University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
HOW IMPROVING SCHOOLS ALLOCATE RESOURCES:
A CASE STUDY OF SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS IN ONE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

Helen Emery Morgan

________________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Helen Emery Morgan

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my father who I wish were here to be a part
of all of this, my mother who is always my greatest cheerleader, and my husband
whose love and support has made this journey possible.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Lawrence Picus whose vast knowledge of
school finance has been an incredible resource for this thematic group. His patience,
support, and guidance have been invaluable to me. He has made this experience
meaningful and memorable. I would like to thank Dr. Hentschke and Dr. Nelson for
generously giving of their time to be a part of our dissertation committee. I would
also like to thank my new friends who made this journey with me and made this
experience so wonderful, especially Frank Donavan who has become my sounding
board and guide. I also have to acknowledge Suzanne Launius whose friendship and
technical guidance has been invaluable to me throughout this process.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………… ...ii
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………...v
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………… ...vii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………... ...ix
Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………… ...1
Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………………………………. ...18
Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………… ...60
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Interpretation of Findings……………….. ...77
Chapter Five: Summary and Implications of Findings……………………. ...154
References……………………………………………………………………… ...178
Appendices
Appendix A: Site Administrator Questions………………………………. ...188
Appendix B: Interview Questions For Content Coach…………………… ...192
Appendix C: Teacher Survey……………………………………………......195
Appendix D: Interview Questions Assistant Superintendent of………….. ...197
Educational Services
Appendix E: Interview Questions Assistant Superintendent of Business... ...199
Services
Appendix F: Interview Questions Director of Categorical Programs……. ...201

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Statewide 2008 Base APIs Overall and for Student Subgroups…... ...24
Table 2.2: The Twenty-one Principal Responsibilities and Their……………. ...47
Correlations (r) with Student Academic Achievement

Table 3.1: Program Improve Requirements for Each Year of Designation…... ...61
Table 3.2: Trombone Middle School Student/Staff/School Information……... ...70
2007-2008

Table 3.3: Trombone Elementary School Student Enrollment by Group…….. ...70
Table 3.4: Wheaton Elementary School Student/Staff/School Information….. ...71
Table 3.5: Wheaton Elementary School Student Enrollment by Group……… ...71
Table 3.6: Adams Elementary School Student/Staff/School Information……. ...72
2007-2008

Table 3.7: Adams Elementary School Student Enrollment by Group………... ...72
Table 4.1: PUSD Revenue Sources 2009-2010………………………………. ...94
Table 4.2: Wheaton Elementary School Statewide and Similar Schools……....105
Rankings

Table 4.3: Wheaton Elementary Schools Program Improvement Progression ...106
Table 4.4: Adams Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings………………... ...113
Table 4.5: Trombone School Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings…….. ...116
Table 4.6: Trombone School Program Improvement Progression…………......119
Table 4.7: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to High Student… ...122
Expectations

Table 4.8: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Data-Driven…. ...127
Decision Making

vi
Table 4.9: Teacher Survey Results for Question Related to Instructional…... ..130.
Time

Table 4.10: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Professional….. ...135
Development

Table 4.11: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Collaboration…...140
Table 4.12: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to District……….....143
Leadership

Table 4.13: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Instructional….....148
Leadership

Table 4.14: Teacher Survey Results for Question Related to Extended……… ...150
Learning Opportunities

Table 5.1: Resources Study Schools Compared to the EBM………………... ...169

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: California AYP Targets for Unified School Districts English…......20
Language Arts 2001 – 2014

Figure 2.2: California AYP Targets for Unified School Districts…………… ...20
Mathematics 2001 – 2014

Figure 2.3: Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in California in……. ...21
English Language Arts by Significant Subgroup 2007-2008

Figure 2.4: Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in California in……. ...21
Mathematics by Significant Subgroup 2007-2008

Figure 2.5: California Graduation Rate Targets 2001 – 2014……………….. ...22
Figure 2.6: California API Targets 2001 – 2014…………………………….. ...23
Figure 3.1: The Evidence Based Model……………………………………... ...63
Figure 4.1: PUSD student enrollment 1993 – 2008………………………….....78
Figure 4.2: PUSD Academic Performance Index 2001-2009……………….. ...79
Figure 4.3: PUSD API Compared with State API 2005 – 2009……………... ...80
Figure 4.4: PUSD Annual Yearly Progress English Language Arts………… ...81
Figure 4.5: PUSD Annual Yearly Progress Mathematics…………………… ...81
Figure 4.6: PUSD AYP Compared to California AYP in English Language.. ...82
Arts

Figure 4.7: PUSD AYP Compared to California AYP in Mathematics……......82
Figure 4.8: Wheaton Elementary School Enrollment 1993 – 2009…………...101
Figure 4.9: Wheaton Elementary School API Scores 1999 – 2009…………...102
Figure 4.10: Wheaton Elementary School English Language Arts AYP……. ...103
2002-2009

Figure 4.11: Wheaton Elementary School Mathematics AYP 2002 – 2009… ...103

viii
Figure 4.12: Adams School Enrollment 1993 through 2009………………… ...110
Figure 4.13: Adams School API Scores 2001 – 2009……………………….. ...111
Figure 4.14: Adams School AYP English Language Arts…………………... ...112
Figure 4.15: Adams School AYP Schoolwide Mathematics…………………...112
Figure 4.16: Trombone School API 1999 – 2009……………………………....117
Figure 4.17: Trombone School AYP English Language Arts 2001 – 2009…. ...117
Figure 4.18: Trombone School AYP Mathematics 2001 – 2009……………. ...118
Figure 4.19: Trombone School Enrollment 1997 – 2009……………………. ...120

ix
ABSTRACT
The current fiscal climate in California and the country has had a tremendous
impact on every facet of society. Education has experienced budget reductions that
have impacted every aspect of serving students and their families. Research provides
educators with evidence-based strategies that have shown to improve student
achievement.
This study focuses on a number of these strategies and the degree of
implementation at three ethnically diverse, high poverty schools within a single
school district. The study compares the resources available at these schools with
those outlined in the Evidence-Based Model recommendations for funding schools.
The stakeholders in this study identify successful research-based strategies and how
the current fiscal crisis will impact further implementation of these practices.
Included in this study is the district role in the decision making process and the
support provided to the individual school sites.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Nearly one half of a trillion dollars is spent on K – 12 education each year in
the United States. Close to half of that amount comes from state resources (Olsen,
2005). The California Legislative Analyst’s Office indicates that for the 2008-2009
school year K-12 education received $44,660,000,000 in Proposition 98 funds. These
funds are derived from general fund revenues and local property taxes and provide
school districts money in the form of general revenue and categorical funds. This
equates to a K-12 average daily attendance amount funding level of $7,543 per
student in Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Additionally California receives more
than six billion dollars from the federal government in the form of categorical grants
(California Legislative Analysts Office, 2009). While this is a tremendous amount of
money, it is used to serve one of the most diverse populations of students in the
country.
California serves over 6.2 million students, has the highest percentage of
English Learners and is near the top in proportion of children living in low income
families (EdData Partnership, 2009). These students require special services in the
form of language instruction, special education needs and many live at or near the
poverty level.
In 2005 California had the eighth largest economy in the world with a gross
state product over 1.6 trillion dollars (Center for Continuing Study of the California
Economy, 2007). In spite of this fact, it has historically lagged behind many other

2
states in education spending. Data shows that between 1996 and 2006 California
ranked anywhere between thirty-sixth and twenty-fourth in per pupil spending and
never reached the U.S. average (Ed-Data 2008).
Because California accepts federal funds it is held to the performance
standards set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. This legislation
mandates many things but most important for most schools is the criteria that all
students are proficient or advanced in reading and mathematics by 2014 (Peterson &
West, 2003). Missing the targets established by California results in sanctions to a
school. These sanctions are progressive and begin with the third year of a school
missing their Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) targets (McClure, 2005). In California
many schools have been designated as Program Improvement (PI). This is
California’s designation for schools that are not meeting the annual targets for
student proficiency. Some schools have been able to implement strategies and
programs that have impacted student learning and allowed them to exit PI. In order
to exit PI a school must meet its Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) school-
wide and for all significant subgroups for two consecutive years.
When a school is identified as PI they are required to use a portion of their
funds for professional development, transportation for school choice, supplemental
educational services, and implementing research-based programs and strategies
(California Department of Education, 2009). Often additional funds accompany the
PI designation to allow schools to make the changes necessary to meet growth
targets and exit PI. Because of the demands of the legislation implementing the PI

3
system, and the decreasing funds available for education, schools may find it
difficult to maintain programs that have proven effective in the past. It may also
become complicated to implement costly new programs which have shown success
in other schools. These difficulties have seen districts forced to make arduous
decisions regarding their previously protected categorical funds. The newly adopted
budget allows flexibility by districts thus allowing them to use categorical funds for
general education needs (California Business Education Association, 2009). Previous
to this decision, schools and districts have been required to spend categorical funds
on materials and strategies designed to target specific students, programs, and or
purposes.
The state constitution in California gives the responsibility for education to
the state. The state legislature in turn has given over much of that responsibility to
local school districts (Timar, 2006). Decisions regarding programs that are most
effective, and how to fund them, are often made at the local school district level by
administrators who have no practical experience with students. Schools exist to teach
students and unfortunately we have spent the years since its inception trying to
determine how best to do that. In the last several years research has shown that there
are proven strategies that when implemented with fidelity will have positive results.
These strategies and programs can be costly. This presents a problem in the current
economic crisis. Schools and districts have made decisions which have had a positive
impact on student achievement. They have met the demanding task of meeting
performance standards. The problem lies in the new landscape of education funding

4
and how they will be able to continue this work. What programs and strategies are
paramount to success for their students and how will they be able to fund these
programs?
History of Education Funding in California
Throughout the 1970’s litigation was relied upon as a way to correct funding
disparities in education. Between 1971 and 1983 many states’ school finance
systems were found to be unconstitutional including California (Picus, 2004).
Serrano v. Priest
The first landmark case in California was Serrano v. Priest in 1971. This case
charged that the system for funding education showed great disparities from district
to district. A child in California living in a wealthy area received a much greater
allocation of funds than those living in the poorest districts. The supreme court
agreed with the plaintiffs and determined that the wealth of the district should not be
the basis of the funds received but the wealth of the state as a whole (McDonald,
Kaplow, & Chapman, 2006).
SB 90 and AB 1276 - 1972
SB 90 and AB 1276 were created in response to the Serrano decision. This
legislation introduced the revenue limit system. A district’s base revenue was the
total per pupil funding from property taxes and other non-categorical state aid. It
prohibited a school district from levying taxes at a higher rate that would increase the
base revenue beyond a permitted inflation rate unless approved by the voters. These
bills failed to equalize spending between high and low wealth districts and were met

5
with opposition which led to Senate Bill 65 in 1977 (Kemerer, Sanson, & Kemerer,
2005).
AB 65 - 1977
Assembly Bill 65 established in 1977 increased revenue limits. School
districts were guaranteed an amount of money and if they fell short the state made up
the difference. AB 65 was never implemented because in 1978 the voters of
California passed Proposition 13 (Kemerer, Sanson, & Kemerer, 2005).
Proposition 13 - 1978
Proposition 13 is a constitutional amendment passed by the voters of
California. It reduced property tax rates by fifty-seven percent and resulted in large
reductions of tax revenue available to all state funded entities including schools.
School districts lost approximately half of their property tax revenue. This translated
to a decrease of up to fifteen percent in wealthy districts and nine percent in lower
income districts. It also resulted in fiscal control moving from the local community
to the state (The Merrow Report, 2004).
AB 8 - 1979
The intent of Assembly Bill 8 was to provide California public schools with a
long-term, financing system which would meet the requirements for more equal
general purpose expenditures between districts as outlined in the Serrano v. Priest
decision. This legislation accelerated the shift from local to state financial support. It
also provided support for nineteen categorical programs and provides for school
facility funding (California Coalition for Fair School Finance, 1980).

6
Gann Limits Proposition 4 - 1979
Proposition 4 places an appropriations limit on most spending from tax
revenue. Each year the limit is equal to the previous year’s spending with
adjustments for population changes and cost of living. There are exemptions to the
appropriations such as capital outlay and debt service. When the limit is exceeded
the proposition requires that the surplus be returned to the taxpayers within two
years. This has only occurred once since its inception (California Tax and
Expenditure Limitation, 2005).
Proposition 98 - 1988
Proposition 98 is a constitutional amendment approved by the voters of
California in November 1988. There are four provisions to the proposition which
include a minimum funding for K – 12 schools and community colleges, gives an
allocation to K -14 education of 50 percent of the difference when state tax revenues
exceed the Gann spending limit, requires an annual School Accountability Report
Card, and provides for a prudent state budget reserve. This proposition involves a
complicated calculation that is affected by the overall condition of the state’s
economy. During difficult budget years the legislature has the ability to suspend
Proposition 98 with a two-thirds vote and the signature of the governor (Ed-Data,
2004).
Federal Role in California Education Funding
California receives a tremendous amount of federal dollars to serve specific
purposes for students under NCLB. These funds are earmarked to serve certain

7
populations of students in specific areas. NCLB has evolved from the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001. ESEA provided federal aid to local education agencies (LEAs) to assist
in serving children from low-income families (U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969).
Title I funds are allocated to serve students who are not performing at a
proficient level and the funding levels are determined by the number of
socioeconomically disadvantaged children. From this original legislation several
programs have emerged and are funded in most schools and districts in California
(Department of Education, 2009).
According to the United States Department of Education Title I funds are
earmarked to assist schools and districts in providing programs for
socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are struggling to reach proficiency.
Title II funds professional development opportunities for educators throughout the
state and helps to ensure all teachers are highly qualified. Title III’s focus is to
provide resources to assist English Learners. Title IV provides funding for a safe and
drug free school environment. Title V no longer receives funding and districts had
until September 2009 to deplete all funds allocated to this source. Title VI is
available for small and rural school districts. There are also federal funds available
for homeless children and youth, charter schools, preschool programs, child nutrition
programs, and vocational education.

8
Measuring Student Performance in California
In California school accountability is measured by annual yearly progress
(AYP) which sets targets in reading/language arts and mathematics with a trajectory
for all students to attain proficiency by 2014. Each state has established its own
annual targets to meet this goal. California has developed a rigorous schedule for all
students meeting this target by 2014. An AYP criterion is made up of four
components. They include: participation rate, percent proficient in language arts and
mathematics (also referred to as Annual Measurable Objectives or AMOs),
Academic Performance Index (API), explained below, as an additional indicator, and
high school graduation rate.
The API was developed through the Public Schools Accountability Act of
1999 (PSAA). API is a composite scale which measures academic growth and
performance of schools. API ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 based on
student test scores on standardized tests (American Institute for Research, 2003).
Schools are required to make their annual growth target for the school and each
significant subgroup which is five percent of the difference between its initial API
score and the statewide goal of 800 (Peterson & West). The federal requirements
differ in that a school or Local Education Agency (LEA) must have an API of 590 or
have a minimum of one point growth from the previous year (California Department
of Education, 2006).
Prior to the introduction of AYP, school progress was measured through
standardized testing but did not hold schools accountable for reaching pre-

9
determined targets. NCLB has drastically changed this. States receiving Title I funds
were required to develop challenging and rigorous academic standards in reading and
mathematics, assess students on these standards and the results of testing must be
aggregated and categorized by race, ethnicity, economic status, and disability.
Ninety-five percent of students in each group consisting of 100 or more students
must be assessed (Peterson & West). Currently NCLB requires that students in
grades three through eight participate in annual reading and math tests and students
in grades ten, eleven or twelve participate one time. Beginning in 2007 science was
added to the requirement of testing once in grade spans of three through five, six
through nine, and ten through twelve (Popham 2005).
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine three schools in a single district that
were at one time identified as Program Improvement Schools but have successfully
implemented strategies and programs that have increased their student achievement
to a level that they have exited the program. This study looks at the funding levels
for these schools which includes all state and federal funds and how these funds were
used to improve student achievement. With the current budget issues facing the state
many of these funds will decrease by approximately 20 percent in the next two years.
This study examines the successful models schools have used to make progress and
how they will tailor their programs with the prospect of declining revenues to

10
continue to meet the targets required of them. This study also examines the district
role in the success of these schools.
Research Questions
The study identifies the strategies, programs, and human capital in successful
schools and identifies the costs attached to those elements and how these are
maintained in a budgetary crisis. The study seeks to identify components that are
common to research-based adequacy models. Additionally, the schools and district
are asked to identify which of these program components are expendable in view of
probable budget reductions.
The following questions are the foundation for the study:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
and other models?
These issues are addressed using qualitative methods which include
interviews of principals and teachers at three school sites and central office personnel

11
who are critical to the funding and implementation of programs and quantitative
examination of student performance data and funding allocations at each site.
Methodology
This is a mixed methods study with both qualitative and quantitative data
collected on three schools within one school district which were, at one time,
designated PI, but have successfully exited that status.
Quantitative data was collected on student performance levels over time and
on overall expenditures at each of the three school sites. Document examination of
budgets and expenditures were reviewed and are the basis of a series of questions in
the interview process.
Qualitative data was collected through an interview process with the
principals and site leadership team of the three schools sites. Additional interviews
were held with district staff who are directly involved with budget preparation,
allocation, and program implementation.
The sites for the study were selected based on their AYP progress and ability
to exit PI status. All sites are from the same school district. Choosing schools from a
single district allows the study to consider the role the district office plays in the
success of the schools in the study. Because this school district has schools currently
in program improvement district information on the success of these non-PI schools
may serve as important information for the study. Each school exited PI at a different
level in the continuum. The cadre of schools includes one which exited program
improvement at year five and is the school to most recently exit the program.

12
Limitations
Data gathered for this study are limited to one school district located in
Southern California. Within that school district only schools that were identified as
PI and then exited the program were considered.
Delimitations
The scope of possible candidates for this study is very limited due to the
small number of schools that have successfully exited PI status. Further limiting the
number of possible participants is the even more limited number of schools exiting
program improvement from a single school district. Because this study is limited to
one school district, the results of this study can only be generalized to urban school
districts with similar demographics and funding levels.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this study include the candidness of the interviewees and the
accuracy of the documentation used for the study. To ensure accuracy and
consistency in student performance data, all student assessment scores and school
designations were gathered using the California Department of Education data
warehousing resources.
The implementation of programs and human capital at the school sites
compared with the cost of these items may show inconsistencies between school
sites and the district level as often human factors impact the accuracy of
documentation.

13
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API) A tool for measuring school
performance. The single-number index ranges from 200 to 1000. This number
summarizes a school’s performance on various indicators. A calculation is given for
the school and all significant subgroups at the school which may include students
living in poverty, English Learners, ethnic groups, and students with disabilities.
(California Department of Education, 2009)
Annual growth target The API number each school and district is expected to
reach each year.
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) The percent of students proficient in
language arts and mathematics on the standards based test used for determining
growth toward NCLB requirements. (California Department of Education, 2009)
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) “The measure by which schools, districts, and
states are held accountable for student performance under Title I of the No Child
Left Behind Act.” (Edsource, 2004).
Budget Flexibility Due to the current fiscal emergency the state has allowed
LEA’s to set aside spending rules to meet general fund obligations. (California
Department of Education, 2009)
Capital Expenditure Capital expenditure includes outlays on construction,
renovation, and major repair of buildings and expenditure for new or replacement
equipment (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009).

14
Categorical Funds from the state and federal governments that are targeted
for particular categories of children or families, special programs and special
purposes. This money is in addition to school districts' general purpose revenue, and
it usually has restrictions on its use (Ed-data, 2008).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) administered the U.S.
Department of Education provides federal aid for elementary and secondary schools
based on a formula determined by enrollment and child poverty. This legislation was
reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (Joftus, S., Cowan, K.
T., Skinner, R., May, E., and Priestman, S. 2002).
English Learner children attending school in the United States who come
from homes where a language other than English is spoken (Preschool English
Learners, 2009).
Ethnicity "is a set of descent-based cultural identifiers used to assign persons
to groupings that expand and contract in inverse relation to the scale of inclusiveness
and exclusiveness of the membership” (Fought, 2006).
General Revenue Most general-purpose education funding is apportioned to
school districts through a calculation called the "revenue limit". Each school district
has a revenue limit funding amount per unit of average daily attendance (ADA). A
district's total revenue limit is funded through a combination of local property taxes
and state General Fund aid. (California Department of Education, 2009)
Local Education Agency (LEA) “A public board of education or other public
authority within a state that maintains administrative control of public elementary or

15
secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political
subdivision of a state. School districts and county offices of education are both
LEAs. Sometimes charter schools function as LEAs”(EdSource, 2009)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) NCLB stands for No Child Left Behind which
refers to legislation enacted in 2002 under the George W. Bush administration.
NCLB represents legislation that attempts to accomplish standards-based education
reform. (United States Department of Education, 2009)
Performance Standards set expectations about how much students should
know and how well students should perform (California Teachers Association, 2009)
Program Improvement (PI) In California, Program Improvement (PI) is the
formal designation for Title I-funded schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for
two consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2008).
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Creates an educational
accountability system for California public schools. Its primary goal is to help
schools improve and to measure the academic achievement of all students (California
Department of Education, 2009)
Race “is a social category based on the identification of (1) a physical marker
transmitted through reproduction and (2) individual, group and cultural attributes
associated with that marker” (Fought, 2006).
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) California public schools are
required to annually provide information about themselves to the community which
allows the public to evaluate and compare schools for student achievement,

16
environment, resources and demographics (California Department of Education,
2009)
School Choice Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) give
parents of children attending a Title I school that has been identified for school
improvement, corrective action, restructuring (because they have not met State
achievement targets) the option to send their child to another school, that has not
been so identified (United States Department of Education, 2009)
Significant Subgroup California law defines a subgroup as being “at least 50
students who make up 15 percent or more of the school’s total population with valid
test scores, or at least 100 students with valid test scores” (California Department of
Education, 2009).
Standardized Test A standardized test is one that is administered under
controlled conditions that specify where, when, how, and for how long children may
respond to the questions or "prompts." (NCREL, 2009)
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Under Title I, districts with schools
that miss AYP for a third year are required to offer Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) to students attending those schools. SES are additional academic
instruction offered outside the regular school day by state-approved providers
(National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2007))

17
Title I “provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools with high numbers
or high percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children meet challenging
state academic standards.” (United States Department of Education, 2009)
Title II “The purpose of the program is to increase academic achievement by
improving teacher and principal quality. This program is carried out by: increasing
the number of highly qualified teachers in classrooms; increasing the number of
highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools; and increasing the
effectiveness of teachers and principals by holding LEAs and schools accountable
for improvements in student academic achievement.” (United States Department of
Education, 2009).
Title III The purpose of Title III funds is “to help ensure that children who are
limited English proficient, including immigrant children and youth, attain English
proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the
same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement
standards as all children are expected to meet” (United States Department of
Education, 2009).

18
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Funding an adequate education for all students is an important and well
debated issue today. Not all interested parties can agree on what an adequate
education is, let alone at what level education needs to be funded. NCLB has assisted
in setting the target for adequate achievement by requiring all students to reach
proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. There is also debate regarding the
best methods and strategies to implement in order for all students to achieve this
level of proficiency. One area most can agree upon is that fact that whatever strategy,
method, program, or personnel is attributed to student achievement there is a cost
attached. Education is an expensive endeavor.
A number of California schools are making progress toward student
proficiency. How they are achieving these results, and funding the methods that lead
to these results, is important to understand and to further implement. Schools and
districts are struggling with two big challenges: improving student performance and
dealing with declining fiscal resources (Daggett, 2009). In this difficult economy it is
imperative that we focus the resources available into proven strategies that will make
a difference in student learning. It is often complicated for a school or district to
focus its spending to ensure that the dollars invested are providing a reasonable
return. In order to address the challenges of improving performance and declining
resources something has to give. What schools and districts need to give up are those

19
things that only marginally improve student achievement but come at a high cost
(Daggett, 2009).
Student Performance in California
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 starting point toward reaching this proficiency based on the lowest
achieving subgroup of students or the lowest achieving schools. From here the
annual measurable objective (AMO) was set. States were required to gradually
increase the target in equal increments at least once every three years (Aspen
Institute, 2006). In the early years of NCLB, in California, the targets were set at a
low level and did not have to advance greatly each year, for the last year and
continuing through 2013-2014 the growth expectations are very aggressive as shown
in the following figures.

20
Figure 2.1: California AYP Targets for Unified School Districts English Language
Arts 2001 – 2014

!"
#!"
$!"
%!"
&!"
'!"
(!"
)!"
*!"
+!"
#!!"

Source California Department of Education (2009)

Figure 2.2: California AYP Targets for Unified School Districts Mathematics 2001
– 2014

!
"!
#!
$!
%!
&!
'!
(!
)!
*!
"!!

Source California Department of Education (2009)

21
For the 2007-2008 school year some groups have exceeded the targets,
however, the students with disabilities subgroup and the English Learner subgroup
have not, as shown in the figures below.

Figure 2.3: Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in California in English
Language Arts by Significant Subgroup 2007-2008

!"#$
!%#&
''#(
))#!
"*#%
'"#)
'*#+
+$#(
"!#"
'*#*
"(#!
& $&&
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
White (not Hipanic origin)
Pacific Islander
Hipanic or Latino
Filipino
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black (not of Hispanic origin)
Statewide

Source California Department of Education (2009)

Figure 2.4: Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in California in Mathematics
by Significant Subgroup 2007-2008

!"#$
%&#'
%(#"
')#&
)(#!
)*#*
'"#"
"&#&
)!#$
%)#*
$+#*
* +**
Students with Disabilities
English Learners
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
White (not Hipanic origin)
Pacific Islander
Hipanic or Latino
Filipino
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black (not of Hispanic origin)
Statewide

Source California Department of Education (2009)
Groups
Groups

22
In addition to AYP proficiency levels, schools and districts are also required
to show growth in high school graduation rates and one additional indicator.
Graduation rates are expected to grow by a similar trajectory to proficiency rates in
California. By 2014 California is expected to reach a high school graduation rate of
83.6% in order to be considered successful and remain out of Program Improvement.
Figure 2.5 reflects the graduation rate targets for California.

Figure 2.5: California Graduation Rate Targets 2001 – 2014

!"#$
!"#%
!"#&
!"#'
!"#!
!"#(
!)
!)#*
!)#"
!)#)
!)#$
!)#%
!)#&
!)#'
!)#!

Source California Department of Education (2009)

The additional indicator in California is the Academic Performance Index
(API). In order to attain an API score students’ performance scores across multiple
content areas are converted into points. These points are averaged across all students

23
and all tests. The results used to determine API are the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and the California High School Exit Exam (California
Department of Education, 2009). While schools may attain a maximum API score of
1000 the state target is 800.

Figure 2.6: California API Targets 2001 – 2014

!
"!!
#!!
$!!
%!!
&!!
'!!
(!!
)!!
*!!

Source California Department of Education (2009)

Table 2.1 below shows the 2008 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. Title I
federal funds and Economic Impact Aid (EIA) state funds target socioeconomically
disadvantaged (SED) students who are not meeting proficiency goals. Title III

24
federal funds and EIA state categorical funds target English Learners (EL).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds are intended for students
with disabilities (SWD). The African American subgroup is not the specific focus of
any categorical program; however many of these same students are represented in
the SED, SWD, and EL subgroups. These subgroups of students represent additional
funds allocated t o many school districts in California. The federal funds and EIA
funds have not been granted the previously mentioned flexibility and must be used to
meet the needs of these students. This may allow many school districts, in the current
fiscal crisis, to maintain programs that have been developed to serve these students.

Table 2.1: Statewide 2008 Base APIs Overall and for Student Subgroups

Group Score
African American 659
American Indian or Alaska Native 708
Asian 864
Filipino 824
Hispanic or Latino 683
Pacific Islander 734
White (Not of Hispanic Origin 814
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 681
English Learners 663
Students with Disabilities 663
Overall 741
Source: California Department of Education (2009)

25
California has set very high goals for our students and currently we are a long
way from meeting the ultimate goal of 100% proficiency. Our education system
strives to educate all students, including the most disadvantaged, to very high
standards. These standards exceed any current levels achieved in the United States.
Learning how to accomplish this goal is more than learning what other states are
doing and implementing the strategies of the high-performers; it requires learning
how to educate students in new and better ways (Loeb and Plank, 2007).
The purpose of the review of literature that follows is to examine the
strategies that have been proven to increase student achievement and the challenges
and successes schools and districts have experienced in implementing these
approaches. In investigating these methods the funding models available to schools
and districts to ensure fiscally sound, research based decision making is an important
consideration.
Our nation spends over of $500 billion on K – 12 education every year. It is
the biggest budget item in most states. Methods for funding education are often
complex and difficult to understand (Odden and Picus, 2008). Adequacy models
determine the actual amount of money required to make all of the educational
services needed to provide each student the opportunity to meet the state education
standards (National Access Network, 2006). Four methods have emerged to estimate
adequate expenditure levels. They include: the successful school district approach,
the cost function approach, the professional judgment approach and the evidence-
based approach (Odden, 2003).

26
The Successful School District Approach
The successful school district approach was developed in response to an Ohio
adequacy ruling and was designed by John Augenblick and John Myers (School
Funding Matters, 2009). This model identifies schools that are successfully meeting
educational goals, usually determined by test scores. The amount of money spent in
those schools establishes the funding levels for other schools and districts in the state
(Hoff, 2005). Spending on special programs such as special education or remediation
is stripped out of the budget figures to obtain a base cost and then added back in
depending on the distribution of students with special needs (Hanushek, 2005).
Different criteria defining a successful school are determined for each study. This
criterion is often supplied by the state legislature or the state department of
education. The primary difference in the criteria is likely to be the academic
performance measures (American Institutes for Research, 2007).
The strengths of this approach include the fact that the concept is easy to
understand and it appears logical. This approach also tends to produce lower
estimates for the cost of educational adequacy which also provides political appeal
(American Institutes for Research, 2007).
A major limitation of this approach lies in the defining of successful schools
in an overly simplistic manner which ignores the impact of student characteristics
including special needs on the resources required to reach desired outcomes
(American Institutes for Research, 2007).

27
Cost Function Approach
The cost function approach or econometric approach attempts to take into
account the relationship between dollars spent and student outcomes (Augenblick,
Myers, & Anderson, 1997). This approach makes use of regression analysis using
per pupil expenditures as the dependent variable and student and district
demographics and desired performance levels as independent variables (Odden,
2003). Like other models, this approach requires policymakers to determine explicit
outcome goals (Hoff, 2005). The information gleaned from the cost function
approach can be used to inform policy and helps to determine the extent of
adjustments needed for student and district characteristics (Picus, 2004). Differences
in predicted spending provide insight into the degree to which issues outside of a
district’s control affect the cost of education (Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor, Booker,
2004).
One strength of this approach is that it offers a statistical approach to
determining the variation in spending across districts (Gronberg, et al., 2004).
Another strength is that this method appears objective and holds the promise of
scientifically estimating the cost of achievement based on data. Some education
finance specialists began asserting that this method is the most scientifically valid to
determine the cost of adequacy (Costrell, Hanushek, & Loeb, 2008).
While this approach is appealing among economists, it is difficult to explain
to policymakers and the public. It uses a number of inputs which makes it very
complex mathematically (Picus, 2004). Another criticism of the cost function

28
approach is that it does not directly inform schools and districts in how they should
spend their funds (Gronberg, et al., 2004).
The Professional Judgment Approach
The Professional Judgment Approach was developed in Wyoming in 1995 as
a result of the litigation of Campbell County School District v. the State of Wyoming
(Guthrie & Springer, 2007). This method brings together a group of professional
educators and asks them to identify the resources necessary to enable students to
meet the state’s proficiency standards. These professionals are also asked to
determine the resources needed to provide adequate services to students with special
needs such as English Learners and special education students (Picus & Blair, 2004).
The experts then attach a price to each identified component and determine a total
per pupil cost to provide an adequate education (Odden 2003).
Chambers, Levin, and DeLancey (2006) indicate that a comprehensive use of
the professional judgment model includes extensive public engagement in the
development of the goals of the school system and engages stakeholders to review
the work of and provide feedback to the panel(s).
Odden (2003) suggests that an advantage of this approach is that, “it
identifies what is required to produce actual student performance” (p. 123). Other
advantages cited by Picus and Blair (2004) include that fact that this approach is easy
to explain to the public, the estimates are based on recommendations by professional
educators who have experience in educating students, and this model allows for

29
adjustments due to factors such as geographic price fluctuations and the special
needs of students such as English Learners.
Disadvantages include the fact that the strategies and components that may
arise may not be proven to impact student performance levels (Odden, 2003).
Without parameters, this method can be very costly and it is not possible to ensure
that there is not conflict of interest among the panel members (Picus & Blair, 2004).
The Evidence-Based Approach
The Evidence-based Approach was developed by Allan Odden and Lawrence
Picus and is the funding model used as the framework for this study. As outlined by
Allan Odden (2003):
This approach identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a
high-quality, comprehensive, school-wide instructional program. Then it
determines an adequate expenditure level by assigning a price to each
ingredient and aggregating to a total cost. The evidence-based approach more
directly identifies educational strategies that produce desired results, so it
helps guide schools in the most effective use of their dollars. This approach
also uses the strategies and ingredients of comprehensive school design
models, which themselves are compilations of research and best practice into
school-wide educational strategies. (p. 123)

Picus and Blair (2004) cite the major advantage of this approach is that it
depends on the research proven to contribute to increasing student achievement, and
can be applied to all schools and districts within a state.
Picus and Blair (2004) indicate that “Its major drawback lies in the extent that
research-based models won’t work in absolutely every situation. In other words,
using the evidence based approach may not lead to models that will improve student
performance in all situations” (p. 6).

30
Using this model an elementary school of 500 students would include the
following components:
• One principal
• Two and one half instructional coaches
• A preschool for three and four year olds with one teacher and one aide for
every fifteen students
• Full-day kindergarten
• Class sizes of fifteen for kindergarten through third grade and twenty-five
for all other grades
• An additional 20 percent of teachers to allow for planning and preparation
time which requires a portion of the time be spent in collaboration. These
teachers provide instruction in art, music, physical education and other
noncore academic classes.
• Credentialed teachers who serve as tutors for struggling students. This
equates to one tutor for every 100 students from low-income families
with a minimum of one tutor per school.
• Sufficient funds for special needs students
• A significant allocation of funds for professional development training
per teachers
• An allocation per student for computer technologies to include purchase,
upgrade, and repair
• Family outreach

31
• Resources for materials, equipment and supplies for operation and
maintenance, and for clerical support (Odden, 2003).
The Evidence Based Model has been successfully implemented in Wyoming
and Arkansas and supports each of the recommended strategies with strong research.
California has yet to address many of the staffing recommendations outlined in the
EBM possibly because of the costs attached. However, a number of the strategies
that are delineated in the Evidence based model are being implemented in California
schools.
Each of these funding models are intended to address the needs of students
with the ultimate goal of providing a program that is educationally sound and results
in student proficiency.
While a plethora of strategies exist and are attributed to student achievement,
this researcher has chosen to focus on the following eight research-based strategies:
1. The use of data-driven decision making
2. Using instructional time efficiently.
3. The implementation of on-going professional development for teachers
and administrators which includes the use of content experts and
collaboration.
4. Leadership
5. Setting high standards and expectations for students
6. Extended learning opportunities for struggling students

32
7. Preschool and full day kindergarten
8. Fiscal support for school sites.
Strategies for Improving Student Performance
NCLB is not popular with many in education; however, it is arguably the
impetus for some positive changes in the field. It has been the driving force behind
many schools and districts implementing strategies to improve student achievement
that would have likely never been tried were it not for the urgency to move students
forward. Because of the high expectations and the requirement for research-based
curricula and interventions set forth in this legislation, we are seeing a focused
targeted approach to designing instruction and programs that impact student success.
Each of these comes with challenges; however, we are seeing research in the field to
support the use of many of these approaches.
Data-Driven Decision Making
Fielder (2003) states, “Although the concept of high-stakes assessment is
abhorrent to many educators, it is vital to increasing student achievement.” (p. 100).
Marsh, Pane, and Hamilton (2006) suggest that data-driven decision making in
education refers to the systematic collection and analysis of various types of data to
guide decisions which facilitate student and school success. Data-driven decision
making is a diagnostic tool that encourages teachers to tailor instruction to meet
student needs (Doyle, 2003). Data can help us identify strategies that are working,
solve problems, and identify the best use of resources (Johnson, 2002).

33
Johnson (2002) cites six major uses for data and indicates that school
communities can identify other ways to use data to improve schools. The identified
roles for data include improving the quality of criteria used in problem solving and
decision making, describing institutional processes, practices and progress in schools
and districts, examining institutional belief systems, underlying assumptions and
behaviors, mobilizing the school or district community for action, monitoring
implementation of reforms, and accountability.
All of these uses of data lead us to the ultimate purpose, which as described
by Goldring and Berends (2009) is to improve the educational experience for all
students. NCLB not only holds schools and districts accountable for improving
student performance but educators are being asked to use data to drive numerous
decisions (Mandinach & Honey, 2008).
Using data-driven decision making is a difficult task and requires
commitment from the school district. There must be a person at the district level who
champions the use of data and keeps the practice moving forward (Blink, 2007).
Additionally, the principal, as the instructional leader of a school site must
completely understand the process of data collection and use. If the principal is
unable to do this it leads to frustration and disillusionment with the process of
developing a plan for data use and decision making (Ontario Principal’s Council,
2009).
Halcomb (2004) identifies six barriers to data use. They include: lack of
training, lack of time, data overload, fear of evaluation, fear of exposure, and

34
challenges to the school cultures. While we have moved forward with peer
interaction at schools, Halcomb (2004) explains that we have not created a culture of
collective responsibility for all students. For a very long time teachers were in
“private practice”. They are now being asked to talk with peers about their practice
and use data to drive those conversations. This is difficult for many teachers in the
field.
In order to use data effectively it is important to implement four necessary
components. It is important the budgets reflect the need and priority of data
collection and use. Professional development is essential in an organization of data
users. It is necessary to identify what outside resources might be necessary to
facilitate the use of data. Lastly, it is essential to assess the technological needs and
resources at the school or district (Johnson, 2002). Additionally, Doyle (2003)
identifies three fundamental dimensions that must be in place in order for data-driven
decision making to work. They are: data warehousing with decision-support tools,
standards-based, curricular alignment, and community engagement.
Where do we get all of the data to examine? Odden (2009) suggests that it is
important to increase the assessments given to students. We have to move beyond
using the annual state tests. Regular benchmark data and formative assessments need
to be used to focus teaching on student needs. On the other hand, Hohn and Veitch
(2000) indicate that teachers, participating in a study they conducted in Colorado,
felt that their instructional time is being replaced by testing and are also in fear that
these test scores will be used to evaluate them. Blink (2007) cites the importance of

35
multiple measures of learning. The fact that these measures must be collected
throughout the year and analyzed on a regular basis is stressed. Blink (2007) states,
“Student learning data are the most critical data for school improvement.” (p. 15).
These data include state and national assessment data, local standardized data such as
the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP),
district assessment, and classroom assessment. Fielder (2003) indicates that
assessments should be multifaceted. The determination of a student, school, or
district should not be decided by a single measure.
An obstacle to the use of data-driven decision making highlighted by Wilson
(2007) is that teachers do not think they have access to the data, and if they do, they
do not know what to do with it or do not have the time to analyze it. Wilson (2007)
points out that the process of using data to drive instruction does not have to be a
formal one and teachers use data regularly to make decisions without realizing this is
data-driven decision making.
All of the literature reviewed agrees that data-driven decision making is key
to student, school, and district improvement.
Instructional Time
The American Educational Research Association (2007) corroborates
multiple studies that confirm the proposal that students who spend more time
engaged in appropriate curriculum have higher achievement than students who spend
less time engaged in learning. They go on to refine the parameters indicating that it is

36
not just the amount of time impacting learning but the level of engagement which is
influenced by the delivery of instruction.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (2009) identifies
effective use of time as one of the strongest factors identified for improved student
achievement. They name four types of identified time. They are:
• Allocated time – the time in the school day set aside for instruction
• Instructional time – time in class teachers spend on task
• Engaged time – time students are paying attention and receiving content
instruction
• Academic learning time – the portion of engaged time students are
successful at the task in which they are engaged. This is the time that has
the strongest correlation to student achievement.
Research suggests that improving the quality of instructional time is as
important as increasing the quantity of time in school and much less costly. High
quality teaching is of added benefit to groups of students who have little opportunity
to learn outside of school such as socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Silva,
2007).
Odden (2009) addresses many issues related to instructional time including
class size and small group tutoring. He cites practices in schools that have improved
student achievement that are easily implemented such as protecting instructional
time by not interrupting classrooms and by making language arts and mathematics

37
blocks longer in duration. He too indicates the necessity of maximizing student
learning by engagement.
Professional Development
Elmore (2002) defines professional development as, “the set of knowledge
and skill-building activities that raise the capacity of teachers and administrators to
respond to external demand and to engage in the improvement of practice and
performance” (p. 13).
Professional Development has evolved in education as most strategies for
school and student improvement. It was considered important to assess teachers in
order that they could determine their perceived needs for learning. This practice has
fallen out of favor because of the debate of the needs assessments being based on
actual need or merely teacher desire (Tallerico, 2005). Tallerico goes on to state, “the
content of teachers’ on-the-job continuing education should be derived from data on
student learning needs-not the needs of adults who may respond to a survey
questionnaire about their interests or preferences” (p. 5).
Fullen (1992) indicates that the best results are achieved when the new
practices are integrated with demonstrations, opportunity to practice, and individual
feedback as in the coaching model. Traditionally, professional development was
based on attendance at workshops or conferences. Increasingly, training has become
school-focused. This enables a school to focus on their needs and enables the staff to
work as a team (Hopkins, Aisncow & West, 1994). Often the workshops teachers
attend are not connected to their daily practice and they are left to their own devices

38
to determine how to best align the learning with their practice. This disconnect does
not give teachers the opportunity to seriously study the subject matter, apply it to
their classroom and reflect on the outcomes (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree,
Richardson, and Orphanos, 2009). Team-based learning communities where teachers
use information from their students based on assessments directly related to the
curriculum, not one-time workshops are the very best kind of professional
development (Schmoker, 2006).
Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon, (2002) highlight the importance
of teachers’ participation in the design of professional development. When teachers
are involved in the planning of professional development there is a more coherent
offering that is more closely tied to the needs of the teachers and the site as a whole.
It also helps to ensure a greater number of participants in the professional
development activity.
As professional development evolves we are seeing it take on different
formats. There continues to be the large-scale conferences, university courses, and
trainings on specific topics. These serve a purpose very different from the coaching
and collaborative models. This is an avenue to present ideas, network with
colleagues, and provide for individual learning (Fullan, 1992). Tallerico (2005) sees
the goal of the single-events and assemblies to listen to a renowned speaker to
inspire, entertain, raise awareness, or to get the latest information on a specific topic.
Also under this umbrella would be the content specific trainings that require a certain
amount of “seat time” followed by a required number of hours of practicum. This is

39
the model used for the California SB472 previously named AB466. This training is
directly tied to the adopted content and is highly recommended by the California
Department of Education especially for those schools and districts that are not
meeting performance goals.
McEwan (2002) encourages school leaders to make sure that any professional
development that is sponsored or endorsed by the leadership has a direct connection
to the vision and/or mission of the school. When unrelated workshops are promoted
it may result in taking teachers off task.
In research conducted through interviews with teachers, there was criticism
of professional development that is “one shot” in design and that do not address the
real classroom needs of teachers. Teachers are also critical of trainings that do not
provide follow-up activities and does not recognize the expertise of teachers. Often
these programs cause teachers to resist embracing the new ideas presented because
they become just another program or idea that will, like all the others, just pass
(Knight, 2007).
Odden (2009) culled the research pertaining to professional development and
summarized that the key components of effective professional development as one
that should:
• Be school-based, job-embedded, ongoing, and focused on the curriculum
• Total at least 100 hours and possibly go as high as 200 hours
• Be organized around groups of teachers and include everyone at the
school

40
• Focus on the curriculum including problems students might encounter
and effective instructional strategies
• Provide opportunities for teachers to work with coaches to incorporate
strategies into practice
• Be aligned to other parts of the system such as standards, goals, and
evaluation.
The newer models impacting professional development are coaching and
collaboration.
Coaching can be described differently by different people and there are a
variety of types of coaches. Reeves (2009) states simply that, “Effective coaching
focuses on changing performance” (p. 75). Coaching did not begin in the world of
education. It started with executives in the business world to assist upper
management in becoming more effective at what they do (Knight, 2007). In
education, coaching can take on a number of names such as cognitive coach, literacy
coach, content area coach, technical coach, collegial coach, challenge coach, and so
on. Whatever the name, the object is improved teacher practice which leads to
improved student achievement. Toll (2006) sees the role of the coach as having three
purposes. They are: “teacher remediation, program implementation, and teacher
growth” (p.11). Sandvold and Baxter (2008) simply state that, “It is the purpose of
coaching to promote expert teaching” (p. 2). Joyce and Showers (2002) indicate that
all of the models of coaching are not used for evaluation. Technical, team and peer

41
coaching focus on implementing innovations in curriculum and instruction while
collegial and cognitive coaching focus more on improving practice and repertoire.
Moran (2007) outlines the key issues related to literacy coaching. They
include:
• The optimal number of coaches for school size
• The elements of successful practice
• Defining the roles of coaches and teachers
• The attributes of coaches
• The fit with other professional development models
• Measuring the success for all stakeholders
• Supervision and support.
Moran (2007) goes on to point out that there is relatively little empirical
evidence to support the use of coaches and the impact on student achievement, this
role is expanding throughout schools and in policy and practice in the United States.
NCLB (2001) indicates that teachers should have mentoring, team teaching and
intensive professional development made available to them. The Reading First
Program of 2002 was the largest most focused early reading initiative. The guidance
for this program requires schools to employ coaches, mentors, peers and outside
experts to provide feedback to teachers and they learn and implement new concepts
(United States Department of Education, 2002).
Other policy documents refer to the use of coaches, peers, and outside experts
such as the 2000 document Every Child Reading: a Professional Development

42
Guide. This report shows coaching to be an important component of professional
development and recommends its use with teachers as they learn new skills (Moran,
2007).
Joyce and Showers have been studying the area of coaching and collaborative
relationships with educational staff since the early 1980’s. In the early 1980’s Joyce
and Showers (2002) found that technical assistance provided to teachers by an
outside or peer expert resulted in greater implementation than those who did not
receive long-term support or coaching. They also found that the skilled trainer could
effectively provide technical assistance to teachers while other teachers who were
also just learning the techniques were not qualified to provide that technical
assistance.
In the early studies by Joyce and Showers (2002) they found that coached
teachers retained many positive results from the process. They were more likely to
have long-term retention of the material, did a better job of explaining new models to
students, and better understood the purposes of new strategies.
Collaboration is related to coaching in that the coach at a school may be the
person who leads the collaborative conversations or observes good teaching in a
classroom and recommends another teacher visit that room for an observation. Today
the term collaboration is synonymous with Professional Learning Communities
(PLC). DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) indicate that a PLC is a school or
district that, “embrace high levels of learning for all students as both the reason the
organization exists and the fundamental responsibility of those who work within it”

43
(p. 3). They go on to state that, “collaboration represents a systematic process in
which teachers work together interdependently in order to impact their classroom
practice in ways that will lead to better results for their students, their team, and for
their school” (p. 3).
Mandinach and Honey (2008) have found in their work with schools that
professional learning communities have been one of the most significant tools in
facilitating positive change. Schmoker (2006) concurs by stating that, “PLC’s have
emerged arguably as the best, most agreed upon means by which to continuously
improve instruction and student performance” (p. 106).
While it is easy to get teachers to work together on the simple projects like a
holiday program, it is often more difficult to get them to collaborate on the important
and difficult issues such as curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Wilson, 2007).
In order to have effective collaboration it is important for teams to establish
common and concise curricular standards and teach them on a common schedule, to
meet a minimum of two times per month for a period of at least forty-five minutes,
and to make use of common assessments to determine strategies that are working and
were adjustments need to be made. Attempts at PLC’s that have failed can often be
traced back to the lack of fidelity to these requirements (Schmoker, 2006).
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) outline seven components of
effective professional development which integrates the in-service model, the
coaching model and collaboration. They are:

44
• Engage teachers in practical tasks and require them to observe, assess,
and reflect on new knowledge
• Participant driven
• Collaborative
• Connected to the work of teachers and students
• Sustained, on-going and intensive
• Supported through modeling, coaching, and collaboration
• Connect to other school change.
These components mirror those outlined by Odden. The research agrees that
professional development is an integral part of improving practice. There appears to
be some conflicting findings regarding the evidence supporting some models of
professional development such as the coaching model. While most researchers today
seem to point to the importance of this type of model there does not appear to be
definitive evidence that indicates it is a strong factor in improved student
achievement. In the scope of education it is a relatively new concept and a well
studied one. It is also a model with varied components and definitions. The research
that does discuss its impact is positive and suggests implementing its use to improve
school performance.
Instructional Leadership
Many believe the school principal or leader plays a central role in the success
or failure of a school. While there is an abundance of books on the leadership
practices for educational administrators, there is relatively little research on the

45
impact of school leadership on student academic achievement. Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) found that between 1970 and 2005 more than 5,000 articles and
studies on the topic of leadership in schools were published but only 69 of those
studies between 1978 and 2001 looked at the quantitative links between the school
leadership and student achievement. When Marzano et al. (2005) analyzed the data
represented by these studies they found a positive correlation of 0.25 between
principals’ leadership skills and student achievement.
Wilson (2007) provides school leaders with ten steps to implement to be an
effective instructional leader. They include:
• Establish and maintain a clear vision and/or mission
• Create a collaborative learning community
• Attend to climate issues
• Develop a school-wide behavior plan
• Stress student achievement
• Visit classrooms and ask questions
• Provide resources
• Require data use for planning instruction
• Meet with grade-level teams to discuss the data
• Maintain communication with parents, teachers, and the community.
School leaders have to understand that comprehensive reform requires
support and pressure (DuFour et al., 2006). There has been a movement for bottom-
up leadership for some time in education. While it is important to foster stakeholders

46
in assuming a leadership role it is also important to keep in mind that both district
and site leaders must be willing and able to assert top-down leadership when
necessary (DuFour et al., 2006).
As stated earlier, there is evidence that suggests that the role of the school
leader directly affects student learning. The principal’s abilities are paramount to
building schools that encourage and support good teaching and learning for all
students (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, 2005).
Davis, et al. (2005) reports that research has identified three important
aspects of the principal’s job. These include:
1. developing deep understanding of how to support teachers
2. managing the curriculum in ways that promote student learning and
3. developing the ability to transform schools into more effective
organizations that foster powerful teaching and learning for all students.
(p. 5).
Marzano, et al. (2005) culled the research and identified 21 responsibilities of
the site administrator and correlated that with student academic achievement. The
results of this research is presented below in table 2.2.

47
Table 2.2: The Twenty-one Principal Responsibilities and Their Correlations (r)
with Student Academic Achievement

Responsibility The extent to which the principal. . . Average r
Number of
Studies
Number of
Schools
Affirmation
Recognizes and celebrates accomplishments and
acknowledges failures.
.19 6 332
Change Agent
Is willing to challenge and actively challenges the
status quo
.25 6 466
Contingent Rewards
Recognizes and rewards individual
accomplishments
.24 9 465
Communication
Establishes strong lines of communication with
and among teachers and students
.23 11 299
Culture
Fosters shared belief and a sense of community and
cooperation
.25 15 809
Discipline
Protects teachers from issues and influences that
would detract from their teaching time and focus
.27 12 437
Flexibility
Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs
of the current situation and is comfortable with
dissent
.28 6 277
Focus
Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
forefront of the schools attention
.24 44 1619
Ideals/Beliefs
Communicates and operates from strong ideals and
beliefs about schooling
.22 7 513
Input
Involves teachers in the design and implementation
of important decisions and policies
.25 16 669
Intellectual Stimulation
Ensures faculty and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and makes the
discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s
culture
.24 4 302
Involvement in
Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and
implementation of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices
.20 23 826
Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices.
.25 10 368
Monitoring/Evaluation
Monitors the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning
.27 31 1129
Optimizer Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations .20 17 724
Order
Establishes a set of standard operating procedures
and routines
.25 17 456
Outreach
Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to
all stakeholders
.27 14 478
Relationships
Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects
of teachers and staff.
.18 11 505
Resources
Provides teachers with materials and professional
development necessary for the successful
execution of their jobs.
.25 17 571
Situational Awareness
Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the
running of the school and uses this information to
address current and potential problems
.33 5 91
Visibility
Has quality contact and interactions with teachers
and students
.20 13 477
Source: School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results.

48
The characteristic that is shown to have the greatest impact on student
achievement is situational awareness. Marzano et al. (2005) indicate that each of
these traits is important to the leadership of a school.
Collins (2001) in his book Good to Great identifies the five levels of an
effective leader. While this literature is not exclusive to the school setting it is
inclusive. These levels would go beyond the school site and include the district
leadership. The most effective leaders would possess the qualities in all five levels
which include:
• Level 1 – Highly capable individual – is talented, knowledgeable, skillful
and possesses good work habits
• Level 2 – Contributing team member – contributes to the achievement of
the group and works effectively with others
• Level 3 – Competent manager – organizes people and resources to the
meet the objectives of the organization
• Level 4 – Effective leader – maintains a clear vision and stimulates higher
performance standards
• Level 5 – Executive – Builds greatness through a blend of humility and
will.
The qualities of an effective leader are many. There is information on how
the school is influenced by these leaders. The difficulty lies in how to develop these
characteristics in the administrative force. There is a shortage of highly qualified
school leaders. Often many aspiring administrators are certified through a program

49
that ill-prepares them for the challenges of effectively running a school or district
and translating their leadership into improved student achievement (Davis et al.,
2005).
The principal cannot be the only instructional leader at a school. Odden and
Archibald (2009) found in the schools that doubled student performance, that there
was a density of instructional leaders. District office personal provide leadership,
teachers take on leadership roles as literacy coaches, mentors, grade-level chairs and
curriculum facilitators. This enables an organization to move forward when there is a
change in formal leadership. This requires strong collaboration across levels and
content areas.
Setting High Standards and Expectations for Students
Standards serve two purposes. The first is to address the concern that
America is loosing its competitive edge in the world market. The second is to shed
light on the disparity between high and low achieving students (Gratz, 2000).
Former Secretary of Education, Dr. Roderick R. Paige (2001) stated, “The
only way we can expect students to achieve is to set clear and high standards. Setting
high standards for children is the only way to show them that we have confidence in
their ability to achieve” (p. 1).
Schmoker (2001) recalls a superintendent stating that, “Expectations are the
single most powerful factor that affects student achievement” (p. 94). When
designing curriculum educators should keep in mind what students should be able to

50
do. Too often the design of curriculum is around what the designer believes the
students can do.
Bain and Herman (1990) state, “School leaders and other educators must
have the profound belief that all children can learn and must have high expectations
for the academic performance of all students” (p. 41).
There have been programs developed to assist teachers in placing high
expectations on their students. One such program is Teacher Expectations Student
Achievement (TESA). This program prescribes behaviors for teachers to implement
to facilitate interaction that raises expectations and thus raises achievement
(McEwan, 2002).
Odden (2009) summarizes that districts who have doubled performance, set
very high goals for all students. They do not exclude the low-income, minority, or
English Learner populations from their goals. The districts that set these ambitious
goals and do not meet them have made tremendous progress toward their targets.
They are laying the foundation in getting from Good to Great (Odden, 2009).
Some have charged that setting high standards is elitist. Conversely most
educators believe that adopting challenging standards is the key to excellence and
equity in education (Kelly 1993).
Some are concerned that with high standards come unintended consequences.
We are creating a higher level of competition and sanctioning low performing
schools. This increases the pressure on students and schools. We see teachers
seeking ways to exclude low performing students from their classes. Students are

51
being stressed by the added expectations. Homework is increased; play and free time
are decreased. High standards leads to increased retentions which some profess leads
to higher drop out rates in later years (Gratz, 2000). Protests have come from more
affluent families who see the focus on content standards as a diminution on
innovative programs and in increase on test preparation (Solomon, 2009).
The literature overwhelmingly favors setting high standards and expectations
for all students. While the opposing view of the consequences can be seen in many
schools, it appears the end result of high standards and expectations has a more
positive impact on student learning.
Extended Learning Opportunities
A study performed for a Washington think tank found more than 300
initiatives to extend learning time were begun between 1991 and 2007 in high-
poverty and high-minority schools (Gewertz, 2008).
Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs) take on a variety of formats and
may include before and after school programs, Saturday academy, summer school, or
any type of extended year program. These programs are intended to improve student
achievement (National Education Association, 2008). The 21
st
Century Schools grant
has provided schools with funds to offer after school programs that consist of many
components. One of these is often academic support which is impacting student
achievement (Odden and Archibald, 2009). Other examples of ELOs outlined by
Odden and Archibald (2009) may take place during the regular school day. One of
which is double periods for middle and high school students usually in mathematics

52
or language arts. Another very effective ELO is individual or small-group tutoring.
The tutoring strategy is designed to provide a rapid intervention for students
struggling over a concept in reading or math and provides the student with intensive
help so the student can master the concept rather than waiting until a remedial
program is necessary (Odden and Archibald, 2009).
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 will provide
states and school districts with additional funds for the next two years. The guidance
for these funds makes recommendations for their use which includes extended
learning opportunities for students. The guidance for these funds suggests expanding
after-school and summer learning programs and providing more time for learning
and one-on-one and small group instruction to address the specific needs of low-
performing students (United States Department of Education, 2009).
McEwan (2002) points out that a school leader who is confident that all
children can perform to the state expectations rapidly realizes the impossibility of
this happening without ELOs. She recommends school leaders break away from the
time barriers that have been established and often keep students from achieving.
Research has shown that ELOs have a positive impact on student
performance and esteem. They can increase academic achievement especially for
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Additionally, the research points out that
ELOs have minimal effect on student learning if they do not incorporate effective
teaching strategies and curriculum designed to engage students (NEA, 2008).

53
Preschool and Extended Day Kindergarten
Researchers examined the data from a study in Chicago which looked at an
early childhood program for children of poverty. They have found that for every
dollar spent on the program nearly $10 is returned by age 25 in benefits to society or
to the participant (Jacobson, 2008).
Studies of Head Start programs do not see the same results. They show more
short-term effects on children’s literacy and social skills (Schweinhart, 2008). In
looking at the programs that produced the best results five components stand out as a
guide for building successful programs. They include:
• Include all children in the program. This includes low-income children.
• Have qualified teachers who are provided with on-going support.
• Use validated child-development curriculum.
• Teachers spend substantial time with parents providing education about
child development and extending learning opportunities.
• Continuously assess the program (Schweinhart, 2008).
Some argue that half of a child’s school achievement is directly related to the
kind of early learning opportunities available to them. Research also shows that the
more opportunities available to children in the early years the better their
achievement will be when they reach first grade (Fielder, 2003).
Odden and Picus (2008) refer to the research that shows the positive effects
preschool has on students, especially students of poverty and recommend states fully
fund full-day preschool for three and four year olds.

54
WestEd (2005) cites the research comparing half-and and full-day
kindergarten which shows that children benefit from a full-day program that is
developmentally appropriate. WestEd focused on seven studies. They found that full-
day kindergarten leads to higher achievement, improved student attendance,
improved literacy and language development, and social and emotional benefits.
There are also concerns raised with full-day kindergarten which include a decrease in
informal play and exploration for young children, greater costs, a competition of
funds that would be used for preschool and other early childhood programs (WestEd
2005), and providing curriculum that is not age appropriate (Martinez & Snider,
2001).
Brooks (2008) further underscores the benefits of full-day kindergarten with
research that shows students who have attended a full-day program earn higher
grades throughout middle school, show higher standardized test scores for two years
after participating in full-day kindergarten, and these students are less likely to be
retained through third grade if they have attended kindergarten full day. In a New
Jersey Supreme Court case (Abbott v. Burke) the court relied on a report which
indicated that students participating in a full-day kindergarten program are provided
one of the most cost-effective strategies for reducing the drop-out rate and helping
students at risk to become better learners (Brooks, 2008).
These positive research findings lead Odden and Picus (2008) to recommend
states provide the means for districts to offer these programs to parents who would
like their child to participate. They recommend that students who attend a full day

55
kindergarten should be counted as one student as opposed the current practice of
counting kindergarten students as 0.5 students for funding purposes.
Martinez and Snider (2001) report that findings showing the long term
benefits of full-day kindergarten are not conclusive but some evidence suggests that
full-day kindergarten show many of the same benefits as those shown in students
who have attended preschool.
Fiscal Support
All of the above improvement practices have a cost attached. NCLB along
with other reforms have focused schools, districts, and states on the goal of designing
an education system that will provide all students the tools to meet high proficiency
standards (Odden and Picus, 2008).
The approaches detailed earlier in this chapter are designed to determine the
cost of an adequate education. All of these approaches create a link between
spending and student performance (Picus & Blair, 2004). The evidence-based
approach identifies specific ingredients that are designed to allow a school to provide
a high-quality, comprehensive instructional program (Odden, 2003). Each of these
specific ingredients has a cost attached which may require an increase of funds for
schools to implement the recommendations.
Hanushek (2003) argues that expenditures have increased in schools yet there
have not been any significant changes in student outcomes. He goes on to point out
that class sizes have fallen by almost 40% between 1960 and 2000 and the education
levels of teachers have risen which lead to an increase in per pupil spending. He

56
indicates that student expenditures in 1990 dollars increase from $164 in 1890 to
$772 in 1940 to $4,622 in 1990. He uses the National Assessment of Educational
Performance (NAEP) results to show that there is only a slight increase in 1999 over
30 years earlier when spending was much lower. Hanushek (2003) does cite the
changes in student demographics as a possible cause for the increased resources with
no apparent performance increase. These include students of poverty and single
parent families. Between 1970 and 1990 children living in poverty rose from 1.5% to
20%. There has also been a drastic increase in the number of children who are
second language learners.
Odden and Picus (2008) agree with Hanushek’s report of increases in
education spending but note that most of the new money has not gone to regular
classrooms. Most of the increased revenue has been allocated to specialists for non-
core subjects and for pull out programs based on student needs which would account
for the appearance of decreased class size when in reality class sizes have, for the
most part, remained the same.
Odden and Archibald, (2000) indicate that schools they have studied, that
have shown improvement, were able to reallocate resources to meet their needs.
They utilized discretionary resources to fund improvement activities. They
recommend policy to allow schools more flexibility in how to spend the funds
available to them and to focus funds on accountability programs on student
performance instead of on fiscal tracking systems.

57
Sunderman and Orfield (2007) point out that NCLB can work but in order for
this to happen it has to make sense to educators and it must provide the necessary
resources. Everhard (2006) stresses the importance of reallocation of existing
resources and an infusion of new funds if students are to meet the high levels of
proficiency now required.
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) warn that “we may see continuing fiscal
difficulty for schools as citizens and voters inevitably become more concerned about
costs and the returns on investments in public education” (p. 63). Everhard (2006)
sees an increase of resources as unlikely unless the public gains confidence that the
extra resources will show improved student learning.
Summary of Literature
Research findings to date generally support the implementation of the
components of the Evidence Based Model that were the focus of this review. In
California, the budget for the current school year is, at best, dismal and for the future
funding levels are largely unknown. Research supports a review of the strategies
being implemented at schools and a removal of those strategies that are not showing
results. This in turn would allow for funds to be reallocated to areas that may have a
greater impact on student achievement without increasing funding to schools.
The California Department of Education, (2009) has developed the Essential
Program Components which include the following:
• Use of State Board of Education (SBE)-adopted (kindergarten through
grade eight) or standards-aligned (grade nine through twelve)

58
English/reading/language arts and mathematics instructional materials,
including intervention materials
• Instructional time (adherence to instructional minutes for
English/reading/language arts and mathematics (K-8) and high school
access to standards-aligned core courses)
• School Administrator Training Program- Assembly Bill (AB) 430
(Chapter 364, Statutes 2005) on SBE-adopted instructional materials
• Fully credentialed, highly qualified teachers and AB 466 (Chapter 737,
Statutes of 2001) (Senate Bill [SB] 472, pending) Professional
Development Program on SBE-adopted instructional materials
• Student achievement monitoring system (use of data to monitor student
progress on curriculum-embedded assessments and modify instruction)
• Ongoing instructional assistance and support for teachers (use of content
experts and instructional coaches)
• Monthly teacher collaboration by grade level (K-8) and department (9-12)
facilitated by the principal
• Lesson and course pacing schedule (K-8) and master schedule flexibility
for sufficient numbers of intervention courses (9-12)
• Fiscal support
This California Department of Education document was developed to meet
the needs of struggling schools and is used by consulting teams when assisting
schools in exiting program improvement. Many of these strategies mirror those

59
outlined in the Evidence Based model. While some of the components in the
Evidence Based model may not be the mainstream in California schools (such as the
use of credentialed tutors and the recommended class sizes) the other components
are based in strong evidence as supported by the literature.

60
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The intention of this research study is to examine three Southern California
elementary schools that were at one time designated as Program Improvement (PI)
and have made the required growth to exit this designation. Included in the study is
the District role in the success of these schools. Each of the schools selected to
participate in this study are located in a single district in Southern California. All
three are schools with an ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic population.
In order for these schools to exit PI they were required to meet the growth
targets on AYP for two consecutive years. When they initially reach the target while
designated PI they freeze at the year at which they are designated until they reach the
target again in the second consecutive year and exit PI or miss the target and
continue to progress to the next year of PI. During their PI designation they and the
district or local education agency (LEA) were required to implement an array of
mandates outlined below in table 3.1.

61
Table 3.1: Program Improve Requirements for Each Year of Designation

Years 1 - 5 LEA:
- Provides technical assistance to PI school
- Notifies parents of PI status of school and school choice
- Sets aside minimum 5% for 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
Years 2 - 5 LEA adds:
- Supplemental educational services to all eligible students
School adds:
- Collaboration with district to improve student achievement
Year 3 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.
Year 4 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.
Year 5 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

62
The schools chosen for this study exited PI at different stages in the
continuum. One school exited in 2004 in year two, one in 2006 in year three, and one
in 2008 in year five. Each of these schools has made the required gains each year to
remain out of PI thus far; however, two of the schools were in danger of re-entering
PI based on their language arts proficiency levels in 2009. These schools were able
to remain out of PI through safe harbor designation. If a school or subgroup
decreases the percentage of students below proficient by 10 percent over the prior
year, they qualify for safe harbor which designates the school or district as meeting
their target.
This study examines the allocation of funds to each of these school sites, the
use of these funds and the district involvement in making these determinations. It
looks at the decision-making process on the part of the school and the district in
choosing the strategies to implement for student success. This data is compared with
those outlined in the Evidence-based and other funding models to determine if the
successes they have achieved reinforce the strategies outlined in these models. The
questions answered by this study include:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?

63
4. Are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based and
other models?
The Evidence-based Model has specific components for a given number of
students. The figure below shows what those components are and the recommended
number for the student population. This study examines the strategies that were
implemented, how they were funded, and if they were implemented with fidelity.
Also examined are those strategies that may have been used and were determined to
be ineffective. How these determinations were made and how strategies were
eliminated, if at all, are also a focus of the study.

Figure 3.1: The Evidence Based Model
Lawrence O. Picus
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support :
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Perfo rmance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site -based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology

Source: PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus December 2008

64
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), “NCLB calls for the
use of scientifically based research as the foundation for many education programs
and for classroom instruction.” There is a plethora of research which cites strategies
schools should implement to improve student performance. All of these have a cost
attached to them. Some are quite expensive such as content coaches and smaller
class sizes, while others can be implemented for minimal expense for instance
collaboration, setting high goals for students, and utilizing data analysis. The funding
models used as the focus for this study include specific scientifically based research
strategies that involve personnel and other costs.
With the current budget crisis in California and the country, many schools are
finding it necessary to cut programs and personnel that have led to their success.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell stated in February of
2008 that any suspension of Proposition 98 funding – the funding formula that
controls the minimum amount of revenue California schools receive – “would result
in direct harm to programs critical to closing the achievement gap and preparing all
students to succeed in a demanding future” (Jacobson, 2008). Since this statement
was made the budget outlook for California has deteriorated dramatically. In March
of 2009 an estimated 20,000 teachers, counselors, librarians, nurses, and support
staff were given potential layoff notices (California Department of Education, 2009).
While this may not translate into an actual loss of 20,000 positions it is probable that
a good number of positions will be dissolved. In 2009 California faced budget
deficits of over forty billion dollars. In February, 2009 the legislature filled that

65
budget gap with the expectation that the voters of California would approve ballot
propositions designed to fund this revenue deficiency. In May, 2009 all of the
funding propositions were defeated by an overwhelming majority. This left
California, once again facing a budget shortfall of twenty-four billion dollars. The
impact this will have on education spending remains an unknown but can only be
expected to place even greater pressure on school budgets.
In response to the current fiscal crisis in the nation, President Obama signed
into law on February 17, 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). ARRA allocated billions of dollars to stimulate the current economy. These
funds are intended to save jobs and expand programs. According to the California
Department of Education (2009), California received an estimated $7,972,696,989 in
ARRA funds of which $1,128,226,000 were designated as Title I funds. The other
funds earmarked for education are intended for general purpose expenditures,
educational technology, homeless students, child nutrition, child development and
students with disabilities. The Title I allocations are expected to fund programs to
advance core reforms. This includes:
1. College and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments for all
students
2. Pre-K to higher education data systems
3. Teacher effectiveness and equitable distribution of effective teachers
4. Intensive support and interventions for the lowest performing schools
(United States Department of Education, 2009).

66
These reforms are recommended by the funding models that are the basis for
this study. It has yet to be determined how districts will be able to utilize ARRA
funds with the impending budget cuts the state will make to education. While ARRA
calls for an expansion of programs, in California this may translate to the ability to
maintain programs or partial programs.
This study employs qualitative research methods which gathered detailed
information regarding what is perceived by staff to be the effective strategies that
have led to student success. Patton (2002) indicates that, “Qualitative methods
facilitate study of issues in depth and detail” (p.14). The primary data collection
instrument was interviews with teachers and administrators through both a forum
and/or one-on-one format. Teachers were also given a survey to complete. The
forum context as described by Patton (2002) allows the participants to hear the views
of others in the group and respond to them. “The object is to get high-quality data in
a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the
views of others” (p.386). This format provided additional insight as participants
dialoged about the successes, challenges, and the future of the implemented
strategies used at the site.
Sample and Population
This study looked at the funding levels for three elementary schools which
includes all state and federal funds and how these funds were used to improve
student achievement. The decision to select schools from a single district allows the
study to include the role district leadership plays in the success of its school sites.

67
Once the successful methods were identified by school and district staff, the
study sought to identify components that are common to research-based adequacy
models and asked the teachers, principals and district level administrators to
determine which, if any, of these strategies or methods these schools will have the
financial ability to maintain or expand given the current economic climate in
California.
The principals were asked a series of questions developed from an instrument
used by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates in Wyoming (Appendix A). These
questions provided the researcher with information regarding the decision making
process at the school and district, the curriculum currently in use, programs in place,
their goals for student achievement, and an overall picture of the school.
Additionally, it helped the researcher to gain insight into the perceived district role in
the success of the school. The content coaches were also asked questions derived
from this same source (Appendix B).
Teachers were asked to volunteer to be part of this study. Those teachers who
expressed an interest in participating were given a survey to complete anonymously
(Appendix C). This survey addresses the programs at the site, their view of the site
and district leadership, and the elements that have led to the success of the school.
The purpose of this survey was to provide some guidance to the researcher in the
forum setting. The responses provided the researcher with a picture of existing
programs at the site and the staff perception of these programs and the school

68
leadership. The limited amount of time allowed for the group conversation assisted
in focusing the conversation on areas that were most beneficial to the research.
Additional instruments were used in individual interviews with district level
administrators who make financial and educational decisions for the school sites and
district as a whole. These include the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services (Appendix D), the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
(Appendix E), and the Director of Categorical Programs (Appendix F). The
instruments focus on the programs and goals that have led to the success of the
schools and the role the district has played in supporting the schools.
Overview of Schools and District
The schools and district chosen were decided upon by researching all schools
in the state who have successfully exited PI. This was done using the California
Department of Education website. All schools in the state are listed along with their
current standing in the PI continuum and indicating if they had ever been designated
PI. There are few school districts with multiple schools that have successfully exited
Program Improvement. Another criterion was that they had to be located in Southern
California to allow for the interviewer to easily access the sites. The District and
schools selected are low socioeconomic and high minority. This narrowed the
possible candidates significantly. It was also important that the district be a relatively
small district. In order to focus on the successful practices at the school sites it was
important to focus on a district that is small enough that the district staff has a
relationship with each school and can speak from first hand experience about those

69
schools. This is more likely to happen in a small to medium district than a very large
district.
By culling through the data at the California Department of Education a
school district was found that met most of the criteria outlined above. Paradise
Unified School District (a pseudonym) is a medium sized district with a student
population of 15,952. Significant subgroups include: Students with disabilities (9%),
African American (10.7%), Hispanic (83.7%), English Learner (41%), White (2.4%)
and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (91%).
Three schools from this district were selected. These schools include one
Kindergarten through third grade school and two sixth through eighth grade middle
schools. One school, Trombone Middle School (a pseudonym) exited PI after year
five. Wheaton Elementary School (a pseudonym) exited PI after year three. Adams
Middle School (a pseudonym) exited PI after year two. PUSD has other schools
within the district that have exited PI. These schools were chosen because their
demographics allow the examination of significant subgroups that most
predominately mirror other urban schools in the state and to compare an early exiting
school to a late exiting school. The tables below provide demographic information
on each of the three schools chosen for the study.

70
Table 3.2: Trombone Middle School Student/Staff/School Information 2007-2008

Total Student Enrollment 913
Grade Levels Served 6-8
Teachers on Staff 31
API Score 753
Percent of students proficient or advanced on CST in
English-Language Arts
44.6%
Percent of students proficient or advanced on CST in
mathematics
52.8%
Source: Interview with site administrator

Table 3.3: Trombone Elementary School Student Enrollment by Group

Group Percent of Total Enrollment
African American 14.37%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.31%
Asian 0.31%
Filipino 0.15%
Hispanic or Latino 82.26%
Pacific Islander 1.07%
White (not Hispanic) 1.07%
Multiple or No Response .015%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 92%
English Learners 52%
Students with Disabilities 9%
Source: 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Card

71
Table 3.4: Wheaton Elementary School Student/Staff/School Information

Total Student Enrollment 415
Grade Levels Served K – 3
Teachers on Staff 24
API Score 828
Percent of students proficient or advanced on CST
in English-Language Arts
52.7%
Percent of students proficient or advanced on CST
in mathematics
74.5%
Source: Interview with site administrator

Table 3.5: Wheaton Elementary School Student Enrollment by Group

Group
Percent of Total
Enrollment
African American 9.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native .22%
Asian 1.24%
Filipino 0.56%
Hispanic or Latino 86.18%
Pacific Islander 1.12%
White (not Hispanic) 1.35%
Multiple or No Response .22%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 91%
English Learners 45%
Students with Disabilities 5%
Source: 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Card

72
Table 3.6: Adams Elementary School Student/Staff/School Information 2007-2008

Total Student Enrollment 935
Grade Levels Served 6 - 8
Teachers on Staff 29
API Score 745
Percent of students proficient or advanced on CST
in English-Language Arts
42.3%
Percent of students proficient or advanced on CST
in mathematics
46.9%
Source: Interview with site administrator

Table 3.7: Adams Elementary School Student Enrollment by Group

Group Percent of Total Enrollment
African American 9.33%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.47%
Asian .93%
Filipino 0.58%
Hispanic or Latino 85.88%
Pacific Islander .93%
White (not Hispanic) 1.75%
Multiple or No Response .12%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 91%
English Learners 40%
Students with Disabilities 13%
Source: 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Card

73
As these data reveal, these schools serve a population of students with similar
demographics.
Data Collection Procedures
The Superintendent of Paradise Unified School District was contacted on
behalf of the researcher to arrange for data to be collected in the district. The
Superintendent authorized the researcher to gather data from his schools and district
and arranged for the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources to be the primary
contact for the researcher. The researcher and district contact made arrangements for
the research to take place in the fall of 2009 with the above mentioned schools and
interviews with principals, teachers, and district level personnel were arranged. The
district contact was provided the interview questions and the protocols for the data
collection prior to the site visits.
A target of 25% of the teaching staff at each site was interviewed. These
teachers represent varied grades. This resulted in approximately 27 teacher
participants who were interviewed via focus groups and/or one-on-one interviews.
Participants were asked to volunteer as opposed to being recruited by administration
to ensure a cross section of staff. Because the instrument includes questions related
to the leadership at the site it was important that all views were solicited.
Additionally, a minimum of one site administrator from each of the schools
was interviewed and three district level administrators.

74
In order to facilitate a positive experience for participants the focus group
discussions lasted no longer than one and one half hours at each site. The
administrators were interviewed individually for approximately one hour.
Data Collection Training
The participants in this thematic dissertation group attended a one-day
training on the web-based data system which was used to collect and record the data
by the group. The training was conducted by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, the dissertation
chairperson for the thematic dissertation group. The questions which will be the basis
for those used in interviews are derived from the protocols developed by Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates for their Wyoming School Use of Resources Study (See
appendix A – F).
The researcher included as part of this study, classroom observations; a
minimum of five classrooms at each site were visited. The classroom observations
conducted included varied grades and subjects. The observations took place prior to
the forum discussions to provide the researcher with knowledge of the programs and
strategies that were the focus of the forum discussions.
Assurances and Data Analysis
In order to maintain confidentiality the names of the schools and district have
been given pseudonyms. The names of all participants will be kept confidential. The
researchers gave each forum participant a number on a name tag to wear during the
forum discussion. This assisted the researcher in note taking and assured the
participants their anonymity. Each of the administrators who were interviewed were

75
also given a pseudonym. The list of actual participants were kept in one place with
the researcher and was only used to ensure all data has been collected and used.
All interviews, included at the beginning, assurances to the participants that
all of the information they share will be kept confidential, that their names will not
be used, and the school’s name will not be used. The participants in the focus group
were given the same assurances on the part of the researchers, however they were
informed that the researcher cannot guarantee that other participants in the forum
discussion will not share what is discussed with others.
The data collection website that was utilized ensured all relevant data was
collected. The format for data entry includes fields to be completed addressing each
of the components of the Evidence-based model and other pertinent information for
this study.
The information gleaned from the interviews and forum was transcribed from
notes taken by the researcher and audio recordings; all interviewees agreed to in
advance of the interview. It was important for the interviewer to take copious notes
and transcribe those notes immediately following each interview. Together with the
information gained regarding the design of the overall program and materials used
for these programs the interviews augmented the data by providing information from
first-hand experience regarding the successes and challenges experienced by the
practitioners. All of this information assisted the researcher in determining:
• how the programs that have been implemented at these schools
• how these programs have led to their success

76
• how funds have been allocated to meet the needs of students
• how the site and district leadership has impacted the school sites and
student achievement
• how the current budget issues will impact future planning and
implementation of programs
Additionally, the programs, personnel, and strategies currently in place were
compared to those recommended by the Evidence-based Model to determine how
closely these successful schools meet these recommendations. This information
established the commonalities in what successful schools are doing to meet the needs
of students, how they are funded and to further assist schools in determining the
importance of these strategies in promoting student success.

77
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter will present the findings of the study providing a review of the
Paradise Unified School District and the three schools within the district that are the
focus of this study. The summary will include characteristics of the district and the
three schools including performance data, resource allocation, history, and culture.
The level of implementation of the improvement strategies, focused on in previous
chapters, will be addressed as they pertain to each site. The research questions will
serve as a framework of the findings.
Review of Study District and Schools Characteristics and Performance
Paradise Unified School District
The Paradise Unified School District (PUSD) is a Kindergarten through
twelfth grade school district located in Los Angeles County. It serves a student
population of approximately 15,819 students in nineteen schools. Prior to the 2009 -
2010 school year most elementary students attended a K – 8 school. At the beginning
of the 2009-2010 school year several sites were reconfigured. Currently the PUSD
consists of one K – 3 school, nine K – 5 schools, one 4 – 8 school, three 6 – 8 middle
schools, one K – 8 school, three high schools, and one adult education school.
The reason for the reconfiguration of several sites was explained by the
Director of State and Federal Programs (T.O.) as a response to findings from the
district’s Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) visit in the 2007-2008 school year.

78
As explained by T.O. the findings of the CPM team included a focus on the way
sixth through eighth grade students were being served. The CPM team found that
because the numbers of sixth through eighth grade students at the K – 8 sites were
very low their individual needs were not being addressed. Classes were comprised of
several ability levels which did not allow for students to be grouped appropriately. In
many instances a language arts or mathematics class would serve five to six ability
and/or language levels. The reconfiguration to allow for middle schools enables the
schools to better meet the needs of students by having larger numbers of students to
form more appropriate groupings.
Like many districts in California, student enrollment trends have been
declining in PUSD for the last several years. Figure 4.1 shows the PUSD enrollment
from 1993 through 2008.

Figure 4.1: PUSD student enrollment 1993 – 2008

Source: California Department of Education

79
PUSD is an ethnically diverse school district. The student population is made
up of 84.4% Hispanic students, 10.1% African American students, 0.9% Asian
students, 2.2% White students, 0.8% Filipino students, 0.9% Pacific Islander
students, and 0.6% Multiple ethnicities.
Forty-one percent of the students are English Learners (EL) with Spanish
speakers representing ninety-eight percent of the EL population. Eighty-eight percent
of the students in the Paradise Unified School District are socioeconomically
disadvantaged.
PUSD Academic Performance
Academically, the PUSD has shown growth over the last several years. Their
Academic Performance Index has steadily risen as shown in figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: PUSD Academic Performance Index 2001-2009

80
When comparing the PUSD API with the state API, the district lags behind
the state but has progressively been closing the gap over the years as shown in figure
4.3.

Figure 4.3: PUSD API Compared with State API 2005 - 2009

Source: California Department of Education

The Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in both language arts and mathematics
has shown significant increases from 2001 through 2009 as shown in figures 4.4 and
4.5. The district has exceeded their targets in mathematics every year and in
language arts exceeded their targets until 2007 when the targets were met but not
exceeded.

81
Figure 4.4: PUSD Annual Yearly Progress English Language Arts

Source: California Department of Education

Figure 4.5: PUSD Annual Yearly Progress Mathematics

Source: California Department of Education

82
PUSD does not reach the same level of achievement in AYP as the state as a
whole. PUSD comes closer to reaching the state AYP in mathematics as shown in
the following figures.

Figure 4.6: PUSD AYP Compared to California AYP in English Language Arts

Figure 4.7: PUSD AYP Compared to California AYP in Mathematics

83
While PUSD missed the actual target in 2009 in language arts they were
designated as making the target through safe harbor which is an alternate method of
meeting the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) by showing progress in moving
students from below proficient to proficient.
Although PUSD has met the AYP requirements district wide every year, they
have been designated as a Program Improvement District. A district must meet the
AYP targets in grade spans for both language arts and mathematics. The grade spans
are second through fifth grades, sixth through eighth grades, and tenth grade. In
2007-2008 PUSD did not meet the grade span requirements for language arts and
entered year one of Program Improvement. This trend continued in 2008-2009 and
thus they have entered year two of District Program Improvement.
PUSD Focus on Student Success
The PUSD has established a vision and mission that places student success in
the forefront.
“The mission of the Paradise Unified School District is to ensure learning and
success for each student by providing a quality education.”
The mission and vision are evident throughout the school district. They are
posted in school and district offices. It is referred to regularly by employees. Board
materials include the mission and vision and plans for bringing them to fruition.
When asked about the district focus for student learning the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services (S.P.) referred to the mission and vision and
how they help to keep the focus. The district is very involved in facilitating effective

84
implementation of curriculum and instruction. S.P. referred to the mission and vision
as the global picture with each site using these as a guide for developing their own
specific goals.
In order to maintain this focus S.P. evaluates all principals and works closely
with them to set priorities for the sites. She meets with the principals regularly to set
goals, evaluate progress toward meeting those goals, and to complete performance
evaluation on them. She has committed resources to the training of principals on the
strategies that have been adopted by the district. The same consultants that provide
teachers with professional development are used to develop the same skills in the
principals providing them with the tools to evaluate the implementation of the
curriculum or strategy. Any professional development that is offered for the teachers
has an administrator component. According to S.P., “Principals have to know as
much if not more than the teachers if they are going to do a good job of making sure
the program or strategy is implemented well.”
The district has identified essential standards that are an integral part of the
pacing guides at each grade level. PUSD has utilized pacing guides for the last ten
years. According to S.P. the teachers have embraced the use of them and are an
important part of refining them each year.
PUSD employs six Curriculum Specialists at the district level to serve its
eighteen schools serving students in grades K through 12. These individuals have
content expertise and are a resource for the school sites. They provide support to
schools in the form of professional development, learning walks, assessment, and

85
data analysis. There are two elementary English Learner Specialists, two middle/high
school English Learner Specialists, one Curriculum Specialist for English language
arts for all grade levels and one for all grade levels in mathematics. In addition to on-
site visits to assist with implementation of the adopted curriculum and strategies for
improved student achievement such as PLCs; these individuals also provide support
to the site coaches through monthly meetings and providing resources for them to
use at the sites. The English Learner Specials are charged with overseeing the
identification of EL students through the administration of CELDT. They are directly
responsible for ensuring proper administration of the test and that timelines are
adhered to.
S.P. explained that the district has set priorities. They all involve students and
how to best serve their needs. The sites have also developed priorities for their
students using data to develop these. Each principal must give her evidence of how
site leadership teams developed these priorities using the data.
In visits with the sites for this study it is evident that some principals have
systems in place to accomplish this task while others struggle. At Trombone School
the principal has developed materials for the teachers to use to identify areas of need,
and students not meeting proficiency and how to develop plans for meeting the needs
of students. This is in the form of a data analysis workbook which is used with all
teachers during planning and collaboration.
Contrary to this approach, at Adams School the principal had stacks of data
in various places throughout the office and indicated her struggles with reviewing it,

86
using it, and disseminating the information to the staff. While Trombone involved all
teachers in the process of determining goals for the grade levels it was the task of the
leadership team of the school comprised of administration, content coaches and a
handful of teacher leaders to analyze the data provided by the district and determine
how to best use the information.
Highly Qualified Teachers
In 2008-2009 the PUSD employed 687 teachers. Of those 664 meet the
federal guidelines set forth by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 to be
considered highly qualified. Those teachers not meeting the requirements primarily
teach in the areas of special education, mathematics, and science.
The average length of service for a teacher in the PUSD is 12.8 years. The
Human Resources department works with all schools to ensure proper placement of
teachers. Because PUSD has schools that participate in the Quality Education
Investment Act (QEIA) it is required that teachers and paraprofessionals meet NCLB
requirements. Additionally, the school must meet or exceed the overall Teacher
Experience Index (TEI). This requires a QEIA school to employ teachers with an
average experience equal to or greater than the district average. One of the schools
that is the focus of this study is a QEIA school.
All teachers in the PUSD working with EL students have certificates
recognized by the state authorizing them to work with second language learners.

87
Professional Development in PUSD
Interviews with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services (S.P.)
and the Director of State and Federal Categorical Programs (T.O.) emphasized the
importance of professional development in attaining the district and school goals.
Prior to the current fiscal issues being faced in California all teachers in the school
district were provided with extensive training in the district language arts and
mathematics adoptions through AB466 and SB472 trainings which provide teachers
with 40 hours of direct instruction in the core adoptions of language arts and
mathematics followed by required eighty hours of practicum.
The district has participated in programs, such as Reading First and High
Priority Schools, which focus on quality professional development. Through these
types of programs the district has been able to fund and implement new strategies,
evaluate their effectiveness and when feasible implement them district-wide.
A major focus for the district has been the implementation of Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) and the professional development required to
effectively implement this strategy. The district has employed the services of a
consultant over the last four years who has provided staff with training on PLCs.
This consultant has worked with the teachers, administration, and curriculum
specialist to ensure consistency in program implementation. The district has made a
commitment to providing the necessary resources to the sites to facilitate the
implementation of PLCs which includes data analysis, collaboration, and peer
observation. With the introduction of PLCs sites have engaged in Structured Teacher

88
Planning Time (STPT) which allows teachers to collaborate and plan for effective
instruction. In order to allow for teachers to meet for this planning, substitutes are
used to release teachers. In the past, several days were allowed for this planning time
through the use of categorical funds. Each of the schools visited indicated they
would not be able to provide as much release time this year due to the budget and
their decrease of funds. Each principal is looking for creative ways to allow teachers
to meet during the contract day. They are using their site meeting time for
collaboration and attempting to disseminate information that would typically be
shared at these meetings through email and bulletins. At one site teachers have
agreed to collaborate early in the mornings without additional pay. Each principal
indicated it is a struggle to find ways to facilitate effective planning time for teachers
with a reduction in site budgets.
S.P. explained that professional development has evolved in the district over
the last few years. If a site is interested in providing teachers with training it must be
presented to S.P. with rationale and research in order to be considered for approval.
The district no longer allows one exposure to professional development. It must be
something that is built upon throughout the year. All professional development is
focused and must be proven to have a positive impact on student learning and
teacher practice.
T.O. outlined the three areas of focus for categorical expenditures for
professional development. They include PLCs, Response to Intervention (RtI), and
continued investment in Instructional Theory into Practice (ITIP) lesson planning.

89
Through ITIP training the district has invested in independent consultants to train the
teachers in effective lesson planning and delivery. The consultants have been
providing on-going training for three years. In addition to providing direct
professional develop on the components necessary for effective lesson planning the
consultants work with site administrators and content coaches to engage in learning
walks through classrooms and provide feedback to improve practice. T.O. indicates,
“The plan is to keep professional development very focused on these areas.”
The district has committed to providing each site with a minimum of one
content expert or coach. These individuals have undergone extensive training to hone
their skills in the coaching model. At the elementary sites each coach has attended
training provided by the Sacramento County Office of Education on effective
coaching strategies as they pertain to the Open Court language arts adoption. All
coaches attend regular professional development provided by the district curriculum
specialists. The content coaches attend separate trainings that focus on their content
area and meet together monthly as a whole group to focus on coaching skills.
Data-driven Decision Making
Analysis of student data has become an integral part of instruction in the
PUSD. The district has created a Research and Evaluation (R and E) Department. At
the start of each school year the R and E Department provides each site with all of
the data available to them regarding students and their academic performance. This
data is collected in large notebooks that are an important part of administrator
meetings and goal setting for each site. Time is spent with administrators, content

90
coaches, and curriculum specialists to review the data, and discuss how to most
effectively use this data to set goals.
The district has invested in access to Online Assessment Reporting System
(OARS), a data warehousing provider to allow staff to access data on a regular basis.
S.P. indicated that the staff have become very proficient in using the system. It
allows the teachers and administrators to create a number of reports for any given
group of students.
Students’ progress is measured regularly through benchmark assessments. At
all sites the teachers participate in Structured Teacher Planning Time (STPT). A
substitute teacher is provided for part or all of a day, in order for teachers at a grade
level or by subject area to plan together. These activities occur after benchmark
assessments throughout the year. They vary by site since each site must use their
discretionary funds to pay for the substitute teachers.
Data used for driving instruction has become a part of the culture of the
PUSD. It is an important part of collaboration, goal setting, planning, and evaluation.
Every decision made at the district level is tied to the data and when a site requests a
new curriculum, professional development, or new strategy, it will not be approved
without a strong rationale backed up with data.
Instructional Leadership
The PUSD has high expectations for their instructional leaders, and the
leadership takes on many forms. They include district leadership, site administrators,
curriculum specialists, content coaches, and teacher leaders. Each site administrator

91
is expected to be an instructional leader. The Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services places high expectations on their ability to lead and guide
teachers in effective instruction and to build a culture that emphasizes student
learning and success. They are also expected to cultivate teacher leaders who can
guide colleagues through the process of effective planning and collaboration to better
meet the needs of all students.
The Superintendent has placed the responsibility of instruction with the
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services. She is given the authority to plan,
implement and evaluate programs, strategies, and people. In her role as primary
evaluator of administrative staff she is able to guide site administrators in the
direction that supports district goals and hold them accountable for results.
Investments are made to cultivate leadership skills in administrative staff.
Until this year there was a full-time administrator dedicated to coaching principals.
Her primary duty was to avail herself to principals and serve as their mentor. With
the elimination of this position other avenues have to be pursued to provide new
administrators with support. At this time, site administrators are contacting district
level administrators for assistance when necessary.
Extended Learning Opportunities
Each site within the district makes decisions regarding extended learning
opportunities. At some sites the designation of Program Improvement has led to the
district setting aside funds for extensive extended learning opportunities. At one site
every student was provided with an additional hour of instruction for five months.

92
Every teacher and student at the site participated in the program. The school at which
this took place is one of the three examined in this study. Programs were offered for
every learning level from remediation to enrichment.
Many sites provide students opportunities to participate in traditional after-
school activities such as dance, student council, and various clubs. Additionally,
these sites usually provide some opportunity for remediation or enrichment on a
limited basis.
With the current budget situation all sites have seen a significant decrease in
funds available to provide extended learning opportunities outside of the regular
school day. Alternative methods of providing students with the necessary
interventions are being developed within the district.
Preschool
Preschool is available in the PUSD on a limited basis. Funding for the
preschool programs come from both state and federal resources. There are three Los
Angeles Universal Preschools (LAUP) within the district. This program is a
kindergarten preparedness program and enrolls only four year old children. There are
First Five funds provided to the district to serve children ages three to five and their
families with parent education and support. The district supports three Child
Development Centers which support children ages two through five and may include
students with an individualized education plan (IEP).

93
Extended Day Kindergarten
At the beginning of the 2009 – 2010 school year PUSD implemented
extended day kindergarten. The model they have developed integrates an extended
learning opportunity into the school day for some students. For the first four weeks
of school all kindergarten students attend for a traditional half day of kindergarten
from 8:00 – 11:30. At the end of these four weeks all students extend their day two
hours and attend school from 8:00 – 1:30.
During the first four weeks of school, kindergarten teachers assess students to
determine which students would benefit from an extra forty-three minutes of daily
instruction. This instruction is usually for the purpose of remediation. The teachers
are encouraged to keep the group size to a maximum of ten students. These groups
are intended to be fluid and change every four weeks. Some students may attend for
the extra time the entire year because they are having difficulty with a variety of
concepts or they may only participate for one session. The school sites design an
extended program to best fit their needs. If a site has three kindergarten teachers one
may focus on math, one on language arts, and one on English language development.
The site may see the need to have all teachers focus on language arts instruction. As
the year progresses the district and sites may find ways to tailor the program to better
fit their needs. As this is the first year of the extended day kindergarten program, the
sites and district are working together to make program decisions.

94
Fiscal Support
The PUSD has an overall budget of $131,926,711.00 for the 2009 – 2010
school year. These resources are divided between restricted and unrestricted funds.
Included in this figure is over ten million dollars in one-time federal stimulus money.
Table 4.1 indicates the revenue source and restricted and unrestricted funds.

Table 4.1: PUSD Revenue Sources 2009-2010

Unrestricted Restricted Total Fund
Revenue Limit Sources 76,555,646.00 6,652,819.00 80,208,465.00
Federal Revenue 21,323,031.00 21,323,031.00
Other State Revenue 13,807,078.00 8,198,059.00 22,005,137.00
Other Local Revenue 1,060,000.00 7,330,978.00 8,390,078.00
Total Revenues 91,422,724.00 40,503,967.00 131,926,711.00

The Chief Business Official (M.B.) for the PUSD has served in this position
for the last nine years. When asked about the challenges of the current fiscal climate
M.B. indicated that he did not see them as challenges but as opportunities to learn to
do things differently. The PUSD has had to address the current budget issues in new
ways. They have gone from a traditional approach to a non-traditional approach. He
defined the difference between the two as being, that in less challenging times the
district enacted the traditional measures to address the decline in resources by
slowing down or freezing spending. In these less traditional times, districts have
been presented with opportunities to do things differently because of the flexibility

95
allowed by the state in the use of categorical funds for general fund use and the
infusion of money through the recent federal stimulus money known as the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
PUSD has been allocated ARRA funds for Title I ($3.1 million), Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ($3.6 million), and State Fiscal Stabilization
Funds (SFSA) ($4.1 million).
The district is closely following the guidelines presented in the ARRA
funding profile. They are exclusively using the funds to avoid reductions in
personnel. Because this is one-time money it will only alleviate that issue for a year
or two at the most. The PUSD did decrease certificated positions by twenty in the
2009-2010 school year and anticipate that a similar number will be lost in the
coming school year.
The state has allowed flexibility in Class Size Reduction (CSR) in the current
budget. While the past requirements of CSR funding limited class size in
kindergarten through third grades, for districts opting to take advantage of CSR, to
20 to 1, the new flexibility allows for large increases with minimal penalty. The
PUSD has elected to increase class sizes in kindergarten through third grade to 22 to
1 this current year and anticipates an increase to 24 to 1 the next year. They are
planning to adopt a policy to increase the class size to 30 to 1 with general fund
resources and use federal funds (Title I and Title II) to buy the size back down to 24
to 1. According to M. B. this will, “Avoid wholesale layoffs of teachers and other
staff.”

96
The PUSD has a conditionally approved budget for the 2009-2010 school
year. This means that the county office charges the district with developing a fiscal
stabilization plan to address the anticipated short falls in the coming three years. The
district has developed this plan and expects Board approval of the plan in the coming
months.
M.B. explains that the plan addresses the necessary issues in order for the
district to remain solvent and maintain a three percent reserve, three years in the
future. The problem arises in the 2012-2013 school year if the economy in California
does not recover or worsens. If this happens M.B. explains that, “Very different
decisions will have to be made. With personnel costs being the largest part of the
budget there will be nowhere else to turn except to engage in sweeping lay-offs.”
M. B. stressed several times that the district tries to be as transparent as
possible when it comes to budget issues. This is important when working with labor
unions and the public. When asked about the role the unions and other stakeholders
have played in the decision making process, M. B. stated, “We have a budget
committee. From a practical standpoint, it doesn’t work very well. The issues that
have to get addressed are personal and emotional. They pit people against one
another. Their view is anybody and everybody except me. ” M. B. explains that the
unions always want to reduce management. When a budget is 25 to 30 percent short
reductions in management only account for five percent. Then the teachers want to
reduce the classified staff; again this is only 15 percent; there is still a shortage. M.
B. stressed the point several times that it is management’s job to solve the problem.

97
The PUSD takes advantage of hiring some teachers on a temporary contract.
They are allowed to give temporary contracts to the number of teachers that are
needed for CSR, for positions that are paid through categorical funds, and for
teachers who are on leave. The teachers hired as temporary teachers do not earn
tenure and may be released at the end of the school year without cause. This allows
the district to reduce the workforce more easily by not renewing the contracts of the
temporary teachers. There are in excess of one hundred teachers in the PUSD
working on a temporary contract.
When explaining how the current fiscal climate is impacting education, M. B.
explained, “We cannot let funding dictate our approach to education. We are not
homogeneous schools in a homogeneous district. We have to seek equity as opposed
to equality. If everyone gets the same it is not equitable. Equal is a dangerous word
in this business. This fiscal crisis gives us the opportunity to reexamine our mission.
Taking categorical funds and stripping them aside what is our base program and how
do we use it to best assist kids?”
When asked about the impact of categorical programs M. B. indicated that
they often dictate what we do. “Categorical funds are the minority of the funding but
it is the biggest player at the table when we sit down to set goals.” He indicated that
often categorical funds are used to create new programs and that in education,
historically, we have not been very good at measuring the effectiveness of programs.
PUSD wants to examine how flexible resources are used to truly supplement what is
done as opposed to merely creating more programs to create more jobs for adults.

98
The creation of these jobs may be good for adults but does not necessarily mean
improved student achievement.
The current budget crisis has not impacted facilities in PUSD. M. B. explains
that the facilities were in good order before the decline in resources began. PUSD
has a facilities plan and have kept the plants in good condition. What sites have seen
and will continue to see is a slower response to work orders. M. B. does not see a
huge impact on the physical plants and is hopeful that the economy will recover
before the maintenance of the schools and district buildings will be impacted.
Each school in the PUSD receives a per pupil general fund allocation based
on the grade span of the school. These funds are in addition to the categorical funds
received at the site and are used for the day-to-day needs of the school such as
custodial supplies, routine maintenance, office supplies, and student supplies. This
allocation is based on California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) numbers
each year. K – 5
th
schools receive $45 per student, the one 4
th
– 8
th
and all 6
th
– 8
th

grade schools receive $60 per student, the high schools receive $110 per student, and
the continuation school receives $77 per students. In addition to these allocations
each site receives a categorical allocation of Title I, EIA, and ELAP (in grades four
through eight) funds.
Each school site has autonomy in deciding how the general fund allocation
will be spent. The categorical funds must be spent according to the guidelines and
with the approval of the School Site Council which is made up of teachers, parents,
other school staff, administration and in secondary schools students.

99
M. B. outlined the importance of communication when dealing with so many
stakeholders during this economy. He indicated that each of the stakeholder groups is
at a different level of understanding and acceptance of the current fiscal climate. The
business community understands the issues being faced by the school district
because they are facing similar issues. The parents do not understand or accept that
there is a crisis. This may stem from the fact that much of their information is
attained from the teachers and while they may understand some of the issues they are
influenced by the union and do not want to admit that there is a crisis. M. B. explains
that unions do not want to look beyond one year. They only want to negotiate for one
year, look at a one year budget, and hope that they can ride out the worst of the
budget situation.
District staff made recommendations to the PUSD Board of Trustees to
address the current budget crisis. These recommendations involve the reduction of
staff at all levels, classified and certificated. The Board has chosen to look for other
methods to address the budget shortfalls. They want to minimize the reduction of
staff. They have chosen to increase class size at all grade levels which will translate
to a reduction of certificated staff, but will maintain most, if not all, non-temporary
teachers. M. B. recognizes the fact that ultimately it is their decision to decide the
direction of the district. He can only make recommendations. They do have a
fiduciary responsibility but they also have to answer to the community and employee
groups. This is an election year for three of the Board members. The Board of
Trustees has decided to minimize the number of lay-offs as much as possible. They

100
want to use the one time funds to pay for people. M. B. indicated that this can work
if the economy recovers by 2012. If it does not, the district will have to make some
very difficult decisions in the not too distant future.
Interviews with district level staff reveal that the PUSD allows little
autonomy on the part of the school sites in decisions regarding program and the
expenditure of funds. The district makes the ultimate decisions regarding materials,
program design and implementation. All decisions regarding curriculum,
professional development, and program require the approval of the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services. Sites are allowed to tailor these district
approved programs to fit the needs of their schools but must work within the district
guidelines.
Each of the three schools that were chosen to be part of this study were at one
time in Program Improvement and have exited that designation. The following
describes assessment data, demographic data, and general information concerning
each school that was visited including each school’s progression into and out of
program improvement.
Wheaton Elementary School
Wheaton Elementary School is a Kindergarten through third grade school
located in the Paradise Unified School District. It is the only school in the district
with this grade composition. Formally, the school was comprised of grades K – 8. In
2004 a new facility was constructed adjacent to the campus which provided the
opportunity to lessen the size of the school and create a second, separate school for

101
grades four through eight. Figure 4.8 provides the enrollment data for Wheaton
Elementary School from 1993 through 2009.

Figure 4.8: Wheaton Elementary School Enrollment 1993 - 2009

Source: California Department of Education

Currently, the enrollment at the school is 415 students. The ethnicity of the
student population includes .5 percent American Indian, 1 percent Asian, 88.6
percent Hispanic, 6.3 percent African American, 2.9 percent White, 2 percent
Filipino, and .5 percent who are more than one ethnicity. English Learners make up
69.4 percent of the student population with Spanish speakers representing 97.6
percent of these students. Students participating in the free and reduced lunch
program is 92.2 percent of the school population.

102
Wheaton Elementary School has seen mostly consistent growth in their API
scores since 1999. There was a significant dip in their scores in 2007-2008. The
following year they were able to make up for that decrease in score and achieve a
score above the state target of 800 with a score of 828. Figure 4.9 shows the API
growth over time.

Figure 4.9: Wheaton Elementary School API Scores 1999 – 2009

In addition to the school showing commendable growth in the state
accountability measure, the school has shown similar growth in meeting the AYP
targets. With the exception of the decline in the 2007 – 2008 school year they have
continued to increase the percent of school wide students proficient and advanced in
both language arts and mathematics as shown in figures 4.10 and 4.11.

103
Figure 4.10: Wheaton Elementary School English Language Arts AYP 2002-2009

Figure 4.11: Wheaton Elementary School Mathematics AYP 2002 – 2009

104
Wheaton Elementary School has progressed greatly when compared to
schools with similar demographics but has shown only marginal progress in its
statewide ranking. Schools receive a statewide rank based on API in ten categories.
These deciles range from one (lowest) to ten (highest). The statewide rank compares
each school to other schools in the state of the same type. These include elementary,
middle and high schools. The similar schools rank compares the school with one
hundred other schools with similar demographics and type. The demographic
characteristics include: pupil mobility, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, teacher
credentialing, percentage of EL students, average class size, year-round calendar
status, percentage of grade span enrollments, percentage of GATE students,
percentage of students with disabilities, percentage of reclassified fluent English
proficient students, and percentage of migrant education students (California
Department of Education, 2009). Table 4.2 provides the statewide and similar
schools rankings for Wheaton Elementary School from 2000 through 2009.
While Wheaton successfully made most of their targets in both language arts
and mathematics school wide they entered Program Improvement due to one or more
of their significant subgroups missing the targets. Table 4.3 provides the PI
progression for Wheaton Elementary School.

105

Table 4.2: Wheaton Elementary School Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings

Year Statewide Ranking Similar Schools Ranking
2000 1 1
2001 1 1
2002 1 2
2003 1 2
2004 2 7
2005 3 9
2006 5 10
2007 7 10
2008 5 9
2009 5 9

106
Table 4.3: Wheaton Elementary Schools Program Improvement Progression

Year Subject Subgroup(s) Missing the Target
2000 Did not make AYP
2001 Did not make AYP
2002
Year 1 Program
Improvement
- School Improvement
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics:
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
English/Language Arts
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
2003
Year 2 Program
Improvement
- School Improvement
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics:
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
English/Language Arts
African American
English Learners
2004
Year 3 Program
Improvement
Corrective Action
Met All Targets Froze
at Year 3

2005
Year 4 Program
Improvement-
Restructuring
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics
African American
English Language Arts
School Wide
Hispanic
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
English Learners
2006
Year 4 Program
Improvement
Restructuring
Met All Targets Frozen at Year
4

2007
Exit Program Improvement
Met All Targets Exit PI

107
In 2004 Wheaton reconfigured to a kindergarten through third grade school
which significantly changed the number of students and grade levels participating in
the standardized testing which determines AYP. According to the principal of the
school they petitioned the California Department of Education to allow them to
submit data as a new school which would remove their PI designation and allow
them to start fresh. Their request was denied. The first year of the new configuration
they made their targets and froze in the continuum. However, the following year
several subgroups missed targets and they continued as a Program Improvement
School.
When asked what the school’s greatest achievements have been in the last
five years the principal cited first and foremost exiting Program Improvement. In
addition to this achievement she went on to state there have been several other
honors such as being recognized as a Title I Achieving School, making the
California Honor Roll, and in a recent communication was very excited that the
school has been invited to submit a Distinguished School application.
According to the principal of the school (L.R.) the program improvement
designation provided the staff opportunities they would not have had without this
designation. With the PI designation came additional funds to implement strategies
that were shown to have a positive impact on student achievement.
Title One allows for the set aside of funds from the total district allocation to
assist schools that have been designated as program improvement. The Paradise
Unified School District set aside a substantial amount of money to provide their PI

108
schools with additional resources to meet the needs of their students. Wheaton
Elementary School received funds to provide extended learning opportunities for all
students. In order to ensure more participation by teachers the district chose to pay
the teachers a higher per hour rate than schools not designated in Program
Improvement who are offering extended learning opportunities. Funds were also
provided to allow teachers time to collaborate and examine data at this higher rate of
pay. This will be examined more closely later in the chapter.
The principal of the school (L.R.) who has been in the position for four years
has had to struggle with keeping the teachers engaged and feeling their worth after
the exit from PI and the decrease in funds. The teachers who were paid nearly double
the hourly rate are now doing the same work for a fraction of the compensation. L.R.
indicated that this has been one of her greatest challenges. At one time she had 100%
of her teachers participating in teaching after school classes and collaborating
regularly. Without the compensation she has had to be strategic in scheduling
collaboration during regular contract hours which does not allow for a substantial
amount of time dedicated to data analysis and planning. The after school learning
opportunities have diminished almost completely due to the lack of funds.
Currently Wheaton Elementary School consists of 20 classes in kindergarten
through third grade. Each grade level has five classes of students. The class size has
increased from 20 students per class to 22. The teachers at the school are all
considered highly qualified by NCLB standards. Sixty-four per cent of the teaching
staff has a Master’s degree. There are 20 classroom teachers, one content coach, and

109
an RSP and speech teacher who are shared with other sites in the district. The
average years of teaching experience is 14.6 with the average length in the Paradise
Unified School District of 12 years. Wheaton has enjoyed a stable staff for many
years. In the previous school year there was a half time teacher/administrator
assigned to the school. The lack of funds required the position to be dissolved. The
teacher who filled that position returned to the classroom at Wheaton.
Adams Middle School
Adams Middle School is a school in transition. Until this year they were a
kindergarten through eighth grade school. With the decision by the district to
reconfigure many of the schools this site became a middle school consisting of
grades six through eight.
In addition to a new grade configuration they have a new leader in that this is
the second year the principal has been assigned to the school. It is her first
assignment as a principal. The assistant principal has been on site longer and served
as a physical education teacher at this site for many years before entering
administration.
The student enrollment has declined rather significantly since the 1999 –
2000 school year. It has stabilized somewhat since and with the new configuration
maintains a student enrollment close to the most recent years. Figure 4.12 provides
the enrollment data for Adams Middle School from 1993 through 2009. In 2000-
2001 a new school was opened one half mile from Adams School which accounts for
the large decrease in enrollment from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001.

110

Figure 4.12: Adams School Enrollment 1993 through 2009

Source: California Department of Education

The current enrollment at the school is 935 students. These students are
spread over three grade levels with 282 sixth grade students, 336 seventh grade
students, and 317 eighth grade students. Of these students 42 are assigned to a
Special Day Class with one class serving students who are severely delayed, 43
receive RSP services, and 117 are identified as Gifted and Talented.
The school’s student population is represented ethnically by .5% American
Indian, .9% Asian, 1% Pacific Islander, .8% Filipino, 84.3% Hispanic, 10.3%
African American, and 2% White. Forty-three per cent of their students are English
Learners (EL). Spanish speakers represent 98.6% of these EL students.

111
The current economic climate has seen an increase in student poverty level
over the last year. In the 2008-2009 school year, students participating in the free and
reduced price lunch program was 91.7%. In the current school year this number has
increased to 96.14%. This is the measure used by the school and district to determine
socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
Adams School has seen an increase each year in their API scores. There were
irregularities the testing procedure during the Spring 2000 standardized testing and
again in the following year. Therefore there is not API data available for the school
until the 2001-2002 school year. Figure 4.13 shows the API growth from 2002
through 2009.

Figure 4.13: Adams School API Scores 2001 - 2009

112
Alondra School entered Program Improvement in the 2004 – 2005 school
year. They missed their targets in all subgroups the following school year and
proceeded to Year 2 PI. They made all of their targets the two subsequent school
years and exited PI designation in 2007. Table 4.14 shows the Schoolwide AYP
proficient and advanced percentages for English language arts and the state targets
and table 4.15 shows the same information for mathematics.

Figure 4.14: Adams School AYP English Language Arts

Figure 4.15: Adams School AYP Schoolwide Mathematics

113
The school entered PI because the English Learner subgroup missed the
designated target in consecutive years. While Adams School has exited PI they
continue to miss targets in one or more subgroups. They have been fortunate in that
they alternate years between missing and making targets which results in keeping
them out of Program Improvement.
When compared to like schools in the state Alondra has shown tremendous
growth when compared to schools with similar demographics, but is lagging behind
when compared with all schools in the state as represented in table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Adams Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings

Year Statewide Ranking Similar Schools Ranking
2001 1 2
2002 1 1
2003 2 4
2004 2 3
2005 2 7
2006 2 7
2007 3 8
2008 3 8
2009 3 8
Source: California Department of Education

With the reconfiguration of the school the teaching staff has changed
dramatically. They have taken students from four neighboring schools and have also

114
taken teachers from those schools. With the change of grade levels at the school
many teachers did not want to remain at the school and teach grade levels with which
they were not comfortable. Prior to the reconfiguration the school had a veteran staff
that had an average of 11 years of teaching experience. All were highly qualified as
defined by NCLB. They now have two teachers who are not fully credentialed. They
are interns and working in special education. There are now a number of teachers on
staff who have less than five years of teaching experience. The teachers who
formally taught in the sixth through eighth grades remained at the school. There is a
current teaching staff of 29 teachers.
When the principal of the school was asked to comment on what she sees as
the greatest achievements of the school in the last five years she stated that the
greatest achievement was exiting and staying out of Program Improvement. She also
focused on the forward progress of the school, the gains they have made in
collaboration and the change in the culture of the school to one of teamwork.
Trombone Middle School
Trombone Middle School like Adams has gone through a reconfiguration of
grade levels. They too were a kindergarten through eighth grade school and this year
became a middle school consisting of grades six through eight.
The two middle schools have implemented the Safe and Civil Schools Model
which focuses on culture and climate to improve student achievement. There is a
professional development component of this model. Teachers are trained on how to
respect students. Components include greeting students at the door, calling on

115
students equitably, and giving students very clear expectations both in and outside of
the classroom.
Trombone School has made Safe and Civil Schools a part of the culture of
the school. All students are met at the door by all teachers, the school has created
areas for student access and all students respect the boundaries set forth for them.
The principal has made it clear to teachers that these are non-negotiable issues. All
teachers must fully participate.
Also like Adams Middle School they have a principal who is serving in her
second year at the site. Her assistant principal was assigned to the school at the same
time. Unlike the Adams site this is not her first assignment as principal. She served
as principal of a K – 8 school in the district.
Like the other schools in the study Trombone has a uniform dress code for all
students. The difference is that it is strictly enforced at this site. As the principal
walks through the school she compliments the students on looking nice in their
uniforms and constantly signals to students to tuck in the shirt or pull up the pants.
The principal firmly believes that the adherence to a dress policy is an important step
in creating a safe and civil school.
Unlike the other schools in this study Trombone Middle School is a Quality
Education Improvement Act (QEIA) School. In order for a school to qualify for
QEIA funding they had to be ranked as a decile one or two school by the 2005 API.
The funding cycle began in the 2007-2008 school year and is scheduled to continue

116
through 2013-2014 (California Department of Education, 2009). Trombone School is
one of three QEIA Schools in the Paradise Unified School District.
The state school rankings and similar schools rankings shown in table 4.5
indicate that Trombone School has made good growth when compared to similar
schools, but has not progressed in a like manner when compared to all schools in the
state.

Table 4.5: Trombone School Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings

Year Statewide Ranking Similar Schools Ranking
2000 1 6
2001 1 5
2002 1 4
2003 2 6
2004 2 7
2005 1 4
2006 1 6
2007 2 9
2008 3 9
2009 3 9
Source: California Department of Education

Trombone School has shown progressive growth on the API since 1999 as
shown in figure 4.16.

117
Figure 4.16: Trombone School API 1999 - 2009

Figure 4.17 and 4.18 outlines the consistent growth Trombone School has
experienced in AYP for English Language Arts and Mathematics and compares that
growth with the statewide targets.

Figure 4.17: Trombone School AYP English Language Arts 2001 - 2009

118
Figure 4.18: Trombone School AYP Mathematics 2001 – 2009

Trombone School entered Program Improvement in 2001 and continued
through year five before exiting in 2008. The progression of PI and the groups
missing targets our outlined in table 4.6.
The enrollment at Trombone School currently stands at 913 students. These
students are distributed through the grades with 279 in sixth grade, 335 in seventh
grade, and 299 in eighth grade. While Paradise Unified School District has seen a
decline in enrollment over the last several years, the great decrease at Trombone
from 2003-2004 to the 2004-2005 school year can be attributed to the opening of a
new fourth through eighth grade school in close proximity of the site and the
reconfiguration of a kindergarten through eighth grade school to a kindergarten
through third grade school. This allowed for the transfer of students to the new
school and the reconfigured school to lessen the enrollment at the site.

119
Table 4.6: Trombone School Program Improvement Progression

Year Subject Subgroup(s) Missing the Target
2000 Did not make AYP
2001 Did not make AYP
2002
Year 1 Program Improvement-
School Improvement
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics:
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
English/Language Arts
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
2003
Year 2 Program Improvement-
Corrective Action
Mathematics
Mathematics:
African American
2004
Year 3 Program Improvement
Corrective Action
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics:
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
English/Language Arts
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
2005
Year 4 Program Improvement-
Restructuring
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics:
African American
English Learners
English/Language Arts
Schoolwide
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Socioeconomic disadvantaged
English Learners
2006
Year 5 Program Improvement
Implementation of
Restructuring Plan
Mathematics and English
Language Arts
Mathematics
African American
English Language Arts
African American
2007
Year 5 Program Improvement
Implementation of
Restructuring Plan
Met All Targets Frozen
at Year 5

2008
Exit Program Improvement
Met All Targets Exit

120
Figure 4.19: Trombone School Enrollment 1997 - 2009

Source: California Department of Education

The student population is represented by .6% American Indian, 1.1% Pacific
Islander, 84.1% Hispanic, 12.2% African American, and 1.7% White. English
Learners make up 53.3% of the student population with 100% of the ELs being
Spanish speakers. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students make up 92.1% of the
school population.
Trombone Middle School has 38 regular classroom teachers, two content
coaches, and one RSP teacher. According to the principal (V.R.) because Trombone
is a QEIA school they must keep their class size at 25. The funds received through
QEIA assists in paying the salary of the additional teachers required to maintain this

121
class size. Other middle schools in the district that are not designated as QEIA
schools have increased their class size to 40 this school year.
The principal of the school cites its greatest achievements in the last five
years as the ability to exit Program Improvement, the progress in professional
development with the staff, the successful implementation of PLC’s, and the ability
to offer students extended learning opportunities in an after-school setting.
Each of the schools in this study have implemented many of the strategies
outlined by Odden and Picus that lead to increased student achievement. Each school
has implemented them at different levels. The following examines nine of the
strategies and discusses how each school has implemented these strategies and how
each perceives the results of that implementation. The data was gathered through
classroom observations, interviews with staff and a survey of teachers.
Setting High Standards and Goals for All Students
When both district level personnel and site personnel were asked about
setting high standards for all students the response was unanimously positive. All felt
the vision of the district encouraged this and all were doing it. When probing further,
it became evident that high goals for this district and each school was merely
meeting the pre-determined targets set by NCLB and the state. Each of those
interviewed indicated that the goal for the students and for the school was to meet
these targets each year.

122
The teacher survey provided the opportunity to respond to multiple questions
regarding this issue and all received high positive responses at all three sites. The
results of those questions are represented in table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to High Student
Expectations

Student performance is the highest
priority at this school
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 20% 80%
Wheaton 0% 0% 14% 14% 71%
Our school focuses on high academic
standards for all students.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 13% 87%
Wheaton 0% 0% 29% 14% 57%
All students can achieve
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Wheaton 0% 0% 0% 43% 57%
I set high standards for my students
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Wheaton 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

When observing classrooms at Wheaton School, teachers were seen asking
students high cognitive level questions. Students were called upon randomly by

123
teachers rolling a 24 sided die. Each student is assigned a number. If the number is
rolled that student is expected to answer the question.
Teachers at Trombone were observed in several classes asking high level
questions and using equity sticks to randomly call upon students.
Teacher interaction with students at all sites showed evidence of placing high
expectations on students. When a question was answered students were constantly
asked to expand on their answer and give more detail. They were expected to reply
in complete sentences and to take the time to think about their answer before giving
it.
Because the AYP measures are increasing at a very rapid rate, it assists
schools in automatically setting higher goals for students. Each of the three sites
display set goals for students that are aligned with AYP and API. These goals are
visible to all students and visitors at each school. It appears that these schools are not
stretching beyond what NCLB and the state have outlined as expectations. The
schools have allowed themselves to feel success when meeting these targets. In some
instances the schools have not actually met these targets at all but have been
considered to have reached the goals through safe harbor. In interviews with
teachers all agreed that as a staff all teachers believe all students can achieve and
reach higher levels of achievement. Administrators at all sites agreed that the schools
have worked at creating a culture of setting high standards for students.
At Wheaton School, the students attaining an API over 800 has helped to
move this belief forward. One teacher at Wheaton stated, “I can’t stop pushing my

124
students. It’s great that we made 800 but if we miss any AYP targets in any subgroup
before you know it we will be right back in Program Improvement.” All of the
teachers in the forum discussion agreed that they have to keep the students focused
and continue to strive for better.
In interviews with both site administration and district administration the
point was stressed that higher expectations and goals for students have to be in place
and that focus must be maintained in order to continue to move forward and maintain
the success that has been experienced thus far.
The district and the three schools that are the focus of this study all believe
they are setting high expectations for student achievement. All those interviewed at
both the district and site levels believe all students have the ability to achieve at a
higher level and it is the responsibility of the schools and the district to set high goals
for student learning and to set high teacher expectations. The teacher surveys reveal
the belief that all students can achieve proficiency however the goals indicated by the
teachers and the administration are those outlined by NCLB. With a target of 46%
proficient or advanced for the 2009-2010 school year, one has to consider that 54%
of the students are not meeting proficiency. This does not support what the teachers
and administration have responded to in interviews and on the survey. If they truly
believe all students can achieve and that the focus is high academic standards for all
students, and student performance is the highest priority, the staff citing NCLB goals
does not support this. Each school has implemented some strategies to support
setting high standards but have not stretched beyond what is prescribed by NCLB.

125
Data-driven Decision Making
Just as data is a focus at the district level, it is ever-present at each of the
three sites visited for this study. There are definite differences in the degree and
mastery of data analysis at each of the sites.
The leadership and staff at Trombone School appears to be the most
advanced in using data to drive instruction of the three sites visited. In interviews
with the site principal it was very evident that she knows how to use the data to help
her staff move forward.
As outlined earlier, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
(S.P.) expects each administrator to use data for planning instruction and goal
setting. The district provides the data and each site is expected to use that
information to plan for instruction and improvement. The principal of Trombone
School (V.R.) has created for her staff a data analysis workbook. This tool provides
each teacher with the assessment data for each grade level in each subject by cluster
or standard strand. It provides the staff with score ranges to place the students at far
below basic, below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced. It goes on to guide them
through the process of writing SMART goals for each target area. All of this
information is easily accessible and usable. V.R. has a system in place for staff to use
for making data an important part of their instructional planning process. In
interviews with V.R. she indicated the difficulty of the new configuration in that she
was getting students from four feeder schools. While the data is provided by the
district, doing all of the gathering and analyzing of data from four sites for the

126
incoming sixth grade students was challenging. In interviews with teachers, data was
referred to often and the teachers are skilled and comfortable using it in planning and
collaboration.
While Adams School had evidence of data being available and integrated into
the planning process, it was evident the principal was not as comfortable with the
process of accessing the data and using it for developing goals. The system that was
so evident at Trombone School was blatantly missing here. In interviews with the
principal it was made very clear that she had to cull through the data to develop the
goals and this was a difficult task. The amount of time it would take was a concern
and accessing the information was not an easy task for her. A barrier that was cited
was the amount of time available to work with the leadership team at the school to
cull through the information and use the data effectively.
At Adams School the only evidence of data and goals being an integral part
of the school day was the posting of current API numbers throughout the school with
the target for the coming year also displayed in several places. While this is a good
practice it seemed to underscore the level they are at in truly using the data to drive
instruction.
Wheaton School would fall between the two in the use of data. All of the
staff uses data to plan and collaborate, however there was an indication that the staff
is somewhat resistant to using the data in the most effective manner. This is the most
veteran staff of the three schools visited and appeared they could be the most
resistant to the site leadership and working with the content coach. It was stated in

127
the teacher forum that they use data analysis for planning but they know the kids best
by working with them every day. The data won’t tell them a lot beyond what they
experience every day.
The teacher survey addresses two questions related to using data to drive
instruction. The results of those questions are shown in table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Data-Driven Decision
Making

I use data to drive my
classroom instruction.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 20% 80%
Wheaton 0% 0% 0% 29% 71%
We use data to drive
collaboration conversations
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
Trombone 0% 0% 13% 20% 67%
Wheaton 0% 0% 14% 14% 71%

The instructional vision for both the district and each of these sites includes
the use of data in driving effective instruction for students. The importance of this
vision does not appear to be at an equal level at all three sites. It appeared that
Trombone School most aligned itself to the district in the use of data and
development of goals from the data. The other two schools are complying with the
direction of the district while the third is moving beyond the minimum requirements.
Trombone School is the one school that is designated as a QEIA School. The use of

128
data and analyzing the data for forward growth may have evolved from the work
entered into as part of this funding stream.
The collection and use of data is a costly endeavor. The PUSD has an entire
department dedicated to providing the district and the schools with the necessary
data to use in goal setting and planning. The current fiscal climate has not impacted
the basic data collection and dissemination to schools. The impact has come in the
amount of release time the teachers can be provided to use the data in collaboration
and unit planning.
Instructional Time
Each of the three sites visited place a priority on quality instructional time.
As Odden (2009) suggests it is important to protect classes from interruptions and
maximize student engagement. At the two middle schools an emphasis has been
placed on getting all students to the appropriate language arts and mathematics levels
so students who are not proficient or advanced are scheduled for extended periods of
time in language art support classes or mathematics support. At Adams School there
are also opportunities for some students to visit a learning center for extra
mathematics assistance. These students are pulled from their PE classes to work in
small groups with credentialed RSP teachers on math standards. This allows them
the opportunity to have individualized assistance in an area of need.
At each of the three school sites a large portion of the classrooms were
visited by the researcher. Some of the classroom visitations were scheduled, while
others were unannounced visits. In every instance teachers were engaged with

129
students. There was appropriate instruction in every classroom. Students were on
task and engaged. They were participating in the lesson, working with peers, and
completing assigned tasks. There were minimal classroom disruptions observed.
While accommodations were observed for a small number of students working with
one-on-one aides, or those who were strategically placed near the teacher or away
from other students, inappropriate behavior was not an issue. In three instances at
Adams School students had to be redirected to the task at hand, however, it was done
seamlessly by the teacher and did not distract from teaching time.
At Trombone School the assistant principal had to make an announcement
during instructional time and came to ask permission from the principal to interrupt
class. The principal did not just give permission to make the announcement but
asked questions to determine the importance of the interruption. It was obvious that
classroom interruptions are discouraged and that permission of the principal is
necessary.
At Wheaton School the teachers made the most of every minute the students
were in the classroom. Teachers were observed asking the students questions related
to the lesson when lining up for breaks.
Using instructional time purposefully is practiced at each of the three sites.
They all place a priority on the importance of teacher and student engagement.
Teachers are on their feet working with students in standards based instruction
throughout the day. It has been determined that using every minute of the
instructional day is important.

130
The teacher surveys reveal that what was observed by the researcher may not
be the common practice. The one question on the survey related to instructional time
received some of the most negative responses as shown in table 4.9 especially at
Adams. The school where the interaction between the principal and assistant
principal concerning a classroom interruption was observed, would appear to be the
standard procedure as evidenced by the surveys from that site.

Table 4.9: Teacher Survey Results for Question Related to Instructional Time

Instructional time is sacred
and meets with few or no
interruptions.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 17% 0% 83% 0%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 13% 87%
Wheaton 0% 14% 0% 43% 43%

The district has developed a schedule that allows for a minimum instructional
day once per week. These days are designed for three purposes. They may be used
for teacher preparation, collaboration, or professional development. Each minimum
day is designated for one of these purposes. While there is importance placed on the
instructional minutes students are in the classroom, the use of these days for
improved delivery of lessons is believed to be worth the shorted time students are in
class this one day per week.

131
The use of minimum days has been a benefit to the schools sites in the
current fiscal climate. All three principals have chosen to use some of the district
designated professional development days to allow teachers to collaborate.
Collaboration can become costly if all of it is done with substitute release time or for
a stipend outside of the teachers’ contract day. This use of minimum days allows for
the collaboration to happen during the regular contract day. This saves the site the
cost of substitutes or stipends. Prior to the current fiscal climate it was not a problem
to pay the teachers to collaborate or to provide a greater number of substitutes to
release them to collaborate.
Extended Day Kindergarten
The extended kindergarten day only applies to Wheaton School since the
others have been reconfigured. This is the first year of implementation of the longer
kindergarten day at Wheaton School.
In the forum discussion with the teachers two kindergarten teachers provided
insight into their displeasure with the extended day. While they do not have the data
to determine its effectiveness, they feel that the support that is lost due to their
inability to provide extra assistance to students in the afternoon will be detrimental to
the progress of many students. Prior to this year the kindergarten teachers spent the
afternoon in classrooms focused on tutoring students in all grade levels who were
struggling.

132
One kindergarten teacher stated, “I would rather have a class of 32 students
for half of the day than the 22 I have for the full day.” She went on to point out that
her work with the older students in the afternoon showed good results.
The decision to move to a full-day kindergarten was a made at the district
level. It is apparent that the teachers at Wheaton believe the model they were
implementing in previous years is a better one to use and serves the most students.
The teachers pointed out that Wheaton School does have the highest API in the
district and think they should be able to determine what the program should look
like.
Interviews with the district level Educational Services staff revealed an
excitement for the new kindergarten configuration. It is a research-based strategy
that can be implemented at a minimal cost to the district. All of the schools in the
district with kindergarten students have moved to the new extended day model.
District personnel are anticipating positive results from the change.
Professional Development
Professional Development has many facets in PUSD. The teachers in the
district have experienced extensive focused training on content, instructional theory
into practice (ITIP), and collaboration. They have also integrated a coaching model
into daily practice at all sites. In the current fiscal climate there have been some
alterations to all areas of professional development.
The PUSD chose to take advantage of the state allowing districts to postpone
the implementation of new textbook adoptions in light of the current fiscal crisis.

133
This translates into a monetary savings to the district on multiple levels. Not only is
there no need to expend resources on textbooks, it also means there is not a need for
extensive professional development for effective implementation of the curriculum.
The PUSD investment is in providing teachers practice with the state recommended
content professional development for both language arts and mathematics. The cost
of this training is a minimum of $1,750 per teacher when including the cost of
registration in the training and the stipends to teachers for attending. Teachers who
remain in the same grade levels will have the training to use the materials. With the
reconfiguration of schools within the district there are several teachers at two of the
sites that were visited who have changed grade levels in the last year. This will put
them (and their students) at a disadvantage when using the adopted materials. Not
only is the district cutting the allocation of resources that were used to purchase up-
to-date materials, they are not allocating funds for professional development for
those teachers who may be new to a grade level or a subject area and require
additional support through professional development. The materials on the state
adopted list are all based in research; however if the teachers are ill equipped to
deliver the lesson with fidelity, as is intended to glean those results, the monetary
savings will mean little if they are at the expense of student achievement.
Each of the three schools observed had content coaches on staff. Adams and
Trombone each has a content coach for language arts/EL and one for mathematics.
Wheaton has one coach who is responsible for all three content areas. With the
elimination of comprehensive professional development for the adoptions the use of

134
these staff members to assist teachers new to a grade level or subject area becomes
more important. In interviews with two of the coaches it was not evident that they
possess the content knowledge to provide this professional development as they were
at schools that were a different grade configuration and used different materials.
Trombone School has additional funds due to their QEIA designation and this
is evident in the area of professional development. During the observation,
consultants that have been in the district providing training on ITIP were at the site
conducting learning walks in all classroom and would be providing feedback to the
coaches and administration. The school is able to use QEIA funds to provide this
additional professional development.
Interviews with the principal of Trombone (V. R.) revealed her belief that
professional development has been an important piece of the school’s success. She
focused particularly on the ITIP training and its importance in focusing teachers on
student motivation, getting students to actively participate in lessons, and student
engagement. This sentiment was echoed by the principal at Adams School (L. B.). L.
B. stressed the importance of ITIP professional development in that it “develops a
passion for doing what’s best for kids.” The teachers have been provided with the
tools for effective lesson design and they are implementing it at both sites.
The principal at Wheaton School indicates that the ability to offer the same
level of professional development in the current fiscal climate is “a concern and a
worry.” The school has made tremendous gains and the realization that much of that

135
success is due to quality professional development is evident in conversations with
all staff.
When teachers are asked about the impact of professional development on
their practice most agree that it is has a positive impact as shown in table 4.10 which
addresses questions regarding professional development.

Table 4.10: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Professional
Development

Our school makes professional
development a priority
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 17% 67% 17%
Trombone 0% 0% 7% 13% 80%
Wheaton 14% 0% 43% 29% 14%
I have participated in professional
development that has improved
my practice.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%
Trombone 0% 0% 7% 13% 80%
Wheaton 0% 0% 29% 43% 29%

The PUSD calendar allows for four non-student teacher days. These days are
not intended for professional development. Two days are set aside prior to the start
of the school year. One of these days is for use by the principal to address the needs
of the site with the teachers. It may or may not include professional development.
The need to disseminate information and focus on the administrative information is
the most common use of this time. The second pre-start day is for the teachers to use

136
as they choose. Most take the time to ready their classrooms for the start of school.
One day is designated in the middle of the year for parent-teacher conferences and
the final day is the day after the last day of school for teachers to complete records
and prepare for the close of school.
The calendar is negotiated with the teachers’ association and these days have
been defined through that negotiation. The Evidence Based Model specifically
outlines a greater number of non-student days for professional development which
PUSD does not. While these days are built into the calendar, and, if it could be
agreed upon by the concerned parties, important professional development could be
offered on these days. While it is not the ten days recommended by the EBM it
would provide teachers with valuable time for professional development. Prior to the
current fiscal issues the PUSD allowed teachers to attend professional development
during the summer months for a stipend. These days were not required as they were
not part of the teacher contract, however interviews with district staff indicate that
the participation in these activities were well attended and the majority of teachers
received extensive training in both the language arts and mathematics adoptions.
Content Coaches
The PUSD has made a commitment to providing each site with content
experts. Prior to this year, each site had two coaches. One coach provided staff with
expertise in mathematics and the second possessed expertise in language
arts/literacy. The sites pay for these personnel costs from their categorical allocation
of funds. With the current budget the elementary sites have been reduced to one

137
content coach who addresses teachers’ needs in both mathematics and language arts.
The middle schools continue to employ two coaches, one for each content area.
In an interview with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
(S.P.) she indicated that the content coach position is being argued by the teachers,
and namely the teachers’ association, as being unnecessary. In discussions with the
organization they have argued that these people have been in place for a number of
years and the work they were charged with doing is done. The staffs know how to
collaborate and without a new adoption the teachers are experts at implementing the
curriculum. If the teachers are successful at eliminating these positions S. P. would
like to see a learning center model implemented at each site and would like to use
these employees to provide the students with small group instruction. Currently,
Adams School is piloting the learning center model and is using RSP teachers to
provide the intervention to students.
The sentiment heard at the district level regarding coaches was not echoed at
the three sites. In each of the teacher forums a question regarding the importance of
the coaches at each site was asked and in every instance the teachers stressed the
importance of the service they provide.
As stated earlier, Wheaton School has the most veteran staff and gave the
weakest praise of the coach. Their coach has been at the site for five years and the
cohesive staff praised her ability to work well with all teachers and provide them
with materials and guidance. They did not refer to her ability to demonstrate,
observe, or provide lesson feedback to them. They saw her as a resource to use when

138
they needed something. Their coach came to the site with several years of classroom
experience and worked with the language arts adoption prior to being placed as a
literacy coach. With the reduction of staff she has been directed to provide the staff
with assistance in mathematics also. The coach has been able to attend coaching
institutes which enables her to transfer that knowledge to many content areas.
However, the addition of mathematics to her work does not allow for in-depth work
in any one area.
Adams School employs two content coaches and both come from other sites
in the district. The literacy coach spent her classroom teaching career at an
elementary site, and worked in the adoption that is used kindergarten through fifth
grade. She was recruited by the principal when she was assigned to the school. She
attended coaches training offered through the district and was also trained in the
elementary language arts adoption. The math coach was trained in another district
and came to the district in the capacity of a coach.
The principal at the school was a coach herself prior to entering
administration so she is aware of the demands of the job and the importance of
keeping the job of coach separate from administration. Both coaches commented on
the support they receive from administration in allowing them to do the job of
coaching and not being given administrative tasks.
The coaches at Adams School are instrumental in gathering, disseminating,
and analyzing data. With the reconfiguration of the school they have spent a good
deal of time gathering the data from feeder schools and providing teachers and the

139
administration with a format that makes sense and can be easily used for
collaboration and goal setting.
Because the funds available for professional development have diminished
greatly, the coaches at Adams School are used to provide the staff with needed
professional development. They do learning walks through classrooms, attend
collaboration meetings, and develop trainings following benchmark assessments
based on areas of need.
In interviews with the teaching staff, the comments related to the coaches
were positive and complimentary of the work they perform for the staff.
Trombone School also employs two coaches who are very high-profile at the
site and perform an array of duties. The language arts coach has also been given the
task of serving all of the EL students at the site which includes assessing them
through the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). This is an
enormous task and one that takes a good deal of her time in the early part of the
school year. The mathematics coach focuses on math but also provides feedback to
teachers in other areas when requested.
The coaches at Trombone School spend a good deal of time with the
principal. They walk classrooms together and debrief on a regular basis. The idea of
keeping coaching separate from administration so that it does not feel evaluative
does not exist at this site. The teachers are open to the coaches and principal walking
classrooms together and sharing information. The teachers at this school placed the
most importance on the role of the coach and the purpose they serve.

140
At all sites the coaches serve on the leadership team of the school and
provide insight into the needs of the school. When each coach was asked what
resources would help them to continue to improve instruction all responded that
additional funds for planning time, collaboration, and professional development is
what they would like to see to help the schools continue to move forward.
Collaboration
At each site when the teachers were asked which strategy has been most
instrumental in moving the school forward each group responded that collaboration
has been the key to their success.
This was not as clearly conveyed in the teacher surveys. The responses to the
questions related to collaboration were not overwhelming positive as shown in table
4.11.

Table 4.11: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Collaboration

I collaborate with my grade
level peers at least once per
week
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%
Wheaton 0% 14% 0% 29% 57%
We use data to drive the
collaboration conversations.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
Trombone 0% 0% 13% 20% 67%
Wheaton 0% 0% 14% 14% 71%

141
At each of the three sites high importance has been placed on collaboration
and the sites are doing what they can to facilitate effective collaboration. At each site
funds are set aside from their categorical allocations to allow for teacher release time
for collaboration. Funds are also earmarked to pay teachers for after-hours
collaboration.
Structured Teacher Planning Time (STPT) occurs at each site and is driven
by data. The teachers are provided with a substitute teacher to allow for all members
of a grade level or subject to plan together for effective instruction.
In interviews with teachers at all sites they touted the benefits they have seen
from collaboration. They have seen an evolution in the quality of collaboration that
happens at the sites. In the beginning they were aware that collaboration needed to be
more focused and data driven. They needed to eliminate the tendency to use the time
for complaints and focus it on student learning. Through the work with site
administration and the coaches they have seen this happen. Every teacher who was
interviewed felt confident that they are now experts at collaboration and see the
impact it is having on daily instruction.
The district and each site have set a high priority on PLCs and effective
collaboration. They have, in the past, dedicated resources to this strategy. All of the
sites see its importance and will continue to strive to engage in collaboration.
Because the funds that they were able to use in previous years are being kept at the
district level, they have to find more creative ways to integrate collaboration into the
regular teacher work day. At Wheaton the teachers are willing to do some of the

142
work in the morning without extra pay. At Adams they continue to use site funds to
pay for substitutes to allow teachers release time to collaborate and at Trombone,
with the most funds because of their QEIA status, they will continue to pay for after-
school collaboration and use funds to release teachers during the work day.
Instructional Leadership
Marzano, Walters, and McNulty (2005) identified 21 responsibilities of the
principal and correlated those with student achievement as addressed in the literature
review. Several of these responsibilities stand out as areas of strength for all three
principals while others appear to be of more importance to one or two of the
principals interviewed and observed for this study.
The principals at all three sites do an exceptional job at establishing clear
goals and keeping the focus on those goals. It is apparent that the district direction
plays a role in the amount of focus that is maintained in this area. All three schools
know the goals they have set; they display those goals, and keep them in the
forefront of all instructional conversations.
The role of the district is viewed very differently by administration and by
teachers from site to site as is revealed through interviews and the teacher survey.
The administrators at all three sites acknowledged the “hands-on” role the district
plays in the operation of the schools. They conveyed a feeling of support from the
district level. The site with the most veteran teachers believes the district controls
much of what they do and do not support teachers or students while teachers at the
other sites do not share this feeling as is revealed in table 4.12.

143
Table 4.12: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to District Leadership

The district leadership is
supportive of teachers
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 17% 67% 17%
Trombone 0% 0% 7% 20% 73%
Wheaton 0% 14% 43% 29% 14%
The district leadership is
supportive of students
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 17% 67% 17%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 13% 87%
Wheaton 0% 0% 57% 29% 14%
The district does not get
involved in the day-to-day
running of the school.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 17% 17% 50% 17%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 73% 27%
Wheaton 14% 43% 14% 0% 29%

It appears all three leaders operate as change agents in the school setting.
They have all encountered challenges and have implemented changes to improve on
areas of need. The two middle school principals have had to embrace the
reconfiguration of their sites and move the staff forward. All three principals have
had to address academic challenges that have forced them to reexamine the way
things were being done and find more effective strategies. In all three cases this has
resulted in improved student achievement.
All principals have built a positive culture at the schools. They recognize and
celebrate accomplishments while at the same time addressing the areas of concern

144
with individuals or groups. When surveyed, all teachers at all sites indicated that the
culture of the school is very positive. At all three sites the teachers indicated that the
staff is very cohesive. This was most evident at Wheaton School where the teachers
have been together for a number of years.
Communication was minimally observed at all three sites. This was
addressed with teachers and the two middle schools felt the communication was
good while teachers at Wheaton felt it could be better. When these teachers were
asked to elaborate they were unable to articulate what needed to be improved upon.
The principals at Wheaton and Trombone were praised by teachers for their
ability to deal with discipline and to keep distractions away from the classrooms. The
teachers at Adams indicated that this has improved over the last year but they would
like to see the administration at the site have a more united and uniform method for
dealing with discipline.
The administration’s involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices is dictated from the district. The principals are given specific directives
from the district related to the curriculum and assessments that will be used, the
professional development that will accompany the curriculum and how they will be
implemented. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services is very direct in
her charge to the principals and how they will implement the instructional programs
in the district.
Included in the curricular involvement is the ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the implemented practices. All site administrators are required to dig

145
deeply into the available data to determine the effectiveness of instruction and
programs. All of the principals are able to address the groups that are struggling and
those that are succeeding. The principal of Trombone was able to articulate this
information most effectively.
The response from the two middle school staffs regarding administration’s
knowledge of curriculum was much more positive than from the elementary site.
This may be attributed to the fact that the two middle school principals were in the
classroom teaching until fairly recently while the principal at Wheaton was an
assistant principal for 20 years prior to being assigned to her current position. It was
also evident that the teachers at Wheaton did not have the high regard for their
administrator that the other two sites shared.
Until this year and the budgetary restrictions, all three administrators have
placed a priority on professional development and providing their teachers with all of
the materials necessary for them to more than adequately perform the duties of their
jobs. All three principals continue to stress the importance of these things and made
it clear they will continue to provide their teachers with what they need to do their
jobs. They will have to be more creative and resourceful.
The principals at Wheaton and Trombone showed their commitment to being
an advocate for the school to all stakeholders. Both were observed interacting with
parents and parent groups. They were involved in activities that demonstrated to the
parents that they truly care about the children and doing what is best for them. The
students at Trombone have to walk a greater distance than parents are accustomed to

146
with the new configuration. The administration at that site, walk with the students
(one in each direction) to the major intersections to help ease the parents’ concerns
about walking through the neighborhood. The Wheaton principal was preparing for a
parent dinner event in which she usually cooks dinner for the entire group. This year
she is orchestrating purchasing the food and preparing it with the help of her parent
group.
The principal at Adams School talked about the number of parent events
coming up at her site. She does all she can to facilitate parent involvement at the site.
With the implementation of Safe and Civil Schools at the two middle school
sites, the administration has been assisted in establishing standard procedures and
routines. The staff at both sites expressed their belief that the schools operate under a
set of standards and routines that the students as well as the adults follow.
It was observed at the elementary site that the faculty is resistant to many of
the ideas, procedures and routines that are introduced by the administration. The
teacher surveys indicate that the staff at this school is the most critical of the
administration.
All three administrators are highly visible and engaged with both students
and staff. When walking to classes principals were observed interacting with
students, calling them by name, redirecting them, and praising them. The presence of
the principal in the classroom does not create a disruption. Teachers continue with
their lesson and students remain engaged. It is apparent that the administrative staff
visits classes often as is required by the district. The Assistant Superintendent of

147
Educational Services indicated that she requires principals to visit a minimum of five
classrooms per day and keep a log of those visits to share with her.
All three principals are energetic, high-profile individuals who appear to take
the leadership role at the school very seriously.
Teacher survey questions related to instructional leadership confirmed the
information that was given at the forums at each site. The teachers at Wheaton, the
most veteran teachers, were most critical of the principal while those at Trombone
were very complimentary of the principal. The teachers at Adams conveyed to the
researchers that they felt the principal was growing in her ability to lead but was not
as effective as they would like. These results are shown in table 4.13.

148
Table 4.13: Teacher Survey Results for Questions Related to Instructional
Leadership

I am well informed of the plan at
our school for improving student
performance
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
Trombone 0% 0% 7% 20% 73%
Wheaton 0% 14% 14% 43% 29%
I have been involved in the
decision making process for
implementing programs to improve
student achievement
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 33% 33% 33%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 40% 60%
Wheaton 0% 14% 14% 57% 14%
The school has a clear vision of
what good instruction looks like.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 17% 0% 33% 50%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Wheaton 0% 14% 0% 57% 29%
The site leadership is supportive of
teachers.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 13% 87%
Wheaton 0% 14% 29% 29% 29%
The site leadership knows what
good instruction is
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 33% 67%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 13% 87%
Wheaton 14% 0% 14% 43% 29%
The culture of the school is
positive.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 0% 67% 33%
Trombone 0% 0% 0% 7% 93%
Wheaton 0% 0% 0% 71% 29%

149
Extended Learning Opportunities
Extended learning opportunities are a part of each of the three schools visited.
Again, with the additional resources available to Trombone Middle School due to
QEIA designation, they will be better equipped to continue to offer a wide array of
after-school activities.
At Trombone the principal shared a booklet of afterschool classes that are
provided to all parents at the site. The classes include:
• National Junior Honor society
• Young Black Scholars
• Northrop Engineering Camp
• Junior Achievement
• Student Council/Leadership
• Save Me a Spot in College
• Kids 2 College
• MESA (Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement)
During the second semester every student is invited to attend a one hour
extended learning opportunity every day. Again, QEIA funds help to support this
endeavor.
Adams Middle School also offers extended opportunities for learning both
during the school day and after school. Because they are the pilot school for the
learning center they provide students the opportunity to receive small group tutoring
in mathematics on a regular basis during physical education, during breaks and after

150
school. The other after school classes includes dance, drama, MESA, remediation,
and student government.
Wheaton is currently having the most difficult time with offering extended
learning opportunities for all students. In the past they had the funds available to
provide all students with an extended day. This year those funds are no longer
available and it is difficult to find ways to fund after school classes for students. At
the time interviews with the staff occurred they had not determined how this
challenge would be met.
The teacher survey results for this issue are shown in table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Teacher Survey Results for Question Related to Extended Learning
Opportunities

There are opportunities for
students to receive extra
assistance outside of the
regular school day.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Adams 0% 0% 17% 50% 33%
Trombone 0% 0% 13% 60% 27%
Wheaton 0% 43% 0% 29% 29%

151
Fiscal Support
The current fiscal climate is having an impact on all of these schools. When
compared to the Evidence Based Model it is evident the schools are not meeting the
criteria outlined. With the current fiscal crisis the schools are challenged to continue
to provide the students and teachers with the tools necessary to continue to grow and
achieve.
Each group or individual interviewed expressed concern for the future if the
fiscal cuts continue. The sites have seen the decline in funds due to the district
exercising its ability to sweep, or redirect categorical funds to the general fund. The
district continues to evaluate how it will continue to serve the students in the most
effective way possible. Both the administration at the district office in Business
Services and in Educational Services indicate how well they work together to do the
best they can to provide what the sites need to do the job. With the limited resourced
they have they see the difficulty continuing.
Conclusion
The data collected through site visitations, interviews, and accessing
demographic and assessment information provides insight into the instructional
vision and improvement strategies at both the school site and district levels. AYP
provides the schools with the academic targets for both the students and teachers.
The district has given direction to the schools through the curriculum, funding levels,
and interaction with Educational Services to determine the strategies that will be
feasible to implement at the school sites.

152
The sites have determined the strategies they feel have been most influential
in helping them to make the gains necessary to exit and remain out of PI. They have
identified PLCs, collaboration, content coaches, extended learning opportunities and
effective lesson planning as some of the most effective strategies they have
implemented. Until this year they have had the ability to fund and provide all of the
staff and materials necessary to effectively implement each of these. With the current
fiscal situation they are working to prioritize and tailor the strategies to fit the
resources available to them.
When the resources are compared to the Evidence Based Model, all of the
schools are funded at a lower level. Trombone Middle School with the extra funding
it received through QEIA is closer to the model. Because Trombone is a QEIA
school their class sizes cannot go above 25 whereas the other middle schools in the
district are facing class sizes up to 40. The elementary sites are edging further away
from the EBM recommended class size with the increase to 22 this year.
Time allocated for professional development does not compare to those
recommended by the EBM. With the outlook for the education budget in California
it is not likely we will see an increase in days for teachers to allow for this.
The additional support outlined in the EBM for socioeconomically
disadvantaged and EL students are not addressed by these schools with the use of
credentialed tutors. The closest model would be the learning center pilot
implemented at Adams Middle School. While these students are providing the
schools with additional funding through Title I, EIA, and ELAP funds other

153
necessities have been given a higher priority such as coaches, collaboration, and
release time.
The chapter following will provide the implications of this study on practice
and suggestions for further research.

154
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Introduction
Improved student achievement is often associated with resources available to
provide teachers and students with materials, professional development, and
strategies designed for this purpose. With the current fiscal climate in California,
resources for education dwindling, and little hope for relief in the near future,
schools and districts are examining their practices to determine how to best meet the
needs of their students while remaining fiscally solvent.
This study has examined the implementation of strategies identified by
Odden (2009) as instrumental in raising student achievement at three schools in a
single school district in Southern California. The schools selected for this study,
were at one time identified as Program Improvement Schools and successfully exited
this designation. The degree and success of implementation of many of the strategies
identified by Odden were examined at each of the three schools. Additionally, the
district role in the implementation and resources available was also considered in the
research for this project. Four research questions provided the framework for this
study.
With the demands of NCLB and the decline in resources this project
considers the level of implementation of research based strategies and the funding
for the schools and how they compare to the Evidence Based Model. Each of the
schools selected for this study have shown growth in student achievement over the

155
last several years. They are all ethnically diverse schools with a majority of students
at each identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Each of the schools in this
study received state and federal categorical funds.
Each of the schools and district support the use of research proven strategies
to assist students academically and socially. Several of those strategies were the
focus of this study. As outlined in the literature review in chapter two, the research
supports the impact these strategies have on student achievement. The strategies
examined include: data-driven decision making, educational leadership, extended
learning opportunities, setting high standards and expectations for students,
professional development, collaboration, the use of content experts or coaches,
extended day kindergarten, preschool, and fiscal support.
The following four research questions serve as the framework for evaluating
the evidence gathered in this study. The questions are:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
Model?

156
Summary of Research
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies
The current instructional vision and improvement strategies at each of the
school sites were examined for this study. Interviews with staff, district personnel,
classroom observations, and a review of the achievement data were used to address
this question.
Currently each of the schools and the district cite NCLB targets as the goal
for all students. The means by which they are working toward these targets are very
similar at each of the three school sites. Interviews with district and school site
personnel reveal that the district role in determining the vision and improvement
strategies is predominate. Decisions regarding all instructional issues are approved at
the district level prior to execution. The district provides some resources to the
school sites to assist them in implementation of strategies. These resources include
curriculum specialists who serve all schools in the district and provide a level of
expertise in language arts, mathematics, and English language acquisition, textbooks,
fiscal support, professional development and common curriculum.
A district-wide commitment has been made in encouraging all sites in the
district to participate in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Resources at
both the district and site levels have been allocated to provide the tools necessary to
effectively develop PLCs. These resources include a data system which allows all
staff to access and analyze student performance, content coaches at each site to

157
facilitate the use of this data in the collaboration process, professional development
focused on PLCs, and contracting with consultants to assist schools in the process.
The district is providing a means for all staff to access student achievement
data. They have invested in a web-based data warehousing system which provides
staff with a multitude of reports on current student achievement. A district level
department is dedicated to maintaining student achievement data for all schools and
the district. They provide detailed reports and assistance for teachers in accessing the
data. District management has charged site administration with ensuring data is used
at all levels of planning for increased student achievement. There is an expectation
that data will be used for developing school goals and driving classroom instruction.
Data is the cornerstone of collaboration in the Paradise Unified School District.
When interviewed, all staff indicated a belief that the use of collaboration for
lesson planning and design has been the most instrumental strategy in meeting the
needs of all students. These interviews included teachers, site administrators, content
coaches, and district management. While they all believed no one strategy could
provide them with the positive results they have experienced, they do feel it is the
biggest factor in the forward movement they have made.
Each of the schools visited are working to create opportunities for students to
receive additional assistance within the school day. At one site they are piloting a
learning center which students go to for one period per day to work with credentialed
staff on mathematics deficiencies. Two sites have lowered the class size for students
who are having difficulty in language arts in order to create a lower student to

158
teacher ratio. They have seen positive results with the students in these classes and
will continue. The third site has taken a step backward in providing students with
these opportunities. With the introduction of full day kindergarten, the teachers who
were previously able to work with struggling students in the afternoon are no longer
available to provide this service. The administration at the school is working to
develop a model in which available support staff can be scheduled to work with
students in need of additional assistance. At the time of the site visitation and
interviews the literacy coach was working with small groups of students on a limited
basis in language arts. The results of this work had not been evaluated upon
completion of the research at the site.
All sites are using the special education support staff to provide opportunities
for all struggling students. Two of the sites are using a model in which the resource
teacher goes into the classroom to co-teach or provide small group instruction for
both resource students and those struggling with concepts.
All sites visited are working to create environments in which teachers are
using every minute of the school day for effective instruction. Interviews indicate
that two of the sites have made limiting classroom interruptions a priority. Classroom
observations revealed teachers engaged with students in purposeful instruction.
While evidence of using data to plan instruction was seen, limited differentiation was
observed to meet the needs of all students. Observations showed teachers most often
“teaching to the middle”. Little time was devoted to extending learning for more
advanced students or remediation for students who were struggling. The middle

159
schools are most equipped to group students homogenously to focus instruction on
the level of achievement. However, within these classes there was little evidence of
tailoring lessons or activities to enrich or remediate. At the elementary site, the
observations revealed all classes participating in whole group instruction. The design
of the elementary language arts adoption stresses a portion of instruction to be
devoted to small group teaching to meet the needs of all groups of students. This was
not observed during classroom observations. It is evident that while the PUSD has
evolved to using data and collaboration to design lessons, there is more work that
needs to take place to make this planning and implementation most beneficial for all
students.
The two middle school sites have implemented the Safe and Civil Schools
model which sets a code of conduct for students and staff. The staff, at the one site
where it is implemented with greater fidelity, cites the use of this model as a positive
improvement strategy for the school. This model includes a set of beliefs and
processes designed to improve safety and civility across all school settings. The
program requires staff to treat students with dignity and respect, teach desired
behaviors, and build relationships with students. Classroom observations at all three
schools visited for this study did not reveal behavior issues. The students in all
classroom visits, both scheduled and unscheduled, were engaged and on-task. The
minimal negative behavior witnessed at all three schools involved a small number of
students not attending to the assigned task.

160
The schools and district have made a financial and program commitment to
placing coaches at each of the schools in the district. The elementary sites have one
coach charged with literacy, mathematics, and English language acquisition. The
middle and high schools employ one coach for literacy and English language
acquisition and one for mathematics. District interviews with management indicate
that the teacher leadership would like to do away with these positions. They have
argued that the adoptions have been in place for several years and will remain in
place and that the positions are no longer necessary. The school site interviews do
not support this assertion. Interviews with staff at all three school sites praised the
work of the coaches and indicate the necessity for the position. Because the district
plays such a pivotal role in the design of school level programs, it is possible these
positions may evolve into something else if the pressure from the teacher leadership
continues. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services is currently piloting
the learning center model with the idea that these staff members would be the ideal
personnel in a pull-out remediation environment.
Through interviews with personnel at all levels it is apparent that NCLB is
the driving force behind the instructional vision in the PUSD. The targets for student
achievement are the goals set forth by NCLB. The strategies being developed and
showing results are those that are based in research and are effective where they are
implemented with fidelity. The district has provided the vision for the schools.
Through interviews with teachers at one site, it is apparent that not all teachers share
this vision. These same teachers are following the district recommendations,

161
however; it has required the site administrator to be unrelenting in her expectations.
The schools in this study are considered to be successful because they have made
forward growth toward meeting the goals of NCLB; however as these goals become
greater and greater, the schools and district will have to examine the depth of
implementation of proven strategies.
Resources Used to Implement the Instructional Improvement Plan
In order to fund the personnel and strategies that have assisted in the growth
seen at the schools in this study both site and district level funds have been utilized.
The district has funded the data collection and warehousing through the
development of a data department to maintain and disseminate student achievement
data. Curriculum specialists are district level support staff available to assist schools
in the areas of language arts, mathematics and language acquisition. There are
district supports in place to assist beginning teachers through an induction process
that leads to the acquisition of a clear teaching credential. Prior to the 2009-2010
school year there was a district level administrator who worked with beginning
principals as a mentor in helping them to develop effective leadership skills.
The school sites have shouldered the brunt of funding the cost of the
improvement strategies implemented. All of the schools in this study receive both
state and federal categorical funds. While the PUSD has elected to sweep the state
categorical funds that recent legislation allows, the sites continue to receive state
categorical funds intended for English language acquisition and federal categorical
funds intended for economically disadvantaged students. Additionally, Trombone

162
School receives a large allocation of Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA)
funds.
The largest portion of these funds is used for personnel at the school sites.
The site content coaches are funded exclusively through categorical funds. A portion
of the QEIA funds at Trombone School is used to fund personnel in order to keep
class sizes to the number required by the QEIA guidelines.
In addition to personnel costs the categorical funds are used to provide
stipends and/or substitute teachers to release staff for collaboration and peer
observation. Limited funds are allocated for professional development opportunities.
The expense of personnel drastically reduces the amount of funds available for
discretionary site activities. For example, Wheaton School receives $78,896 in Title I
funds. Of this amount $14,000 is left for site activities after funding the personnel
costs. They also receive $121,497 in state Economic Impact Aide funds of which
only $57,000 remains available for site activities after personnel costs. The
remaining $71,000 is quickly used up when paying teachers for collaboration,
teaching extended classes before or after school, and paying for materials for
remediation, enrichment, and extended learning opportunities.
Each school is provided with approximately $60 per student to use at their
discretion. These funds are provided by the district general fund. At each of the three
sites these funds are used for the day-to-day operation of the school. The funds are
used to purchase custodial supplies, office supplies, and teacher and student
materials.

163
While California has experienced budget difficulties prior to the 2009-2010
school year, only recent legislation allowed the individual school districts to take
measures to enable them to sweep the state categorical funds. This action has led to a
decrease of funds at the schools in this study. Prior to the 2009-2010 school year the
schools in this study received additional state categorical funds. The prior funds were
intended for a variety of uses including libraries, professional development,
remediation, enrichment, and allowed the school sites a wider range of funds to use
at their discretion.
As the state continues to experience difficult budgetary times, it can only be
assumed that the school district and sites will continue to feel the strain of trying to
maintain programs, provide materials and personnel while maintaining a balanced
budget as discussed below.
Resource Changes in Response to Recent Budget Reductions
As briefly addressed earlier the schools and district in this study have made
several changes in response to the budget reductions experienced by local education
agencies in California.
Most evident through interviews with site level staff is the reduction of funds
to provide professional development and collaboration for all teachers. While one
site experienced a decrease in support staff with the reduction of a content coach, it
was not addressed by any teachers in the forum discussion. The site administrator
indicated the difficulty she has experienced with the loss of this position. All of the
site personnel interviewed cited the negative impact that the loss of funds has had on

164
the ability to continue the model for collaboration they had experienced in the
previous years.
Second to professional development and collaboration, personnel indicated
the loss of funds has impacted the ability to provide students with extended learning
opportunities. In previous years two of the schools in this study were able to offer
multiple opportunities for students to receive remediation or enrichment outside of
the regular school day. With the loss of revenue these opportunities have been
decreased greatly. Adams School is piloting a model to allow for extended
opportunities for remediation during the school day with small group pull-out
working with credentialed teachers in the learning center. At the time of this study
the pilot was in the very early stages and no evaluation of this model was available.
Trombone School has been least impacted by the recent fiscal crisis due to
the QEIA funds they receive. The requirements for maximum class size are the most
evident difference between this school and the others in the study. The second
middle school site in this study is experiencing class sizes of 40 students while this
site has a maximum of 25 students per class. As an elementary school Wheaton has
experienced a slight increase in size. In the past years they have implemented class
size reduction and classes were at a maximum of 20. The state of California has
loosened the restrictions on class size as part of the response to the fiscal crisis and
this school has seen an increase of two students per class. Interviews with district
personnel indicate that class sizes will continue to increase in the coming years.

165
The PUSD has emphasized the use of data to drive instruction therefore they
have continued to put resources into this area. They fund a department to gather and
distribute the data to the schools. They use the staff in this department to provide
professional development to the site administration. They also continue to contract
with consultants to ensure continued implementation of PLCs at all sites. The
schools are expected to use a portion of their site categorical funds to continue this
same work. The use of data for collaboration and planning is important and the sites
are aware of this. The issue lies in the ability to carve time out of the day to allow for
this work to occur since funds are very limited to allow for extra pay for work
outside of the contract day.
The research indicates the benefits of full day kindergarten. With the budget
issues being faced in the district the implementation of full-day kindergarten was a
cost effective way to implement a proven strategy at a minimal cost. Wheaton
School is the only school in this study with kindergarten classes. The teachers at the
site have not completely bought into the concept that it is what is best for students.
Interviews with the kindergarten teachers reflected a resistance to the full-day
implementation. It was evident these teachers preferred working half of the day with
the entire class and spending the afternoon engaged in small group instruction with
students from other grade levels. These teachers revealed they felt the work they did
with the older students in the afternoon was more beneficial than spending the
additional time with the kindergarten students. With the absence of full day
kindergarten these students had no opportunity for extended learning opportunities.

166
The staff can develop systems for providing similar opportunities for the older
students in the absence of the kindergarten staff availability in the afternoon.
Similar to implementation of the full-day kindergarten, the middle schools
participating in this study have extended class periods to allow struggling students
more opportunities to learn the curriculum. Students who are not proficient in
language arts are enrolled in a remediation program designed to quickly move them
forward. These students are scheduled in language arts classes for double periods
each day. This removes their opportunities for elective classes with the intention of
moving them forward quickly so that they can be rescheduled into schedule that
includes electives.
At the time of this study, the preschool at Wheaton School continued to
operate at full capacity. There were no plans to adjust the operation because funds
continue to flow to the programs running the preschool. The principal of Wheaton
School stressed how important the preschool is in the success of her school. Because
it is located on the same site parents take advantage of the program and they see
students entering their school more prepared for kindergarten.
The schools in this study and the district have lost considerable resources
over the last two years and are likely to continue to experience declines in revenue in
the future. Thus far, they have made some changes in the operation of the schools.
They have increased class sizes, reduced support staff, cut custodial and office
positions, and decreased the overall allocation of funds to the sites in the form of
categorical dollars. This decrease of site categorical funds has resulted in the

167
reduction of professional development, extended learning opportunities, and
collaboration. Sites are also limiting the amount of supplemental materials they are
purchasing for student and staff use. An interview with the Director of State and
Federal Categorical Programs indicated that purchases of new equipment are no
longer approved unless it is to replace an item that is no longer working. Every
request for materials is carefully examined by district level administration to
determine the necessity and intended results.
At the time of this study, the full impact of the budget crisis had not been felt
at the school sites. They have begun the preliminary work of making the most easily
implemented adjustments to the programs and strategies they have in place. There
has been little discussion at the sites of the future implications due to the current
fiscal crisis. In an interview with the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative
Services (M.B.) he indicated that the future will hold many changes. The infusion of
money through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has helped to curtail
the amount of cuts that may be necessary in the future. M.B. stated that the teachers
have not yet grasped the enormity of the problem with the current budget. It is
indicated that while some alterations have been made to class size and spending
patterns, there will be more difficult decisions to be made in the future regarding
programs.
School Site Resource Use Patterns Compared to the Evidence-Based Model
As outlined in the review of literature the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) has
been successfully implemented and each of the recommendations are supported by

168
strong research. The California Department of Education recommends the use of
nine Essential Program Components all of which are embedded in the EBM. While
the EBM is a funding model and the Essential Program Components do not address
how to fund the recommended strategies, both serve to increase student achievement.
When comparing the resources available at each of the schools in this study,
the funds available at the site are far exceeded by those outlined in the EBM as
shown in table 5.1. When including categorical funds the schools are closer to the
amount of money available for instructional materials but the number of staff at the
study schools are much lower than those recommended by the EBM.

169
Table 5.1: Resources Study Schools Compared to the EBM

Adams
Model Component
Prototypical
School
Study School
(Actual)
Study School
(Model)
Deficit/
Surplus
Enrollment 432 935 Factor of 2.16
Free/Reduced Lunch 216 927
EL's 43 536
Core Teachers 24 29 51.84 -22.84
Specialist Teachers 4.8 0 10.36 -5.56
Tutors 2.2 0 9.3 -7.1
ELL 0.43 0 5.36 -4.93
Instructional Materials
$165/pupil =
$71,280
$60/pupil =
$56,100
$154,275 ($98,175)
Categorical Funds $382,548 $284,373
Zamboni
Model Component
Prototypical
School
Study School
(Actual)
Study School
(Model)
Deficit/
Surplus
Enrollment 432 913 Factor of 2.11
Free/Reduced Lunch 216 839
EL's 43 483
Core Teachers 24 38 50.64 -12.64
Specialist Teachers 4.8 0 10.13 -5.33
Tutors 2.2 0 8.3 -6.1
ELL 0.43 0 5.4 -4.97
Instructional Materials
$165/pupil =
$71,280
$60/pupil =
$54,780
$150,645 ($95,865)
Categorical Funds $828,405 $732,540
Wheaton
Model Component
Prototypical
School
Study School
(Actual)
Study School
(Model)
Deficit/
Surplus
Enrollment 432 415 Factor of .96
Free/Reduced Lunch 216 382
EL's 43 286
Core Teachers 24 20 19.2 0.8
Specialist Teachers 4.8 0 4.6 -4.6
Tutors 2.2 0 3.8 -3.8
ELL 0.43 0 2.8 -2.8
Instructional Materials
$165/pupil =
$71,280
$45/pupil =
$18,675
$68,475 ($49,800)
Categorical Funds $200,393 $150,593

170
Before including the site categorical allocations the funds available at the
sites do not meet the recommended levels outlined by the EBM. However, when
categorical funds are included each of the schools in this study has enough funds
available to implement some of the recommendations outlined in the EBM. A caveat
to the data reflecting categorical allocations is that a large portion of those funds are
spent on personnel in the form of the content coaches and paraprofessionals at the
sites. The schools have not succeeded in determining the best way to use the funds
available to them for research based programs. They have implemented those
requirements of the district but have not reached beyond those recommendations to
determine how these funds might be spent to best serve the needs of their students.
One site indicated the loss of PI funds has led to the elimination of many extended
learning opportunities for students. They have not earmarked the funds they have
available for this purpose. The staff and administration have pointed to this activity
as a positive factor in their growth, but without the district support of this activity,
they are not prioritizing funds to this program. The large investment in personnel
was not cited by any as a factor in the improvement of student achievement. Each
person who was interviewed indicated that collaboration is the one strategy that they
feel has made the most difference in student achievement. The funds for
collaboration are evaporating, yet large amounts of resources continue to be used for
personnel in the form of coaches and aides. It is always difficult to reduce personnel.
The resources used to finance some of the categorical positions would provide more

171
than adequate funds to pay stipends or substitutes for effective collaboration for the
year.
The schools in this study are showing progress. They have made growth over
the last several years in both AYP and API. However, two of the schools had
difficulty meeting the targets set forth this year and only successfully remained out
of PI due to safe harbor. The strategies they have implemented have shown to be
effective but the schools may realize that the gains they have been making need to be
accelerated if they intend to continue to meet the NCLB targets.
According to district staff interviews, the school sites do not always do a
good job of evaluating the programs and strategies that have been implemented.
They have a difficult time removing anything from the program and often
introducing new ideas is met with resistance. These schools have funds available to
introduce more evidence based strategies into their programs but are not doing so.
The district cites budget reductions but as table 5.1 shows there are funds available
for exploring more effective ways to increase student achievement.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This study has examined three schools and the successful practices they have
employed to exit Program Improvement. Additionally, the study has considered the
role the district plays in the decision making process and the impact the recent
budget crisis is having.
It is evident that the fiscal crisis in California is not over and we are bound to
see further reductions in education spending in the coming years. It has become even

172
more important for schools to use their funds for those strategies and programs that
are proven to have positive results.
As supported by the findings of this research and a wealth of prior research
there are many strategies that are effective and result in improved student
performance. Schools and districts seeking to move students forward and employ
proven strategies should consider the following:
Lay the Foundation
As shown by this research, teachers and other staff are not always supportive
of new programs or strategies. It is very important to inform the stakeholders of the
research that indicates a strategy or program is effective with students. All members
of the school community must see the value of the proposed approach in order to
support it.
It is imperative that the district and site leadership are well versed in the
current research and data supporting the use of the program or strategy. Marzano, et
al. (2005) highlight the importance of leadership having the ability to make staff
aware of the most current practices and makes them a part of the school culture. In
order to get support from those implementing and using the proposed strategies they
must understand why they are using it and what results have been gleaned from it as
shown by the research.
It is important to include staff in the decision making process. They must be
an integral part of making the decisions regarding their day to day practice with
guidance from administration. It is imperative that schools are led by true

173
instructional leaders who are respected by the staff and have the skills necessary to
not only help them make sound educational decisions but ensure all instruction is
delivered with fidelity.
Resource allocation is and will continue to be an area of great debate. As the
general fund resources dwindle and teacher organizations have fewer options for
increased salary, they may begin to look toward the limited categorical funds. It is
imperative that district leadership maintain the intent of these funds. In order to
employ the strategies that are proven to be effective there is a need for resources.
These categorical funds can serve to support many of the professional development,
collaboration, coaching, and extended learning opportunities at sites.
Implement Research-Based Proven Strategies
The literature and the research from this study support the implementation of
many of the strategies outlined by Odden and Archibald (2009). The implementation
of collaboration and PLCs has been cited by all participants as the most valuable
strategy for improving student performance. The use of content coaches at all of the
schools in this study has contributed to improved student achievement.
Data-driven decision making has evolved at the study schools into an integral
part of what they do to plan daily instruction. While the schools in this study have
not mastered the use of data to drive instruction, they continue to develop skills in
this area. Prior research has shown the use of data for developing lessons and
collaboration to be vital in the improvement process.

174
Providing extended learning opportunities for all students is a positive
practice. Not only do extended learning opportunities assist in remediation for
struggling students it provides opportunities for more advanced students to receive
enrichment. These opportunities may be part of the regular school day or be offered
after school, before school, or during vacation periods.
Setting high standards and expectations for students is important in the
improvement process. While many believe they are setting high standards for
students by using the goals set forth in NCLB, these goals, at this time, do not reflect
the belief that all students can achieve. NCLB currently has a proficiency
requirement of less than 50 percent. This allows for more than 50 percent of the
school to be below proficient. In order to implement this strategy the school
community must believe all students can and will achieve.
Resource Allocation
The focus of this study is an urban school district in Southern California. As a
school district comprised of socioeconomically disadvantaged students and second
language learners PUSD receives large sums of categorical aide. These funds are not
intended to pay for the maintenance of buildings or the salaries of most staff. It is
intended to be used to supplement the core program and implement strategies and
programs that will lead to improved student achievement.
The schools in this study have an adequate amount of funds to provide
students with many of the strategies outlined above. The barrier to fully
implementing many of them is the inability of schools to cease using staff or

175
programs that have not shown results. It is important to evaluate the programs in
place and those that are giving positive results should be continued and even
expanded while those that are not impacting student achievement should be ended
and the funds put to better use. The schools in this study are providing very limited
opportunities for staff to participate in quality professional development yet they are
using funds to support non-academic after school classes. Elective classes serve an
important purpose for many students, however; other avenues may be sought to
provide these opportunities for students to allow for those funds to be used for
professional development.
If student achievement is the priority, all funds must be allocated to those
activities that have been proven to accomplish this.
Implications for Future Research
This study was driven by the current fiscal climate in California and the
impact it is having on schools. Schools and districts are being held accountable for
student achievement like never before. Schools continue to work to meet the targets
set by NCLB while resources for education dwindle. A wealth of research exists to
support the strategies and programs that are the focus of this study.
As the fiscal climate continues to challenge schools and districts, further
research on the resource allocations used by educational institutions would be
recommended. In the future schools will be forced to make arduous decisions
regarding the use of funds and how to best serve students while facing the threat of
sanctions. Further research on the methods by which these decisions are made could

176
provide educators with useful tools for making similar judgments for their school
communities.
This study focused only on schools that were at one time experiencing the
sanctions of the state. The schools in this study have also recently undergone
reconfiguration. Insight could be gained from future research that looks at the impact
of these reconfigurations and the results on student achievement. Research on
schools with similar demographics that have maintained a high achievement level for
students throughout the NCLB accountability process would provide insight into the
successful strategies they have used and if they are similar to those that are the focus
of this study.
Content coaches were used at all sites participating in this study. The district
staff indicated a desire to do away with these positions by the teacher leadership.
This was not shown to be the feeling of the teachers at the school sites. The current
research indicates the positive impact content coaches have on student achievement
and teacher performance. A study of the role of content coaches in the improvement
process in a similar school setting could provide schools with important data.
Lastly, the PUSD provides top down decision making. All site decisions must
be approved by the district administration. The district leadership is very involved in
the program decisions and implementation at the schools. A study of a similar
district with very limited involvement in the school site decision making process
could provide important insight into the role of the school district in student
achievement.

177
Conclusion
The current fiscal climate in California and the country has yet to be
resolved. While many pundits have stated that we are now in recovery, the state of
California is looking at a twenty billion dollar deficit for the coming year. Education
agencies are going to have to spend wisely and get a large return on the investment.
This study is not intended to make a case for more dollars to be spent on education.
There are not more dollars to be found. It is intended to highlight the strategies that
should be implemented to help all students achieve. Those strategies are greatly
researched and have shown positive results. If California is looking to fully fund
education, there are models available that integrate these researched based strategies
into the funding decisions. One is the Evidence-Based Model which would allow for
all schools to have the resources that the research indicates would lead to improved
student achievement. Unfortunately, the students in California may have to wait a
few years for education funding to meet the recommendations of this model.

178
REFERENCES
American Educational Research Association (2007). Time to learn. 5 (2).

American Institute for Research (2003), California’s public schools accountability
act (PSAA): evaluation findings and implications. 1-12

American Institutes for Research (2007) Successful California Schools in the context
of educational adequacy. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from
http:irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/studies/17-AIR-successful-
schools/17-successful-california-schools(3-07).pdf

The Aspen Institute (2006). Improving achievement for all students: Is NCLB
accountabi8lity producing results? Retrieved June 3, 2009 from
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/no-child-left-
behind/reports/improving -achievement-all-students-nclb

Bain, J. G. and Herman, J. L. (1990). Making schools work for underachieving
minority students. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Blink, R. J. (2007). Data-Driven instructional leadership. New York, NY: Eye on
Education.

Brooks, L. M. (2008). Full-day kindergarten: A step towards breaking the cycle of
poverty in Indiana. Journal of Law and Education.

California Business Education Association Board Report (2009), legislation.
Retrieved 3/16/2009 from http://www.cbeaonline.org/legislation.php

California Coalition for Fair School Finance (1980), A summary of assembly bill 8

California Department of Education, (2006), 2005-2006 APR Glossary – AYP chart
glossary of terms for the AYP chart section of the 2006 AYP report.
Retrieved 3/24/2009 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/glossary06j.asp

California Department of Education (2009). The nine essential program components.
Retrieved June 7, 2009 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/essentialcomp.asp

California Department of Education (2009). Fiscal issues relating to budget
reductions and flexibility provisions. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/co/documents/sbx34budgetflex.doc

179
California Department of Education (2009) School district revenue limit. Retrieved
May 12, 2009 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/profile.asp?id=1296

California Department of Education (2009). Title I LEA Program Improvement (PI)
Requirements Retrieved April 28, 2009 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/pilea.asp

California Department of Education (2009). News release State schools chief Jack
O’Connell, teachers, support staff, administrators announce more than 20,000
teachers and support staff getting layoff notices due to budget crisis.
Retrieved May 3, 2009 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yo09rel31.asp

California Tax and Expenditure Limitation UC Berkeley/IGS Library (2005), Tax
and expenditure limitation in California: Proposition 13 and Proposition 4
retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://igs.berkeley.edu/library.htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

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

Chambers, J, Levin, J., & DeLancy D. (2006). Efficiency and adequacy in California
school finance: A professional Judgment approach. American Institutes for
Research submitted to Professor Susanna Loeb Stanford University
December 2006.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Harper-Collins: New York, NY.

Costrell, R., Hanushek, E., Loeb, S. (2008) What do cost function tell us about the
cost of an adequate education? Peabody Journal of Education, 83: 198 – 223.

Daggett, W.R. (2009) Improving student performance in times of declining
resources. Retrieved April 28, 2009 from
http://www.leadered.com/pdf/improve%20perf%with%20declining%20resou
rces.pdf 1-10

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A, Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009).
State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development.
National Council on Professional Development JSD 30 (2).

Darling-Hammond, L, McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan 76 (8), 597-604.

180
Davis, S, Darling-Hammond, L, LaPointe, M, Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute. Retrieved May 26, 2009 from
http://seli.stanford.edu/research/documents/SELI_sls_research_review.pdf 1-
25

Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How
do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of
professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104(7), 1265-1312

Doyle, D.P. (2003) Data-driven decision making is it the mantra of the month or
does it have staying power? THE Journal Transforming Education through
Technology. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from
http://www.thejournal.com/the/printarticle/?id=16368

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

Ed-Data (2008). Comparing California. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/article.asp?title=California%20comparison

Ed-Data (2004), Proposition 98 (1988) retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=Proposition%2098

EdSource (2009). Local Education Agency (LEA). Retrieved May 12, 2009 from
http://www.edsource.org/1200.html

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

Everhard, R. B. (2006). Why are schools always begging for money? Phi Delta
Kappan 88 (1) 70 – 75.

Fielder, D. J. (2003). Achievement now! How to assure no child is left behind.
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Fought, C (2006). Language and ethnicity: Key topics in sociolinguistics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

181
Fullen, M.G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Open
University Press.

Goldring, E and Berends, M (2009). Leading with data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Gratz, D. B., (2000). High standards for whom? Phi Delta Kappan 81 (9) Pages 681
– 687.

Gewertz, C. (2008). Building Consensus on learning time. The Obama education
plan an education week guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gronberg, T.J, Jansen, D.W, Taylor, L.L., & Booker, K. (2004) School outcomes
and school costs: The cost function approach. Texas A&M University. 1-8

Guthrie, J.W. & Springer, M.G. (2004). Adequacy advocates turn guesstimates into
gold. Education Next. Hoover Institution Stanford University 7 (1).

Hanushek, E.A. (2005) The alchemy of “costing out” an adequate education. Paper
prepared for adequacy lawsuits their growing impact on American education
October 13-14, 2005 Kennedy school of government Harvard University. 1-
39.

Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The
Economic Journal 113 (February). Retrieved September 19, 2008 from
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:zwzz511zhgj:web.missouri.edu/~podg
urskym

Hanushek, E. A. and Rifkin, S. G. (1997) Understanding the twentieth century
growth in U. S. school spending. The Journal of Human Resources 32 (1) 35
– 68.

Hoff, D.J. (2005) The bottom line. Education Week 24 (17)

Hohn, A. M., & Veitch, W. R. (2000). How much is too much? Multiple measures in
practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved May 22, 2009 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000
0019b/80/16/5c/4b.pdf

Holcomb, E. L. (2004). Getting excited about data 2
nd
edition combining people,
passion, and proof to maximize student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

182
Hopkins, D, Ainscow, M. & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of
change. New York, NY: Cassell.

Jacobson, L (2008). Teacher layoff notices fly in California fiscal crisis. CFTL in the
Media Education Week, March, 2008. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from
http://www.cftl.org/pressroom_clipview.php?clip-edweek_3_13_08.php

Jacobson, L (2008). Long-term payoff seen from early-childhood education. The
Obama education plan an education week guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Joftus, S., Cowan, K. T., Skinner, R., May, E., and Priestman, S. (2002). School
administrator’s guide to ESEA formula grants. Washington D. C.: Thompson
Publishing.

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

Jones, F (2009). CBEA Board Report Categorical raids and professional
development cuts. Retrieved on March 28, 2009 from
http://www.ebeaonline.org/legislation.php

Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kelly, M. (1993). Standards for student performance. ERIC Digest, 81. Retrieved
May 27, 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/standards.htm

Kemerer, F.R., Snasom, P.A., & Kemerer, J (2005). California school law. Stanford
University Press.

Knight, J (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving
instruction. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Legislative Analyst’s Office (2009). Proposition 98 budget package. Retrieved May
12, 2009 from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2009/Overview_Feb_2009_Prop_
98_03_17_09.pdf

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 June 3, 2009 from
http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/convening/PACE_data_brief.pdf

183
Mandinach, E.B. & Honey, M. (2008). Data-driven school improvement. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Marsh, J.A., Pane, J.F, & Hamilton L.S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven
decision making in education evidence from recent RAND research. Rand
Corporation occasional paper series. 1-15

Martinez, S and Snider, L. A. (2001). Summary of research full-day kindergarten.
Planning and research Kansas State Department of Education.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works,
from research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

McClure, P. (2005), School improvement under no child left behind. Report prepared
for: the Center for American Progress. 1-29

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

McEwan E. K. (2002). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership 2
nd
edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McEwan E. K. (2002). Ten traits of highly effective teachers. How to hire, coach and
mentor successful teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

The Merrow Report – First to worst, the special challenge of proposition 13.
retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/ftw/prop13.html

Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning (2009). Optimizing teachers’ use
of instructional time. Retrieved May 22, 2009 from
http://www.MCREL.org/toolkit/res/time.asp

Moran, M.C. (2007). Differentiated literacy coaching: Scaffolding for student and
teacher success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

National Access Network (2006) A costing out primer. Teachers college Columbia
University June 2006.

184
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2008). Impact
evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services. Retrieved May 13
2009 from

National Conference of State Legislatures (2002) School funding—what’s enough?
State Legislatures Magazine September 2002

National Education Association (2008) Closing the gap through extended learning
opportunities an NEA policy brief. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from

National Science Foundation (2008), All students proficient on state tests by 2014?,
retrieved 3/24/2009 from
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112312

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2009). Standardized tests. Retrieved
May 13, 2009 from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea51lk3.htm

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

Odden, A. R. and Archibald, S. J. (2000). Investing in learning: How schools can
reallocate resources to support student achievement. School Spending 4 – 7.

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

Odden, A. R. (2004), Summary and reflections on 14 years of CPRE school finance
redesign research. CPRE-UW Working Paper SF-04-01. 2-18

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

Olsen, Lynn (2005), Financial Evolution. Ed Week 24 (17) 8 – 12

Ontario Principal’s Council (2009). The Principal as Data-Driven Leader. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Paige, R. R. (2001). The back page: No child left behind. Carnegie Reporter 1 (2) 1-
2 Retrieved May 27, 2009 from
http://www.carnegie.org/reproter/02/backpage/index.html

185
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative and evaluation methods (3
rd
edition). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

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

Picus, L.O. (2004). School finance adequacy: implications for school principals.
NASSP Bulletin 88 (640). 3-11

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

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: The Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sandovold, A., Baxter, M. (2008). The fundamentals of literacy coaching.
Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Schmoker, M. J. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented
improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: The Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. J. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from dramatically
improved schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Schweinhart, L. J. (2008). Creating the best prekindergartens: five ingredients for
long-term effects and returns on investment. The Obama education plan an
education week guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Silva, E. (2007). On the clock: Rethinking the way schools use time. Education
Sector Reports January.

Solomon, C. G. (2009). The curriculum bridge: From standards to actual classroom
practice 3
rd
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

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

Tallerico, M. (2005). Supporting and sustaining teachers’ professional development.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

186
Timar, T (2006). How California funds K-12 education. Institute for Research on
Education Policy and Practice Stanford University. 1-42

Toll, C. A. (2006). The literacy coach’s desk reference: Processes and perspectives
for effective coaching. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

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 May 28, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/rocery/guidence/uses.doc

United States Department of Education, (2002). Scientifically Based Research.
Retrieved April 28, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/research/index.html

United States Department of Education (2002). Guidance for the reading first
program. Retrieved May 25, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html

United States Department of Education, (2004). Executive Summary of the No child
Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved April 28, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html

United States Department of Education (2009). Improving basic programs operated
by local education agencies (Title I Part A). retrieved May 15, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

United States Department of Education (2009). Improving teacher quality state
grants. Retrieved May 15, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/index.html

United Stated Department of Education (2009). Elementary and secondary education
part A English language acquisition, language enhancement and academic
achievement act. Retrieved May 15, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg40.html

United States Department of Education (2009). Public school choice non-regulatory
guidance. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 1-28

187
United States Department of Education (2009). The American recovery and
reinvestment act: Saving and creating jobs and reforming education.
Powerpoint 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

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Office of Education (1969).
History of Title I ESEA. 1-4

WestEd (2005). Full-day kindergarten: Expanding learning opportunities. Policy
Brief April 2005.1-4

Wilson, L. W., (2007). Improving your elementary school: Ten aligned steps for
administrators, teams, teachers, families, and students. Larchmont, NY: Eye
on Education.

188
APPENDIX A
SITE ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONS
Principal
1. How long have you been the principal at this school?
2. What was your previous position?
3. What are the goals for student achievement at your school?
• Were these goal determined at the district or site level?
4. What have been the school’s greatest achievements in the last five years?
5. What strategies do you credit with helping students attain academic gains?
6. What English/Language Arts curriculum do you use at your school?
• How was this curriculum selected?
• What kind of professional development have teachers received on this
curriculum?
• What are the future plans for professional development on this
curriculum?
• How do you monitor teacher implementation of the curriculum?
• Do you observe teachers using the curriculum with fidelity?
7. What mathematics curriculum do you use at your school?
• How was this curriculum selected?
• What kind of professional development have teachers received on this
curriculum?

189
• What are the future plans for professional development on this
curriculum?
• How do you monitor teacher implementation of the curriculum?
• Do you observe teachers using the curriculum with fidelity?
8. Are your teachers using a pacing guide in either or both of these subjects?
9. If yes, how was the pacing guide developed?
10. The state adoptions are aligned to the state standards, has your school
identified key standards from these?
11. Are these standards used district-wide or are they unique to your site?
12. How does your school approach instruction?
• Is there a common view of good instruction at your site?
• If so, what is it?
• How was it developed?
• Do you believe it has had an impact?
13. How does your school use student assessment data?
14. What kind of professional development has your school been able to offer in
the past?
15. Do you have professional development days built into the school calendar?
16. Do you have early release for the purpose of professional development? If so,
how often?
17. How do banked days work at your school?

190
18. Given the current budget, will you be able to offer the same level of
professional development in the 09-10 school year?
19. Do your teachers have collaborative time to meet with grade-level peers
during the regular school day?
• How often?
• How is this time used?
• Are you part of the collaboration meetings?
20. Do you have academic/content/literacy coaches at your site?
• If yes, in what subject(s)?
• How were they selected?
• What are their duties?
• Have teachers been receptive to their assistance?
• Do you feel they have had a positive impact on student achievement?
• Do you feel they have had a positive impact on teacher performance?
• What role do they play in collaboration?
21. How do your provide intervention for struggling students?
22. How are these students identified?
23. How do you provide additional assistance to English Learners?
24. Has the current budget crisis resulted in
• Increased class sizes?
• A loss of staff? If yes, what type of staff (teachers, literacy coaches,
nurses, librarians)

191
• A decrease in professional development?
• A change in maintenance, repairs, facility upkeep?
25. How much authority do you have over
• The number of staff at your site
• The types of staff you use at your site (coaches, aides, project
teachers?
• Categorical spending at your site?
• Unrestricted dollars?
26. Who is involved in the decision making process at your school (teachers,
administrators, parents, community)?
27. How would you describe the culture of your school?
28. How would you characterize the district’s involvement in the daily operation
of your school?
29. How would you characterize the support of district level staff to your school?
30. What resources or support would be necessary to continue or expand your
efforts to improve student achievement?
31. Is there anything I haven’t asked that you would like to mention?

192
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR CONTENT COACH
1. How long have you been a coach at this school?
2. What was your former role, and was it in this school, in another school in this
district, or in a different district or state?
3. Are there other coaches in this school, or in this district? If so, how do you
interact with them?
4. How were you chosen to be a coach?
5. What sort of training (if any) did you receive from the district about your role as
a coach?
6. What sort of training or guidance (if any) did you receive at the school level from
your principal?
7. What is your understanding of the plan for improving student performance at this
school?
8. Do you have a clear mission/goal/sense of what you are trying to accomplish in
your role at this school? If so, what is it?
a. How is your role related to the school improvement goals?
9. Please describe how you are involved in professional development at the school.
10. Please describe your role in collecting and analyzing data for the school.
a. Do you help teachers analyze their student achievement data and identify
specific areas that need to be targeted in the classroom?

193
11. Please describe the ways in which you interact with teachers in the school.
Specifically:
a. How do you determine which teachers you will work with and in what
capacity?
b. Do you work with all teachers one-on-one at some point during the year,
or only those identified as needing improvement?
c. Do you work with teachers during a regularly scheduled common
planning time?
d. Do you work with teachers during a summer institute or in any sort of
summer training capacity? Is there such a summer institute?
e. Do you sometimes teach a lesson side-by-side with a teacher in his/her
classroom?Do you use the method of modeling something for a short
period of time, and then having the teacher do what you just did, and then
model something else, and then have them do it – what some call shadow
coaching?
g. Do you provide resources to teachers for use in their classrooms? If so,
can you give a specific example?
12. What have you found to be the most effective means of helping a teacher
improve instruction in their classroom?
13. How much time would you estimate you spend on the following tasks:
a. Time in classroom helping students
b. Time in classroom modeling instructional strategies/observing teachers

194
c. Time working directly with or meeting with teachers individually or in
small groups
d. Time in preparation
e. Time in research
f. Time spent coordinating with other coaches in school/district
g. Time spent on administrative tasks
i. Related to coaching
ii. Not related to coaching – general administrative tasks
14. Have you encountered resistance from some teachers to working with you to
make improvements to their teaching?
a. If so, were you able to overcome that resistance? How?
15. What additional resources would help you continue to improve instruction at this
school?
After the interview, researcher makes a note about:
Whether this coach appears to be an instructional leader in the school?

195
APPENDIX C
TEACHER SURVEY
Please complete the following survey. Place an X in the box that most closely aligns
with your view of the statement. ALL ANSWERS AND SURVEYS ARE
CONFIDENTIAL.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to thoughtfully complete this survey.
Please place it in the provided envelope and drop it in the mail. I truly appreciate
your assistance.

Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
I am well informed of the plan at our school
for improving student performance.

I have been involved in the decision making
process for implementing programs to
improve student achievement.

The school has a clear vision of what good
instruction looks like.

Student performance is the highest priority
at this school.

Our school implements a strong language
arts program.

Our school implements a strong
mathematics program.

Our school implements a strong writing
program.

Our school focuses on high academic
standards for all students.

Our school makes professional
development a priority.

I have participated in professional
development that has improved my
practice.

I use data to drive my classroom
instruction.

I collaborate with my grade level peers at
least once per week.

We use data to drive the collaboration
conversations.

196
All students can achieve
I set high standards for my students.
The site leadership is supportive of teachers
The site leadership knows what good
instruction is

The district leadership is supportive of
teachers

The district leadership is supportive of
students

The district does not get involved in the
day-to-day running of the school.

Instructional time is sacred and meets with
few or no interruptions.

There are opportunities for students to
receive extra assistance outside of the
regular school day.

The culture of the school is positive.

If there are any additional comments you would like to make, please feel free to use
the space below or additional pages.

197
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
District Curriculum Administrator
1. How long have you been in this position?
2. What was your previous position?
3. What are the goals for student achievement in this district?
4. What is the district plan for raising student achievement?
5. What role does the district play in the selection of curriculum for the school
sites?
6. Has your district identified key standards from the state adopted standards?
7. Has your district defined what good instruction is for your students?
• What is it?
• How was it developed?
• To what degree have the schools implemented it?
• How is this measured?
• Do you believe it has made a difference?
• What is your role in developing school improvement goals?
8. How is student assessment data used in your district?
9. How is professional development provided to staff?
10. Do you do any sort of monitoring at the school level of curriculum
implementation? If so, please explain.

198
11. Do you collaborate with a consortium of neighboring districts regarding
curriculum and instruction? If so, in what way?
12. How does the current budget crisis impact curriculum and instruction in your
district?
13. How are decisions made on allocating resources to
programs/strategies/materials for the school sites?
14. What implementation do you see has had the greatest impact on student
achievement?
15. Is there anything else you would like to address?

199
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
OF BUSINESS SERVICES
District Business Administrator
1. How long have you been in this position?
2. What was your previous position?
3. In the current fiscal climate, what measures has your district implemented to
address budget issues?
4. Will your district be able to maintain a balanced budget for the next three
years?
5. What is your budget reserve projected to be in three years?
6. What is the district plan for addressing continued declining resources?
7. What role does staff play in determining proposed program cuts?
8. How much control do school sites have in determining the use of their non-
restricted funds?
9. What do you see as the greatest challenge for school districts given the
current fiscal outlook?
10. What is the daily sub rate?
11. How much does each school receive for general fund allocation and
categorical fund allocation?
12. Class size?

200
13. Facilities?
14. Is there anything else you would like to address?

201
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS DIRECTOR OF CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS
District Categorical Programs Administrator
1. How long have you been in this position?
2. What was your previous position?
3. What are the goals for student achievement in this district?
4. What is the district plan for raising student achievement?
5. What role do categorical programs play in reaching these goals?
6. How are categorical funds allocated to the school sites?
7. How much flexibility do the school sites have in spending these funds?
8. How do sites prioritize the use of these funds?
9. What role does the district play in assisting school sites in the use of their
categorical funds?
10. What has been the most effective use of categorical funds for raising student
achievement?
11. When a program that is implemented is found to be less effective than others
what is done? How are programs evaluated?
12. How will the current budget issues impact categorical spending at the school
sites?
13. Has your district taken advantage of the recently authorized flexibility of
categorical funds? If so, in what way?

202
14. What has been the most challenging aspect of the current budget crisis for
your district?
15. Is there anything else you would like to address?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The current fiscal climate in California and the country has had a tremendous impact on every facet of society. Education has experienced budget reductions that have impacted every aspect of serving students and their families. Research provides educators with evidence-based strategies that have shown to improve student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

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 non-title I schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Morgan, Helen Emery (author)

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

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/09/2010

Defense Date 03/04/2010

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

Tag collaboration,effective strategies,funding models,improving schools,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Place Name California (states)

Language English

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

Creator Email helenemerymorgan@aol.com,hmorgan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2902

Unique identifier UC1465809

Identifier etd-Morgan-3598 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-319535 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2902 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Morgan-3598.pdf

Dmrecord 319535

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Morgan, Helen Emery

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