percentage of students scoring proficient and advanced on the
California Standards Test (CST) with the district and the State. As indicated in Table
E.6 over the past five years the number of students scoring proficient and advanced
in English Language Arts (ELA) at AIS increased from 22% to 31% for a net gain of
9%. This increase was greater than the district-wide increase from 41% to 46% or
5%, and one percentage point greater than the statewide increase of 8%. When
reviewing the number of students scoring proficient and advanced on the math

192
section of the CST the students at AIS made very little growth even though they
outperformed the students in the district, but lagged behind the State in terms of
growth from 2005 to 2009 (see Table E.6).

Table E.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at AIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AIS 22 22 23 28 31 24 24 17 31 26
District 41 42 41 46 46 40 42 41 43 40
California 40 42 43 46 48 38 40 40 43 46
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Comparing the number of students scoring proficient and advanced on the
CST within AIS provides yet another perspective of student outcomes. As indicated
in Table E.7, in comparison to the overall student population and the Hispanic, EL,
and SED subgroups at AIS, over the past five years the SED subgroup moved fewer
students into the proficient and advanced categories of both the ELA and math
sections of the CST. While the overall growth in the number of students at AIS that
scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST was slow and steady,
the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section was
minimal with an increase of only 2% for the overall student population and the
Hispanic and EL subgroups, and only 1% for the SED subgroup. Table E.7 indicates

193
an interesting trend that occurred in 2007 when test scores on the math section of the
CST decreased by 7% from 2006. Due to the decrease in test scores in 2007, the
growth from 2007 to 2009 made by the Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups was much
greater than the growth from 2005 to 2009.

Table E.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CSTs
at AIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
All 22 22 23 28 31 24 24 17 31 26
Hisp. 21 21 22 27 30 23 23 16 30 25
EL 17 18 18 21 26 21 21 15 27 23
SED 21 20 21 25 29 23 23 16 29 24
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
When the current principal came to AIS six years ago, the school had fallen
into Program Improvement (P.I.). The principal identified several key elements that
would become part of the improvement process. One of the first areas the principal
focused on was a big picture, or systems, problem that included teachers and staff
working in isolation. Another area of focus was a practice of student remediation
instead of prevention, and the removal of a significant number of students from core
academic classes for remediation. A third area of focus was the absence of using

194
student data to drive instruction. After identifying these three areas the principal
developed an improvement plan in collaboration with the staff, parents, community
members, three large universities, the county office of education, and the district,
that led to a clear focus on student achievement for all students.
One of the first steps in the improvement process was also a requirement of
being in Program Improvement and involved outside assistance from Action
Learning. Consultants from this agency provided an outside perspective that helped
the staff understand that what they were doing was not working. Action Learning
recommended several steps in the school improvement process including
collaboration and data-driven instruction. The principal pulled together all staff and
with the help of the county office of education, district staff, and a local university,
an improvement plan was developed that included the identification of essential
standards, benchmark testing four times per year, grade level pacing guides, common
preparation periods, four additional staff development days per teacher per
department, and monthly parent meetings. With a multi-million dollar budget
including $1,089,936 from the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) and over
one million dollars in Title 1 funding, the staff were sent to a myriad of staff
development trainings that included strategies to correctly assess the needs of
students through the use of multiple measures such as benchmark testing, CST
scores, curriculum-based measures, and basic reading assessments. The district
purchased Data Director for all schools and it was used to track student progress.
Another problem identified by the principal was the use of curricula that was not

195
approved by the State for struggling students. The use of the core curriculum, Holt
for both ELA and math, was expanded and research-based supplemental programs
were used only to supplement not supplant the core curriculum.
A large portion of the QEIA funds was used to hire four additional teachers
to teach the Reading and ELA intervention classes. Additionally, QEIA funds were
used to purchase several supplemental programs including READ 180 and English
for Academic Purpose (EAP) and two half-days of training per teacher for each
program. The training for these programs was above and beyond the six school-wide
staff development days. Additional QEIA funds were used to purchase 120
computers and four Smart Boards for the four classrooms used to teach READ 180.
Several instructional strategies were implemented. Students were no longer
pulled out of core instruction for English Language Development (ELD) or remedial
support such as the Resource Specialist Program (RSP). AIS does not have any
students with moderate-to-severe disabilities. Those students attend a regional or
district-wide program located on a different campus. All students were “pushed in”
including all levels of EL students and students with mild-to-moderate disabilities for
all core subjects, and an intensive Reading Skills class using READ 180 or EAP was
developed that took the place of one elective class for struggling students. This class
complimented the core ELA class. Before and after school intervention classes were
added in ELA, reading, and math for all students scoring Basic, Below Basic, and
Far Below Basic on the CSTs. A Learning Skills class was developed for struggling
students that focused on improving organizational skills and study habits. A District

196
Academic Review Team (DART) visited the school on a monthly basis to assist the
staff in reviewing student progress and determining the level of intervention needed
for each student. Using the Professional Learning Community (PLC) process staff
met weekly by department to review student data, discuss intervention strategies for
struggling students, calibrate curriculum, and develop common assessments. The
Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) program was expanded and four
(0.5 FTE) AVID tutors were assigned to the school to assist students with core
academic subjects.
With a shift from staff isolation to collaboration, and from student
remediation and segregation to prevention and inclusion, and with the use of student
data to drive and monitor instruction and student learning, AIS was transformed into
a comprehensive school designed to address the needs of all students. The four
additional staff development days provided ongoing training in strategic areas and
the development of new classes for struggling students eliminated the need to pull
students out for remediation during core instruction. As mentioned, QEIA funds
were used to hire four additional teachers to teach the Reading Skills classes, and
Title 1 funds were used to pay teachers to teach the Study Skills classes and also to
pay teachers an additional hourly rate to teach the before and after school
intervention classes. Title 1 funds were also used to hire three highly qualified
substitute teachers as resident substitutes in order to improve consistency for teacher
absences, and four counselors to support struggling students. Parents were brought
into the improvement process through monthly meetings that averaged 300 parents.

197
Topics included everything from helping students get into college to identifying
signs of drug use.
The results of the improvement process were impressive with an increase
from 3% to 15% in the number of students taking Honors classes, a dramatic
reduction in suspensions and expulsions, and a significant increase in API scores
over the past six years (see Table E.4). According to the principal, one of the key
ingredients to the improvement process was aligning all of the resources into a
cohesive effort so that the process was not fragmented and disjointed. This involved
establishing common preparation periods for department and grade level meetings
and release time to collaborate with the district, county office of education,
university, and outside agency staff.

198
Corresponding Resource Use
Table E.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at AIS to Evidence-Based Model

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Middle School
Actual AIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and AIS or
EBM suggested
amount for AIS
School Characteristics
School Configuration 6-8 7-8 No sixth grade
School Size 450 1,600 3.5 times bigger
Core Class Size 25 33 8 more than EBM
Number of Teacher Work Days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
184 including 2
in-service days
18 less school days
and 8 less in-service
days
Number Disabled (w/IEPs) 124 (8%)
Number Poverty (free & reduced
lunch) Referred to as Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged
(SED)
1,414 (88%)
Number English Learners 1,255 (78%)
% Minority (non-white) 97%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 per 450 students 55 FTE (71% of FTEs)
EBM suggests 64 for
1,600 students
2. Specialist/Elective Teachers 8.0 (20% of FTEs) 23 FTE (29% of FTEs) EBM suggests 12.8
3. Instructional Coaches
2.25 (1 for every
200 students)
0 EBM suggests 8.0
4. Tutors for Struggling Students
One for every 100
poverty students
6.5 EBM suggests 14.1
5. Teachers for EL Students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every
100 EL students
3.0 FTE EBM suggests 12.5

199
Table E.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual AIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and AIS or
EBM suggested
amount for AIS
School
Characteristics

6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15 eligible
students (based 50% of Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students),
15 hours per week @ 25% of
salary
0.3 FTE (Existing staff
paid extra hourly rate up to
15 hours per week)
EBM suggests 11.8
FTE extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 per 15 Students (based on
50% of Free & Reduced Price
Lunch Students)
3.3 FTE for 925 Students
(Existing staff paid
summer school rate for 4.5
hours per day for 20 days)
EBM Suggests 11.8
FTE Summer School
Teachers
8. Learning & Mild
Disabled Students
3 Teachers per 450 Students
9.0 FTE for Learning
Handicapped and
Resource Room Teachers
EBM suggests 10.5
FTE for 1,600
students
9. Severely
Disabled Students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
0 FTE (Severely Disabled
Students
Attend a Regional
Program)
N/A
10. Resources for
Gifted Students
$25 per student Gate budget of $9,000
EBM suggests funds
of $40,000
11.
Career/Technical
Education
.3 per CTE Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes
$7,000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher for
illness and PN plus 4 days
for PD, 3 fully
credentialed resident
substitutes
4 more days than
EBM suggests
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance Counselor per 250
Students plus 1 Pupil Support
Staff per 100 poverty Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students
4.0 Counselors
1.0 Psych, 1.0 Speech, 1.0
Health Tech
EBM suggests 6.4
Guidance Counselors
and 14.1 Support
Staff
14. Non-
Instructional Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 4.0 AVID Program EBM Suggests 7.0

200
Table E.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual AIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and AIS or
EBM suggested
amount for AIS
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0
EBM would eliminate
these positions
16. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Librarian &
1.5 Media
EBM suggests 3.5
17. Administrators
1 Principal plus 1 Assistant
Principal
1.0 Principal,
3.0 Assistant Principals
EBM suggests 1.0
Principal and 3.5
Assistant Principals
18. School Site
Secretary
2.0 School Site Secretaries
6.0 Secretaries, 2.0 Clerks,
1.0 Attendance Clerk
EBM Suggests 7.0
Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive Teacher
Development in Summer
Included in Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep Time

$100 per Student to Fund
2 District-Wide PD Days
per Year plus 4 PD Days
per Department.

90 Minutes Per Month for
Collaboration = 2 days per
year, $115,800 spent for
conferences, $1,700 title
II, and $3,500 for
materials
EBM suggests 10
days PD in summer
and $160,000 for
other PD expenses
20. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 Technology/Media
Clerk, Resources Vary
EBM suggests
$400,000
21. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil Varies
EBM suggests
$280,000
22. Student
Activities
$250 per pupil
1.0 Community Liaison,
AVID Program, Monthly
Parent Meetings (90
minutes in evening)
EBM suggests
$400,000
Source: Odden and Picus, (2008).

Lessons Learned
In order to provide a conceptual framework a comprehensive strategy
developed by Allan Odden (2009) to double student performance will be used to

201
present the results of this case study. Based on information gathered from
educational leaders from across the nation, including “a group of leading educators
in Wyoming convened in late 2008 by Picus and Associates…” (p. 191), the
following ten sections are comprised of what Odden (2009) identified as “the ten
core elements of the improving school” (p. 191). Each of the following section
headings is one of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden,
2009).
Understanding the Performance Situation
The first strategy in Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance is Understanding the Performance Situation. This was a top priority for
the principal at AIS. The principal identified two overall performance situations that
included low student achievement and low teacher expectations. After identifying the
performance situation the principal developed comprehensive strategies to improve
student outcomes for all students. This was accomplished by pulling in key
stakeholders from each department at the school site, district office staff from the
District Academic Review Team (DART), staff from the county office of education,
staff from a large university, and several parents that were actively involved in the
school’s Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and the school site counsel. This group
met for one full day at an off-campus location and developed an Action Plan that was
later used as the basis for the School Improvement Plan. The next step involved
rolling this Action Plan out to staff at three all-staff meetings held after school that

202
resulted in some changes to the Action Plan including the addition of weekly staff
meetings.
The final version of the Action Plan included the use of multiple measures to
determine the academic support needed for each student. Struggling students, or
those students scoring Basic, Below Basic, and Far Below Basic on the CSTs, were
given additional reading and math assessments to determine their achievement levels
in those two areas. Students were then grouped according to their achievement levels
into reading intervention classes that took the place of one of their electives and
other students were placed into math intervention classes that either took the place of
one of their electives or were held before or after school. Students with low English
Language Proficiency levels, as indicated on the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT), were placed into intensive English Language
Development (ELD) classes that were held before and after school. Staff meetings
were held on a weekly basis to discuss student progress and every eight weeks a staff
meeting was held to review student data including CSTs, quarterly benchmarks, and
curriculum based measures. At the staff meetings decisions were made regarding the
ongoing level of interventions needed for each student. Some students were moved
into more intensive classes, others were moved into less intensive classes, and some
remained in their current classes.
Set High Goals
The second strategy identified by Odden (2009) involves setting High Goals.
The principal set high goals for both students and staff. A shift from remediation to

203
prevention was made by placing all students in core academic subjects with exposure
to a rigorous, grade-level curriculum with remedial classes taking the place of
electives and/or held before and after school. Students were no longer pulled out of
core academic classes for remediation, and staff members were held accountable for
teaching all students.
Adopt New Curriculum Materials and Create a Point of View about
Instruction
The third strategy identified by Odden (2009), Adopt New Curriculum
Materials and Create a Point of View about Instruction, was a key ingredient in the
improvement process at AIS. The change from pulling students out of core academic
classes to ensuring that all students received core academic instruction in grade level
classes required new supplemental materials and strategies and created a point of
view about instruction. All students received were placed grade level classes with
grade level standards. This was accomplished by hiring additional support from
tutors, counselors, and additional teachers.
Data-Based Decision Making
The fourth strategy, Data-Based Decision Making (Odden, 2009), involved
multiple steps and was another major change in practice at AIS. According to the
principal, before implementing Data-Based Decision Making instructional decisions
were made by a “feeling” about how students were doing and what they needed.
Changing from a subjective to an objective practice started with revamping the
student assessment and progress monitoring system. In a collaborative effort and

204
with the help of Action Learning, the county office of education, and the district
office, a new system was developed that included essential standards, pacing
calendars, quarterly benchmarks, staff development on using data to drive
instruction, collaboration time, and the use of Data Director to monitor student
progress and outcomes. Decisions regarding the level of interventions and/or
placement in Honors classes were no longer based on subjective teacher
recommendations and/or summative testing such as the CSTs. Student placement
decisions were now based on multiple measures that include both formative and
summative assessments. All staff members were trained on the effective use of
curriculum based measures (CBM) and quarterly benchmarks. They also received
ongoing training on differentiation that included how to effectively use student data
to re-teach those skills that students had not mastered based on assessment data from
the CBMs, benchmark testing, and the CSTs. According to the principal, Data-Based
Decision Making helped to reduce the number of remedial classes and increased the
number of students taking honors classes.
Professional Development
The fifth strategy identified by Odden (2009), Professional Development,
was a major factor in the improvement process at AIS. Adding four additional staff
development days to the existing two enabled the staff at AIS to have ongoing
training in the three key areas identified by the principal: staff collaboration, focus
on core academic subjects for all students, and data-driven instruction. Professional
Development at AIS involved much more than additional staff development days, it

205
also involved collaborating with experts from the district office, county office of
education, and outside agencies. According to the principal, the focus of Professional
Development was on building capacity and sustainability. All of the staff
development and trainings over the past five years have included a trainer-of-trainer
model that has increased the number of “in-house” trainers and reduced the number
of outside trainers and consultants.
Use Time Effectively
Odden’s (2009) sixth strategy for Doubling Student Performance was another
critical component in the improvement process that was evident at AIS. One example
was the change from providing remedial classes and support during core instruction
time, to providing specific intervention classes before and after school and/or in
place of electives. This change not only prevented students from missing out on core
instruction it also lengthened the school day for struggling students. Another
example was establishing common preparation periods for staff and offering early
student release days to provide staff with time to use the PLC process to review
student progress.
Interventions
The seventh Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Interventions, was more than evident at AIS. As the principal explained,
shifting from remediation to prevention was one of the biggest and most challenging
changes in the improvement process. Ensuring access to the core curriculum for all
students, offering remedial—or intervention—classes before and after school and/or

206
during electives were examples of interventions at AIS; however, hiring additional
teachers, support staff, and hiring outside agencies were crucial components in
establishing comprehensive and effective interventions. Adding additional reading
classes to complement ELA classes for struggling students was another example of
the interventions at AIS.
Leadership and Professional Culture
In describing the eighth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance, Odden
(2009) states that “leadership in the Dramatically Improving School is ‘dense,’
meaning that leadership is provided by all levels of the system and by all actors in
the system” (p. 202). According to the principal, teachers and staff at AIS were all
part of the leadership process. Grade level teams met every other week and
departmental teams also met every other week. This resulted in all staff members
meeting every week to collaborate and discuss student learning. The PLC process
was embraced by the staff at AIS and all teachers and staff were involved in making
decisions that affected the school. One example of the “dense” leadership at AIS was
that everyone had a leadership role from Response-to-Intervention (RtI) Coordinator
to Activities Coordinator. These roles were voted on by staff members every year.
The telling example of “dense” leadership during the interview for this case study
was evident when the principal stated that he could leave and the progress regarding
student outcomes would continue without him.

207
A Professional Organization
Odden’s (2009) ninth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance is A
Professional Organization. One of the staff activities at AIS involved reading the
latest research on various educational issues and then sharing the information with
each other. Every three months a book was read by all staff and then shared over the
course of the year. Two examples mentioned by the principal included A Framework
for Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne (2006) and What Works in Schools by
Robert Marzano (2003). Another example of AIS being A Professional Organization
involved the use of outside consultants and partnerships with three large universities
that helped improve student outcomes by bringing in progressive strategies that were
research based. A culture of professionalism was evident at AIS.
Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
The tenth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Address Talent and Human Capital Issues. According to the principal,
many teachers that did not buy into the improvement process were transferred to
other schools and some left the district. When asked about staff resistance to change
during the interview, the principal indicated that the overwhelming majority of
teachers were enthusiastic about changing in an effort to improve student outcomes
and the few staff members that were resistant to change eventually came around
when they saw the success other teachers were having. The principal himself was an
example of the district practicing this strategy of Address Talent and Human Capital

208
Issues. He is a graduate of a prestigious university, bilingual, and exceptionally
knowledgeable in all areas of the student-learning process.
Additional Resources Needed
The principal at AIS is committed to shared leadership, or “Dense”
leadership as described by Odden (2009). During the interview he felt confident that
the teachers and support staff were committed to continuing the improvement
process for all students and getting out of Program Improvement. However, the
school’s improvement efforts are reliant on QEIA and Title 1 funds and the principal
is concerned that those funds will eventually be reduced and/or eliminated due to the
current fiscal crisis.

209
Table E.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Area
Addressed
During
Interview
Example Comments
1. Understanding the
Performance Situation
Yes
Plan to address low
student performance and
low teacher expectations
This area was
emphasized by the
principal throughout the
interview
2. Set High Goals Yes
All students are now in
core academic classes
Focus on all students
advancing one
performance band per
year
3. Adopt New
Curriculum Materials &
Create a Point of View
about Instruction
Yes
Supplemental materials
and classes to support core
academic classes
Change from alternate
curriculum to core
curriculum with
supplemental materials
4. Data-Based Decision
Making
Yes
Implementation of
essential standards,
benchmark testing, pacing
guides, Data Director
Use of outside agencies
to train staff with a focus
on building capacity of
“in-house” trainers
5. Professional
Development
Yes
Four additional staff
development days
Focus on building
capacity
6. Use Time Effectively Yes
Remedial classes offered
in place of electives and/or
before and after school
Common preparation
periods and monthly
early release days
7. Interventions Yes
Additional reading
intervention classes and
before and after school
classes
Hiring of additional
teachers and support staff
8. Leadership and
Professional Culture
Yes
Staff voted into leadership
roles
Principal’s emphasis on
shared-decision making
9. A Professional
Organization
Yes
Use of outside experts and
focus on current research
Partnerships with three
large universities and
collaboration with county
office of education
10. Address Talent and
Human Capital Issues
Yes Teachers transferred or left Principal as role model
Source: Odden, (2009).

210
APPENDIX F
CASE STUDY TWO
BIS: Focus on School Culture
School Background and Data
BIS is a middle school that serves students in grades 7-8 and is part of a large
high school district located in Orange County, California. The District consists of
eight middle schools, ten high schools, five continuation high schools, and one adult
education school. The district’s enrollment is 37,000 students, and BIS serves 1,300
of those students. School size across the district ranges from 1,100 to 4,000 students.
While the district covers both urban and suburban areas, BIS is located in an urban
area. Three of the schools in this study are located in this district. Over the past two
decades the district has experienced an increase in the number of Hispanic students
and a decrease in the number of white students.
As shown in Table F.1, from 1994 to 2009 the student demographics at BIS
have changed considerably. There has been an increase in the number of Hispanic
students, a decrease in the number of Asian students, and a decrease in the number of
white students. The changes in student demographics at BIS from 1994 to 2009 have
been significant (see Figure F.1).

211
Table F.1. Change in Demographics at BIS from 1994 to 2009

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
Hispanic 37.1% 45.9% 51.9% 57.5% 67.4% 69.1%
Asian 11.3% 11.4% 9.1% 8.4% 7.3% 6.5%
White 42.4% 32.4% 28.4% 24.6% 15.6% 10.8%
All Others 9.2% 10.3% 10.6% 9.5% 9.7% 13.6%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure F.1. Student Demographics at BIS from 1994 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table F.2, the demographics of the district are 59.2%
Hispanic, 11.2% Asian, 15.4% white, 23.8% EL, and 52.3% SED. The demographics
of BIS are 68.1% Hispanic, 6.3% Asian, 11.2% white, 55% EL, and 65.3% SED.
The EL population listed in Table F.2 does not include those students that have been

212
reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). At BIS, 15.7% of the students are
RFEP, which brings the total EL population up to 70.7% of the school.

Table F.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups

BIS District California
Hispanic 68.1% 59.2% 49%
Asian 6.3% 11.2% 8.4%
White 11.2% 15.4% 27.9%
*EL 55% 23.8% 24.2%
SED 65.3% 52.3% 52.3%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
Note: *Does not include those EL students reclassified as Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP). At BIS, 15.7% of all students are RFEP. This brings the total EL population
at BIS up to 70.7%.

As shown in Table F.3, just over 90% of EL students at EIS speak Spanish as
their primary language. The number of EL students at BIS that speak Spanish as their
primary language has remained relatively constant over the past five years.
Vietnamese is the second most common primary language at BIS, and the number of
students that speak this language has also remained constant over the past five years.
The third most common primary language of EL students at BIS is Tagalog.

213
Table F.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at BIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Spanish 88.8% 89.8% 90.5% 92.5% 90.6%
Vietnamese 2.4% 1.6% 2.8% 1.9% 2.5%
Tagalog 2.2% 1.6% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9%
All Others 6.6% 7.0% 4.4% 3.7% 5.0%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Two of the key ingredients to the improvement process at BIS have been a
focus on the school culture and staff responsibility for struggling students including
Hispanic, EL, and SED students that are struggling readers. The purpose of this case
study was to uncover the resource allocation strategies that led to increasing API
scores for Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups. Once the successful strategies at BIS
were identified they were then compared to the resource allocation formula
recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).

Table F.4. BIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
from 2000
to 2009
All
Students
564 596 595 618 672 683 689 674 683 722 158
Hispanic 482 522 542 560 622 643 652 640 652 689 207
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 638 650 632 631 685 47
SED 512 550 557 577 633 649 658 645 655 691 179
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

214
Similar to AIS, during the 2008-09 BIS was also in its second year of Year 5
Program Improvement (PI). The Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups made growth as
measured by API (see Table F.4). The API scores for the Hispanic subgroup
increased by 207 points over the past ten years. The API scores for the EL subgroup
increased by 47 points over the past five years, and the API scores for the SED
subgroup increased by 179 points over the past ten years. This growth was not
enough to reach the statewide goal of 800, but the growth of the Hispanic and SED
subgroups was significant, particularly when the characteristics of the student
population including the high number of EL and SED students are taken into
consideration.
As indicated in Figure F.2, the progress for the Hispanic, EL, and SED
subgroups at BIS appears to have leveled off from 2004 to 2008; however the growth
for these subgroups increased significantly from 2008 to 2009. The API scores for
the Hispanic subgroup increased by 37 points from 2008 to 2009, and the API scores
for the EL subgroup increased by 54 points from 2008 to 2009. The increase in API
for the EL subgroup of 54 points from 2008 to 2009 was greater than the increase of
47 points that occurred over the past five years. After two years of declining API
scores in 2007 and 2008, the academic progress as measured by API scores for the
EL subgroup at BIS improved significantly from 2008 to 2009. The API scores for
the SED subgroup at BIS improved by 36 points from 2008 to 2009.

215
Figure F.2. BIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Utilizing API scores to measure the academic performance of significant
subgroups provides one perspective of student progress. Another perspective
involves an examination of the achievement gap between Hispanic and EL students
in comparison to white and Asian students. The white and Asian populations at BIS
are not large enough to be categorized as significant subgroups. Since the majority of
students at AIS are Hispanic, reviewing the achievement gap for both the Hispanic
and EL subgroups provides greater insight into the academic achievement of these
subgroups. Table F.5 provides a comparison between the Hispanic and EL subgroups
at BIS and the white and Asian subgroups of the entire district. Over the past five
years the achievement gap between the Hispanic and EL subgroups at BIS and the
white subgroup across the district has not shown a significant decrease. The gap
between the Hispanic subgroup and the white subgroup decreased by 4 API points

216
over the past five years, and the gap between the EL subgroup and the white
subgroup decreased by 5 API points over the same period of time. The achievement
gaps between the Hispanic subgroup at BIS and the Asian subgroup across the
district increased by 2 API points, and the EL subgroup at BIS and the Asian
subgroup across the district increased by 1 API point.
While the achievement gap for Hispanic and EL students has not closed at
BIS, the rate of growth for these subgroups was similar to the growth made by both
the white and Asian subgroups across the district. The API scores for the Hispanic
subgroup at BIS increased by 46 points over the last five years, and the EL
subgroup’s API scores increased by 47 points over the same period of time. In
comparison, the API scores for the white and Asian subgroups across the district
increased during the same period of time by 42 and 48 points respectively. Viewing
the achievement gap from this perspective, the Hispanic subgroup at BIS made 46
points of academic growth over the past five years, which was 4 API points greater
than the district’s white subgroup. Similarly, the EL subgroup at BIS made 47 points
of academic growth over the past five years, which was 5 API points greater than the
district’s white subgroup. Using this measure, both the Hispanic and EL subgroups at
BIS have shown greater growth as measured by API than the district’s white
subgroup, but less growth than the district’s Asian subgroup (see Table F.5).

217
Table F.5. Achievement Gap at BIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
BIS API Scores for Hispanic and EL Subgroups
Hispanic 643 652 640 652 689 46
EL 638 650 632 631 685 47
District API Scores for White and Asian Subgroups
White 742 752 771 786 784 42
Asian 847 865 872 886 895 48
Achievement Gap
Hisp/White
Gap
99 100 131 134 95 (-4)
EL/White
Gap
104 102 139 155 99 (-5)
Hisp/Asian Gap 204 213 232 234 206 2
EL/Asian 209 215 240 255 210 1
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Comparing the percentage of students scoring proficient and advanced on the
California Standards Test (CST) at BIS with the district and the State provides
another perspective of academic growth. As indicated in Table F.6 over the past five
years the number of students that scored proficient and advanced in English
Language Arts (ELA) section of the CST at BIS increased from 34% to 40% for a
net gain of 6%. This increase was greater than the district-wide increase from 41% to
46%, or 5%, and just two percentage points less than the statewide increase of 8%.
However, the number of students at BIS that scored proficient and advanced on the

218
math section of the CST over the past five years actually decreased from 33% to
32%. This decrease was not congruent with the district or the State (see Table F.6).

Table F.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at BIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
BIS 34 36 33 39 40 33 31 24 23 32
District 41 42 41 46 46 40 42 41 43 40
California 40 42 43 46 48 38 40 40 43 46
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Another perspective of academic growth can be examined by comparing the
number of students and subgroups within BIS that scored proficient and advanced on
the CST. Table F.7 shows that over the past five years the overall student population
at BIS, including the Hispanic and SED subgroups, increased the number of students
that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST. The EL
subgroup at BIS outperformed the overall student population and the Hispanic and
SED subgroups by increasing the percentage of students that scored proficient and
advanced on the ELA section of the CST by 10% from 2005 to 2009 (see Table F.7).
While the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the math
section of the CST for the overall student population at BIS decreased by 1% from

219
2005 to 2009, the Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups increased slightly during the
same period of time.

Table F.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CSTs
at BIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
All 34 36 33 39 40 33 31 24 23 32
Hisp. 26 30 25 32 33 25 24 19 18 27
EL 22 27 21 27 32 26 25 19 18 28
SED 21 20 30 25 29 23 23 16 29 24
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Several key elements contributed to the improvement process for struggling
readers at BIS. Many of these elements led to an increase in test scores for the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups. The following section will examine the key
elements of the improvement process at BIS.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
When the principal came to BIS five years ago, he quickly identified areas
that needed immediate attention. The principal discovered that many teachers were
constantly sending students out of their classrooms for minor disciplinary problems
such as arriving late to class. He also found that the teachers had low expectations

220
and the students had a negative view of school and education. Another problem
identified by the principal was a lack of parent involvement.
One of the first issues that the principal addressed was the practice of sending
students to the office for minor problems such as arriving late to class. An all-
campus tardy sweep was enacted that involved all staff being responsible for getting
all students into their classrooms before the tardy bell. After approximately one year
the number of students that were late to class dropped from an average of 90 to 25
per period. This change led to more instructional time for the students and an
increase in staff ownership of minor disciplinary problems. According to the
principal, this was the first step in changing the school culture from a focus on some
students to a focus on all students.
Now that the students were actually in class, and not being sent to the
principal or one of the assistant principals for being late to class, the teachers began
to focus on the needs of struggling students. This was accomplished with the help of
school and district staff and consultants. As a PI school, Action Learning provided
intensive professional development during the 2007-08 school year in many areas
including differentiated instruction, note taking, reciprocal teaching, and strategies
for teachers to set high standards and use data to drive instruction. The ELA
curriculum was determined by the district and all teachers were required to use the
core curriculum, Houghton-Mifflin, instead of a patchwork of supplemental
materials. A double-block of ELA and reading was established for all students
scoring below proficient on the ELA section of the CSTs. Those students took their

221
core ELA class and an additional reading intervention class. The results were evident
by the increase in ELA scores over the past five years for the Hispanic, EL, and SED
subgroups.
Students in the EL subgroup that were scoring below proficient were placed
into two periods of English Language Development (ELD) in a pull out model that
required those students to miss core academic classes including the core ELA
program. The number of EL students that scored proficient and advanced on the
ELA section of the CSTs increased by 10% over the past five years (see Table F.7),
even though the achievement gap between EL students at BIS and white and Asian
students across the district increased slightly over the past five years (see Table F.5).
The resource allocation strategies used to address the needs of the Hispanic,
EL, and SED subgroups including struggling readers at BIS changed over the past
two years. Due to budget reductions, the before and after-school reading intervention
program was eliminated. Two years ago, teachers were paid their regular hourly rate
to teach reading intervention classes to struggling readers at a cost of approximately
$145,000.00 per year. The district made the decision to eliminate this program and
since BIS does not receive QEIA funds a portion of the Title 1 funds that were used
to fund the extended day reading intervention program is now used to pay for three
part-time AVID tutors at a cost of approximately $45,000.00 per year. In addition,
the district continued to fund two full-time AVID tutors. According to the principal,
even though the district eliminated the extended day reading intervention program

222
the expansion of the AVID program has helped the students develop a more positive
view of school and education.
The expansion of the AVID program occurred at the same time the principal
implemented a comprehensive parent training academy known as the Parent Institute
for Quality Education (PIQE). With the help of a local university, the PIQE provides
parent training in several areas including academics. Parents that complete the
requirements of the program then become volunteers on campus, and their children
receive automatic acceptance into the California State University (CSU) system—as
long as those students meet all of the CSU acceptance requirements before
graduating from high school. During the 2008-09 school year 166 parents graduated
from the PIQE program at BIS.
Another area that helped to improve the BIS students’ view of school and
education was the use of technology. With a technology budget of $45,000 for
classroom computers and equipment the principal purchased LCD document cameras
and projectors for all 37 core academic classes and two Smart Boards for two of the
four reading intervention classrooms. Teachers that wanted the equipment completed
six hours of voluntary training that consisted of three, two hour sessions held after
school. The training was conducted by the district’s technology staff. The principal
reported that all of the teachers that were eligible for the equipment completed the
training and he also reported that the use of the technology in the classrooms made a
noticeable difference in the level of student engagement during the learning process.

223
During the interview the principal reported several areas of concern. One area
that the principal was still working on with all staff members involved effectively
using data to inform and drive instruction. The principal reported that summative
assessments such as CST and CELDT scores were used to place students into
intervention classes, but there was no consistent system in place to monitor those
students and then move them into more intensive or less intensive classes. The
principal reported that he hoped to be able to provide training on the use of formative
assessments and data-driven instruction in the very near future. Another area of
concern was the lack of options for students that were struggling in math. The
principal was in the process of working with a local university in developing a math
intervention program for the 2010-11 school year. Finally, the principal stated during
the interview that the math scores for all students were not improving and he was in
the process of seeking outside assistance from the district and the county office of
education to address this problem.

224
Corresponding Resource Use
Table F.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at BIS to Evidence-Based Model

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Middle School
Actual BIS
Resources
Difference between EBM
and BIS or EBM suggested
amount for BIS
School Characteristics
School Configuration 6-8 7-8 No sixth grade
School Size 450 1,300 2.9 times bigger
Core Class Size 25 32 7 more than EBM
Number of Teacher Work Days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
184 including 2 in-
service days
18 less school days and 8
less in-service days
Number Disabled (w/IEPs) 140 (10.8%)
Number Poverty (free & reduced
lunch) Referred to as Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged
(SED)
783 (60.2%)
Number English Learners 655 (50.4%)
% Minority (non-white) 89.7%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 per 450 students
37 FTE (71.2% of
FTEs)
EBM suggests 52 for 1,300
students
2. Specialist/Elective Teachers 8.0 (20% of FTEs)
15 FTE (28.8% of
FTEs)
EBM suggests 10.4
3. Instructional Coaches
2.25 (1 for every
200 students)
0 EBM suggests 6.5
4. Tutors for Struggling Students
One for every 100
poverty students
3.5 EBM suggests 7.8
5. Teachers for EL Students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every
100 EL students
2.0 FTE EBM suggests 6.5

225
Table F.8., Continued

School Element EBM Prototypical Middle School
Actual BIS
Resources
Difference between EBM
and BIS or EBM suggested
amount for BIS
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15 eligible
students (based on 50% of Free
& Reduced Price Lunch
Students), 15 hours per week @
25% of salary
0
EBM suggests 6.5 FTE
extended day teachers
7. Summer School
1 per 15 Students (based on 50%
of Free & Reduced Price Lunch
Students)
0.8 FTE for 175
Students (Existing
staff paid summer
school rate for 4.5
hours per day for 20
days)
EBM Suggests 6.5 FTE
Summer School Teachers
School
Characteristics

8. Learning & Mild
Disabled Students
3 Teachers per 450 Students
9.0 FTE for
Learning
Handicapped and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests 8.7 FTE for
1,300 students
9. Severely
Disabled Students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
0 FTE (Severely
Disabled Students
Attend a Regional
Program)
N/A
10. Resources for
Gifted Students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$7,000
EBM suggests funds of
$32,500
11.
Career/Technical
Education
.3 per CTE Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes
$7,000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and PN
Same as EBM
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance Counselor per 250
Students plus 1 Pupil Support
Staff per 100 poverty Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students
3.0 Counselors
0.80 Psych, 1.0
Speech, 1.0 Health
Tech
EBM suggests 5.2
Guidance Counselors and
7.8 Support Staff
14. Non-
Instructional Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 2.0 AVID Program EBM Suggests 5.8

226
Table F.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual BIS
Resources
Difference between EBM
and BIS or EBM suggested
amount for BIS
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0
EBM would eliminate
these positions
16. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Librarian &
0.5 library aide
EBM suggests 2.9
17. Administrators
1.0 Principal plus
1.0 Assistant Principal
1.0 Principal, 2.0
Assistant Principals
EBM suggests 1.0 Principal
and 2.9 Assistant Principals
18. School Site
Secretary
2.0 School Site
Secretaries
1.0 Secretary,
5.0 clerks, 1.0
Attendance Clerk
EBM Suggests 5.8
Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive Teacher
Development in Summer
Included in Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep Time

$100 per Student to Fund
2 District-Wide PD
Days per Year

90 Minutes Per
Month for
Preparation = 2
days per year,
$8,400 spent for
conferences, $1,100
title II, and $1,900
for materials
EBM suggests 10 days PD
in summer and $130,000
for other PD expenses
20. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0
Technology/Media
Clerk, and $45,000
for classroom
equipment
EBM suggests $325,000
21. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil Varies EBM suggests $227,500
22. Student
Activities
$250 per pupil
1.0 Community
Liaison,

AVID Program,
Monthly Parent
Meetings (90
minutes in evening)
EBM suggests $325,000
Source: Odden and Picus, (2008).

227
Lessons Learned
In order to provide a conceptual framework a comprehensive strategy
developed by Allan Odden (2009) to double student performance is used to present
the results of this case study. Based on information gathered from educational
leaders from across the nation, including “a group of leading educators in Wyoming
convened in late 2008 by Picus and Associates…” (p. 191), the following ten
sections are comprised of what Odden (2009) identified as “the ten core elements of
the improving school” (p. 191). Each of the following section headings is one of the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Understanding the Performance Situation
The first strategy in Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance is Understanding the Performance Situation. The principal at BIS was
clearly aware of the performance situation at his school and he identified several key
elements that were necessary to improve learning for all students. One of the first
areas that the principal identified was the past practice of sending students to the
office for minor disciplinary problems. Another area identified by the principal that
required immediate attention was the teachers’ low expectations for student
outcomes. Two other areas that contributed to the performance situation were the
students’ negative perceptions of school, and the lack of parental involvement.
During the interview the principal also discussed several areas that he was still
working on including the need for a comprehensive math intervention program for

228
struggling students, the use of data to drive instruction, and the use of formative
assessments.
While the principal appeared to understand the performance situation at BIS,
the low math API scores were concerning to him. Budget reductions resulted in the
elimination of the extended day reading intervention program and there was no plan
to replace that program. The strategy to address the needs of struggling students at
BIS including struggling readers involved pulling those students out of electives
and/or core academic classes and placing them in remedial classes. During the
interview the principal reported that students that were placed in remedial classes
were not required to make up the core academic classes that they missed. Depending
on their CELDT scores and level of academic achievement, EL students were placed
into two periods of ELD. These students did not receive the core ELA curriculum
and they were also required to use one of their electives to take an additional ELD
class each semester. This practice could have contributed to the achievement gap
since EL students were not exposed to the same ELA curriculum as those students
who were in core ELA classes, and the CSTs are based on the core curriculum.
Set High Goals
The second strategy identified by Odden (2009) involves setting High Goals.
The principal at BIS has set high goals for both staff and students. Changing the
practice of sending students to the office for minor problems such as being late to
class and ensuring that all teachers were responsible for the academic achievement of
all students were two of the first areas that the principal addressed. Changing the

229
students’ perceptions of school and education was another area of focus that was
identified by the principal and immediately addressed. Expanding the AVID program
and adding the Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE) were two areas that
resulted in an increased focus by BIS students and their parents on college
attendance. During the interview the principal reported that his first goal was to
change the values and beliefs of the staff in regards to the ability of the students at
BIS, and his second goal was to change the students’ self-perceptions regarding their
own abilities to do well academically and attend college. Implementing the Parent
Institute helped the principal achieve both of those goals and also brought the parents
into the process.
Adopt New Curriculum Materials and Create a Point of View about
Instruction
The third strategy identified by Odden (2009) is Adopt New Curriculum
Materials and Create a Point of View about Instruction. This was one of the biggest
challenges faced by the principal at BIS. As previously mentioned, both the staff and
the students had low expectations. The district’s directive to utilize the core
curriculum for ELA and math was one of the key elements in adopting new
curriculum materials and adding additional periods of ELD for EL students and
reading intervention classes for struggling readers. Expanding the AVID program
and implementing the Parent Institute changed the focus at BIS from low standards
and expectations for student learning to high standards and expectations for all
students. According to the principal, academic language was used in all classes and

230
the focus was on all students meeting the requirements to attend college. During the
interview the principal stated that one of the most notable changes at BIS was the
expectation that all BIS students will attend college.
Data-Based Decision Making
The fourth strategy, Data-Based Decision Making (Odden, 2009), was not
fully implemented at BIS. Most of the elements were in place such as quarterly
benchmark testing, pacing calendars, and the use of a student database, Data
Director; however, there were still some areas that required attention. According to
the principal, most staff members were reluctant to use their current teacher
preparation time of 90 minutes a month to collaborate with other staff members to
discuss student progress. Another area that the principal reported as requiring more
attention was the use of formative assessments to inform instruction. While
summative assessments were used to place students into remedial classes, there was
no ongoing method to monitor the progress of those students in order to get them out
of those classes as quickly as possible. Students were moved in and out of remedial
classes only at the end of each semester and usually only at the end of the spring
semester. The principal stated during the interview that he was working on a solution
to this problem that may involve changing the remedial classes from 16 weeks to 8
weeks.
Professional Development
The fifth strategy identified by Odden (2009), Professional Development,
was not a main area of focus at BIS. While the staff was working with a local

231
university to implement the Parent Institute, at the time of the interview there was no
actual professional development plan in place at BIS. Professional development was
conducted, for the most part, by BIS staff members on an as-needed basis. The
district provided two staff development days for all staff as part to their teachers’
contract, but no additional days were provided to staff at BIS. Action Learning did
work with the school staff three years ago as part of the PI process and several
trainings were provided including differentiated instruction, note taking, reciprocal
teaching, and strategies for teachers to set high standards and use data to drive
instruction. While the principal reported that there was no funding available for
additional staff development he did report that staff attended the technology training
after school on a voluntary basis as a requirement to receive LCD document cameras
and projectors as well as other classroom equipment.
Based on the results of the interview, the parent training has been very
successful. Since the implementation of the Parent Institute 196 parents have
graduated from the program and their children have guaranteed acceptance into the
CSU system as long as they meet all CSU high school requirements. There has also
been a tremendous increase in parent involvement at BIS and according to the
principal this has contributed to a decrease in student discipline problems.
The principal stated that he does have plans for additional professional
development. In an effort to address the lack of progress made by the EL subgroup,
the principal was working with the district office and the county office of education
to develop a comprehensive staff development plan. A group of key stakeholders

232
including five teachers, two counselors, and one assistant principal were meeting two
times per month with the Curriculum and Instruction department at the district office
to review student data and identify the main areas of focus for staff development.
One area of the proposed staff development will be in the area of developing a math
intervention program for struggling students. A local university has agreed to send
several consultants, at no charge, to work with the math department at BIS. Another
part of the staff development plan will involve training key stakeholders to train all
staff at BIS to effectively address the needs of EL learners. Title 1 funds will be used
to buy materials and pay for substitutes. The principal estimates that approximately
$45,000 of his $720,000 annual Title 1 budget will be used for this purpose and the
projected implementation date is September, 2010.
Use Time Effectively
Odden’s (2009) sixth strategy for Doubling Student Performance, Use Time
Effectively, was an area that the principal was still in the process of addressing at
BIS. One of the first issues in this area that the principal addressed involved reducing
the amount of time that students were sent out of class for minor disciplinary
problems. According to the principal this change resulted in an increase in staff
ownership of student learning for all students due to the fact that all students were
spending more time in class instead of the office. Another strategy in this area
involved the amount of instructional time provide to struggling students. Since the
extended day programs at BIS were eliminated due to budget reductions, struggling
students were placed into double periods of ELA and reading and/or ELA and ELD.

233
While this was one strategy that was implemented to use time more effectively, it
had only been in place for one year so it was difficult for the principal to determine
whether or not the double periods were more effective than the extended day
program in improving student learning.
Interventions
The seventh Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Interventions, was an area that the principal was still working on. As
previously mentioned, a new staff development plan was in the process of being
developed to address the needs of students that required additional support in the
area of math as well as the needs of the EL subgroup. The shift from extended day
programs to double periods of ELA and reading and/or ELA and ELD was recently
implemented so the results remain to be seen. The principal was working with the
district office, county office of education, and two local universities to develop a
comprehensive staff development plan to address the needs of struggling students
and he hoped that the implementation date for that plan would be during the fall of
2010.
One of the main areas of intervention that the principal began addressing five
years ago when he came to BIS involved changing the culture of the teachers. This
change included a directive from the principal to stop sending students to the office
for minor disciplinary problems. While this change in practice may not seem like an
intervention, it truly was a big change that led to more students receiving more
classroom instruction. With the increase in parental involvement at BIS, students that

234
needed additional support including struggling readers became aware that their
parents were working directly with staff to provide additional support to struggling
students. According to the principal, this teacher-parent collaboration led to a
dramatic increase in students that were planning on going to college, and a decrease
in student disciplinary problems.
Leadership and Professional Culture
The eighth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Leadership and Professional Culture, involves the development of a
professional school culture that includes everyone in the leadership process. One
area where this was evident at BIS was the use of resident experts to provide support
to staff. While this did not occur on a regular basis, staff development was provided
by in-house trainers. The proposed staff development plan includes a trainer-of-
trainers model that involves the use of outside experts from the district office, county
office of education, and two local universities. These experts will train selected staff
members to train the entire BIS staff.
Another area that was reflective of Odden’s (2009) eighth Strategy for
Doubling Student Performance, Leadership and Professional Culture, involved a
major change that occurred at BIS and has been the focus of this case study.
According to the principal, the school culture five years ago included a practice of
sending students out of class for minor disciplinary problems. The principal ended
this practice by making sure that students were no longer sent out of class for minor

235
disciplinary problems. This change in practice greatly increased the amount of direct
instruction struggling students were receiving.
During the interview, the principal reported that he was still working on
strategies to increase the level of collaboration among staff. Professional Learning
Communities were not utilized at BIS, and the 90 minutes per month of teacher
preparation time typically involved teachers working in isolation to plan lessons.
One exception to this practice was the AVID program and the three school
counselors who worked with all teachers to discuss and support student learning.
A Professional Organization
Odden’s (2009) ninth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance is A
Professional Organization. The principal’s focus on all students meeting the
requirements to attend college led to the development of a professional culture at
BIS. Academic language was used throughout the campus and the principal’s
directive that all staff must address the needs of all students led to an increase in
support for struggling students. The Parent Institute resulted in a greater feeling of
community at BIS and the students understood that their parents were directly
involved in the learning process. While the student outcomes at BIS have shown
steady improvement over the past five years there was a significant increase in API
scores for all students from 2008 to 2009 (see Table F.4).
Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
The tenth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Address Talent and Human Capital Issues. Addressing the issue of the

236
teachers’ values and beliefs was challenging for the principal at BIS. While the
principal has increased the teachers’ level of responsibility and expectations for all
students, he does understand that there is still room for improvement in these areas.
During the interview the principal stressed the need to improve the strategies used to
address the needs of EL students and he also emphasized the need to improve the
math interventions used for struggling students. The use of specialists from the
district office, the county office of education, and consultants from two local
universities were being used to build the capacity of the BIS staff in an effort to
address talent and human capital issues.
Additional Resources Needed
During the interview it was evident that the principal at BIS understood the
performance situation and was in the process of implementing a long-term
improvement plan. By starting with a focus on the values and beliefs of the teachers
that included increasing their level of responsibility and expectations for all students
he has built the foundation for change. His next step is to improve the interventions
available for EL students and students that are struggling with math. With the recent
loss of his extended school programs, the principal has had to implement other
strategies to address the needs of struggling students. During the interview the
principal reported that he would like to have additional funds to reinstate the
extended school programs, but he realized that this will probably not happen in the
immediate future. Due to the severity of the district’s budget shortfall, the principal
stated that he was concerned that he may lose additional support staff.

237
Table F.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Area
Addressed
During
Interview
Example Comments
1. Understanding
the Performance
Situation
Yes
Focus on increasing the level
of teachers’ responsibilities
and expectations for all
students to achieve at high
levels
The principal emphasized
that this was the first and
most challenging step in the
improvement process
2. Set High Goals Yes
School-wide goal of all
students meeting the entrance
requirements to attend college
Implementation of Parent
Institute to improve student
outcomes
3. Adopt New
Curriculum
Materials &
Create a Point of
View about
Instruction
Yes
District directive to utilize core
curriculum for all students
Remaining practice of pull-
out program for EL students
often in lieu of core
curriculum
4. Data-Based
Decision Making
Yes
Use of summative assessments
for decisions regarding student
placement
Plan to improve use of
formative assessment to
inform instruction
5. Professional
Development
No
Two days per year as per
teachers’ contract with some
additional hours based on need
Plan in process for trainer-of-
trainers model to provide
staff training on EL
strategies and math
interventions
6. Use Time
Effectively
Yes
Struggling students take
additional remedial classes in
reading and/or ELD often in
lieu of core curriculum
90 minutes per month of
teacher preparation time
often used in isolation
7. Interventions Yes
Loss of extended day
programs due to budget
reductions
Struggling students take
additional reading and/or
ELD classes during school
day
8. Leadership and
Professional
Culture
Yes
In-house staff provide training
and additional support on an
as-needed basis
Plan to use current staff to
provide comprehensive staff
training on EL strategies and
math interventions
9. A Professional
Organization
Yes
Focus on college attendance
and use of Parent Institute
Partnerships with two large
universities and collaboration
with district office and
county office of education
10. Address Talent
and Human
Capital Issues
Yes
Focus on teachers’ values and
beliefs including the level of
staff responsibility and
expectations for all students
Teachers held accountable
for the educational
achievement of all students
Source: Odden, (2009).

238
APPENDIX G
CASE STUDY THREE
CIS: Focus on Intervention
School Background and Data
CIS is a middle school that serves students in grades 7-8 and is part of a large
high school district located in Orange County, California. The District consists of
eight middle schools, ten high schools, five continuation high schools, and one adult
education school. The district’s enrollment is 37,000 students, and CIS serves 1,200
of those students. School size across the district ranges from 1,100 to 4,000 students.
While the district covers both urban and suburban areas, CIS is located in an urban
area. Three of the schools in this study are located in this district. Over the past two
decades the district has experienced an increase in the number of Hispanic students
and a decrease in the number of white students.
As shown in Table G.1, from 1994 to 2009 the student demographics at CIS
changed. There was an increase in the number of Hispanic students, a decrease in the
number of Asian students, and a decrease in the number of white students. The
changes in student demographics at EIS from 1994 to 2009 were significant (see
Figure G.1).

239
Table G.1. Change in Demographics at CIS from 1994 to 2009

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
Hispanic 43.3% 54.8% 63.8% 68.5% 75.2% 75.7%
Asian 11.7% 10.5% 7.2% 6.9% 6.4% 6.0%
White 38.2% 28.6% 24.2% 18% 12.9% 9.4%
All Others 6.8% 6.1% 4.8% 6.6% 5.5% 8.9%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure G.1. Student Demographics at CIS from 1994 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table G.2, in 2009 the demographics of the district were
59.2% Hispanic, 11.2% Asian, 15.4% white, 23.8% EL, and 52.3% SED. The
demographics of CIS were 78% Hispanic, 6.2% Asian, 1% white, 70% EL, and
75.1% SED. The EL population listed in Table G.2 does not include those students
that were re-classified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). At CIS, 37% of the

240
students were RFEP in 2009, which brought the total EL population up to 73% of the
school.

Table G.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups

CIS District California
Hispanic 78.0% 59.2% 49.0%
Asian 6.2% 11.2% 8.4%
White 1.0% 15.4% 27.9%
*EL 36.0% 23.8% 24.2%
SED 75.1% 52.3% 52.3%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
Note: *Does not include those EL students re-classified as Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP). At CIS, 37% of all students were RFEP. This brought the total EL
population at CIS up to 73%.

As shown in Table G.3, the majority of EL students at EIS speak Spanish as
their primary language. The number of EL students at EIS that speak Spanish as their
primary language has remained relatively constant over the past five years.
Vietnamese is the second most common primary language at EIS, and the number of
students that speak this language has also remained constant over the past five years.
The third most common primary language at EIS is Tagalog.

241
Table G.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at EIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Spanish 95.5% 94.4% 93.0% 93.6% 93.9%
Vietnamese 2.3% 1.9% 1.4% 1.3% 2.0%
Tagalog 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 1.1% 1.1%
All Others 1.5% 3.0% 5.2% 4.0% 3.0%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

When the principal came to CIS three years ago he identified several areas
that needed improvement. After a careful analysis of the performance situation at
CIS the principal decided to focus on targeted interventions for struggling students.
The purpose of this case study was to examine the resource allocation strategies that
were implemented at CIS to effectively improve learning for struggling readers.
After the resource allocation strategies at CIS were identified they were compared to
the resource allocation formula recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden,
2009).

242
Table G.4. CIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
from 2000
to 2009
All
Students
582 596 603 634 663 688 693 656 688 700 118
Hispanic 507 534 548 590 627 660 662 626 662 673 166
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 656 653 614 646 669 13
SED 520 541 562 599 631 663 669 639 667 680 160
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Even though the Hispanic, EL and SED subgroups at CIS made growth as
measured by API, in 2009 the school was in its second year of Program
Improvement (PI). As indicated in Table G.4, the API scores for the Hispanic
subgroup increased by 166 points over the past ten years. However, over the past
five years the API scores for the Hispanic and EL subgroups only increased by 12
and 13 points respectively. The API scores for the SED subgroup increased by 160
points over the past ten years and 17 points over the past five years. While the
overall API scores for the school increased from 582 to 700 over the past ten years,
this growth was not enough to reach the statewide goal of 800.
As indicated in Figure G.2, the progress for all students at CIS including the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups decreased significantly from 2006 to 2007.
During that time the overall API scores dropped by 37 points for the overall student
population, 36 points for the Hispanic subgroup, 39 points for the EL subgroup, and
30 points for the SED subgroup. During the interview the principal was unable to

243
identify what may have led to this overall decrease in API scores, but it is interesting
to note that the drop in API scores coincided with the final year of the former
principal.
After the first year of the current principal’s arrival at CIS the API scores
increased significantly from the previous year for all students (see Figure G.2). The
API scores increased by 32 points for all students, 36 points for the Hispanic
subgroup, 32 points for the EL subgroup, and 28 points for the SED subgroup.
During the interview the principal attributed this increase in API scores to a focus on
targeted interventions for struggling readers as well as several other factors that will
be discussed below.

Figure G.2. CIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

244
Another measure of the academic performance of the significant subgroups at
CIS involves an examination of the achievement gap between Hispanic and EL
students in comparison to white and Asian students. The white and Asian
populations at CIS were not large enough to be categorized as significant subgroups.
Table G.5 provides a comparison between the Hispanic and EL subgroups at CIS and
the white and Asian subgroups of the entire school district.
As indicated in Table G.5, the achievement gaps between the Hispanic and
EL subgroups at CIS and the white and Asian subgroups across the district increased
over the past five years. The gap between the Hispanic subgroup and the white
subgroup increased by 29 API points over the past five years, and the gap between
the EL subgroup and the white subgroup also increased by 29 API points over the
same period of time. The achievement gaps between the Hispanic subgroup at CIS
and the Asian subgroup across the district increased by 35 API points, and the EL
subgroup at CIS and the Asian subgroup across the district also increased by 35 API
points.
After closer inspection of the achievement gap data presented in Table G.5, a
correlation can be made with the drop in API scores at CIS that occurred in 2007.
While the API scores decreased for all students at CIS during the 2007 school year,
the API scores did not decrease for the white and Asian subgroups across the district.
From 2005 to 2007 the achievement gap between Hispanic students at CIS and white
students across the district increased by 63 points, and the achievement gap between
EL students at CIS and white students across the district increased by 71 points.

245
However, from 2007 to 2009 the achievement gap between Hispanic students at CIS
and white students across the district decreased by 34 points, and the achievement
gap between EL students at CIS and white students across the district decreased by
42 points. Of interest is the correlation in the decrease in API scores and the increase
in the achievement gap for Hispanic and EL students at CIS from 2006 to 2007. Also
of interest is the increase in API scores and the decrease in the achievement gap from
2007 to 2009.

Table G.5. Achievement Gap at CIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
CIS API Scores for Hispanic and EL Subgroups
Hispanic 660 662 626 662 673 13
EL 656 653 614 646 669 13
District API Scores for White and Asian Subgroups
White 742 752 771 786 784 42
Asian 847 865 872 886 895 48
Achievement Gap
Hisp/White
Gap
82 90 145 124 111 29
EL/White
Gap
86 99 157 140 115 29
Hisp/Asian Gap 187 203 246 224 222 35
EL/Asian 191 212 257 240 226 35
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

246
Another perspective of student performance at CIS as shown in Table G.6
was the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the California
Standards Test (CST) in comparison to the district and the State. Table G.6 shows
that over the past five years the number of students that scored proficient or
advanced on the English Language Arts (ELA) section of the CST at CIS increased
from 33% to 37%; however, this number declined from 35% in 2006 to 26% in 2007,
and then increased to 37% in 2009. The increase from 2007 to 2009 of 11% was
much greater than the increase from 2005 to 2009 of 4%. In correlation with the
achievement gap data shown in Table G.5 the number of students that scored
proficient and advanced declined from 2006 to 2007 and then increased from 2007 to
2009.
While it is interesting to note the decline in API scores and the decrease in
the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the
CST that occurred from 2006 to 2007 at CIS, another interesting—if not
concerning—phenomenon can be seen in Table G.6 by reviewing the number of
students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST. Similar
to the ELA data, the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the
math section of the CST declined from 2006 to 2007, but unlike the ELA data
presented in Table G.6, the number of students that scored proficient and advanced
on the math section of the CST continued to decline from 2007 to 2009.

247
Table G.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at CIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CIS 33 35 26 33 37 33 35 27 31 24
District 41 42 41 46 46 40 42 41 43 40
California 40 42 43 46 48 38 40 40 43 46
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

The number of Hispanic, EL, and SED students that scored proficient and
advanced on the ELA section of the CST at CIS followed the same trend previously
discussed. From 2006 to 2007 the percentage of students that scored proficient and
advanced on the ELA section of the CST declined, and then increased from 2007 to
2009 (see Table G.7). While this pattern held true for all students at CIS, including
the Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups, it did not hold true for the math section of the
CST.
As indicated in Table G.7, from 2006 to 2007 the number of students and
subgroups at CIS that scored proficient and advanced on the math section decreased
and then increased slightly from 2007 to 2008. Although, from 2008 to 2009 the
number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section declined
significantly to percentages lower than those in 2005. In 2005 thirty-three percent of
all students scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST compared
to 24%in 2009. From 2005 to 2009 the percentage of Hispanic students that scored

248
proficient and advanced declined by 7%, the number of EL students declined by 5%,
and the number of SED students also declined by 5%. While a thorough analysis of
the causes of the decline in the number of students that scored proficient and
advanced on the math section of the CST is beyond the scope of this study, the
resource allocation strategies utilized at CIS are discussed in the next section of this
case study and inferences may be drawn.

Table G.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CSTs
at CIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
All 33 35 26 33 37 33 35 27 38 24
Hisp. 28 30 20 27 31 27 30 23 26 20
EL 27 27 17 24 30 27 29 22 26 22
SED 28 30 23 29 33 27 30 25 28 22
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Even though the student outcomes in the area of math at CIS declined over
the past five years, the purpose of this study was to identify the resource allocation
strategies that were used to improve learning for struggling readers. As previously
discussed, the API scores and percentage of students that scored proficient and
advanced on the ELA section of the CST have shown considerable improvement—
particularly over the past five years; furthermore, the achievement gaps between

249
Hispanic and EL students at CIS, and white and Asian students across the district
decreased. The next section of this case study examines the key elements that
contributed to the improvement process for struggling readers at CIS.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
When the principal came to CIS three years ago he thoroughly analyzed the
performance situation and discovered that the interventions used to address the needs
of struggling readers were inconsistent and ineffective. After spending the entire
summer of 2006 reviewing data, he met with the district’s Director of Student
Services and developed a comprehensive Response to Intervention (RtI) program to
address the needs of struggling readers. He then identified key stakeholders at CIS
and began the implementation process. The key elements in the improvement
process at CIS included identifying the performance situation, developing a plan to
improve student outcomes, and then identifying key staff members to assist in the
implementation process.
Part of the principal’s analysis of the performance situation included a
thorough review of CST scores. The glaring drop in scores for all students that
occurred from 2006 to 2007 was the first area of focus for the principal. During the
interview the principal stated that the decrease in scores may have been due to the
past practice of placing students into remedial ELA, reading, and ELD classes based
on teacher recommendations. These teacher recommendations were not data driven.
According to the principal, the intervention classes at CIS consisted of a broad range
of students that had test scores from Far Below Basic (FBB) to Proficient as

250
measured by the CSTs. The first step the principal implemented in the improvement
process was the use of CSTs as a screening mechanism to determine the number of
struggling students that needed reading interventions.
With the help of the Director of Student Services all of the students in the
school were separated into five groups based on the performance bands of the CST
scores. These groups included Far Below Basic (FBB), Below Basic (BB), Basic,
Proficient, and Advanced. With the use of Data Director the students were placed
into categories that included other test scores such as the quarterly benchmarks and
the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). After determining the
number of students in each category the principal restructured the service-delivery
model for the entire ELA department, which included the reading and ELD
programs.
The first step in the restructuring process included the hiring of two
additional reading teachers. This brought the total number of reading classes up to
four. A portion of the school’s Title 1 budget of approximately $400,000 was used to
hire the two teachers. Using a multiple measures approach struggling students were
placed into intensive reading classes based on their level of achievement. Struggling
students were placed into ELA classes using the core curriculum, Houghton-Mifflin,
and intensive reading classes using several supplemental curricula including READ
180, Read Naturally, Reading Mastery, and Corrective Reading. The reading classes
took the place of electives. Decisions regarding class placement and choice of

251
curriculum were based on student data and made by a collaborative team that
included all four reading teachers and several ELA teachers.
Another key ingredient to the improvement process at CIS involved the
development and implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
When the principal first came to CIS he found that the level of collaboration among
teachers was very low. Teachers worked in isolation and decisions regarding student
placement were based solely on teacher recommendations. During the principal’s
first year at CIS he used Title 1 funds to send 20 staff members to the Du Four
Summit, an intensive training on how to work as a PLC. The team that attended the
summit included all four reading teachers, eleven ELA teachers, three counselors,
and both assistant principals. The staff that attended the PLC training then worked
with grade-level teams to teach them the PLC process. The staff chose to use their
one hour of weekly student preparation time to hold collaboration meetings to review
student data and make data-based decisions regarding the level and type of
interventions needed to improve student learning. According to the principal, after
approximately one year the entire school staff was utilizing the PLC process to
review student outcomes and make decisions regarding interventions for struggling
students.
When the principal came to CIS three years ago he unilaterally made the
decision to restructure the intervention program for struggling readers. After
identifying the performance situation and developing an RtI program that focused on
moving struggling students through intensive reading classes in ten week increments

252
he transformed the school culture from a practice of isolation to a practice of
collaboration. With the use of the PLC process and weekly collaboration meetings
the site leadership shifted from the principal to the entire staff. The key stakeholders
that attended the PLC training took the lead in training the teachers on how to work
collaboratively to improve student learning, and according to the principal, after one
year the weekly collaboration meetings were used to effectively review student data
and move students in and out of varying levels of reading intervention classes.
Budget reductions led to the elimination of all before and after school
intervention classes, which, according to the principal, has led to positive results.
Without the after school option teachers started teaching a broader range of students.
Struggling readers were placed in core ELA classes and reading intervention classes
that took place during the school day. The principal reported that many students
viewed the before and after school classes as punitive and were often unwilling to
attend.
The results of the principal’s improvement process at CIS are reflected in
student outcomes. As indicated in Table G.4, the API scores in ELA for the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups improved dramatically from 2007 to 2009. During
this time the API scores for the Hispanic subgroup increased by 47 points, the EL
subgroup increased by 55 points, and the SED subgroup increased by 41 points.
From 2007 to 2009 the achievement gaps between white and Hispanic students was
reduced by 34 points and between white and EL students by 42 points (see Table
G.5). Similarly, the number of Hispanic, EL, and SED students that scored Proficient

253
and Advanced on the ELA section of the CST from 2007 to 2009 increased
significantly (see Table G.7).
During the interview the principal identified several areas of concern
regarding student progress at CIS. Even though the ELA scores were improving the
principal was concerned about the progress of the EL subgroup. He stated that his
primary focus had been reading and ELA and as a result the math scores declined.
With the district’s decision to eliminate the after school program last year the
number of options for students that require additional time for remediation have been
reduced. The district’s proposed budget reductions for the 2010-11 school year
include the elimination of at least one counselor at CIS and during the interview the
principal stated that he was concerned about the possibility of losing additional staff
members.

254
Corresponding Resource Use
Table G.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at CIS to Evidence-Based Model

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Middle School
Actual CIS
Resources
Difference between EBM
and CIS or EBM
suggested amount for
CIS
School Characteristics
School Configuration 6-8 7-8 No sixth grade
School Size 450 1,200 2.7 times bigger
Core Class Size 25 33 8 more than EBM
Number of Teacher
Work Days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
184 including
2 in-service
days
18 less school days and 8
less in-service days
Number Disabled (w/IEPs) 101 (8.4%)
Number Poverty (free & reduced
lunch) Referred to as Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged (SED)
901 (75.1%)
Number English Learners 834 (70%)
% Minority (non-white) 90%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 per 450 students
38.0 FTE (73%
of FTEs)
EBM suggests 48.0 for
1,200 students
2. Specialist/Elective Teachers 8.0 (20% of FTEs)
14.0 FTE (27%
of FTEs)
EBM suggests 9.8
3. Instructional Coaches
2.25 (1 for every 200
students)
0 EBM suggests 6.0
4. Tutors for Struggling Students
One for every 100
poverty students
3.0 EBM suggests 7.8
5. Teachers for EL Students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.0 FTE EBM suggests 9.0

255
Table G.8., Continued

School Element EBM Prototypical Middle School Actual CIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and CIS or
EBM suggested
amount for CIS
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15 eligible
students (based 50% of Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students),
15 hours per week @ 25% of
salary
0
EBM suggests 7.5
FTE extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 per 15 Students (based on 50%
of Free & Reduced Price Lunch
Students)
0.9 FTE for 190 Students
(Existing staff paid
summer school rate for 4.5
hours per day for 20 days)
EBM Suggests 7.5
FTE Summer
School Teachers
School
Characteristics

8. Learning & Mild
Disabled Students
3 Teachers per
450 Students
7.0 FTE for Learning
Handicapped and
Resource Room Teachers
EBM suggests 8.0
FTE for 1,200
students
9. Severely
Disabled Students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
0 FTE (Severely Disabled
Students Attend a
Regional Program)
N/A
10. Resources for
Gifted Students
$25 per student Gate budget of $5,500
EBM suggests funds
of $30,000
11.
Career/Technical
Education
.3 per CTE Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes
$7,000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher for
illness and PN
Same as EBM
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance Counselor per 250
Students plus 1 Pupil Support
Staff per 100 Poverty Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students
3.0 Counselors
0.50 Psych, 1.0 Speech,
1.0 Health Tech
EBM suggests 4.8
Guidance
Counselors and 9.0
Support Staff
14. Non-
Instructional Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 3.0 AVID Program EBM Suggests 5.3
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0
EBM would
eliminate these
positions

256
Table G.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Middle School
Actual CIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and CIS or
EBM suggested
amount for CIS
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Media Technician & 1.0
Computer Technician
EBM suggests 2.7
17.
Administrators
1 Principal plus 1
Assistant Principal
1.0 Principal, 2.0 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests 1.0
Principal and 2.7
Assistant Principals
18. School Site
Secretary
2.0 School Site
Secretaries
1.0 Secretary, 4.0 Clerks, 2.0
Attendance Clerks
EBM Suggests 5.3
Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Teacher Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep Time

$100 per Student to Fund
2 District-Wide PD Days per Year

240 Minutes Per Month for
Collaboration = 5 days per year,
$17,000 spent for conferences,
$3,200 title II, and $2,000 for
materials
EBM suggests 10
days PD in summer
and $120,000 for
other PD expenses
20. Technology $250 per pupil
2.0 Media/Computer Technicians,
and $58,000 for classroom
equipment
EBM suggests
$300,000
21. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil Varies
EBM suggests
$210,000
22. Student
Activities
$250 per pupil
1.0 Community Liaison,
AVID Program
EBM suggests
$300,000
Source: Odden and Picus, (2008).

Lessons Learned
In order to provide a conceptual framework a comprehensive strategy
developed by Allan Odden (2009) to double student performance was used to present
the results of this case study. Based on information gathered from educational
leaders from across the nation, including “a group of leading educators in Wyoming

257
convened in late 2008 by Picus and Associates…” (p. 191), the following ten
sections are comprised of what Odden (2009) identified as “the ten core elements of
the improving school” (p. 191). Each of the following section headings is one of the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Understanding the Performance Situation
When the principal arrived at CIS three years ago he spent the entire summer
analyzing the performance situation. The first strategy in Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance is Understanding the Performance
Situation. After analyzing student data the principal found that there was no system
in place for making decisions regarding student learning. Staff worked in isolation
and decisions regarding student placement into intervention classes were based on
teacher referrals, not student data. The principal also found that the ELA and
intervention programs used to address the needs of struggling readers were
inconsistent and ineffective.
After enlisting the help of the Director of Student Services from the District
Office, a comprehensive improvement plan was developed. The areas identified by
the principal and included in the improvement plan included restructuring the
service-delivery model for ELA and reading, using student data to make placement
decisions, and increasing the level of collaboration among staff. Some of the
additional resources needed to implement the plan included the hiring of two
additional reading teachers, professional development on the PLC process, and
additional technology including a web-based ELA program.

258
Set High Goals
The second strategy identified by Odden (2009) is setting High Goals. During
the interview the principal continually mentioned that he believed all of the students
at CIS could reach Proficiency on the CST. When the principal first came to CIS he
was concerned about the dropping test scores and the practice of teachers working in
isolation. At several staff meetings and during several of the weekly collaboration
meetings the principal informed the staff that the goal at CIS was for all students to
advance by at least one performance band (e.g. Basic to Proficient) each year.
After the PLC training the principal noticed a dramatic improvement in the
attitudes of many of his staff members. The majority of the staff became focused on
student outcomes and the weekly collaboration meetings became somewhat
competitive with the goal being to improve student learning. During the interview it
was apparent that the principal’s leadership style had empowered the staff to take the
lead during the collaboration meetings and to use that time to make important
decisions based on data to improve student learning.
The principal’s goals of restructuring the ELA and reading service-delivery
models and improving the level of teacher collaboration were important steps in
changing the teachers’ perceptions of the students at CIS. Eliminating the practice of
pulling struggling readers out of core ELA classes to place them in remedial classes
without exposure to the core curriculum increased the level of staff ownership of all
students at CIS. The goals were set high at CIS and the expectation was that all
students will reach the level of Proficiency or Advanced on the CST.

259
Adopt New Curriculum Materials and Create a Point of View about
Instruction
The third strategy identified by Odden (2009) is Adopt New Curriculum
Materials and Create a Point of View about Instruction. This was the first area the
principal focused on at CIS. With the help of the Director of Student Services a new
service-delivery model for ELA and reading was developed and implemented. The
new system that was developed and implemented was an RtI model.
All students at CIS were placed in core ELA classes and additional reading
classes were added that took the place of elective classes. With the use of Title 1
funds, two additional teachers were hired and several new supplementary reading
programs were added including READ 180. Students were placed into appropriate
core ELA and reading classes based on multiple measures that included CST scores,
quarterly benchmark and CELDT scores, and curriculum based measures. A progress
monitoring system was set up with the use of Data Director and student progress
was monitored during the weekly staff collaboration meetings. Students that were
placed into intensive reading classes were provided with research based curricula,
and a protocol was used to ensure that students moved out of those classes as quickly
as possible. According to the principal, the PLC process was used during the weekly
collaboration meetings to review student data and place struggling students into
reading intervention classes for ten weeks, unless the staff determined that a longer
duration was necessary.

260
The point of view that was created at CIS was that teaching is scientific and
all decisions regarding student learning must be based on data. Another point of view
that was evident at CIS was that collaboration is important and all teachers and staff
are responsible for all students. During the interview the principal mentioned that he
now has the challenge of focusing on the low math scores at CIS and improving the
strategies used for the EL subgroup.
Data-Based Decision Making
The fourth strategy, Data-Based Decision Making (Odden, 2009), was a key
ingredient in the improvement process at CIS. When the principal first came to CIS
he found that there was no system in place for making decisions regarding placement
and interventions for students. After working with the district’s Director of Student
Services a comprehensive RtI model was developed and implemented that included a
screening strategy to quickly identify the needs of all students, a continuum of ELA
and reading interventions, a progress monitoring system, and a process for all staff to
meet weekly to collaboratively review student data to make placement and
intervention decisions.
The initial screening involved the use of CST, quarterly benchmark, and
CELDT scores along with curriculum based measures. All of these data were entered
into Data Director in order to quickly sort specific students and specific groups of
students into manageable cohorts that could be placed into appropriate ELA and
reading classes and then monitored frequently to ensure that they were making
progress. The weekly collaboration meetings were utilized to discuss student

261
progress and make decisions about placement based on data. The results for
struggling readers included increasing API scores, an increasing percentage of
students scoring Proficient and Advanced, and a decreasing achievement gap for
Hispanic and EL students.
Professional Development
The fifth strategy identified by Odden (2009), Professional Development,
was not a priority at CIS. Three years ago several staff members did attend the Du
Four Summit to learn how to effectively develop and implement PLCs and the
results led to a dramatic shift from staff working in isolation to a high level of staff
collaboration. The PLC training may have also led to greater use of student data to
make decisions about student learning. The staff members that attended the PLC
training returned to CIS and trained the entire staff on the details and benefits of the
PLC process. This was accomplished during the one hour per week staff meetings
and took one full school year to complete. According to the principal, the modeling
by the staff that attended the PLC training and the focus on student learning during
the weekly staff meetings slowly created a shift in the staff members’ point of view
about instruction, data-based decision making, and student learning. However,
during the interview the principal mentioned that there were no plans for staff
development other than the two days per year provided by the district.
Use Time Effectively
Odden’s (2009) sixth strategy for Doubling Student Performance, Use Time
Effectively, was an area of strength for the staff at CIS. The weekly staff meetings

262
were used to review student data in order to ensure that students were placed
accordingly and to monitor student progress. The loss of the before and after school
intervention classes was not an area of concern for the principal. In fact, the principal
reported that the loss of the programs may have increased the level of staff
ownership for all students since there was no longer a place to send students that
were not learning. However, the principal did report that he would like to reinstate
the before and after school program, but he would make sure that an effective system
is in place for determining how students are placed in and out of the program. One of
the results of the effective use of time at CIS was the inclusion of all students into
core ELA classes, and the use of electives for intensive reading classes for those
students that required additional reading support.
Interventions
The seventh Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Interventions, was the main area of focus at CIS. The restructuring of the
ELA and reading service-delivery model that included the hiring of two additional
reading teachers and several new reading supplements such as READ 180, resulted in
a comprehensive RtI program. Student needs were identified and monitored on a
weekly basis, and reading intervention classes run for ten weeks on average with the
school-wide goal of all students moving up by at least one performance band per
year.
All of the necessary components for an effective reading intervention
program were in place at CIS. The use of multiple measures to quickly identify

263
students who need additional help along with the use of Data Director to keep track
of the data, and the weekly collaboration meetings to review student progress have
led to improving CST scores in the area of ELA for all students at CIS including the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups. Although the math scores at CIS have declined
for all students the principal was well aware of this problem. During the interview
the principal reported that he was currently consulting with the specialists at the
district office to develop a plan to address the declining math scores and to improve
the rate of progress for the EL population.
Leadership and Professional Culture
The eighth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Leadership and Professional Culture, was another area of strength at CIS.
When the principal came to CIS three years ago he made a unilateral decision to
restructure the ELA and reading service-delivery models. His decision could have
backfired had it not been for his selective recruitment of key stakeholders to assist
him in the implementation of the new model. Sending a selective group of key
stakeholders to the Du Four Summit to learn how to effectively use the PLC process
to improve student learning through teacher collaboration helped establish a
leadership team at CIS. The implementation of the RtI model that included data-
based decision making, core ELA instruction for all students, short term
interventions for struggling readers, weekly collaboration meetings, and frequent
progress monitoring, was led by the leadership team. The result was not only an

264
increase in student learning, but an increase in staff collaboration, staff ownership of
all students, and shared decision making.
A Professional Organization
Odden’s (2009) ninth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance is A
Professional Organization. The change from teacher isolation to teacher
collaboration was one indicator of the professional organization that was established
at CIS. Another indicator was the focus on student learning for all students. The goal
of all students moving up by at least one performance band each year was a high
goal, but one that was shared by all staff members at CIS. The weekly staff meetings
effectively utilized the PLC process to review student progress. During the interview
the principal reported that he no longer needed to monitor the weekly staff meetings.
He stated that the other staff members started coming to him when someone was not
following the PLC process during the weekly staff meetings, and he went on to
report that this had occurred on very few occasions over the past two years.
Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
The tenth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Address Talent and Human Capital Issues. Developing a leadership team at
CIS resulted in a high level of collaboration and staff buy-in for doing what was
necessary to achieve the school-wide goal of all students advancing by at least one
performance band per year. In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins (2001) discusses
the importance of getting the right people on the bus and then getting the right people
in the right seat on the bus. Over the past three years the principal at CIS has moved

265
many teachers into different assignments in order to improve student learning and
teacher collaboration. As part of the improvement process he also hired two new
reading teachers. During the interview the principal reported that the weekly
collaboration meetings have helped to unify the staff, which reduced the number of
teacher factions that previously existed. The principal reported that everyone at CIS
was focused on student learning including the two assistant principals who he sees as
instructional leaders.
Additional Resources Needed
With the assistance of the Director of Student Services from the district office
the principal at CIS developed a comprehensive RtI model that improved student
outcomes and empowered the staff. The resources required included current staff
members, the hiring of two additional reading teachers, and new reading materials
that were used to supplement the core ELA curriculum. While the principal would
like to re-instate the before and after school intervention programs, he stated that due
to the ineffectiveness of the former programs he was in agreement to eliminate them.
However, the principal reported that the staff members were working much more
collaboratively and were using a more scientific approach to the teaching-learning
process so he would like to develop new before and after school intervention
programs that provide additional reading and math classes. The principal also
reported that if any positions were eliminated it would be difficult to continue to
make the progress in student outcomes that had been made at CIS.

266

Table G.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Area
Addressed
During
Interview
Example Comments
1. Understanding the
Performance
Situation
Yes
Identification of three key areas
of concern: declining test scores,
not using data to make decisions
about student learning, lack of
collaboration
Clear understanding of
the performance situation
in the areas of ELA and
reading, but math scores
continue to decline
2. Set High Goals Yes
School-wide goal of all students
advancing by at least one
performance band per year
All students in core ELA
classes
3. Adopt New
Curriculum Materials
& Create a Point of
View about
Instruction
Yes
Development and
implementation of RtI model,
adoption of new reading
supplements to complement the
core ELA program
Point of view about
instruction now more
scientific and focused on
all students
4. Data-Based
Decision Making
Yes
Use of multiple measures to
determine placement and
interventions
Weekly collaboration
meetings to review data
5. Professional
Development
No
Two days per year as per
teachers’ contract
PLC training three years
ago
6. Use Time
Effectively
Yes
All students in core ELA,
struggling readers take reading
intervention classes in lieu of
electives
60 minutes per week for
collaboration utilizing the
PLC process to review
student data and progress
monitoring
7. Interventions Yes
Loss of extended day programs
due to budget reductions
Struggling students take
additional reading classes,
placement based on data
8. Leadership and
Professional Culture
Yes
Establishment of leadership
team, use of data and PLC
process to make placement
decisions
Shift from teacher
isolation to culture of
collaboration, shared
decision making
9. A Professional
Organization
Yes
Focus on student learning for all
students
Use of district staff to
develop strategies to
improve student learning
10. Address Talent
and Human Capital
Issues
Yes
Staff placement based on best fit
and student needs
Hiring of two additional
reading teachers
Source: Odden, (2009).

267
APPENDIX H
CASE STUDY FOUR
DIS: Focus on ELD
School Background and Data
DIS is a middle school that serves students in grades 7-8 and is part of a large
unified school district located in Orange County, California. The District consists of
forty seven elementary schools, ten middle schools, seven high schools, two
continuation high schools, two adult education schools, and two special education
schools. The district’s enrollment is 49,000 students, and DIS serves 900 of those
students. Middle schools across the district range from 600 to 1,400 students. While
the district covers both urban and suburban areas, DIS is located in an urban area.
Two of the schools in this study are located in this district. Over the past two decades
the district has experienced an increase in the number of Hispanic and Asian students
and a decrease in the number of white students.
Similar to the district the student demographics at DIS have also changed
over the past two decades. As shown in Table H.1 there has been an increase in the
number of Hispanic and Asian students, and a decrease in the number of white
students. The demographic changes at DIS from 1994 to 2009 have been significant
(see Figure H.1).

268
Table H.1. Change in Demographics at DIS from 1994 to 2009

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
Hispanic 37.3% 40.8% 42.9% 52.0% 57.8% 58.8%
Asian 21.9% 27.4% 25.9% 24.8% 25.7% 27.1%
White 34.9% 27.1% 25.6% 17.9% 11.9% 9.3%
All Others 5.9% 4.7% 6.6% 5.3% 4.6% 4.8%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure H.1. Student Demographics at DIS from 1994 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table H.2, the demographics of the district were 53.4%
Hispanic, 30.8% Asian, 12.4% white, 45% EL, and 66% SED. The demographics of
DIS were 58.8% Hispanic, 27.1% Asian, 9.3% white, 42% EL, and 66% SED. The
EL population listed in Table H.2 does not include those students that were

269
reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). In 2009 at DIS, 29% of the students
were RFEP, which brings the total EL population up to 71% of the school.

Table H.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups

DIS District California
Hispanic 58.8% 53.4% 49%
Asian 27.1% 30.8% 8.4%
White 9.3% 12.4% 27.9%
*EL 42% 45% 24.2%
SED 72% 66% 52.3%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
Note: *Does not include those EL students reclassified as Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP). At DIS, 29% of all students were RFEP. This brings the total EL population
at DIS up to 71%.

As shown in Table H.3, in 2009 the majority of EL students at EIS spoke
Spanish as their primary language. From 2005 to 2009 the number of EL students at
EIS that spoke Spanish as their primary language remained relatively constant.
Vietnamese was the second most common primary language at EIS, and the number
of students that spoke this language also remained constant over the past five years.
The third most common primary language at EIS was Korean, and the number of
students that spoke this language increased slightly over the past five years from
4.3% to 5.8%.

270
Table H.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at DIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Hispanic 74.2% 76.7% 78.4% 73.7% 71.6%
Vietnamese 17.4% 15.6% 12.6% 17.3% 18.0%
Korean 4.1% 4.0% 3.4% 5.6% 4.6%
All Others 4.3% 3.7% 5.6% 4.4% 5.8%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

The principal at DIS understood the performance situation and identified
several areas that were included in the improvement process. One of the principal’s
main concerns was the facilitation of change in teaching strategies to address the
needs of the changing demographics at the school. Over the past twenty years the
student population changed from predominately white to predominately Hispanic
and Asian. As indicated in Table H.2 in 2009 more than half of the students at DIS
were Hispanic and nearly one third were Asian. According to the principal most of
the teachers and staff members at DIS have been there for more than twenty years
and not all of them have changed their teaching methodologies to address the needs
of the students.
The principal identified three main areas of focus in the improvement process
that included the use of formative assessments to inform instruction, the use of data
to drive instruction, and the use of a comprehensive English Language Development
(ELD) system to address the needs of EL students. The purpose of this case study
was to examine the resource allocation strategies that were implemented at DIS to

271
effectively improve learning for struggling readers. After the resource allocation
strategies at DIS were identified they were compared to the resource allocation
formula recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).

Table H.4. DIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
from 2000
to 2009
All
Students
672 671 660 697 708 737 779 779 812 829 157
Hispanic 553 569 576 623 647 669 720 722 753 773 220
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 688 769 762 789 805 117
SED 603 608 617 669 685 714 750 748 750 772 169
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table H.4, the Hispanic, EL and SED subgroups at DIS made
significant growth as measured by API. From the year 2000 to 2009 there was an
increase of 157 API points for the overall student population. At the end of the 2007-
08 school year the school surpassed the State goal of 800 by earning a score of 812
and the following year that score increased to 829.
The Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups at DIS also made significant growth
as measured by API (see Table H.4). The API scores for the Hispanic subgroup
increased by 220 points over the past ten years, and the API scores for the EL
subgroup increased by 117 points over the past five years. In fact, by the end of the

272
2008-09 school year the EL subgroup surpassed the State goal of 800 by earning an
API score of 805. The API scores for the SED subgroup at DIS increased by 169
points over the past ten years.
As indicated in Figure H.2 the API scores at DIS have continued on an
upward trend over the past ten years. This upward trend can also be seen over the
past five years for all students at DIS, including the Hispanic, EL, and SED
subgroups (see Figure H.2). From 2005 to 2009 the API scores for the overall
student population increased by 121 points (see Table H.4). The Hispanic subgroup
increased by 104, the EL subgroup increased by 117, and the SED subgroup
increased by 58 points during the same period of time.

Figure H.2. DIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

273
Another measure of the academic performance of the significant subgroups at
DIS involves an examination of the achievement gap between Hispanic and EL
students in comparison to white and Asian students. The white population at DIS is
not large enough to be categorized as a significant subgroup so the district-wide
white subgroup is used in this study. Even though the Asian population at DIS is
large enough to be categorized as a significant subgroup the district-wide Asian
subgroup is used in this study in order to establish consistency for comparing the
other middle schools used in this study. Table H.5 provides a comparison between
the Hispanic and EL subgroups at DIS and the white and Asian subgroups of the
entire school district.
As indicated in Table H.5, the achievement gaps between the Hispanic and
EL subgroups at DIS and the white and Asian subgroups across the district decreased
over the past five years. The gap between the Hispanic subgroup and the white
subgroup decreased by 59 API points over the past five years, and the gap between
the EL subgroup and the white subgroup decreased by 72 API points over the same
period of time. The achievement gap between the Hispanic subgroup at DIS and the
Asian subgroup across the district decreased by 53 API points, and the achievement
gap between the EL subgroup at DIS and the Asian subgroup across the district
decreased by 66 API points.

274
Table H.5. Achievement Gap at DIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
DIS API Scores for Hispanic and EL Subgroups
Hispanic 669 720 722 753 773 104
EL 688 769 762 789 805 117
District API Scores for White and Asian Subgroups
White 782 799 808 811 827 45
Asian 839 860 866 878 890 51
Achievement Gap
Hisp/White Gap 113 79 86 58 54 (59)
EL/White Gap 94 30 46 22 22 (72)
Hisp/Asian Gap 170 140 144 125 117 (53)
EL/Asian 151 91 104 89 85 (66)
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Examining the number of students at DIS that scored proficient and advanced
on the California Standards Test (CST) in comparison to the district and the State
provides another perspective of student progress. As indicated in Table H.6, over the
past five years the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the
English Language Arts (ELA) section of the CST at DIS increased from 46% to
57%. During the same period of time the number of students across the district that
scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST rose from 44% to
54% percent, and the statewide scores rose from 40% to 48%. The students at DIS
outperformed the district and the State in the number of students that scored
proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST. The same pattern can be

275
seen on the math section of the CST. The percentage of students at DIS that scored
proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST surpassed the statewide
average.

Table H.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at DIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
DIS 46 50 50 57 57 50 55 47 48 59
District 44 47 47 51 54 54 56 55 57 62
California 40 42 43 46 48 38 40 40 43 46
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Reviewing the number of Hispanic, EL, and SED students that scored
proficient and advanced on the ELA and math sections of the CST provides yet
another perspective of student outcomes at DIS. As indicated in Table H.7, the
number of Hispanic students that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section
of the CST increased from 32% in 2005 to 45% in 2009 for a net increase of 13%.
During the same period of time, the EL subgroup increased from 32% to 42% and
the SED subgroup increased from 41% to 50%. The increase in the number of
Hispanic students at DIS that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of
the CST was greater than the number of EL and SED students and the overall student
population.

276
The number of students at DIS that scored proficient and advanced on the
math section of the CST increased for all students including the Hispanic, EL, and
SED subgroups (see Table H.7). The overall student population increased from 50%
to 59 %. The Hispanic subgroup increased from 36% to 45%, the EL subgroup
increased from 40% to 49%, and the SED subgroup increased from 46% to 55%.

Table H.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CSTs
at DIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
All 46 50 50 57 57 50 55 47 48 59
Hisp. 32 38 39 46 45 36 42 32 34 45
EL 32 45 46 42 42 40 53 44 39 49
SED 41 43 45 53 50 46 50 41 43 55
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Three areas of student outcomes reviewed in this case study have indicated
continual growth for all students at DIS including the Hispanic, EL, and SED
subgroups. The first area of review was the API scores, the second area was the
achievement gap, and the third area was the number of students that scored proficient
and advanced on both the ELA and math sections of the CST. The next section of
this case study examines the key elements that contributed to the improvement
process for struggling readers at DIS.

277
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
The changing student demographics at DIS required the teachers to change
their teaching methodologies. According to the principal, this was a gradual process
that occurred over the six years that he has been there. In order to establish a focus in
the improvement process the principal identified and addressed three key elements.
First, the use of formative assessments to inform instruction was implemented at
DIS. Previously, teachers relied mostly on summative assessments and this led to a
reactive rather than a preventative method of providing interventions for struggling
students. Second, the use of data to drive instruction was implemented as a key
element in the improvement process. Along with the use of formative assessments,
teachers were trained on how to gather and use data to monitor student progress and
make instructional decisions. Finally, a comprehensive and systematic ELD program
was developed that included varying levels of intensity in order to address the
varying levels of English language proficiency at DIS.
One of the first steps in the improvement process involved providing an all-
staff training on the use of formative assessments. Several summative assessments
were in place at DIS including CSTs and district benchmarks, but the use of
formative assessments was not consistent among staff. On one of the staff
development days held before school started during the summer of 2008, all DIS
teachers were trained by two specialists from the County Office of Education on how
to administer formative assessments and how to use the results of those assessments
to inform and adjust instruction. The training took one full day and the staff used

278
their core ELA curriculum, Holt, and their core math curriculum, Prentice-Hall, as
part of the training.
During the interview the principal reported that the formative assessment
training was very successful and he immediately noticed the results during his
classroom visits. Teachers began using many of the tools provided at the training
including a simple spreadsheet that charted student progress on all chapter and unit
tests. A portion of the formal assessment training covered differentiating instruction
in order to re-teach skills that students had not mastered. Teachers used a tab in Data
Director to monitor student progress and this also helped the staff determine the
appropriate level of interventions needed for each student.
With a noticeable improvement in the use of formative assessments the
principal now had more student data to review with staff. The next step in the
improvement process at DIS was the use of data to drive instruction. The ELA and
math departments had leveled classes based on the students’ abilities, but decisions
regarding student placement were based on summative data. This led to a practice of
placing students into intervention programs after they had failed their ELA and/or
math classes. The use of formative assessments provided ongoing student data to the
DIS staff, which resulted in the ability to move students in and out of intervention
classes much more quickly. Utilizing the Professional Learning Community (PLC)
process the staff met to review student data every two weeks and students were
moved in and out of intervention classes on a quarterly basis. Students that required
more intensive interventions were moved as frequently as necessary.

279
The use of data was not new to the DIS staff, but the way data was used to
inform instruction was a new concept. According to the principal, prior to the
formative assessment training data was used to report past progress, not to report
current progress. At the bi-weekly staff meetings student progress was reviewed by
all staff members and decisions were made regarding the level of intervention and
placement needed to improve student learning. The results were impressive as more
and more students continued to reach proficiency and advanced as measured by the
CSTs (see Table H.7), and the length of time students remained in intervention
classes continued to decrease.
With the use of formative assessments to inform instruction and the use of
data to drive instruction and determine the type of interventions students needed to
be successful, the principal began focusing on restructuring the school’s ELD
program. With support from several EL specialists at the district office and the
County Office of Education the principal adopted a systematic approach to ELD that
included comprehensive training for the entire DIS staff. The training consisted of
one full day of training and three additional two hour training sessions that were held
over the course of a year. The principal used Title 1 and Title II funds to pay for the
training at a cost of nearly $20,000. The principal reported that one of the biggest
expenditures was providing substitutes for the on-going training sessions.
The ELD training was based on the work of Susana Dutro and Carrol Moran
(2003). The DIS teachers were taught about the necessary components of a
comprehensive ELD program including how to determine when students needed

280
sheltered instructional techniques, when they needed pre-teaching of vocabulary, and
when they needed additional instructional methodologies. Some of the additional
instructional methodologies included explicit instruction on how the English
language works including vocabulary, word usage, grammar, and syntax (Dutro &
Moran, 2003). Another important component of the training, according to the
principal, was detailed information on how to actually plan, teach, and monitor EL
students.
According to the principal, the three key elements of the improvement
process at DIS, the use of formative assessments to inform instruction, the use of
data to drive instruction, and the development and implementation of a
comprehensive ELD program, transformed the school. The principal reported that
the teachers have a much better understanding of the needs of their students.
Providing the staff with the training needed to effectively address the needs of the
increasingly diverse student population empowered the staff, transformed the school
culture, and greatly improved the student outcomes at DIS. The following section
reviews the resource allocation strategies at DIS and how those strategies compare to
the Evidence-Based Model (EBM).

281
Corresponding Resource Use
Table H.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at DIS to Evidence-Based Model

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Middle School
Actual DIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and DIS or
EBM suggested
amount for DIS
School Characteristics
School Configuration 6-8 7-8 No sixth grade
School Size 450 900 2 times bigger
Core Class Size 25 32 11 more than EBM
Number of Teacher Work Days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
185 including 2 in-
service days and 1
teacher preparation day
18 less school days
and 8 less in-service
days
Number Disabled (w/IEPs) 90 (10%)
Number Poverty (free & reduced
lunch) Referred to as Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged
(SED)
648 (72%)
Number English Learners 378 (42%)
% Minority (non-white) 90.7%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 per 450 students 23 FTE (74.2% of FTEs)
EBM suggests 36 for
900 students
2. Specialist/Elective Teachers 8.0 (20% of FTEs)
8.0 FTE (25.8%
of FTEs)
EBM suggests 7.2
3. Instructional Coaches
2.25 (1 for every
200 students)
0 EBM suggests 4.5
4. Tutors for Struggling Students
One for every 100
poverty students
2.0 EBM suggests 6.48
5. Teachers for EL Students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every
100 EL students
2.0 FTE EBM suggests 3.78

282
Table H.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual DIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and DIS or
EBM suggested
amount for DIS
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15 eligible
students (based 50% of Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students),
15 hours per week @ 25% of
salary
1.0 FTE (Existing staff
paid extra hourly for 90
minutes per week)
EBM suggests 5.4
FTE extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 per 15 Students (based on 50%
of Free & Reduced Price Lunch
Students)
0.65 FTE for 175
Students (Existing staff
paid summer school rate
for 4.5 hours per day for
20 days)
EBM Suggests 5.4
FTE Summer School
Teachers
School
Characteristics

8. Learning & Mild
Disabled Students
3 Teachers per
450 Students
4.0 FTE for Learning
Handicapped and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests 6.0
FTE for 900 students
9. Severely
Disabled Students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
0 FTE (Severely
Disabled Students Attend
a Regional Program)
N/A
10. Resources for
Gifted Students
$25 per student Gate budget of $4,800
EBM suggests funds
of $22,500
11.
Career/Technical
Education
.3 per CTE Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes
$7,000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher for
illness and PN
Same as EBM
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance Counselor per 250
Students plus 1 Pupil Support
Staff per 100 poverty Free &
Reduced Price Lunch Students
1.0 Counselor, 0.40
Psych, 0.20 Speech, 0.50
Health Tech
EBM suggests 4.8
Guidance Counselors
and 6.48 Support Staff
14. Non-
Instructional Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 1.0 AVID Program EBM Suggests 4.0
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0
EBM would eliminate
these positions

283
Table H.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual DIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and DIS or
EBM suggested
amount for DIS
16. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
0.50 Librarian
0.50 Media/Computer
Technician
EBM suggests 2.0
17. Administrators
1.0 Principal plus
1.0 Assistant Principal
1.0 Principal, 1.0
Assistant Principal
EBM suggests 1.0
Principal and 2.0
Assistant Principals
18. School Site
Secretary
2.0 School Site Secretaries
1.0 Secretary, 2.0 Clerks,
3.0 Attendance Clerks
EBM Suggests 4.0
Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive Teacher
Development in Summer
Included in Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep Time

$100 per Student to Fund
2 District-Wide PD Days
per Year, 1 Teacher
Preparation Day

120 Minutes per month
per teacher = within
school day (early student
release days) $68,000
for conferences, $1,200
title II, and $6,000 for
materials
EBM suggests 10 days
PD in summer and
$90,000 for other PD
expenses
20. Technology $250 per pupil
0.50 Media/Computer
Technician, and $42,000
for classroom equipment
EBM suggests
$225,000
21. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil Varies
EBM suggests
$157,500
22. Student
Activities
$250 per pupil
1.0 Community Liaison,
AVID Program
EBM suggests
$225,000
Source: Odden and Picus, (2008).

Lessons Learned
In order to provide a conceptual framework a comprehensive strategy
developed by Allan Odden (2009) to double student performance is used to present
the results of this case study. Based on information gathered from educational

284
leaders from across the nation, including “a group of leading educators in Wyoming
convened in late 2008 by Picus and Associates…” (p. 191), the following ten
sections are comprised of what Odden (2009) identified as “the ten core elements of
the improving school” (p. 191). Each of the following section headings is one of the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Understanding the Performance Situation
The first strategy in Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance is Understanding the Performance Situation. The principal at DIS
understood the performance situation and identified three key areas of focus in the
improvement process. According to the principal, narrowing the key elements of the
improvement process to the use of formative assessments to inform instruction, the
use of data to drive instruction, and the development and implementation of a
systematic ELD program, helped the staff understand the needs of the students and
provided them with the strategies needed to address those needs.
All three of the key elements built upon each other, and all three also led to
other areas of improvement such as an increase in staff collaboration. The use of the
PLC process provided a format to review the results of the formative assessments
and other student data, and the development and implementation of the systematic
ELD program provided staff with an opportunity to practice new and improved
teaching strategies. During the interview the principal reported that even though it
took some time all of the staff members understood the performance situation at DIS

285
and the focus was on improving student outcomes for all students particularly
students who spoke English as a second language.
Set High Goals
The second strategy identified by Odden (2009) involves setting High Goals.
The principal set high goals at DIS that included all students improving by one
performance band per year as measured by the CST, but he also set a goal for all EL
students to improve by at least one CELDT level per year. Similar to the CST, the
CELDT has five performance levels and those levels, from lowest to highest, are
Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced.
While the goals at DIS were focused on improving student outcomes for all
students there was clearly an emphasis on effectively addressing the needs of EL
students. As indicated in Table G.4 the API scores for the EL subgroup increased by
117 points over the past ten years and recently surpassed the State goal of 800.
Similarly, the API scores for the Hispanic subgroup increased by 220 points over the
past ten years and were 773 in 2009, just 28 points less than the State goal.
Adopt New Curriculum Materials and Create a Point of View about
Instruction
The third strategy identified by Odden (2009) is Adopt New Curriculum
Materials and Create a Point of View about Instruction. One of the challenges faced
by the principal at DIS was the staff members’ lack of understanding of the needs of
the students. Most of the staff members had been at DIS for more than twenty years
and the student population changed dramatically during that time. In order to help

286
the staff members gain a better understanding of the needs of the students at DIS
several new strategies and programs were implemented.
A collaborative process was used to identify key content standards that all
teachers agreed to cover, and common pacing calendars were developed that outlined
the timeline for students to master those content standards. Staff meetings were held
for one hour every other week and the focus of those meetings was on student data.
In addition to the systematic ELD program that was developed and implemented, a
new instructional methodology was implemented that dramatically improved the
fidelity of instruction. The principal purchased a handbook written by Douglas
Fisher and Nancy Frey (2008) titled Better Learning Through Structured Teaching:
A Framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility. Without any funds left for
training on the teaching strategies outlined in the handbook, the principal asked for
volunteers among the staff to read and review the handbook and then provide on-site
training for staff. Several staff members volunteered and the process outlined by
Fisher and Frey (2008) was very well received. The teaching strategies outlined in
the handbook helped the teachers develop structured lessons with a clear purpose.
The process helped students move from guided instruction to collaborative learning
and finally to independent learning. This is what Fisher and Frey (2008) refer to as
“a gradual release of responsibility.” The principal reported that this strategy helped
establish a point of view about instruction at DIS that all students are capable of
learning.

287
Data-Based Decision Making
The fourth strategy, Data-Based Decision Making (Odden, 2009), was the
second step in the improvement process at DIS. After providing training on the use
of formative assessments, the principal focused on using the results of the formative
assessments to make decisions about student learning. The practice of relying only
on summative assessments to make instructional decisions ended, and student
progress was monitored at the bi-weekly staff meetings using both formative and
summative assessments. Students that did not show progress were moved into
intervention classes based on data, and students that showed progress were moved
out of intervention classes. A continuum of student interventions was established at
DIS and decisions regarding the level and duration of those interventions were made
collaboratively and based on data.
Professional Development
The fifth strategy identified by Odden (2009), Professional Development was
a high priority at DIS. As part of the improvement process the principal utilized
several forms of professional development. The principal hired private consultants to
provide staff training, enlisted the help of specialists from the district office and the
County Office of Education, and recruited his own staff members to provide in-
house training.
In order to ensure that staff members were continuing to effectively utilize
the PLC process to improve student learning the principal hired a private consultant
to work with all of the staff. The consultant provided one full-day of training that

288
consisted of two sessions. Half of the staff attended the morning session and the
other half attended the afternoon session. This reduced the cost for substitutes. The
cost of the training was approximately $6,000 including materials and substitutes.
Two other areas of professional development involved training on the use of
formative assessments and how to effectively teach EL students. Both trainings were
conducted by specialists from the district office and the County Office of Education,
and the principal reported during the interview that both trainings led to positive
results in staff and student performance. The formative assessment training consisted
of one full day of training with several on-going trainings at a cost of nearly $10,000,
and the ELD training also consisted of several days of training at a cost of nearly
$20,000. Specific staff members were also sent to various trainings during the 2008-
09 school year. During the interview the principal reported that approximately
$75,000 was spent on professional development during the 2008-09 school year.
Another method of professional development that was utilized at DIS
involved key staff members training the entire staff on various topics. One of the key
elements in the improvement process at DIS utilized this form of staff training.
Several staff members read a handbook written by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey
(2008) titled Better Learning Through Structured Teaching: A Framework for the
Gradual Release of Responsibility. The handbook was then purchased for all staff
members and the in-house trainers provided hands-on training regarding the teaching
methods outlined by Fisher and Frey (2008). These trainings took place during the
bi-weekly staff meetings and after school on a voluntary basis. The trainers were

289
released from their assignments for several days throughout the year to visit
classrooms and assist teachers in implementing the strategies.
Use Time Effectively
Odden’s (2009) sixth strategy for Doubling Student Performance, Use Time
Effectively, was an area of strength for the staff at DIS. During the interview the
principal reported that time management was a top priority for him. Several changes
were made to help staff use time more effectively. After the formative assessment
training the bi-weekly staff meetings became much more focused and served as a
format to review student progress and make decisions about student learning. The
use of the staff development days to provide the trainings reduced the need for
substitutes, and the use of specialists from the district office and the County Office of
Education to conduct the trainings reduced the overall costs for professional
development.
Another example of using time effectively was the format of the extended
day program for struggling students. The extended day intervention classes consisted
of five reading classes that were held two days per week for 45 minutes per class,
and five math classes that were held two days per week on alternate days for 45
minutes per class. The decision for students to attend the classes was made by a
panel of ELA and math teachers.
Interventions
The seventh Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Interventions, and this strategy was a top priority at DIS. With several areas

290
of focus, the improvement process at DIS included the use of formative assessments
to inform instruction, the use of data to drive instruction, the implementation of a
systematic ELD program, and strategies to help teachers improve their instruction.
Interventions at DIS were infused throughout the school day. Those students that
required more intensive interventions were placed into additional reading classes that
took the place of electives, and students that required even more intensive
interventions were placed into the extended day classes.
The intervention and progress monitoring systems that were in place at DIS
ensured that students did not fall through the cracks. Teachers used curriculum-based
measures and formative assessments to monitor student progress on a regular basis
and the bi-weekly staff meetings were used to review student progress and make
collaborative decisions about student placement into and out of intervention classes.
During the interview the principal reported that the systems in place not only
improved student outcomes they also changed the staff members’ point of view
about instruction. The staff members at DIS became focused on student outcomes for
all students.
Leadership and Professional Culture
The eighth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Leadership and Professional Culture, was another area of strength at DIS.
With the changing student demographics that occurred over the past several years at
DIS the principal had to help the staff change their teaching strategies in order to
address the diverse needs of the student population. The key elements of the

291
improvement process at DIS helped the staff make that change. By providing
training on the use of formative assessments to inform instruction, the use of data to
drive instruction, and the implementation of a systematic ELD program, the staff
members at DIS were equipped with the strategies needed to improve student
learning. The principal helped build the capacity of the staff members by allowing
them to run the bi-weekly staff meetings and by selecting key staff members to
provide training and support to other staff members.
A Professional Organization
Odden’s (2009) ninth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance is A
Professional Organization. The focus on all students at DIS helped transform the
school into a professional organization. With the school-wide goal of all students
advancing by at least one performance band on the CST, and EL students advancing
by at least one performance band on the CELDT, the staff members were determined
to meet those goals. The systems that were in place to improve student learning
included the use of Professional Learning Communities to review student progress
and make decisions about interventions based on data and were a reflection of the
school’s transformation into a professional organization.
Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
The tenth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Address Talent and Human Capital Issues. In order to help the teachers at
DIS create a point of view about instruction that focused on learning for all students
several systems were put in place. First, the teachers were provided with training on

292
how to use formative assessments to inform instruction. Second, the teachers were
provided with training on how to use data to drive instruction. Finally, the teachers
were provided with training on how to implement a systematic ELD program that
addressed the needs of the student population.
Most of the teachers have been at DIS for more than twenty years, and
changing their instructional strategies was intimidating to many of them. By
providing the teachers with specific training and equipping them with the strategies
they needed to be successful, the buy-in was nearly unanimous. The key stakeholders
at the school provided on-going training and assistance to those teachers that needed
additional support, and the bi-weekly staff meetings provided a venue for addressing
challenges during the transformation process. The result of effectively using
formative assessments and data to improve student learning increased the
productivity at the staff meetings. Staff members had current assessment data to
review and this helped to ensure that all students were getting what they needed to be
successful.

293
Table H.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Area
Addressed
During
Interview
Example Comments
1. Understanding
the Performance
Situation
Yes
Identification of three key elements
in the improvement process: use of
formative assessments and data, and
the implementation of a systematic
ELD program
Staff members were provided
with comprehensive training and
strategies in several areas in
order to help them be successful
2. Set High Goals Yes
Focus on all students learning, goal
for EL students to improve by at
least one performance band per year
as measured by CELDT scores
Staff meetings review data and
discuss strategies and
interventions to improve student
outcomes
3. Adopt New
Curriculum
Materials & Create
a Point of View
about Instruction
Yes
Training and implementation of
systematic ELD program, training
on effective instructional
methodologies
Point of view about instruction
includes the use of formative
assessments and data to inform
and drive instruction
4. Data-Based
Decision Making
Yes
One of three key elements in the
improvement process
Bi-weekly collaboration
meetings to review data
5. Professional
Development
Yes
Two days per year as per teachers’
contract and additional training for
entire staff, on-going follow up
training for entire staff, additional
training provided to key staff
members
Use of private consultants and
specialists from the district
office and the County Office of
Education, approximately
$75,000 spent on staff
development during the 2008-09
school year
6. Use Time
Effectively
Yes
Extended day classes offered four
days per week in ELA and math
Bi-weekly staff meetings to
review student data and make
placement decisions
7. Interventions Yes
Intervention classes held after
school and during the school day in
place of electives
Systematic ELD program and
staff training on effective
instructional strategies
8. Leadership and
Professional Culture
Yes
Identification of key elements for
change and provision of training
and strategies to implement change
Use of Professional Learning
Communities and data-based
decision making
9. A Professional
Organization
Yes
Focus on moving all students up by
at least one performance band per
year
Use of private consultants and
district and county specialists to
train staff on strategies to
improve student learning
10. Address Talent
and Human Capital
Issues
Yes
Training and systems in place to
assist staff change their teaching
methodologies to address the needs
of the student population
Use of key staff members to
provide on-going training and
support
Source: Odden, (2009).

294
Additional Resources Needed
During the interview the principal reported that the staff members at DIS are
a cohesive and collaborative group that work well together and rely upon each other
for support. He reported that he was not aware of any proposed budget reductions for
DIS, but he also stated that any staff reductions would have a negative impact on
student learning. The principal reported that everyone at DIS was already doing
everything they could to improve student learning, and asking any of the staff
members to take on any additional responsibilities could lead to a tipping point that
impacts the entire school.

295
APPENDIX I
CASE STUDY FIVE
EIS: Focus on Collaboration
School Background and Data
EIS is a middle school that serves students in grades 7-8 and is part of a large
unified school District located in Orange County, California. The District consists of
forty seven elementary schools, ten middle schools, seven high schools, two
continuation high schools, two adult education schools, and two special education
schools. The District’s enrollment is 49,000 students, and EIS serves 700 of those
students. Middle schools across the District range from 600 to 1,400 students. While
the District covers both urban and suburban areas, EIS is located in an urban area.
Two of the schools in this study are located in this District.
As shown in Table I.1, the student demographics at EIS have changed over
the past two decades. There has been an increase in the number of Hispanic students,
a slight decrease in the number of Asian students, and a decrease in the number of
white students. The changes in student demographics at EIS from 1994 to 2009 have
been significant (see Figure I.1).

296
Table I.1. Change in Demographics at EIS from 1994 to 2009

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
Hispanic 45.8% 55.4% 58.6% 68.6% 74.2% 74.9%
Asian 17.4% 17.1% 15.5% 10.7% 14.7% 15.2%
White 33.2% 24.1% 20.8% 14.6% 8.2% 7.0%
All Others 3.6% 3.4% 5.1% 6.1% 2.9% 2.9%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Figure I.1. Student Demographics at EIS from 1994 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table I.2, the demographics of the District were 53.4%
Hispanic, 30.8% Asian, 12.4% white, 45% EL, and 66% SED. The demographics of
EIS were 74% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 8% white, 44% EL, and 73% SED. The EL
population listed in Table I.2 does not include those students that were reclassified as

297
Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). At EIS, 26% of the students were RFEP, which
brings the total EL population up to 70% of the school.

Table I.2. 2008-09 Comparison of Subgroups

EIS District California
Hispanic 74.9% 53.4% 49%
Asian 15.2% 30.8% 8.4%
White 7.0% 12.4% 27.9%
*EL 44% 45% 24.2%
SED 73% 66% 52.3%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).
Note: *Does not include those EL students reclassified as Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP). At EIS, 26% of all students were RFEP. This brings the total EL population
at EIS up to 70%.

As shown in Table I.3, the majority of EL students at EIS spoke Spanish as
their primary language. The number of EL students at EIS that spoke Spanish as their
primary language remained relatively constant over the past five years. Vietnamese
was the second most common primary language at EIS, and the number of EL
students that spoke this language also remained constant over the past five years. The
third most common primary language at EIS was Arabic, although less than one
percent of EL students spoke this language.

298
Table I.3. Percentage of English Learners by Language at EIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Spanish 88.8% 88.7% 90.5% 91.3% 86.1%
Vietnamese 8.3% 9.4% 7.9% 6.9% 9.5%
Arabic 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.7%
All Others 2.6% 1.6% 1.3% 1.8% 3.7%
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

The principal has been at EIS for three years and was keenly aware of several
areas that needed improvement. The principal understood the performance situation
at EIS and identified three key areas of focus that were included in the improvement
plan. In an effort to improve learning for all students the main areas of focus in the
improvement process at EIS included collaboration, interventions, and coaching. The
purpose of this case study was to examine the resource allocation strategies that were
implemented at EIS to effectively improve learning for struggling readers. After the
resource allocation strategies at EIS were identified they were compared to the
resource allocation formula recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden,
2009).

299
Table I.4. EIS API Scores 2000 to 2009 Including Subgroups

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
from 2000
to 2009
All
Students
651 672 656 684 702 724 735 748 774 787 136
Hispanic 586 616 620 648 669 688 703 722 741 752 166
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 674 719 736 703 724 50
SED 615 634 624 664 681 705 712 731 753 770 155
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table I.4, over the past ten years the API scores for the
overall student population at EIS increased by 136 points. During the same period of
time both the Hispanic and SED subgroups outperformed the overall student
population with increases in API scores of 166 and 155 points respectively. While
the API scores for the EL subgroup increased by 50 points over the past five years,
the scores actually decreased from 736 in 2007 to 703 in 2007. The 2009 API scores
for the EL subgroup were 724, which was still lower than the scores in 2007.

300
Figure I.2. EIS API Scores from 2000 to 2009

Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Figure I.2, the progress for all students at EIS, with the
exception of the EL subgroup, continued to increase over the past ten years. In 2009
the EL population at EIS was 86.1% Hispanic (see Table I.3). As mentioned, the API
scores for the EL subgroup decreased substantially by 33 points from 2007 to 2008,
but the Hispanic subgroup actually increased by 19 points during the same period of
time. During the interview the principal reported that the decrease in EL scores may
have been caused by a dramatic change in the service-delivery model that involved
shifting from a “pull-out” ELD program to a “push-in” program that will be
described in the next section of this case study.
Another measure of the academic performance of the significant subgroups at
EIS involves an examination of the achievement gap between Hispanic and EL
students in comparison to white and Asian students. The white population at EIS was

301
not large enough to be categorized as a significant subgroup so the district-wide
white subgroup was used in this study. Even though the Asian population at EIS was
large enough to be categorized as a significant subgroup the district-wide Asian
subgroup was used in order to establish consistency for comparing the other middle
schools used in this study. Table I.5 provides a comparison between the Hispanic and
EL subgroups at EIS and the white and Asian subgroups of the entire school district.
As indicated in Table I.5, the achievement gaps between the Hispanic and EL
subgroups at EIS and the white and Asian subgroups across the District decreased
slightly over the past five years. From 2005 to 2009 the achievement gap between
the Hispanic subgroup at EIS and the white subgroup across the district decreased by
19 points. During the same period of time the achievement gap between the EL
subgroup at EIS and the white subgroup across the district decreased by five points.
Following the same pattern previously discussed the achievement gap between EL
and white students increased from 72 API points in 2007 to 108 in 2008 and then
decreased to 103 in 2009.
Reviewing the increase in API scores made by the Hispanic and EL students
at EIS in comparison to white and Asian students across the district provides another
perspective of the achievement gap at EIS. While the achievement gap was closing
very slowly at EIS, the growth in API scores for Hispanic and EL students at EIS
was greater than the growth made by white students across the district. As shown in
Table I.5, API scores increased for white students across the district from 782 in
2005 to 827 in 2009 for a net gain of 45 points. During the same period of time the

302
API scores for Hispanic and EL students at EIS increased by 64 and 50 points
respectively. The increase in API scores from 2005 to 2009 of 64 points for Hispanic
students at EIS was greater than the increase of 51 points made by Asian students
across the district. Even though the EL subgroup at EIS did not appear to be making
significant progress, over the past five years the 50 point increase in API scores
made by this subgroup was only one point less than the 51 point increase made by
the district-wide Asian subgroup.

Table I.5. Achievement Gap at EIS from 2005 to 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change from
2005 to 2009
EIS API Scores for Hispanic and EL Subgroups
Hispanic 688 703 722 741 752 64
EL 674 719 736 703 724 50
District API Scores for White and Asian Subgroups
White 782 799 808 811 827 45
Asian 839 860 866 878 890 51
Achievement Gap
Hisp/White Gap 94 96 86 70 75 (19)
EL/White Gap 108 80 72 108 103 (5)
Hisp/Asian Gap 151 157 144 137 138 (13)
EL/Asian 165 141 130 175 166 1
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

Reviewing the number of students at EIS that scored proficient and advanced
on the California Standards Test (CST) in comparison to the district and the State

303
provides another perspective of student achievement. As shown in Table I.6, over the
past five years the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the
English Language Arts (ELA) section of the CST at EIS increased from 40% to 49%
for a net increase of 9%. This increase was greater than the statewide increase from
40% to 48% that occurred during the same period of time. However, the number of
students at EIS that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST
from 2005 to 2009 only increased from 39% percent to 40%, which was well below
the statewide increase from 38% to 46% that occurred during the same period of
time.

Table I.6. Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced on CSTs at EIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
EIS 40 43 43 47 49 39 36 37 38 40
District 44 47 47 51 54 54 56 55 57 62
California 40 42 43 46 48 38 40 40 43 46
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

As indicated in Table I.6, the number of Hispanic, EL, and SED students at
EIS that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST increased
from 2005 to 2009. The Hispanic subgroup increased each year from 31% in 2005 to
41% in 2009. The EL subgroup did not increase each year, but did increase overall

304
from 25% in 2005 to 33% in 2009. Similar to the decrease in API scores that
occurred from 2007 to 2008 (see Table I.4), the EL subgroup experienced a
significant decrease from 41% in 2007 to 32% in 2008 in the number of students that
scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST. Interestingly, the
increase from 25% in 2005 to 41% in 2007 (for a net increase of 16%) in the number
of EL students that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST
was greater than the increases made by all other students and subgroups at EIS (see
Table I.7), and greater than the district-wide and statewide increase that occurred for
all students (see Table I.6) during that period of time. And even with the significant
drop that occurred in the number of EL students at EIS that scored proficient and
advanced on the ELA section of the CST from 2007 to 2008 the overall increase of
8% from 2005 to 2009 was the same as the statewide increase.
While there was growth from 2005 to 2009 in the percentage of students at
EIS that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST, the
percentage of students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section
during this period of time is concerning (see Table I.7). The percentage of students
that proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST was 39% in 2005 and
then dropped to a low of 36% in 2006. After increasing by one percentage point per
year from 2007 to 2009, the number of students at EIS that scored proficient and
advanced on the math section of the CST was 40% in 2009. From 2005 to 2009 the
number of all students at EIS that scored proficient and advanced only increased by
one percentage point from 39% to 40%.

305
The Hispanic and EL subgroups at EIS declined in the percentage of students
that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST from 2005 to
2009. The Hispanic subgroup decreased from 33% to 32%, and the EL subgroup
decreased from 30% to 29%. The most significant decrease occurred from 2007 to
2008 when the percentage of EL students that scored proficient and advanced on the
math section of the CST dropped from 35% to 22%. From 2005 to 2009 the
percentage of SED students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section
of the CST increased by one percentage point from 36% to 37%.
Clearly, the lack of progress over the past five years at EIS in the percentage
of students that scored proficient and advanced on the math section of the CST is
concerning. An in-depth analysis of factors that may have attributed to this lack of
progress is beyond the scope of this study; however, the resource allocation
strategies utilized at EIS are examined in the next section of this case study and
correlations may be drawn.

306
Table I.7. Percentage of Students and Subgroups Proficient and Advanced on CSTs
at EIS

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Subgroups
Proficient and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
All 40 43 43 47 49 39 36 37 38 40
Hisp. 31 36 37 40 41 33 28 30 29 32
EL 25 39 41 32 33 30 36 35 22 29
SED 36 39 40 43 43 36 32 32 34 37
Source: California Department of Education, (2009a).

While the student outcomes in the area of math at EIS have not improved
over the past five years, and even declined for the Hispanic and EL subgroups, the
purpose of this study was to identify the resource allocation strategies that were used
to improve learning for struggling readers. As previously discussed, the API scores
for all students did show continuous growth over the past five years and are nearing
the State goal of 800 (see Table I.4). The API scores for the Hispanic and SED
subgroups at EIS made significant progress over the past five years with an increase
of 166 points and 155 points respectively. The API scores for the EL subgroup began
to increase once again after a significant decrease from 2007 to 2008. Both the
Hispanic and EL subgroups at EIS made slow, but steady progress towards closing
the achievement gap. One of the strongest indicators of the academic achievement at
EIS was the increasing percentage of Hispanic, EL, and SED students that scored
proficient and advanced on the ELA section of the CST. As previously mentioned,

307
from 2005 to 2009 the overall student population at EIS surpassed the statewide
average in the number of students that scored proficient and advanced on the ELA
section of the CST. The next section of this case study examined the key elements
that contributed to the improvement process for struggling readers at EIS.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Even though the principal understood the performance situation at EIS and
identified several areas of improvement, during the interview three key elements of
the improvement process were discussed. Three years ago when the principal came
to EIS he noticed that the teachers worked as independent contractors with a very
low level of collaboration. He also noticed that the reading interventions used to
address the needs of struggling students were inconsistent and not based on data.
After identifying the lack of staff collaboration and the inconsistent and ineffective
interventions used for struggling readers, the principal developed an improvement
plan that included training and coaching from specialists from the district office, the
county office of education, and in-house staff that were provided with training and
release days to coach other staff members on how to improve their instructional
strategies. The three key elements of the improvement process at EIS discussed
during the interview included increasing the level and effectiveness of collaboration
among staff, improving and expanding interventions for struggling readers and EL
students, and providing support in the form of instructional coaches to improve
instruction and student outcomes.

308
In an effort to improve the level of collaboration among the staff the principal
utilized several different strategies. Staff members were trained by specialists from
the county office of education on the use of formative assessments and data to drive
instruction. The training took place on one of the district-wide staff development
days during the summer of 2007 at no cost to the school or district. The principal
also implemented weekly, one hour school-wide collaboration meetings during the
2007-08 school year, although this was changed to bi-weekly meetings during the
2008-09 school year. During the 2007-08 school year the weekly collaboration
meetings started off as all-staff meetings that took place in the auditorium. During
twelve of the collaboration meetings several specialists from the district office and
county office of education trained the staff on how to effectively provide
interventions for struggling readers and EL students. The twelve trainings included
basic overviews on using formative and summative assessments to determine the
needs of all students. The teachers were trained on how to use Data Director to
monitor student progress. They were also trained on how to develop and implement
strategies to differentiate instruction to address the needs of all students, and how to
use Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies to
effectively address the needs of EL students.
According to the principal, after approximately three months of meeting
weekly in the auditorium the meetings were divided into several smaller meetings
that consisted of grade-level and/or departmental teams and took place every week
for the remainder of the 2007-08 school year. The district office assigned a Teacher

309
on Special Assignment (TOSA) to EIS for one day per week. The TOSA assigned to
the school was a Reading Specialist and served as both a literacy coach and
instructional coach in providing training and support to all of the teachers at EIS. The
TOSA observed classrooms, provided direct support to the staff, and attended several
of the staff meetings.
When the principal came to EIS three years ago the intervention programs
consisted of separate classrooms for struggling readers and EL students. Students
that were reading two years below grade level were placed into remedial reading
classes that took the place of core ELA classes. The curricula used in the remedial
classes varied greatly. Some teachers used the core ELA curriculum, Holt, with
supplemental materials and others used replacement programs such as High Point
and Language. There was no consistency in how the students were taught and how
they were placed into the remedial classes. In order to address this problem the
principal worked with specialists from the district office including the TOSA to
develop a plan to restructure the intervention programs.
The plan to restructure the intervention programs at EIS had several key
elements. First, a decision was made to eliminate the separate, or pull-out, classes for
all students including struggling readers and EL students. Second, a comprehensive
staff development plan was developed that included staff training on differentiation
and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies to
address the needs of EL students. Third, six of the twenty eight teachers were trained
to become instructional coaches and they were each provided with two release days

310
per month to work with other teachers in their classrooms. The cost of the staff
development including the training and substitutes was nearly $50,000 for the 2007-
08 school year and just over $50,000 for the 2008-09 school year.
Eliminating the pull-out intervention programs involved school-wide training
on differentiation and the use of SDAIE strategies. These trainings began during the
weekly staff meetings held during the 2007-08 school year and were conducted by
two specialists from the district office and the TOSA. During the 2007-08 school
year all of the staff members at EIS received 12 hours of training on SDAIE
strategies. In order to provide additional support to struggling students an after-
school intervention program was developed and implemented at the beginning of the
2008-09 school year. The after school program consisted of four reading classes that
took place four days per week. The classes were 45 minutes in length and
approximately 80 students were placed in the classes based on multiple measures
including formative and summative assessment data. The principal reported during
the interview that the classes were intensive and designed to last four weeks,
although many students remained in the program for eight weeks. Occasionally,
some students stayed in the program for twelve weeks. Decisions to move students in
and out of the intervention classes were based on data and made collaboratively
during the staff meetings.
Another format for providing interventions was the development of intensive
reading classes that struggling students took in place of their electives. The
intervention classes used either the Language program to address the needs of

311
struggling readers, or High Point to address the needs of EL students that required
additional support. Students placed in these classes were no longer pulled out of their
core ELA classes. The intensive reading classes were taken in addition to the core
ELA classes. This format provided struggling students with additional instructional
time that included their core ELA classes and intensive reading intervention classes.
In order to ensure that the staff members at EIS had on-going support and
were correctly utilizing the skills they learned in the trainings the district TOSA and
on-site coaches worked frequently with the teaching staff. Research on the use and
effectiveness of instructional coaches is extensive (Hasbrouck & Denton, 2005; Kise,
2006; Knight, 2004, 2006; Odden, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008). The EBM
recommends one instructional coach for every two hundred students (Odden &
Picus, 2008). For EIS the EBM recommends 3.5 FTEs to serve as instructional
coaches. With the district allocation of the TOSA for one day per week and the six
trained teachers that each provided two days per month of coaching the number of
instructional coaches at EIS was 0.80 FTE.
During the interview the principal described how the key elements of the
improvement process were addressed simultaneously. The on-going trainings and the
restructuring of the intervention programs resulted in the staff members working
much more collaboratively. The key elements of the improvement process provided
a format for staff to work together and the district-wide and school-wide goals of all
students improving by at least one performance band on the ELA and math sections
of the CST, and all EL students improving by at least one performance band on the

312
CELDT helped to create a vision and focus for the staff. The principal stated that the
most important element in the improvement process was the use of instructional
coaches to provide specific training and on-going support to the staff members.
While the ELA scores were improving at EIS the principal was concerned
about the slow progress made by the EL subgroup and the declining math scores for
all students. During the interview the principal stated that his main area of focus was
ELA and reading. He was concerned about the quality of his math programs and was
working with specialists from the district office to provide staff training and develop
an intensive math intervention program. Another area of concern for the principal
was whether or not he would be able to continue offering the after school
intervention program. With rumors of drastic budget reductions for the 2010-11
school year the principal was concerned that he would no longer be able to fund the
after school program, and he was also concerned that he might have to reduce staff.
The following section compares the resource allocation at EIS with the EBM.

313
Corresponding Resource Use
Table I.8. Comparison of Actual Resources at EIS to Evidence-Based Model

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual EIS Resources
Difference between
EBM and EIS or
EBM suggested
amount for EIS
School Characteristics
School Configuration 6-8 7-8 No sixth grade
School Size 450 700 1.56 times bigger
Core Class Size 25 32 7 more than EBM
Number of Teacher Work
Days
200, including 10 days
for intensive training
185 including 2 in-service
days and 1 teacher
preparation day
18 less school days
and 8 less in-service
days
Number disabled (w/IEPs) 70 (10%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch) Referred to
as Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged (SED)
511 (73%)
Number English Learners 308 (44%)
% Minority (non-white) 92%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 per 450 students 22 FTE (79% of FTEs)
EBM suggests 28 for
700 students
2. Specialist/Elective
Teachers
8.0 (20% of FTEs) 6.0 FTE (21% of FTEs) EBM suggests 5.6
3. Instructional Coaches
2.25 (1 for every 200
students)
0.80 FTE (2 release days
per month provided to six
existing staff members,
and 4 days per month
from district TOSA)
EBM suggests 3.5
4. Tutors for Struggling
Students
One for every 100
poverty students
4.0 EBM suggests 5.11
5. Teachers for EL
Students
An additional 1.0 teacher
for every 100 EL students
1.0 FTE EBM suggests 3.08

314
Table I.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual EIS Resources
Difference
between EBM and
EIS or EBM
suggested amount
for EIS
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
eligible students (based
50% of Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Students), 15
hours per week @ 25% of
salary
0.4 FTE (Existing staff paid
extra hourly for 90 minutes
per week)
EBM suggests 4.26
FTE extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 per 15 Students (based on
50% of Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Students)
1.2 FTE for 285 Students
(Existing staff paid summer
school rate for 4.5 hours per
day for 20 days)
EBM Suggests
4.26 FTE Summer
School Teachers
School Characteristics
8. Learning & Mild
Disabled Students
3 Teachers per
450 Students
3.0 FTE for Learning
Handicapped and Resource
Room Teachers
EBM suggests 4.67
FTE for 700
students
9. Severely Disabled
Students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
0 FTE (Severely Disabled
Students
Attend a Regional Program)
N/A
10. Resources for Gifted
Students
$25 per student Gate budget of $4,200
EBM suggests
funds of $17,500
11. Career/Technical
Education
.3 per CTE Student to
Maintain Low Class Sizes
$7,000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher for
illness and PN
Same as EBM
13. Pupil Support Staff
1 Guidance Counselor per
250 Students plus 1 Pupil
Support Staff per 100
poverty Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Students
1.0 Counselor
0.40 Psych, 0.20 Speech,
0.20 Nurse, 0.20 Health
Tech
EBM suggests 2.8
Guidance
Counselors and
5.11 Pupil Support
Staff
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 2.0 AVID Program
EBM Suggests
3.11
15. Instructional Aides 0 0
EBM would
eliminate these
positions

315
Table I.8., Continued

School Element
EBM Prototypical Middle
School
Actual EIS Resources
Difference
between EBM and
EIS or EBM
suggested amount
for EIS
16. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian 0.50 Librarian EBM suggests 1.56
17. Administrators
1 Principal plus
1 Assistant Principal
1.0 Principal, 1.0 Assistant
Principal
EBM suggests 1.0
Principal and 1.56
Assistant
Principals
18. School Site Secretary 2.0 School Site Secretaries
1.0 Secretary, 1.5 Clerks,
2.5 Attendance Clerks
EBM Suggests
3.12 Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive Teacher
Development in Summer
Included in Teacher
Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep Time

$100 per Student to Fund
2 District-Wide PD Days
per Year
1 Teacher Preparation Day

120 Minutes per month for
a total of 20 hours of
collaboration time per
teacher = within school day
(early student release days)
$5,500 for conferences,
$1,200 title II, and $1,100
for materials, $42,000 for
substitutes
EBM suggests 10
days PD in
summer and
$70,000 for other
PD expenses
20. Technology $250 per pupil
$35,000 for classroom
equipment
EBM suggests
$175,000
21. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil Varies
EBM suggests
$122,500
22. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1.0 Community Liaison,
AVID Program
EBM suggests
$175,000
Source: Odden and Picus, (2008).

Lessons Learned
In order to provide a conceptual framework a comprehensive strategy
developed by Allan Odden (2009) to double student performance is used to present

316
the results of this case study. Based on information gathered from educational
leaders from across the nation, including “a group of leading educators in Wyoming
convened in late 2008 by Picus and Associates…” (p. 191), the following ten
sections are comprised of what Odden (2009) identified as “the ten core elements of
the improving school” (p. 191). Each of the following section headings is one of the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Understanding the Performance Situation
The first strategy in Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance is Understanding the Performance Situation. The principal at EIS
clearly understood the performance situation. His main areas of focus were changing
the practice of teachers working in isolation, expanding and improving the
intervention program for struggling readers and EL students, and implementing a
coaching model that included both district and in-house staff.
During the interview, the principal stated that he was concerned about the
slow progress made by the EL subgroup in ELA. He was also aware that the math
scores for all students at EIS declined and he was in the process of developing a plan
to provide staff training in this area. The principal hoped to develop and implement a
comprehensive math intervention program, but he was concerned that possible
budget reductions for the 2010-11 school year might prevent him from expanding his
intervention programs and could even result in the elimination of the after school
reading intervention classes.

317
Set High Goals
The second strategy identified by Odden (2009) involves setting High Goals.
The principal did set high goals at EIS, including the district-wide and school-wide
goals of all students improving by at least one performance band on the CST and EL
students improving by at least one performance band on the CELDT. While the
Hispanic and SED subgroups made significant progress over the past five years, the
progress made by the EL subgroup was slow. The shift from staff working in
isolation to staff working in collaboration to review student data and make
instructional decisions was a goal that had been accomplished. The use of
instructional coaches was another goal that was in place during the 2008-09 school
year and the results as measured by student outcomes remain to be seen.
Adopt New Curriculum Materials and Create a Point of View about
Instruction
The third strategy identified by Odden (2009) is Adopt New Curriculum
Materials and Create a Point of View about Instruction. With the first step in the
improvement process of improving the level of collaboration at EIS completed, the
principal then began the process of restructuring the ELA and reading intervention
programs. The principal ended the past practice of pulling struggling students out of
core ELA classes to place them in remedial reading and ELD classes, and he made
sure that all students were in classes that used the core ELA curriculum. All staff
members were provided with intensive training on how to effectively differentiate
instruction, use formative assessments to monitor and adjust instruction, and make

318
decisions based on data. With the use of instructional coaches to ensure that staff
members were receiving on-going support and training, a point of view about
instruction was evident at EIS. All teachers were responsible for all students and
those students that required additional support were placed into intervention classes
that took the place of elective classes and/or took place after school.
Data-Based Decision Making
The fourth strategy, Data-Based Decision Making (Odden, 2009), was part of
the improvement process at EIS. During the district-wide staff development days all
staff members were trained on how to use formative assessments and student data to
monitor and adjust instruction. Additional training on the use of data to place
students in and out of intervention classes was also provided during the regularly-
scheduled staff meetings. Previously, decisions to pull students out of core ELA
classes and place them in intervention classes were made subjectively by individual
teachers.
With the implementation of weekly staff meetings during the 2007-08 school
year, and the bi-weekly meetings held during the 2008-09 school year, the staff met
frequently to review student data and make instructional decisions based on student
outcomes. According to the principal, the use of the instructional coaches led to
dramatic improvements in differentiated instruction and data-based decision making.
The principal reported that instead of meeting to talk about students, staff members
were meeting to talk about data and what to do when the data showed that students
were not making progress.

319
Professional Development
The fifth strategy identified by Odden (2009), Professional Development,
was clearly a main area of focus at EIS. The professional development at EIS was
extensive. With intensive training over the summer, on-going trainings throughout
the school year, weekly staff meetings during the 2007-08 school year, bi-weekly
staff meetings during the 2008-09 school year, use of specialists from the district and
county office of education, development of in-house instructional coaches, and the
district TOSA, a comprehensive professional development plan was in place.
During the interview the principal discussed the importance of providing
intensive, on-going training and support for the staff. During the 2008-09 school year
nearly $50,000 was spent on professional development. Most of these funds were
used for substitutes to cover release days for the in-house instructional coaches. The
decision to use specialists from the district office and county office of education to
provide staff training resulted in a substantial cost savings and resulted in the
availability of additional funds to cover substitutes. The use of the district TOSA and
the in-house coaches resulted in on-going staff training and support and improved
the consistency of the instructional methodologies throughout the school.
Use Time Effectively
Odden’s (2009) sixth strategy for Doubling Student Performance, Use Time
Effectively, was an area of strength for the staff at EIS. The staff development
schedule at EIS allowed staff to be trained during the district-wide staff development
days and during their regularly scheduled staff meetings. The district TOSA and in-

320
house coaches visited classrooms regularly and were able to provide direct support
and feedback to teachers. The staff meetings provided a format to review student
progress and make instructional decisions and resulted in an increase in the level of
staff collaboration and objectivity regarding student interventions. The addition of
intensive reading and after-school intervention classes that complemented the core
ELA classes instead of supplanting them resulted in additional instructional time for
struggling readers.
Interventions
The seventh Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009), Interventions, was a key element in the improvement process at EIS. During
the interview the principal explained that two of his main areas of focus were on
providing intensive interventions for struggling readers and EL students. As part of
the restructuring of the intervention programs at EIS the principal ended the past
practice of pulling struggling students out of core ELA classes and placing them into
remedial reading and ELD classes. A push-in model was developed that consisted of
all students taking core ELA classes and struggling readers took additional reading
classes in place of electives and/or after-school. The intensive reading classes used
state-approved reading intervention programs including Language and High Point,
and decisions to place students in and out of the those classes were made
collaboratively and based on student data. The use of the district TOSA and in-house
coaches resulted in on-going support for the intervention programs.

321
One area of weakness at EIS was math. The math scores at EIS declined over
the past five years. There was no math intervention program, but the principal was in
the process of developing and implementing an improvement plan to address this
problem. During the interview the principal stated that he was in the process of
developing a plan to provide all staff members with training on how to effectively
teach math, and he was also planning on developing and implementing a math
intervention program for struggling students.
Leadership and Professional Culture
The eighth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Leadership and Professional Culture. Several key elements in the
improvement process resulted in the development of a professional culture and a
change in leadership at EIS. First, the principal’s decision to improve the level of
collaboration at EIS resulted in more responsibilities for all staff members. Second,
the comprehensive training that was provided including how to use formative
assessments and data to improve instruction helped build capacity and improve
consistency among staff. Third, the regularly-scheduled staff meetings and the use of
those meetings for on-going trainings and to review student progress resulted in
teacher-leaders that rose to the occasion and took the lead in facilitating the
meetings. Finally, the use of instructional coaches in the form of the district TOSA
and the in-house coaches resulted in on-going training and support for all staff and
greatly improved the fidelity of instruction. All of these elements resulted in a focus
on improving student outcomes for all students at EIS, and decisions regarding

322
student learning were made collaboratively during the regularly-scheduled staff
meetings.
A Professional Organization
Odden’s (2009) ninth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance is A
Professional Organization. According to the principal, one of the most noticeable
results of the improvement plan at EIS was the cohesiveness of the staff. The shift
from teachers working in isolation to teachers working in collaboration resulted in a
collective focus on improving student outcomes for all students. The three key
elements of the improvement process, improving the level of staff collaboration,
developing and implementing interventions for struggling readers and EL students,
and the addition of instructional coaches, resulted in a much more scientific and
objective approach to the teaching-learning process at EIS. Student data was
reviewed regularly and instructional decisions were based on data. A school-wide
system was put in place to improve student learning that resulted in the establishment
of a professional organization.
Address Talent and Human Capital Issues
The tenth Strategy for Doubling Student Performance identified by Odden
(2009) is Address Talent and Human Capital Issues. Several elements in the
improvement process at EIS included this strategy. First, the principal’s goal of
increasing the level of staff collaboration included a training component that
provided staff with a focus on improving student learning. The use of specialists
from the district office and county office of education to provide training on specific

323
topics related to student learning resulted in an overall improvement in the teachers’
abilities to assess, monitor, and remediate the needs of the students; furthermore, this
resulted in a reason to collaborate.
The principal’s decision to train six teachers to become in-house instructional
coaches along with the addition of the TOSA from the district office created a sense
of professionalism and accountability. The coaches were visiting classrooms on a
regular basis and providing training and feedback on specific instructional strategies
to address the needs of struggling students, and the staff meetings provided a format
to review student progress and make collaborative decisions based on student data.
The on-going training and support that the coaches were able to provide ensured that
the strategies learned during the school-wide trainings were being implemented
correctly.
Additional Resources Needed
During the interview the principal stated that he was concerned about the
possibility of severe budget reductions for the 2010-11 school year. More
specifically, the principal was concerned that he might lose key staff members if the
district does reduce his budget, and he was also concerned that he might have to
eliminate the after-school reading intervention program. The principal understood
that the fiscal crisis was impacting everyone in the district and the State, but he was
concerned that future budget reductions could have a negative impact on student
learning.

324
Table I.9. The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Area
Addressed
During
Interview
Example Comments
1. Understanding the
Performance
Situation
Yes
Identification of three key areas of
concern: staff collaboration,
interventions for struggling readers
and EL students, and provision of
on-going training and support
Use of instructional coaches and
the development of
comprehensive reading
interventions, but math scores
continue to decline
2. Set High Goals Yes
Goal to improve level of staff
collaboration, school-wide goals
for all students to improve by at
least one level on the CST and EL
students to improve by at least one
level on the CELDT
Student test scores as measured by
API continue to improve
particularly for Hispanic and SED
subgroups, but progress is slow
for EL subgroup
3. Adopt New
Curriculum
Materials & Create a
Point of View about
Instruction
Yes
All students placed in core ELA
classes with additional reading
intervention classes as needed
Instructional decisions were based
on student data and made
collaboratively during regularly-
scheduled staff meetings
4. Data-Based
Decision Making
Yes
Comprehensive training on use of
formative assessments and data to
improve student learning
Use of Data Director to monitor
student progress
5. Professional
Development
Yes
Two days per year as per teachers’
contract, plus use of weekly (2007-
08) and bi-weekly staff meetings
for training, over $50,000 spent on
staff training in 2007-08, and
nearly $50,000 spent in 2008-09
Use of instructional coaches
including one-day per week from
district TOSA, and six teachers
trained as in-house coaches with
two release days each per month
to provide training and support
6. Use Time
Effectively
Yes
Use of district-wide staff
development days for school-wide
training and regularly scheduled
staff meetings for on-going
training
Use of in-house instructional
coaches and district TOSA for on-
going training and support
7. Interventions Yes
Extended day intervention
program for struggling readers
Plan to develop comprehensive
math intervention program
8. Leadership and
Professional Culture
Yes
School-wide shift to collaborative
decision making based on student
data
Use of in-house instructional
coaches and regularly-scheduled
staff meetings resulted in
increased responsibilities for all
staff members
9. A Professional
Organization
Yes
Focus on student learning for all
students and collaborative-decision
making
Shift from subjective to objective
instructional methodologies and
decisions
10. Address Talent
and Human Capital
Issues
Yes
Use of specialists from the district
office and county office of
education to provide training and
support
Use of coaching model that
included district office TOSA and
six in-house teachers
Source: Odden, (2009).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Using the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) as a conceptual framework in correlation with the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) for comparison, this study examines the school-level resource allocation strategies used to improve learning for struggling readers in high-minority, high-poverty, urban middle schools that have made significant progress in closing the achievement gap. The results of this study support the current research on the effectiveness of inclusive, push-in models that place struggling students in core academic classes with comprehensive interventions that include the use of both formative and summative assessments, targeted interventions, frequent progress monitoring, and additional layers of resources including extended learning opportunities and additional support from specialists.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district

PDF

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

PDF

Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Donavan, Franklin E. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/08/2010

Defense Date 03/04/2010

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

Tag adequacy,evidence-based model,interventions,leadership,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,struggling readers,subgroups,Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

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

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email donavan@usc.edu,fdonavan@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2899

Unique identifier UC1450591

Identifier etd-Donavan-3535 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-320757 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2899 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Donavan-3535.pdf

Dmrecord 320757

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Donavan, Franklin E.

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