University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

(USC Thesis Other)

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ADEQUACY AND ALLOCATION PRACTICES: A CORNERSTONE OF PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION

by

Martha Ramirez Stuemky

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Martha Ramirez Stuemky
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother for her tenacity and determination to
seek a better life for her children. You have always been my inspiration to work hard and
push myself to achieve my dreams. Finally, to my brother Ricardo who inspired me to
take on this journey.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Lawrence Picus for allowing me to
take part in his group and for all the time he spent reading my project and providing me
with both academic and emotional support. I would like to thank Dr. Hentschke and Dr.
Nelson for agreeing to be in my dissertation committee and providing me suggestions
and professional expertise to enhance my project. I would also like to thank my friends
in the cohort who were always there encouraging me to finish the journey.
A special thanks to George Ramirez, Maria Ramirez, Socorro Orozco, Lupita
Ramirez, Patricia Ramirez, nieces, nephews, and friends for understanding when I could
not be there to share and celebrate life. Diana Ward and John Ward thanks for your help.
Thank you to my husband Matt for enduring the three years of late nights and weekends
away as I pursued my dreams. Thank you to Jessica Villarreal who has spent many extra
hours at work when I was not able to, yet always encouraged and gave me that extra push
of inspiration when I needed it. Thank you to Val Staley, Ken Gibbs, and John Snavely
for encouraging me to start the program and allowing me all the flexibility needed to get
this project done.
Finally, I would like to especially thank Nate Nelson and Ricardo Ramirez for
encouraging me to get through this hurdle and for their never-ending assistance all the
way through this process. Without you two I would not have been able to finish.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures viii

Abstract xi

Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Importance of the Study 7
Research Design 8
Limitations and Delimitations 8
Assumptions 10
Definition of Terms 10

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 16
School Finance in California 17
Program Improvement (PI) Criteria 31
Elementary and Secondary Education Act 33
School Improvement Grant 35
Educational Adequacy 40
The Evidence-Based Model 44
Effective Practices for Improving Student Learning 54
Summary 58

Chapter 3 - Methodology 60
Research Questions 61
Sample and Population 61
Instruments and Data Collection 66
Summary 68

v

Chapter 4 - Findings 69
School Profiles 69
Achievement Data 72
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies 86
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 123
Impact of Budget Reductions 129
Conclusion 131

Chapter 5 - Discussion 136
Background 136
Discussion of Findings 138
Implications for Policy and Practice 145
Recommendations for Future Studies 146
Conclusion 147

References 149

Appendices
Appendix A – IRB Approval 158
Appendix B – Site Permission Letter 159
Appendix C – Informed Consent 161
Appendix D – Quantitative Data Collection Protocol 162
Appendix E – Qualitative Data Collection Protocol 171
Appendix F – Data Collection Code Book 176
Appendix G – School Visit Interview Dates 188
Appendix H – Alpha Elementary School 189
Appendix I – Bravo Elementary School 220
Appendix J – Charlie Elementary School 254
Appendix K – Delta Elementary School 280
Appendix L – Echo Elementary School 309

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Statewide 2009 Base APIs Overall and for Student Subgroups 29

Table 2.2 Program Improvement Requirements for Each Year of Designation 32

Table 2.3: Schools in Title I and Program Improvement in California 2003-08 33

Table 2.4: Academic Program Survey/Essential Program Components 38

Table 2.5: Evidence-Based Formulas 53

Table 3.1: School Sample API and State Rankings 63

Table 3.2: School Sample Grade Range, Enrollment, and Demographics 64

Table 3.3: School and Sub-Groups AYP Status 65

Table 4.1: Student Enrollment of Sample Schools 70

Table 4.2: Similar Schools and Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools 74

Table 4.3: Implementation of Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance 122

Table 4.4: Comparison of Class Sizes in the EBM vs. Sample Schools 124

Table 4.5: Resource Allocation - EBM vs. Actual Resource Allocation 126

Table H.1: Alpha Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies 210

Table H.2: Alpha Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model 214

Table I.1: Bravo Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies 246

Table I.2: Bravo Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model 249

Table J.1: Charlie Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies 272

Table J.2: Charlie Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model 275

Table K.1: Delta Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategie 301

vii

Table K.2: Delta Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model 304

Table L.1: Echo Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies 327

Table L.2: Echo Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model 330
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: California‘s School Finance System 24

Figure 2.2: Per-Pupil Distributions 25

Figure 2.3: API Targets 2001 –2014 27

Figure 2.4: AYP Targets for Unified School Districts Language Arts 2001 – 2014 30

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Distribution in Sample Schools 71

Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students enrolled in Sample Schools 72

Figure 4.3: API Change in Sample Schools Over Five Year Period 73

Figure 4.4: Statewide Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years 75

Figure 4.5: Similar Schools Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years 75

Figure 4.6: Language Arts AYP Schoolwide Change in Sample Schools 76

Figure 4.7: English Arts AYP Change for Hispanic Students 77

Figure 4.8: English Arts AYP Change for SED Students 78

Figure 4.9: English Arts AYP Change for EL Students 79

Figure 4.10: English Arts AYP Change in Percent Proficient and Advanced 80

Figure 4.11: Math AYP Schoolwide Change in Sample Schools 81

Figure 4.12: Math AYP Change for Hispanic Students 82

Figure 4.13: Math AYP Change for SED Students 83

Figure 4.14: Math AYP Change for EL Students 84

Figure 4.15: Math AYP Change in Percent Proficient and Advanced 85

Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown – Alpha Elementary 190

ix

Figure H.2: Alpha Elementary School‘s API 191

Figure H.3: Alpha Elementary Academic Performance Index 192

Figure H.4: Percent Proficient - English Language AYP 194

Figure H.5: Percent Proficient - Math AYP 195

Figure H.6: Alpha Elementary CST Results 196

Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Bravo Elementary School 221

Figure I.2: Bravo Elementary School API 222

Figure I.3: Bravo Elementary School API by Subgroups 223

Figure I.4: Bravo Elementary School Language Arts AYP 225

Figure I.5: Bravo Elementary School Math AYP 226

Figure I.6: Bravo Elementary School CST Results By Subject 227

Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown – Charlie Elementary 255

Figure J.2: Charlie Elementary School‘s API 256

Figure J.3: Charlie Elementary Academic Performance Index, 257

Figure J.4: Percent Proficient – Language Arts AYP 259

Figure J.5: Percent Proficient – Math AYP 260

Figure J.6: Charlie Elementary CST Results – All Students 261

Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown – Delta Elementary 281

Figure K.2: Delta Elementary School‘s API 282

Figure K.3: Delta Elementary Academic Performance Index 283

Figure K.4: Percent Proficient – Language Arts AYP 285

x

Figure K.5: Percent Proficient – Math AYP 286

Figure K.6: Delta Elementary CST Results 287

Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Echo Elementary 310

Figure L.2: Echo Elementary School API 311

Figure L.3: Echo Elementary – API By Subgroups 312

Figure L.4: Percent Proficient - Language Arts AYP 314

Figure L.5: Percent Proficient - Math AYP 315

Figure L.6: California Standards Test By Subject 317
xi

ABSTRACT
Each year many California schools fail to meet the goals outlined by No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB). When schools fail to improve by making Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) for two consecutive years they are placed in ―Program Improvement.‖ These
schools face increasing pressure to meet the NCLB goals while concurrently providing
additional services to a growing number of students with varied educational needs, even
as their access to state and local resources has been negatively impacted by fiscal and
economic distress. Schools must therefore innovatively use their limited resources in the
most efficient and effective ways to meet these competing demands. This study
examines patterns of resource allocation at five persistently low-achieving elementary
schools in Program Improvement Year 5 in California‘s Central Valley. The goal is to
determine the connection between the implementation of instructional practices and
student achievement. Data from five Program Improvement elementary schools were
compared with Odden and Picus‘ (2008) Evidenced-Based Model and Odden‘s (2009)
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance as organizational frameworks to
determine the extent to which these Program Improvement schools utilize their limited
resources to support the implementation of instructional strategies. Expenditure data,
school personnel resource data and qualitative data collected from the schools are
analyzed to ascertain best practices given certain school conditions. The study findings
suggest that there is indeed a connection between student achievement and the efficient
allocation of resources and implementation of research-based instructional strategies.
1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
President Barrack Obama‘s ―Race to the Top Federal Initiative‖ (RTTT) is the
latest in a long history of calls for educational reform at the national level. RTTT is
meant is to induce competition throughout the country for innovation of educational
reforms that can be replicated by the lowest performing schools (California Department
of Education, 2010a). The current push for educational reform was preceded by the Bush
Administration‘s ―No Child Left Behind,‖ which combined incentives for improvement
in standardized tests and punishment for stagnant or worsening schools. Even earlier, the
call for educational reform began in the early 1980‘s with the publication of A Nation at
Risk. In this document, the National Committee on Excellence in Education (1983) set
the precedent for nationwide educational reform by stating that the institutions of learning
as well as society seemed to have lost focus of the basic purpose of schooling, and of the
high expectations and efforts needed to reach them. According to Berliner and Biddle
(1995), the entire document was highly critical of American education and even went so
far as to claim that this problem would inevitably damage the nation. As a result of this
highly publicized document, standards-based educational reform was born.
Educators at every level are being asked to do increasingly more with respect to
student performance with fewer resources than in the past (Harris et al. 2008). Given that
standards and expectations are primarily measured at the school-level, this study focuses
on schools which have been designated as persistently low-achieving, and are in Program
2

Improvement status because they have struggled to meet state or federal educational
goals for five or more years (California Department of Education, 2010b).
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) program mandated the bottom five percent of Title I schools
who have failed to meet the state and federal targets under No Child Left Behind be
identified as persistently low-achieving schools. The schools so identified are required to
implement one of four school intervention models. The range of educational reform
options that these schools have to select from can be classified into four intervention
models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the School Closure Model, or the
Transformation Model due to their Program Improvement status. These schools are
faced with using their chosen model to substantially improve the academic performance
of their students.
Allocation of resources is one issue that each of these schools must consider and
will be a focal point of this study. Specifically, this study will look at five persistently
low-achieving Title I schools and compare how they use resources with the research in
the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) as a framework in the
reallocation of resources.
According to Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) school spending has increased by over
three and a half percent per year from 1890 to 1990. While some of the costs of the
spending have typically been designated to increase teacher salaries, other expenditures
are attributed to rising costs in supplemental services for special needs students, while
3

other expenditures are targeted to cover services outside the classroom (Hanushek &
Rivkin, 1997)) Although there has been an increase in spending, Odden et al. (1995)
state that student achievement outcomes have been minimal and difficult to track. Odden
et al. (1995) emphasize that practitioners now have the obligation to align the school
resources to focus on student outcomes, consequently, creating a sustainable school
system designed to produce high levels of student learning.
California continues to face a budget crisis which is having a significant impact in
the education system, thus leaving schools to identify the most effective solutions to
ensure that accountability in student learning are in place even with less resources
available (Mazzei & McGrory, 2010; Sanders, 2010). The deliberate uses of research-
based instructional strategies along with meaningful allocation of resources are key
elements to ensure that student learning continues to be the focus. After studying five
Title I elementary schools, the researcher summarized how these low-achieving schools
incorporate the new school improvement plan and compared these strategies to those of
the Evidence-Based Model.
Background of the Problem
The move from equity to educational adequacy has been prompted by a long list
of federal and state mandates aimed at improving the academic performance of all
students (Hanushek, 1997). Adams (1994) states that identifying school expenditure
patterns to improve student learning is not as challenging as it is to determine how
external factors manipulate the decision to utilize resources dollars effectively relative to
4

student achievement. Since the 1970‘s litigation in the courts was pursued in order to
correct funding disparities in the education system (Picus, 2004). The Serrano v. Priest
decision of 1971 has forced the largest state in the United States to reconstruct
educational funding from the foundation which was thought to equalize school funding
from property taxes (Odden & Picus, 2008). This landmark case along with several
others was passed to ensure equity and adequate school funding for California school
districts and will be reviewed in Chapter Two.
This study investigated adequacy in public education for schools in Southern San
Joaquin Valley and designated as Program Improvement and struggling to address the
low academic achievement for some needy students. Schools under consideration have
been designated as persistently low-achieving in Program Improvement under the No
Child Left Behind Act for 5 years or more and have similar and state rankings of one.
The focus of this study is to make recommendations and identify solutions for allocation
of resources in schools sharing similar designation.
Statement of the Problem
What is the best way to allocate resources within a school to address continuous
student performance? Specifically, what should persistently low-achieving schools do to
improve efficiency of their allocation of resources? According to the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) students in California continue to fall
behind the rest of the nation. Additionally, California has established rigorous
performance standards and at the other spectrum the per-pupil spending is below the
5

national average (EdSource, 2009c). Each year students continue to demonstrate
progress toward the state performance standards; however, under NCLB students are not
meeting the target goals (EdSource, 2009c). In light of the financial crisis California is
facing, schools are finding the efficient allocation of resources more crucial than ever as
they struggle to increase student achievement. There is little consensus what constitutes
adequate funding level for education (Rebel, 2007). According to the National Forum on
Educational Statistics (2007) costs in public education continue to rise and pressure for
increased student accountability also continues to grow. This is the time to address the
needs of these underperforming schools to efficiently manage the reduction in resources
and investigate research-based strategies to improve student achievement as they face
new sanctions under NCLB. Finally, it would be beneficial to have more information on
how Program Improvement schools are utilizing their resources as compared to the
strategies in the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). According to Picus and
Blair (2004) an advantage of the strategies in the Evidence-Based Model is that they can
be applied to most schools and the research proven strategies are proven to increase
student achievement. Moreover, the findings of how these schools are impacted by
current fiscal reductions and how they address these problems is valuable for other
schools that are struggling to meet the NCLB goals and increase student achievement at a
time when their budgets are being impacted.

6

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the resource allocations at the school level
in five recently designated persistently low-achieving Program Improvement schools and
better understand the challenges these schools face to assist in the decision making on
how to effectively improve student learning. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008) is used as a framework to analyze the level of resource allocation patterns
and efficiencies used in these elementary schools in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.
Odden‘s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance is examined to
determine how they assist in improving student performance. The intent of this study is
to see how many of these strategies are present in Title I Program Improvement
elementary schools recently designated as persistently low-achieving as well as if
resources are being allocated to support the ten strategies.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to try to understand how the sample
schools developed their intervention plan and how the core elements of their chosen
intervention plan compare to the components found in the Evidence-Based Model:
(1) What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
(2) How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school‘s
instructional improvement plan?
7

(3) How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response
to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and
changes in the use of categorical funds?
(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
detailed by Odden and Picus (2008)?
Importance of the Study
School allocations and expenditures continue to increase, class sizes have fallen
40% from 1960 to 2000, however, there have not been significant changes in student
outcomes (Hanushek, 2003). Additionally, the 2014 NCLB deadline to have all students
at proficient levels is fast approaching and focusing efforts to implement research-based
strategies needs to be the goal at the school level. With Federal sanctions imposed on
these five sites because they have failed to make AYP for five years, the schools are
under pressure to increase student performance. This study will contribute to the body of
research on how resources are allocated in order to increase student achievement for
persistently low-achieving schools identified by the California Department of Education
(March, 2010). The results of this study will have policy implications for Program
Improvement schools and will hopefully provide a resource for administrators to use in
their attempts to exit Program Improvement and improve student learning.
Recommendations for alignment of school resources funding policies to ensure that effect
of resource allocation does in fact improve student achievement will be discussed and the
8

findings can be utilized to create improvement strategies for schools with similar
designations.
Research Design
School sites in this study typically have small student populations with high
proportions of English language learners, large numbers of socio-disadvantaged students,
a significant number of students participating in the free and reduced lunch program, and
a sizeable percentage of Hispanic students. Each school has less than 750 students and
all sites are located in rural Southern San Joaquin Valley locations. The qualitative
analysis employed is designed to paint the picture of the educational visions in place and
the allocation of categorical funds philosophy of each school site. Student achievement
data was analyzed using quantitative methods. Once compilation of these data are
achieved the Evidence-Based Model provided by Odden and Picus (2008) along with Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) the resulting information
will be compared, contrast, and analyze efficiency levels at the individual school sites.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations that arise when reviewing school-level resource
allocation to the Evidence-Based Model. The sample was limited to the schools
performing in the bottom five percent of the state. The designation of persistently low-
achieving findings may be useful to other schools in similar situations. Another
limitation related to the negative connotation is the limited ability to generalize the
findings of the study to other schools and locations. Again, all of the schools in the
9

sample are located in the Southern San Joaquin Valley and due to the limited
geographical area represented in the study; the results may not be useful to other regions.
While the methodology used was qualitative and quantitative, the schools chosen for this
study were not randomly selected, and instead were selected due to their state ranking
and similar school ranking of one. Additionally, despite the fact that the sample was
purposefully constructed by the researcher, the final schools participating in the study
were composed of volunteers which created an immediate constraint where self-
elimination of nonparticipants potentially biases the sample obtained.
Finally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) poses a unique
limitation to this study. The new Federal dollars allocated to schools have resulted in the
addition of one-time funds that provide short-term relief to states but may skew resource
allocation practices at the school level, especially with the School Improvement Grants
available to the persistently low-achieving schools in this study. Some of the schools
selected in the study chose not to apply for the School Improvement Grant monies, thus,
creating a lack of consistency which may impede an accurate analysis.
The following delimitations applied to this study:
This study reviewed the implementation of instructional strategies, selected
intervention models set by the California Department of Education and the resources
allocated for their implementation at five Title I Program Improvement elementary
schools in the Southern Central Valley. Due to the persistently low-achieving
designation and the timing of this study, participating elementary schools just recently
10

decided which of the four intervention model they would implement. Limited
information available from the California Department of Education impedes clarity of
research process and research analysis. Exit programs from Program Improvement are
not well understood at the present time.
This creates an obstacle to conduct a comprehensive study of the factors attributed
to these schools continuing their efforts to exit Program Improvement status and the
designation of persistently low-achieving. Schools not listed by CDE in March 2010 as
persistently low-achieving Program Improvement schools were not considered for this
study.
Assumptions
Assumptions are made with this study. The researcher assumes that participants
in the study responded honesty even under the harsh circumstances these individuals find
themselves in with the designation of persistently low-achieving schools. It is assumed
that the qualitative and quantitative methods used provide accurate information that will
useful to other schools in Program Improvement status but were not selected by the
California Department of Education.
Definition of Terms
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by California
Department of Education (2009b) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated
from student results on statewide assessments. California has set a target score of
11

800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of 800 are
required to meet annual growth targets set forth by the state.
2. Add-ons: A funding source that is typically considered as adding to the LEA‘s
general purpose revenue outside of local property taxes and state aid (Timar,
2006).
3. Adequacy: Framed and interpreted within each individual state constitution,
adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that would allow
each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational programs
so that each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the state‘s
education performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus,
2008).
4. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and is used to measure how well individual schools
and districts are doing in meeting the following requirements: (a) student
participation rates on statewide tests; (b) percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in English-language arts and mathematics on statewide
tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d) graduation rate (California
Department of Education, 2009b).
5. 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)
12

6. Base Revenue Limits: Is the amount of general purpose funding per ADA that a
LEA receives in state aid and local property taxes to pay for the basic cost of
educating a student regardless of special classifications or categories (EdSource,
2009a). In California the base revenue limit equals the state aid to the LEA + local
property tax collected by the LEA (Timar, 2006).
7. California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure student‘s
achievement of California‘s content standards in the areas of English-language
arts, mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California Department of
Education, 2009a).
8. Categorical Funding: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups and/or
class of students, such as students with special needs, low-income, or English
learners. There are four types of categorically funded programs: entitlement,
incentive, discretionary grants, and mandated cost reimbursement (Timar, 2006).
9. Comprehensive School Reform: A systematic approach in providing evidence-
based strategies and methods for learning, teaching, and school management that
aligns its focus on helping students meet state standards through professional
development, technical assistance, and formative evaluation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010a).

13

10. Equity: Within education, the term is used to measure (1) horizontal equity, or the
equal access of education from individual to individual; and (2) vertical equity, or
the appropriate treatment of each individual based on their unique needs (Bhatt &
Wraight, 2009).
11. Evidence-Based Model: An educational funding approach based on identifying
individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that research has
shown to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
12. Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep any
excess taxes that they generate beyond their revenue limits and is calculated by
determining the difference between a LEAs revenue limit and property tax
revenues (Timar, 2006).
13. Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred , both
paid and unpaid and debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010a). Expenditures types include current expenditures,
instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.
14. General Purpose Funding: In California, general purpose funding equals the base
revenue limits + revenue limit add-ons + excess local property taxes (Timar,
2006).
15. Local Education Agency (LEA): ―A public board of education or other public
authority within a state that maintains administrative control of public elementary
or secondary schools in a city, county, school district, or other political
14

subdivision of a state. School districts and county offices of education are both
LEAs. Sometimes charter schools function as LEAs‖ (EdSource, 2009).
16. Program Improvement (PI): A formal designation required under NCLB (2002)
for Title I funded LEAs and schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive
years (California Department of Education, 2009c). While a LEA or school is
under PI status, they are obligated to implement certain federal and state
requirements.
17. QEIA – Quality Education Investment Act of 2006: Assists the lowest
performing schools, schools with a valid API that are ranked in deciles 1 to 2, to
increase student achievement. Money provided in a lottery for schools disbursed
over a seven year period of time for the purposes of lowering class size and
improving the quality of education for struggling students.
18. Safe harbor: is an alternate method of meeting the target growth if a school is
showing progress in moving students from scoring below the proficient level to
the proficient level on the tests used to determine AYP.
19. Similar Schools Ranking: A secondary ranking to inform schools of progress in
comparison to 100 similar schools as defined by sixteen characteristics identified
by the state. This ranking is designed to compare like schools to better evaluate
progress against challenges faced by sites with higher numbers of students
needing extra support for varied reasons.
15

20. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family's relative
economic and social ranking (National Center for Edcuation Statistics, 2010a).
21. State Ranking: shows a school‘s API placement in a statewide distribution of API
scores of schools of the same type. The distribution is the ranked APIs divided
into ten equal deciles. School‘s API compared to all other schools in the state of
the same type
22. Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools
with high numbers and percentages of poor children in order to help all children
meet state adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a).
16

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 introduced what many consider
to be an unrealistic level of accountability in the K-12 public education system in the
United States (Stecher et al., 2003). Additionally, critics state that the problems
introduced with the idealistic levels of performance required by the legislation, where
100% of students demonstrate levels of proficiency in mathematics and English
Language Arts (ELA) by 2014, are magnified because the initiative is severely
underfunded (Duncombe, Lukemeyer, & Yinger, 2008). As indicated by the 2009
California Standards Test (CSTs) results, only 50% of California‘s students demonstrated
satisfactory achievement in ELA and 54% did so in mathematics. Not only must schools
overcome significant achievement gaps and greater school-level progress, but
California‘s educators are further challenged because they are responsible for the
academic growth of all of their students, including groups that have traditionally
struggled such as English Learners, Hispanic, African-American, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged students (EdSource, 2005).
Given the troubling financial climate and the large number of California school
districts that are already failing in their attempts to achieve NCLB‘s current student
performance and accountability goals, the effective use of resources to guide instructional
decisions is more important than ever, especially for school districts that are the low-
achieving. While a number of programs and targeted funding is available to assist these
schools in implementing reform programs to attempt to improve student performance,
17

educators often are unfamiliar with the latest research-based instructional strategies.
Additionally, even in those sites fortunate enough to be aware of the potential reform
options available, administrators would be well served by specific direction in the most
efficient allocation of resources to support their chosen instructional reform strategies.
As a result, this study is designed to understand the unique challenges facing these
districts by studying their resource allocation and how it links to their instructional
strategies and performance by examining five districts in the San Joaquin Valley of
California that have been designated by the state as persistently low-achieving.
In order to support this effort, this chapter provides an overview of the literature related
to school finance and resource allocation and their relationship to effective research-
based practices that positively impact school reform efforts. The chapter is divided in
four sections: 1) school funding in California, (2) educational equity and adequacy and
how different models have been developed to attempt to achieve adequate funding levels,
3) accountability and how it affects schools struggling with student achievement and 4)
the resource use of the Evidence-Based Model to improve student achievement along
with Odden‘s ten strategies for doubling student performance (Odden, 2009).
School Finance in California
Since the early 1900‘s every state in the nation has attempted to introduce
initiatives designed to combat resource inequality in public education. Unfortunately, the
steps that have been implemented since then have not been able to completely eliminate
resource inequalities (Odden & Picus, 2008). However, while not completely successful,
18

a side effect of these efforts has emerged where public education has undergone a shift of
control away from local due to a series of court rulings, more scrutiny by the federal
government, and stricter state mandates. According to Rebell (2007), over 25 states have
settled adequacy claims which deny many students the resources to receive an adequate
education. Plaintiffs in several lawsuits have stated that the manner in which funding is
divided needs to be more equally among school districts and should not be based on the
place of residence (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
In the early 1970‘s schools were funded primarily by local property taxes, a
model which resulted in disproportionate per pupil spending across districts (Kirst,
Goertz, & Odden, 2007). From the court rulings California‘s school finance systems was
determined to be unconstitutional (Picus, 2004). The inequity in the tax base created
situations where wealthy towns generated greater revenues, and by extension, funded
their schools at higher levels than towns with fewer resources. Moreover, districts
located in wealthy communities were able to generate more revenue for their schools at a
lower tax rate than those located in less affluent areas (Timar, 2006).
The Serrano v. Priest court decision in 1971 intended to put an end to this practice
by ruling such inequalities unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the
California State Constitution. In response to the Serrano decision, the legislature sought
to control the amount of money school districts received through revenue limits which
were defined by Senate Bill 90 in 1972 (Timar, 2006). SB 90 reversed the finance policy
established since the early 1900‘s when the legislature assigned property taxes to local
19

governments. SB 90 increased the tax rate from 1 percent to 2.23 percent for elementary
students and from 0.8 percent to 1.64 percent for high school students. SB 90 also
prohibited districts from imposing taxes at a higher rate that would increase the base
revenue beyond the permitted inflation rate (Timar, 2006). A district‘s revenue limit was
the total per pupil funding from local property taxes and state financial aid. SB 90
increased the state aid formula which for elementary students was from $355 to $765 and
for high school students, from $488 to $950. The bill also eliminated the unification
bonus, the class size reduction bonus, and the supplemental aid program. However, this
bill ultimately failed to level spending between wealthy and less wealth districts and
opposition to this bill eventually led to Proposition 13. (Sonstelie, Brunner, & Ardon,
2000).
In 1978, California‘s finance system changed from local to state control after the
passage of Proposition 13, which limits the local property tax rate, thereby limiting the
amount of local revenue available to schools (Timar, 2004). Serrano (1971) moved
school finance from the districts to the state level and therefore, created a system of
redistribution of educational resources (Sonstelie, et al., 2000).The shift from local to
state control of funding affected schools because they no longer had consistency in their
funding as the stable base of property tax revenue was suddenly diminished. . Districts
were forced to rely on the unpredictable system of sales, business, and income taxes,
which are more sensitive to variations in the economy. Proposition 13 Left districts
without any major source of revenue and led to their over-dependence on state funding
20

(Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). Sonstelie, et al., (2000) assert that alteration from the
original local control to state dependence was achieved in three steps. In Serrano v.
Priest (1971), it was found that the existing system of local finance was unconstitutional.
SB 90 (1972) initiated revenue limits, giving the state control over the property tax
revenue of districts. Proposition 13, gave the state control over school finance and to
allocate property tax revenue. By the early 1980s, the state had control over 90 percent
of school district revenue.
In 1988, Proposition 98 was passed due to concerns that education might be
affected during harsh economic times. Proposition 98 was designed to stabilize school
funding by providing school districts with a minimum of forty percent of the state‘s
general fund budget (Kirst et al., 2007). While Proposition 98 was intended to provide
public education a guaranteed funding base, it has also become a type of funding cap for
K-12 funding (Timar, 2004). Proposition 98 requires California to provide a minimum
funding level to schools by keeping in mind student enrollment; however, during harsh
economic times the legislature can suspend funding as long as it is restored when the
economy improves (EdSource, 2009a).
In the 2009-10 school year K-12 education received $48,315,000,000 in
Proposition 98 funds (California Legislative Analyst‘s Office, 2009). This means that the
funding level for the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) was $8,185 per student
(California Legislative Analyst‘s Office, 2009). At first glance, the funding resources
allocated from the state government per student appear to be reasonably high. According
21

to a number of educators and policy makers, this amount is not sufficient for schools with
high numbers of academically disadvantaged students because they must provide
additional language instruction and other interventions designed to meet the academic
rigor of the content standards (Ed-Data, 2008). The inequity among students in different
districts continues and the resources and funding for a large number of students in
California continues to be far from adequate (EdSource, 2008; Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek,
2007; Sonstelie et al. 2000). The present revenue limit for the State of California‘s system
of school finance contains significant inequalities in base funding for school districts
(California Legislative Analyst‘s Office, 2009).
California currently ranks 41
st
in per pupil expenditures ($8,586) according to the
National Education Association (NEA) (2009), well below the national average ($9,934)
and the amounts spent by other large states like New York ($15,286) and Illinois
($10,947). Almost half of California‘s students speak another language other than
English, and approximately 24% are classified as English Learners (EL) and nearly one
third of the nation‘s EL students are in California (EdSource, 2008a).
The Basics of California’s School Finance System. Exactly how are schools in
California financed and how can their limited budgets be utilized to best realize high
levels of student achievement? The federal and state governments allocate dollars by
specific formulas annually as long as the assurances and funding restrictions are observed
(EdSource, 2009a).
22

Determining what adequate funding is at the school level is crucial in
understanding school finance. Much of the research on school spending indicates that a
large percentage of the school funding at the local level is tied up in existing personnel
and programs (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, & Gallagher 2003). In California,
approximately 85% of education funding is typically allocated for salaries and benefits
(EdSource, 2009b). This means that most of the funding at the school level will cover
staff and the programs that may affect student achievement may not be fully
implemented. At the forefront of the this study is the need to reconcile continued
demands to implement additional standards-based educational mandates with questions
about what constitutes adequate funding for California‘s school and districts to provide
education to all students.
It is not enough to ask, in the abstract, how much money is needed to give all
students an adequate, sound, and basic education? What is needed more specific
examples and analyses that pose the same question. The 18 month study, ―Getting Down
the Facts‖ is an example of an attempt to find the amount of resources that would be
adequate for students to meet California‘s performance goals (Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek,
2007). The study authors looked at the relationship between high performing schools and
the manner they allocated their resources compared to low performing schools. They find
that high performing schools had more teachers and administrators with more experience
than the lower performing schools. The authors‘ summary of California‘s school finance
system is that it is flawed and has failed to assist students meet state performance goals.
23

Their counterintuitive conclusion, however, is that additional school funding would not,
by itself, translate to increased student achievement because of the relationship between
school finance and standards-based mandates.
In another study, Hill, Roza, and Harvey (2008) at the Center for Reinventing
Public Schools stated that unless the finance system is fixed the task of educating
students to high standards will not occur mainly because the results we expect from
schools no longer match the manner in which resources are utilized. Hill, Roza, and
Harvey (2008) described the lack of efficiency leading to frustration and minimal
discretion in how school monies are actually spent partly because the finance system was
never designed to support high levels of student learning.
As previously mentioned there is little consensus about an appropriate strategy to
analyze adequacy funding. However, adequately funding schools is a significant
departure from the steps taken to balance school finance that resulted from court cases
like Serrano. One major concern with trying to provide equity to school finance is that it
focuses almost exclusively on inputs with very little connection to what is produced
(Clune, 1994). Most states have been able to provide equitable funding to schools and
satisfy federal and state mandates; however, little attention has been paid to student
performance until the late 1990‘s. The standards based education movement focused the
school finance debate on student achievement with a particular emphasis on linking
resources to outcomes (Clune, 1994; Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
24

Figure 2.1 illustrates the source of funds allocated by state and federal
governments and how these dollars are allocated for general and categorical purposes.
12.3% of total K-12 funding is from the federal government, 58.8% is from state taxes,
21.4% is from property taxes, 6.2% is from miscellaneous sources, and 1.3% is from
lottery (EdSource, 2009a). The distribution of two-thirds is for general purposes while
one-third is allocated as categorical grants.
Figure 2.1: California’s School Finance System

Source: EdSource (2009a)
Categorical allocations are designed to be aligned with the overarching goal of
enabling all students to meet state standards for academic achievement (Timar, 2004).
However, as Hill, Roza, and Harvey (2008) assert matching resources with needs often is
hampered with very little flexibility on the usages of those categorical dollars.
Specifically, California operates about 80 categorical programs, each with many
restrictions on how to use these resources, thus limiting the schools ability for increasing
student learning. Figure 2.2 below displays the drastic reduction in revenue that school
25

districts are undergoing. As the allocation of funds continues to diminish and schools are
expected to do more with less, the resource decisions in schools will be evermore
constrained and less effective toward student achievement (Hill, Roza, & Harvey, 2008).
Figure 2.2 illustrates were the cuts in 2008–09 and 2009–10 reduced revenue limit
funding for an average unified district to $4,984 per pupil which is 14% less than in
2007–08. As Picus (2006) states within the funding cuts previously discussed, schools
will continue to be asked to provide programs for students to meet content standards
while having fewer resources to continue offering these programs.
Figure 2.2: Per-Pupil Distributions

Data: Ed Source (2010)
Student Performance in California. The accountability movement for California‘s
public schools began with the passage of the Public Schools‘ Accountability Act (PSAA-
Senate Bill 1X) in April of 1999 (California Department of Education, 2000; Carlos &
26

Miller, 2000). According to the California Department of Education, this law established
a comprehensive accountability system for California public schools that had several key
components; one of them was the Academic Performance Index. The objective of this
law was to use components to measure, reward, and punish California schools for their
students‘ performance (Carlos & Miller, 2000).
The purpose of the Academic Performance Index (API) is to measure the
academic performance and progress of all California schools that have 100 or more valid
student test scores from the California State Testing and Reporting (STAR) program
(California Department of Education, 2009). The API is a numeric index that ranges
from 200, as the low score, to 1000, as the high score with 633 being the median school
score (California Department of Education, 2000; Carlos & Miller, 2000).
Carlos and Miller (2000) explained that the 1999 API established a baseline score,
as well as, set all participating schools 2000 growth targets. They indicated that the state
set 800 as the API score that shows mastery of the content standards and represents a
high level of student performance. The state requires every school, whose scores fall
below the 800 mark, to use their baseline score as a starting point and work to improve by
five percent per year until the school has reached the 800 target (California Department
of Education, 2000; Carlos & Miller, 2000). Schools that have a baseline score at or
above the 800 mark have the challenge of maintaining or working to exceed their score
year after year (Carlos & Miller, 2000). Figure 2.3 illustrates the API indicator in
27

California with targets from 2001 to 2014. Students‘ performance scores across multiple
content areas are converted into points (California Department of Education, 2009).
Figure 2.3: API Targets 2001 –2014

Source California Department of Education (2009)
In addition to results for the school as a whole, the results of every school‘s
subgroups are also included on the API report (California Department of Education,
2000; Carlos & Miller, 2000). A subgroup is any ethnic and/or socio-economically
disadvantaged group of students within the school population large enough to be
significant (California Department of Education, 2000; Carlos & Miller, 2000). For a
subgroup to be numerically significant they must meet the following criteria: (a) there
are at least 50 student members of this group and they represent 15% of the total school
student population; or (b) there are at least 100 student members of this group (Carlos &
Miller, 2000). Not only do schools as a whole have to meet their growth target, but all
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
API Tareget
28

subgroup populations within the school are also required to meet their growth targets
(Carlos & Miller, 2000). The accountability system, which requires growth by all
numerically significant subgroups, makes a strong statement that the achievement of all
students in a school is important. The purpose of the API is to establish the score by
which each school will be held accountable for the improvement of all students.
Table 2.1 below shows the 2009 API scores for each significant subgroup in
California. Three subgroups have met the target of 800. The subgroups with the lowest
API are those that are the target students for most categorical funds. Federal funds, such
as Title I and state funds such as Economic Impact Aid (EIA) target socioeconomically
disadvantaged students (SED). Additionally, Title III federal funds and EIA state
categorical funds target English Language Learners (EL). These subgroups of students
represent additional funds allocated to school districts in California.

29

Table 2.1: Statewide 2009 Base APIs Overall and for Student Subgroups
Group Score
African American 674
American Indian or Alaska Native 719
Asian 878
Filipino 838
Hispanic or Latino 698
Pacific Islander 746
White (Not of Hispanic Origin 828
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 696
English Language Learners 677
Students with Disabilities 566
Overall 755
Source: California Department of Education (2009)
Measuring Student Performance. Federal legislation such as NCLB (2001) mandates
the implementation of research-based strategies and curriculum that allow not only access
to an education to disadvantaged students but also promote positive outcomes (Handler,
2006). According to Stecher, Hamilton, and Gonzalez, (2003) providing adequate
funding to ensure public schools reach those goals has been costly and up to now has
been largely unfunded. Yet all districts must continue to strive to get all students at a
proficient level. It is essential for school districts to effectively determine how to allocate
the limited resources to ensure that all students will receive an adequate education.
The charge of each state through NCLB is to determine annual yearly progress
(AYP) levels to ensure all students are proficient or advanced by 2014. Each state set the
30

starting point toward reaching this proficiency thus; annual measurable objectives (AMO)
were set accordingly by the states. States were required to gradually increase the target in
equal increments at least once every three years (Linn, 2008). In the early years of NCLB
in California, the targets were set at a low level and did not advance greatly each year,
however eventually the growth expectations become steep as shown in figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: AYP Targets for Unified School Districts Language Arts 2001 – 2014

Source California Department of Education (2009)
31

Program Improvement (PI) Criteria
Under NCLB, School Improvement is a formal designation for federal Title I-
funded schools that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive
years. The CDE uses the term Program Improvement (PI) as the designation for these
schools (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). After a school is identified as being in PI it is required
to use part of its Title I allocation for professional development, transportation for student
school of choice, tutoring for underperforming students, and the implementation of
research-based programs and strategies. Under the NCLB Act, the state educational
agency (SEA) and LEAs must identify corrective actions needed in the restructuring of a
school that has been in PI for two years or more and has not made AYP in English-
language arts, mathematics, graduation rate, or participation rate. A school is eligible to
exit PI status after meeting AYP expectations for two consecutive years. Schools under
PI designation are required to implement the vast number of mandates outlined below in
table 2.2 (California Department of Education, 2009). The sanctions in each year of PI
become more severe as the schools move in the improvement process.

32

Table 2.2: Program Improvement Requirements for Each Year of Designation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
School Improvement School Improvement Corrective Action Restructuring Restructuring
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Local Educational
Agency (LEA):
LEA continues: LEA continues: LEA continues: LEA continues:
Provides technical
assistance to PI school
Technical assistance Technical assistance Technical assistance Technical assistance
Notifies parents of PI
status of school and
school choice
Parent notification of
PI status of school,
school choice,
supplemental services
Parent notification of PI status
of school, school choice,
supplemental services
Parent notification of PI
status of school, school
choice, supplemental
services
Parent notification of
PI status of school,
school choice,
supplemental services
Sets aside minimum
5% for professional
development to meet
highly qualified staff
requirements
Professional
development
Professional development Professional development Professional
development
Provides choice to
attend another public
school in the LEA that
is not PI (LEA is
responsible for
transportation costs.)
Establishes peer review
process to review
revised school plan
School:
Revises school plan
within 3 months to
cover 2-year period
Uses 10% of Title I
school funds for staff
professional
development
Implements plan
promptly
School choice

LEA adds:
Supplemental
educational services to
all eligible students
School continues:
Plan implementation
Professional
development
School choice
Supplemental services
LEA adds:
LEA identifies school for
corrective action and does at
least one of the following:

Replaces school staff

Implements new curriculum

Decreases management
authority at school level

Appoints outside expert

Extends school year or day

Restructures internal
organizational structure of
school

LEA informs parents and public
of corrective action and allows
comment. LEAs may provide
direct technical assistance to
school site councils in
developing school plans. |

School continues:
Professional development
Collaboration with district to
improve student achievement
School choice
Supplemental services
LEA and School add:
During Year 4, prepare
plan for alternative
governance of school.
Select one of the
following:
Reopen school as a
charter
Replace all or most staff
including principal
Contract with outside
entity to manage school
State takeover
Any other major
restructuring
LEA provides notice to
parents and teachers and
allows comment.

School continues:
Professional development
Collaboration with district
to improve student
achievement
School choice
Supplemental services

LEA and School
add:
Implement alternative
governance plan
developed in Year 4
School continues in
PI, and LEA offers
choice and
supplemental services
until school makes
AYP for two
consecutive years.
School exits PI after
two consecutive years
of making AYP
Source: California Department of Education
33

As Table 2.3 illustrates, the number of Title I Program Improvement elementary
schools (years 1-5) in California has increased from 994 elementary schools in the
2003/2004 school year to 1,335 in 2007/2008; this represents an increase of 341 newly
identified schools in Program Improvement for the 2007-2008 school year (EdSource,
2008). It is expected, with continued increases in AYP targets that the number of PI
schools at all levels will continue to increase.
Table 2.3: Schools in Title I and Program Improvement in California 2003-08
2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08
Elementary
Title I 4,022 4,005 4,072 4,144 4,153
Years 1–2* 776 769 612 690 581
Years 3–5* 218 216 440 687 754
Middle
Title I 787 803 835 867 860
Years 1–2* 283 280 171 159 133
Years 3–5* 156 159 292 396 407
High
Title I 902 897 994 1,048 1,052
Years 1–2* 115 101 154 209 190
Years 3–5* 78 74 79 99 139
Adapted from EdSource's 2008 Resource Cards.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act
As previously presented, a large number of California schools continue to fail in
their attempts to achieve NCLB‘s current student performance and accountability goals,
however, many researchers such as Sunderman and Orfield (2007) state that NCLB can
work, but in order for this to occur it has to provide the necessary resources to improve
34

student outcomes. Everhard (2006) agrees and asserts that an infusion of new funds is
critical if students are to achieve the goals of proficiency required by NCLB.
In 2009, the Elementary Secondary Education Act authorized the U.S.
Department to provide additional school improvement funds to states. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) which provides significant new
funding for programs under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA) will provide a more than $10 billion to a collection of states that
have created conditions for comprehensive action in the four reform areas: teacher and
principal effectiveness, data systems, standards, and turning around struggling schools
(EdSource, 2009c). California received an estimated $7,987.400 million in ARRA funds
of which $1,128,226 were Allocated as Title I funds to districts. The Title I allocations
are expected to fund programs to advance core reforms (California Department of
Education, 2009). The programs under ARRA Title I include:
• College and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments for all students
• Pre-K to higher education data systems
• Teacher effectiveness and equitable distribution of effective teachers
• Intensive support and interventions for the lowest performing schools
(United States Department of Education, 2009).

Specifically, the ARRA provides funds under Title I, Part A to local education
agencies (LEAs) for schools that have high concentrations of students from families that
live in poverty in order to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of
failing to meet state academic achievement standards. These funds create an
35

unprecedented opportunity for educators to implement innovative strategies in Title I
schools that improve education for at-risk students and close the achievement gaps while
also stimulating the economy. However, districts have been given little guidance up to
now on the best implementation for the utilization of ARRA funds. Most districts are
taking advantage of the flexibility recently permitted by the California legislature which
allows reassignment of Title I funds in the present economically depressed environment
and are choosing to maintain personnel and needed programs (EdSource, 2009c).
School Improvement Grant
As one of the requirements to receive ARRA funds, the California Department of
Education (CDE) had to identify school districts with persistently low-achieving Title I
schools as designated by state and similar school API rankings of one (California
Department of Education, 2010). The state created School Improvement Grants (SIG)
using the funds to enable districts to implement selected intervention models in the
identified persistently low-achieving schools to improve the academic achievement of
their students.
According to the California Department of Education (2010b) schools that are
granted the SIG grant will implement one of the following intervention models:
Turnaround Model – the school district implements major school improvement actions,
some of which may include, replacing the principal and rehiring no more than 50 percent
of the school personnel, adopting a new governance structure, and implementing an
36

instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the
next, as well as aligned with California's adopted content standards.
Restart Model - the school is converted by closing and reopening the school under a
charter, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management
organization (EMO) selected under a rigorous process using guidance by the state. In this
model a CMO is a non-profit organization that manages charter schools by sharing
resources among schools. The other option in the model is an EMO which is a for-profit
organization that provides "whole-school operation" services. A requirement of this
option is that the school must keep any former student who wishes to attend the school.
School Closure Model – the school is closed and enrolls the students who attended that
school in other schools in the district that are higher achieving. The other schools should
be within reasonable distance to the closed school.
Transformation Model - The district implements a series of school improvement
strategies that may include replacing the principal who led the school prior to
implementation of the transformation model, and increasing instructional time.
The School Improvement Grant (SIG) provides funding to help persistently low-
achieving schools address improvement needs, corrective action, and restructuring to
improve student achievement. SIGs funds are designated to be used towards concrete
activities towards measurable outcomes. Expected results include improvement in student
subject proficiency, adequate school-wide yearly progress, evidence that data is used to
37

inform instructional decisions and the creation of a system of continuous feedback and
improvement.
The Nine Essential Program Components (EPC) are incorporated in the Academic
Program Survey and can be used to determine the school-wide needs of the persistently
low-achieving schools applying for SIG funds. The EPC‘s are designed to meet the
needs of all students (California Department of Education). These EPC‘s include the use
of:
a standards-aligned instructional materials, appropriate instructional time and
pacing schedules, professional development for teachers and administrators,
providing highly qualified credentialed teachers, a monitoring system that uses
data, teacher collaboration, instructional support, and fiscal support (Essential
Program Components, 2010).
There are some similarities between the components of the Evidence-Based
model and SIG making the results of the Nine Essential Program Components one
possible instructional strategy that can be studied and integrated alongside the Evidence-
Based Model. Table 2.4 provides more detail for the various levels of implementation of
the EPC‘s under the School Improvement Grant.

38

Table 2.4: Academic Program Survey/Essential Program Components
Essential Program
Component
Description
1. Standards-aligned
Instructional Materials

Use of adopted and aligned standards-based English/reading/language
arts and mathematics instructional materials, including intensive
interventions and English Language Development materials. Elementary
and Middle School Level: The school/district provides the current
adopted basic core instructional programs for Reading/Language Arts
and mathematics.
2. Implementation of
instructional minutes for
basic core Reading
Language Arts and
mathematics programs.
Elementary and Middle School Level: The school/district complies with
and monitors the daily implementation of instructional time for the
adopted RLA and mathematics basic core programs. The school provides
intensive interventions as well as additional time for strategic support and
ELD for identified English Learners. This time should be given priority
and be protected from interruptions.
3. Use of an annual
district instructional
/assessment pacing guide
for grades K-8.
Elementary and Middle School Level: The school district prepares,
distributes, and monitors the use of an annual district-
instructional/assessment pacing guide documented to be in use for each
grade level (kindergarten through grade eight) for the SBE-adopted basic
core RLA/ELD, strategic support and intensive intervention programs
and SBE-adopted mathematics basic core, strategic, and Grades 4-7 and
Algebra Readiness intensive intervention programs to ensure that all
teachers follow a common sequence of instruction and assessment.
4. Instructional materials
based on professional
development and ongoing
targeted professional
development
implementation of the
district-adopted program.
Elementary and Middle School Level: The district provides the principal
and vice-principal(s) with an 80-hour instructional materials-based
administrative training, The training includes; support and monitoring
needed for the full implementation of the SBE-adopted RLA/ELD and
mathematics basic core and intervention program materials.

5. Fully credentialed,
highly qualified teachers
All classrooms are staffed with fully credentialed, highly qualified
teachers per the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Teachers
of core academic subjects must have: a bachelor‘s degree; hold an
appropriate credential or intern certificate (must be currently enrolled in
an approved California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC] intern
program); and demonstrate subject matter competence.
6. Ongoing Instructional
Assistance and Support
for teachers
The school provides instructional assistance and ongoing support to all
Reading/Language Arts/ELD and mathematics teachers. Teachers
receive ongoing support offered by the school and district. Possible
options for providing support include trained coaches, content experts, and
specialists
7. Student achievement
monitoring system that
provides data
The school uses an ongoing assessment and monitoring system that provides data
from common assessments based on RLA/ELD and mathematics and intensive
intervention programs. Student achievement results from are used to inform
teachers on student placement, progress,
39

Table 2.4, Continued
8. Monthly teacher
collaboration for all
RLA/ELD and
mathematics teachers by
grade level facilitated by
the principal
The school/district facilitates and supports structured collaboration
monthly meeting in order for all teachers to analyze the results of the
school/district assessment system to guide student placement,
instructional planning and delivery, and progress monitoring

9.Fiscal Support The school/district‘s general and categorical funds are coordinated,
prioritized, and allocated to align with the full implementation of the
EPCs in RLA/ELD, mathematics, and the Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA)
Source: California Department of Education
The California Department of Education will monitor these schools to ensure they
implement an intervention model in order to demonstrate progress and growth. School
districts are responsible for ensuring that one of the four intervention models are
implemented at the schools selected under the SIG grants (U.S. Department of Education,
2010c).
The SIG provisions make it clear that change must be dramatic, improvement
rapid, and results significant. Moving beyond the restructuring provisions of NCLB, the
SIG program:
o Considers student growth in determining school progress
o Sharply focuses on the ―persistently low-achieving schools‖
o Limits strategies employed under the transformation model to a defined
set of effective practices

o Stresses the importance of talent, the human capital necessary for rapid
school improvement

40

o Requires changes in governance and leadership to pave the way for rapid
and sustained improvement.

Most of these provisions appear to be similar to the strategies outlined in the
Evidence-Based model and appear to be essential elements for change for these
persistently low-achieving schools that will be participating in this study. According to
the California Department of Education (2010) there are not official sanctions or
guidance as to what will happen to the schools if there is not significant change to student
achievement.
Educational Adequacy
Odden and Picus (2008) assert school finance adequacy entails providing students
with a high quality education that produces high levels of student learning. An adequate
level of funding is the amount of funding needed to ensure that all students are meeting
high academic standards (Clune, 1994; Odden, 2003). The emphasis on adequacy has
altered the finance debate of equity and adequate in education. Increasingly the issue of
how much does adequate education really cost continues to surface in discussions across
states (Baker, Taylor, & Vedlitz, 2008). Numerous adequacy studies in Wyoming, New
Hampshire, Kansas, New York, and Texas have been conducted with highly varied
results with some states deciding to increase state support for K-12 education, where
others have only looked at costs incurred by successful schools (Baker, Taylor, &
Vedlitz, 2008).
Baker, Taylor, and Vedlitz (2008) assert that state and judicial initiatives have
brought the notion of educational adequacy to the frontline. With NCLB holding states
41

accountable for annual performance toward standards, states have to focus their finances
efficiently in spite of less resources being allocated to states. The current unpredictability
of funding levels plagues California; however, 37 other states have also identified similar
concerns pressing school finance (Olsen, 2005). The distribution methods of funds to
education are complex and hard to understand (Odden & Picus, 2008). Adequacy studies
are being conducted in Kansas, New York, and Texas to support K-12 education and find
out ―how much does adequate education cost‖ (Baker, Taylor, & Vedlitz, 2008).
Adequacy studies investigate how much money is needed to provide educational services
available to each student in order to have the opportunity to meet the state standards
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Four methods have emerged to estimate adequate
expenditure levels. The four methods include: the successful school district approach, the
professional judgment approach, the cost function approach, and the Evidence-Based
Model approach (Odden, 2003).
The Successful School District Approach - identifies ideal districts and uses outcome
data on measures such student tests scores to determine if the school/district is meeting
the performance standards; then the average of the expenditures is looked to consider if
these models adequate. The amount of money spent in those schools establishes the
funding levels for other schools and districts in the state (Taylor, Baker, & Vedlitz, 2005;
Olsen, 2005). Atypical districts are not included in such analyses thus, eliminating
outliers that affect the average (Odden, 2003). The elimination of outliers allows districts
of average sizes and homogenous demographics to be identified (Odden & Picus, 2008).
42

States such as Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio have utilized the successful
district model (Odden, 2003). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) however, state the
approach is limited due to the difficulty of applying such models to educational entities
different from those selected as successful models. Hanushek (2006) goes on to be
critical of the model due to the lack of explanations leading to why the students
performed well and refers to it as the ―Successful Students‖ model. Rebell (2007) also
states that the identified school district‘s definition of success results in wide variations in
the amount of resources needed to eliminate the adequacy deficit.
The Professional Judgment Approach - relies on a group of professional educators
coming together to identify the educational resources needed to allow all students to meet
the state‘s standards. The educators also determine the resources needed to provide
adequate services for students as well as extra services needed to assist special education
and English learner students (Picus & Blair, 2004; Rebell, 2007). Odden (2003) asserts
that the experts then provide a price or amount for the services identified and determine
what the per-pupil cost will be to offer an adequate education. Another advantage of this
approach according to Odden (2003) is the identification of services needed to produce
concrete student performance.
However, Hanushek (2006) is critical of this model due to its reliance on
professional opinion rather than research-based practices. Additionally, Rebell (2007)
states that biases held by panel members and the potential for the assembled panel‘s lack
of expertise with the specific programs and populations as disadvantages to this
43

approach. Another disadvantage Picus and Blair (2004) acknowledged is the possibility
that the strategies suggested by the panel may be too costly, as well as not impacting
student achievement.
The Cost Function Approach - uses regression analysis which attempts to measure the
relationship between actual expenditures and outcomes for a specific district (Taylor,
Baker, & Vedlitz, 2005). The model can be used to predict how much a district needs to
spend to achieve a desired student outcome (Rebell, 2007). Additionally, large amounts
of student data and school characteristics are needed across any given state to be able to
determine average models of spending (Rebell, 2007). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009)
are critical of this approach due to the inconsistent variability in the implementation of
the regression analysis and the technical complexity. Odden (2003) also states this
approach lacks the effective educational strategies that will be most beneficial to increase
student performance.
The Evidence-Based Approach - identifies research-based practices that produce
results and are associated with improving student achievement and applies the funding
and resources needed to implement best practices (Odden and Picus, 2008; Odden, 2003).
This approach reviews resource allocation at the school level using a detailed process
developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003). Based on research, the
Evidence Based Approach provides examples of schools that have studied and applied
the process and can be followed by educators to guide in the restructuring efforts (Odden
& Picus, 2008). In the next section the Evidence-Based Model will be described in detail
44

by providing a guide to schools that includes the number of teachers, coaches, and
specialists per student, as well as suggestions for professional development, after-school
programs and summer school, as strategies to support and improve student learning.
The Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model approach to educational adequacy identifies
educational strategies to deliver quality instruction to all students and determines
adequate expenditure levels by attaching a price on those strategies and totaling them to
determine an adequate spending base for schools (Odden & Picus, 2008). It is also an
attempt to determine if the current funding is adequate to implement a comprehensive
reform strategy with emphasis on improving instruction in the core academic areas,
support for struggling students, collaboration between teachers and coaches, and sound
professional development; the model is based on a cost reporting structure framework
developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003).
In the Evidence-Based approach, resource needs are taken from a proven models
of school reform and strategies consisting of class size reduction, targeted interventions
for struggling student populations, and comprehensive school reform models (Baker,
Taylor, and Vedlitz, 2008). Some critics claim that a weakness of the Evidence-Based
Approach is that the prescribed model focuses on the instructional program of schools
and it does not address the costs of other costly internal expenditures (Baker, Taylor, and
Vedlitz, 2008). Hanushek (2006) is critical of the Evidence-Based Model by stating that
no adequacy model is capable of calculating an exact dollar amount it takes to ensure that
45

students obtain proficiency when assessed on performance standards, however, the
Evidence-Based Model has been used in some states facing school reform. Some of the
studies were conducted in Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North
Dakota, and Kentucky (Odden, Picus, et al., 2008). Rebell (2007) and Odden and Picus
(2008) assert that the Evidence-Based Model uses empirical research from random
experimental studies as well as studies with other state of the art sound controls and
research in best-practices. Odden and Picus (2008) further attest that it is not only crucial
to consider what resources are being used, but to closely assess how schools are utilizing
their resources.
According to Odden and Picus (2008), the Evidence-Based Model lists the
following elements of educational adequacy as required for determining adequate funding
levels. This model identifies strategies to deliver a quality, comprehensive instructional
program which produces high levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). This
model relies on research and school designs to deliver results, and then places a price on
those strategies chosen and totals the cost to incorporate the effective strategies in
schools.
Odden (2009) identifies ten effective, research based practices encompassed in
the Evidence-Based Model that can double student performance which include: (1)
analyzing the data and understanding the performance challenge, (2) setting ambitious
goals for student performance, (3) implementing an effective curriculum and instructional
program, (4) committing to data-driven decision making, (5) investing in on-going and
46

effective professional development, (6) using instructional time wisely, (7) providing
interventions for struggling students, (8) creating professional learning communities, (9)
empowering leaders to support instructional improvement, and (10) addressing talent and
human capital issues. Based upon the ten practices, researchers have determined what
they call ―prototypical‖ elementary, middle, and high schools to demonstrate the staffing
and resources necessary to produce the desired outcome to increasing student
achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Odden, et al. (2005) describe three sources that the Evidence-Based Model
generates its suggestions from:
1) Research with randomized assignment to the treatment (also known as the ―gold
standard of evidence‖);
2) Research with other types of controls and procedures that can help separate the
impact of the treatment; and
3) Best practices either as codified in a comprehensive school design or from studies
of impact at the local district or school-level.
According to Odden and Picus (2008), the Evidence-Based Model makes the
following assumptions as it generates recommendations to assist in determining the
resources necessary to produce an adequate education at a school site: Expectation that
standards are defined and taught to high levels of rigor
47

 That standards are assessed in the state‘s accountability testing system, including
what level of proficiency is required. The goal is that all students will perform at a
proficient level
 The standards taught and assessed in state‘s accountability system and are aligned
with No Child Left Behind Act
 School funding is at levels high enough to provide the adequate resource
allocations based on the suggestion of the Evidence-Based Model.
Odden and Picus‘ (2008) Evidence-Based Model makes suggestions for schools to
guide them in their resource allocation and instructional strategy implementation. The
following categories represent the major areas the model addresses:
Administration
The model suggests one full time administrator for each prototypical school of
432 students with .5 FTE for every 216 students above the established standard of 432.
Core Teachers/Class Size
According to Odden and Picus (2008), class sizes of 15 are suggested for
kindergarten through third grade. This recommendation is based on the results published
in the Tennessee STAR study where it was discovered that (Finn, Gerber, Achilles, &
Boyd-Zaharias, 2001) students in smaller classes in primary grades perform better in
smaller classes than students in larger classes. Typically, minority students from low-
income backgrounds are found in larger classes where they do not perform as well.
Moreover, as it is often the case that small class sizes is even larger for minority students
48

from low-income backgrounds (Odden & Picus, 2008). Evidence on effect class sizes for
grades 4-12 is not established, thus the model sets the best practices recommendation to
25 for these class sizes.
Specialist Teachers and Planning and Preparation Time/Collaboration Development.
Specialist teachers are provided to enrich student education through art, music,
library skills, and physical education and to release teachers from their classrooms for
collaborative planning, job-embedded professional development (Odden & Picus 2008).
To provide teachers with this planning time, 20% additional staff is needed for
elementary schools. This would allow teachers to have planning and preparation time of
45-60 minutes daily. The formula is: 20% of the total core instructional teachers
constitute the number of additional staff (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Staff for Struggling Students
Tutors provide assistance to keep struggling students from falling further behind.
The standard in a comprehensive school designs is providing one fully licensed teacher
for every 100 at-risk students (Odden & Picus, 2008). The suggestion provided in the
model is to have a tutor help one student every twenty minutes or three students every
hour; if this is the standard then a tutor provides assistance to18 students per day. Another
strategy proposed is to have one to three students for every 30 minute session or three to
five students for 45 minute sessions. This strategy increases the number of students
serviced to thirty or more per day.

49

English Language Learners and Struggling Students
These students are provided with extra support and assistance. The formula used
in the model is ones FTE for every 100 ELs.
Extended Day
Odden & Picus (2008) suggest a two hour extended after school program, 5 days
a week with a teacher providing at least one hour of assistance. The extended after school
programs are provided for struggling students needing additional academic support in
order to meet the academic standards. The framework suggests resources be provided for
50% of the adjusted free and reduced price lunch pupil count and that one FTE be
provided for every 15 students in the program, since not all students will attend the after
school program.
Summer School
Summer school is provided to support students in achieving high standards and
making sure that struggling students needing more time acquire the standards are
provided with opportunities to learn the standards. The suggestion is for a session of
eight weeks, six hours per day, with class sizes of 15 students. According to Borman &
Boulay (2004) as cited in Odden & Picus (2008), some suggestions provided to enhance
summer school are:
 Early intervention during a 6 -8 week summer school program.
 A clear focus on mathematics and reading curriculum utilized with fidelity to
ensure that effective instruction is delivered.
50

 One-on-one tutoring or small group instruction.
 Monitoring and student attendance.
Student Support
Schools can benefit from a student support and family outreach component which
includes counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers. Typically the model
suggests looking at the school demographics, to determine the resources needed where
the more disadvantaged the school demographics are, the more comprehensive the
services needs to be. The suggestion in the model is for one licensed professional for
every 100 students coming from disadvantaged background for the prototypical
elementary of 432 students.
Instructional Aides
The Evidence -Based Model does not suggest funds be allocated for instructional
aides in the classroom. Instead, the model suggests the need for supervisory aides outside
the classroom and recommends 2.0 FTE for a school of 400-500 students.
Professional Development
Odden and Picus (2008) suggest schools provide on-going professional
development as a key to improving student performance in schools. Professional
development should become second nature in schools and it should attempt to bring
about change not only in the classroom, as well as in beliefs and attitudes of staffs, in
order to effectively change student learning (Elmore & Burney, 1999; Supovitz & Turner,
2000). Based on their review of the literature Odden and Picus (2008) suggested:
51

 Summer intensive training institutes. The training can be accomplished by
ensuring that approximately 10 days of the teacher‘s normal work year be
dedicated to professional development.
 On site coaching for all teachers to help them incorporate the practices into their
daily practices.
 Collaborative work with teachers in their schools during planning and preparation
periods to improve the curriculum and instructional program. Scheduling the time
during the regular school day and week becomes crucial in order for this strategy
to be implemented.
 Approximately $100 per student is suggested to be set aside for summer training
and ongoing training during the school year.

52

Instructional Facilitators/School Based Coaches/Mentors.
The model suggests this position to be one instructional facilitator for every 200
students. The instructional coaches coordinate the instructional program and provide the
necessary ongoing instructional coaching and mentoring in an effective staff
development. These coaches spend their time in classrooms, modeling lessons, giving
feedback to teachers, and helping teachers to improve the instructional program.
The Evidence-Based Model‘s research-based formulas for staffing are identified
in Table 2.5. The full implementation of the model can be complex and expensive, as it
asks for two instructional coaches; one coach for every 200 students in each school, class
sizes of fifteen in grades K-3, full-day kindergarten, and on on-going, intensive
professional development (Picus, 2007). This model is the framework utilized in this
study as to compare five schools, thus, it is described in more detail below.

53

Table 2.5: Evidence-Based Formulas
Position/Strategy Model Suggestions
Administrator 1.0 FTE for a prototypical school of 432 with .5
FTE for every 216 students above 432.
Core Teachers/Class Size K-3: 5 students per teacher, 4-12:25 students
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers during the
school to allow teachers to
collaborate daily for 45-60
minutes
K-5: 20% of total core teachers
6-8: 20% of total core teachers
9-12: 33% of total core teachers
Extra Support Staff:
Credentialed Teacher
Free and Reduced Price Lunch
1.0 FTE for every 100 at-risk students. Tutor one
student every 20 minutes or three students per
hour.
Extra Support Staff
English Learners
1.0 FTE for every 100 ELs
Special Education (self-
contained class)
These classes are for severely disabled students
and includes aides; number allotted based on
school needs
Extended Day:
50% of all adjusted F/R price
lunch students
1.0 FTE for every 15 students in the program.
Suggests a 2 hour after school program, 5 days a
week with teachers providing at least one hour of
assistance.
Summer School:
50% of all adjusted F/R price
lunch students
1.0 FTE for every 15 students. Suggests a session
of eight weeks, six hours per day.
Professional Development Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil.
Collaborative work with teachers during the
school day. On site coaching.
10 additional days added to teacher contract for
professional development.
Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
1 instructional facilitator for every 200
2.5 FTEs for a school with 432 students.
Student Support 1.0 FTE licensed professional for every 100
student enrolled in the Free and Reduced Lunch
Program, with a minimum of one for prototype
school of 432 students
Instructional Aides No allocations provided for instructional aides in
the model
Supervision Aides 2.0 FTE supervision aides for each school of 432
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)
54

As was presented in the previous section, the Evidence-Based Model makes
specific staffing suggestions and provides guidelines for services based on the number of
students that are enrolled at the different grade levels. Currently many of necessary
elements in the model are not implemented in California. The model however, provides a
framework to inform schools both how to analyze current school resources in place and
utilize existing resources efficiently. Goertz and Duffy (1999) assert that even though
there is an abundance of research in best instructional practices, resource allocation and
school finance policies do not reflect the implementation of the practices at the school or
district level. Adequacy models such as the Evidence-Based Model, attempt to provide
schools with resources needed to obtain specific results (Odden & Picus, 2008). Rice
(2004) goes on to explain that unless a balance of equity and efficiency is reached then it
will be difficult to understand how the allocation of resources directly impacts the
implementation of educational strategies at the school level. Up to now school finance
has not identify an adequacy approach that satisfy the need for students to be provided
with adequate services (Odden, 2003).
Effective Practices for Improving Student Learning
As previously stated in the section regarding the components that make up the
Evidence-Based Model there are strategies and practices that have been deemed effective
in assisting schools (Odden & Archibald (2009). Improving the quality and effectiveness
of student learning at the school level is complex and it involves the application of
research-based strategies that are systemic and sustainable (Duke, 2006). Odden and
55

Archibald‘s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance is a research-based
framework that when used with fidelity can assist schools in implementing changes to
improve student outcomes. A description of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance follows:
1. Understanding the performance challenge- schools need to engage in
conversations to acknowledge there is a sense of urgency and be able to analyze
state testing performance data. The curriculum mapping process can assist staffs
to understand there is a problem and determine the distance between current
achievement gaps and desired performance
2. Setting ambitious goals- it is imperative that schools set high ambitious goals
regardless of current student demographics and performance level. The goals set
by the schools need to be viewed as attainable, reasonable thus motivating staffs
to focus their energies to attain those goals with the core belief that students can
learn
3. Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision- schools
take a critical analysis at the curriculum and instructional program and are able
to link instructional practices to the curriculum and the impacted it had on
student learning. Schools become aware of the urgency to replace old
curriculum for new curriculum that teachers systematically implement in the
classroom developing effective ways to teach and collaborate for best
instructional practices
56

4. Using benchmark, formative assessments, and data-based decision making: The
concrete information gathered from benchmark and formative assessments help
teachers to enhance instructional practices impacting student performance.
Teachers measure student knowledge often and used the results to improve and
guide their instruction. The benchmark assessment helps to make practice
targeted and efficient.
5. Effective professional development produces change in classroom-based
practices which are linked to improvement in student learning. Some of the key
features of professional development are: ongoing and focused on curriculum
during the year for at least 100 hours, the entire staff should participate in the
professional development, the content focuses on the curriculum the teachers
teach, active learning is a part of the professional development when the
teachers incorporate the new knowledge into their instructional practices, and
aligning professional development to other key components of the education
system with pupil-free days, money allocated for trainers, and instructional
coaches to provide in-class coaching assistance that will lead to changes in the
daily classroom practices.
6. Using time efficiently and effectively by extending the school year or day; using
the time wisely by protecting instructional time for core subjects; extending the
time for math and reading and limiting disruptions; providing assistance to
struggling student groups according to their instructional level.
57

7. Extending learning time for struggling students - these students a need to be
provided with extra help to be able to learn the rigorous standards, the students
receive the extra assistance during the school day one on one by a certificated
teacher or small-group; time outside the regular school day; and during summer
school.
8. Schools work together to develop a collaborative professional culture; the new
collaborative culture works to improve the curriculum and instructional program
in order for student learning to increase; the professional culture share the belief
of high achievement expectations for all students; instruction is public not
hidden and it is shared with all teachers; teachers take responsibility for student
performance
9. Professional and best practices- schools actively seeking methods to improve
student achievement by researching what best practices worked for other
schools then providing training to all staff; schools implementing best practices
did not operate in isolation, seeking assistance from experts to provide coaching
at the site for all staff, thus, impacting student performance
10. Addressing talent and human capital- schools are always seeking to hire the best
staff and also providing new teachers will the instructional strategies needed to
be successful, at the same time supervising new staff and having high
expectations in the implementation of standards.
58

As has been described briefly, Odden‘s (2009) ten strategies have produced dramatic
improvements in student learning and in reducing achievement gaps. Other studies
(Grubb, 2007; Chenoweth (2007) in Odden & Archibald (2009) found similarities in the
steps taken to improve student achievement. Odden and Archibald (2009) acknowledge
that some of the processes for doubling student performance require resources that may
be difficult to implement such as: reduced class sizes, on-going professional
development, extended learning opportunities as well as extended day, and summer
programs. However, Odden (2009) makes a recommendation to schools to look into
special grants and even new general resources to be able to implement the strategies
mentioned previously. Funding the Ten strategies for Doubling Student Performance
may be a daunting task, however, some of the strategies it suggests such as analyzing test
data, setting high expectations, implementing and analyzing formative assessments, and
creating a professional school culture can be implemented into a school with minimal
resources.
Summary
This literature review focused on school finance in California, provided a brief
history of resource use in identifying adequate funding for schools, presented the latest
programs and initiatives surrounding the accountability movement as well as their effect
on resource allocations decisions, and reviewed effective strategies for improving student
achievement using the evidence-based model as an organizing framework. Rebell (2007)
emphasizes that state standards are concrete in terms of what students must learn and the
59

system of assessment and accountability is in place in order to identify gaps in student
preparation in relation to these high expectations. California has adopted a rigorous
accountability system; however, it has not closed the academic achievement gap in
education. Based on the test result data, the schools selected in this study have struggled
to close the achievement gap and have not shown improvement for several years. This
study, using the evidence-based model (Odden & Picus, 2008), as well as Odden‘s (2009)
ten strategies for doubling student performance attempts to better understand the
challenges facing the low-achieving schools in California in what their options are in
improving student achievement. The educational strategies in the evidence-based model
can assist these schools in starting conversations of how the model can provide effective
educational strategies for improvement of our schools. The following chapter will
explain the methodology that will be used in this study.

60

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY
The focus of this study is to examine resource allocation in the persistently low-
achieving elementary schools in the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California. Using
the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as frameworks to organize the research, each
school‘s resource allocations were studied qualitatively and qualitatively to determine
how closely their respective resource usage aligns to the best practices suggested by the
models as they affect student learning. The end goal is to find inefficiencies within their
resource allocation and instructional strategy implementations and identify areas in which
these schools can improve their practices to utilize resources more effectively thereby
increasing student achievement. This study will also look at why these schools that are
struggling to make growth are continuing to overlook how their resources are closely tied
to their instructional program. Additionally, it is expected the study will contribute new
information to site administrators and policymakers regarding how Program
Improvement schools may be struggling to effectively allocate their resources to assist
them in meeting the educational needs of their low-achieving populations. This chapter
details the research questions, sample and population, instrumentation, and data analysis
planned to be used in the study.
The study of these five consistently underperforming schools is an independent
research project and is one of twelve occurring at the University of Southern California in
61

a thematic dissertation group exploring the link between resource allocation, instructional
strategies, and student achievement in California schools.
Research Questions
The following four questions will guide the study:
(1) What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
(2) How are resources at the school and district level used to implement the
school‘s
instructional improvement plan?
(3) How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response
to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and
changes in the use of categorical funds?
(4) How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resources use strategies used in Odden and Picus‘ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model?
Sample and Population
This research consists of a purposeful case study based on five central valley Title
I Program Improvement elementary schools. Criterion sampling was utilized to select the
five schools with the selection based on the sites‘ Program Improvement status in
addition to their recent designation by the California Department of Education as the
―persistently low-achieving‖ schools in the San Joaquin Valley (Morse, 2003; Patton,
2002). This designation resulted from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
62

2009 (ARRA) and the School Improvement Grant (SIG) which mandated California to
identify the bottom five percent of persistently low-achieving schools (California
Department of Education, 2010a).
Sample schools were selected in the study based on information obtained from the
California Department of Education (2010) based on demographic criteria such as:
Program Improvement status of schools at least in year 5 for Adequate Yearly Progress,
API scores of less than 700, their API growth, which for three schools indicates a loss in
API, as well as the API state and similar school ranking of one, (see Table 3.1). Other
demographic criteria for the selection of the schools will include: grade spans limited to
elementary grades with pupil enrollment of 700 or less, a minimum of 75% participation
in free and reduced lunch program, and are considered socio-economically disadvantaged
(SED), minimum of 45% English Learners population, and a minimum 70% Hispanic
student population (see Table 3.2). Based on the demographic criteria, the five schools
presented in Table 3.1 were identified as possible candidates for this study. The five
schools are located in Tulare County and they were selected due to the similarities in
student population along with the similar and state ranking of one, however this study
will focus on the resource allocation and implementation of research-based strategies and
how resources are used in these persistently low-achieving schools.

63

Table 3.1: School Sample API and State Rankings
API API
Growth
State
Ranking
Similar
School
Ranking
PI Status
Year
Alpha
Elementary
2005-06
579 46 1 1 5
2006-07
625 17 1 4 5
2007-08
642 23 1 3 5
2008-09
665 -64 1 4 5
2009-10
601 20 1 1 5
Bravo
Elementary
2005-06
645 -4 1 3 3
2006-07
641 33 1 5 4
2007-08
635 -1 1 2 5
2008-09*
626 -9 1 1 5
2009-10
615 -11 1 1 5
Charlie
Elementary
2005-06
590 +11 1 1 5
2006-07
585 -5 1 1 5
2007-08
635 +50 1 1 5
2008-09
614 -21 1 1 5
2009-10
623 +9 1 1 5
Delta
Elementary
2005-06
616 25 2 3 4
2006-07
632 16 1 3 5
2007-08
641 9 1 1 5
2008-09
668 27 1 1 5
2009-10
715 47 1 1 5
Echo
Elementary
2005-06
669 20 2 6 1
2006-07
643 -19 1 1 2
2007-08
654 12 1 1 3
2008-09
674 20 1 1 4
2009-10
689 15 1 1 5
**2008-09 Adult irregularity as per CDE –estimation- not have a valid API

64

Table 3.2: School Sample Grade Range, Enrollment, and Demographics
School
Grade
Span Enrollment
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
ELL
%
Free/Reduced
Alpha
Elementary
K-8 502 74% 19% 54% 98%
Bravo
Elementary
K-6 711 90% 8% 63% 100%
Charlie
Elementary
K-6 511 79% 6% 56% 100%
Delta
Elementary
2-3 380 93% 6% 67% 98%
Echo
Elementary
K-8 225 74% 25% 58% 84%
Source: California Department of Education (2009)
The 183 persistently low-achieving schools selected by the California Department
of Education have the opportunity to apply for special funding under the School
Improvement Grant (SIG). Some of the requirements under SIG is to implement one of
four school intervention models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the School
Closure Model, or the Transformation Model. The schools selected for this study receive
Title I funds and are in the process of restructuring and are at varying levels in the AYP
process after not meeting the targets in either English Language Arts or Mathematics for
the last five years. Additionally, the two subgroups reflecting greater academic
deficiencies in each school, Hispanic and SED, have not met the targets in the last three
years (See Table 3.3).
65

Table 3.3: School and Sub-Groups AYP Status
School &
Subgroup
2007/2008 AYP
ELA Math
2008/2009 AYP
ELA Math
2009/2010 AYP
ELA Math
Alpha Elementary No Yes No Yes No No
Hispanic No Yes No Yes No No
SED No Yes No Yes No No
Bravo Elementary No Yes No Yes No Yes
Hispanic No Yes No Yes No Yes
SED No Yes No Yes No Yes
Charlie Elementary No Yes No No No Yes
Hispanic No No No No Yes Yes
SED No Yes No No No Yes
Delta Elementary No Yes No Yes No Yes
Hispanic No Yes No Yes No Yes
SED No Yes No Yes No Yes
Echo Elementary No Yes Yes No No No
Hispanic No Yes Yes No No No
SED No Yes Yes No No No
Note: ‗Yes‘ indicates the AYP performance target was met for the school and/or
subgroups while ‗No‘ indicates the AYP performance target was not met.

Source: California Department of Education, (2010)

66

Instruments and Data Collection
This study will use the direct observation qualitative method with a nonparticipant
observer. A recorder will be used in gathering data from interviews of administrative
personnel designed to obtain a detached perspective in the qualitative collection of
information. Quantitative analysis will be applied to student academic achievement and
demographic data derived from the California Department of Education online data
resources. Quantitative data will also be derived from the local school structures and
resource indicators. The data collection strategies that will be employed were developed
by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003).
The interviews are designed to provide a cultural overview of the school structure
and will be in narrative form. Protocols (Appendix E) utilized for the qualitative data
collection will be taken from similar studies conducted by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates with all suggest steps implemented to ensure the research is unbiased (Odden,
et al., 2007; Odden, et al., 2005; Picus, et al., 2008). The data gathered will be uploaded
into a database created by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. The researcher attended
a one-day training session in March 2010. During the training, the researcher received
data collection protocols and code book, along with comprehensive instruction on how to
use these and interpret materials in the study. The code book provided the interview
questions and protocol. Questions and documents reviewed dealt directly with the four
research questions. The researcher will collect and analyze data using the same protocol
and collection instruments to allow the researcher to compare resource use patterns across
67

the schools participating in this study. Principals have been contacted to obtain
permission to participate in the study. The five principals will be participating in a
number of interviews where they will answer open-and close-ended interviews questions
and provide the investigator with documentation of school data.
The researcher will utilize the Evidence-Based code book previously used in
finance adequacy research in Wyoming and Arkansas as a base to compare resource
allocation at each respective site and its relationship to the Evidence-Based model. While
the researcher will analyze the data collected from the study to try to identify
instructional improvement strategies at each school using the Evidence-Based model and
Odden‘s Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, since these sites are required
to implement one of four state mandated school intervention models, the study will also
briefly examine the alignment between these intervention models and the Evidence-
Based Model.
This study will combine observations and interviews along with collection of
school resource data. The case studies will analyze and make comparisons between the
five schools and how each school‘s resources use aligns to the best practices presented in
the Evidence Based model. Using multiple methods of analysis will minimize the chance
for errors (Morse, 2003; Patton, 2002).
At each site, the principal will be interviewed. The purpose of this interview is to
attain a detailed reflection as to how resources are allocated at the school site. Interviews
68

will be conducted for the purpose of gaining knowledge, insight, and understanding of
this phenomenon from the perspective of the site principal.
This research project has received an exemption from the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for the purpose of wider discretionary interviewing procedures necessary to insure
validity and applicability. See Appendix A for a copy of the IRB Approval.

Documents under review from each site include the following:
 School Vision and Mission Statement
 Intervention Plan developed under the School Improvement Grant (used to
discuss instructional improvement plan)
 Single School Plan for Student Achievement (used to discuss instructional
improvement plan)
 Master Schedule (used to determine instructional minutes)
 Staff Roster (used to determine quantity of staff members)
 School Budget (used to analyze how resources are allocated)
Summary
This chapter describes the methodology that will be used to conduct this study.
Sufficient information is provided on the population and sample, instrumentation and
collection tools, and data analysis process to allow future researchers to replicate this
study in other California schools with similar demographics and academic needs. Chapter
four will describe the findings from the site visits and how the findings related to the
research questions addressed in this study.
69

CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS
This study was conducted to examine resource allocation in schools and their
implementation of instructional strategies to understand how they affect student
performance in low performing schools in program improvement. The chapter presents
findings gathered from five case studies of schools designated as persistently low
achieving located in the Central Valley of California and detailed in Appendices H-L.
The five schools have similarities in their academic performance with the main one being
that all schools have a state ranking of one, with most of the schools seeing minimal
growth in student outcomes while one experienced no growth. In summarizing the
findings, this chapter first presents a synopsis of the schools‘ profiles; second, evaluates
each school‘s overall performance disaggregated by different subgroups on state
assessments; third, assesses each school‘s implementation of instructional strategies to
improve student performance; fourth, reviews the resource allocation at each site and
how it measures to the suggestions in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM); and concludes
by examining how the allocation and use of resources at the five schools changed in
response to recent budget reductions.
School Profiles
All the schools in the study are located in the Central Valley of California. The
schools have been designated persistently low-achieving by the California Department of
Education and are all in Program Improvement Year 5. The five schools have some
unique enrollment configurations with one school at the time of the study enrolling 380
70

students in grades two and three only, while another school had an enrollment of 711 K-
6. Table 4.1 below illustrates the enrollment information for all of the schools profiled
in the sample:
Table 4.1: Student Enrollment of Sample Schools

Alpha
Elementary
Bravo
Elementary
Charlie
Elementary
Delta
Elementary
Echo
Elementary
Enrolled
Students
502 711 511 380 225
Grades

K-8 K-6 K-6 2-3 K-8

The demographic compositions of the schools are very similar to one another,
with the majority being Hispanic with the White subgroup being the second largest group
at each site, except for Charlie Elementary, where the Asian subgroup is slightly larger
than the White subgroup. As Figure 4.1 below illustrates, the percentage of Hispanic and
White students varies slightly from school to school with two K-8 schools being evenly
balanced (Alpha Elementary and Waukena Elementary), and two schools with a
substantial majority of Hispanic students (Bravo Elementary and Delta Elementary).

71

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Distribution in Sample Schools

All the sample schools had over fifty percent of English Learners (EL) and over
eighty percent Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) students of the total enrollment.
This was a typical representation of student distribution mainly due to the location of the
Central Valley and the agricultural industry being the biggest source of employment.
Similarly, the two schools with the highest student enrollment had one hundred percent of
their students classified as being Socioeconomically Disadvantaged. Figure 4.2
illustrates the percentage of students in the SED and EL subgroups found at the schools
in the sample along with the percentages assumed in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
prototype school. After reviewing the percentages of SED and ELs in each school
compared to the EBM prototype school, all the schools have considerably more of each
group than the prototype school which implies each of the five sample schools has
substantialy more challenges and will require additional resources to address their needs.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
74%
90%
79%
93%
74%
6%
14%
19%
8% 6% 6%
25%
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Distribution in Sample Schools
Other
White
Asian
Hispanic
72

Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students enrolled in Sample Schools

Achievement Data
This section will review the school-wide data for each school from 2005/06 to
2009/10. Results from the California Standards Test (CST) determine the schools‘
Academic Performance Index (API) and school rankings.
API and School Rankings. One of the schools, Delta Elementary saw a sizeable
increase in their score growing 99 points to reach 715, Charlie Elementary‘s score
increased 33 points to 623, Alpha Elementary‘s score climbed 22 points to 601, and Echo
Elementary‘s score increased 20 points to 689. There was only one site, Bravo
Elementary who experienced a decrease, with a 30 point reduction, putting its score at
615.

98% 100% 100% 98%
84%
50%
54%
63%
56%
67%
58%
10%
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students
enrolled in Sample Schools
SED EL
73

Figure 4.3: API Change in Sample Schools Over Five Year Period

The API scores are utilized by the California Department of Education (CDE) to
provide all elementary, middle school and high schools with a ranking from 1 to 10.
Every year all school types receive a similar school ranking and state school ranking from
1 to 10. A state ranking demonstrates a school‘s API placement in a statewide
distribution of API scores of schools of the same type. The distribution is the ranked
APIs divided into ten equal deciles. A school‘s API is compared to all other schools in
the state of the same type. A similar school ranking is given to schools to compare them
to 100 similar schools. Sixteen characteristics are identified by the state; such as
numbers of students in poverty, number of English Learners, similar ethnic subgroups,
etc. The similar school ranking is designed to compare schools to others with similar
characteristics to evaluate progress against challenges faced by schools with higher
numbers of students needing additional support for various reasons. In both similar and
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
579
645
590
616
643
601
615
623
715
679
Figure 4.3: API Change in Sample Schools Over Five Year
Period
74

state ranking, a score of 1 indicates the lowest 1
st
decile, while a score of 10 indicates the
highest, 10
th
decile.
Table 4.2 below illustrates the state rank for the sample schools does not vary
much mainly because all the schools have a ranking of one, while the similar schools
rank only ranges from one to three. After reviewing the school-wide rankings over the
five year period for the sample schools, the results do not indicate much difference, and
only two schools posted a ranking of two, however, it was not maintained and dropped to
a ranking of one. When the same analysis is performed using the similar schools ranking,
the results indicate that one site began with a ranking of six however, the following year
it dropped to a ranking of one, and has not been increased since.
Table 4.2: Similar Schools and Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools
Alpha
Elementary
Bravo
Elementary
Charlie
Elementary
Delta
Elementary
Echo
Elementary

05-06 09-10 05-06 09-10 05-06 09-
10
05-06 09-
10
05-06 09-
10
Statewide
Ranking
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Similar School
Ranking
1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 6 1

Figures 4.4 and 4.5 below illustrate each year over the five year period for State
and Similar Schools Rankings. It is obvious when looking at the data the sample schools
were selected by the CDE as persistently low-achieving needing to improve the overall
school performance. Echo Elementary being the highest scoring school in both
categories yet only achieving a 2 in the State and a 6 in the Similar Schools ranking in
2005/06.
75

Figure 4.4: Statewide Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years

Figure 4.5: Similar Schools Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Figure 4.6, illustrates the sample schools‘
performance as measured by the AYP scores in Language Arts which demonstrates a
similar pattern as the overall API scores. Three sites, Delta Elementary, Charlie
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
State Wde Ranking
Figure 4.4: Statewide Ranking of Sample
Schools Over Five Years
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Similar School Ranking
Figure 4.5: Similar Schools Ranking of Sample
Schools Over Five Years
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Delta Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
76

Elementary, and Echo Elementary saw gains of 10.7%, of 8.5% and 8.3% respectively in
the percentage of all students categorized as proficient or advanced while one school,
Alpha Elementary, saw a very small change in their score of 1.2%. The fifth and final
school, Bravo Elementary, experienced a small decrease of 0.9%.
Figure 4.6: Language Arts AYP School-wide Change in Sample Schools

When examining the same data closely and disaggregating the results by
significant subgroups, specifically looking at groups that historically struggled
academically in the state and their scores on the Language Arts AYP report can provide
another viewpoint on the reform efforts at the samples sites. Figure 4.7 displays the
change in the English Arts AYP for Hispanic students, where the students in that group
realized a gain at three schools except Alpha Elementary and Bravo Elementary who saw
the Hispanic subgroup decrease 5.4% and 1.5% respectively. One of the schools, Delta
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.6: ELA AYP Schoolwide Change in
Sample Schools
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
77

Elementary saw gains of 11.3% while Charlie Elementary and Echo Elementary saw
increases of 9.7% and 4% respectively.
Figure 4.7: English Arts AYP Change for Hispanic Students

Figure 4.8 illustrates a similar result in the English Arts AYP for SED students,
with students in that subgroup seeing gains at each all the schools except Bravo
Elementary who saw the percentage of its SED students proficient or advanced fall from
20.2% to 19.3%. The two K-8 sites, Alpha Elementary and Echo Elementary saw gains
of approximately 5% while Charlie Elementary saw gains of approximately 9.2%. Delta
Elementary saw the largest increase of approximately 13.3%.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.7: ELA AYP Change for Hispanic
Students
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
78

Figure 4.8: English Arts AYP Change for SED Students

Figure 4.9 illustrates the gains of students classified as English Learners where
students at four of the schools in the sample posted moderate gains in the percentage of
total EL students as proficient or advanced on the English Arts AYP report. Bravo
Elementary saw the percentage of its EL students proficient or advanced fall from 15.1%
to 12.9% while Charlie Elementary‘s EL students achieved growth of 10.7%, Alpha
Elementary saw increases of 5.5%, and Echo Elementary reported a small rise of 0.5%;
Delta Elementary saw the largest increase of approximately 11.1%.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.8: ELA AYP Change for SED
Students
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
79

Figure 4.9: English Arts AYP Change for EL Students

The total change in the English Arts AYP for all subgroups at the sample schools
in the five year period is illustrated in figure 4.10. Interestingly, at all of the sample
schools where the White group is the smallest numerically significant subgroup at the
schools, saw significant increases as compared to that of the other subgroups in the
schools. As a result, it can be surmised that the achievement gap at all of the schools
with the exception of Bravo Elementary has continued in the area of Language Arts as
measured by the schools‘ scores on the AYP report. Detailed academic performance for
the subgroups along with a review of each school‘s progress in the continual achievement
gap is presented in the case studies found in Appendices H-L.
0
5
10
15
20
25
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.9: ELA AYP Change for EL Students
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
80

Figure 4.10: English Arts AYP Change in Percent Proficient and Advanced

As illustrated in Figure 4.11, the schools‘ performance as measured by the AYP
report in Mathematics shows some levels of improvement, however, the total gains are
slightly greater than the schools‘ performance change on the AYP Language Arts report.
Two sites, Delta Elementary and Charlie Elementary, saw gains of 11.6% and 7.9% in the
percentage of all students categorized as proficient or advanced while the K-8 schools
Alpha Elementary and Echo Elementary realized increases of 4.1% and 2.3%. The fifth
school, Bravo Elementary, experienced a significant decrease of 10.9%.
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
Figure 4.10: ELA AYP Change in Percent Proficient &
Advanced for all subgroups in Sample Schools from 2005 to
2010
EL
SED
Hispanic
White
81

Figure 4.11: Math AYP School-wide Change in Sample Schools

In reviewing the Mathematics assessment data closely and disaggregating the
results by subgroups, specifically looking at those subgroups that historically struggled
academically in the state, the scores on the Mathematics AYP report can provide another
viewpoint on the improvement efforts at the sample schools. Figure 4.12 illustrates the
change in the Mathematics AYP for Hispanic students, with the subgroup realizing gains
at each school except Bravo Elementary who saw its Hispanic population drop 12.2% in
the number of proficient and advanced students over the five year period. Echo
Elementary experienced minimal growth of 0.8%, while two of the sites, Charlie
Elementary and Alpha Elementary increased9.3% and 3.4% respectively. Finally, Delta
Elementary experienced a 12.6% increase in the number of its Hispanic students
classified as proficient and advanced.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.11: Math AYP Schoolwide Change in
Sample Schools
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
82

Figure 4.12: Math AYP Change for Hispanic Students

Figure 4.13 illustrates the change in Mathematics AYP for SED students where
students in the group at each school realized increases except for Bravo Elementary who
saw the percentage of its SED students that were proficient or advanced fall from 41.8%
to 30.9%. One school, Delta Elementary experienced a gain of 12.5%, while Charlie
Elementary realized growth of approximately 7.9% and Alpha Elementary had a 4.1%
increase. Finally, Echo Elementary had its scores increase almost 1.2%.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.12: Math AYP Change for Hispanic
Students
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
83

Figure 4.13: Math AYP Change for SED Students

The EL subgroup at four of sample schools posted increases in the percent
classified as proficient or advanced on the Mathematics AYP report. Figure 4.14
illustrates that except for Bravo Elementary who saw the percentage of its EL students
that were proficient or advanced fall from 38.9% to 28.7% during the five year period, all
sites showed slight increases. Additionally, Delta Elementary‘s increase over 11.6%,
and Charlie Elementary reporting a rise of over 8.7% and Echo Elementary reporting a
rise of 4.9%, and Alpha Elementary reporting a 4.1% rise.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.13: Math AYP Change for SED
Students
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
84

Figure 4.14: Math AYP Change for EL Students

Figure 4.15 illustrates the change in the Mathematics AYP for the subgroups at
the sample sites in the five year period. Most of the subgroups realized moderate gains at
each school except Bravo Elementary who saw its Hispanic, SED, and EL populations
drop more than 10% in the number of proficient and advanced students over the five year
period, although their White subgroup did show a great increase in the percent proficient
or advanced compared to the increases of the subgroup at the other schools. Echo
Elementary experienced minimal growth for their Hispanic and SED subgroup, while
their EL subgroup posted a 4.9% increase in the number of proficient and advanced
students. Charlie Elementary experienced a 9.3% increase in the number of its Hispanic
students classified as proficient and advanced with the number of proficient SED students
increasing 7.9% while the number of proficient and advanced EL students increased
8.7%. Alpha Elementary experienced a 3.4% increase in the number of its Hispanic
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure 4.14: Math AYP Change for EL
Students
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
85

students classified as proficient and advanced with similar gains in the proficiency of
SED and EL students of 4.1%.. Finally, Delta Elementary experienced the most growth
with a 12.6% increase in the number of its Hispanic students classified as proficient and
advanced; similar growth occurred in the number of proficient and advanced SED and EL
with a increases of 12.5% 11.6% respectively.. As noted, the achievement gap at all of
the sites with the exception of Echo Elementary has been minimized in the area of
Mathematics as measured by AYP scores. Specific results for the subgroups along with
an analysis of each school‘s progress in addressing the achievement gap are detailed in
the case studies found in Appendices H-L.
Figure 4.15: Math AYP Change in Percent Proficient and Advanced

As the data in the section demonstrate, the schools in the study are at different
stages of improvement. Some schools such as Delta Elementary and Charlie have shown
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Alpha Elementary
Bravo Elementary
Charlie Elementary
Delta Elementary
Echo Elementary
Figure 4.15: Math AYP Change in Percent Proficient &
Advanced for all subgroups in Sample Schools from 2005
to 2010
EL
SED
Hispanic
White
86

growth across subgroups over the last five years while others such as Alpha Elementary
and Echo Elementary have not made significant gains from one year to the next or have
not experienced significant growth in content areas or subgroups, which ultimately
affects their overall growth. Additionally, in the most critical situation moving ahead,
Bravo Elementary has shown major losses in its scores school-wide, across all content
areas, and subgroups over the past five years. Now that Bravo is implementing the
Turnaround Intervention Model it will be interesting to review the scores for next school
year.
The following section will review another aspect in these schools‘ improvement
efforts by presenting instructional strategies that research has demonstrated increase
student achievement and then determining the degree to which each school has
incorporated these strategies.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies
After reviewing the five sample schools it can be surmised that most of them are
in the early stages of improving student achievement. While one school is further along
in the process of using a variety of strategies to improve student performance, they all
must demonstrate growth in the mist of scrutiny and sanctions from the CDE. All the
sample schools will continue to have the designation of persistently low-achieving and
are required to incorporate research-based strategies to improve the student performance.
Using Odden‘s (2009), Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Achievement is an excellent
resource and the sample schools were reviewed for their level of implementation for each
87

strategy. Most schools attempted to implement the ten strategies to a degree but the level
of implementation is mixed at each school. The following sections provide a brief
summary of the five schools‘ attempt to implement the ten strategies provided by Odden
(2009).
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. Odden
(2009) states that in order for schools to begin improving performance they must first
become aware there is a need for change and to fully understand the problem in order to
decide how far away a school is from their desired results. For the sample schools in the
study, this was not generally the case and there seemed to be a lack of awareness between
the schools performance and desired results. At most of the sites, the administrator
appeared to understand the severity of the performance challenge facing the school and in
some cases, attempted to share the urgency with the staff. Most of the principals in the
sample were somewhat familiar with their assessment data and were working to analyze
the data. Two of the sites were working with county offices of education to provide staff
development to assist all teachers to become familiar with the process of reviewing the
assessment data. The data analysis was performed by the administrators in different
ways, with Bravo, Charlie, and Delta utilizing a student data management system to
disaggregate the data to compile specific individual standards, student information,
subgroups and other areas of need. The other two K-8 principals relied on county
consultants for assistance to provide general review of the information though they felt
that due to their limited financial resources a computerized data system was not a
88

possibility although it would facilitate the data analysis for the staff. The principal at
Bravo Elementary was the only administrator to connect how understanding the
performance challenge is the key to directly impacting student achievement.
In summary, despite the fact that all five schools are in Program Improvement
Year 5 which stipulates that once a school has been identified as being in PI it is required
to use part of its Title I allocation for conducting in-depth analyzing of data, professional
development, and the implementation of research-based programs and strategies most of
the schools are in the nascent stages of having a better understanding of what the
performance challenge faces their individual school. Currently, all of the schools have a
varying degree of understanding of the performance challenges affecting the sites, with
two principals attempting to work with county offices of education as external providers
and one school working with Action Learning Systems, as external provider to assist the
administrators and teachers in the analysis of data. The principals at Delta and Bravo
Elementary came across as having a better understanding of the issues facing the school,
though being that Bravo Elementary‘s principal is new to her position, it remains to be
seen whether the staff will make the necessary changes to get used to her leadership style.
Bravo is the only school from the study sample that applied and received funding to
implement the Transformational Intervention Model. The implications for Bravo are that
analysis of data is required and significant changes must occur in order to continue
receiving the grant money each year. Finally, due to the limited performance on the state
assessments over the past five years, and their program improvement status along with
89

the persistently low-achieving designation it is apparent that the sample schools have
some work ahead of them to incorporate this strategy described in the research by Odden
(2009) to show improvement in student achievement.
Setting Ambitious Goals. According to Odden (2009) successful organizations
need to establish high ambitious goals despite of the current performance levels of
students from the various significant subgroups.
Amazingly out of the five schools in the sample, Bravo Elementary was the only
school that formally presented a plan to incorporate ambitious goals into the school
improvement process. The new principal noted that the district moved to a performance-
based system due to a noticeable failure of the traditional grading system to address the
student needs. Although, the overall API goal score of 615 in 2009/10 is the lowest API
as compared to the other sample sites, the staff that was selected to remain at the school is
extremely aware of the new ambitious goals set under the Turnaround Intervention
Model. The principal also stated that it is crucial for the school to clearly define what is
expected of the students at each content level, as well as the criteria to achieve
proficiency on each standard at each level. The school and district are creating a system
in which the students partner with their teachers to reach ambitious goals.
As a result of the Turnaround Intervention Model, the principal has the authority
to use the teacher evaluation system to ensure adherence of the ambitious goals at the
school. Teachers are expected to ensure that every student in their class makes at least
one year‘s growth in one year‘s time in all the various types of evaluation. There is a
90

great expectation and goals for improvement school-wide and among subgroups. With
respect to the API goal, it is expected that second to sixth grade will attain the state API
targets for the school. The CELDT goal is that is for EL students to advance at least one
performance level each year. As for the CST goal, the objective is for ten percent (10%)
or more students to reach proficient or advanced level for ELA and Math. The ambitious
learning goals for kinder and first graders are based on local assessment where fifty
(50%) of the students will attain the minimum proficiency level expected of all students
in the district. According to the principal, school-wide there is the expectation for all
students to reach those ambitious goals and staff and parents are working toward
achieving those ambitious goals.
Delta Elementary‘s principal is working with teachers to use the ―bread ‗n butter‖
strategies provided by Denis Parker in the Strategic Schooling Model, which is a set of
strategies geared toward school improvement and setting ambitious goals school-wide is
an essential strategy that is an integral part of the model. The goal setting strategy
identifies 2-3 students per month, and per class, who are on the verge of reaching
proficient. The added focus and academic and social attention, it is hoped, will ensure the
transition to the proficient level. The selected students have test chats based on past
year‘s data with the teacher and principal and discuss what they will work on to get to the
next performance level. The test chat strategy presented by Dennis Parker is supposed to
help students set individual high goals and understand what the expectations are in order
to get to the next performance level in the CST‘s.
91

At the other two sample schools the principals spoke in general terms about the
process of setting ambitious goals and emphasized the schools had high goals for all
students. For example, the staff and administrators worked with the county consultants
from the office of education to assist them in the implementation of The Strategic
Schooling Model which emphasize that by having clear, well established goals, frequent
feedback; a more supportive, and functional environment in which to operate will enable
schools to move forward in a systematic way. The principals understand they must show
growth due to the fact that all sample schools are designated persistently low-achieving
by the CDE, however, until now they have fully implemented this improvement strategy
as presented by Odden (2009). Alpha Elementary‘s superintendent/principal was more
focused in the school climate due to unstable financial situation created by previous
administration that she dedicated minimal time to set ambitious goals for the students.
The superintendent/principal acknowledged that over half of the students are English
Learners and therefore is ensuring that the minimum 30 minute ELD instructional block
during the morning be implemented to meet the language needs of the EL students.
However, aside from the ELD goal Alpha Elementary neglected to establish any school-
wide goals for improvement.
To summarize, analyzing the sample schools‘ performance on state assessments
over the past five years is in fact linked to Odden‘s (2009) research regarding the
importance of establishing ambitious goals for school improvement. Delta Elementary is
the only school demonstrating continual growth over the five year period in the targets set
92

by the state and implementing the strategy. Similarly, in the case of Bravo Elementary
after experiencing a five year decline in student performance as measured by the state
assessments, the new principal believes the school is on track to have gains across
subgroups and she has communicated to her to the staff continuously specific goals and
percentages the school must obtain. It will be interesting to see how the implementation
of this strategy affects the overall student performance at Bravo Elementary.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. According
to Odden (2009) successful schools work together to develop ways to effectively adopt
and deliver the curriculum along with instructional methods as part of educational reform
to significantly improve student outcomes across all classrooms and schools in a district.
In three of sample schools, this was an instructional strategy they recognized it is
a crucial component of the improvement process but the schools also realized that the
strategy has not been implemented and were in the nascent stages of implementation.
Most of the principals recognized there was a need to implement the adopted curriculum
along with scaffolding for those students struggling with the rigorous curriculum.
Additionally, for Alpha Elementary the superintendent/principal recognized that
the school adopted state approved textbooks, however, the previous administrator
randomly moved teachers to grades in which they did not have the curricular knowledge
and to make the situation worst, training in the new curriculum was not provided for
those teachers moved into the new grades. This decision further affected the school-wide
efforts to effectively implement the curriculum or improve instruction.
93

At Charlie Elementary, the school has state approved curriculum and essential
standards across grade levels which are provided by the district. However, the critical
issue at the school is not with the lack of adopted curriculum, the issue is with staff
members and the lack of collaboration between grade levels. The veteran teachers refuse
to collaborate in their respective grade level. In addition, the principal found that a
number of veteran staff continues to teach to the textbook, working from chapter to
chapter from beginning to end without giving it a second thought to the approved
curriculum pacing guides. In working with the external provider, Action Learning
Systems, they identified number key staff members that are struggling with the
implementation of this strategy and are concentrating their efforts by visiting these
particular classrooms to ensure that the adopted curriculums as well as the pacing guides
are being utilized accordingly across the entire school. Consequently, the principal and
Action Learning Systems develop a monthly classroom visitation schedule to let all staff
know that the principal and Action Learning Systems are monitoring classroom
instruction and are expecting for the adopted curriculum and pacing guides to be
implemented as at all schools in the district.
Delta Elementary found that third grade teachers were not utilizing the adopted
materials and instead were using teacher made materials. In identifying the problem, the
principal stated that one of the most challenging aspects of the issue was proving to the
third grade teachers that scaffolding and frontloading strategies would be effective for
those students not currently able to work at grade level. The county consultant was
94

instrumental in providing training and assistance for these teachers struggling with the
implementation of the adopted curriculum. The principal is monitoring the classrooms to
determine if the teachers are implementing the approved curriculum.
Echo Elementary staff experienced difficulty with the textbooks because some
English Learners are struggling with the adopted core textbooks. Unfortunately, as it is
in some cases teachers utilized simplified materials and supplemental materials lacking
rigor and these materials are not aligned to standards. The county consultant is providing
assistance and training for the staff to learn how to utilize the adopted textbooks and
create pacing guides for all the grades school-wide. The pacing guides, is hoped, will
assist the teachers assessing which standards are essential and must be address per grade
level. Eventually, as the school continues to implement the improvement plan, then the
school will integrate component of the Strategic Schooling Model and examine the
instructional program on a regular basis and make adjustments where necessary. Despite
the fact that Echo Elementary has been in program improvement for five years and it is
persistently low-achieving they are only in the early phase of incorporating the adopted
instructional material in the daily instruction of their students. The school made
significant changes in the curriculum for English Learners mainly in part to the training
provided by the county office and due to the shift in student demographics. It will be
interesting to see if the state assessment results for the English Learners shows significant
changes at Echo Elementary since the EL subgroup were their most needy subgroup.
95

Bravo Elementary‘s description of its curriculum and instructional program
implementation was the most comprehensive. Even though Bravo Elementary is the only
school in a five year period to have a straight across decline in state assessments; the
school is also the only school in the study to have applied for the School Improvement
grant and been granted almost three million dollars to assist in restructuring of the school.
One of those restructuring changes is to have the opportunity to work under the guidance
of Marzano to ensure that the school and district have adopted a viable curriculum that is
based on the California state standards and aligned to the state assessment blueprints.
The school‘s implementation of the viable curriculum is to ensure there is focused and
strategic instruction and skill that are aligned to the state standards. The principal is
aware that in order for the adopted curriculum to be implemented across all grade levels,
she must maintain focus and visit classrooms to ensure that the scaffolding strategies
being taught to the teachers on how to implement the adopted curriculum are being
incorporated in the classrooms. The teachers at Bravo Elementary have the opportunity
to observe other curriculum experts model specific teaching strategies on effective
implementation of adopted curriculum. It will be interesting to check the assessment
results next school year to determine if the new focus on the curriculum and all the staff
training produced the expected growth in student outcomes.
In summary, all the sites are aware of the importance of this strategy and are
attempting to implement the adopted curriculum with all students. However, for the last
five years none of the schools have been utilizing with fidelity the state adopted
96

curriculum. Some of the sites are further along in the implementation phase than other
sites. As Odden (2009) and Marzano (2003) state that many problems struggling students
come across in the classroom are connected to exposure to inadequate curriculum. Delta
Elementary demonstrated consistent gains and according to the principal the majority of
the teachers are working collaboratively to implement with fidelity the adopted
curriculum and following the pacing guides. However, on the other hand, Alpha
Elementary‘s lack of understanding of the adopted curriculum and the movement of
teachers to different grade levels and unfamiliarity with the adopted curriculum results
and impact student performance, as it has been demonstrated by Alpha Elementary,
uneven growth in its assessment scores each year.
Data-Based Decision Making. Odden (2009) makes the recommendation for
schools wanting to double performances to implement a continuous system of
improvement where students‘ knowledge and achievement is measured with benchmarks
and formative assessments. The formative assessments need to be presented in a timely
matter in order to be effective (Marzano, 2003). Teachers use the assessment information
to guide instruction to assist students in reaching the established objectives set by grade
level standards. For the most part, the sample sites in this study had online student data
systems such as EduSoft, Data Director, and Cruncher available for teachers.
In evaluating the sample schools‘ use of data from assessments to drive
instructional decisions, the two K-8 schools Alpha Elementary and Echo appeared to
have the most difficulty with its implementation. Both of the schools had some internal
97

factors that made it difficult for the staff to fully focus on data assessment. Alpha
Elementary‘s fiscal instability and poor management of district funds from the previous
administration created an environment not conducive to the implementation of the
strategy. The superintendent/principal spent a year mending the relationship between the
teachers and administration rather than focusing on how data was being used to guide
instruction in the classrooms. Alpha Elementary does not have an Assessment
Management System to analyze data the results of the CST at the school or student level,
the school contracted with the county office to train the teachers and uses the data
manually to come up with the instructional strategies planned for next school year. The
county consultant also assisted the teachers to determine what essential standards will be
expected to be implemented in the classrooms. The teachers are in the beginning stage of
designing tests to be used by all grade levels.
Echo Elementary is in a similar situation, however, they are a smaller K-8 school
and having only one teacher per grade level makes the implementation of this strategy
difficult because the teachers are left to use their professional judgment in terms of data
analysis and what changes need to be implemented at each grade level. The county
consultant is working with the staff in analyzing the data provided after the teachers
assess the students. Echo Elementary is now in a consortium with the county office to
begin implementing Data Director as their Assessment Management System to analyze
the data the results of the CST at the school and student level. It will be interesting to
98

review the CST results next year to determine if the implementation of Data Director had
any immediate impact in student achievement.
Charlie Elementary on the other hand has the ability to use disaggregate data
which is provided by the district curriculum and assessment department. The teachers
have access to district benchmarks and CFA‘s that are utilized in the other schools with
great success, however, the veteran staff at Charlie Elementary is not utilizing the data to
make immediate instructional changes based on the results of the benchmark or CFA‘s
provided to them by the district. The principal also shared that the district provides
opportunities for the teachers at Charlie Elementary to be involved in committees
working at modifying the district benchmarks in language arts and math. These
benchmark and CFA tests are derived from CST release items, EduSoft test questions
banks, as well as questions pulled from their adopted curriculum.
Bravo Elementary‘s new principal feels very comfortable and is well-versed in a
variety of monitoring systems to ensure that teachers gain comfort as they use several
sources of data used to monitor student progress and make changes to their classroom
instruction. District personnel and members of the AGB conduct weekly walkthroughs to
make sure data is not only being reviewed but changes to the curriculum are occurring in
the classrooms. The principal uses EduSoft and Cruncher to identify the areas where
students are struggling and assist the teachers with the data. Student results on
benchmarks and other common formative assessments (CFA) are being reviewed in the
grade-level meetings. Since the staff participated in the Dennis Parker, Strategic
99

Schooling Model, the staff is able to analyze CST scores and is beginning to conduct test
chats with students. Along with the weekly grade level meetings set to examine the CST
and CFA‘s data, the principal understands the importance of disaggregating data by
specific teacher to have data driven conversations about individual students. For
example, she asked each teacher to select the names of two students who are on the verge
of reaching proficient. The added focus and academic and social attention, it is hoped,
will ensure the transition to the proficient level. In addition, students are taking CFA‘s
every other week, instead of every month and all the teachers and the principal are
analyzing the results in Edusoft and Cruncher and immediately using the data to modify
the daily classroom instruction.
Delta Elementary‘s principal believes that Edusoft, a subscription-based,
standards-aligned student data management system that allows teachers to identify the
areas where students are struggling and succeeding has been critical in the improvement
efforts for the school. EduSoft allows teachers to access and review their students‘
assessment and demographic data along with benchmark results and other common
assessments for immediate analysis by the teachers. The greatest issue that is now been
address with additional funding form QEIA is providing grade level collaboration time
for teachers especially when conducting item analyses to determine the validity of the
questions on assessments or to identify other trends across classrooms or grade level.
In summary, the schools in the sample did not demonstrate proficiency in the
implementation of this strategy as seen with their persistently low-achieving designation
100

and are in the beginning stages of implementing a system where formative assessments
are used in a timely matter to create a system of continuous improvement (Marzano,
2003). As the results indicated Delta Elementary seems to have the best understanding of
the components required to successfully implement the strategy as it can be seen in their
state assessment performance over the past five years. Bravo Elementary which had
experience no growth over the past five years has a new principal that is passionate, data-
driven and has expended the most effort to implement this strategy at the school. It will
be interesting to see if the additional funding, removal of staff, along with the new
principal and an in-depth data analysis system allows Bravo Elementary to experience the
growth in performance that other sites such as Delta Elementary have experienced.
Ongoing Professional Development. Odden ( 2009) surmises that many
successful districts find this strategy to be important in the school-wide reform process.
Odden (2009) also states that successful schools implement a widespread, coherent,
comprehensive, systemic, and ongoing professional development throughout the school
day, as teachers work with others to analyze and develop standards-based curriculum and
evaluate formative and summative assessments which demonstrate how students are
progressing in the acquisition of standards-based instruction.
Unfortunately, the majority of the schools in the study such as Alpha Elementary,
Echo Elementary, Bravo Elementary, and Delta Elementary are not incorporating
professional development throughout the school day as described previously by Odden
(2009). Alpha Elementary and Echo Elementary are both K-8 rural schools, Delta
101

Elementary is a school with second and third grade only, the limited, and unique size and
configuration of these schools create situations where collaboration with other teachers is
difficult during the day. Fortunately, the early release day each week is used to work
with county consultants to provide school-wide training for all teachers. Being that these
schools depend on the county for additional support not only in professional development
but in additional supplementary services the county has attempted to provide a
comprehensive, ongoing staff development plan for smaller schools county-wide. Bravo
Elementary in the last five years has not incorporated a sound professional development
plan, although it is in the process of establishing an intervention model that will focus on
the elements that Odden (2009) describes as effective in school reform.
The County Office of Education contracted with the staff developer, Dennis
Parker to provide summer training for the small consortium of schools in the Strategic
Schooling Model. The Strategic Schooling Model (SSM) is organized into several
strategic domains for school reform. Based on the SSM model, any school can improve
by having clearer, well established targets, frequent feedback; a more supportive, and
functional environment in which to operate. The Strategic Schooling Model; along with
modeled lessons and proven strategies that work with all students and especially with EL
students has been implemented this year by most of the small schools in the county. The
staff of the schools also participated in an extra training day dedicated to review the
elements of Specially Design Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) to provide
specific strategies to the staff for the growing English Learner student population.
102

Charlie Elementary is part of a large urban district and has access to the well
designed staff development plan provided for all schools. The principal acknowledged
that the intermediate staff participates in early release days, however, the primary grades
do not have an early release time for collaboration. To try to assist in the dilemma, the
part time academic coach provides limited professional development training for the
primary grade teachers. The district-wide professional development plan provides all
teachers with training in curriculum mapping, effective literacy practices, differentiation
of instruction, assessment literacy, data driven decision making, and an emphasis on
English Language Development and cooperative learning and engagement strategies. In
addition to three days of summer staff development, according to the principal, Charlie
Elementary is working with Action Learning Systems to try to link the district‘s
professional development activities to the school‘s goals in their school site plan. The
principal is also working closely with Action Learning Systems to get familiar with the
elements of school reform that should be present in the classrooms.
Bravo Elementary in addition to the Strategic Schooling Model also provides staff
development during the early-release Wednesdays. The staff development topics
included: a review of the adopted Treasures Anthology, Head Pollet Math, Write from
the Beginning, and Strategies to differentiated instruction, data analysis and planning
instruction to meet individual student needs, and utilizing technology in the classroom.
In summary, the principals are aware that additional time is needed to provide the
staff with research based staff development. The principals all expressed the need for
103

additional personnel such as academic coaches to support the teachers as it is highly
suggested by the Evidenced Base Model. Alpha Elementary and Charlie Elementary
provided a half time academic coach, however, it is doubtful that the academic coach will
be maintained in the future due to budgetary concerns and limited funds. The only site
that is in the process of adjusting not only the school schedule by adding instructional
minutes but also by taking advantage of professional development opportunities in the
school day is Bravo Elementary. Although for the last five year Bravo Elementary has
not demonstrated any growth in terms of its API performance, the school received SIG
funding by selecting the Turnaround Intervention Model as a reform strategy. Bravo
Elementary is in the process of incorporating many of the elements outlined by Odden
(2009) in their reform efforts, by providing opportunities for teacher collaboration in the
school day, formal scheduled early release days for additional staff training, and specific
targeted staff development across grade levels as it is detailed in the Turnaround
Intervention Model Plan.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively. As Odden (2009) suggests that in order
to improve student achievement it is important to protect instruction in the classrooms
that contains the least amounts of interruptions to maximize student engagement and by
providing longer blocks of instruction for language arts and mathematics. Furthermore,
Odden (2009) states that many issues related to effective use of to instructional time
include having small class sizes and small groups of students during tutoring time.
104

Most of the sample schools have been expected under the Program Improvement
requirements to make changes such as using time effectively to improve student
achievement. However, this has been slow to implement for all the schools in the study.
Now the schools are making a concerted effort to limit the number of interruptions during
the morning Language Arts and Mathematics block of time. Alpha Elementary made
modifications to the middle school schedule to increase academic instructional minutes
by 120 minutes per week to more effectively provide universal access (UA) to the
students. In the primary grades, time during the morning block was being wasted in a
school-wide breakfast program, now it is incorporated after the morning break and thus
allowing a sizeable block of uninterrupted time for Language Arts. The Language Arts
block also includes the mandated English Language Development (ELD) time for
English Learners to acquire English where the students are leveled to differentiated
instruction and maintained the struggling students in the smallest groups during ELD.
Bravo Elementary made modifications to their school schedule as part of the
Turnaround Intervention Model. The regular instructional day was extended by one hour
per day for all students. There is also a specific instructional schedule that is followed
throughout the school; 1.5 hours of math (2
nd
-6
th
), 2.5 hours of English Language Arts; .5
hours of English Language Development; 1 hour of Science, 1 hour of History/Social
Science, and .5 hours of Physical Education.
Bravo Elementary also implemented Universal Access (UA), which is a thirty-
minute block of time during language arts time that entails pulling-out small groups of
105

students who have not reached level 3 proficiency to re-teach and clarify the material on
the assessments or units of study. UA time is strictly connected to using data to
determine which students need to be pulled-out for small group instruction.
The principal at Charlie Elementary stated that to maximize time in the primary
grades the reading teacher is working with the teachers to assist during the ELD
deployment time to pull small groups of students in the beginning level of CELDT by
helping them by re-teaching concepts and filling in gaps. Students are grouped according
their CELDT proficiency level and immediately after the morning break, the students
reported to their ELD teacher.
Delta Elementary made modifications to their school schedule the first six weeks
of the school year by adding one hour to the instructional minutes at the end of the day.
The additional hour was funded with QEIA money. The extra hour was utilized by all
students which allowed them to participate in the software program LEXIA, small group
instruction, or teacher directed activities. The reading lab is also incorporating LEXIA as
an intervention that is focusing on the skills of the English Learners. The school
implemented a block of uninterrupted instructional time after participating in the Dennis
Parker SSM training where it was suggested as essential strategy for school-wide
improvement efforts. The principal stated that he could already see some changes in the
classrooms. He met with the staff and together decided on the time that the office would
respect and would not interrupt to ensure that the morning schedule includes enough time
for uninterrupted English Language Arts block.
106

According to the principal at Echo Elementary, using time efficiently is essential
for the small K-8 rural school with only nine certificated teachers in the school. One
recommendation that was implemented was the county consultants suggestion to make
changes to the daily schedule to institute a block of uninterrupted time in the morning for
English Language instruction and Mathematics in the afternoon. The schedule
modification made it possible for deployment of students based on their skill level and
need.
In summary, the sample schools are in the process of protecting instruction in the
classrooms by providing longer blocks of uninterrupted time for language arts and
mathematics in order to maximize student engagement as suggested by Odden (2009) and
the EBM. Some of the K-8 rural schools are using the longer block of time to deploy
classes where the student‘s level of instruction is considered in order to meet the
individual needs of the student. However, as it has been stated all the schools in the
study are in Program Improvement and up to this point are attempting to implement
improvements to the academic learning time of all students. The larger school in the
sample, Bravo Elementary is in the process this year of providing additional support
through their additional funding under the Turnaround Intervention Model which requires
the protection of instruction in the classrooms with few interruptions to maximize student
outcomes.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students. Odden (2009) states that
successful schools provide a number of interventions and tutoring opportunities such as
107

extended-day programs that focus on academics for struggling students to meet their
individual needs. All the schools in the study are in Program Improvement Year 5 and
they are mandated to provide the opportunity for struggling students to receive free
tutoring after school for those students that qualify for the National School Lunch
Program and are struggling to meet state standards. However, this is a service that is
voluntary and the sample schools do not have control over the quality of the tutoring
provided by the private companies dispensing the service.
Most of the principals stated that this instructional strategy was implemented to a
small degree by all schools in the sample however, this strategy appeared to be more
difficult to implement for the smaller schools mainly due to the limited resources and
external factors such as transportation. The exception was Bravo Elementary, the largest
school in the sample, which was able to provide interventions before or after school and it
was funded by the new SIG funding through the Turnaround Intervention Model. In
addition to the extra hour for intervention for all students during the day, selected
students stay an additional hour after school to target specific areas of need and
determined by individual performance data. The school is focusing on the EL students
struggling to meet the one CELDT level of growth in proficiency.
Echo Elementary, being an isolated K-8 rural site, does not provide extended
learning opportunities available to students either before or after school mainly due to the
limited financial resources and the fact that one hundred percent of the students are
bussed to and from home. The only intervention available during the school day is
108

provided by the Resource Specialist (RSP) on a part-time basis and her emphasis is
pulling students that are very needy and are Special Education students.
As stated previously, Alpha Elementary another K-8 school does not have any
before or after school interventions, aside from the Program Improvement tutoring that
students sign-up voluntarily. Aside from this PI tutoring some limited tutoring is
provided by some teachers on a voluntary basis. For the most part the struggling students
receive assistance within the classrooms during the school day and several times a week
the part-time academic coach pulls small groups of students using the strategies presented
in the EDI model to assist the struggling students.
Services provided for struggling students at Charlie Elementary are similar to
those provided at Alpha Elementary. As it was the case previously, the only intervention
provided during the day for the struggling students is conducted by the reading teacher.
Her emphasis is working with struggling students during a block of time that is less
disruptive to the protected Language Arts instructional time. The Reading Teacher
provides assistance to students struggling and needing intervention throughout the day in
the reading classroom. The reading teacher uses the district approved Response to
Intervention (RtI) method to identify students to come to her in the Reading classroom.
Universal Access, the assessment form developed by Houghton Mifflin is used to
determine which students have the greatest need for intervention. The principal
mentioned the possibility of losing the position due to possible funding cuts for next
school year. In anticipation to the possible change several instructional assistances are
109

being trained with the materials and RtI strategies in case the reading teacher is placed
back in the classroom next year and these instructional assistance will have to work with
the struggling students.
While Delta Elementary serves only second and third grade the school has
implemented some innovative services to assist struggling students. Delta Elementary is
utilizing the PI tutoring and taking advantage of the funding by contracting with The
Boys and Girls Club. The school is working closely with The Boys and Girls Club to
provide data that is helping the students with specific areas of need they work on after
school. Also during the school day the Title I reading teacher provides assistance to
almost half of the student population throughout the day in the learning center. The
Reading Teacher uses the Response to Intervention (RtI) method to identify students to
come to her in the learning center.
In summary, based on the schools‘ level of implementation of the strategy, it is
evident that providing additional interventions for struggling students was difficult for the
sample schools to implement because of limited resources and external factors affecting
the K-8 schools. Transportation seemed to be a recurring theme where the majority of
students are transported to and from school making it difficult to provide additional
interventions. Most of the sample schools attempted to provide some interventions for
struggling students during the day. Aside from Bravo Elementary‘s SIG money which
will be available for three years and provided the school with necessary resources to offer
extended day as well as after school interventions none of the other schools in the sample
110

study came close to the level of implementation as Bravo Elementary. Bravo Elementary
is expected to show growth in the three years of the grant and across all subgroups, which
will demonstrate that this strategy is an effective strategy in school reform.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. Odden (2009)
describes successful schools as those schools where de-privatization of instruction is
evident. These successful schools collaborate and work together to impact classroom
practice which will lead to better results for students, teachers, and school-wide focus
where distributed roles for staff and administrators exists.
Most principals in the sample schools stated that this strategy that requires for
schools to collaborate and work together to impact classroom practice which leads to
better student outcomes needs some attention. At Alpha Elementary, the
superintendent/principal spent her first year ensuring that a collaborative, trusting
environment was developed in order for the teaching staff to trust the new administrator
and focus their attention back to student achievement rather than personnel issues. Now
in her second year, the superintendent/principal is working with the county consultant
and teachers to focus on the implementation of new strategies such Explicit Direct
Instruction (EDI), learning objectives posted in the classrooms. She realizes that many
more crucial improvement elements need to be implemented but she believes in slow,
steady, and concrete focus on few school-wide changes and also trying to bring the staff
together. She now meets with teachers to discuss what she has seen in her visits and tries
to provide constructive feedback that will help improve performance.
111

At Echo Elementary, in discussing her efforts to promote a collaborative culture
and distributed leadership, the superintendent/principal responded that being an isolated
rural K-8 school provides unique opportunities for the nine teachers to problem solve
issues as they come up at school. She stated that working with the county consultant now
that the school is designated as persistently low-achieving provided unique opportunity
for intermediate students to participate in interventions based on their proficiency level
rather than the grade level. At grade level meetings, teachers look at assessments on how
their students are doing and collaborate with other teachers to adjusting the curriculum to
meet the needs of the students with the added assistance of the county consultant. She
also pointed out that the veteran staff along with the school‘s size helps to create a
collaborative and distributed culture where teachers taking ownership of what happens in
the school.
Bravo Elementary‘s principal stated that it is a work in progress for her to
establish a distributed leadership model in the school. With respect to current culture at
the school, the principal is working toward creating an environment where teachers work
together to impact classroom practice that will lead to better results for students, teachers,
and school-wide focus enforcing the elements of the Turnaround Intervention Model.
There are inherent obstacles she faces with the existing staff as the principal who
replaced the previous one and released fourteen teachers. There are definite unspoken
barriers between her and the staff, due to her authority to fully implement the elements of
the Turnaround Intervention Model. The principal emphasized that she does not have
112

many opportunities to ask teachers for their input in the implementation of the
Turnaround Intervention Model because the plan and goals do not have room for
modification and must be followed as written. With the support of district personnel and
the new teachers she hired, she is maintaining focus in the implementation of the
Turnaround Intervention Model and spoke about her desire to see a the development of a
collaborative culture at the school.
At Charlie Elementary, in describing the school‘s culture the principal shared that
working with the external provider Action Learning Systems has been a positive addition
to the reform efforts because now he meets the teachers to review the results of
assessments several times of month to develop the protocol needed to ensure that all
grade levels are utilizing the data available through EduSoft. Furthermore, the skills he
has learned from Action Learning Systems are invaluable and have increased his
confidence when dealing with the veteran staff that often is hard to convince to
implement proven instructional strategies to benefit the students. Additionally, the
principal indicated that the addition of an assistant principal provided by the district has
given him more flexibility to conduct daily walkthroughs as school-wide intervention
strategy. He discusses his observations from walkthroughs when he meets with teachers
and he tries to provide constructive feedback geared to improve performance.
At Delta Elementary in discussing his efforts to promote a collaborative culture
and distributed leadership, the principal responded that being part of a school with only
two grade levels creates a unique environment for students and teachers. As part of the
113

school‘s improvement efforts, a team of Delta Elementary teachers were encouraged to
participate in the District Alternative Governance Board Team (AGB). The AGB then
visits schools and assesses the improvements of the district as part of distributed
leadership. Additionally, the staff was trained in the Strategic Schooling Model provided
by Dennis Parker. When visiting the classrooms he looks for evidence of learning
objectives and the standards in the classrooms. Now at grade level meetings teachers are
looking at assessments on how their students are doing and collaborating with other
teachers to adjusting the curriculum to meet the needs of the students. Additionally,
teachers are collectively learning how to use multiple data sources to target improvement
efforts.
In summary, in evaluating the level of implementation of this strategy, aside from
Bravo Elementary and the negative effect of releasing half of the personnel before taking
charge all the other sample schools the administrators stated a strong desire to establish a
collaborative school culture. Echo Elementary‘s administrator indicated that being a
small rural K-8 school promotes a cohesive staff due to the small number of teachers
which then encourages teacher collaboration. Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie Elementary
each are at different levels of implementation in what Odden (2009) describes as a
essential component of successful schools, where collaboration impacts classroom
practice which leads to better results for students, teachers, and school-wide focus. Delta
Elementary being the only school with five years of growth in API scores provides
evidence to the effectiveness of this strategy and can assist as a sample for the other
114

schools that putting emphasis in a collaborative culture can significantly produce benefits
not only for raising school-wide scores but producing a collaborative culture for the
teachers.
Inspiring a Professional Organization. As the ninth strategy in the process of
creating professional learning communities Odden (2009) emphasizes that successful
organizations actively looked for best practices from other experts and bring to their
respective schools the best practices that will assist teachers to enhance classroom
instruction.
All sample schools in the study are in Program Improvement and having a
designation of persistently low-achieving appear to slightly affect the responses of the
administrators in that they felt the school had significant room for improvement. It was
particularly interesting when the principals were asked about this implementation of the
strategy because the administrators had a different view of what constitutes a professional
organization and how it looks like.
Alpha Elementary‘s superintendent/principal emphasized that she is working
diligently to create a trusting environment for her teachers and she is flexible in her
expectations for implementing a research-based instructional program. This year she is
focusing her efforts to work with several primary grade teachers that requested additional
training be provided by the county consultant to assist in modeling specific lessons and
instructional strategies. The superintendent/principal understands that although only a
115

small number of teachers are requesting additional training, it is a positive change in the
school climate.
At Delta Elementary, while being focused on using data to make decisions in the
classroom, the principal indicated that he had additional training over the last year that
has refocus his efforts to be more effective in communicating the disaggregation of data
to help teachers in the classroom. The principal is aware that one of the biggest
challenges is to ensure that the teachers become comfortable talking about data,
analyzing the data, implementing new strategies to improve student achievement. He
realizes that as an instructional leader he needs to model the Dennis Parker ―bread ‗n
butter‖ strategies whenever possible. During grade level meeting he insists teachers keep
minutes and a data log to document the progress of the students as they implement the
strategic schooling model. The principal maintains the commitment to implement the
strategies school-wide and therefore the staff meetings are data focused where
discussions are about student work instead of the procedural staff meetings and the time
being used in an effective manner.
In relating his attempt to promote a professional organization, the principal of
Charlie Elementary stressed that the school continues to struggle with data analysis and
minimal teacher collaboration. Working along Action Learning Systems has provided
the principal with skills that he utilizes daily to assist teachers as he conducts classroom
walkthroughs. The principal is aware that much of the challenge is ensuring that the data
is analyzed and aligned to the state standards, ultimately helping to meet the needs of all
116

students. With the guidance of Action Learning Systems and the principal, the staff has
continued to work on their collaboration processes and procedures through the Elements
of Lesson Development. Utilization of the district assessments to support instruction in
the core curriculum as well as lessons that implement instructional strategies will
continue to be the focus for school improvement.
Bravo Elementary‘s principal stated that with all of the challenges coming in as a
new principal she believes that collecting data and understanding how to utilize this data
to make daily decisions in the classroom are both essential to bringing about change. The
principal stated she is also aware that much of the challenge is ensuring that the data is
analyzed and that there is follow-though by modifying classroom instruction based on the
data. The principal models the behavior and teaching techniques she expects teachers to
implement in the classroom to help students access the curriculum.
The principal indicated that creating a trusting environment during staff
development is essential for change to become permanent but understands that it will take
time for teachers with this approach. As an instructional leader she acknowledges the
need to model the Dennis Parker ―bread ‗n butter‖ strategies whenever possible. During
grade level meeting she expects teachers to keep minutes and a data log to document the
student progress as they implement the elements in the Turnaround Intervention Model.
In creating a professional organization Echo‘s superintendent/principal indicated
that last year she participated in new research that demonstrated how to use data more
efficiently to drive the decisions made not only in the classroom but the entire school.
117

The superintendent/principal stated that she is aware of the challenge to ensure that her
teachers are implementing the new strategies and that they have a dialogue about data,
analyze the data, and implement the strategies learned to improve student achievement.
As a result of the training, she is encouraging her teachers to use the research-based
strategies in the classroom to improve the student outcomes and positively affect the
school environment.
In summary, the responses of the administrators varied widely as they interpret
the degree of implementation in their school, however, the responses seemed to be
affected by the Program Improvement status and persistently low-achieving designation.
It appeared that the professional organizations with strong leadership support from
district offices seemed to feature a stronger relationship between the teachers and the
administration.
As presented above, the principals at the Delta and Bravo Elementary, appeared to
feel comfortable with that collection of data and understanding how to utilize this data to
make daily decisions in the classroom are both essential to bringing about change.
Similarly, most of the principals participated in the county training with Dennis
Parker and most of them are incorporating the strategies learned in staff meetings and
throughout the day. During grade level meeting most of the principals are keeping
minutes and data logs to document the progress of the students as they implement the
strategic schooling model. In the end, since most of the schools in the study participated
in the same training and therefore are incorporating the same strategies with their staffs it
118

will be interesting to see if the results are seen next school year and if the growth
achieved in each school validates the importance of the strategy.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. Odden (2009) indicates that
successful professional organizations are always seeking not only the best educational
practices but they also invest resources and recruit the best talent and human-capital to
maintain a competitive edge and to increase results
The final strategy was more difficult for the sample schools to implement,
especially for the smaller K-8 schools, according to most principals because of the
Program Improvement status and designation as persistently low-achieving schools.
This was the case with Alpha Elementary, where the superintendent/principal commented
that the financial instability the K-8 district has been through in the last four years has
tarnished the public perception making any recruitment of new teachers a difficult task.
She emphasized that it was critical for a Program Improvement district to make every
effort to recruit the best possible candidates for a very needy student population.
Similarly, in the discussion with the K-8 superintendent/principal at Echo Elementary it
was presented that the isolation of the small rural school creates a positive work
environment but it is not conducive to formal staff collaboration especially since there are
only nine teachers at the school. The best use of talent at the school is by providing time
during early release days for the nine teachers to review the adopted instructional
materials to determine what the essential standards will be cover in each grade
119

Bravo Elementary‘s principal admitted that having the designation of a
persistently low achieving and underperforming school makes it difficult to recruit high
quality teachers; especially since she had to release half of her staff and hand select the
remaining teachers. As with any program improvement school subject to sanctions,
recruitment of high quality teachers is essential for creating a high performing school.
The implementation of the Turnaround Intervention Model has made it difficult to
address talent within the staff due to the urgency of changing the way teachers present the
curriculum and how they are using the data to make the appropriate changes.
Delta Elementary‘s principal pointed out that the some of the teachers are
involved in district-wide activities such as the AGB team and are seeking ways to
improve by bringing what they are learning and incorporating them into their daily
instruction. He encourages all his teachers to participate in district trainings and be
involved in the district walkthrough team to continue to gain experience working with a
variety of teachers and district administrators.
Charlie Elementary‘s principal stated that given that this is his fourth year in a
persistently low achieving urban school, he finds it difficult to recruit talented teachers
wanting to come to a low performing school. He emphasized that it was critical for his
school to recruit the best possible candidates for the very needy student population. The
principal admitted that most of the staff is veteran teachers and have for many years have
been accustom to expect very little from students at the school. For the past year after
working with Action Learning Systems, the principal has acquired new skills which
120

allow him to now provide a data-driven environment where the staff is expected to use
student data and use the information provided by the district and school.
Unfortunately, as it has been presented it appears that the final strategy
recommended by Odden (2009) where effective schools need to implement strategies to
nurture internal talent and invest resources by recruiting human-capital to maintain a
competitive edge and to increase results was not adhered by most of the sample schools.
In evaluating the strategy and statements provided by the school administrators in
this area, it was evident that this is a difficult strategy to implement due in part to the
negative publicity given to the persistently low-achieving schools throughout the state.
Only Delta Elementary, having QEIA funding and district office resources in place to
assist the unique grade level configurations throughout the district was able to encourage
participation in the AGB process. Delta Elementary had the most participation of staff
with this strategy than any other site in the sample. The other principals expressed
concerned due to the lack of interest from the staff to express a desire to get involve and
seek advancement in areas such as administration. The administrators also mentioned the
limited opportunities for advancement because of the Program Improvement status and
persistently low-achieving designation further created an environment of low-
expectations at the school site. Nevertheless, the principal at Delta Elementary seemed to
be the exception, when he encouraged his staff to participate in the AGB and leadership
team, none of the other sites presented possible ideas for changes they were considering
for improvement with this specific strategy. Additionally, this strategy also seemed
121

difficult to implement for the small K-8 schools, at Alpha and Echo Elementary,
especially because the administrators at these two sites have a multitude of specific
responsibilities in a K-8 district that other principals are not responsible to oversee.
Table 4.3 illustrates the level of implementation of the ten strategies in the sample
schools, assigning a value from 1 to 5, which ranks each school‘s implementation in each
area as well as a total score representing their overall performance.
122

Table 4.3: Implementation of Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
10 Strategies
to Double
Student
Performance
School
Alpha
Elementary
Bravo
Elementary
Charlie
Elementary
Delta
Elementary
Echo
Elementary
Analyzing the
Data and
Understanding
the
Performance
Challenge
2 4 2 3 3
Setting
Ambitious
Goals
1 4 2 3 3
Implementing
an Effective
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program
2 3 2 3 3
Data-Based
Decision
Making
2 3 2 3 2
Ongoing
Professional
Development
2 4 3 2 3
Using Time
Efficiently and
Effectively
2 3 2 3 3
Providing
Interventions
for Struggling
Students
2 4 3 4 2
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures and
Distributed
Leadership
2 2 3 2 3
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization
2 3 2 3 3

123

Table 4.3, Continued
Addressing
Talent and
Human Capital
Issues
1 2 2 3 1
Total:
18 32 23 29 26
Note: 5 = Strong; 4 = Above Average; 3 = Average; 2 = Minimal; 1 = Not Observed
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Of all the resource allocation strategies reviewed in the case studies, class sizes
seems to be the strategy that is most expensive to implement. According to Odden and
Picus (2008), core-class sizes of 15 appear better suited to assist students in kindergarten
through third grade. For the upper grades a class sizes of 25 seem to be the right balance
of students and teacher resources. Table 4.4 illustrates below the class sizes of the
sample schools. However, most of the five schools have larger class sizes than what is
ideal for promoting student achievement (Odden, 2009). Only one school, Delta
Elementary, actually came close to matching the suggestions of the EBM in the area.
Alpha Elementary is unique in that they come close to meeting the suggestion of the
EBM in the primary grades while having larger class-sizes in the intermediate grades.
Finally, Echo Elementary as a K-8 school exceeds the suggested sizes because the school
is not financially able to implement K-3 class size reduction and for the most part the
average class sizes of 32 students was maintained in the majority of grade levels due to
their isolation in the county and the limited resources available to the rural school.

124

Table 4.4: Comparison of Class Sizes in the EBM vs. Sample Schools
Grade
Range
EBM Alpha
Elementary
Bravo
Elementary
Charlie
Elementary
Delta
Elementary
Echo
Elementary
K-1 15 20 22 26 N/A 32
2-3 15 20 22 20 18 32
4-5 25 28 30 33 N/A 28
6-8 25 28 30 33 N/A 28

Odden and Picus (2008) developed the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) which
provides some essential elements of an instructional program which research has shown
to improve student performance. The model is used as a reference to cost out the many
strategies of the model in order to come up with levels of funding to improve student
outcomes (Odden, 2003). The EBM is based on a prototypical school and then makes
adjustments and suggestions for school size and specific school demographics. The
prototypical elementary school used by Odden and Picus (2008) assumes a school size
of 432 students and suggests a class size of 15 for kindergarten through third grade and
25 for upper grades (Odden & Picus, 2008). The prototypical schools are staffed with
full- time teachers. The EBM also provides suggestions for specialist teachers to support
the schools regular core program as well as suggestions on a number of minimum days
set aside for professional development. The EBM also suggests a 20% additional staffing
such as a specialist teacher of total core instructional teachers to assist the prototypical
elementary school with time used for a variety of instructional purposes. Table 4.5
125

illustrates how each sample school is currently staffed and how the Evidence-Based
Model would staff a school of the same size with core and specialist teachers.
After evaluating the sample schools and after looking at the other elements of the
schools‘ resource allocations, their level of implementation is displayed below in Table
4.5 where in almost every category, the five sample schools fall short of the amount
suggested by the EBM.

126

Table 4.5: Resource Allocation - EBM vs. Actual Resource Allocation

Alpha
Elementary
Bravo
Elementary
Charlie
Elementary
Delta
Elementary
Echo
Elementary

EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actu
al
Principals 1 .5 1.65 2 1.5 .2 1.15 1 1.5 1
Secretary/
Clerical
2 2 2 2 2 1.18 2 1 2 1.15
Core
Teachers
FTE
22.8 25 39.5 32 28.38 23 21.1 21 12.5 9
Specialist
Teachers
FTE
4.8 .5 4.8 1 .96 0 3.8 1 2.5 0
Instructional
Facilitators/
Mentors
2.5 .5 3.5 1 2.55 .5 1.9 1 1.2 0
Tutors for
Struggling
Students
4.9
0 7.1 0 5.11 0 3.73 0 1.9 0
Teachers for
EL Students
2.7
0 4.4 0 .29
0
0 0 1.9 0
Extended
Day FTE
1.8 0 2.96 32
1
2.2 0 1.58 0 1.8 0
Summer
School FTE
1.8 0 2.96 0 2.2 0 1.58 0 1.8 0
Learning &
Mild
Disabled
Student FTE
3.0
1.9 4.8 1.5 4.1 2 2.8 2.3 3.0 1.3
Substitutes $
$26,250 0 $30,400 $25,700 $21,850 $5.000 $19,950 $14,000 $9,000 $1,00
0
Pupil
Support Staff
FTE
4.9 .5 7.11 3 5.11 .5 3.73 .50 1.9 0
127

Table 4.5, Continued
Non-
Instructional
Aides FTE
2 1 3.2 2.06 2.36 1 1.6 1 1.12 0
Instructional
Aides FTE
0 3.5 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4.1
Librarians/
FTE Media
Specialists
1 .5 1.6 1 1.18 .10 1 .5 1.12 0.3
Resources
for gifted
students
$12,550 0 $17,775 0 $12,775 $0 $9,500 $0
3
$5,625 0
3
Technology $125,500 $25,000 $177,750 $100,000
2
$127,75
0
$35,000 $95,000 $96,038
4
$56,250 $35,000
Instructional
Materials
$70,280 $54,985 $99,540 $84,527
2
$71,540 $21,128 $53,200 $61,027
4
$31,500 $62,000
Student
Activities
$100,400 $32,300 $142,200 $15,000 $101,20
0
$1,000 $76,000 $0 $45,000 $0
Professional
Development
$50,200 $32,813 $71,100 $75,676
2
$51,100 $30,500 $50,200 $11,815 $22,500 $8,599
Comparison of resource allocations according to Odden and Picus (2008) EBM versus actual resource allocation of
five sample schools
Note:

1
This FTE figure includes certificated teachers working an extra hour each day to
provide additional learning time for all students.

2
Bravo Elementary received SIG funding which is funding professional
development strategies, student activities, technology purchases.
3
Neither school has any GATE students.
4
Delta Elementary has QEIA grant money for three years to purchase additional
technology and instructional materials.

When a school is identified as Program Improvement (PI) they are required to use
a portion of categorical funds for professional development, supplemental tutoring, and in
the implementation of research-based programs and strategies (California Department of
Education, 2009). PI Schools are also required to spend categorical funds such as Title I
on materials and strategies designed to target struggling students to improve overall
student performance.
128

All of the sample schools are in Program Improvement Year 5 and providing
additional opportunities for struggling students is an obligation that was shared by the
administrators in the study. Additionally, Odden and Picus (2008) assert that successful
schools provide opportunities for extended learning with the assistance of certificated
tutors with a special suggestion to provide support with additional teachers for EL
students and extended learning time, such as after-school interventions and summer
school. When reviewing table 4.5 all the sample schools allocated resources at a much
lower level than the EBM suggested.
Bravo Elementary was the only school in the study that applied and was selected
to receive the School Improvement Grant. Bravo Elementary has the opportunity to use
almost three million dollars to implement the Turnaround Intervention Model and has the
funding to provide additional FTEs at the site for an extended day for all students. Delta
Elementary received QEIA funding to maintain smaller class sizes and provided an
additional reading teacher to struggling students.
Aside from Bravo and Delta receiving additional funding from a variety of
outside sources, the three other sample schools, Alpha, Charlie, and Echo do not have
funding to allocate resources to assist struggling students and none of the three sites had
any percentage of an FTE set aside to provide tutors for struggling students.
Another area of great disparity for Alpha, Charlie, and Echo Elementary, was the
resource allocation set aside to provide the latest technology, professional development,
129

and student activities which are underfunded in three of the sample schools compared to
the amounts suggested by the EBM.
In addition to the obvious gaps in the resources allocated at the sample schools
compared to the suggestions presented in the EBM, administrators at these schools also
have to prepare and plan for the potential budget reductions that are expected in the 2011
school year. The next section will discuss how the financial crisis in California has
affected the five sample schools.
Impact of Budget Reductions
The five sample schools are Program Improvement Year 5 schools and it is
expected the impact of budget reductions possible in the next fiscal year in California will
add further challenges. The majority of the administrators at the five sample schools
stated that with the one-time federal ARRA funding most of the schools avoided layoffs
of certificated staffs in conjunction with the conservative spending practices of the
schools and district office. The two K-8 sample schools, Alpha and Echo Elementary
asserted that due to their small size and limited resources they are dependent on a number
of services provided by the county office that otherwise they would not be able to provide
at their site. The county office provides the consortium of small K-8 schools with
Professional Development activities as well as providing contracted services by an RSP
teacher, psychologist, and speech therapists. The two administrators at Alpha and Echo
Elementary shared they are not expecting major changes to the services they provide at
their schools primarily because they are accustom to the bare minimum of essential
130

services for their students. Although, Echo Elementary‘s administrator noted that she has
experienced some of the consequences of the current budget crisis where the school has
increased the class sizes not only in the primary grades from 24 to 32 students but in the
intermediate grades to 28. This is because it is not fiscally viable for the school to
participate in Class Size Reduction (CSR) because of the strict student to teacher ratios
set in the CSR program.
With further cuts pending to the education budget, Charlie Elementary being part
of an urban district is expecting the district to provide incentive for early retirements for
teachers which is aimed at minimizing the number of credentialed positions in the district
as well as providing furlough days for classified as well as certificated staffs. Another
possible option for the district to consider is to reduce the school calendar from 180 to
175 days. The principal noted that for the majority of his students at Charlie Elementary
they need additional days, not less days of instruction to be able to catch-up to the rest of
the students in the district. He fears these changes will further impact student
achievement at Charlie Elementary.
All of the sample schools, except for Bravo Elementary, have significantly
reduced the allocation from their general funds to support professional development
activities. The sample schools are only allocating the required ten percent of Title I
funding set for professional development under the Program Improvement (PI) program.
There was a concern expressed by all of the administrators that their teaching staffs were
finally becoming accustomed to higher levels of accountability and after working with
131

county office consultants and outside provides to implement strategies that support EL
and struggling students, the fiscal crisis will force them to scale back their efforts. This
in turn will dampen the school-wide improvement efforts and the fear is that these
schools will continue to be designated as persistently low-achieving and in Program
Improvement without a possibility of getting out.

Conclusion
The five sample schools in the study are found in elementary districts located in
the Central Valley of California. There is great variation with respect to school size
ranging from 225 to 711 students. Some sample schools have a configuration of grades
consisting of two and three grade levels, while others consist of grades K-8.
The Evidence Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a framework
to examine the five Program Improvement Year 5 schools designated as persistently low-
achieving. In particular, the goal was to determine the extent to which resources
provided by No Child Left Behind have aligned to support and increase student
achievement. Additionally, Odden‘s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance was used as an metric framework to determine the level of implementation
by each school of each strategy to support and increase student performance.
The student demographic composition of the schools is very similar across all five
schools where Hispanics represent the majority of students at every site, followed by the
White subgroup. Hispanic students make up almost three-quarters of the student
132

population at every site. The sample schools also share a similar pattern of a significant
presence of English Learner (EL) and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) student
enrollment. The percent of both groups in all five schools is significantly higher than
those assumed in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) prototype. Specifically, all five
have approximately over eighty percent of SED students, and all five have enrollments
where over fifty percent of students are designated as English Learners.
A review of each school‘s resource allocation and the extent to which they have
implemented the required steps for schools in the Program Improvement process
highlights each site‘s inability to meet the most of the EBM suggestions, as well as their
lack of the necessary tools and resources to adequately improve student performance.
The possible exception to this mismatch is with respect to class sizes, as most schools in
the sample provided class sizes that approached the suggestions of the EBM and also
compared favorably to other schools throughout the state. The analysis of school efforts
to address EL students suggests that sample schools have sought to provide additional
personnel to enhance teacher capacity to meet the specific language needs of EL students.
All five sample schools have a greater number of classified Instructional Aides than what
is suggested by the EBM. In fact, the EBM model suggests reducing this expenditure
because of insufficient research supporting their positive impact on student performance.
Conversely, none of the sample schools provided the requisite number of core and
specialist teachers suggested by the EBM for schools with large populations of struggling
students. Another area that fell short of EMB suggestions was the amount of resources
133

allocated to support the professional development, an essential for Program Improvement
schools. A minimum of ten percent of categorical monies is expected to be set aside to
provide research-based professional development. Most of the principals at the sample
schools, however, felt they were doing the best they could under the current financial
situation. Furthermore, instructional materials and student activities are also extremely
underfunded in the sample schools when compared to the amounts deemed necessary, by
the EBM to make significant differences in student achievement. There is also a large
gap between the suggested EBM strategies to provide additional learning opportunities
for struggling students and the actual district resource allocations for summer school and
extended-days for struggling students. Finally, all the sample schools have been in
Program Improvement for more than five years and it is evident that the schools have not
been able to meet the target goals set by NCLB. This is not, altogether surprising given
the apparent lack of resources in many areas crucial to increasing student achievement.
Schools are also working to further implement and develop research-based
instructional strategies to improve student performance. With one exception, Alpha
Elementary, the sample schools are beginning to analyze achievement data with the
assistance of county offices and external providers to incorporate an effective curriculum
and instructional program using both the formative and summative data to make needed
changes to their daily instruction. Most of the sample schools demonstrated noticeable
attempts to make changes to the instructional day to most effectively use time and
134

provide learning opportunities for students, including creative rearrangement of the daily
school schedule.
In analyzing Odden‘s (2009) improvement strategies and the degree of
implementation at the sample schools, it was evident that the strategies are set to create
an environment of success and are closely connected. Given that all sample schools have
struggled to demonstrate growth in API and AYP scores over the five year period that
was examined, it is essential that schools in the sample become more aware of this
connection between strategies, the degree of their implementation, and student outcomes.
One such example is the need for all staff at these Program Improvement schools to
heightened awareness of the school‘s performance challenge is a necessary prerequisite
for setting ambitious goals. Such awareness and ambition then set the stage for
successful implementation of an instructional program which then allows for a data-rich
environment that can drive classroom instruction strategies. Most of the sample schools
are beginning to work toward an acceptable level of implementation of Odden‘s (2009)
strategies. Assessment results in the last five years indicate that a minimal level of
implementation of the ten strategies occurred at the sample schools. Moreover, the only
sample school that had API growth each year in the five year period analyzed, Delta
Elementary, appeared to minimally implemented the most number of Odden‘s (2009)
improvement strategies. On the whole, however, the other sample Program Improvement
schools in the study lag behind in implementing research-based instructional strategies.
These strategies have been proven to have positive effects on even the neediest students
135

when a sound improvement plan that is aligned to use all the available school resources is
more thoroughly implemented. Only time will tell if the added state pressure to improve
and increased familiarity with the strategies will yield the desired outcomes.

136

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION
Background
The 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act instituted a federal mandate for
wider use of research-based strategies and curriculum, both to ensure that disadvantaged
students have access to an equitable education and also to promote positive outcomes
(Handler, 2006). These NCLB mandates, according to Linn (2008) required states to
adopt high academic standards designed to provide not only rigorous levels of
instruction along with corresponding assessments aligned with these standards, which
have proved very costly and have not been adequately funded. However, despite
insufficient funding for instructional reforms, schools are under pressure to ensure that all
students attain proficient levels across subjects. Faced with this predicament, schools
must determine how to more effectively allocate their limited resources to ensure that no
child is left behind.
Until now, most states have focused on equity-based funding for schools to satisfy
federal and state mandates but paid little attention to resulting disparities in student
performance until the late 1990‘s. There has been a call among some to move away from
solely emphasizing equitable provision of funds in favor of adequacy models which are
more focused in determining the costs associated with raising student achievement to
established performance standards. The debate between equity-based funding and
adequacy-based funding, however, is eclipsed by the standards-based education
movement that is more interested in linking school financing with student achievement
137

outcomes (Clune, 1994; Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). Currently, there are growing
numbers of students struggling to meet minimum proficiency standards. Faced with
possible reductions in federal funds if NCLB expectations for proficiency levels among
all students by 2014 are not met, schools must make necessary changes to their
instructional strategies and more effectively allocate the limited resources.
Because the challenges above confront many schools, this study examined the use
of instructional strategies and resource allocation. It focused, specifically, on the
challenges facing Year 5 Program Improvement schools and was guided by the following
four research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school‘s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response
to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and
changes in the use of categorical funds?
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
detailed by Odden and Picus (2008)?
The overall purpose of this study was to examine how schools in Year 5 Program
Improvement and designated as persistently low-achieving allocate their resources to
138

sufficiently increase student achievement to shed their PI label. The Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a baseline comparison
of suggested resource allocation in persistently low achieving schools. The EBM is
particularly useful for the present study because it identifies several research-based
instructional strategies, then assigns a price to them, and subsequently combines them to
suggest adequate school expenditure levels. The instructional strategies for promoting
student performance in the EBM are based on Odden‘s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance, which provide the framework for this study‘s analysis of
instructional strategies.
Discussion of Findings
The findings suggest that none of the five Year 5 Program Improvement schools
were able to provide the resources suggested by the Evidence-Based Model and there was
great variation in the sample schools‘ level of implementation of the instructional
strategies. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the sample schools‘ degree of
implementation of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009)
was minimal as evident by the uneven assessment results in four of the five schools.
Delta Elementary was the only site out of the five sample schools to demonstrate overall
growth in student achievement during the five years of data reviewed. The other four
schools in the study minimally implemented a subset of the strategies presented by
Odden (2009) and this was confirmed with the results of achievement data. Beginning in
the Academic Year 2010, the new principal at the largest elementary school in the
139

sample, Bravo Elementary, was making great strides to implement the instructional
strategies to promote student achievement with fidelity. This greater effort to
institutionalize needed change is attributable to the California Department of Education‘s
SIG grant to implement the Turnaround Intervention Model. Interviews at each of the
five sample schools indicate that initial efforts to implement the instructional strategies at
these persistently low-achieving schools have yielded very different outcomes in the
targeted areas of student achievement. To better understand the possible explanation for
the disparate outcomes, despite efforts to institute many of the suggestions of the EBM,
this study discusses: 1) the extent to which schools understand the Performance
Challenge as a cornerstone for improving student learning; 2) the degrees of
implementation of an effective and instructional program; 3) instances of data-based
decisions for school-wide improvement; and 4) the extent of efficient and effective use of
time
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. Once a school
has been identified as being in PI, it is required to use part of its Title I allocation to
conduct in-depth analyses of data, expand professional development, and implement
research-based programs and strategies. However, most of the administrators and
teaching staff are in the nascent stages of having an understanding of what the
performance challenges are facing their individual schools. For example the principals at
Alpha, Delta, and Echo Elementary have initiated a working relationship with county
offices of education as external providers, while Charlie Elementary one school is
140

working with a private external provider, Action Learning Systems, to assist the
administrators and teachers in the analysis of data.
The principals at Delta Elementary and Bravo Elementary came across as having
a better understanding of the issues facing their schools. However, it remains to be seen
whether the staff at Bravo Elementary will make the necessary changes to adjust to the
new principal‘s leadership style. One possible intervening factor affecting Bravo
Elementary is that it was the only school from the study sample that applied and received
funding to implement the Turnaround Intervention Model. There is added pressure on all
the staff to faithfully analyze data and implement the necessary instructional modification
to ensure that there are significant improvements in student outcomes or risk losing the
remaining yearly SIG grant money. Given the limited performance on the state
assessments over the past five years, their program improvement status, and their
designation as persistently low-achieving, it is apparent that the sample schools have
some work ahead of them to incorporate this strategy described in the research by Odden
(2009) to show improvement in student achievement.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. All sample
sites are aware of the importance of this strategy and are attempting to implement the
adopted curriculum with all students. However, for the last five years none of the schools
have been utilizing the state adopted curriculum with fidelity. Some of the sites are
further along in the implementation phase than other sites. According to Odden (2009)
and Marzano (2003), many of the problems struggling students face in the classroom can
141

be traced to an exposure to inadequate curriculum. Two contrasting experiences are
evident in the sample schools. On one hand, the willingness of the majority of the
teachers at Delta Elementary to collaboratively implement the adopted curriculum with
fidelity has apparently yielded consistent achievement gains. On the other hand, the
uneven growth in the assessment scores at Alpha Elementary may be explained by the
lack of teacher understanding of the adopted curriculum and the movement of teachers to
different grade levels and associated unfamiliarity with the curriculum at the new grade
levels.
Data-Based Decision Making. The schools in the sample have not demonstrated
data-based decision making and are only in the beginning stages of implementing a
system where formative assessments are used in a timely manner to create a system of
continuous improvement (Marzano, 2003). Delta Elementary seems to have the best
understanding of the components required to successfully implement the strategy as
evidenced in their state assessment performance over the past five years. Bravo
Elementary which experienced no growth over the past five years has a new principal
who is passionate, data-driven, and has expended the most effort to implement this
strategy at the school. It will be interesting to see if the additional funding, removal of
staff, along with the new principal and an in-depth data analysis system allows Bravo
Elementary to experience the growth in performance that other sites such as Delta
Elementary have experienced.
142

Using Time Efficiently and Effectively. The sample schools are in the process
of providing longer blocks of uninterrupted time for language arts and mathematics in
order to maximize student engagement as suggested by Odden (2009) and the EBM.
Some of the K-8 rural schools are using the longer block of time to deploy classes where
the student‘s level of instruction is considered in order to meet the individual needs of the
student. However, as stated earlier, all of the sample schools are in Program
Improvement so they must implement improvements to the academic learning time of all
students. The larger school in the sample, Bravo Elementary is in the process of
providing additional support through their additional funding under the Turnaround
Intervention Model which requires the protection of instruction in the classrooms with
few interruptions to maximize student outcomes.
The overall implementation of instructional strategies across the sample schools
was geared to promote student achievement. All of the sample schools are in Program
Improvement Year 5 and all of the administrators in the study recognize that they have an
obligation to ensure that struggling students are provided additional opportunities.
Additionally, Odden and Picus (2008) assert that successful schools provide opportunities
for extended learning with the assistance of certificated tutors with a special suggestion to
provide support with additional teachers for EL students and extended learning time, such
as after-school interventions and summer school. Consequently it behooves all schools,
with EL students to take a closer look at this strategy to make necessary modifications at
the sites. The remaining instructional strategies are just as important to the success of
143

students at the schools. The task for these sample schools is to realize that these
strategies work in tandem, each relying on the others to create environments that lead to
student improvement.
Resource Allocation. In comparing each school‘s resource allocation with those
suggested by the EBM, it is obvious that the resources at Year 5 Program Improvement
schools fall well below the suggestions of the EBM prototype. To a certain degree, all
schools were implementing several strategies to increase student performance. Variation
in success at Program Improvement schools is due to differences in the degree of
implementation and not just the resource allocation. A significant disparity in the area of
resource allocation for Alpha, Charlie, and Echo Elementary, was the resources set aside
to provide the latest technology, professional development, and student activities which
are underfunded in three of the sample schools compared to the amounts suggested by the
EBM. Additional discrepancies emerged between the resource allocation at sample
schools and the EBM suggestions when reviewing the provision of resources dedicated to
program improvement that are normally set by the district. One glaring example was that
schools in Program Improvement are required to provide access for free after school
tutoring for those students who qualify for the National School Lunch Program and are
struggling to meet state standards. Districts are supposed to set aside twenty percent of
their Title I money for this purpose before allocating these funds to other Title I schools.
If the Program Improvement schools do not utilize the money for the specific private free
tutoring service then whatever amount was not utilized can be redistributed to the Title I
144

schools for other allowable expenditures. It became clear that Delta Elementary was the
only school which had contracted with an outside tutoring company, The Boys and Girls
Club, to provide tutoring to students in need of additional help. The other schools did not
promote the after school tutoring, thus, allowing the set aside money to go back to other
Title I schools and failing to provide the needed tutoring for the struggling students.
Bravo Elementary was the only school in the study that applied and was selected
to receive the School Improvement Grant. Bravo Elementary has the opportunity to use
almost three million dollars to implement the Turnaround Intervention Model and has the
funding to provide additional FTEs at the site for an extended day for all students. Delta
Elementary received Quality Investment in Education Act (QEIA) funding to maintain
smaller class sizes and provided an additional reading teacher to struggling students.
Aside from Bravo and Delta receiving additional funding from a variety of outside
sources, the three other sample schools, Alpha, Charlie, and Echo do not have funding to
allocate resources to assist struggling students and none of the three sites had any
percentage of an FTE set aside to provide tutors for struggling students. Additionally, the
sample schools class sizes were generally larger and the sites have less core teachers than
the number suggested by the EBM. To compensate in this area, the sample schools have
a large number of classified Instructional aides to assist core teachers in the classroom.
However, the EBM does not suggest setting funds aside for this resource because the
research available does provide evidence that aides significantly contribute directly to
increasing student performance.
145

Implications for Policy and Practice
This study reviewed the current steps taken to increase student achievement by
Year 5 Program Improvement elementary schools. The five sample schools in the
process of school reform are under scrutiny by The California Department of Education
due to their designation as persistently low-achieving. The results of this study provide
schools in Program Improvement with examples on how to allocate limited resources to
meet the needs of struggling students as well as potential ways to establish research-
based strategies that promote maximum student performance. The study was completed
at a time when there was some categorical flexibility given to schools in an attempt to
save jobs. This unique set of circumstances presented the administrators with a variety of
decisions to choose as to what was best for the school when allocating resources to
implement instructional goals in spite of budgetary issues.
The study found that despite some efforts to change their instructional programs
along with additional funding provided for Bravo and Delta Elementary, none of the
schools had adequate resources to increase student performance. This study presents a
unique set of data that can be utilized to better understand the many challenges facing
Program Improvement Schools in rural areas. Along with school principals, the results of
this study may be analyzed by members of district offices in larger districts to provide
examples for allocating funds to Program Improvement schools to discover a level of
funding that will meet the specific needs of their students. The Evidence-Based Model
and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance provide policymakers with a
146

framework to consider when proposing a research-based approach to resource allocation
for low performing schools.
In view of the financial crisis in California that has lead to budget cuts and
reduction of funds across districts, it is doubtful that there will be wholesale
implementation of both the EBM and instructional strategies. Keeping in mind the
limited funding resources afforded to the Program Improvement Schools it is therefore
suggested to administrators and district officials facing similar situations to incorporate
the following instructional strategies recommended by Odden (2009) to improve student
achievement: analyzing the data and understanding the performance problem,
implementing an effective curriculum and instructional program, practicing data-based
decision making using formative and summative assessments, and using time efficiently
and effectively in an effort to promote high levels of student achievement. As the analysis
of assessment results indicates, the implementation of the instructional strategies
mentioned above was able to reduce the achievement gap at Delta. School officials may
analyze the progress made at this school as it implemented various instructional reforms
to determine best-practices that may be taken from their efforts, and determine the next
steps needed to further implement research-based instructional strategies for schools in
similar situations.
Recommendations for Future Studies
This study provides a view into Year 5 Program Improvement elementary schools
designated as persistently low-achieving and currently attempting to implement changes
147

for school reform under the scrutiny of the California Department of Education.
Additional questions for future studies include:
 the ability of the Program Improvement schools to maintain instructional
strategies suggested by the EBM model as well as those improvement strategies
required by state interventions models, particularly when the allocation of
additional funding is no longer available
 an evaluation of other Year 5 Program Improvement sites in comparison to the
Evidence-Based model to determine which instructional practices are promoting
student growth and should be set as suggested strategies with fewer resources
needed for implementation
Conclusion
This study of Year 5 Program Improvement elementary schools examines the
research available on school-level resource allocation and instructional strategies to
increase student performance. The five sample sites have focused on implementing some
aspects of the requirements set by Program Improvement provisions; however, the
minimal implementation of instructional strategies school-wide appears to have not yet
translated into student success for four out of the five schools where only Delta
Elementary has had growth, albeit modest, in API scores over the last five years. Two of
the schools, Alpha and Bravo Elementary have new leadership in charge of continuing
with the implementation of Odden‘s (2009) instructional strategies. With new leadership
at Bravo Elementary and a new staff that was hand selected along with a massive
148

infusion of financial resources through the School Improvement Grant, it is expected that
the school demonstrates significant API and AYP growth as it implements the state
sanctioned Turnaround Intervention Model. While the Turnaround Model exhibits
many of the same resource allocation and instructional strategy recommendations as the
EBM, given the significant investment required, future research should examine the
effectiveness of this intervention model compared to the other three models: the Restart
Model, the School Closure Model, or the Transformation Model. Additionally, it will be
interesting to see if other sites, including Bravo Elementary, are able to improve
instructional practices in the face of current budget cuts and after the SIG grant funding is
no longer available.
While these sample schools have not made substantial progress under the NCLB
legislation, they need to provide their students with the best research-based instructional
programs. In light of the financial reductions expected to continue in California, schools
and districts need to be mindful more than ever to implement resources efficiently and
effectively to increase student achievement and as this study has demonstrated, utilizing
the recommendations of the EBM and the instructional strategies outlined by Odden
(2009), will provide an effective blueprint for this effort.

149

REFERENCES
Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and
new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(4),375-390.
Baker, B. D., Taylor, L. L., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Adequacy estimates and the
implications of common standards for the cost of instruction. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis. Reading, Massachusetts:
Perseus Books.

Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related to
state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest at Learning Point Associates.

California Business Education Association Board Report (2009), legislation. Retrieved
3/16/2010 from http://www.cbeaonline.org/legislation.php
California Department of Education. (2001). Taking center stage: A commitment to
standards-based education for California’s middle grades students. Sacramento,
CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/mg/summary.asp

California Teachers Association (2009). A standards based education system. Retrieved
May 15, 2009 from http://www.cta.org/issues/testing/standbaseded.htm

California Department of Education. (2009). Program improvement. Sacramento, CA:
Author. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp
California Department of Education. (2010a). Race to the top. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved April 6, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/rtttfundcomments.asp
California Department of Education. (2010b). Persistently Schools. Sacramento, CA:
Author. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel27.asp
150

California Department of Education . (2010c). DataQuest [Data file]. Retrieved February
25, 2010, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education . (2010d). Common Core Standards. Retrieved
August 3, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel67.asp
Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-394.

Cross, C T. (2004) Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2004.

Daggett, W.R. (2009) Improving student performance in times of declining resources.
Retrieved May 1, 2009 from
http://www.leadered.com/pdf/improve%20perf%with%20declining%20resources.
pdf 1-10.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don‘t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-735.
Duncombe, W., Lukemeyer, A., & Yinger, J. (2008). The No Child Left Behind Act:
Have federal funds been left behind? Public Finance Review, 36, 381-407.
Ed-Data (2008). Comparing california. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/article.asp?title=California%20comparison
Edsource. (2005). The state’s official measures of school performance. Mountain View,
CA: Author,
EdSource. (2007). Trends and comparisons in California school finance. Mountain View,
CA: Author.

EdSource. (2008a). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2008b). Title I schoolsin program improvement. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
EdSource. (2009a). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
151

EdSource. (2009b). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009c). The new federal education policies: California's challenge. Mountain
View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2010). Glossary of Terms. Mountain View, CA: Author.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching
as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Everhard, R. B. (2006). Why are schools always begging for money? Phi Delta Kappan
88 (1) 70 – 75.
Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring
effects of small classes. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145-183.
Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M. W., Talbert, J. E., et
al. (2002). Districts as change agents: Levers for system-wide instructional
improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved April 16, 2010,
from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/AERA-
DistrictsAsChange.pdf
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). Supervision of instruction:
A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Goertz, M.E. & Duffy, M. (1999). Resource allocation in reforming schools. In M.E.
Goertz & A. Odden (Eds.), School-based financing, p. 215-244. Thousand Oakes,
Ca: Corwin Press.
Grubb, W., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. (2004). The unending search for equity: California
policy, the" Improved School Finance," and the Williams Case. The Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2057-2245.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Researcher, 18, 45-65.
152

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student
performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-
164.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses :
solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.

Harris, D. A., Taylor, L., Levine, A., Ingle, W. K. & Mcdonald L. (2008). The Resource
Costs of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability, manuscript.

Hill, P.T., Roza, M., and Harvey, J. (2008). Facing the future: Financing productive
schools. Center on Reinventing Public Education on the School Finance Redesign
Project. Kanthak, L. M. (1996). What makes a high-achieving middle school?
Education Digest, pp. 30-33.

Kirst, M., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2007). Evolution of California state school finance
with implications from other states. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.

Kocivar, C. & Halladay, S. (2005, June 7). Breaking the cycle of underfunded schools.
San Francisco Chronicle, B 7. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/07/EDGSED3J7O1.DTL
Jennings, J. (2000). Title I: Its legislative history and its promise. Phi Delta Kappan,
81(7), 516-522.
Legislative Analyst‘s Office (2009). Proposition 98 budget package. Retrieved July 13,
2010 from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2009/Overview_Feb_2009_Prop_98_0
3_17_09.pdf
Linn, R. L. (2008). The future of test-based educational accountability. In: Katherine E.
Ryan & Lorrie A. Shepard (Eds.), The future of test-based educational
accountability (Ch, 1, pp. 3-24). New York: Routledge.
153

Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: A research project
examining California’s school governance and finance systems. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Loeb, S., Grissom, J., & Strunk, K. (2007). District dollars: Painting a picture of
revenues and expenditures in California’s school districts. Stanford, CA: Institute
for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Loeb, S. and Plank D. N. (2007). Continuous improvement in California education: Data
systems and policy learning. California Education Policy Convening October 19,
2007. Retrieved August 2, 2010 from
http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/convening/PACE_data_brief.pdf
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mazzei, P., & McGrory. (2010). South Florida schools face mid-year budget crisis. The
Miama Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com

Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and mutimethod research design. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Digest of Education Statistics, 2008.
Retrieved, June 1, 2010, from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf.

National Center for Education Statics (2010) Common core of data, School Services of
California, Ed Source (January, 2010) National Center for Education Statistics.
(2010a). The condition of education: Glossary. Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.

National Education Association. (2009). Rankings and estimates: rankings of the states
2009 and estimates of school statistics 2009. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/010rankings.pdf

154

National Forum on Educational Statistics. (2007). Forum guide to core finance data
elements. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.

No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

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

Odden, A. R., (2009). Ten strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

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

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

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

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al. (2005).
An evidence-based approach to recallibrating Wyoming's block grant school
funding formula. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.

Ohanion, S. (2000). Goals 2000: What‘s in a name? Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 344-355.

Olsen, L. (2005, January 6). Financial evolution. Education Week, 24(17), 8-12.Patton,
M. Q. (2002). Qaulitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

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

155

Picus, L.O. and Blair, L (2004). School finance adequacy: the state role. Insights on
Education Policy, Practice and research No. 16. March 2004. 2-11.

Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming
following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.

Peterson, P.E. & West M.K. (2003). No child left behind the politics and practice of
school accountability. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Pipho, C. (2000). The sting of high-stakes testing and accountability. Phi Delta Kappan,
81, 645-646.

Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., & Trimble, C. S. (2005). The Effects of State Decision About
NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress Targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 24(4), 32-39.

Rice, J. K. (2004). Equity and efficiency in school finance reform: Competing or
complementing goods? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 134-151.

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancingthe validity of education adequacy studies. The Teachers College
Record 109(6), 1303-1373.

Sanders, J. (2010). Schwarzenegger's education claim disputed. The Sacramento Bee.
Retrieved from www.thesacbee.com

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971). (Serrano I)

Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., and Ardon, K., (2000). For better or for worse? School finance
reform in california . San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California

Speakman, Sheree, Bruce Cooper, Robert Sampieri, Jay May, Hunt Holsomback and
Brian Glass. 1996. ―Bringing Money to the Classroom-A systemic Resource
Allocations Model Applied to the New York City Public Schools‖. In: Where
Does the Money Go? Resource Allocation in Elementary and Secondary Schools.
Lawrence Picus and JamesWattenberger, editors. Pp.106-131.
156

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/

Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Retrieved from Rand Corporation:
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/

Sunderman, G. L. and Orfield, G. (2007). Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB
mandates? Phi Delta Kappan 89 (2) 137 – 139.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching,37(9), 963-980.

Slavin, R. E. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's
Future.

Taylor, L. L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy in
public schools. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from:
http://bush.tamu.edu/research/workingpapers/ltaylor/measuring_edu_adequacy_in
public_schools.pdf

Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley, CA:
Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California-Berkeley.

Timar, T. B. (2006). Financing K-12 education in California: A system overview.
Retrieved April 21, 2010, from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/02- Timar/2-Timar(3-07).pdf

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

Tucker, J. & Ho, J. (2010, August 3). State school board adopts common core standards.
San Francisco Chronicle, B 7. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-03/bay-area/22010265_1_national-academic-
standards-common-core-standards-new-standards

157

United States Department of Education. (2010b). Race to the top fund. Author. Retrieved
March 19, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

United States Department of Education (1983). Findings. A nation at risk: The imperative
for educational reform. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html.
United States Department of Education (2009). The American recovery and reinvestment
act: Saving and creating jobs and reforming education. Power point presentation
April 24, 2009. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/presentation/funds-
metrics.ppt#333,23,Slide 23
United States Department of Education (2009). American recovery and reinvestment act
of 2009: Using ARRA funds to drive school reform and improvement, April 24,
2009. Retrieved July 28, 2010 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/uses.doc
Weston, M. (2010). Funding california schools: The revenue limit system. San Francisco,
CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Wise, A. E., (1967) Rich schools, poor schools: The promise of equal educational
opportunity, University of Chicago Press, Illinois. In Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E.,
and Ardon, K., (2000). For better or for worse? School finance reform in
california . San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

158

APPENDIX A – IRB APPROVAL

159

APPENDIX B – SITE PERMISSION LETTER
Dear Principal/Superintendent ___________,
Thank you for taking the time to consider my request for your participation in a study I
am conducting for my doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California
(USC) with Dr. Lawrence O. Picus as my advisor. It is one of twelve around the state
centered on schools‘ resource allocation and their efforts to improve student achievement.
I am conducting a mixed methods study, using both qualitative and quantitative data
utilizing the Adequacy Model developed by Odden and Picus in addition to Odden's 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Both the states of Wyoming and
Washington use the Evidence-based Adequacy model as their templates for funding the
respective state educational systems and the intent of the studies at USC is to determine
how California schools compare in their resource use.
Your school is one of five local Title I schools that have similar demographics
and just recently, have been designated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act and the School Improvement Grant program as underperforming or ―persistently low
achieving.‖ I am looking at Title I elementary schools in Tulare County that have high
Hispanic populations, high Free and Reduced lunch and high EL populations. I would
very much appreciate being able to include your school in this study. Every school used
in this study will be kept completely confidential and pseudo-names will be used to
adhere to strict confidential rules stipulated by USC. Only I will know the actual names
of the schools in this study. The only thing I'd need from you to be able to make this
work is an interview (and possible questionnaire filled out) with you at some point near
the start of next school year (probably early fall). Right now, I'm starting chapters 1 -3 of
my dissertation and I'm going to have my qualifying exams on those chapters at the end
of May. Once the qualifying exams are approved, I will be allowed to collect my data. It
will be sometime after that date that I would need to interview you. The interview may
be a couple of hours but we can divide it up over a couple of days, whatever is your
preference. The interview follows a specific format and includes examination of a
variety of documents (e.g., master schedule, bell schedule, school improvement plan,
budgets). I will not need to interview other staff members, observe lessons, etc.
160

In order to receive approval for this study, I must turn in ―Site Permission Letters‖
for each of the sites to the Institutional Review Board. Enclosed, please find a template
for the letter. I am sending you the template electronically. Would you be possible to
have you transfer the text to your school‘s letterhead, sign the letter, and return to me in
the return envelope also enclosed?
After confirming receipt of the ―Site Permission Letter,‖ I do not anticipate troubling you
again until early fall to set an appointment. I know and respect how busy you are!
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any thoughts or questions! I can be reached as
follows: email: mstuemky@portervilleschools.org, work phone: 559-793-2445. It will be
an honor and a privilege to work with you!
Sincerely,
Martha Stuemky

161

APPENDIX C – INFORMED CONSENT

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

RE: Dr. Lawrence O. Picus
Martha Stuemky
Adequacy and Allocation Practices: A Cornerstone of Program Improvement
Resolution

Dear UPIRB Chair:
This letter is to convey that I have reviewed the proposed research study entitled
―Adequacy and Allocation Practices: A Cornerstone of Program Improvement
Resolution‖ being conducted by Martha Stuemky from the University of Southern
California. I understand that research activities as described in the proposed research
study will occur at ―name of the school―. I give permission for the above investigator to
conduct her study at this site. If you have any questions regarding this permission letter,
please contact me at ―-------------―.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[PRINCIPAL/SUPERINTENDENT]
162

APPENDIX D – QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School‘s State ID Number
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:
School Contact (1)
Title
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
163

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
District Profile
District Name
District State ID
District Contact (1)
Title
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 At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students
Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)
Total Length of School Day
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Mathematics Class
Length of Reading or English/LA Class
Length of Science Class
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:
Core academic teachers (General Education Self Contained) FTEs
Kindergarten (Indicate if Full day program)
165

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES

Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Prep FTEs
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
166

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

Extra Help I
FTEs or
Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds
Other Extra Help Teachers
167

Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)
Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers
Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher
Special Ed. Self-contained Aides
Special Ed. Inclusion Aides
Special Ed. Resource Room Aides
NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week minutes
Extended day Teachers
Extended Day Classified Staff
Description of Extended Day Classified Staff
Minutes per Week of Summer School minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks) weeks
168

School‘s Students Enrolled in Summer School
All Students in Summer School
Summer School Teachers
Summer School Classified Staff
NOTES:

Other Instructional Staff
FTEs and
Dollars ($)
Consultants (other than paid contracted services) $
Building substitutes and other substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs $
NOTES:

Professional Development
FTEs and
Dollars ($)
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time) $
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants $
Administration
Travel $
Materials, Equipment and Facilities $
169

Tuition & Conference Fees $
Other Professional Development $
Other Professional Development Staff Funded with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

Student Services FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student Services Staff:
NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
170

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

171

APPENDIX E – QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Pre-Visit Document Request List
All of these documents should be for the current 2010-11 school year.

1. Staff List (School)
This list will likely include any person who works in the physical space of the school. It
is necessary to understand the full-time equivalent (FTE) status of each employee, as well
as what their job entails (for a principal or classroom teacher, this may be obvious, for
special education staff or student support staff, this is not readily clear).
 Some staff are paid to work less than 1.0 FTE with the school, yet are housed at
the school full-time. Only the portion of the day that the staff person provides
services to the individual school should be recorded.
 Special education and ELL staff, especially, may be dedicated to more than one
project (e.g. 0.5 FTE reading coach, 0.5 FTE resource room).
 Distinguish how special education and ELL staff provide support (e.g. do they
work with an individual child or a classroom, etc.).
 Individuals who serve the school may not be listed and instead are based out of
the district or regional education agency (e.g. speech therapy, visiting coaches) so
you will need to ask them about these people—see below.

2. Staff List (District)
A list of all district employees who do not appear on school staff roster, but who provide
direct services to schools (guidance counselors, psychologists, special education
diagnosticians, etc.) and which schools they provide services to, expressed in FTE units.
For instance, a special education diagnostician who works with 3 schools might be listed
three times on this sheet (0.5 FTE, 0.3 FTE, 0.2 FTE) depending upon the number of
days she is allocated to the various schools. Note: You will only be recording the
proportion of FTEs that she spends providing services to the individual school you are
studying.

3. School Schedule (School)
It is helpful to have a copy of the bell schedule to talk through the amount of instructional
time for reading, math, etc.

172

4. Consultants (School, District, and State)
Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional development
contracted services.

5. Class Sizes
You want a copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. Make sure to enter the
class size for every class that is taught at the school.

6. Funds for Daily Substitutes
Daily rate for substitute teachers who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes
who replace teachers who are participating in professional development.)

7. Professional Development Budget
 Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
 Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training
or other professional development services.
 Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional development
activities, and costs of transportation within the district for professional
development.
 Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment
needed for professional development activities, and rental or other costs for
facilities used for professional development.
 Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement
for college-based professional development, and fees for conferences related to
professional development.
 Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.
173

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?

174

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

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?
2. Full Day Kindergarten
 If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?
3. Class Size Reduction
 Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only with
15)
4. Professional Development:
 When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
 What is the focus of the professional development?
 Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)
5. ―Interventions‖ or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
 Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium groups
(3-5)
 Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers
or aides), Who participates
 Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
 ELL
 Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology

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

175

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

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

F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand
your efforts?
176

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

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

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

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

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
177

D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: ―WY‖ is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
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 these individuals (e.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
178

L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: ―WY‖ is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators
School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009-2010 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school 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
179

periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360
minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped
for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English,
and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students
are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing,
comprehension) Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter ―Y‖ or ―N‖
or ―NA.‖
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers
The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school‘s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education
classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core
subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers
are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any
other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are
members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and
foreign language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual
teachers who provide classes in these subjects. 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.
180

Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox (0.33), Matt LeBlanc

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

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

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

181

VIII. Library Staff
Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member‘s name that corresponds to the FTEs
entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

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

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
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.
182

I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for
the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school‘s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the ―Other‖ extra help
staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provide supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school‘s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the ―Other‖
extra help classified staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with ―severely‖ disabled students for most
or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school‘s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students‘
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical
or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have
―less severe‖ disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with ―severely‖ disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have ―less
severe‖ disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in
the extended day program.
183

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

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

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
184

C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who
are participating in professional development.)

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

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number
of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
For time outside the regular contract day when students are not present before
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers‘ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development.
For planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated
as the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers‘
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
185

D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the ―Other‖ professional development is, and
indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

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

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve
as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents
to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
186

G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school‘s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the ―other‖ student services staff member
does.

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

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

187

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.

188

APPENDIX G – SCHOOL VISIT INTERVIEW DATES
School 1 Alpha Elementary School September 21, 2010
School 2 Bravo Elementary School December 3, 2010
School 3 Charlie Elementary School December 22, 2010
School 4 Delta Elementary School December 16, 2010
School 5 Echo Elementary School January 5, 2011

189

APPENDIX H – ALPHA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on the School and District
Alpha Elementary is a single-school, kindergarten through eighth grade school
district in an unincorporated portion of Tulare County, east of Porterville. This Title I
school is in a six-square mile district that serves approximately 500 students who feed
into a substantially larger unified district in the same town to attend high school. Alpha
Elementary opened its doors in 1910 and operates on a traditional schedule with 17
permanent classrooms, eight portable classrooms, a computer lab, and a library.
Alpha Elementary‘s student population includes students from diverse ethnic
backgrounds, socio-economic status, and language abilities. Fifty-four percent of
students have been identified as Limited English Proficient and ninety-eight percent of
students receive free or reduced lunch. The primary ethnicities represented are Hispanic
(74%), White (19%), Pacific Islander (3%), Asian (1%), African American (1%), and
other/Multiple (2%).

190

Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown – Alpha Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify the resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in efforts to raise student achievement at a
persistently low achieving school in Tulare County. Resource allocation is especially
important in schools such as this, who because of their designation as persistently low-
achieving, have been mandated by the state of California to implement one of four school
intervention models in the school improvement process. The range of educational reform
options that these schools have to select from can be classified into four intervention
models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the School Closure Model, or the
Transformation Model. These schools are faced with using their chosen model to
substantially improve the academic performance of their students.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
Since 2005, Alpha Elementary School has demonstrated small incremental growth
in student performance. From the 2005/06 to the 2007/08 school years, Alpha
74%
6%
19%
1%
Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown
Alpha Elementary
Hispanic
Asian
White
Other
191

Elementary posted a growth of 86 points in its API. Then in the 2009/10 school year,
Alpha Elementary experienced a 64 point drop in API which was somewhat lessened
with the past school year‘s 20 point growth. Figure H.2 shows Alpha Elementary
School‘s API over the last five years.

Figure H.2: Alpha Elementary School’s API

The Academic Performance Index for all students and subgroups at Alpha
Elementary has had an uneven pattern in student performance over the past five years
(Figure H.3). The school wide overall API has increased by only 22 points, climbing
from 579 in 2005/06 to 601 in 2009/10. Most of its student subgroups saw losses, with
White students decreasing the most, with a 35 point drop. As previously highlighted, a
significant drop occurred in the API in 2008-09. The English Learner subgroup has
increased in its overall API over the past five years only a single point.
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
579
625
642
665
601
API Score
Figure H.2 Alpha Elementary API Score,
2005-2010
192

Figure H.3: Alpha Elementary Academic Performance Index

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
As is the case with all of the schools in this study, Alpha Elementary is in program
improvement Year 5 and has been designated as persistently low-achieving. For Title I
schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1) Test 95% of students in grades 2-11 and those in significant subgroups in both
English Language Arts and mathematics utilizing the California Standards Test
(CST).
2) The proficiency targets must be met for all significant subgroups each year.
3) The school‘s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In 2009,
the minimum API score was 650.

560
580
600
620
640
660
680
API Score
Figure H.3: Alpha Elementary API by Subgroup,
2005-2010
Alpha School Wide
Hispanic/Latino
White
SED
English Learners
193

4) When a Title I school first enters Year 4 of Program Improvement, part of the
restructuring efforts include the formation of an Alternative Governance Board
(AGB). The AGB can implement reform changes to a school in PI and governance to
improve student academic achievement.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show minimal progress for Alpha
Elementary since 2001. Figure H.4 shows Alpha Elementary School‘s language arts
AYP for various subgroups since 2006/07. The AYP targets over the past five years in
English Language Arts have not been reached by any of the significant subgroups with
any growth being inconsistent. School-wide, Alpha Elementary has experienced stagnant
growth in AYP and has not moved beyond 21% in proficient and advanced students in
language arts. While the White group demonstrated some growth in the first three years,
in the last two, the group dipped in the percentage of proficient students. The English
Learner (EL) subgroup is the school‘s lowest achieving subgroup and has only shown a
3% growth over the past five years, while the Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED)
subgroup has experienced a modest 13% increase. Overall, the school has shown no
significant improvement in the number of students who are reaching proficient and
advanced on the CSTs. It is important to note, however, that it is difficult to compare the
data from year to year because of the restructuring efforts and staff movement within
grade levels, but there is a distinct gap in performance between the English Learner
population and the other significant subgroups.

194

Figure H.4: Percent Proficient - English Language AYP

Figure H.5 shows the math AYP for Alpha Elementary. Based on the AYP
results, math has shown more substantial growth compared to the language arts scores
with significant growth realized in the 2005/07 school years. All of the school‘s
significant subgroups demonstrated growth of 10% in the number of proficient and
advanced students between the 2005-07 school years. However, during the 2008 school
year there was a significant decline across all subgroups and while this past year all
subgroups demonstrated growth in math at 10%, the increase was not sufficient to meet
AYP.

10
15
20
25
30
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure H.4: Alpha Elementary Percent English
Language Proficient and Advanced (AYP) by
Subgroup, 2005-2010
Alpha Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
195

Figure H.5: Percent Proficient - Math AYP

California Standards Tests
Alpha Elementary has struggled to show improvement in the academic areas
assessed by the California Standards Tests (illustrated in Figure H.6). Over the past five
years, overall proficiency in English Language Arts has only grown from about 19.8% in
2006 to 21.0% in 2010; a more devastating pattern was seen in social science, where
continual declines occurred from 7% to 4% during that time frame. Science scores at the
school improved slightly, with an increase from 16% in 2006 to 24% in 2010.
Mathematics achievement at the school appears to be slightly higher than the
other subjects at Alpha Elementary. The percent of proficient students on the
mathematics CSTs in 2010 was 32% with a growth of 6% from the previous year. The
principal mentioned that some of the factors contributing to the low performance in
language arts and social science can be attributed to a teaching staff being moved from
20
25
30
35
40
45
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure H.5: Alpha Elementary Percent Proficient
and Advanced Math AYP by Subgroup, 2005-2010
Alpha Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
196

grade levels in the last two years prior to her coming to Alpha Elementary and not
teaching the content standards needed for each core area. Also some of the veteran staff
with many years in the school seem resistant to changing their instructional practices, the
implementation of pacing calendars is at an early stage, a lack of alignment exists
between the curriculum being offered at the school and state assessments, and very
limited interventions are available for students due to a lack of funds.
Figure H.6: Alpha Elementary CST Results

Figure H.6 also illustrates the school‘s CST results in ELA, Mathematics, Social
Science, and Science. While the figure does not represent the individual subgroup
performance, White students are the highest performing group in the school in both
subject areas; nearly 24% of White students were proficient in ELA in 2010, while
almost 20% of Hispanic students obtained proficiency. Mathematics achievement is
higher than that in English Language Arts; White students still outperform all other
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% Proficient and Adanced
Figure H.6: Alpha Elementary CST Results by
Subject, 2005-2010
ELA
Mathematics
Social Science
Science
197

subgroups with 34% of these students obtaining proficient scores as opposed to about
31% of Hispanic students. Over the past five years, the achievement gap between these
two ethnic groups has only slightly narrowed in both subject areas. Additionally, English
Learners have the lowest test scores of all student groups, and have failed to make
significant growth since 2006. Proficiency scores in ELA have been below 19% since
2006; proficiency in mathematics has been less than 37%.
Key Elements and Themes in the Improvement Process
As a Program Improvement Year 5 school designated as persistently low-
achieving, Alpha Elementary selected one of the four intervention models identified
above, conducting an Academic Program Survey (APS) as part of the process of choosing
the most appropriate intervention model. This included a review of the Nine Essential
Program Components. These components, which are very similar to elements in the
EBM, incorporate research on school improvement to build up schools to include
collaboration, instructional support in language arts and mathematics, rigorous
curriculum, data-driven instruction, professional development for administrators and
teachers, and allocation of resources in alignment with identified school-wide
improvement goals.
In the fall of 2009, the three-person district leadership team, consisting of the
superintendent/principal, assistant principal and academic coach, reviewed the district
and conducted the APS. The superintendent/principal was newly hired in August 2009
198

and the assistant principal had been appointed in late spring 2009 after serving as a
classroom teacher at Alpha Elementary for nine years.
The leadership team met with parent groups, certificated and classified staff to
present the implications of each of the four intervention models. Informational meetings
were also presented to the Board of Trustees describing the four models and the
respective feasibility of each in light of the culture and 100 year history of Alpha
Elementary. After closely reviewing and studying the four intervention models the
groups unanimously selected the Transformational model.
The superintendent/principal is the fourth administrator in four years at Alpha
Elementary. When she arrived, there were a number of teachers with low expectations
for most of the student population the school serves. The academic coach made a
comment to the superintendent/principal that some of the teachers felt that she too would
leave in the coming year, maintain the revolving door without stability for the staff or
students.
Due to NCLB Alternative Governance Restructuring in the 2009 school year, a
teacher on special assignment was selected as an academic coach to assist the classroom
teachers in areas of Language Arts, and Math. Similarly, in light of the Categorical
flexibility allowed beginning with the 2009 school year, Alpha elementary utilized the
flexibility for maintaining class size reduction in the primary elementary grades for a 20-
1 ratio. The upper grades, including middle school grades, maintain a 28 to 1 ratio. The
flexibility is being used again in the 2010-11 school year by using funds such as deferred
199

maintenance and sweeping them into the general fund, primarily to continue maintaining
smaller class sizes in the primary grades. Unfortunately, because the categorical
flexibility in class size reduction is set to expire after the 2011-12 school year, it is likely
that the school will increase class sizes in the primary grades. It is also interesting to note
that after reviewing the school‘s assessment data it does not seem that maintaining small
classes, which is a major focus for the school, has made any difference in increasing
student achievement. Alpha Elementary has struggled to improve student achievement
since the implementation of NCLB in 2001/02 with the school stuck in Year 5 of
Program Improvement since 2005/06.
The superintendent/principal of Alpha Elementary has held the position at the
school for only 2 years. She has worked in two previous small school districts in the
county as superintendent/principal for 20 years prior to coming to Alpha Elementary.
She stated that one of the key elements that helped her to get the job was her years of
experience working in small districts. She also understood that the fiscal instability and
poor management of district funds were some of the factors contributing to the negative
environment and turmoil the district found themselves in for several years. Her
experience working well with small rural staffs has helped her begin mending trust with
the current staff and the administration.
The subsequent sections will use the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009) as an organizational framework to gauge the
degree of implementation of each strategy and how each relates to improving student
200

achievement at Alpha Elementary. In interviewing the principal it was evident that the
publicized internal financial issues and turmoil between the staff and administration were
primary factors to review and that the school board‘s primary concern and expectation
was for the superintendent/principal to resolve this internal distrust with a secondary
focus being to improve instruction.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. Although
the superintendent/principal was very aware of the lack of student performance in state
assessments, she stated there is a sense of urgency to create an environment that is
inclusive and has a team concept rather than a ―them vs. us‖ environment. The
superintendent/principal related that during her first year at the school she made sure she
was creating a collaborative, trusting environment and making efforts to let her teachers
know that she was there to help them rather than putting all her energy and efforts into
the performance of the students. She understands that in reviewing the assessment data
for the school it is evident there are many challenges facing the school district. The
superintendent/principal expressed concern with the significant decrease in the school‘s
API of 64 points and the minimal increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient
or above in AYP in Language Arts and Math. During the past summer, the
superintendent/principal worked with teachers in primary grade levels to review the
curriculum and began selecting essential standards.
The leadership team also reviewed student performance on the CST‘s during
school years 2007-2009. Prior to these two years the student performance on the CST‘s
201

had been gradually improving in both Language Arts and Math. Alpha Elementary
attributes the improvement to the partnership and support of the Tulare County Office of
Education, as external provider. Subsequently, in November 2009, the district entered in
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) to
assist in the School Improvement Grant (SIG) selection process and groundwork for the
requirements of the Transformational model, as well as to help to make amends to the
relationship between the staff and district administration.
Prior to her taking her current position, the superintendent/principal already had a
successful partnership working with TCOE as a superintendent/principal for another
small school. One of her first comments related to school improvement was the
importance of changing the school culture which revolved around significant turmoil
prior to her arrival and was clearly detrimental to student achievement. The previous
administration made grade level reassignments for teachers as a caveat to NCLB
restructuring/alternative governance process; however, the teachers were not provided
with the training that is needed when changing grade levels and new curriculum.
Since being designated as a persistently low achieving school by the state, Alpha
Elementary reform efforts are amplified by the selection of the Transformational
intervention Model. There have been greater efforts to bring about change in several
aspects of daily school life by implementing program improvement requirements. For
example, Title I funding and categorical flexibility have provide manageable ways to
implement additional resources and bring about key elements of change to improving
202

student achievement and come closer to closing the achievement gap. Despite all of the
hard work that went into selecting the Transformational Model for change at Alpha
Elementary and completing the SIG fund application, the California Department of
Education did not select the school to receive the funding needed to implement the
elements of the Transformational Model. Even so, the school is still required to continue
improving student outcomes.
Setting Ambitious Goals
As previously stated, Alpha Elementary is in the early stages of establishing a
stable school environment, with teachers and administration working in partnership
toward common goals. During her first year at Alpha Elementary the goals that were
previously set were maintained but high expectations and rigor in student learning were
not evident. English Learners make up a large percentage of the student population and,
again, ambitious goals for Language Acquisition and English Development were not
monitored nor set as a priority by the superintendent/principal. The current
superintendent/principal is aware that over half of the students are English Learners and
therefore is ensuring that the 30 minute ELD instructional block during the morning be
implemented to meet the language needs of the EL students.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. Alpha
Elementary has state-approved core materials using Houghton Mifflin in Language Arts
and McDougal Littel for Math. Both are standards-aligned and provide resources to
assist in the differentiation of instruction through the use of data. However, the principal
203

found that a significant amount of teachers were not using the textbook with fidelity and
were using supplementary and teacher-made materials which lack rigor and are not
aligned to standards. Additionally, there have been high levels of teacher movement
from one grade to another and an antagonistic relationship between teachers and the
administration. High-quality training in the approved core materials was not provided
and likely contributed to the minimal instructional program implementation.
Data-based Decision Making. When the superintendent/principal arrived at the
school, the teachers had not received training on how to use or develop formative
assessments. End of unit or chapter tests have been the type of assessments given to
students. In her first year at Alpha Elementary the superintendent/principal began the
conversation and laid the groundwork by visiting nearby districts already doing formative
assessments. During the summer, a small number of teachers across grade levels met
with the TCOE consultant to select essential standards by grade level, as well as construct
common formative assessments that would be given to students at different times
throughout the first trimester. The superintendent/principal stated that it was very
interesting to experience first-hand the interactions among the teachers as they worked to
come to consensus about curriculum and what the students would be expected to know.
The process was very slow and most grade levels were able to develop several common
formative assessments in the primary grades.
The academic coach worked closely with the TCOE to learn how to look at data
as well as have conversations about what it means for teachers in the classroom. The
204

data talks allowed the teachers to feel comfortable discussing how to best help students
and identify their level of proficiency in CST as well as in CELDT level.
Ongoing Professional Development. Alpha Elementary worked with the TCOE
consultant to train the staff on delivering ―Explicit Direct Instruction‖ (EDI). Some of
the teachers quickly converted to this new method of teaching. Half of the staff attended
training in EDI in the summer and are now inviting other teachers to come observe how
they develop EDI in their classroom. Explicit Direct Instruction helps students,
especially the low achieving, learn more by keeping the teacher in front of the classroom.
Teachers develop their own lessons and present them to the group. Some of the
components of EDI include lesson design components such as checking for
understanding, establishing learning objectives, activating prior knowledge, concept and
skill development, explaining, modeling and demonstrating, and guided practice. The
TCOE consultant and academic coach have been working with the staff on professional
development Wednesdays to help teachers develop learning objectives that guide
instruction in addition to creating summative and formative assessments to evaluate
whether or not the objectives were achieved. In order to ensure that every staff member
is getting the EDI training, the teachers are able to attend the training on Wednesday, and
are able observe other teachers by having the academic coach teach their class so that
they have an opportunity to visit other classrooms. The superintendent/principal believes
that the strategies used in EDI will lead to significant gains in student achievement.
205

During the Wednesday early release days, teachers were asked to review the data
and began the conversation to decide on essential common grade level standards. The
superintendent/principal felt she needed to provide the time to have teachers talk openly
and be able to air out their concerns and allow trust to build even further. In particular,
the focus of collaborative Professional Development time at the site during the last school
year was on providing a solid foundation of trust and reassuring the teachers there would
be no moves across grade levels in the next school year. Teachers began working with
the academic coach and TCOE lead to review essential standards and establish a pacing
calendar for the school year.
The superintendent/principal believes that the TCOE consultant can provide much
of the professional development needed for the teachers. Albeit slow, the process has
been focused using assessment data. The assistant principal works with her and the staff
to support the language arts and mathematics goals for Alpha Elementary. As an
administrative team, they work well in complementing their management style and
sharing a common vision for moving the school forward. It has become clear that student
learning is the priority and the majority of the staff is committed to that purpose.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively. Alpha Elementary made modifications to
the middle school schedule to increase academic instructional minutes by 120 minutes
per week to more effectively provide universal access (UA) to middle school students.
The universal access is a selected block of time specifically designed to pull small groups
206

of students struggling in the core subjects and helping them by re-teaching concepts and
filling in the gaps.
In the primary grades, time during the morning block was being wasted in a
school-wide breakfast program that yielded very low results. The elementary grades are
collaborating to ensure that the morning schedule now includes enough time for an
uninterrupted English Language Arts block. The Language Arts block also includes the
mandated English Language Development time for English Learners to acquire English.
Alpha elementary is reviewing a rudimentary set of pacing guides that have been
developed over the last year. The pacing guides were developed by the teachers and are
connected to state standards. The superintendent/principal indicated that the pacing
guides are designed to target instruction on a few key essential standards; these standards
are the ones that are assessed on CST‘s. Most of the teachers are taking an active part in
reviewing the pacing guides, and are aware they need to be modified as they continue
working with the TCOE consultant. The superintendent/principal is encouraging the
teachers to use Wednesday early release days to review the pacing guides.
The superintendent/principal also indicated that some primary grade teachers are
reviewing and developing benchmarks test that will be common across grade levels. The
upper grade teachers including middle school teachers are still in the discussion phase
mainly because of resistance on the part of veteran teachers hesitant to go in that
direction.
207

Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students. Struggling students at
Alpha Elementary have a number of extended learning opportunities available to them
during the day and afterschool. Schools in Program Improvement Year 2 and beyond are
required to offer tutoring after school for students qualifying for the National School
Lunch Program and are struggling to meet state standards. Several tutoring companies
are providing assistance to students at their homes, the community center, or the public
library. Some classroom teachers provide the support to struggling students after school;
however, this is for additional compensation and it is limited to the most academically
needy students. The Resource Specialist (RSP) is provided by the county office and her
emphasis is pulling students during a block of time that is less disruptive to the protected
Language Arts instructional time.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. The
superintendent/principal indicated that for the most part during her first year at Alpha
Elementary she concentrated her efforts in visiting classrooms and creating trust and a
collaborative environment. When visiting the classrooms she began to observe some
teachers making an effort to have learning objectives and the daily/weekly standards
displayed. She also emphasized that a small number of teachers are hindering the
learning environment but she believes that peer pressure to change coming from the other
teachers will eventually put pressure to come on board or she will have to start the
disciplinary process to document the lack of cooperation and incompetence with these
teachers.
208

Now in her second year, the superintendent/principal (and her assistant principal) visit
classrooms more often than the initial year and are focusing on a number of key factors.
These include EDI elements present in the lesson, learning objectives posted for students
to see, and student engagement. She realizes that many more crucial improvement
elements need to be implemented but she believes in slow, steady, and concrete focus on
few school-wide changes and they will bring about more results. She now meets with
teachers to discuss what she has seen in her visits and tries to provide constructive
feedback that will help improve performance. Alpha Elementary has one academic coach
to assist with the improvement of the instructional program. The superintendent/principal
indicated that the district has been able to provide the academic coach in the past two
years but she fears that the overall budget issues and a lack of additional categorical
funds will put an end to the position. She is also concerned it may become more difficult
to continue with the professional development on early release Wednesdays due to the
lack additional personnel.
Inspiring a Professional Organization. Due to the past experiences that tore
down the relationships between the teachers and administration, the
superintendent/principal knew coming to Alpha Elementary that she would have to work
to earn their trust. Her focus during the first year was to stabilize the environment and
create an open non-threatening climate at the school. She was flexible in her
expectations for implementing a research-based instructional program and knew that in
due time teachers would began taking leadership roles to improve instruction. This year
209

several primary grade teachers have requested additional training be provided by the
TCOE consultant to assist in modeling specific lessons and instructional strategies. The
superintendent/principal understands that although only a small number of teachers are
requesting additional training, it is a positive change in the school climate.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. The superintendent/principal
commented that the turmoil the district has been through in the last four years has
tarnished the public perception and atmosphere making any recruitment of new teachers a
difficult task. She also mentioned that she cannot retain high quality staff because
surrounding districts are larger and able to offer higher salaries and more attractive health
benefits. She pointed out that last year the two positions that were vacant were because
the new teachers that left to a nearby district were difficult to fill with high quality
teachers. However, she emphasized that it was critical for a Program Improvement
district to make every effort to recruit the best possible candidates for a very needy
student population. She related that she has great hope and expectations for the assistant
principal and strives to provide him with learning opportunities to prepare him for her
position in a few years when she retires.

210

Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table H.1: Alpha Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies
Instructional Strategies Degree of Implementation

Strong
(5)
Above
Average
(4)
Avera
ge (3)
Mini
mal
(2)
Not
Observed
(1)

Analyzing the Data and
Understanding the
Performance Challenge

Teachers are meeting
almost every
Wednesday to look at
pacing calendars and
benchmarks and
coming to a consensus
about how to use
assessment data to
guide their daily
instruction.
Set ambitious goals √
For the last five years
the staff has been
focused on other
external issues such as
lack of trust in the
administration that it
has prevented a clear
set of school goal to
improve the standard-
based instruction and
student achievement.
Implementing an Effective
Curriculum & Instructional
Program
√
Teachers are in the
beginning stage of
collaboration among
grade levels and are
now discussing how to
implement the District
adopted curriculum.
Struggling students
have very limited
opportunities for re-
teaching opportunities.

211

Table H.1, Continued

Data-Based Decision
Making
√
For the last two years
the school has began
the process to use
assessments such as
CFA‘s and benchmarks
to monitor student
progress. In the next
year they will develop a
teacher benchmark test.
Ongoing Professional
Development
√
Every Wednesday is an
early released day, the
county office coach is
providing EDI training
and all grades are
required to participate.
The plan for second
semester is to continue
developing CFA‘s
across all grades.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
√
The school changed
the schedule and
increased instruction
120 minutes per week
and they are now
leveling students to
ensure the
implementation of
ELD and UA time.
Providing Interventions for
Struggling Students
√
Most struggling
students have an
opportunity to
participate in the SES
tutoring mandated
under PI sanctions.
However, the SES
tutors are not
employed by district
and do not have to
follow the standards
set by the district.
212

Table H.1, Continued
Creating Collaborative
Cultures & Distributed
Leadership
√
Teachers meet 50
minutes every
Wednesday. Last year
these meetings helped
to establish trust among
all staff and
administration – now in
the second year the
teachers are using the
time to begin looking at
essential standards,
modifying CFA‘s in the
primary grades and the
intermediate grades are
having dialogue about
essential standards.
Inspiring a Professional
Organization
√
Superintendent/principa
l understands
instructional strategies;
however, her focus has
been to stabilize the
negative environment
created from previous
administrators. This
year appears to be a
more stable
environment that is
allowing teachers to
begin taking a
leadership positions on
instructional roles.
Addressing Talent &
Human Capital Issues
√
As a K-8 rural district
they cannot afford
formal teacher or
administrative training
programs. Retention of
staff is difficult because
they cannot compete with
other districts around the
area. Recruiting new staff
is difficult. Limited
resources make
providing incentives for
staff nearly impossible.

213

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Overall, the resource allocation at Alpha Elementary is far from the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Most of the differences are in
instructional coaches, other pupil support staff, class sizes, and core teachers. Table H.2
shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM through a prototypical school
and the actual resource allocation at Alpha Elementary.

214

Table H.2: Alpha Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element Evidence-Based Model –
Prototypical School
School
Current Resource
Status
Difference between
school and EBM
Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students

K-8; 502 Students
-
Approximately 1.16
times larger than EBM
prototype.
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-8: 25 K: 20; 1-3: 20; 4-8: 28 Higher class sizes in
K-3.
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180 days; 3 days of
summer PD training
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Exact match for EBM
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE 0.5 FTE Principal
1.0 FTE Asst. Principal
1.0 Principal
0.2 AP
0.5 FTE Less
Principal
1

0.8 FTE More AP

School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical (2 @ .5)
No difference
.7 Clerical
2

General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE

25.0 FTE

School has 4.48 less
FTE than generated by
model
Specialist Teachers K-5; 20% of core = 4.8

0.5 FTE ( Teacher) 4.6 less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
1 per 200 Students 0.5 FTE (academic
coach )
EBM Recommends
2.5
2.0 less FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
490 Students of poverty
0 Teachers
4.9 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
271 EL Students
0 Teachers

EBM Recommends
2.7 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 FTE 0.5 FTE (Testing clerk)
0.5 FTE (Health clerk)
1.0 more FTEs
215

Table H.2, Continued
Extended Day 1.8 FTE

No Extended day 1.8 Less FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE

No Summer School
Provided
1.8 Less FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.9 FTE (psychologist
0.5, speech 0.4, RSP
0.5, RSP aide 0.5
provided by county)
1.1 Less FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
None at this school site Non Applicable
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
personnel resources and
special education
personnel

0
PD conducted during
early release
Wednesday
25 teachers x 10
days = 250
$105 daily sub rate,
so total cost =
$26,250
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
490 Students of poverty
1 Health Aide @ 0.5)
4.4 Less FTE - Site
is understaffed
compared to the
EBM
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 3.5 FTE (7 @ 0.5)
2.5 FTE Bilingual
Aides (5 @ 0.5)
The EBM
recommends these
positions be
eliminated
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE ; 2 per 400-500
Students
2 @ 0.5 – Noon Duty
Aides
Site is understaffed
compared to the
EBM
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 1 FTE Media/Library
Clerk – not certificated)
Site is understaffed
compared to the
EBM, not a
certificated
Librarian
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student 0 – categorical
flexibility applied
$12,550 difference
Technology $250 per pupil Computer lab – 30
computers , Estimate of
$25,000 boards-
$125,500
$100,500 difference
216

Table H.2, Continued
Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil 54,985.00 $70,280
$15,295 Less
Student Activities
$200 per pupil 0.50 of academic
coach ($32,300
salary & benefits)
$100,400 so an
additional
$68,100 Less
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of school budget
as allocated by PI status
$32,893
Currently the 0.5
FTE academic
teacher provides
some assistance but
not at the level
funded under the
EBM model
$50,200 -- $17,217
Less
1
As the school administrative personnel also must address issues at the district
level given that Alpha Elementary is a single school district, it is important to
note that the principal is also ½ superintendent when examining the FTE at the
site.
2
As the school administrative personnel also must address issues at the district
level given that Alpha Elementary is a single school district, it is important to
note that the secretary is also partially a district level secretary when examining
the FTE at the site.

Summary and Lessons Learned
The lack of a clear focus and goals has affected Alpha Elementary and the drastic
loss of 64 API points and Program Improvement status is the result. After looking at the
assessment data and reviewing the steps taken to implement the Transformation
intervention model in detail, the following items are worth mentioning:
 The English Learner subgroup has had the lowest performance growth since 2005
as compared to the other subgroups. However, it is important to note that none of
significant subgroups performance has met the target growth since 2001. All
subgroups in the school perform equally as poorly on state tests.
217

 Until this year, emphasis has not been placed on using data to guide instruction.
Now Alpha Elementary is in the early stages of learning how to look at data
which will eventually lead to changes in the instructional decisions. Most of the
impetus to look at data is currently coming from the academic coach and county
consultant.
 Administration has not been stable for over four years. The current
superintendent/principal is in her second year at the district. The unstable
environment seems to have affected the teachers resulting in lack of trust, and
minimal focus on common goals for improving student outcomes. Her easy going
approach appears to be working; the school grew 20 API points this year. It will
take time to implement all the elements needed for improvement.
 Professional development is supposed to occur every Wednesday however, until
this year the internal capacity from teachers or administration was not there to
provide proven strategies and review data or implementation of instructional
strategies. This year staff development is being provided from the county office
of education to assist with the development of to pacing calendars and eventually
develop benchmark assessments.
 Alpha Elementary is utilizing the categorical flexibility to maintain small class
sizes in the primary grades. Middle school grades also have smaller class sizes as
compared to other middle schools in other districts due to the categorical
218

flexibility. However, in 2011-12 it is expected that the classes will grow once the
categorical flexibility ends.
Only the SES Program Improvement tutoring is allocated for providing
interventions for the large number of struggling learners. There are no other
resources available for the neediest students.

219

Future Considerations
Alpha Elementary did not receive the SIG funding needed to fully implement the
Transformation intervention model. Alpha elementary however, will be required to
demonstrate growth in API. The school will be on watch by the California
Department of Education for two more years. The school grew 20 API points in 2010
school year; however, they will continue to be a persistently low achieving school and
will continue to be in Program Improvement Year 5. The teachers and new
administration have made considerable gains in coming together and beginning to
trust one another for the betterment of the students. The principal indicated that there
is great work to be done with not only the teachers, but with the students as well. She
understands the need for additional resources such as: 1) additional on-site
instructional coaches to help teachers learn how to use data to improve instruction,
and 2) implementing with fidelity the standards-based curriculum to guarantee that
students will have the tools to demonstrate improvement. She is fully aware of the
limited resources her small district is receiving and all of the previously mentioned
resources require additional funding that the district is not able to provide. The
superintendent/principal indicated that she has great hope to stay for many years in
the district to provide stability for the community and that she will continue to
support her staff with the available resources provided to Alpha Elementary to
continue improving student performance.

220

APPENDIX I – BRAVO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on the School and District
Bravo Unified is a small rural district located in the Central Valley of California.
The population is predominately Hispanic and largely socio-economically disadvantaged.
Bravo Elementary is one of three elementary schools in a Unified District which is
further comprised of one junior high school, one comprehensive high school, two
alternative education schools, and a small adult school that serves approximately 4,045
students in grades K-12. Additionally, the school has a Dual Immersion Program in
Spanish and English and it serves 711 students in grades K-6.
Figure I.1 is a graph representing the distribution of Bravo‘s school population.
The ethnicities represented are Hispanic (90%), White (8%), American Indian (1%) and
American Indian (1%). Additionally, one hundred (100%) percent of the students are
categorized as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and sixty-three (63%) percent of
students classified as English Learners (EL).

221

Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Bravo Elementary School

The purpose of this case study is to identify the resource allocation and
instructional strategies utilized in efforts to raise student achievement at a persistently
low achieving school in Tulare County. It is important to focus on schools designated as
persistently low-achieving by the state of California because resource allocation is likely
to vary depending on which of the mandated school intervention models they opt to
implement. The four intervention models are: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model,
the School Closure Model, or the Transformation Model. These schools must use their
chosen model to substantially improve the academic performance of their students.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
For the last five years, Bravo Elementary School has experienced a decline in
student performance as measured by the scores on the California Academic Performance
Index (API). In the 2005/2006 school year, Bravo Elementary‘s API was 645 and 642,
90%
1%
8%
1%
Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown
Bravo Elementary
Hispanic
Asian
White
Other
222

635, 626 in the subsequent years. The school‘s most recent API score was 615, giving
the school a 30 point decrease in the five year period. Figure I.2 shows Bravo
Elementary School‘s API over the last five years. The 2008/09 scores are estimates
because there was a testing irregularity at the school that disallowed a full tally of API
score.
Figure I.2: Bravo Elementary School API

**2008-09 an adult irregularity in testing procedure – (estimation) school does not have a valid API
Overall, all the subgroups have experienced decreased scores as illustrated in
Figure I.3 and it appears that all subgroups had minimal growth over the five year period.
The English Learner (EL) subgroup had significant difference in the academic
performance indicating an achievement gap, when compared to all other subgroups. The
EL API scores are between 20 and 22 points lower than the other subgroups. There is
also a consistent downward trend from 2005 to 2009 with a total drop of 30 points. The
White subgroup is omitted from figure I.3 because only 27 students took the API test and
conclusions based on such a small subgroup are unwarranted.
600
620
640
660
645
642
635
626
615
API Score
Figure I.2 Bravo Elementary API Score,
2005-2010
223

Figure I.3: Bravo Elementary School API by Subgroups

**2008-09 Not Available for subgroup
Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
All the schools in this study have been designated as persistently low achieving and are in
program improvement Year 5. For Title I schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1. Test 95% of students in grades 2-11 and those in significant subgroups in English
Language Arts and mathematics utilizing the California Standards Test (CST).
2. Meet proficiency targets for all significant subgroups each year.
3. Meet or exceed an established minimum score on the school‘s overall Academic
Performance Index or show an increase from one year to the next. In 2009, the
minimum API score was 650.
4. Form an Alternative Governance Board (AGB) when it first enters Year 4 of
Program Improvement as part of the restructuring efforts. In this case the Board
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
API Score
Figure I.3: Bravo Elementary API by Subgroup,
2005-2010
Bravo School Wide
Hispanic/Latino
SED
English Learners
224

of Trustees formally designated an AGB which can implement reform changes to
schools in PI and governance to improve student academic achievement.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report shows a steady decline and remained
low for Bravo Elementary since 2005/06. Figure I.4 illustrates Bravo Elementary
School‘s Language Arts AYP for the subgroups. The AYP targets over the past five
years in English Language Arts have not been obtained in Language Arts by any of the
significant subgroups at the school. Bravo Elementary has not met school-wide targets of
proficient and advanced students in Language Arts. The White subgroup has shown
significant growth each year, however, it is a very small subgroup at this school with only
27 students taking the test and it is not considered numerically significant. The English
Learner (EL) subgroup is the school‘s lowest achieving subgroup and has not
demonstrated significant growth in the past five years. The Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged (SED) subgroup experienced a 0.9% decrease from 2005 to 2009.
Overall, the school has not demonstrated growth in regard to the number of students who
are achieving proficient and advanced classifications on the CSTs.

225

Figure I.4: Bravo Elementary School Language Arts AYP

Figure I.5 shows the math AYP for Bravo Elementary. Based on the AYP results,
math proficiency has experienced a downward pattern when compared to the language
arts scores. With the exception of the White subgroup, all subgroups experienced a
decline of 3% to 5% points during the last five school years in the percent of students
who are proficient or advanced.

5
15
25
35
45
55
% Proficent and Advanced
Figure I.4: Bravo Elementary Percent English
Language Proficient and Advanced (AYP) by
Subgroup, 2005-2010
Bravo Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
226

Figure I.5: Bravo Elementary School Math AYP

California Standards Tests
Bravo Elementary has struggled to demonstrate improvement in the academic areas
assessed by the California Standards Tests (illustrated in Figure I.6). In the last five
years, overall proficiency in English Language Arts has declined from about 18.4% in
2005/06 to 16.4% in 2009/10. Mathematics achievement at the school appears to be
similar to Language Arts at Bravo Elementary. The percent of proficient students in the
mathematics CSTs has declined from about 40.2% in 2005/06 to 30.0% in 2009/10. The
sole increase in achievement during this time period was in the Science CST.

20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure I.5: Bravo Elementary Percent Proficient and
Advanced Math AYP by Subgroup, 2005-2010
Bravo Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
227

Figure I.6: Bravo Elementary School CST Results By Subject

Key Elements and Themes in the Improvement Process
The current principal is in her first year at Bravo Elementary and was hired from
the adjacent larger district to replace the previous principal who had been at Bravo
Elementary for thirteen years, eight as principal and five as teacher. The tradition at this
small rural community had been to promote the talent from within. The hiring of the
current principal represents the beginning of the new reform efforts but consistent with
the district‘s reputation as a progressive, forward-thinking district. An example is that
nine years ago, the district was one of the first in the area to establish a dual immersion
program in two of their three elementary sites. The program has expanded to the middle
school, where a class of students takes some core academic classes such as social studies
taught in Spanish.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure I.6: Bravo Elementary CST Results by
Subject, 2005-2010
ELA
Mathematics
Social Science
Science
228

Another example of the district‘s forward-thinking approach was that in the fall of
2007, it developed a strategic district-wide plan which established performance-based
education. This comprehensive approach to learning is focused on the entire educational
system being organized around engaging students in developing 21st century skills while
concurrently emphasizing their performance level and advancing through the learning
only when they have demonstrated proficiency of the required knowledge or skills.
In order to understand the reform approach selected for Bravo Elementary, it is
necessary to understand the contemporary district context. The strategic district-wide
plan approved the implementation of the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition (RISC)
approach to schooling in 2009 to take place over a three-year period to allow for the a
smoother district-wide transition. RISC is an approach to education that represents a
dramatic shift in the educational process toward the implementation of district-wide
improvement efforts. The RISC approach is the first comprehensive school reform
framework set up as a performance-based system rather than time-based system. The
Standards-Based Design is the core of RISC‘s distinctive approach to the teaching and
learning process and specifies what students will learn, how they will learn it, how they
will be assessed, and how their performance will be reported. In a traditional system,
time is the constant and learning is the variable. However, in a RISC system, learning is
the constant and time is the variable. Students move at their own pace, which honors
natural developmental differences.
229

Despite the district‘s clear vision for the future through its district-wide plan,
Bravo Elementary has experienced a steady decline in its overall academic performance
and in the State and Similar Schools Ranking each year since 2005. This, in turn,
prompted the School Board to make unprecedented changes for the school in the 2009/10
school year. Some of the contributing factors for the changes included the recent
designation of persistently low achieving due to the lack of growth, in which the school
applied for the School Improvement Grant (SIG). Fortunately for the district, Bravo
Elementary is now the only school in the county to be granted almost three million
dollars to implement one of intervention models previously mentioned under SIG. In
keeping with the progressive, forward-thinking theme, the School Board selected the
Turnaround Intervention Model mainly due to issues of lack of leadership and teacher
ineffectiveness which are key elements in the Turnaround model.
The principal stated that Bravo Elementary is under scrutiny from multiple
interested parties, including the district office, the AGB, and the California Department
of Education to demonstrate school-wide improvement. The new principal is aware that
effective implementation of the intervention plan to revitalize school-wide morale and
post considerable increases in student achievement across all subgroups will be
challenging. She recognizes that it is difficult to improve the academic performance but
believes she has the necessary support from the district to implement the improvement
strategies delineated in the SIG grant proposal for the next three years. She believes that
is necessary to recognize the individual strengths of teachers while creating a positive
230

learning environment for analyzing the data that drives all of the decision-making at the
school. In analyzing the principal and school‘s efforts in this venture, this case study will
utilize the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as an
organizing framework and evaluate the degree of implementation of each strategy and
how it relates to improving student outcomes.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. Bravo
Elementary has been in Program Improvement (PI) since 2003/04 and it is now in Year 5
of Program Improvement since 2007/08. The new principal is aware of the steps taken
prior to her arrival at the school which will assist her in the implementation of the SIG
intervention model. After being formally designated as a persistently low achieving
school, the district leadership team conducted meetings with the staff at Bravo
Elementary to gather evidence and data to discern which intervention model would be
most appropriate for the school. Among the key findings from the analysis related to
understanding the performance challenge at the school were:
 Student achievement peaked in 2006 and has steadily declined for the past three
years and is low in all content areas
 Not enough students were given extra time in a number of interventions offered
by the school and they were slow to start with only few students participating
 Directives from the district data chats were implemented slowly with little
effectiveness
 Grade levels that regularly collaborated provided consistent standards-based
instruction and demonstrated best results on local assessments
 Student performance on local and state assessment was impacted by the fact that
instructional pacing and planning was not effective until November 2009
 Many professional development opportunities were offered over the past five
years but the follow-thought and coaching in many of the staff development
efforts was not consistent until the beginning of November 2009
231

 Literacy instruction was not monitored nor was literacy a key expectation prior to
the district mandate prior to the fall of 2009
 The state adopted math program is not implemented with fidelity
 A major writing campaign was implemented beginning in November 2009
 Data analysis sessions of local assessment results were consistently conducted
beginning in the fall 2009. Prior to that, the data analysis sessions were
inconsistent and did not improve student learning
 School culture and disagreements with the previous principal and certain district
and site staff members negatively impacted learning

After a careful analysis of all data by district leadership, along with the AGB,
study of the findings and a thorough process of gathering input from all stakeholders, the
district concluded that the findings were centered directly on leadership inadequacies and
teacher ineffectiveness, and therefore selected the Turnaround Model. The model allows
the district to remove the principal, and re-hire only fifty (50%) percent of the staff, offer
financial incentives linked to teacher performance, restructure the school governance to
give more district oversight, implement a standards-based program, increase learning
time, implement effective staff development, and improve teacher collaboration. All
these items were considered essential to turning the school‘s academic achievement
around. The selection process included three staff meetings, two meetings with parents,
two formal public hearings, and hours of deliberation at the Governing Board level.
The sections below outline some elements of the alternative governance plan and
Turnaround Intervention Model plan. The accountability system assigns schools a state
and similar school ranking yearly based on annual CST results. Bravo Elementary has
been in the bottom half of the state‘s ranking system since 2005. The decline in relevant
tests and scores in the bottom five percent have had consequences in the school‘s similar
232

ranking and statewide rankings of a 1 out of 10. Its continued lack of improvement has
led to Bravo Elementary‘s designation as a persistently low achieving school.
The principal mentioned that after she was selected by the school board to be the
new principal, she was given substantial flexibility over the selection of teachers that
would remain at the site, as well as all the school budgets. She was given access to CST
data, local assessments data, and access to EduSoft and Cruncher to determine individual
teacher performance. EduSoft, a subscription-based, standards-aligned student data
management system that allows teachers to review, manipulate, identify which areas the
students are struggling and succeeding. The data provided by EduSoft is presented in a
format that is easy for teachers to analyze. Cruncher is a subscription-based program
which provides detail information for individual teachers with class profiles of strengths
in cluster areas assessed on the CST.
Based on the previous information and analysis of the staff, she removed fourteen
teachers by either transferring them to other schools or not reelecting those who were not
permanent. She believes that because she was new to the site and community without
prior personal connections with the staff, she was able to be objective and focus more
accurately on the necessary steps to ensure implementation of the Turnaround
Intervention Model.
The principal highlighted that the AGB has provided her with constant support
during weekly walkthroughs and district commitment by maintaining focus on student
learning. After each walkthrough, data is collected and it provides immediate feedback
233

to the teachers. This feedback that is being provided supports the school-wide efforts to
use student data to make changes to the curriculum. The principal recognizes the value
of data use and she is already identifying areas in which it is making a difference in
teachers‘ instruction and student achievement.
Setting Ambitious Goals. The principal noted that the district moved to a
performance-based system in the fall of 2007 due to a noticeable failure of the traditional
grading system to address the student needs. There are many reasons for the failure.
First, the principal admits that Bravo Elementary has not taken the district goals and
incorporated them into the school culture. She understands the challenge but she stated
that she has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the school will adhere to those
ambitious goals set by the district by embracing them as school goals.
A second but equally crucial and interrelated component, according to the
principal is that many students have not taken ownership of their education and are not
fully engaged in the educational system. The principal believes that students must be
ready to compete in a global society when they leave the district. The performance-based
approach is designed to meet student needs through rigor, relationships, relevance, and by
helping them take responsibility for their own learning. The principal also stated that it is
crucial for the school to clearly define what is expected of the students at each content
level, as well as the criteria to achieve proficiency on each standard at each level. The
school and district are creating a system in which the students partner with their teachers
to reach that proficiency.
234

As a result of the Turnaround Intervention Model, the principal has the authority
to use the teacher evaluation system to ensure adherence of the ambitious goals at the
school. The district negotiated with union members to incorporate the use of a rubric
system that defines levels of performance for teachers. The four levels; distinguished –
4; proficient – 3; needs to improve -2; unsatisfactory -1 will be utilized each year in the
formal evaluation system.
Teachers are expected to ensure that every student in their class makes at least one
year‘s growth in one year‘s time in order to receive a proficient rating on the evaluation.
There is great expectation for improvement school-wide and among subgroups. With
respect to the API goal, it is expected that second to sixth grade will attain the state API
targets for the school. The CELDT goal is that is for EL students to advance at least one
performance level each year. As for the CST goal, the objective is for ten percent (10%)
or more students to reach proficient or advanced level for ELA and Math. The ambitious
learning goals for kinder and first grades, will be based on DRA, a local assessment and
local benchmarks where fifty (50%) of the students will attain a level 3 (minimum
proficiency level expected of all students in the district).
Two years of overall unsatisfactory performance ratings due to failures of
individual teachers to meet the above-mentioned goals will result in the respective
teachers having their salary frozen and further disciplinary actions. For those teachers
meeting the established goals, a reward system is provided by SIG funding. Financial
awards in the amount of $3,000 per teacher will be given to an entire grade level for
235

exceeding or meeting the goals outlined above. School-wide awards will be sponsored
by the SIG funding if the school-wide goals are attained. Unsatisfactory performance
evaluations will result in ineligibility for any performance awards.
Additionally, the principal has worked with teachers to use the ―bread ‗n butter‖
strategies provided by Denis Parker in the Strategic Schooling Model, which is a set of
strategies geared toward school improvement. One such strategy targets 2-3 students per
month in their classes who are on the verge of reaching proficient. The added focus and
academic and social attention, it is hoped, will ensure the transition to the proficient level.
The selected students have test chats based on past year‘s data with the teacher and the
principal and discuss what they will work on to get to the next performance level. The
test chat strategy presented by Dennis Parker is supposed to help students understand
expectations in order to get to the next performance level in the CST‘s.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. The new
principal shared that one main reason she took the position in the district was due to the
new and innovative district-wide changes. The district has adopted a guaranteed and
viable curriculum that is based on the California state standards, aligned to the state
assessment blueprints, and organized into units of study referred to as ―measurement
topics.‖ The development of the measurement topics was completed under the guidance
of Dr. Robert Marzano and has undergone several revisions since it was first piloted
during the 2008/2009 school year. The purpose of such a curriculum is to ensure there is
focused and strategic instruction across the district on specific areas of knowledge and
236

skill that are aligned to the state standards and to assess such learning in a manner that
guarantees every student will master the desired skills. The system of a guaranteed and
viable curriculum organized in a measurement topic format provides a way for teachers
to keep track of the progress of individual students on each measurement topics using a
teacher designed formal and informal assessments as well as district summative
assessments. A set of K – 12 measurement topics was designed in ELD, math, language
arts, science and social studies.
Bravo Elementary has state-approved core materials using McMillan/McGraw
Treasures/Tesoros for Language Arts and Scott Foresman and Head/Pollet for Math that
are standards-aligned and that provide resources to assist in the differentiation of
instruction through the use of data. The principal is aware of Bravo Elementary‘s five-
year downward achievement trend and believes this is likely due to watered-down
curriculum and a lack of fidelity in the utilization of approved core materials.
In addition, the principal emphasized the use of technology as an important
component to improving instruction. Classrooms were set up with technology that makes
it easy for teachers to present information in a variety of ways and for student interaction.
During the first year of SIG implementation one hundred (100) computers were
purchased for use in the classroom at the school and laptop computer provided with the
latest instructional software. The classrooms are also equipped with a document camera.
Using the SIG money, Bravo Elementary has implemented a computer lab that provides
access to a variety of computer software to support the core academic areas.
237

Data-based Decision Making. The principal stated that she was very
comfortable using data and believes this requires dedicated time and effort because she
sees it as the single most important element to make changes to improve student
outcomes. She believes that several years of individual teacher results make it evident
that the teachers did not use data to guide their instruction. When she asked teachers to
bring the CST results for their students to the early-release Wednesday, they had a
difficult time locating the data. Most teachers were not aware why the school was
designated as persistently low achieving or what program improvement status meant to
the school or district. Given the almost non-existent level of data knowledge among
teachers, the principal set about working to immerse the staff in an environment in which
data was the driver of all decisions to guide instruction.
District personnel and members of the AGB conduct weekly walkthroughs and
they oversee the principal to ensure that the Turnaround model is being implemented at
the school. The principal has to report to the district on a weekly basis using data from
each teacher and summary of the strategies being utilized in the classrooms and school-
wide. The principal uses EduSoft and Cruncher to identify the areas where students are
struggling and assist the teachers with the data. EduSoft and Cruncher allow teachers to
access and review their students‘ assessment and demographic data. Student results on
benchmarks and other common assessments can be scanned into EduSoft for immediate
analysis by the teachers. The benchmarks tests are administered three times per year. In
addition to the district benchmarks, teachers are also assessing students with formative
238

assessments and they are reviewed in the grade-level meetings. Since the staff
participated in the Dennis Parker, Strategic Schooling Model, the staff is able to analyze
CST scores and is beginning to conduct test chats with students. Students are adjusting to
the data culture, where they are expected to know their performance level from the past
year‘s results.
The principal feels very comfortable and well-versed in a variety of monitoring
systems she utilized in her previous district and state. She is committed to ensuring that
teachers also gain that comfort level as they use several sources of data used to monitor
student progress and make changes to their daily instruction. During early-release
Wednesdays, the principal and resource teachers have spent time training the teachers to
use EduSoft and Cruncher. The principal also stated that in addition to analysis of CST
data, local formative assessments are also analyzed on a weekly basis. The school is
focused on following the district‘s strategic plan, focusing on standards-based
performance, using academic language school-wide, as well helping students learn across
core subjects. The principal conducts weekly walkthroughs in the classrooms to monitor
implementation of standards-based curricula and student learning. Grade-level teams
meet every week to discuss curriculum, samples of student work, and selecting students
for the test chats.
Ongoing Professional Development. Bravo Elementary participated in the
professional development sponsored by the county office in the summer for a three day
training with Dennis Parker where he modeled lessons and demonstrated strategies that
239

work with all students and especially with EL students using the Strategic Schooling
Model (SSM).
The goal is to reverse the status-quo of low achievement by disadvantaged
students at underperforming schools by redirecting the school toward successful
outcomes. Strategic Schooling Model is organized into domains. Based on the model,
any school can improve by having clearer, well established targets, frequent feedback; a
more supportive, and functional environment in which to operate.
In addition to the Strategic Schooling Model, the district personnel and principal
provide staff development not only during the summer but during the early-release
Wednesdays. The staff development topics included: a review of the adopted Treasures
Anthology, Head Pollet Math, Write from the Beginning, and Strategies to differentiated
instruction, data analysis and planning instruction to meet individual student needs, and
utilizing technology in the classroom.
In addition to the above, the principal is confident that through the
implementation of professional learning communities designed by the Re-Inventing
Schools Coalition (RISC), and through the use of weekly collaboration time, teachers will
become highly trained to deliver an effective instructional program that will meet
individual needs and improve student achievement which is absolutely necessary to
sustain long term success.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively. Bravo Elementary made modifications to
their school schedule as part of the Turnaround Intervention Model. The regular
240

instructional day has been extended by one hour per day for all students. SIG funding
will cover the extra hour and benefits that will have to be added to the teacher‘s salary.
There is also a specific instructional schedule that is followed throughout the school; 1.5
hours of math (2
nd
-6
th
), 2.5 hours of English Language Arts; .5 hours of English
Language Development; 1 hour of Science, 1 hour of History/Social Science, and .5
hours of Physical Education.
After participating in the Strategic Schooling Model training and Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) and RISC training, the principal explained that the
classroom time must be optimized for student learning. The Turnaround Intervention
Model seeks to differentiate the curriculum for all students. The PLC includes the RISC
training which a focus for all schools in the district remains. Additionally, it is essential
to implement Universal Access (UA). This consists of a thirty-minute block of time
during language arts time which entails pulling-out small groups of students who have
not reached level 3 proficiency to re-teach and clarify the material on the assessments or
units of study. UA time is strictly connected to using data to determine which students
need to be pulled-out for small group instruction. These were examples given by the
principal as evidence that the school is working daily toward the implementation of the
strategies under the Strategic Schooling Model and the strategic district-wide plan which
establishes a performance-based education.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students. In addition to the extra hour
for all students during the day, selected students will receive an additional hour after
241

school of intervention instruction to target specific areas of need for those selected
students. Classroom teachers provide the support that was provided to struggling
students after school utilizing individual performance data. One of the after-school
interventions being implemented is the Imagine Learning lab. EL students struggling to
meet the one CELDT level of growth in proficiency were invited to participate in the
after-school intervention. Most of the EL students participating are upper-grade students.
The principal is waiting to get data on the effectiveness of the computer program to
determine if the school needs to expand the intervention program to include additional
EL students from the primary grades.
The reading teacher is assisting the staff by working with small groups of students
struggling in the core subjects and helping them by re-teaching concepts and filling in the
gaps. The reading teacher also provides instruction after school with ―below basic‖ and
―far below basic‖ students. The reading teacher models guided reading and literacy
instruction in the classroom for teachers that need extra support in those specific areas.
The reading teacher conducts all Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and reviews
results with the classroom teachers.
Struggling students at Bravo Elementary have a number of extended learning
opportunities available to them during the day and afterschool. Schools in Program
Improvement Year 2 and beyond are required under NCLB to offer tutoring after school
for students that qualify for the National School Lunch Program and are struggling to
meet state standards. The principal stated that most students do not participate in this
242

type of NCLB tutoring because they are staying in the school‘s afterschool intervention
programs. Additionally, Bravo Elementary provided a very small summer school
program the previous summer. However, the opportunity was only extended to those
students in the Migrant Education program. The district was not able to offer summer
school due to the financial crisis and categorical flexibility offered by the state to the
district which allowed the district to utilize the summer school money in other critical
areas.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. With respect to
current culture at the school, the principal is working toward creating an environment of
distributed leadership to the greatest extent possible but recognizes that this might not be
readily apparent to the teachers because of the need to enforce the elements of the
Turnaround Intervention Model. There are inherent obstacles she must face with the
existing staff as the principal who replaced the previous one and released fourteen
teachers. There are definite unspoken barriers between her and the staff, due to her
authority to fully implement the elements of the Turnaround Intervention Model. The
principal emphasized that she does not have many opportunities to ask teachers for their
input in the implementation of the Turnaround Intervention Model because the plan and
goals do not have room for modification and must be followed as written. Unfortunately,
as the principal noted, implementation of standards-based performance school with high
expectations for student learning often translates into a cold business environment, rather
than a warm, friendly, and all-inclusive one. She is hopeful that once the school exits the
243

persistently low-achieving status, she will be able to demonstrate to the teachers that she
is a nice person who simply wants what is best for the all students.
The principal indicated that her leadership style is well-suited to adherence and
implementation of the elements of the Turnaround Intervention Model. When visiting
the classrooms she looks for learning objectives and that standards are displayed in the
classrooms. The principal realizes that the elements of the Turnaround Intervention
Model will take time to fully implement and continuous focus will bring about more
results. She meets with teachers on a regular basis to discuss what she is observing in the
classroom and provide the teachers with honest feedback.
The principal admitted that it is a stressful time for all staff members due to level
of rigor that it is expected to be in all the lessons. In the face of the drastic steps taken
with the implementation of the Turnaround Intervention Model, staff development
Wednesdays have proven to be essential time for teachers to analyze data and reflect on
current practices. With the support of reading teacher and two additional academic
coaches and Professional Learning Communities in place, the principal is confident that
the school is on the way to ―turning around‖ its declining achievement pattern and also
provide students the skills need to succeed.
Inspiring a Professional Organization. The principal believes that collecting
data and understanding how to utilize this data to make daily decisions in the classroom
are both essential to bringing about change. The principal stated she is also aware that
much of the challenge is ensuring that the data is analyzed and that there is follow-though
244

by modifying classroom instruction based on the data. The principal models the behavior
and teaching techniques she expects teachers to implement in the classroom to help
students access the curriculum.
The principal indicated that creating a trusting environment during staff
development is essential for change to become permanent but understands that it will take
time for teachers with this approach. As an instructional leader she acknowledges the
need to model the Dennis Parker ―bread ‗n butter‖ strategies whenever possible. During
grade level meeting she expects teachers to keep minutes and a data log to document the
student progress as they implement the elements in the Turnaround Intervention Model.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. Having the designation of a
persistently low achieving and underperforming school makes it difficult to recruit high
quality teachers; especially since she had to release half of her staff and hand select the
remaining teachers. As with any program improvement school subject to sanctions,
recruitment of high quality teachers is essential for creating a high performing school.
The implementation of the Turnaround Intervention Model has made it difficult to
address talent within the staff due to the urgency of changing the way teachers present the
curriculum and how they are using the data to make the appropriate changes.
The principal mentioned that the reading teacher is currently in an administrative
training program. The principal encourages all her teachers to participate in district
trainings and continue to gain experience working with a variety of teachers and district
administrators.
245

Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table I.1 is a summary of how Bravo Elementary implemented the 10 steps that
were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student performance.

Table I.1: Bravo Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies
Instructional Strategies Instructional Strategies Instructional Strategies

Strong
(5)
Above
Average
(4)
Average
(3)
Minimal
(2)
Not
Observe
d (1)
Notes
Analyzing the Data and
Understanding the Performance
Challenge
√
New principal‘s emphasis on data analysis and understanding of the performance challenge
provide a good start for the school. Principal has vision and high expectations to address the
performance problem.
Set ambitious goals √
The Turnaround Intervention Model clearly details the ambitious goals that must be
implemented. The staff was selected by new principal and they understand the goals for
improvement. The principal understands the urgency to establish ambitious goals and is leading
the teachers, and students to set them as well.
Implementing an Effective
Curriculum & Instructional
Program
√
Teachers are collaborating every Wednesday and are now focusing on proven strategies to help
struggling students. More teachers are implementing re-teaching strategies
Data-Based Decision Making √
The teachers are using the EduSoft, Cruncher, benchmarks, DRA assessments to monitor
student progress and most are making changes to instruction when needed. The school needs to
increase the rigor and continue modifying benchmark tests.
Ongoing Professional
Development
√
The principal has a clear focus on the professional development (PD) goals. The
implementation and delivering occurs every Wednesday. The principal and resource teachers
have specific topics and activities that are covered in the PD schedule.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
√
Teachers are working together and leveling students. Use of reading teacher to provide
additional opportunities for interventions.
Providing Interventions for
Struggling Students
√
SIG money provided additional hour for extended learning/instruction. EduSoft and Cruncher
systems are providing the data to strengthen interventions
Creating Collaborative Cultures &
Distributed Leadership
√
Due to the recent restructuring of teachers and dismissal of previous principal stipulated in the
Turnaround Intervention Model the new principal has not been able to establish a collaborative
culture nor distributed leadership. 246

Table I.1, Continued
Inspiring a Professional
Organization
√
Principal has experience in the instructional strategies needed to promote change, she models them
well, and is attempting to create an environment where teachers take responsibility and are
accountable. However, due to the nature of her arrival at the school it will be a long process for the
principal to implement best practices and effective instructional strategies.
Addressing Talent & Human
Capital Issues
√
At this time due to the restructuring and intervention model being implemented training programs
are available. Half of the previous staff was released along with previous administrator. The
current focus is on implementation of research-based instructional strategies in the classroom.
247
248

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Bravo Elementary is 1.65 times the size described for the prototypical elementary
school detailed in the Evidence-Based Model, where Bravo has 711 students and the
prototype has 432. Class sizes at Bravo are larger than what the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM) calls for implementation. SIG funding is providing funding for an extra hour of
instruction for all students. SIG funding is also providing additional support staff to
assist teachers and assist struggling learners throughout the day. Table I.2 shows a
comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM through a prototypical school and the
actual resource allocation at Bravo Elementary. Table I.2: Bravo Elementary Resource
Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model

249

Table I.2: Bravo Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element Evidence-Based Model
– Prototypical School
School
Current Resource
Status
Difference
between school
and EBM
Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 711 Students

1.65 times the size
recommended by
the EBM.
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-6: 25 K-3:22; 4-6: 30
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180 instructional days
8 Training/staff dev
days
9.4 percent less
days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Exact match to
EBM
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE Principal 1.0 FTE Principal
1.0 FTE Asst. Principal
.35 FTE Asst.
Principal over the
EBM
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary
1.0 Clerk
0.6 Less
Secretary
0.6 Less Clerk
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers K-5; 24.0 FTE

32.0 FTE

7.5 FTE Less
Specialist Teachers K-5; 20% of core = 4.8

1.0 FTE (Reading
Teacher)
6.4 FTE
5.4 FTE Less
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
1 per 200 Students = 2.1 1 FTE; 3.5 FTE
2.5 FTE Less
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
711 Students of poverty
3 FTE Instructional
Aides
7. 1 FTE EBM
recommends
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
for every 100 EL
students
448 EL Students
0 Teachers

4.4 FTE Less
EBM
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 0.5 FTE (Testing clerk)

0.5 more FTE
250

Table I.2, Continued
Extended Day 1.8 FTE

All teachers are adding
1 extra hour to
instruction
2.96 FTE

Summer School 1.8 FTE
432/240=
No Summer School
only Migrant Summer
for limited number of
Migrant students
2.96 FTE EBM
Recommends
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions-
1.5 FTE (psychologist
0.5, RSP 1.0 FTE)
4.8 FTE
3.3 FTE less
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
None at this school site
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
personnel resources and
special education
personnel

Total $25,700 budgeted
for total # of Subs used
is 257
32 teachers x 10
days 320
$95 daily sub rate
= $30,400; --
$4,700 less than
EBM
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
711 Students of poverty
1 FTE
Attendance/Health
Liaison
3.0 FTE counselors
provided by Healthy
Star Grant
7.1 FTE - Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM 3.1 FTE Less
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 2.0 FTE and RSP aides
1.0
The EBM
recommends these
positions be
eliminated
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE ; 2 per 400-
500 Students
2.06 FTE = Health
Clerk
3.2 FTE
1.14 FTE Less
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 1 FTE Media/Library
Clerk – not certificated)
1.6 FTE

251

Table I.2, Continued
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student 0 $17,775
Technology $250 per pupil $100,000 – SIG funding
are used to supplement
technology
$177,750 EBM
recommends
$77,750 Less
Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil $84,527 categorical
money
$99,540 EBM
recommends
$15,013 Less
Student Activities $200 per pupil $15,000 SIG funding $142,200 Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM.
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of school budget
as allocated by PI status
$50,676.00 and SIG
funding 25,000
$71,100 EBM

Summary and Lessons Learned
Over the last five years Bravo Elementary has not had any sustained overall
progress as measured by the school‘s performance on state tests and Academic
Performance Index as well as on CSTs. After analyzing the results and current school
designation as persistently low achieving and underperforming status in greater detail the
following items stand out:
 Most subgroups have not improved in both ELA and Math proficiency, with the
English Learner subgroup consistently performing at the lowest level. As a result
the principal has established test chats with English Learner students to motivate
them and encourage them to challenge themselves for the 2010-11 school year.
252

 The principal acknowledge the school‘s low scores in Language Arts and Math
and discovered that teachers were not using the adopted curriculum. She provided
training for the entire staff in the adopted curriculum to make sure teachers will
utilize with fidelity the adopted curriculum in the classroom.
 The principal acknowledged the school‘s low scores in Language Arts and Math
and she is confident that implementing the strategies approved in the Turnaround
Improvement Model with fidelity will result in positive student outcomes. It will
be interesting to see whether the school can reach the set goals established to
improve student achievement.
 Bravo Elementary is using Educate; the district's web-based system for tracking
learning for all K-12 students and benchmark data using EduSoft and Cruncher to
drive instructional decisions on a weekly basis. The principal and two newly
hired math and language arts coaches participated in training to become better at
analyzing data and now they are providing training in this area during early-
released Wednesday‘s.
 SIG funding has provided funding for upgrading the technology school-wide at
Bravo Elementary. Now teachers have access to document cameras, a laptop for
each teacher, and minimum of six computers in each classroom.
Future Considerations
Bravo Elementary applied for SIG funding and was the only school selected in the
county to receive almost three million dollars to implement an intervention model.
253

The Turnaround Intervention Model, is the most difficult to implement out the four
intervention models because it replaces not only the principal but half the staff. The
school must demonstrate growth in API for the next three years. The school has had
a downward trend losing 30 API points since 2005/06. The school will continue to be
a persistently low achieving school and will be closely monitored by CDE.
The principal indicated that although she has observed instructional changes in
the classrooms being implemented by teachers there is significant amount of work to
be done. The monthly walkthroughs conducted by the AGB confirms that for the
most part instructional strategies are being implemented in classrooms. The
professional development calendar approved by the state is being implemented;
however, a small number of teachers are not applying rigor to their lessons as
required in Turnaround Intervention Model. She is currently working to implement
additional strategies listed in Turnaround Intervention Model: 1) implementation of
accelerated reader, 2) implementation of Imagine Learning for the ELD students that
will participate in Saturday interventions in early spring, and 3) adding more after-
school interventions in the intermediate grades.

254

APPENDIX J – CHARLIE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on the School and District
Charlie Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in an
urban elementary school district in Tulare County. This school is on a traditional
schedule and houses 511 students. This urban school district which spans 214 square
miles with a population base of over 135,000, consists of 24 elementary schools, a
newcomer language center, four middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, an
adult school, a charter alternative academy, and a charter independent study school.
There are approximately 28,000 students attending schools throughout the district.
Charlie Elementary is a community-based school that opened its doors in 1980 and has
26 permanent classrooms, a computer lab, a library, and multi-purpose room.
Figure J.1 is a graph of the ethnic composition of Charlie Elementary‘s student
population which includes students from diverse ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic
status. The ethnic distribution of ethnicities, from largest to smallest, are Hispanic
(79%), Asian (12%), White (6%), African American (2%), and American Indian (2%).
Two other demographic factors are relevant for this study. First, fifty-six (56%) percent
of students have been identified as English Learners and second, one hundred (100%)
percent of students are categorized as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED).

255

Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown – Charlie Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify the resource allocation and
instructional strategies utilized at this school in its efforts to raise student achievement
after being designated a persistently low achieving school in Tulare County. Resource
allocation is especially important in schools such as these, who because of their
designation as persistently low-achieving, have been mandated by the state of California
to implement one of four school intervention models in the school improvement process.
The range of educational reform options that these schools have to select from can be
classified into four intervention models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the
School Closure Model, or the Transformation Model. These schools are faced with using
their chosen model to substantially improve the academic performance of their students.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
79%
14%
6%
1%
Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown
Charlie Elementary
Hispanic
Asian
White
Other
256

For the past five years, Charlie Elementary has experienced sporadic gains and
losses in its student performance as measured by the school‘s California Academic
Performance Index (API). As Figure J.2 shows below, in the 2005/2006 school year,
Charlie Elementary‘s API score was 590, with a slight drop in API to 583, then a marked
improvement to 636, followed by a 12 point drop to 614 with a modest 9 point gain to
623 in the most recent year for which there is data. The total growth in this five year
period was 33 points, but it is unclear whether the subsequent year will follow the pattern
of a drop in API following some positive growth.
Figure J.2: Charlie Elementary School’s API

The Academic Performance Index for all students and subgroups at Charlie
Elementary has had an uneven overall trend in student performance over the past five
years (Figure J.3). The school-wide overall API has increased by 33 points, climbing
from 590 in 2005/06 to 623 in 2009/10. The alternating pattern of growth and decline in
overall student performance is a reflection of the inconsistent growth among school
subgroups. As it has been pointed out, a drop occurred in API in 2006/07 and then again
550
600
650
590
585
635
614 623
API Score
Figure J.2 Charlie Elementary API Score,
2005-2010
257

in 2008/09. The English Learner subgroup has increased the most in overall API over the
past five years, with a gain of 41 points.
Figure J.3: Charlie Elementary Academic Performance Index,

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
All of the schools in this study are in program improvement Year 5 and beyond and
have been designated as persistently low achieving. For Title I schools in California,
AYP requires schools to:
1. Test 95% of students in grades 2-11 and those in significant subgroups in English
Language Arts and mathematics utilizing the California Standards Test (CST).
2. Meet proficiency targets for all significant subgroups each year.
555
565
575
585
595
605
615
625
635
645
API Score
Figure J.3: Charlie Elementary API by Subgroup,
2005-2010
Charlie School Wide
Hispanic/Latino
SED
English Learners
258

3. Meet or exceed an established minimum score on the school‘s overall Academic
Performance Index or show an increase from one year to the next. In 2009, the
minimum API score was 650.
4. Form an Alternative Governance Board (AGB) when it first enters Year 4 of
Program Improvement as part of the restructuring efforts. In the case of Charlie
Elementary, the district Board of Trustees did not formally designate an AGB
which could implement reform changes to schools to improve student academic
achievement. Instead, the Governing Board chose to bring an outside consultant
to provide technical assistance to the principal.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show minimal gains for Charlie
Elementary since 2005. Figure J.4 shows Charlie Elementary School’s language arts
AYP for various subgroups since 2005/06. The AYP targets over the past five years in
English Language Arts have not been reached by any of the significant subgroups and the
growth has been inconsistent. School-wide, Charlie Elementary has not demonstrated
growth in AYP and has not been able to increase the rate of proficient and advanced
students in language arts from its current level of 23%. While the White group
demonstrated some growth for three years, it is not a numerically significant subgroup.
The English Learner (EL) subgroup began with the lowest percentage of proficient or
advanced students in 2005/06 with only 10% and doubled its rate over the five-year
period to 21% proficient or advanced students in 2009/10. Overall, however, the school
259

has not demonstrated sufficient growth in regards to the number of students who are
achieving proficient and advanced classifications on the CSTs.
Figure J.4: Percent Proficient – Language Arts AYP

Figure J.5 illustrates the math AYP for Charlie Elementary. Based on the AYP
results there is uneven growth in the rates of proficiency in math. There was some
growth in the 2007/08 school year where all of the school‘s significant subgroups
demonstrated growth at 5% in proficient and advanced students. However, during the
2008/09 school year there was a 3% loss in growth across all subgroups. Despite the
demonstrated growth of six percentage points in math proficiency in 2010, it was not
sufficient to meet AYP.

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% Proficent and Advanced
Figure J.4: Charlie Elementary Percent English
Language Proficient and Advanced (AYP) by
Subgroup, 2005-2010
Charlie Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
260

Figure J.5: Percent Proficient – Math AYP

California Standards Tests
Charlie Elementary has struggled to demonstrate consistent improvement in the
academic areas assessed by the California Standards Tests (illustrated in Figure J.6).
Over the past five years, overall proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) has only
grown from about 9.8 percent in 2005/06 to 24.6% in 2009/10. Science scores at the
school improved relative to Math with an increase from 0% in 2005/06 to 22% in
2009/10 but these gains are still not sufficient to meet state standards.
Mathematics achievement at the school appears to be slightly higher than in ELA
and science. The percent of proficient students on the mathematics CSTs in 2009/10 was
32.8% with a growth of 6.8 percentage points from the previous year.

15
20
25
30
35
40
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure J.5: Charlie Elementary Percent Proficient
and Advanced Math AYP by Subgroup, 2005-2010
Charlie Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
261

Figure J.6: Charlie Elementary CST Results – All Students

Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process
As a Program Improvement Year 5 school designated as persistently low
achieving, Charlie Elementary is required to select one of the four intervention models
identified above. Charlie Elementary conducted an Academic Program Survey (APS) as
part of the process of choosing the most appropriate intervention model, which includes
the requisite nine Essential Program Components. The Nine Essential Program
Components (EPC), which address areas such as standards-aligned instructional
materials, use of pacing guides, and ongoing instructional support for teachers, are
incorporated in the Academic Program Survey and can be used to determine the school-
wide needs of the schools applying for SIG funds.
In August 2009, the K-6 district area superintendent along with the principal, and
district curriculum director reviewed the results of the APS. The principal also reviewed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure J.6: Charlie Elementary CST Results by
Subject, 2005-2010
ELA
Mathematics
Social Science
Science
262

the results with parent groups, certificated and classified staff and presented the
implications of each of the four intervention models. Additionally, the School Board was
presented with the APS results along with the recommendations from all stakeholders
where after reviewing and studying the four intervention models, it decided not to apply
for the School Improvement Grant money and thus not select any of the four intervention
models mandated by the California Department of Education.
The Governing Board is aware that schools opting not to apply for state funds
under the SIG continue to be under state monitoring due to the designation of persistently
low achieving. To address this concern the Governing Board made an unprecedented
recommendation to assign an assistant principal to support the improvement efforts of the
school and assist the principal. The Governing Board also recommended that the school
contract with an outside provider to receive assistance with staff development. Action
Learning Systems contracted with Charlie Elementary to provide staff development for
the principal and staff in the areas of effective classroom instruction and methods of
delivery in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
The current principal was appointed to Charlie Elementary in the fall of 2007; he
was a vice-principal for five years and a teacher for twelve years prior to his current
appointment. The principal admitted that Charlie Elementary‘s reputation as a ―rough
school‖ motivated him to interview for a different school within the district prior to
coming to Charlie Elementary. Administrators throughout the district are well-aware of
the veteran staff‘s resistance to change and low receptivity to suggestions and leadership.
263

In accepting the appointment, the principal stated that his superintendent
encouraged him to take this position as a worthwhile professional endeavor. The
principal also stated he believed that the additional resources and administrative support
would assist him to transform the campus into a school that would address the needs of
all students. The principal has worked with the staff by providing the necessary tools to
implement research-based instructional strategies; however, he admits he has been met
with resistance by some staff. The struggle continues daily although the school did show
a slight API growth during the 2009/10 school year.
The data above indicate that there was uneven improvement at Charlie
Elementary over the five-year period. In analyzing the principal and school‘s efforts in
this endeavor, this case study will utilize the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizing framework to evaluate the degree of
implementation of each strategy and how it relates to improving student outcomes as well
as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. The
principal stated that due to the school‘s persistently low achieving designation as
compared to the other twenty-three elementary schools in the district, the principal
indicated that one of the greatest challenges he faced in his attempt to incorporate change
was the sense of apathy that was embedded in the school culture. For years he stated that
the school has been considered one of the lowest performing schools in the district and
county.
264

Upon entering the school in August 2007, Charlie‘s principal concentrated his
efforts on getting to know the staff and getting a feel for the students while addressing
some of the minor instructional changes needed. Since over half of the student
population are English Learners, the principal focused on making sure ELD was taking
place for at least 30 minutes daily. After the low API and low AYP results from his first
year at the school, the principal admitted that he did not do an adequate job in monitoring
the staff to ensure that ELD was being implemented with fidelity.
The principal described all the assessment tools the district has in place such as
Edusoft assessments, Diagnostic Reading Assessments (DRA), Houghton Mifflin skill
assessments, district benchmark assessments, and district writing assessments which are
available for teachers to assist them in identifying the academic challenges facing the
students. However, the principal shared that he believed that even with all the data
available most teachers are making instructional decisions based on instinct rather than
relying on the data.
Setting Ambitious Goals. The principal stated that working with Action
Learning Systems as a provider for staff development has presented a set of clear goals
and focus not only for him, but also for the staff. Understanding that his veteran teachers
have been resistant to change, the principal has focused staff development on the
implementation of good classroom instruction. The teachers, in turn, have redirected
their focus to a school-wide implementation and modification of pacing calendars across
grade levels and effective and deliberate ELD instruction. Action Learning System
265

conducted walkthroughs with the principal several times a month to monitor the effective
delivery of the curriculum, especially for the EL students. The principal stated that it was
helpful for him to have an outside provider present the results of the walkthroughs to
identify the areas the entire staff needed further assistance. After the results of the
walkthroughs were shared, most staff members voluntarily ask for assistance to take
another look at the pacing calendars.
The principal also noted that the slow achievement growth among the high
percentage of EL students and results over the last five years prompted him to focus on
language acquisition and a majority of the teachers asked for additional assistance on
language acquisition promotion. The school is implementing LEXIA, a program that
provides students guided practice on basic reading skills and gives practice for those
skills they are struggling to master advances them to higher reading levels when the
students succeed. LEXIA allows struggling students to learn skills in sequence, build an
understanding, and prepare the students for the next skill. Data provided by LEXIA helps
the classroom teachers monitor the progress of struggling and EL students.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. Charlie
Elementary has state-approved core materials. They use Houghton Mifflin in Language
Arts and Houghton Mifflin for Math. Both are standards-aligned and provide resources
to assist in the differentiation of instruction through the use of data. However, the
principal and Action Learning System‘s consultant found that a significant number of
teachers were not using the pacing calendars accordingly. Some of the teachers are also
266

using supplementary materials and teacher-made materials which lack rigor and are not
aligned to standards.
The principal spoke very highly of the assistance provided by the district to the
school. He indicated that the district has 3.0 full-time curriculum specialists at the district
who work with alignment of the state standards with the curriculum to ensure that all
essential grade level standards are being provided to all schools. The curriculum
specialists develop curriculum maps for each core subject from K-11 to assist teachers in
pacing their lessons so that essential standards can be taught before assessing with the
CST. As previously mentioned, lack of resources or access to data has not been the issue.
The real issue has been the adjustment of teachers to use the data to make instructional
decisions and modify the delivery of the curriculum whenever it is needed.
Data-based Decision Making. Three times a year, teachers administer district
benchmarks in both math and language arts. The district has the resources to analyze
student achievement results on benchmark and common formative assessments available
in the district‘s web-based system, Edusoft. The principal noted that most of the
teachers are veterans and often do not take the time to go into EduSoft to access the
student assessment data. He admitted that the additional training from Action Learning
Systems to instruct him to have effective grade level meetings with teachers on a regular
basis to reflect on student progress and assist in modifying instruction, has been helpful.
The veteran teachers are struggling due to the amount of data available for their use and
some have shared with the principal that they are frustrated because of a perceived
267

conflict between the new results-oriented expectations and their creativity in teaching
students. This mentality from the veteran teachers is one that the principal is struggling
to change at Charlie Elementary.
Ongoing Professional Development. According to the principal for the
2009/2010 school year, there were district-wide professional development opportunities
to promote the effective implementation of the district‘s base educational program, a
focus on standards based instruction, curriculum mapping, effective literacy practices,
differentiation of instruction, assessment literacy, data driven decision making, and an
emphasis on English Language Development and cooperative learning and engagement
strategies. As previously stated, the principal acknowledged the variety of professional
development opportunities provided by the district supports the needs of teachers,
however, once the teachers attend the professional staff development training they do not
implement the new strategies in the classroom.
Additionally, Charlie Elementary teachers and administrators participated in two full day
professional development trainings with Action Learning Systems to learn about essential
elements of lesson development and effective classroom instruction. Each teacher was
given materials of the training at the beginning of school year to review and are expected
to discuss at early release Wednesday‘s.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively. Charlie Elementary made modifications
to the intermediate schedule to provide time for professional development to be
incorporated during the 2009/10 school year. The principal noted that the schedule is not
268

ideal, especially since the primary grades do not have an early release time for
collaboration. It is the first attempt to incorporate grade level student data discussions
amongst teachers.
The principal stated that to assist the primary grades the reading teacher is
working with them to assist during the ELD deployment time to pull small groups of
students in the beginning level of CELDT by helping them by re-teaching concepts and
filling in gaps. Students are grouped according their CELDT proficiency level and
immediately after the morning break, the students reported to their ELD teacher.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students. Struggling students at
Charlie Elementary have a number of extended learning opportunities available to them
afterschool. Schools in Program Improvement Year 2 and beyond are required to offer
tutoring after school for students qualifying for the National School Lunch Program that
are struggling to meet state standards. Several tutoring companies are providing
assistance to students at their homes, the community center, or public library.
The Resource Specialist (RSP) is provided by the district for 2 days a week. Her
emphasis is pulling students during a block of time that is less disruptive to the protected
Language Arts instructional time. The Reading Teacher provides assistance to students
struggling and needing intervention throughout the day in the reading classroom. The
reading teacher uses the district approved Response to Intervention (RtI) method to
identify students to come to her in the Reading classroom. Universal Access, the
assessment form developed by Houghton Mifflin is used to determine which students
269

have the greatest need for intervention. Once the students are identified they go through
the LEXIA intervention program. LEXIA provides students guided practice on basic
reading skills and gives practice for those skills they are struggling to master and
advances the students to higher reading levels when the students succeed. LEXIA allows
struggling students to learn skills in sequence, build an understanding, and prepares them
for the next skill.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. The principal,
along with Action Learning Systems, meets with the teachers to review the results of
assessments several times of month to develop the protocol needed to ensure that all
grade levels are utilizing the data available through EduSoft. The principal indicated that
the addition of an assistant principal provided by the district has given him more
flexibility during the past year to conduct daily walkthroughs as an intervention strategy.
He discusses his observations from walkthroughs when he meets with teachers and he
tries to provide constructive feedback geared to improve performance.
Additionally, Action Learning Systems has provided a much-needed focus to the
teachers‘ collaboration time. On Wednesdays, students are released one hour early from
school to allow for collaboration time. However, some grade levels continued to meet
and waste time when they do not discuss student data. The principal created a worksheet
for teachers to bring with them to discuss data, monitor student progress, and modify
classroom instruction. The principal stated that this was an area he will continue
monitoring.
270

Inspiring a Professional Organization. Charlie Elementary continues to
struggle with data analysis and minimal teacher collaboration. Working along Action
Learning Systems has provided the principal with skills that he utilizes daily to assist
teachers with classroom instruction. The principal is aware that much of the challenge is
ensuring that the data is analyzed and aligned to the state standards, ultimately helping to
meet the needs of all students. With the guidance of Action Learning Systems and the
principal, the staff has continued to work on their collaboration processes and procedures
through the Elements of Lesson Development. Utilization of the district assessments to
support instruction in the core curriculum as well as lessons that implement instructional
strategies will continue to be the focus for school improvement.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. Given that this is his fourth
year in a persistently low achieving school, the principal noted that he finds it difficult to
recruit teachers, but emphasized that it was critical that the school make every effort to
recruit the best possible candidates for its very needy student population. The principal
admitted that most of the teachers are veteran and have been accustom to low
expectations for students at the school. For the past year he tried to create a data-driven
environment where the staff takes personal responsibility for the learning of the students
using the information provided by the district and school. The principal is aware that this
process will take time to implement and he stated that he will be persistent and not give
up knowing that it will help the students.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
271

Table J.1 provides a summary of how Charlie Elementary implemented the 10
steps that were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student
performance.

Table J.1: Charlie Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies
Instructional Strategies Degree of Implementation

Strong
(5)
Above
Average
(4)
Average
(3)
Minimal
(2)
Not
Obser
ved
(1)
Notes
Analyzing the Data and
Understanding the Performance
Challenge
√
Assessment data has been available for teachers to analyze for several years along with district
approved pacing calendars and benchmarks. Veteran teachers at the school do not utilize the data
provided by the district to modify instruction.
Set ambitious goals √
The staff is working with Action Learning Systems to assist with research-based strategies. The
school has ambitious goals for the students but they are not implemented in every classroom. there
appears to be little in the way of specific goals relating to student performance objectives.
Implementing an Effective
Curriculum & Instructional
Program
√
District provides teachers with assessment data and benchmarks are given to students three times a
year. Teachers are in beginning stages of collaboration among grade levels. Action Learning
Systems is facilitating the discussions to the daily instruction based on the data results.
Data-Based Decision Making √
The district provides the school with assessments data such as benchmarks, and CFA‘s to monitor
student progress. Additionally, while the teachers have access to EduSoft the majority of them
have not used the results, much of their data analysis is infrequent and incomplete,
Ongoing Professional
Development
√
Every Wednesday is an early released day for the intermediate grades. Action Leaning Systems is
providing training and all grades are required to participate. Some veteran teachers are not open to
change and are struggling to implement the strategies to meet all students‘ needs.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
√
The reading teacher is working with staff to assist during the primary ELD deployment time to
pull small groups of students in the beginning level of CELDT
Providing Interventions for
Struggling Students
√
Most struggling students have an opportunity to participate in the SES tutoring mandated under PI
sanctions. Struggling students have opportunities for re-teaching and interventions after school.
Creating Collaborative Cultures
& Distributed Leadership
√
Teachers meet every Wednesday with principal to look at effective lesson development and
implementation of instructional strategies that were presented by Action Leaning Systems. The
principal provides feedback after classroom walkthroughs.
272

Table J.1, Continued
Inspiring a Professional
Organization
√
The principal is learning about effective instructional strategies. He is taking a leadership
position with the assistance of Action Learning Systems. Some of the veteran teachers are
struggling with the instructional changes.
Addressing Talent & Human
Capital Issues
√
As the only persistently low achieving school in the urban district it is difficult to address
talent and promote administrative training programs. School has a negative reputation
throughout the district. Recruiting new staff is difficult.
273
274

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Overall, the resource allocation at Charlie Elementary is far from the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The school size of Charlie
Elementary is almost 1.2 times the size of the prototypical school featured in the in the
Evidence-Based Model, where Charlie has 511 students and the prototype has 432. Class
sizes at Charlie Elementary are substantially higher in all grades than those called for in
the Evidence-Based Model. Most of the differences are in instructional coaches, other
pupil support staff, class sizes, and core teachers. Table J.2 shows a comparison of the
resource allocations in the EBM through a prototypical school and the actual resource
allocation at Charlie Elementary.

275

Table J.2: Charlie Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model

School Element Evidence-Based Model
– Prototypical School
School
Current Resource
Status
Difference
between school
and EBM
Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students

K-6; 511 Students

Approximately
1.18 times larger
than EBM
prototype.
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-8: 25 K: 26; 1-2: 20; 3:26, 4-
6: 33
Higher class sizes
than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180 days 9 percent less
days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Principal
1.0 FTE Asst.
Principal
1.0 Principal
.82 FTE More AP
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical (2 @ .5)
1.18 Secretary
1.18 Clerical –
.18 Less Secretary
.18 Less Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE

23.0 FTE

5.38 less FTE
Specialist Teachers K-5; 20% of core = 4.8

1.0 FTE 4.6 FTE
3.6 less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
1 per 200 Students 0.0 FTE
2.55 Less FTE

276

Table J.2, Continued
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
511 Students of
poverty
0 FTE
5.11 FTE Less
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
for every 100 EL
students
286 EL Students
0 Teachers
EBM Recommends
2.86 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 FTE 0.5 FTE (clerk)
0.5 FTE (Health clerk)
1.0 more FTEs
Extended Day 1.8 FTE No Extended day 2.2 Less FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE No Summer School
Provided
2.2 Less FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
0.5 FTE (psychologist
0.5, speech 1.0, RSP
0.5, RSP aide provided
by district)
1.1 Less FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
None at this school site
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
personnel resources and
special education
personnel
$5,000
23 teachers x 10
days
$95 daily sub rate,
so total cost =
$21,850
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
511 Students of
poverty
0.5 Health Aide
4.6 FTE Less
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 2.0 FTE
1.5 FTE Inst. Aides (3
@ 0.5)
The EBM
recommends these
positions be
eliminated
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE ; 1FTE (2 @ 0.5) 2.36 FTE
1.36 Less
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 1 FTE Media/Library
Clerk – not certificated)
1.18 FTE Less

277

Table J.2, Continued
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student 0 $12,775 Less
Technology $250 per pupil Computer lab – 30
computers , Estimate
of $35,000
$127,750
$102,750 difference
Instructional Materials
$140 per pupil $21,128 $71,540
$50,412 Less
Student Activities
$200 per pupil $1,000 $101,200 Less
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of school budget
as allocated by PI
status
$30,500 part of
contract with Action
Learning Systems
$20,600Less

Summary and Lessons Learned
Over the last five years Charlie Elementary has had uneven progress as measured
by the school‘s performance on state tests. After examining the performance results and
school environment the following items stand out:
 Until this year, emphasis has not been placed on using data to guide instruction.
Charlie Elementary staff has had the resources from the district with multiple data
sources provided but teachers did not use all those resources or data to make
changes in the classroom instruction.
 The principal stressed the importance of accountability for all stakeholders and
his emphasis in making sure the base program is being followed at the school,
however, his easy-going approach appears to have resulted in a stagnant
278

environment with a lack of focus and common goals for school-wide
improvement.
 Professional development is every Wednesday however, until this year the
internal capacity from teachers or administration was not there to provide review
of data or implementation of instructional strategies. This year, staff development
is being provided by Action Learning Systems to assist with the development of
effective classroom instruction. The staff is in a critical stage using data available
from the district to drive instructional decisions. Most of the push currently
comes from the outside provider and the principal who is learning to critically
analyze data.
 It remains to be seen whether the veteran staff will willingly implement with
fidelity the recommendations provided by Action Learning Systems to improve
the daily classroom delivery which directly impacts student outcomes and overall
school performance.
Future Considerations
Charlie Elementary did not apply for the SIG funding and did not formally select
an Intervention Model. Charlie Elementary will be required to demonstrate growth in
API. The school will be on watch by the California Department of Education for two
more years. The principal indicated that there is great work to be done using the resources
provided by the district and making sure he is consistent with his management style. He
understands the need for additional resources such as: 1) providing full-day kindergarten
279

to give students more classroom time to learn skills necessary for the following years, 2)
on-site instructional coaches to help teachers learn how to use data available from the
district to improve instruction, and 3) implementing with fidelity the standards-based
curriculum approved by the district as the elementary base program to guarantee that
students will have the tools to demonstrate improvement. The principal indicated that he
has learned needed skills from Action Learning Systems to help him be a better
instructional leader. He is confident the new skills along with consistency to hold the
teachers accountable will create positive change for Charlie Elementary to improve
student performance.

280

APPENDIX K – DELTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on the School and District
Delta Elementary is a small, rural school located in California‘s Central Valley.
The district has approximately 2,400 students enrolled in grades K-12 and the population
is predominately Hispanic and largely socio-economically disadvantaged. Delta
Elementary is one of six schools with a unique grade configuration in the Delta Unified
School District. The school serves approximately 400 students in grades two and three.
To promote success for all students, the school has a reading lab and learning center to
provide additional learning opportunities.
Figure K.1 is a graph representing the distribution of Delta‘s school population.
The ethnicities represented are Hispanic (93%), and White (6%), with American Indian
only at (1%). Additionally, ninety-eight (98%) percent of the students are categorized as
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) with sixty-seven (67%) percent of students
classified as English Learners (EL).

281

Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown – Delta Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify the resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in efforts to raise student achievement at a
persistently low achieving school in Tulare County. Resource allocation is especially
important in schools such as this, who because of their designation as persistently low-
achieving, have been mandated by the state of California to implement one of four school
intervention models in the school improvement process. The range of educational reform
options that these schools have to select from can be classified into four intervention
models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the School Closure Model, or the
Transformation Model. These schools are faced with using their chosen model to
substantially improve the academic performance of their students.

93%
0%
6%
1%
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown
Delta Elementary
Hispanic
Asian
White
Other
282

Test Results/Achievement Gap
For the last five years, Delta Elementary School has experienced growth in
student performance as measured by the scores on the California Academic Performance
Index (API). The most current API score was 715, giving the school a total growth of
99 points in the five year period. Figure K.2 shows Delta Elementary School‘s API over
the last five years.
Figure K.2: Delta Elementary School’s API

Overall, all the subgroups have seen increases as illustrated in Figure K.3;
interestingly, while all subgroups made improvement over the five year period, the
English Learner subgroup had significant growth, obtaining a 115% increase in the five
years analyzed. Statewide this substantial growth by the English Learner subgroup is
difficult to obtain and maintain over time. The White subgroup is very small subgroup at
this school and it is not considered numerically significant (Figure K.3).
550
600
650
700
750
616
632 641
668
715
API Score
Figure K.2 Delta Elementary API Score,
2005-2010
283

Figure K.3: Delta Elementary Academic Performance Index

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
All the schools in this study are in program improvement Year 5 and beyond and
have been designated persistently low achieving. For Title I schools in California, AYP
requires schools to:
1. Test 95% of students in grades 2-11 and those in significant subgroups in both
Language Arts and Mathematics utilizing the California Standards Test (CST).
2. The proficiency targets must be met for all significant subgroups each year.
3. The school‘s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2009, the minimum API score was 650.
4. When schools first entered Year 4 of Program Improvement, part of the
restructuring efforts included the formation of an Alternative Governance Board
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
API Score
Figure K.3: Delta Elementary API by Subgroup,
2005-2010
Delta School Wide
Hispanic/Latino
SED
English Learners
284

(AGB). The AGB can implement reform changes to schools in PI and
governance to improve student academic achievement.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show minimal growth for Delta Elementary
since 2005/06. Figure K.4 illustrates Delta Elementary School‘s Language Arts AYP for
the subgroups. The AYP targets over the past five years in Language Arts have not been
obtained in Language Arts by any of the significant subgroups at the school.
Additionally, Delta Elementary has not met school-wide targets in AYP in proficient and
advanced students in Language Arts. In the last five years all the subgroups have grown
in small increments in the percentage of proficient students, however, not enough to meet
the federal growth targets. The English Learner (EL) subgroup has consistently been the
lowest subgroup. In 2005-06, 11.8% were proficient in Language Arts. This nearly
doubled to 22.9% by 2009-10. Similarly, the Socio-Economically Disadvantaged
(SED) subgroup almost doubled the percent of students where were proficient and
advanced to 27.1% in 2009/10. In general, all the subgroups at the school have
demonstrated growth in regards to the number of students who are achieving proficient
and advanced classifications on the CSTs.

285

Figure K.4: Percent Proficient – Language Arts AYP

Figure K.5 shows the math AYP for Delta Elementary. Based on the AYP
results, math has shown some growth when compared to the language arts scores. With
the exception of English Learners, all subgroups experienced a raw increase of 10% more
than their levels in 2005/06 during the last three school years in the percent of students
who are proficient or advanced. It should be noted that there was a decrease in growth
across the subgroups during the 2006/07 school year.

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% Proficent and Advanced
Figure K.4: Bravo Elementary Percent English
Language Proficient and Advanced (AYP) by
Subgroup, 2005-2010
Delta Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
286

Figure K.5: Percent Proficient – Math AYP

California Standards Tests
Delta Elementary has struggled to show improvement in the academic areas
assessed by the California Standards Tests (illustrated in Figure K.6). Over the past five
years, overall proficiency in English Language Arts has only grown from about 16.3% in
2005/06 to 27.0% in 2009/10.
Mathematics achievement is higher than Language Arts at Delta Elementary. The
percent of proficient students on the mathematics CSTs in 2009/10 was 52.9% with a
growth of 8.3% from the previous year. The principal mentioned that some of the factors
contributing to the higher performance in math can be attributed to students in second
grade having the test read aloud by the teachers as stated in test manual. He also
mentioned that in third grade the students begin to drop as the test becomes more difficult
and it is no longer read aloud.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure K.5: Delta Elementary Percent Proficient and
Advanced Math AYP by Subgroup, 2005-2010
Delta Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
287

An interesting caveat for the school in meeting the NCLB achievement targets
was by reaching it through an alternate measure known as ―safe harbor.‖ Safe harbor is
granted by increasing the percentage of proficient and advanced scores within a given
subgroup by 10%, which then allows that subgroup to be classified as reaching the AYP
objective even if the actual percentage is below the expected proficiency objective.
Although the percent of students‘ proficient and above was not sufficient to meet the
target of 58.0; Delta met AYP in math for the last two years due this provision where it
decreased the percentage of below-proficient students in nearly all subgroups by at least
10%.
Figure K.6: Delta Elementary CST Results

Key Elements and Themes in the Improvement Process
The principal has been at Delta Elementary for sixteen years, ten years as a
teacher and now six years as a principal. The principal spoke very highly about the
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure K.6: Delta Elementary CST Results by
Subject, 2005-2010
ELA
Mathematics
288

district‘s close-knit culture with a tradition of administrators being groomed from within
and staying loyal to the community.
According to the principal, one of the consequences of Delta Elementary‘s
acceptance of QEIA money was scrutiny not only by the district office but the State
Department of Education to demonstrate school-wide improvement. He is cognizant of
the challenges to improve the academic performance and he believes he has been able to
initiate the necessary strategies to take the staff to a new phase where Delta can become a
high performing school that addresses the needs of all students. In analyzing the
principal and school‘s efforts in this venture, this case study will utilize the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizing framework
and evaluate the degree of implementation of each strategy and how it relates to
improving student outcomes.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. Delta
Elementary has been in Program Improvement (PI) since 2002/03 and it is now in Year 5
of Program Improvement since 2006/07. One hundred percent of teachers in core classes
meet No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements as highly qualified teachers.
The QEIA funding, which began during 2007-08 school year, has helped Delta
elementary to reduce class sizes in both second and third grades, where the average
student-teacher ratio is18-1. The school will maintain small classes for two more years
but class sizes will likely increase when the QEIA grant ends. It is interesting to note that
289

the principal credits the class size reduction with helping sustain API growth because
teachers are able to provide struggling students with more individualized attention.
Although the review of data indicates continual growth among student subgroups at Delta
Elementary in the last several years, the principal acknowledges that more rigorous
curriculum needs to be part of the reform efforts to significantly improve student
achievement. The sections below outline some elements of their alternative
governance/school improvement plan. Due to the accountability system, schools are
assigned a state and similar school ranking each year after CST results are released
Delta Elementary has been in the bottom half of the state‘s ranking system since 2005.
The school‘s similar and statewide rankings have been a 1 out of 10. Due to a lack of
improvement in both rankings, Delta Elementary received additional funding from the
State of California in the form of the Quality Investment in Education Act (QEIA) Grant.
The grant required the school to develop a three year plan to raise the API and meet
specific annual growth targets. Additionally, Delta was designated as persistently low
achieving school due to the similar and statewide ranking of one. In the fall of 2009, the
District Leadership team, consisting of the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and
principal, reviewed the school and conducted a needs assessment review.
The AGB met with parent groups along with certificated and classified staff to
present the implications of having the persistently low achieving designation and to detail
the four intervention models. Informational meetings were also presented to the Board of
Trustees describing the four intervention models and the respective feasibility of each in
290

light of Delta Elementary already participating in QEIA. After closely reviewing and
studying the four intervention models, the groups unanimously elected not to apply for
School Improvement Grant funding and thus, none of the four intervention models were
selected.
The principal mentioned during the interview that having been a part of Delta
Elementary in the role of teacher and now administrator gives him the upper hand
because he is familiar with the challenges facing the students and staff. He did admit that
at times being like a big family can create other problematic issues because some teachers
may get too comfortable with the status quo and have difficulty changing their old habits
that are driven by gut feelings or instincts in favor of data-driven approach to instruction.
According to the principal the AGB conducts monthly walkthroughs and they
provided him with data that he is able to utilize when he meets with the teachers. One of
many benefits to having the AGB is that after each walkthrough, the collected data and
results are used to provide immediate feedback to the teachers. The feedback that is
being provided then supports the school-wide efforts to use student data to make changes
in the curriculum if needed. The principal recognizes the value of data and observes
areas in which it is making a difference in teachers‘ instruction and student achievement.
The principal has begun to see changes in some veteran‘s teacher‘s classrooms in his
daily walkthrough visits.
During the five minimum days, the county consultant from office of education
assists Delta by providing the needed training school-wide in pacing guides, and
291

benchmarks given to the second and third grade three times a year. EduSoft was
purchased with QEIA money to facilitate prompt feedback from these assessments and
enable results to be shared with the teachers in their grade level meetings.
Setting Ambitious Goals. The principal understands the challenge of having
only two grade levels at Delta Elementary and stressed the difficult task of meeting AYP
target goals with only two grade levels to demonstrate growth. While moderate growth
has occurred in API over the last three years, students in English Language Arts continue
to lag behind in the state test. In attempting to understand some of the reasons for the
performance gap in Language Arts, the principal along with the county consultant
discovered that the overall third grade poor performance where only sixteen percent
(16%) of its students were proficient or advanced which supports the slow growth for all
subgroups. The analysis of the problem was pin-pointed to a significant numbers of
third grade teachers not using the adopted curriculum, instead often using supplemental
materials to teach their lessons. The excuse for using supplemental materials by some
teachers was that the English Learners have a difficult time accessing the curriculum due
to rigor of the material. To address this concern, the principal instructed the county
consultant to review the Houghton Mifflin material and ancillary adopted materials to
support English Language Learners during a minimum day at the start of the year.
As a result, the principal has stated that in his daily classroom visits he is making
a point to see what material the third grade classes are utilizing. He feels that focusing on
the rigor of the materials should help increase their growth. Additionally, the principal
292

has worked with teachers to use the ―bread ‗n butter‖ strategies provided by Denis Parker
in the Strategic Schooling Model, which is a set of strategies geared toward school
improvement. One such strategy targets 2-3 students per month in their classes who are
on the verge of reaching proficient., The added focus and academic and social attention,
it is hoped, will ensure the transition to the proficient level. The selected students have
test chats based on past year‘s data with the teacher and principal and discuss what they
will work on to get to the next performance level. The test chat strategy presented by
Dennis Parker is supposed to help students understand what the expectations are in order
to get to the next performance level in the CST‘s.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. Delta
Elementary has state-approved core materials using Houghton Mifflin for Language Arts
and Math that are standards-aligned and that provide resources to assist in the
differentiation of instruction through the use of data. The principal highlighted that for
the last three years Delta Elementary had experienced growth in the performance of the
school‘s lower performing subgroups in Math. Some of the interventions being used
with students in math, according to the principal, include a consumable supplemental
workbook BELLWORKS, which provided additional practice in a multiple-choice
format, aligned and correlated to state content standards. The principal also credits the
implementation of the strategic schooling model which uses graphic organizers, and
conducts test chats with students for the improvement in scores.
293

Data-based Decision Making. The principal admitted that prior to receiving
funding from QEIA that most teachers did not fully understand or utilize data to guide
instruction. The AGB has provided the necessary support commensurate with the higher
expectations for change.
The principal appeared pleased that he had the financial resources from QEIA to
be able to purchase Edusoft, a subscription-based, standards-aligned student data
management system that allows teachers to identify the areas where students are
struggling and succeeding. EduSoft allows teachers to access and review their students‘
assessment and demographic data. Student results on benchmarks and other common
assessments can be scanned into EduSoft for immediate analysis by the teachers.
Additionally at the conclusion of the trimester teachers give benchmark tests to the
students along with formative assessments which are reviewed in the grade level
meetings by all the teachers.
Since the staff participated in the Dennis Parker, Strategic Schooling Model, the
staff is able to analyze CST scores for third graders, and feel comfortable conducting test
chats with those students. Students are now adjusting to the data culture, where they are
expected to know their performance level from the past year‘s results. This process,
however, will require time to fully transform the school culture. Due to their young age
and lack of CST results, second grade students will participate in test chats with common
formative results and benchmark tests after winter break before CST tests are given.
294

Ongoing Professional Development. Delta Elementary is part of the Small
School District Consortium in the county and the school participated in intensive five-day
professional development during the summer. The consortium as part of the county wide
professional development featured Dennis Parker and provided training in the Strategic
Schooling Model; along with modeled lessons and proven strategies that work with all
students and especially with EL students.
The goal is to reverse the norm of low achievement for disadvantaged students at
underperforming schools by redirecting the school toward successful outcomes. Strategic
Schooling Model is organized into domains. Based on the model, any school can improve
by having clearer, well established targets, frequent feedback; a more supportive, and
functional environment in which to operate. This continuous loop is called the Achieving
Optimum in Performance in Education model.
In addition to the Strategic Schooling Model, the principal indicated that QEIA
funding is providing five additional early release days to bring a county consultant to
continue with the implementation of Thinking Maps school-wide. Thinking Maps are
graphic organizers that are design to help students organize information in a visual
manner. The principal has indicated that the implementation of techniques to use
graphic organizers has been a district focus and attributes this to the fact that district
administrators are conducting walk through observations and are analyzing the degree of
implementation in all schools in the district.
295

Using Time Efficiently & Effectively. Delta Elementary made modifications to
their school schedule the first six weeks of the school year by adding one hour to the
instructional minutes. The additional hour was funded with QEIA money and categorical
flexibility provided by the district when several categorical funding sources where
utilized for the general fund. The extra hour was utilized by all students which allowed
them to participate in the software program LEXIA.
After participating in the Strategic Schooling Model training the principal
explained how he learned about strategies that can be implemented in the classroom to
optimize the learning time of students. He met with the staff and together decided on the
time that the office would respect and keep ―sacred‖ to ensure that the morning schedule
includes enough time for uninterrupted English Language Arts block.
The reading teacher is assisting the staff by working with small groups of students
struggling in the core subjects and helping them by re-teaching concepts and filling in the
gaps.
The county consultant assisted the school by providing an overview of the
Marzano strategies that are part of the walkthrough reviews. The Alternative Governance
Board (AGB) expects these strategies to be implemented in the regular classroom. The
principal indicated that his staff understands they are still far from fully implementing the
strategies from Marzano‘s work and they understand these strategies will continue to be
the focus for 2010/2011 school year with the expectation that they will be implemented
school-wide.
296

Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students. Struggling students at Delta
Elementary have a number of extended learning opportunities available to them during
the day and afterschool. Schools in Program Improvement Year 2 and beyond are
required to offer tutoring after school for students that qualify for the National School
Lunch Program and are struggling to meet state standards. The Boys and Girls Club is
contracting with the school to provide tutoring to students in need of additional help.
Some classroom teachers provide the support to struggling students after school;
however, this is for additional compensation and it is limited to the most academically
needy students.
The Title I Reading Teacher provides assistance to almost half of the student
population throughout the day in the learning center. The Reading Teacher uses the
Response to Intervention (RtI) method to identify students to come to her in the learning
center. Once the students are identified as needing extra help, they will enter the LEXIA
intervention program. LEXIA provides students guided practice on basic reading skills
and gives practice for those skills they are struggling to master advances them to higher
reading levels when the students succeed. LEXIA allows struggling students to learn
skills in sequence, build an understanding, and prepare the students for the next skill.
Data provided by LEXIA help the classroom teachers and Reading teacher monitor the
progress of students.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. As part of the
school‘s Program Improvement corrective action plan, in 2009, a team of Delta
297

Elementary teachers participated in District Leadership Team Training also known as the
Alternative Governance Board Team (AGB) with the assistance of the county office as
their external provider. School teams from the single- grade span schools together with
district leaders learn the skills necessary for assessing the improvement of the district as
part of distributed leadership. The AGB utilizes the observation tool which was approved
district-wide. The district selected to focus on six of the nine Marzano strategies,
described in Classroom Instruction that Works as a way to improve student outcomes.
The walkthrough observations are conducted in every school site throughout the
district once per month. The AGB then meets to debrief and determine the level of
implementation of the six strategies throughout the district and at schools. In addition,
the principal emphasized the use of technology as being an important component to
improving instruction. Using the QEIA money, Delta Elementary has implemented a
computer lab that provides access to a variety of computer software to support the core
academic areas. Classrooms were set up with technology to facilitate multiple ways of
information presentation by teachers and greater student interaction. Every classroom at
Delta has minimum of six desktop computers and a laptop loaded with the latest
software. The classrooms are also equipped with a document camera.
While Delta Elementary students has been improving every year since becoming the
principal, he understands he needs to bring about a sense of urgency to all his teachers.
The principal indicated that his leadership style is one that provides latitude and space to
his teachers. Additionally, now that the entire staff has been trained in the Strategic
298

Schooling Model he concentrates his efforts when visiting classrooms on the strategies
provided by Dennis Parker. When visiting the classrooms he looks for evidence of
learning objectives and the standards in the classrooms. The school focus is on the most
essential standards selected by the teachers during the summer training with Dennis
Parker and the Strategic Schooling Model. Now at grade level meetings teachers are
looking at assessments on how their students are doing and collaborating with other
teachers to adjusting the curriculum to meet the needs of the students. Additionally,
Delta staff members with the assistance of Dennis Parker and the county consultant are
collectively learning how to use multiple data sources to target improvement efforts.
The principal realizes that many more crucial elements need to be present but he
believes in steady and continuous focus will bring about more results. He meets with
teachers to discuss what he has seen in the classroom visits and tries to provide honest
feedback that will increase performance.
Inspiring a Professional Organization. The principal indicated that he had been
exposed to new research over the last year that taught him a more efficient data-driven
approach to use in both the classroom and school settings. The principal is aware that one
of the biggest challenges is to ensure that the teachers become comfortable talking about
data, analyzing the data, implementing new strategies to improve student achievement.
He realizes that as an instructional leader he needs to model the Dennis Parker ―bread ‗n
butter‖ strategies whenever possible. During grade level meeting he insists teachers keep
minutes and a data log to document the progress of the students as they implement the
299

strategic schooling model. The principal maintains the commitment to implement the
strategies school-wide and therefore the staff meetings are data focused where
discussions are about student work instead of the procedural staff meetings.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. Having the designation of a
persistently low achieving and underperforming school makes it difficult to recruit high
quality teachers. However, the principal indicated that due to the financial situation
across the state recruiting teachers or classified staff for his school is not an immediate
concern. As with any program improvement school having to abide by sanctions,
recruitment of high quality teachers is essential for creating a high performing school.
Fifteen out of twenty-one teachers are veteran teachers with more than ten years of
teaching experience at the school. The principal pointed out that the teachers at Delta
Elementary care for students and work very hard to do what is best for them. He
mentioned two teachers with less years of experience participating in the AGB team and
always seeking ways to improve and helping other teachers with technology issues. The
principal was hopeful that these two teachers would follow his footsteps to go into
administration. He encourages all his teachers to participate in district trainings and be
involved in the district walkthrough team to continue to gain experience working with a
variety of teachers and district administrators.

300

Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table K.1 is a summary of how Delta Elementary implemented the 10 steps that
were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student performance.

Table K.1: Delta Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies
Instructional Strategies Degree of Implementation

Strong
(5)
Above
Average
(4)
Average
(3)
Mini
mal
(2)
Not
Observ
ed (1)
Notes
Analyzing the Data and
Understanding the
Performance Challenge
√
Principal begun to communicate the challenges facing the entire school and most
of the staff is united in addressing the issues.
Set ambitious goals √
After participating in the Strategic Schooling Model the staff has a vision with
goals for improvement, the principal understands the urgency to establish
ambitious targets and is in the process of expecting teachers and students to set
them as well.
Implementing an Effective
Curriculum & Instructional
Program
√
Teachers are collaborating among the two grade levels and are now focusing on
proven strategies to help struggling students. More teachers are implementing re-
teaching strategies
Data-Based Decision Making √
The school is using the CFA‘s and benchmarks to monitor student progress. The
school needs to increase the rigor and continue modifying benchmark tests.
Ongoing Professional
Development
√
The staff is provided with five minimum days during the year for staff
development by county office. No early release days to increase internal capacity
of staff.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
√
Teachers are working together and leveling students. Use of reading teacher to
provide additional opportunities for interventions.
Providing Interventions for
Struggling Students
√
QEIA money provided additional hour or instruction at the beginning of the year.
Edusoft software is providing the data to strengthen interventions
Creating Collaborative
Cultures & Distributed
Leadership
√
Well established veteran staff only a few teachers are participating in the AGB
team.
301

Table K.1, Continued
Inspiring a Professional
Organization
√
Principal recently participated in PD that clarified research-based instructional
strategies; he is using the training to encourage implementation of best
practices and effective instructional strategies
Addressing Talent & Human
Capital Issues
√
The principal works collaboratively with the AGB Team to monitor the
implementation of the Strategic Schooling Model. They are continuing to
work on building leadership capacity through teacher leaders.
302
307
303

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Delta Elementary is approximately eighty-eight percent (88%) of the size
described for the prototypical elementary school detailed in the Evidence-Based Model,
where Delta has 380 students and the prototype has 432. Class sizes at Delta, are small
and are close to what the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) calls for implementation with
QEIA funding and some categorical flexibility allowing the school to implement a
reading teacher to assist struggling learners throughout the day. Table K.2 shows a
comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM through a prototypical school and the
actual resource allocation at Delta Elementary.

304

Table K.2: Delta Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element Evidence-Based Model
– Prototypical School
School
Current Resource
Status
Difference
between school
and EBM
Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students 2-3; 380 Students

Approximately
88% of the size of
the prototype
referenced by the
EBM.
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-6: 25 2-3:18
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180 days; 3 days of
summer PD training – 5
minimum days
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten N/A
N/A
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Principal Exact match for
EBM
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary 1.0Less Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers K-5; 24.0 FTE

21.0 FTE
2-3; 380 Students

Specialist Teachers K-5; 20% of core = 4.8

1.0 FTE (Learning
Center Reading
Teacher)
3.2 FTE Less
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
1 per 200 Students
2.2 FTE
0 FTE; 5 half-days
provided by county
1.9 FTE less
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
373 Students of poverty
3 FTE Instructional
Aides
3.73 FTE EBM
recommends
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
for every 100 EL
students
255 EL Students
0 Teachers

EBM
Recommends 2.5
FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 0.0 FTE

305

Table K.2, Continued
Extended Day 1.8 FTE No Extended day
Extra hour added at the
beginning of the school
year: 21 x 5 x $28.00 x
32 days = $94,080
1.58 FTE Less
Summer School 1.8 FTE

QEIA Summer School
2 weeks before school
start of academic year
2-3: EBM
Recommends 3.1
FTE
21 FTE for shorter
period time
1.58 FTE EBM
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions-
2.3 FTE (psychologist
0.4, speech path 0.4,
RSP 1.0)
1.2 FTE less
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal
funds-
None at this school site Non Applicable
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
personnel resources and
special education personnel

$14,000
21 teachers x 10 days
= 250
$95 daily sub rate =
$19,950; $5,950 less
than EBM
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
373 Students of poverty
1 Health Aide @ 0.5)
5.0 FTE - Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 3.0 FTE and RSP aides
2.0
The EBM
recommends these
positions be
eliminated
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE ; 2 per 400-
500 Students
2 @ 0.5 – Site is understaffed
compared to the
EBM
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 1 FTE Media/Library
Clerk – not certificated)
Site is understaffed
compared to the
EBM for a full-
time Librarian
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student 0 – categorical
flexibility applied
$9,500

306

Table K.2, Continued
Technology $250 per pupil 6 computers per class
Computer lab – 25
computers , smart
boards
$96,038
$95,000
QEIA matches the
EBM
recommendations
Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil $61,027.00 categorical
flexibility used
$53,200 EBM
recommends
Student Activities $200 per pupil 0 $76,000 Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM. An
additional $78,100
would be allocated
for activities
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of school budget
as allocated by PI status
$11,815.00
The EBM
recommends
instructional
coaches at the site
for more
integrated, daily
support. Currently
the 1.0 Reading
teacher provides
direct assistance
but not for the staff
$50,200

Summary and Lessons Learned
Over the last five years Delta Elementary has demonstrated progress as measured
by the school‘s performance on state tests and Academic Performance Index. However,
after analyzing the results and current school designation as persistently low achieving
and underperforming status in greater detail the following items stand out:
 Most subgroups actually saw improvement in both ELA and Math, with the
English Learner subgroup posting a smaller improvement. As a result the
307

principal has established test chats with English Learner students to motivate
them and encourage them to challenge themselves for the 2010-11 school year.
 The principal acknowledge the school‘s low scores in Language Arts and has
incorporated the Strategic Schooling Model in his role as an instructional leader to
assist him in the improvement efforts in this content area a focus.
 Delta Elementary is using EduSoft and benchmark data to drive instructional
decisions. The county office is providing training in this area along with the
principal who has participated in training to become better at analyzing data
 QEIA funding has provided much needed small class sizes at Delta Elementary
that are very close to the recommendations of the EBM. Data indicate that in the
past three years the smaller class sizes appeared to assist in the overall moderate
growth in student outcomes. As the funding slowly goes away, it will be
interesting to see whether the school can continue implementing and improving
its instructional delivery and curriculum with larger classes and possible larger
number of struggling students needing additional assistance.
Future Considerations
Delta Elementary did not apply for SIG funding and did not select any of the four
intervention models; the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the School Closure
Model, or the Transformation Model. Delta Elementary was selected to receive QEIA
funding since 2007/08 school year. The school must continue to demonstrate growth in
API for two more years. The school grew 47 API points this year; however, they will
308

continue to be a persistently low achieving school and will continue to be in Program
Improvement Year 5. The principal indicated that he has observed a change in teachers
wanting to implement the strategies they are learning with the assistance of the county
office consultant. The principal is aware that QEIA funds will be ending soon and he
fears the larger classes will negatively impact the growth school wide. He also
understands the need for additional resources such as: 1) additional on-site training by the
county consultant to work with teacher to continue modifying the pacing calendars, 2)
exposing students to rigor in the standards-based curriculum to show significant students
growth, and 3) a lengthened instructional day. According to him, teachers notice a
difference in students at the beginning of the year being better prepared due to the
participation of all students in the one hour extended day strategy. The principal stated
that he would continue providing support with any categorical monies for after school
interventions for those students needing additional learning opportunities.
309

APPENDIX L – ECHO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on the School and District
Echo Elementary is a rural single-school elementary K-8 school district covering
approximately 50 square miles and located in the Central Valley of California. The
school district was established in 1923, and operates on a traditional schedule. Echo
Elementary‘s student population of 225 students is represented overwhelmingly between
two ethnicities with seventy-four percent (74%) of the students Hispanic and twenty-five
percent (25%) White, with the remaining one percent (1%) African-American. Figure
L.1 is a graph representing the distribution of Echo‘s school population. Additionally,
fifty-eight percent (58%) of students have been identified as English Language Learners
and eighty-four percent (84%) of students receive free or reduced lunch.
All students that live in the attendance area are bused to school but those with
inter-district transfers must provide their own transportation. Of the 225 students
attending Echo Elementary, one hundred forty students (62.2%) live in the district‘s
boundaries, with eighty-five students (37.8%) being inter-district transfers from the
adjacent agricultural county. Eighty-five students apply to attend Echo Elementary
invoking the California District of Choice option provided to parents by the state
legislature.
The parents taking advantage of the California District of Choice option apply a
year in advance to the Echo School Board. The decision is made by the receiving district
and the district of residence does not have a say in the transfer decision. Transportation
310

is the parents‘ responsibility. The reasons cited by parents who apply for the inter-district
transfers include: desire to keep family tradition by wanting their children to attend the
same small elementary school they attended while others cite safety concerns that have
arisen from a perceived out-of-control gang problem in their district of residence.
Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Echo Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify the resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in efforts to raise student achievement after
being designated one of the persistently low achieving schools in Tulare County.
Resource allocation is especially important in schools such as this, who because of their
designation as persistently low-achieving, have been mandated by the state of California
to implement one of four school intervention models in the school improvement process.
The range of educational reform options that these schools have to select from can be
classified into four intervention models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the
74%
1%
25%
0%
Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown
Echo Elementary
Hispanic
Asian
White
Other
311

School Closure Model, or the Transformation Model. These schools are faced with using
their chosen model to substantially improve the academic performance of their students.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
Since 2005, Echo Elementary School has demonstrated some growth in student
performance. From the 2005/06 to the 2008/09 school years, Echo Elementary showed a
growth of 46 points on the Academic Performance Index (API). In 2009/10 Echo
Elementary had a 10 point decrease in its API score. Figure L.2 shows Echo Elementary
School‘s API over this five year period.
Figure L.2: Echo Elementary School API

The Academic Performance Index for all students and subgroups at Echo
Elementary has experienced uneven growth over the past five years (Figure L.2). In
2009/10 the school experienced a ten point decrease overall in its student performance as
measured by the school‘s score on the California Academic Performance Index (API).
620
640
660
680
700
643
654
674
689
679
API Score
Figure L.2: Echo Elementary API Score,
2005-2010
312

Figure L.2 illustrates the overall the school-wide API has increased by 36 points,
climbing from 643 in 2005/06 to 679 in 2009/10. Most of the subgroups experienced
uneven growth during this time period. Figure L.3 illustrates the patterns among students
in the Hispanic subgroup which somewhat increased in its overall API score over the past
four years with a 25 point gain, however, in 2009/10 the Hispanic subgroup decreased to
a low of 652 with a 15 point loss. The English Learner subgroup had a thirteen point gain
from 2005/06 to 2009/10.
Figure L.3: Echo Elementary – API By Subgroups

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
As is the case with all of the schools in this study, Echo Elementary is in program
improvement Year 5 and has been designated persistently low achieving. For Title I
schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
API Score
Figure L.3: Echo Elementary API by Subgroup,
2005-2010
Echo School Wide
Hispanic/Latino
SED
English Learners
313

1. Test 95% of students in grades 2-11 and those in significant subgroups in both
English Language Arts and mathematics utilizing the California Standards Test
(CST).
2. The proficiency targets must be met for all significant subgroups each year.
3. The school‘s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2009, the minimum API score was 650.
4. When a school first enters Year 4 of Program Improvement, part of the
restructuring efforts included the formation of an Alternative Governance Board
(AGB). The AGB can implement reform changes to schools in PI and
governance to improve student academic achievement. In this case the Board of
Trustees did not formally designate an AGB and instead opted for a consultant
from the county office to provide technical assistance for the
superintendent/principal.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show minimal progress for Echo
Elementary since 2005. Figure L.4 shows Echo Elementary School‘s language arts AYP
for various subgroups since 2005/06. The AYP targets over this five-year period in
English Language Arts have not been reached by any of the significant subgroups and the
growth has been inconsistent. In the last four years, Echo Elementary has not
demonstrated growth school-wide or by subgroup in AYP and has not moved beyond
31% in proficient and advanced students in language arts until this last year where they
314

gained four percent (4%). While the White group is not numerically significant, in the
last two years the few students in this subgroup have increased in the percentage of
proficient and advance students. The English Learner (EL) subgroup has consistently
been the lowest-achieving subgroup and has only shown a five percent (5%) growth over
the past five years, while the Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) subgroup has
experienced an eight percent (8%) increase. Overall, the school has demonstrated
minimal growth and had same level of poor performance in regards of the number of
students who are achieving proficient and advanced classifications on the CSTs.
Figure L.4: Percent Proficient - Language Arts AYP

Figure L.5 illustrates Echo Elementary‘s performance as measured by the
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics with the school having only thirty-one
percent (31%) of the students scoring proficient or advanced, a increase of two percent
(2%) from the from the original level of twenty -nine percent (29%) from five years
earlier. While the White subgroup is not a numerically significant, in the last five years
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% Proficent and Advanced
Figure L.4: Bravo Elementary Percent English
Language Proficient and Advanced (AYP) by
Subgroup, 2005-2010
Echo Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
315

the few students in this subgroup have shown inconsistent growth in the percentage of
proficient and advance students. As presented with language arts, all subgroups have
shown inconsistent growth patterns and it can be noted that all had similar overall level of
poor performance because none have been able to meet AYP targets in the last several
years.
Figure L.5: Percent Proficient - Math AYP

California Standards Tests
Echo Elementary has struggled to show improvement in the academic areas
assessed by the California Standards Test (illustrated in Figure L.6). Over the past five
years, overall proficiency in English Language Arts has only grown from about 20% in
2005/06 to 32% in 2009/10; a more inconsistent pattern was seen in social science, where
growth occurred with one year of decline occurred from 11% to 8% during that time
frame. Science scores at the school only improved slightly as compared to social science,
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% Proficient and Adanced
Figure L.5: Echo Elementary Percent Proficient and
Advanced Math AYP by Subgroup, 2005-2010
Echo Schoolwide
Hispanic
White
SED
EL
316

with an increase from 8.5% in 2005/06 to 29% in 2009/10. Mathematics achievement
has not shown growth when compared to the other core subjects at Echo Elementary.
The percent of proficient students on the mathematics CSTs in 2010 was 30.5% with a
growth of 0.7% from the previous year.

317

Figure L.6: California Standards Test By Subject

Key Elements and Themes in the Improvement Process
The superintendent/principal has been at Echo Elementary for over twenty-five
years. She was a classroom teacher at the school for thirteen years and has served the last
eleven years in her current position. Due to the limited funding resources afforded to
small rural districts and strict restrictions of the class size reduction program, Echo
Elementary did not participate in the CSR program and therefore was not able to maintain
small class sizes in the primary grades. The average class size in K-3 was a 32 to1 ratio.
The upper grades, including middle school grades, maintain a 28 to 1 ratio. Echo
Elementary student population has changed and therefore, the school as a whole has
struggled to improve student achievement, as will be discussed further below. The school
is now in Year 5 of Program Improvement since 2009/10.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% Proficient and Advanced
Figure L.6: Echo Elementary CST Results by
Subject, 2005-2010
ELA
Mathematics
Social Science
Science
318

Echo Elementary has experienced significant change in the composition of the
student body over the past decade, transitioning from a higher socio-economic status to
its current eighty-four percent (84%) of students in the socio-economic disadvantaged
status and fifty-eight percent (58%) of English Learner students. Additionally, the
teachers are struggling to change their instructional practice and have had to attend
county trainings to learn new strategies to assist the English Learner to continue offering
a quality instruction and improvement in student achievement.
The subsequent sections will use the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009) as an organizational framework to gauge the
degree of implementation of each strategy and how each relates to improving student
achievement at Echo Elementary. It quickly became evident that the isolated location
and lax environment of the small country rural school appears to hinder a sense of
urgency and it appears that the superintendent/principal‘s concern and expectation was to
keep stability, fiscal solvency, and that the secondary focus was school improvement.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. As a
Program Improvement Year 5 school designated as persistently low achieving, Echo
Elementary is required to select one of four intervention models identified above. Echo
Elementary conducted an Academic Program Survey (APS) as part of the process of
choosing the most appropriate intervention model, which includes the requisite nine
Essential Program Components. The Nine Essential Program Components (EPC), which
address areas such as standards-aligned instructional materials, use of pacing guides, and
319

ongoing instructional support for teachers, are incorporated in the Academic Program
Survey and can be used to determine the school-wide needs of the schools applying for
SIG funds.
In the fall of 2009, the superintendent/principal and county consultant from the
county office of education as their external provider conducted the APS to evaluate the
school and determine what steps needed to be taken to support student achievement.
They met with parent groups, certificated and classified staff to present the
implications of each of the four intervention models. The results of the APS were shared
with all the groups. Informational meetings were also presented to the Board of Trustees
describing the four models and respective feasibility of each model and how each would
affect Echo Elementary. After closely reviewing and studying the four intervention
models the groups unanimously selected the Transformational model. However, the
Board of Trustees decided not to apply for the SIG funding because of the unknown
sanctions if the target goals set by the California Department of Education were not met.
The Board of Trustees decided to wait another year to determine what is best for the
students and the district. The district will use categorical funding to incorporate some of
the transformational model components; such as expanding professional development,
incorporating research-based strategies, to follow the requirements for school
improvements set by the California Department of Education.
Along with the APS being conducted, the superintendent/principal and county
consultant also reviewed student performance on the CST‘s from 2005/06 to 2009/10. It
320

was noted that student performance on the CST‘s had been gradually improving in both
Language Arts and Math for four years until this school year 2009/10 where there was a
decline of ten points in API score falling slightly to 679. The school‘s most recent API
score was 679, giving the school a total growth of 36 points in the five year period. The
lack of growth in its overall academic performance in the state and federal systems
coupled with a steadily decreasing State and Similar Schools Ranking pressed the School
Board to contract with the Tulare County Office of Education, instructional support
department to provide consultation services in the form of professional development and
curriculum training to the staff and superintendent/principal.
Although the superintendent/principal acknowledged the slow progress and
stagnant student performance in state assessments, she seemed to disregard it by stating
that families like the welcoming and safe environment and that small rural country
schools do not have many resources as larger districts. She noted that she spent time
reviewing the assessment data for the school and it is evident there are many challenges
facing the school district. The superintendent/principal did express concern about the ten
point drop in the school‘s API and progress the students have had in CSTs as the number
of students scoring proficient or above in AYP in Language Arts and Math have not
increased. She expressed Echo Elementary is like her extended family and that her
teachers knew the students inside and out. She is aware of the school‘s strengths and
weaknesses having been around for twenty-five years in the same school district.
321

Setting Ambitious Goals. The superintendent/principal explained that due to the
persistently low achieving designation the Board of Trustees in collaboration with the
county office as an external provider set an ambitious goal to establish The Strategic
Schooling Model as the framework for Echo Elementary to improve student outcomes.
The Strategic Schooling Model states that by having clearer, well established goals,
frequent feedback; a more supportive, and functional environment in which to operate
will enable systems to move forward in a systematic way. While the
superintendent/principal spoke about school-wide goals she hesitantly admitted that the
English Learners subgroup needs more attention if the same level of achievement is to be
reached.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. The nine
teachers at Echo Elementary have state-approved core materials provided for them. They
use Houghton Mifflin and McDougal Littel in Language Arts and Sadlier-Oxford and
CGP for Mathematics. The superintendent/principal explained that three teachers in the
intermediate grades were experiencing difficulty with the textbooks because the English
Learners are not able to work in the adopted core materials. These teachers utilized
teacher made and supplemental materials lacking rigor and were not aligned to standards.
The teachers are now participating in training provided by the county consultant every
Tuesday and learn to develop pacing guides school-wide. The pacing guides assist the
teachers assessing school-wide which standards are essential and must be address per
322

grade level. Eventually the plan in the Strategic Schooling Model is to examine the
instructional program on a regular basis and make adjustments where necessary.
Data-based Decision Making. The superintendent/principal acknowledges that
the teachers can do a better job in using data to monitor the progress of the students. The
district is in a consortium with the country office and they are exploring how to utilize
Data Director to access their student‘s assessment results. Since the staff participated in
the Dennis Parker, Strategic Schooling Model, the staff is beginning to analyze CST
scores and feel comfortable conducting test chats with those students. Prior to this year
the students were not part of the data culture, where they are expected to know their
performance level from the past year‘s results. This process, however, will require time
to become part of the school culture.
Ongoing Professional Development. The school is a member of the Small
School District Consortium in the county and they participated in intensive five day
professional development during the summer. The consortium as part of the county wide
professional development featured Dennis Parker and provided training in the Strategic
Schooling Model.
The goal is to reverse the norm of low achievement for disadvantaged students at
underperforming schools by redirecting the school toward successful outcomes. Strategic
Schooling Model is organized into domains. Based on the model, any school can improve
by having clearer, well established targets, frequent feedback; a more supportive, and
323

functional environment in which to operate. This continuous loop is called the Achieving
Optimum in Performance in Education model.
Dennis Parker provided training in the Strategic Schooling Model; along with
modeled lessons and proven strategies that work with all students and especially with EL
students. An extra day was dedicated to cover the elements of Specially Design
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) to provide specific strategies to the staff for the
growing English Learner student population.
The TCOE consultant has been working with the staff on staff development
Tuesdays to help teachers develop learning objectives that guide instruction and creating
assessments to evaluate whether or not the objectives were achieved. The
superintendent/principal believes that the strategies provided by the Strategic School
Model will lead to significant gains in student achievement.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively. One recommendation from the county
consultant to the superintendent/principal was to make changes to the daily schedule to
institute a block of uninterrupted time in the morning for English Language instruction
and Mathematics in the afternoon. This simple strategy would allow for possible
deployment of students based on their skill level and need. Even the seventh and eighth
grade classes are able to participate without additional burden to the teachers.
Echo elementary is reviewing the pacing guides with the assistance of the county
consultant during the early release Tuesday. The pacing guides are connected to state
standards and will assist the teachers to determine what essential standard to teach. These
324

standards are the ones that are assessed on CST‘s. All the teachers are taking an active
part in reviewing the pacing guides, and are aware they need to be modified their
instruction as they continue working with the TCOE consultant.
The county office assessed students at the beginning of the school year with the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) as part of the external
provider services. DIBELS was given to every student in grades K-3 and any other
student not having scored proficient or advanced on the latest CST test, to measure the
acquisition of early literacy skills. DIBELS further identified where students needed
assistance with literacy skills. For the first time teachers received data that directly assist
them in the instruction of English Language Arts.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students. Struggling students at Echo
Elementary do not have extended learning opportunities available to them afterschool.
Due to the limited financial resources and the total number of students bussed to get
home from school; it is not financially possible to provide after school interventions. The
Resource Specialist (RSP) is provided on a part-time basis by the county office and her
emphasis is pulling students that are very needy and are Special Education students.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. The nine
teachers meet with the county consultant each Tuesday and are reviewing the adopted
instructional materials to determine what the essential standards will be cover in each
grade. The superintendent/principal stated that with her many duties not only as a
superintendent but principal she depends on the county consultant to provide assistance to
325

the teachers. She stated that she makes an effort to visit the classrooms daily but it
sometimes difficult when she has to be away from campus. The isolation of the rural
school creates an environment where teachers depend on one another and assist one
another with day-to-day issues. At grade level meetings, teachers look at assessments on
how their students are doing and collaborate with other teachers to adjusting the
curriculum to meet the needs of the students. Additionally, the teachers appear to be
learning how to use multiple data sources to target improvement efforts.
Inspiring a Professional Organization. The superintendent/principal indicated
that in the last year she has participated in new research that demonstrated how to use
data more efficiently to drive the decisions made not only in the classroom but the entire
school. The superintendent/principal is aware that the challenge is ensuring that the
teachers are implementing the new strategies and that they have a dialogue about data,
analyze the data, and implement the strategies learned to improve student achievement.
As a result of the training, she is encouraging her teachers to use the research-based
strategies in the classroom to improve the student outcomes and positively affect the
school environment.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. As previously mentioned, the
isolation of the small rural environment and very little mobility from staff creates a
positive work environment. However, the superintendent/principal stated that it is due to
smallness and stability of the district that few opportunities arise to move professionally
within the district. Out of the staff of nine teachers, she mentioned that one well-liked
326

teacher has an administrative credential. Due to the persistently low achieving
designation and implications of the Transformational intervention model the Board of
Trustees has recommended that this well-liked teacher assume the position of principal
for the 2010-11 school year. It is the expectation that he will provide assistance and
support for the staff in the implementation of the Strategic Schooling Model.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table L.1 provides a summary of how Echo Elementary implemented the 10 steps that
were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student performance.

Table L.1: Echo Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies
Instructional Strategies Degree of Implementation

Strong
(5)
Above
Average
(4)
Average
(3)
Minimal
(2)
Not
Obser
ved
(1)
Notes
Analyzing the Data and
Understanding the
Performance Challenge
√
Teachers are meeting almost every Tuesday to look at pacing guides and essential standards
and coming to a consensus about how to use assessment data to guide their daily instruction.
Set ambitious goals √
Having a staff of nine teachers in a single grade school has its unique challenges when
establishing ambitious goals. The small community is going through changes in student
population. The improvement efforts are slow but the superintendent/principal appears to
have set particularly ambitious targets and goals. Now the school is participating in the
Strategic Schooling Model with the assistance of the county office.
Implementing an
Effective Curriculum
& Instructional
Program
√
Teachers are in the beginning stage of collaboration among grade levels and are now
discussing how to implement the District adopted curriculum. The county consultant is also
assisting the teachers with the analysis of the CST results.
Data-Based Decision
Making
√
The school is implementing some of the elements of the Strategic Schooling Model. Better
use of data to impact instruction and analysis of CST scores allow the teachers to have test
chats with students.
Ongoing Professional
Development
√
The county office consultant is providing training and all grades are required to participate
developing pacing guide across all grades. The staff participated during the summer in the
Strategic Schooling Model and the superintendent/principal is monitoring the
implementation of some of the strategies found in the Strategic Schooling Model.

327

Table L.1, Continued
Using time efficiently
& effectively
√
The school is now implementing uninterrupted instructional time for Language Arts and
Math. Limited number of teachers makes it difficult to deploy students based on skill
and ability.
Providing Interventions
for Struggling Students
√
Most struggling students do not have opportunities for re-teaching opportunities after
school due to transportation. Except for 20 students in the after school program provided
by the county office.
Creating Collaborative
Cultures & Distributed
Leadership
√
Teachers meet every Tuesday. They are beginning to collaborate to look at student data
and discuss curriculum pacing guides. The county consultant is also assisting the teachers
by teaching them to look at essential standards. Even with a single grade span staff the
primary grades and the intermediate grades are dialoguing about essential standards
across K-8.
Inspiring a Professional
Organization
√
The superintendent/principal recently participated in PD through the county office that
clarified research-based instructional strategies; she is using the training to encourage
implementation of best practices and effective instructional strategies
Addressing Talent &
Human Capital Issues
√
As a K-8 rural isolated district there are no formal teacher or administrative training
available for the nine teachers. Due to the stability of the school there are no recruitment
or retention strategies in place.
328
329

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Overall, the resource allocation at Echo Elementary is far from implementing the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The school size is fifty-two
percent (52%) that of the Evidence-Based Model, where Echo has 225 students and the
prototype has 432. Class sizes at Echo are higher than the recommendation in the
Evidence-Based Model; due in part, to the isolation and single grade composition of the
small school district. The primary grades are impacted with students making it difficult to
provide the needed attention to the struggling students. The intervention for struggling
learners is almost none existent, with only 20 students participating in the county
provided ―Choices‖ program. Table L.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations
in the EBM through a prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at Echo
Elementary.

330

Table L.2: Echo Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element Evidence-Based
Model –
Prototypical
School
School
Current Resource Status
Difference between
school and EBM
Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students

K-8; 225 Students Approximately 52 %
of the size
recommended by
EBM prototype.
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-8: 25 K: 32; 1-3:32; 4-8: 28 Higher class sizes in
K-8. Did not
participate in CSR
in the last two years.
Instructional Days 200, includes 10
days for intensive
PD training
180 days; 6 days of training
PD during in the summer
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
Full-day kindergarten Exact match for
EBM however, size
is larger than EBM
recommends
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE 0.5 FTE Principal
0.5 Superintendent
0.5 FTE Principal
Less

School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and
1.0 Clerical
1.0 FTE School Secretary
1.0 FTE Business
Technician
1.0 FTE clerical
Less

General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE

9.0 FTE EBM recommends
12.5 - 3.5 less FTE
Specialist Teachers K-5; 20% of core =
4.8
0 FTE

2.5 less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
1 per 200
Students
0 FTE EBM Recommends
1.2
1.2 less FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
185 Free and Reduced
Students
0 FTE
1.9 FTE Less
331

Table L.2, Continued
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0
FTE for every 100
EL students – 185
EL students
0 FTE EBM
Recommends
1.9 FTE
Non-instructional support for
EL students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE for EL Students 1.0 more FTEs
Extended Day 1.8 FTE

0 FTE – 20 students
participate in county
sponsored program with 1
certificated teacher
1.8 Less FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE

3 @ 0.5 FTE teachers
For 5 hrs. 2 @ 0.5
instructional aides x 5
hours
0.3 Less FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional
teacher positions
1 FTE RSP teacher, paid
for by county office
(TCOE) due to Lowest
Performance School list
0.2 FTE Psychologist paid
for by TCOE
3.0 Less FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds
N/A Non Applicable
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per
teacher personnel
resources and
special education
personnel
$1,000 is allocated
3 days for substitutes when
county consultant is at the
site
9 teachers x 10
days = 90
$100 daily sub
rate, so total cost
= $9,000
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every
100 poverty
students
185 Free and Reduced
Students
0.0 FTE
1.9 Less FTE -
Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE One 1.0 FTE; 2 @ 0.8FTE,
2 @ 0.6FTE,; 1 @ 0.3
FTE
The EBM
recommends
these positions
be eliminated
332

Table L.2, Continued

Non-Instructional Aides
2.0 FTE ; 2 per
400-500
Students
0.0 FTE Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0.3 FTE Computer/Library
tech
Site is
understaffed
compared to the
EBM, not a
certificated
Librarian
0.7 Less
Resources for gifted students $25 per student 0 $5,625
difference
Technology $250 per pupil $ 35,000 $56,250
$21,250 Less
Instructional Materials
$140 per pupil
$ 62,000 – due to a one
time allocation.
$31,500
Above EBM
recommendation
Student Activities
$200 per pupil
0
$45,000 Less
Professional Development $100 per pupil for
other PD expenses
- trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
10% of school budget as
allocated by PI status
How much allocated
$8,599.00
Due to the size
the district has
an over
dependence in
county
$13,901 Less

Summary and Lessons Learned
Over the last five years Echo Elementary has demonstrated minimal progress as
measured by the school‘s performance on state tests and an unexpected ten point drop in
API shook the staff to begin looking at accepting the assistance of outside providers.
After examining the assessment results and current school environment in greater detail
the following items stand out:
333

 The English Learner subgroup has had the lowest performance growth since 2007
as compared to the other subgroups. All subgroups in the school perform equally
as poorly on state tests.

 Echo Elementary is in the second year of working with the county office to learn
how to use data which will assist in the daily instructional decisions. No pacing
calendars or benchmark system in place to assess student progress. Echo
Elementary is in the beginning phase of acquiring Data Director to assist with the
development of benchmark tests for next year.
 The current superintendent/principal has been in the district for 25 years. Six of
nine teachers are veterans at Echo Elementary on average 20 years experience.
 The school is in the early phase of using data to make instructional changes. The
superintendent/principal is closely working with the county office to assist with
the analysis of data.
 Professional development is taking place every Tuesday however, until this year
the internal capacity from teachers or administration was not there to provide
proven strategies and review data or implementation of instructional strategies.
This year staff development is being provided from the county office of education
to assist with the implementation of the Strategic Schooling Model.
 No resources are allocated for interventions for struggling students. Only 20
students participate in ―Choices‖ the after school tutoring provided by the county
334

office. The main obstacle is transportation since all students are bused in and
parents do not have the means to pick up students.
Future Implications for Additional Resources
According to the superintendent/principal, Echo Elementary is in a difficult
position due to the rural county location and limited resources available to the school.
The Board of Trustees made an unprecedented decision for the 2010-11 school year
to appoint a veteran teacher to full-time principal. Since the Transformational
Intervention model calls for the removal of the principal, the Board of Trustees not
only is following one stipulation of the model but will also provide assistance to the
superintendent to closely monitor the implementation of the Strategic Schooling
model along with the pacing guides and benchmark implementation. Her goal is to
take advantage of services and programs available through the county office to assist
her staff in learning new research-based strategies to address the student needs as the
student population continues to change. She understands the intervention efforts
provided by the county-based program ―Choices‖ to help the growing number of
struggling students in not enough, since only twenty students participate.
Transportation will continue to be an obstacle due to the district‘s isolated location.
The superintendent/principal is confident in the staff‘s abilities to move forward and
continue improving while maintaining the school‘s a small, safe environment.
/

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Each year many California schools fail to meet the goals outlined by No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). When schools fail to improve by making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive years they are placed in “Program Improvement.” These schools face increasing pressure to meet the NCLB goals while concurrently providing additional services to a growing number of students with varied educational needs, even as their access to state and local resources has been negatively impacted by fiscal and economic distress. Schools must therefore innovatively use their limited resources in the most efficient and effective ways to meet these competing demands. This study examines patterns of resource allocation at five persistently low-achieving elementary schools in Program Improvement Year 5 in California’s Central Valley. The goal is to determine the connection between the implementation of instructional practices and student achievement. Data from five Program Improvement elementary schools were compared with Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidenced-Based Model and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance as organizational frameworks to determine the extent to which these Program Improvement schools utilize their limited resources to support the implementation of instructional strategies. Expenditure data, school personnel resource data and qualitative data collected from the schools are analyzed to ascertain best practices given certain school conditions. The study findings suggest that there is indeed a connection between student achievement and the efficient allocation of resources and implementation of research-based instructional strategies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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 achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Stuemky, Martha Ramirez (author)

Core Title Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/03/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag adequacy,cornerstone,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), USA (countries), valleys: Central Valley (geographic subject)

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 martha.stuemky@gmail.com,mstuemky@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3853

Unique identifier UC1436373

Identifier etd-Stuemky-4571 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-460153 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3853 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Stuemky-4571.pdf

Dmrecord 460153

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Stuemky, Martha Ramirez

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