University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ALLOCATION OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE STUDENT
LEARNING: CASE STUDIES OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

by

Patricia G. Sandoval

____________________________________________________________

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

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Patricia G. Sandoval
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Martin, whose support and love
throughout the years have made everything possible. I also dedicate this dissertation
to my three children, Omar, Nayeli, and Itzy. Thank you for patiently allowing me
to complete my work and for understanding.
iii
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Larry Picus for his role in chairing my
dissertation committee. Without your guidance, patience, support, and vast
knowledge in school finance this document would not have been possible. You
provided me with invaluable direction and it was truly an honor to learn from you
and work with you. Second, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee
members, Dr. John Nelson, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, and Dr. Gib Hentschke. Thank you
for dedicating the time to read my manuscript and providing the assistance to
complete this process.
I would also like to acknowledge the principals of the eight schools I studied.
You are first class professionals and I am grateful to you for opening the doors to
your schools and allowing me the opportunity to learn about your school
improvement process. I learned so much from your experience and wisdom; I
enjoyed discussing with you how you lead your schools and inspire your staff to
move forward and continuously improve. Many children’s lives are so much better
because of the care, dedication, and moral imperative you bring to the “job”.
Thank you to my parallel thematic dissertation group members, whose ideas,
enthusiasm, and experiences enriched my journey through this endeavor. I am
thankful to my family for their support and belief in me. You laid the foundation and
it is because of you that I am the person I am today.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication …………………………………………………………………………. ii
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………..iii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………….v
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………….. viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study …………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ……………………………………………………. 21
Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………… 63
Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………….. 77
Chapter 5: Case Studies …………………………………………………………146
Chapter 6: Summary, Conclusions, Implications ……………………………….301
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………….. ...322
Appendix A: Quantitative Data Collection Protocol ……………………………329
Appendix B: Data Collection Codebook ………………………………………. 340
Appendix C: Qualitative Data Collection Protocol ……………………………..352
Appendix D: Principal Letter …………………………………………………... 356
Appendix E: Pre-Interview Principal Memo ………………………………… ...358
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Evidence Based Model Strategies …………………………………. ...42
Table 2.2: Eight Instructional Improvement Strategies ……………………….. ...50
Table 3.1: School Sample Characteristics …………………………………….. ...66
Table 3.2: School Resource Indicators …………………………………………...68
Table 3.3: School Resources ………………………………………………….. ...69
Table 4.1: Elementary School API and Percent Proficient Growth ……………...78
Table 4.2: AYP Status …………………………………………………………....78
Table 4.3: Average School Resource Indicators ……………………………….. ..79
Table 4.4: Administrators ………………………………………………………...83
Table 4.5: Core Academic Teachers ………………………………………….. ...84
Table 4.6: Needed Specialist/Elective Teachers ………………………………. ...86
Table 4.7: Extra Support Teachers ……………………………………………. ...87
Table 4.8: Extra Support Teachers and Aides ………………………………… ...89
Table 4.9: Student Support Staff ………………………………………………. ...92
Table 4.10: Professional Development ………………………………………... ...93
Table 4.11: Instructional Facilitators/Coaches …………………………………...95
Table 4.12: Extended Day Program …………………………………………… ...97
Table 4.13: Summer School Day Program ……………………………………. ...99
Table 4.14: District's Allocation of Instructional Minutes ……………………...104
Table 4.15: School Site Professional Development ………………………….. ...116
Table 4.16: Teachers on Special Assignment ………………………………… ...122
vi
Table 4.17: Restructured Kindergarten Day …………………………………. ...126
Table 4.18: FSK’s Use of TOSAs ……………………………………………....128
Table 5.1: Rivera’s API Scores from 1999-2008 …………………………….....148
Table 5.2: Rivera’s Adequate Yearly Progress ………………………………. ...149
Table 5.3: Rivera's Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule ………………………….. ...157
Table 5.4: Rivera's School Resources and Evidence Based Model ………….. ...163
Table 5.5: FSK’s API Scores from 1999-2008 ………………………………. ...167
Table 5.6: FSK’s Adequate Yearly Progress ………………………………… ...167
Table 5.7: FSK’s Use of TOSAs ……………………………………………......175
Table 5.8: FSK’s After School Intervention Programs ………………………. ...178
Table 5.9: FSK’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model …………… ...181
Table 5.10: Alger’s API Scores from 1999-2008 …………………………….. ..184
Table 5.11: Alger’s Adequate Yearly Progress ……………………………… ...185
Table 5.12: Alger’s Non-Negotiable School Wide Practices …………………...188
Table 5.13: Alger’s Professional Development Topics from 2003-2008 ……. ...192
Table 5.14: Alger’s TOSA Support for Struggling Students ………………… ...195
Table 5.15: Alger’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model …………. ...200
Table 5.16: Hepburn’s API Scores from 1999-2008 ………………………… ...204
Table 5.17: Hepburn’s Adequate Yearly Progress ……………………………...205
Table 5.18: Hepburn’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model ……… ...221
Table 5.19: Rosewood’s API Scores from 1999-2008 ……………………….....224.
Table 5.20: Rosewood’s Adequate Yearly Progress …………………………....225
vii
Table 5.21: Rosewood’s Social Studies and Science Instruction ……………… 226
Table 5.22: Rosewood’s Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule ……………………. ...234
Table 5.23: Rosewood’s In-School Student Support ………………………… ...236
Table 5.24: Rosewood’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model ……. ...240
Table 5.25: Grande Vista’s API Scores from 1999-2008 ……………………. ...244
Table 5.26: Grande Vista’s Adequate Yearly Progress ……………………… ...245
Table 5.27: Grande Vista’s TOSA Use during the Instructional Day ……….. ...256
Table 5.28: Grande Vista’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model …. ...261
Table 5.29: XYZ’s API Scores from 1999-2008 …………………………….. ...265
Table 5.30: XYZ’s Adequate Yearly Progress ………………………………. ...266
Table 5.31: XYZ’s Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule ………………………….. ...273
Table 5.32: XYZ’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model …………. ...280
Table 5.33: Venezia’s API Scores from 1999-2008 …………………………. ...283
Table 5.34: Venezia’s Adequate Yearly Progress …………………………… ...284
Table 5.35: Venezia’s Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule ………………………. ...292
Table 5.36: Venezia’s use of TOSAs ………………………………………… ...293
Table 5.37: Venezia’s School Resources and Evidence Based Model ………. ...299
viii
Abstract
In the era of NCLB and standards based instruction, CA schools have
mounting pressures to make AYP and meet their API growth targets. Consequently,
educational researchers are focusing on which resources are necessary to increase the
achievement of all students. In the current age of accountability, schools must target
their existing resources and link them to strategies that will lead to student
achievement. School level resource use studies examine how schools utilize their
existing resources and whether they allocate them toward effective strategies. This
research is comprised of school level resource allocation and use case studies that
inform how eight schools have implemented effective instructional practices. It
discusses strategies the schools have implemented to increase their API scores and
double their percent proficient scores in English Language Arts. The resource
allocation patterns are analyzed using the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) and the school improvement strategies are explicated through the Washington
Successful School Study (Fermanich et. al, 2006).

1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Background
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, school
districts across the nation were asked to make improvements in educating all
children regardless of economic status and English Language ability, with the
eventual requirement that all students will be proficient by 2014. NCLB places
greater accountability on school districts, and subsequently schools, because all are
expected to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), (Edsource, 2005).
NCLB is the 2001 reauthorization of the federal government’s Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB propelled all states to implement
standards based reforms for all public schools. These standards based reforms
stipulate that schools: adopt rigorous content standards; utilize scientifically based
instructional practices; guarantee “highly qualified” teachers for all students; and
demonstrate academic improvement by meeting pre-established benchmark
percentages of proficiency in reading and math as measured through state
assessments (NCLB, 2001). The ultimate benchmark is for all schools to have
100% proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. Schools are expected to meet
100% proficiency by meeting yearly incremental pre-established targets.
Title 1 of NCLB is used by the government to leverage the implementation of
NCLB. The federal government essentially ties the receipt of federal funds to a
state’s adherence to NCLB mandates. Due to the fact that California receives
2
approximately three billion in federal categorical funding, from which Title I grants
comprise two-thirds of that amount, it behooves school districts to comply with all of
NCLB’s requirements (California School Finance, 2008).
Public Schools Accountability Act
In California, schools have an additional accountability layer, the Academic
Performance Index (API) which was established by the passage of the 1999 Public
Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). This legislation was intended to ensure the
creation and implementation of a system to monitor achievement in all schools and
provide incentives or sanctions depending on whether they met their goals. PSAA
called for a performance indicator, thus the Academic Performance Index (API) was
created to compare schools along a single scale, from 200 to 1,000. In addition, two
deciles ranks were created, a similar schools and absolute statewide rank.
California’s PSAA sought to improve the academic performance of all students by
ranking similar schools through a deciles distribution, identifying yearly growth
targets based on the API, and calculating an Academic Performance Index (API)
score for each school based on the distribution of scores on the state’s tests
(Edsource, 2005). As a result, California schools have two accountability layers, the
Academic Performance Index (API), established by PSAA and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP), established by NCLB.
California’s adoption of rigorous content standards in the core academic
areas (English, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies/History) in 2000 led to
widespread implementation of standards based instructional reforms to increase
3
student achievement. PSAA, the adoption of rigorous content standards, and NCLB
spurred the implementation of new research based instructional practices and in
some cases comprehensive school reform initiatives, especially for Program
Improvement status schools (Odden, 2000).
Though California schools follow the federal and state accountability systems
and implement curriculum based on rigorous content standards, these systems do not
provide a blueprint for improving performance nor do they indicate which resources
are necessary to ensure students make the stipulated achievement gains. The federal
and state accountability systems do not offer specific strategies for schools to support
or guide them to meet their performance targets. Instead they offer global principles
that schools are expected to follow: establish rigorous academic standards;
implement assessments to measure whether students meet these standards; set
measurable performance targets for schools; hold schools accountable for reaching
these goals; implementation of scientifically based curriculum and instructional
strategies; and hold schools accountable for comparable improvement by student
subgroups in meeting these goals (Edsource, 2005). If the federal and state
accountability systems are truly meant to increase performance then they should
indicate and provide the necessary resources to increase the academic achievement
of all students. One of the prerequisites for overcoming the achievement gap should
be for states to determine which resources and how much are necessary for all
students to meet state standards (Rebell 2007).
4
Educational Adequacy
In the era of NCLB and standards based instruction, CA schools have
mounting pressures to make AYP and meet their API growth targets. Consequently,
some educational researchers are focusing on which resources are necessary to
increase the achievement of all students. Educational adequacy, the provision of
resources to provide an adequate education for all students so that they achieve
proficiency levels in the core academic areas, is the area educational researchers are
currently studying. The school finance literature now increasingly examines which
strategies are necessary to improve the achievement of all students, asking what
constitutes an adequate level of spending to ensure access to a viable curriculum, and
examining how existing funds may be allocated to enhance the most effective
components of instruction (Elliot, 1998). Some research findings suggest that the
effects of accountability on academic achievement are moderated by the availability
of schools resources (Goe, 2006; Lee, 2006).
California school finance researchers are addressing several issues: whether
spending levels are adequate to meet the needs of all children; how educational
resources are allocated and used; and how funding levels are linked to student
outcomes (Picus, 2000). Under standards-based education reform, the benchmark
test of school finance policy is whether it provides sufficient-or adequate-revenues
per pupil for districts and schools to deploy educational strategies that are successful
in educating students to high standards of performance (Odden & Picus, 2003). The
5
question California policymakers need to ask is, “Are we appropriating sufficient
funds to our schools to ensure students meet the proficiency benchmarks?
When compared to other U.S. states, California’s per pupil funding is ranked
29
th
(California School Finance, 2008). The national per-pupil funding average in
2005-06 was $9100 and California’s average was $8,486 dollars (EdSouce, 2008).
Thus, California spends 93% of the national average in per pupil allocations despite
it being ranked as one of the wealthiest states. In 2003, California’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) would have ranked sixth in the world. In 2002, the average personal
income of California residents was $2,041 above the national average (Ed-Data,
2008). California provides relatively low resources to schools yet has one of the
nation’s most rigorous content standards (EdSource, 2004). This data leads one to
ask, “Are limited resources and funding contributing to California’s students’
underperformance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)? In
2007, California’s 4
th
and 8
th
grade student performance falling “at or above Basic”
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress was ranked 46
th
while in
mathematics it was ranked 47
th
(NAEP, 2007).
Given the demographics of California schools where there are significant
numbers of English Language Learners and students living in poverty, existing
resources need to be analyzed to determine if schools have the necessary fiscal
support to make the NCLB expected achievement gains. Baker (2005) indicates that
the marginal costs of achieving outcomes with children from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds falls within the range of 35%-100% above the average
6
per pupil. As of now, few states provide the minimal 35% of additional funding for
low SES students; most states account for low SES students with finance weights of
20-25%. Additionally, Baker estimates the costs of achieving outcomes for children
with limited English proficiency are likely to be as much as 100% above the average
cost of educating the average English speaking student—substantially more than is
currently provided; which is on average approximately 20% more than the baseline
for the average student. Given the limited resources available to California schools,
educators must closely examine how to effectively allocate resources and target their
use on strategies that will lead to improved outcomes.
Four Models of Educational Adequacy
The educational adequacy literature describes four adequacy models from
which determinations on what constitutes an “adequate” education are made. These
four models are: the successful district approach, the cost function approach, the
professional judgment approach, and the evidence-based model (Odden, 2003). The
successful school district approach seeks to identify and study successful school
districts. Funding formulas are then established based on the weighted per pupil
expenditures of the successful districts. The cost function approach uses statistical
calculations (regression analysis) to devise a funding formula. The professional
judgment approach asks a group of educational experts to identify and attach a
monetary value to effective educational strategies. The Evidence-Based approach
identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a high quality,
comprehensive, school wide instructional program and then attaches a price to each
7
ingredient (Odden, 2003). The purpose of the Evidence Based approach is to
identify research based strategies that will lead to instructional improvement; thus
providing schools with a framework to use their money more effectively.
Resource Allocation
A tenet of educational adequacy studies is resource allocation. Resource
allocation is used to describe the operational activities required to run schools and
encompasses all inputs, defined by dollars spent, the resources these dollars buy, and
the way these resources are used by educational institutions (Nakib, 1995). School
level analysis of resource allocation is necessary to determine if schools are utilizing
the appropriate resources to increase student achievement. Resource allocation
analysis provides tools for informing research on: educational productivity, teacher
recruiting and training, organizational structure and behavior of schools, and school
finance adequacy (Nakib, 1995). As more adequacy studies are undertaken, it
becomes increasingly evident that student achievement is more common when
resources are available and utilized resources are aligned with research based
practices (Brinson, 2005; Elliot, 1998; Miles & Hammond, 1998).
In an era of limited resources, school finance educators are looking at how
schools link their resource allocation to improving the academic achievement of their
students. Hanushek (1994) calls for schools to continually analyze the costs and
benefits of various approaches and implement those that yield optimal results.
School level resources use studies to increasingly support the assertion that money
8
might matter if there is better direction and deployment of resources at the school
and classroom level (Goe, 2006).
Evidence-Based Model
Despite the existence of a substantial research base in instructional best
practices and resource allocation, school finance policies do not reflect these best
practices at the district/school levels. Goertz and Duffy (1999) found that districts
and schools make few linkages between resource allocation and reform. Schools and
districts do not utilize any specific tools to make the link between school budgets to
district and school improvement plans and goals. In analyzing schools that received
what is now the High Priorities School Grant (HPSG), Goe (2006) found most
administrators and teachers possess varying abilities in identifying ways of spending
money that was likely to improve student improvement. The Evidence-Based model
can address this gap and guide educators to allocate resources more effectively.
The Evidence-Based model was developed by Dr. Allan Odden from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus from the University of
Southern California as an attempt to re-conceptualize school finance adequacy. Its
foci are: to include spending within the instructional function; enhance spending in
core subjects; and to spend more directly on strategies that have evidence of being
successful (Odden and Picus, 2008). The Evidence-Based model includes research
based practices in instructional leadership, school/educational improvement, staffing,
teacher staff development, and curriculum.
9
The Evidence-Based model includes effective instructional strategies
grounded in educational research on staff development, instructional improvement,
educational improvement, and curriculum and instruction. In the area of staff
development, it includes the need for teachers to collaborate in creating curriculum
and diagnosing, assigning, and instructing students (Birman et. al, 2000; Supovitz &
Turner, 2000; and Desimone et. al, 2002). The model recommends the provision of
additional teachers who teach supplemental courses (such as the arts, physical
education, etc) and who relieve core teachers to allow them time to collaborate
during the school day. In educational improvement, it recommends extra support
for struggling students during the school day, in extended day programs, and summer
school. In curriculum and instruction, it recommends smaller class sizes to ensure
students receive targeted assistance and greater flexibility during the school day to
meet instructional needs.
Though the Evidence-Based model recommends specific funding allocations
for staff and programs, some of which may not be likely under the current California
school funding system, it can be a useful framework to inform schools on how to
more efficiently use their existing resources. It provides a framework for California
schools to analyze their resource allocation patterns and determine if their utilization
of existing resources are aligned with best practices research. As schools face
continued pressure to make dramatic improvement gains on standardized
assessments, they must use their resources more productively by reallocating them to
new and more effective instructional strategies (Odden, 2003).
10
Statement of the Problem
Within the context of educational adequacy, limited research exists on how
schools link resources to program decisions, particularly those designed to increase
student achievement (Goertz & Duffy, 2000). Oftentimes, site level administrators
expend their resources without examining if their expenditures are aligned with their
school improvement plan (Goe, 2006). School finance research studies, in particular
studies of resource allocation and use at the school level, can provide educators with
insight on how to prioritize where money should be spent.
Analyzing school level resource use is necessary to provide data on which
strategies are effective and ineffective for increasing student achievement. In the era
of limited resources, California educational leaders need to prioritize where money
should be expended so that it makes the expected impact and schools make the
expected gains. In California, resources are not an unlimited supply thus educators
need the tools and research base to ground their instructional decisions. At the
district and school level, it is necessary for educators to know how to efficiently
utilize resources to increase academic achievement. The Evidence-Based Model may
be a viable framework for CA educators. It can be used as a tool to effectively
allocate and expend resources.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine eight Southern California schools
located in a particular elementary school district. The schools in this study are those
identified as “middle performing schools” but have demonstrated a significant
11
increase in their API and, at minimum, have doubled their Language Arts percent
proficient in the School wide group and in its Latino, English Learner, and Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged subgroups since 2002. The sample schools for this
study are not necessarily high performing schools (those with an API of 800 or
above) but schools that have made significant academic improvement since 1999.
This study analyzes whether these particular California schools are organized along
the recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model and whether they demonstrate
similar resource allocation patterns. The resource allocation patterns of these schools
are analyzed to determine if they support their instructional improvement plans. The
data from this study provides educators with an understanding of school level
resource use and which resource allocation patterns can lead to improved outcomes.
Research Questions
The research questions for this particular study are:
• How the resource allocation patterns at the school sites are aligned with or
different from the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based
Model?
• What instructional improvement strategies are currently being implemented
at the school sites?
• How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan? (Instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
• What does it take to have an adequate education in California schools?
12
Importance of Study
This study is important for several reasons. For school finance adequacy
research, this study provides additional research and information on school level
resource use. According to Brinson (2005) there continues to be a school level
resource use gap in the educational adequacy literature. At the state level, this study
provides additional information on whether these particular schools have necessary
resources to provide an adequate education to all students. Additionally, it provides
information on whether the Evidence Based Model can fit in California.
At the school level, the utilization of the Evidence-Based model provides
case study information on how resources are currently utilized in eight particular
California schools. School level site administrators can find this study useful because
it offers information on instructional best practices and informs them on how to more
effectively allocate existing resources to increase student achievement.
Methodology
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study research method was used to
conduct the study and analysis of eight particular Southern California elementary
schools. The data for the different instructional components and resource use was
obtained through principal interviews and triangulated with school document
analyses of the master schedule, school staff list, master calendar, school vision and
mission statements, school improvement plan, and general budgetary allocations for
professional development. The utilized data collection instruments were based on
Picus and Associates’ data collection instruments, which have been used to conduct
13
adequacy studies in several U.S. states. Quantitative data was analyzed through a
comparison with the Evidence Based Model and the qualitative data was analyzed
through the Washington Successful School District (Fermanich et. al, 2006)
framework.
Limitations
There are two limitations to this study. First, the current limited applicability
of the Evidence-Based Model to California schools, due to the state’s school finance
policy and funding formula, limits this study. As of now, the current school funding
formula does not make it possible to fully implement the Evidence Based Model.
Second, the data collection for this study is limited to the availability of the data at
the school sites. The data collected at each school was dependant on how accurate
and detailed the schools were with collecting and maintaining data.
Delimitations
There are three delimitations to this study. First, the schools’ resource
allocation patterns were not examined over a wide range of time. The study focuses
on resource allocation during a specific time period, the current 2008-09 school year.
Second, this study does not include an analysis of district resource allocation policy
and priorities. Third, the small and purposeful school sampling does not allow for
results to be generalized to other California schools, especially those with differing
demographics and social contexts.
14
Assumptions
It is assumed that all data collected through principal interviews and school
documents are true and reflective of current instructional practices at the school sites.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API) - This is a numeric index that is annually
assigned to each California School per 1999’s Public School’s Accountability Act
(PSAA). It ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. Each annual API cycle
includes a “Base API” and a “Growth API”. The Base API, released in March, is
calculated from state-wide test results of continuing and new assessments from the
prior school year and serves as the baseline for comparisons with the Growth API.
The Growth API, released in August, is calculated in exactly the same way and with
the same indicators as the Base API but uses test results from the following school
year. The Growth API establishes whether schools met their API targets (California
Dept of Education, 2007).

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – AYP is a goal of the 2001 federal law No Child
Left Behind (NCLB). Progress is based on whether the school or district met its
Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated 95% participation on standardized
tests, achieved its target on the Academic Performance Index and, for high schools,
met target graduation rates. The eventual goal is for 100% of the students to be
proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics by 2014 (Ed-Data, 2008).
15
Content standards- Standards adopted by the state that delineate what each student
must learn in each grade level in language arts, mathematics, science, social studies,
physical education, and visual/performing arts.

Cost function approach- Econometric approach to identifying school costs associated
with achieving required and/or desired student achievement outcomes.

Educational Adequacy- School finance concept that describes the provision of
resources to provide an adequate education so students achieve proficiency levels in
the core academic content areas.

English Learners- Most current designation for students not yet sufficiently
proficient in the English Language to access and learn from the regular instructional
programs offered in school. English language proficiency is assessed annually
through the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).

Evidence-Based Model- It is a resource allocation model that provides
recommendations for allocating school resources to improve student achievement.
Its school instructional improvement design is grounded in scientifically based
research and widely documented effective best practices.

16
Expert Judgment Approach- Use of a panel of educators, specialists, and
administrators to determine the necessary resources to achieve required and/or
desired student achievement outcomes.

Full Time Equivalent- Abbreviated “FTE” it indicates one person for each full time
position.

Funding formulas- State specific formulas used to fund educational systems.

Growth Target- It is from the California’s PSAA. California sets Academic
Performance Index growth targets for each school as a whole and for each
numerically significant subgroup in the school. The annual growth target for a
school is 5% of the difference between a school’s Base API and the statewide
performance target of 800. Any school with an API of 800 or more must maintain an
API of at least 800 or more in order to meet its growth target.

High Priorities School Grant (HPSG) - A grant established through California’s 1999
PSAA which provides additional monetary support to low-performing schools. It
was originally titled the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program
(II/USP). Schools eligible for this grant are expected to use this additional support to
finance their efforts to raise student achievement.

17
Instructional Leadership- This describes a style of leadership that is considered an
important component for school improvement. It encompasses a leader who engages
in the act of continuously improving a school’s capacity to teach children by
modeling and being an instructional facilitator to the school’s staff and is grounded
in a solid foundation of knowing what constitutes good instruction and how to
maximize student learning.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) - It is a congressionally
authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the
Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. It has
conducted assessments for over three decades in reading, math, science, writing, US
History, civics, and geography.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - It is the 2001 reauthorization of the federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that places comprehensive
accountability requirements on all states, with increasing sanctions for schools and
districts that do not make adequate yearly progress toward proficiency in
English/language arts and mathematics or that fail to test 95% of all students and all
significant subgroups. In California, those sanctions currently apply only to schools
and districts that accept Title I funding (Ed-Data, 2008).

18
Per pupil funding- A specific monetary allotment that is given to school systems for
each student that is currently enrolled. Per pupil funding is determined through state
funding formulas and is weighted depending on the student’s demographics such as
being identified as receiving free or reduced price lunch and an English Learner.

Professional judgment approach- A resource allocation model that utilizes a panel of
educators, specialists, and administrators to determine the resources a school needs
to achieve required and/or desired student achievement outcomes.

Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) - In 1999, the California legislature
passed the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). This legislation was intended
to ensure the creation and implementation of a system to monitor achievement in all
schools and provide incentives or sanctions to schools depending on whether they
met their API goals.

Research based instructional practices- Educational practices that have a research
base that attests to their effectiveness in improving student achievement.

Resource Allocation- Resource allocation is used to describe the operational
activities required to run schools and encompasses all inputs defined by dollars
spent, the resources these dollars buy, and the way these resources are used by
educational institutions (Nakib, 1995).
19
Resources- This indicates the products and resources (monetary, personnel, time,
materials, or facilities) required and expended to educate students in a school system.

Similar Schools Rankings- California schools are ranked in ten categories of equal
size, called deciles, from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). These ranks are provided in the
Base API reports. This rank compares a school’s API to 100 other schools that are
similar and with similar challenges and opportunities (California Dept of Ed, 2007).

Statewide School Rank- This rank compares a school’s API to the APIs of all other
schools statewide of the same type (elementary, middle, or high school).

Successful district approach- A resource allocation approach that identifies
programs, strategies, and resources used in “successful schools” with the intention of
transferring them to other schools to achieve required and/or student achievement
outcomes.

Socio-Economically Disadvantaged: Students who participate in the free/reduced
price lunch program.

Teacher Professional Development- Training teachers receive, of any length, that
provides them with additional strategies and knowledge to effectively teach students.

20
Dissertation Organization
Chapter One provides a synopsis of this study and highlights key terms and
concepts. Chapter Two, the literature review, discusses six main themes: school
finance, educational adequacy, resource allocation, resource use, evidence-based
approach, and instructional best practices which explicate the theoretical
underpinnings for this study. Chapter Three details the study’s methodology which
includes a description of the research design, purposeful sampling, instruments,
procedures, and data analysis techniques. Chapter Four presents the study’s
findings. It presents the findings in four sections: school indicators, school resource
use, instructional strategies, and a discussion of the results. Chapter Five includes the
case studies for the eight schools that comprise this study. Chapter Six provides a
summary of the study, research conclusions, and study implications.
21
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter, the literature review has six sections. The first four sections
include the theoretical base that supports this study. These sections provide the
reader with the rationale for this study and explicates the research that lead to the
study. The last two sections (sections five and six) discuss the two frameworks for
this study. These frameworks guided the researcher in collecting and reporting the
study’s data.
Section one is an overview of California’s school finance system. This
section provides background information for understanding the school funding
system in California. Section two discusses current school finance research’s focus
on educational adequacy. Educational adequacy is important, specifically in the
current high stakes accountability period. It is necessary to determine what
constitutes an adequate education to provide the fiscal resources schools need to
educate California students. Section three discusses resource allocation, which is
closely tied to educational adequacy. As school finance researchers investigate the
concept of educational adequacy, they must also analyze the resource allocation
patterns of schools to determine if schools not only have sufficient resources to
educate children but are allocating them in ways that will lead to student
achievement. Section four discusses resource use. It is not only important to
determine the resource allocation patterns of schools but understand and analyze how
existing resources are utilized to increase student achievement.
22
Section five discusses the Evidence-Based Model, a framework which
incorporates school improvement strategies grounded in instructional best practices.
The Evidence-Based Model is a framework with specific recommendations and
strategies on how to allocate resources to increase student achievement. It is the
framework used to analyze each school’s quantitative data. Section six discusses
research based instructional improvement strategies. This section provides the
framework for organizing and reporting this study’s qualitative data.
School Finance
History of California’s School Finance System
According to EdSource’s website on California School Finance
(www.californiaschoolfinance.org, 2008), California’s school finance history can be
described as occurring within three periods. With the passing of each phase, the
state increased its role in financing the school system and in monitoring and
overseeing school district operations, spending, and adherence to governmental
requirements.
California’s first school finance period was between 1968 through1978;
during this time, California’s school finance system shifted from a local tax base to a
foundation baseline system of funding. Prior to 1967, local school districts’ support
was dependent on the availability of the community’s property tax revenues.
Consequently, schools located in wealthier districts spent more than twice as much
per student as lower income communities (Murray, Evans, & Schwab, 1998). The
1971 ruling in the Serrano v. Priest case led to California’s mandate to develop a
23
more equitable system of school funding. The Serrano case focused attention on the
basic unfairness of spending disparities arising from differences in local district
wealth (Addonizio, 2003). As a response to the Serrano ruling, the California
legislature established revenue limits for all public schools in 1972. The state
legislature overhauled the school finance system into one where all public schools
were to receive a minimum foundation baseline for all pupils; this foundation
baseline guaranteed a minimum level of per pupil spending for all school districts
regardless of local community wealth. Each school now received a foundation
baseline that was tied to the wealth of the state.
From 1972 to 1978, the state determined each district’s state foundation
support. The districts were then expected to supplement this state aid with its own
property tax revenue up to its revenue limit. But, the passage of Proposition 13 in
1978 limited property tax rates to one percent of a property’s assessed value. The
impact of Proposition 13 was that the local school districts no longer had local
property tax revenues to fund their systems. Approximately sixty percent of local
property tax revenues were extinguished thus limiting the amount of dollars provided
to the local schools (California School Finance, 2008). Proposition 13 spurred the
state’s move to replace the lost money from local property taxes with state funds,
which resulted in shifting control of district funding to the state government.
The second period in California’s school finance history was from 1978 to
1990. During this period, voters enacted legislation to control the state’s powers and
establish a minimum funding guarantee for all public schools. In 1988, Proposition
24
98 was enacted. Proposition 98 guaranteed a minimum funding level from state and
property taxes for K-14 public schools. This minimum funding level was to be
determined through a state funding system based on state tax revenues. A second
proposition in 1990, (Proposition 111), indicated that the minimum funding
guarantee for education would reflect the growth of California's overall economy.
The third period in California’s school finance history occurred from 1991 to
2004. During this period, the State Legislature enacted several laws to monitor local
schools’ decision-making. Two assembly bills (AB 1200 and AB 2756) respectively
established a system for school district accounting practices and provided broader
fiscal oversight authority of the county offices of education and the state over school
districts. These two bills require school districts to: project their fiscal solvency two
years out, provide interim school board approved financial reports to the state twice a
year; and certify in writing that the district can meet the costs of the collective
bargaining agreement.
The Williams lawsuit, settled in 2004, spurred additional state oversight. The
Williams settlement included accountability measures and extra financial support
and assistance for low-performing schools. State Senate and Assembly legislation,
enacted as a result of the Williams settlement, provided additional funds for teacher
quality and facilities. It established minimum standards for school facilities, teacher
quality, instructional materials, and accountability systems to enforce these
standards.
25
California’s current school finance system
All fifty states in the United States have their own school funding system.
According to Walter and Sweetland (2003), the United States is peppered with state
specific school finance arrangements. State aid to schools are acquired and
distributed locally. In California, school districts receive their operating funds from
local, state, and federal sources from which revenue falls into two categories: general
and categorical funds. General funds come from local and state taxes and are based
on a revenue limit formula that accounts for the type of district, size, historical
spending patterns, local tax base, and other variables. In 2004-5, California received
67% of its funding from state sources, 22% from local sources, 9% from the federal
government, and 2% from the state lottery (Timar, 2006).
Every district in California is guaranteed a foundation baseline amount of
dollars based on the number of students it has. This foundation baseline is a
minimum guarantee of per-pupil dollars, currently about $8,480 and is multiplied by
the number of attending students (www.californiaschoolfinance.org). This is called
average daily attendance (ADA). The district’s per pupil revenue limit equals its
total revenue limit income, which is the bulk of funds available for general purposes.
The general fund resources make up approximately seventy percent of the revenue
districts receive. This general fund is used for operating expenditures such as
employee salaries, supplies, textbooks, and maintenance.
A district’s revenue limit funding is determined by first incorporating the
local tax revenues that are allotted for the school district. If the revenues fall below
26
the guaranteed minimum per pupil funding then the state supplements the remaining
amount. If the school district’s local tax base provides the minimum base or exceeds
it then the state does not provide additional revenues and the district is considered a
“basic aid” district. Any district whose tax base exceeds the minimum revenue limit
requirements is able to keep and utilize the additional funds.
The remaining thirty percent of district revenue comes from categorical
federal and state programs (California School Finance, 2008). These funds originate
from over eighty separate programs and are regulated by federal or state
requirements. Some categorical budgets come automatically to schools, such as for
instructional materials, and others come to schools based on the characteristics of the
children they serve. Some categorical funds are allocated to school districts based on
the schools’ need for specific programs such as California’s Economic Impact Aid
and the federal Title I program. These funding sources provide additional resources
to schools based on the percentages of students who are low-income and/or English
learners.
School finance: Equity vs. Adequacy
In the two decades following the Serrano case, the focus of California’s
school finance reform was on equity. School finance researchers looked at whether
schools had the necessary fiscal inputs. The focus was on the elimination of fiscal
disparities among school districts. Whether the goal was to eliminate difference in
per-pupil spending or to establish greater taxpayer equity, most school finance
research focused on ways to measure equity and on leveling the fiscal resources of
27
school districts (Picus, 2000). But this equalization only guaranteed a minimum level
of spending on schools without addressing the question whether this was sufficient to
ensure the academic achievement of all students.
School finance has now shifted from a focus on equity to adequacy. Due to
the current standards-based education reform, the benchmark test of school finance
policy has now shifted to whether it provides sufficient-or adequate-revenues per
pupil for districts and schools to deploy educational strategies that are successful in
educating students to high standards of performance (Odden & Picus, 2003).
Although fiscal educational equity is necessary to ensure that egregious disparities
do not occur between schools that have local tax base inequalities, educational
adequacy research focuses on how fiscal inputs are connected to educational
programs, teacher compensation, and student achievement (Odden, 2003). Walter
and Sweetland (2003) question how much financial equalization should take place
between the more affluent and disadvantaged schools when adequacy can be more
powerful than equity in addressing the disparities between rich and poor.
Consequently, school finance researchers argue that expenditure levels can
no longer be “minimal”; rather, the foundation levels must be “adequate”. This
means each district and each school must have the resources to educate all students
to the required academic performance levels. School finance research now focuses
on educational adequacy and is addressing several issues. These issues include:
whether spending levels are adequate to meet the needs of all children, how
educational resources are allocated and used, and how funding levels are linked to
28
student outcomes (Picus, 2000). The question school finance research now asks is,
“Are adequate resources available to schools so students can attain and master grade
standards?”
Current school finance research attempts to answer this question by
examining which strategies are necessary to improve the achievement of all students.
It asks what constitutes an adequate level of spending to ensure access to a viable
curriculum, and examines how existing funds may be allocated to enhance the most
effective components of instruction (Elliot, 1998). According to Odden (2000), most
discussions of school reforms assume that new practices can be implemented with
little new funds, which essentially asks school site administrators to use existing
resources differently. The difficulty lies in whether schools need additional money to
implement these new practices or if existing funds can be reallocated to cover the
costs of the improved instructional strategies.
Educational Adequacy
According to Odden (2003), school finance’s shift in focus from equity to
adequacy in the 1990’s was spurred by two factors. The first factor, influenced by
judicial challenges to state school funding systems, was whether differences in
dollars per pupil produced substantive differences in educational opportunities in
student learning. The second, largely influenced by standards based reform, was the
linkage of dollars to results. Consequently, school finance policy now focuses on the
provision of resources to provide an adequate education so all students achieve
proficiency levels in the core academic content areas. Educational adequacy
29
research examines which resources are necessary to ensure students receive an
adequate education (Picus, 2000).
Adequacy Cost Study Models
Judicial mandates prompted states to provide all students with the necessary
resources to meet state standards (Baker, 2006). By 1996, forty-three state supreme
courts had heard cases challenging the constitutionality of the school finance
systems. These challenges were grounded in ascertaining whether these school
finance systems provided all students, regardless of geographical location and socio-
economic status, with a sound basic education (Murray, Evans, & Schwab, 1998).
These challenges spurred state sponsored adequacy cost studies. Consequently, these
adequacy cost studies formed the basis of what constitutes an adequate education.
State adequacy studies essentially look to determine if a state’s school
finance system provides adequate revenues for the average school to teach the
average student to state-determined performance standards. They also determine
whether adequate additional revenues are provided for students with special needs so
they achieve at those same performance levels (Odden, 2003). Thus, state adequacy
studies establish an adequate foundation level for the typical student in the typical
district. State adequacy studies are conducted using four adequacy models. These
models are the: successful school approach; cost function approach; professional
judgment approach; and evidence-based approach.
The successful district approach identifies districts which have been
successful in teaching students to meet proficiency standards. It then sets the
30
adequacy level at the weighted average of the per pupil expenditures of those
districts. A strength of this model is it establishes a direct, quantifiable link between
costs and desired outcomes (Rebell, 2007). These studies are straight forward and
appeal to policy makers and the public. Limitations to this model are that the
identified school districts are often non-metropolitan, of average size, and have
relatively homogenous demographics (Odden, 2003). The identified adequate
expenditure level is not generalizeable to large, urban, and demographically diverse
school districts. Additionally, it is difficult to determine how to calculate the extra
resources needed to educate students with special needs, such as students living in
poverty, ELs, and students with disabilities (Rebell, 2007). Furthermore, the
successful school district analyses are based on the school districts’ available data
which may compromise results due to limited or missing data (Baker, 2005).
The cost function approach is a statistical model relying on econometric
analysis. The per pupil expenditure is the dependent variable and student
characteristics, district characteristics, and desired performance levels are the
independent variables. Statistical calculations produce an adequate per pupil
expenditure level for the average district. Once this average expenditure level is
established that figure is then adjusted for all other districts to account for differences
in pupil needs, educational prices, and economies of scale for large and small
districts. According to Odden (2003), this approach is not popular within the
political context because of its complex statistical analysis; the analysis usually
31
produces an adjustment for districts of two to three times the average calculated
expenditure level.
A major challenge with both the cost function and successful school district
approaches is that neither one provides information on which educational strategies
will produce desired performance levels (Odden, 2003). The professional judgment
and evidence based model approaches attempt to address the deficiency of the
previous two models. The professional judgment and evidence based model identify
adequate per pupil expenditure levels and educational strategies that can increase
student achievement (Odden, 2003).
The professional judgment approach asks a group of educational experts to
identify effective educational strategies for elementary, middle, and high schools.
These experts then specify the resources required for each educational strategy,
attach a price to each, and sum everything up to obtain a total per pupil expenditure.
The advantages to this particular model are: it pools the best judgments of highly
qualified practitioners; the methods are relatively simple, transparent, and produce
easily understood results; and it identifies what is required to produce actual student
performance (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). Disadvantages to this model are that the
strategies and ingredients do not have a clear link to actual performance levels and
the caliber of the pooled judgments may be compromised by insufficient efforts to
select a highly qualified pool of participants (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
The Evidence Based approach first identifies a set of ingredients that are
required to deliver a high-quality, comprehensive, school wide instructional
32
program. It then determines an adequate expenditure level by assigning a price to
each ingredient and aggregating a total cost. According to Odden (2003) the
Evidence Based approach more directly identifies educational strategies that produce
desired results, thus helping guide schools in the most effective use of their dollars.
Furthermore, he indicates the Evidence Based Model builds adequate funding from
the school site and up. Rebell (2007) points to a potential weakness for this model;
which is that if the research evidence supporting the advocated instructional
strategies is limited or inconclusive or its applicability in the school’s particular
context has not been tested then there may be methodological flaws to the model.
But, this weakness can be minimized by ensuring that school finance adequacy
defers to the evidence that supports the level of resources needed to meet pre-
determined performance goals. This evidence is based on three sources:
1. Research with randomized assignment to the treatment (the “gold”
standard of evidence).
2. Research with other types of controls or statistical procedures that can
help separate the impact of a treatment.
3. Best practices either as codified in a comprehensive school design or
from studies of impact at the local district or school level (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
Standards of Adequacy
According to Baker (2005) educational adequacy consists of two
components: absolute standards of adequacy and relative standards of adequacy.
33
Absolute standards of adequacy concern the overall level of financial support for
public schooling associated with the overall level of desired outcomes of public
schooling. Relative standards concern the differences in costs of achieving outcomes
for children with different educational needs and/or children learning in different
educational contexts. Hence, educational adequacy looks different for different
schools with different populations.
Since educational adequacy depends on the needs of the student population,
estimating the costs of adequacy is a complex undertaking with no one “right”
answer (Chambers, Levin, & Parrish, 2006). It is difficult to determine an
overarching level of adequacy for schools because there are no absolutes when
determining what is best for all schools. The basic or average cost of achieving
desired outcomes varies by the level of outcomes desired (Baker, 2005). Each level
of outcome desired may vary with each school in question. But, NCLB’s
accountability requirement that all students are proficient in reading and math by
2014 has established the absolute outcome that all schools must eventually reach.
The Impact of NCLB and PSAA on California’s Educational Adequacy
Rebell (2007) indicates the standards based movement has strongly
influenced concepts of adequacy. Under the standards-based education reform, the
litmus test of school finance policy is whether it provides sufficient or adequate
revenues so students can perform at high standards of performance (Odden, 2003). In
California, the concept of educational adequacy has been spurred by PSAA’s and
NCLB’s push for standards based instruction and high stakes accountability.
34
California has two layers of accountability. Both PSAA and NCLB place
accountability mandates on California schools. CA’s 1999 Public Schools
Accountability Act sought to improve the academic performance of all students by
ranking similar schools through a deciles distribution, identifying growth targets
based on the Academic Performance Index (API), and calculating an API score for
each school based on the distribution of scores on the state’s tests (EdSource, 2005).
Furthermore, California’s adoption of rigorous content standards in the core
academic areas (English, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies/History) in 2000
led to the implementation of standards based instructional reforms to increase student
achievement. In 2001, the passage of NCLB and its mandate that all schools must
make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and 100% of all students must be proficient
by 2014 in reading and math added an additional accountability layer. PSAA, the
adoption of rigorous content standards and NCLB have prompted the widespread
implementation of new research based instructional practices and comprehensive
school reform initiatives (Odden, 2000).
Adequacy in California is framed by the expectation that all students will
achieve at proficient or above levels in reading and math and meet all rigorous core
content standards. The state standards specify in concrete terms what students are
supposed to learn, and state assessment and accountability systems identify certain
gaps in student preparation and achievement in relation to those expectations
(Rebell, 2007). California has an established accountability system, but is this
35
sufficient for schools to provide an adequate education? Do increased expectations
equal an adequate education and propel student achievement?
Resource Allocation
In determining educational adequacy, resource allocation provides
information on how a school’s resources are spread across its instructional
components. Resource allocation is used to describe the operational activities
required to run schools and encompasses all inputs, defined by dollars spent, the
resources these dollars buy, and the way these resources are used by educational
institutions (Nakib, 1995). As school finance researchers investigate the concept of
educational adequacy, they must also analyze the resource allocation patterns of
schools to determine if schools not only have sufficient resources to educate children
but are using them in ways that will lead to student achievement. As more adequacy
studies are undertaken, it becomes increasingly evident that student achievement is
more common when resources are available and utilized resources are aligned with
research based practices (Elliot, 1998; Miles & Hammond, 1998; Brinson, 2005).
Similarly, Goe (2006) describes an improved school finance research base where
there is consideration of how money is operationalized at the school level and is
purposefully intended to increase student learning. It examines whether this money
actually makes an impact at the classroom and student level.
Why is resource allocation important?
In the era of standards based accountability, schools have the mandate to
educate all children so they meet proficiency benchmarks. NCLB mandates schools
36
to improve and use research based instructional strategies; hence, schools must
consistently implement strategies that lead to student learning and achievement.
Because resources are finite due to per-pupil revenue limits, supplemented by some
categorical funding, it is important for schools to utilize their resources effectively.
Resource allocation studies can assist schools in determining how to best employ
their existing resources. Resource allocation points to the fact that money matters
when there is better direction and deployment of resources at the school and
classroom level (Goe, 2006).
Schools must have mechanisms and systems to determine and analyze which
strategies are effective in bringing about instructional improvement. Resource
allocation analyses provide schools with the necessary information to determine if
they are efficiently expending resources on strategies that will lead to school
improvement. Therefore, resource allocation studies provide tools for informing
educators on: educational productivity, teacher recruiting and training, organizational
structure and behavior of schools, and school finance adequacy (Nakib, 1995).
Resource allocation is important because of the shift in education from opportunity
to be educated to achievement results.
Resource Use
According to Jefferson (2005), dollars have the potential to enhance
educational opportunities but the crux is more on how dollars are used than the
availability of dollars. Increased dollars do not transform themselves into greater
learning but they can make a difference if spent on specific programs or other
37
investments known to be effective (Slavin, 1999). In a meta-analysis of 60 studies
investigating the relationships between several school inputs and student
achievement, Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1996) found that the level of resources
is positively related to student achievement. But, they also found that simple dollar
amounts are not enough, instead schools should focus on the effectiveness of
particular resources as they are enacted (and interact with each other) in specific
school contexts. Consequently, money alone is not enough rather it is more
important to target specific resources toward effective strategies with careful
consideration of context and resource interactions (Goe, 2006).
Hanushek (1994) believes the priority for America’s schools is to use existing
resources more efficiently. For him, efficiency does not mean that educators have to
undertake a relentless drive to cut costs but instead they should measure both the
costs and benefits of various approaches to education and choose the approach that
maximizes the benefits over the costs. Similarly, Elliot (1998) indicates financial
resources alone cannot ensure that students’ achievement will improve but rather
schools need to focus attention on how financial resources should be used to create
equal access for opportunity to learn. Thus, if student learning and achievement are
to improve then the focus needs to include spending on strategies that have evidence
of being successful (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Importance of Resource Use
According to Elliot (1998), parents and educators agree that greater resources
make it possible to improve schools. But, there is disagreement among school
38
finance researchers about the relationship between school finance and students’
achievement. Some researchers, most notably Hanushek (1994), indicate there is no
significant relationship between increasing expenditures and improving students’
achievement. This is because schools do not effectively use their funding to improve
the learning environment (Hanushek, 1996). On the other side, some researchers
stipulate there is a significant relationship between money and achievement because
money buys smaller classrooms and more qualified teachers (Greenwald et al.,
1996). If examined closely, both are indicating that targeted use of funds can lead to
student achievement. Hanushek essentially argues against the relationship between
funds and achievement because schools are not using their resources in a systematic,
targeted manner to increase achievement. He does state, “…The nation may find it
appropriate to increase school spending….But, it is clear that expanding resources
first and looking for reform second is likely to lead only to a more expensive system,
not a better one” (Hanushek, 1994, p. 13).
Resource use plays an important part in ensuring that money matters. Schools
must have a plan for resource use and a method to ensure that it is on track. Elliot
(1998) found that expenditures are related to achievement; expenditures correlate
significantly with opportunity to learn (OTL). In her study of higher spending and
lower spending schools, she concluded that more money is spent in schools where
the teachers tend to be more educated and more experienced, classes tend to be
smaller, teachers tend to put a greater emphasis on higher order thinking in math,
make greater use of computers, and have greater access to science equipment in good
39
condition. In schools where less money is spent, classes tend to be larger and
teachers are more likely to emphasize the relevance of math and science and
memorizing facts in math and to make greater use of calculators. Money does matter
and must be used not only for hiring high quality teachers but for helping those
teachers use the most effective strategies in their classrooms. Consequently,
sufficient funding in tandem with targeted use of resources can be effective in
increasing achievement (Elliot, 1998).
School Level Resource Use
School level analysis of resource use is necessary to determine if schools are
utilizing the appropriate resources to increase student achievement (Picus, 2000). In
an era of limited resources, school finance educators are looking at how schools link
their resources to improve the academic achievement of their students. Hanushek
(1994) calls for schools to continually analyze the costs and benefits of various
approaches to adopt and implement those that yield optimal results. Thus, school
instructional reforms should be chosen based on whether they provide desired
results.
School finance researchers have conducted several school level resource use
studies (Brinson, 2004; Jefferson, 2005; Miles, 1995; Miles & Darling-Hammond,
1995; Southwest Educational Development Agency, 2003) to gain knowledge on
how to better link funding with resources for improved outcomes. These studies are
beneficial because they inform educators on which strategies are more effective in
increasing student achievement. Identifying the differences in the way money is
40
allocated and used across programs and functions can assist schools in improving the
effectiveness in the use of their funds (Brinson and Mellor 2005). Since school
funds are finite, it is important for educators to know how to allocate their funds and
resources toward instructional strategies that lead to better student learning.
School leaders should have the knowledge of utilizing money more
effectively. This is especially true of schools who receive additional categorical
funding. Additional funds do not translate to increased academic achievement. Goe
(2006) found that the majority of California schools receiving the High Priority State
Grant (HPSG) did not perform better than comparable schools. Many of the HPSG
schools had limited capacity or understanding of how to use resources effectively.
Subsequently, money is necessary but not sufficient for achievement. To make
money matter entails school-level consideration of the variety of resources available,
and deploying resources toward strategies that will increase achievement (Goe,
2006).
Evidence Based Model
Despite the broad research base in instructional best practices, resource
allocation and school finance, policies do not reflect these best practices at the
district/school levels. Goertz & Duffy (1999) found that districts and schools make
few linkages between resource allocation and reform. Schools and districts do not
utilize any specific tools to make the link between school budgets to school plans
and district improvement goals. The Evidence Based Model can be a tool to assist
educators in allocating and using resources.
41
The Evidence Based Model is based on a cost reporting structure framework
developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003). This cost reporting
expenditure structure was designed to report school level expenditures, differentiate
the spending of multiple education units, and categorize expenditures by expenditure
elements to reflect current thinking about effective instructional practices. The
Evidence-Based model was developed by Allan Odden from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and Lawrence O. Picus from the University of Southern
California as they conducted and worked on state adequacy studies in Kentucky
(Odden, Fermanich, & Picus, 2003), Arkansas (Odden, Picus, & Fermanich, 2003;
Odden, Picus, & Goertz, 2006), Arizona (Odden, Picus, Fermanich, & Goertz, 2004),
Wyoming (Picus, Odden, Aportola, Mangan, & Goertz, 2008; Odden, Picus, Goertz,
Fermanich, Seder, Glenn, & Nelli, 2005), Washington (Odden, Picus, Goertz,
Fermanich, Mangan, 2006) and Wisconsin (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goertz,
Mangan, & Aportola, 2007).
According to Odden & Picus (2008), the Evidence Based Model identifies a
comprehensive and high-quality instructional program within the school, the
evidence on effective strategies, and then determines an adequate expenditure level
by placing a price on each component and aggregating the components to a total
cost. Its foci are to: include spending within the instructional function; enhance
spending in core subjects; and to spend more directly on strategies that have
evidence of being successful (See Table 2.1 for EBM strategies).
42
Table 2.1: Evidence Based Model Strategies
Administrator 1.0 FTE for a prototypical school of 432 with .5 FTE for every 216
students above 432.
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3 15 students per teacher
4-6 25 students per teachers
Specialist Teachers/
Planning and
Preparation Tim
20% of the total core teachers; They relieve core teachers during school
day so they can daily collaborate for 45-60 minutes
Extra Support Staff
Free and Reduced Price
Lunch
1.0 FTE (credentialed teacher) for every 100 at-risk students. Tutor one
student every 20 minutes or three students per hour.
Extra Support Staff
English Learners
1.0 FTE for every 100 ELs
Special Education Self-
Contained
These classes are for severely disabled students and includes aides;
based on school needs.
Extended Day 50% of the adjusted free and reduced price lunch pupil count; 1.0 FTE
for every 15 students in the program. Recommends a 2 hour after
school program, 5 days a week with teachers providing at least one
hour of assistance.
Summer School 50% of all adjusted free and reduced price lunch students; 1.0 FTE for
every 15 students. Recommends a session of eight weeks, six hours per
day.
Professional
Development
-10 additional days added to teacher contract for professional
development.
-Funds of approximately $100 per pupil
-Collaborative work with teachers during school day.
-On site coaching
Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
1 instructional facilitator for every 200 students. 2.5 FTEs for a school
with 432 students.
Student Support 1.0 FTE licensed professional for every 100 FRPL students, with a
minimum of one for each prototypical school of 432
Instructional Aides The evidence based model does not recommend funds for instructional
aides.
2.0 FTE Supervisory aides for a school of 400-500 students.
43
The following are Evidence Based Model (EBM) recommendations:
Administration
EBM recommends one full time equivalent administrator for a prototypical
school of 432 with .5 FTE for every 216 students above 432.
Core Teachers/Class Size
A class size of 15 in kindergarten through grade three is recommended. For
grades 4-12, 25 is the recommended class size. According to the Tennessee STAR
study (Finn and Achilles, 1999), a large scale randomized study; the results
demonstrate that students in smaller classes in grades K-3 fare better than those in
regular classes. Furthermore, it is commonly concluded that the impact of small class
size is even larger for students from low-income and minority backgrounds (Odden
& Picus, 2008). Evidence on effective class sizes for grades 4-12 is not established,
thus 25 is the best practices recommendation.
Specialist Teachers and Planning and Preparation Time/Collaboration Development
Specialist teachers are provided to enrich student education through art,
music, library skills, and physical education and to release teachers from their
classrooms for collaborative planning, job-embedded professional development, and
ongoing curriculum development and review. To provide teachers with this planning
time, 20% additional staff is needed for elementary schools. This would allow
teachers to have planning and preparation time of 45-60 minutes daily. The formula
is 20% of the total core instructional teachers constitute the number of additional
staff.
44
Staff for extra needs students
Tutors- They provide immediate, intensive assistance to keep struggling
students on track. The standard of many comprehensive school designs is a ratio of
one fully licensed (credentialed teacher) for every 100 at-risk students (Odden &
Picus, 2008). It is suggested that each tutor would tutor one student every twenty
minutes or three students per hour; thus one tutor position would service 18 students
per day. An alternative strategy is to have tutoring groups of one to three students for
30 minute sessions or three to five students for 45 minute sessions. This increases
the number of students seen to 30+ per day.
English Language Learners- Additional assistance is provided to students
who are ELs and are struggling. The formula triggers 1.0FTE for every 100 ELs.
Special Education self-contained classes- These classes are for severely
disabled students and includes aides.
Extended Day
After school programs are created to provide students with academic support
and a safe place. This additional assistance is provided for struggling students to
meet academic standards. Since not all students will need to attend this program, the
framework suggests resources be provided for 50% of the adjusted free and reduced
price lunch pupil count and that one FTE be provided for every 15 students in the
program. Odden & Picus (2008) recommend a 2 hour after school program, 5 days a
week with teachers providing at least one hour of assistance.
45
Summer School
Summer school should be one of the extra support programs for students.
California has high standards for student achievement and many students need
additional time to meet state standards. The funding formula includes a provision for
50% of all adjusted free and reduced price lunch students. The recommendation is
for a session of eight weeks, six hours per day, and a class sizes of 15 students.
According to Borman & Boulay (2004) as cited in Odden & Picus (2008),
recommendations to enhance summer school are:
• Early intervention during summer school.
• A full 6-8 week summer program.
• A clear focus on mathematics and reading achievement.
• Small group or individualized instruction.
• Parent involvement and participation.
• Careful scrutiny for fidelity to the curriculum, including monitoring to
ensure good instruction is being delivered in reading and mathematics.
• Monitoring and student attendance.

Student Support
This includes counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers. Schools
need a student support and family outreach component. In terms of level of
resources, the more disadvantaged the student body, the more comprehensive the
strategy needs to be. The recommended standard is one licensed professional for
46
every 100 students from a low-income background, with a minimum of one for each
prototypical elementary school of 432 students. This recommendation enables school
districts and schools to allocate the FTE staff across guidance counselors, social
workers, nurses, and other student support professionals in a way that best fits the
need of the schools.
Instructional Aides
The evidence based model does not recommend funds for instructional aides.
The model does recognize the need for aides for supervisory purposes and
recommends 2.0 FTE for a school of 400-500 students.
Professional Development
All schools need ongoing professional development to increase academic
achievement and improve teacher practice. Effective professional development is
defined as professional development that produces change in teachers’ classroom-
based instructional practice, which can be linked to student achievement. Odden &
Picus (2008) recommended, based on their review of the literature base:
• Time during the summer for intensive training institutes. This training
can be most easily accomplished by ensuring that approximately 10 days
of the teacher’s normal work year will be dedicated to professional
development. They recommend augmenting the teachers’ work year an
additional 10 days to include the staff development.
• On site coaching for all teachers to help them incorporate the practices
into their instructional repertoire.
47
• Collaborative work with teachers in their schools during planning and
preparation periods to improve the curriculum and instructional program.
This requires the smart scheduling of teachers during the regular school
day and week.
• Funds for training during the summer and for ongoing training during the
school year, the cost of which is approximately $100 per pupil. This
would be needed for trainer and other miscellaneous professional
development costs.
Instructional Facilitators/School Based Coaches/Mentors
2.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) instructional facilitators for a school unit of
432 students. The formula for this position is 1 instructional facilitator for every 200
students. These individuals coordinate the instructional program and most
importantly provide the necessary ongoing instructional coaching and mentoring that
constitutes effective staff development. These individuals spend the bulk of their
time in classrooms, modeling lessons, giving feedback to teachers, and help improve
the instructional program.
Why the Evidence Based Model?
The Evidence Based Model includes effective instructional strategies that are
based on educational research in staff development, instructional improvement,
educational improvement, and curriculum and instruction. In the area of staff
development, it includes the need for teachers to collaborate in creating curriculum
and diagnosing, assigning, and instructing students (Birman et. al, 2000; Supovitz &
48
Turner, 2000; and Desimone et. al, 2002). It supports this through the provision of
specialist teachers who teach supplemental courses (such as the arts, physical
education, etc) and can relieve core teachers to collaborate during the school day. In
educational improvement, it recommends extra support for struggling students
during the school day, extended day programs, and summer school programs. In
curriculum and instruction, it recommends smaller class sizes and greater flexibility
during the school day so that key staff members can meet and make instructional
decisions.
Though the Evidence Based model recommends specific allocations for staff
and programs, some of which may not be likely under the current California school
finance funding system, it can be a useful framework to inform schools on how to
use their existing resources more efficiently. It provides a framework for California
schools to analyze their resource allocation patterns and determine if their utilization
of existing resources are aligned with best practices research. As schools face
continued pressure to make dramatic improvement gains on standardized
assessments within a backdrop of scarce resources, they must use their resources
more productively by reallocating them to effective instructional strategies (Odden,
2003).
Instructional Improvement
Successful school studies conducted in Washington (Fermanich, Mangan,
Odden, Picus, Gross, & Rudo, 2006), Wisconsin (Odden, Picus, Goertz, Turner
Mangan, & Aportola, 2007), and Wyoming (Turner Mangan, Odden, Picus, Goertz,
49
& Gurgel, 2008) found that the successful schools in these states followed a similar
set of steps in implementing instructional improvement strategies. Many of these
schools doubled their performance and in many cases narrowed the achievement gap
by utilizing resources in the manner that the Evidence Based Model recommends.
Some of the strategies they specifically implemented were small classes in K-3;
heavy investments in professional development including school-based instructional
coaches, and extra help strategies for struggling students such as individual and small
group tutoring and extended day programs. There was a high degree of alignment
between the recommended strategies in the Evidence-Based Model and those used in
the actual schools. Most schools improved in either both reading and math or one
content area (Odden, 2008).
The strategies found in the successful schools studies are: Focus on
Educating all Students; Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum and Align to State Standards;
Use Data to Drive Decisions; Support Instructional Improvement with Effective
Professional Development; Restructure the Learning Environment; Provide
Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities; and Professional
Learning Communities. In addition, the Washington study identifies instructional
leadership as part of the needed resource strategies to increase student achievement.
The elements of instructional improvement cannot happen without support from
leadership and a culture of professional community (Fermanich et al., 2006).
These identified instructional improvement strategies are similar to the
discussed resource allocation strategies (Odden & Picus, 2008; Goe, 2006; Brinson
50
& Mellor, 2005; Jefferson, 2005; Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998; and Miles,
1995.). Because these strategies are identified as important ingredients in
instructional improvement in several studies, they are considered research based best
practices. The definitions and descriptions for each category are drawn from the
Washington Successful School District Study (Fermanich et al., 2006). The rationale
for each category is supported by a research base (See Table 2.2 for a synopsis of the
eight instructional improvement strategies).

Table 2.2: Eight Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on educating all students
High expectations are at the core of all curricular and instructional decisions and teachers hold themselves
responsible for all student learning.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
Districts and schools make it a priority to select curriculum that is aligned to state standards and they select this
curriculum with knowledge from formative and summative assessments.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
Schools use data to drive decisions about curriculum, instruction, and use of resources.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
A systematic attempt to bring about change- change in the classroom practices of teachers, change in their
beliefs and attitudes, and change in the learning outcomes of students.
Restructure the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment indicates restructuring periods or student groupings throughout the
school day to facilitate better instruction.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Struggling students should be quickly identified and provided with extended learning opportunities. Schools
utilized several strategies for struggling students through in-school tutoring, before and after school programs,
programs for ELs, and summer school.
Professional Learning Communities
A professional learning community is a group of professionals who demonstrate clarity of purpose, precision in
the use of language and concepts, work interdependently, learn by doing, are results oriented, and focus on the
learning of every student
Instructional Leadership
One of the keys to unlocking continuous school improvement is effective leadership. The effective leader
provides daily opportunities for staff to dialogue with each other, empower teachers to identify, reflect, and
experiment with ways to improve learning (Bernauer, 2002).
51
Focus on educating all students
Schools and districts ground their reform efforts in educating all students to
state standards. High expectations are at the core of all curricular and instructional
decisions and teachers hold themselves responsible for all student learning.
According to Johnson, Livingston, Schwartz, and Slate (2000), a feature of effective
schools is the importance of having a school climate with a strong emphasis on
academics. California’s 2006 EdSource Report on successful schools found that the
more successful schools engaged in “prioritizing student achievement”. These
schools placed importance in setting clear, high, and measurable expectations for
student achievement. The schools where staff had higher student expectations had on
average higher API scores than similar schools with lower reported expectations.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
Districts and schools make it a priority to select curriculum that is aligned to
state standards and they select this curriculum with knowledge from formative and
summative assessments. Weiss (2007) indicates the standards must be at the center
of the system; curriculum must correlate to the standards and test items must
correlate to the standards. Consequently, when teachers align the written, the taught,
and the tested curriculum and develop classroom activities that interest students and
provide them with opportunities to learn the standards then students have a greater
probability of success (Griswold, 2005).
When aligning curriculum, it is important to distinguish it from solely
focusing on test preparation activities. Curriculum alignment involves the process of
52
involving teachers through professional development activities to review test items,
correlate to curriculum strands, and develop new and blended units (Glathorm,
1999). Hence, successful schools identify and agree upon achievement goals for
students—what must they know and be able to do (Bernuaer, 2002).
In a California study of successful schools, teachers working in higher
achieving schools reported school wide instructional consistency within grades and
curricular alignment from grade to grade. This was accomplished through examining
the scope and sequence of curriculum topics and reviewing grade-level pacing
calendars. Classroom instruction was guided by state academic standards and schools
identified essential standards (EdSource, 2006). In another California study (Mason
et al., 2005), the Jurupa Unified School district increased its math achievement when
it implemented a series of reforms which included the use of essential standards,
standards-based assessments, and standards-based extended learning opportunities.
In a third California study (Perez, Anand, Speroni, Parrish, Esra, et al., 2007),
principals of “Beating the Odds” schools identified the implementation of a
standards based curriculum and coherent instruction as two main components crucial
to school success.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
Schools use data to drive decisions about curriculum, instruction, and use of
resources. The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform’s glossary
(2008) defines it as, “A process of making decisions about curriculum and
instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and standardized test data. Data-
53
driven decision making uses data on function, quantity, and quality inputs, and how
students learn to suggest educational solutions. It is based on the assumption that
scientific methods used to solve complex problems in industry can effectively
evaluate educational policy programs and methods” (p.1).
Data analysis is an important component of school improvement. Obtaining
ongoing feedback is the glue that holds the school improvement process together.
Without timely information to assess progress, teachers and administrators are not
able to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional methods or make needed mid-
course corrections (Bernauer, 2002). Currently, it is virtually impossible to not
analyze data in some form due to the increasing demands for accountability.
Principals and teachers must rely more regularly and thoroughly on collecting and
analyzing student data to make decisions for student improvement (Mason, Mendez,
Nelson, & Orwig, 2005; Griswold, 2005; Burney, 2004).
The cycle of continuous improvement is an important component of data use
and analysis. It is a system where data is continuously gathered and analyzed to
improve instruction. Using this approach, teachers harness research practices to
understand their group of students and figure out what works and what does not; they
make corrections and test for understanding again (Weis, 2007; Datnow, Park, &
Wohlstetter, 2006). As a result of this continuous cycle of improvement, teachers
consistently use data to drive instruction so that students receive instruction that
more closely matches their needs; and, in the process teachers improve their own
practices (Petrides, 2006).
54
Successful schools use assessment data from multiple sources—curricular
programs, commercial assessments, and state assessments and use it in a variety of
ways (EdSource, 2006). Successful schools disaggregate scores by subscales, collect
data on a range of indicators and combine these with assessment data to explore
factors that may affect achievement. They also examine longitudinal and cross
sectional data and then establish goals for school improvement and identify
benchmarks to gauge their progress (Heritage & Chen, 2005). Data is then used to
develop strategies to move students from one band to the next in standardized
assessments, compare grades within the school, identify struggling students and
evaluate their progress, and communicate with parents (EdSource, 2006).
Consequently, when teachers use student performance data on a regular basis to
inform and guide their instruction their students’ results improve (Datnow, Park, &
Wohlstetter, 2006).
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Guskey (1986) defines professional development as a systematic attempt to
bring about change—change in the classroom practices of teachers, change in their
beliefs and attitudes, and change in the learning outcomes of students. Effective staff
development is crucial for improving and maintaining high teacher quality. For
schools to be most effective, teachers must be able to respond to changes in the
characteristics, conditions, and learning needs of students. They must be able to
develop practices that reflect the expansion of subject matter knowledge and new
knowledge about teaching and learning (Smylie, 1995).
55
In the era of accountability and rigorous academic standards, teacher
knowledge and practice is increasingly important because teachers are the
professionals who work directly with students. They facilitate the conditions for
learning in the classroom. Teachers are the ones who must carry forth the demands
of high standards in the classroom. If children are to achieve at the levels demanded
by the state then teachers have to help them get there. Consequently, the success of
education reform hinges, in large part, to the qualifications and effectiveness of
teachers (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Because the focus is on ensuring all students master
content standards, professional development activities should be related to the use of
student data to build research-based instructional activities and interventions to assist
struggling students (Griswold, 2005).
Effective staff development is a crucial component of instructional
improvement. Unfortunately, not all staff development is effective especially in
regard to transference of training to real world applications. Certain practices can
lead to greater transfer of training such as mentoring, coaching, peer coaching, team
projects, lesson study, and collaborative action research (Beach and Lindhal, 2004;
Burney, 2004).
According to Knight (2006), coaching is an effective way to improve
instruction because it offers support, feedback, and intensive, individualized
professional development. Coaching is a non-evaluative, learning relationship
between a professional developer and a teacher, both of whom share the expressed
56
goal of learning together, thereby improving instruction and student achievement.
Coaches often employ collaborative conversations, model lessons, observations, and
mutual problem solving to assist teachers in implementing and mastering new
teaching practices.
Garet et al. (2001), in an analysis of professional development, found that
sustained and intensive professional development is more likely to have an impact
than shorter professional development. Professional development that focuses on
academic subject matter, gives teachers opportunities for “hands-on” work (active
learning) and is integrated into the daily life of the school (coherence) is more likely
to produce enhanced knowledge and skills. Thus, teachers learn best when they are
active in their own learning and when their opportunities to learn are focused on the
day to day work with students (Smylie, 1996; Guskey, 1986).
According to Supovitz & Turner (2000), high quality professional
development must:
1. Immerse participants in inquiry, questioning, and experimentation
therefore model inquiry forms of teaching.
2. Be intensive and sustained, thus need to establish a long term sustained
professional development plan.
3. Engage teachers in concrete teaching tasks and be based on teachers’
experiences with students.
4. Focus on subject matter knowledge and deepen teachers’ content skills.
57
5. Be grounded in a common set of professional development standards and
show teachers how to connect their work to specific standards for student
performance.
6. Be connected to school’s overall plan for improvement and change.
Restructure the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment involves restructuring periods or
student groupings throughout the school day to facilitate better instruction. At the
elementary school level this may include uninterrupted core blocks for reading and
math instruction, increasing the instructional day, and reallocation of staff to reduce
class size (Fermanich et al., 2006).
In five major studies of turnaround schools conducted between 1999 and
2004, one of the major strategies used for school improvement was scheduling
(Duke, 2006). Improving schools adjusted their daily schedules to increase time for
academic work, especially in the key areas of reading and mathematics. Similarly,
resource allocation studies (Brinson & Mellor, 2005; Miles, 1995; Miles & Darling
Hammond, 1998) discuss the restructuring of the learning environment as an
important component of successful schools. These studies describe successful
schools as using highly skilled staff in part-time positions and on varied job
schedules for targeted instruction, increasing the number of teachers who serve
children in regular classrooms to reduce class size during target periods of the day,
rethinking schedules to reduce the number of students each teacher has, flexible
58
student groupings, longer and varied blocks of instructional time, and more
consistent use of team teaching.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Struggling students should be quickly identified and provided with extended
learning opportunities. In the Washington Successful School District study
(Fermanich et al., 2006); schools utilized several strategies for struggling students
through in-school tutoring, before and after school programs, programs for ELs, and
summer school. In Texas, higher achieving schools spent more resources on
tutorials (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). In California, a particular school district found
success when it implemented a series of reforms which included developing
extensive before-and-after-school programs so that students had ample time to learn
the essential standards. Thus, research attests to providing remedial instruction as an
important strategy to increase student achievement.
Professional Learning Communities
A professional learning community is a group of professionals who
demonstrate clarity of purpose, precision in the use of language and concepts, work
interdependently, learn by doing, are results oriented, and focus on the learning of
every student (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). In the school improvement
process, professional learning communities are essential components to improving
teacher practice and student learning. According to Louis, Kruse, and Marks (1996),
cooperation alone does not guarantee adults’ success in building intellectual capacity
in children, but community among adults does when it is focused on professional
59
responsibility and learning. This can reinforce and augment the talent, knowledge,
and insight that individual teachers bring to their work.
The more teachers collaborate the more they are able to converse knowingly
about the theories, methods, and processes of teaching and learning, and thus
improve their instruction (Goddard, Goddard, &Tschannen-Moran, 2007). A study
of successful school districts in Washington describes teacher collaboration as
focused on improving instruction. As teachers built their capacity they discussed
solutions to student learning challenges and shared research and best practices with
each other. Teachers were considered experts who learned from each other
(Fermanich et al., 2006). In a study (Goddard et al., 2007) using survey data from 47
elementary schools, researchers found that fourth grade students had higher
achievement in mathematics and reading when they attended schools characterized
by higher levels of teacher collaboration. Specifically, a one standard deviation (SD)
increase in the extent to which teachers collaborated on school improvement was
associated with a .08 SD increase in average math and a .07 SD increase in average
reading achievements.
Instructional Leadership
One of the keys to unlocking continuous school improvement is effective
leadership. The effective leader provides daily opportunities for staff to dialogue
with each other, empower teachers to identify, reflect, and experiment with ways to
improve learning (Bernauer, 2002). According to Beach and Lindahl (2004), the role
of principal is not merely to administer schools but to lead schools to significant,
60
large-scale improvement, while simultaneously meeting the daily and long term
learning and social needs of students. Hence, principals are charged with leading the
process of instructional improvement and therefore are expected to be instructional
leaders. Instructional leadership is part of the Cultural Change principal where the
principal is the lead learner in the school and models lifelong learning by sharing
what he or she has read lately, engaging in and encouraging action research, and
implementing inquiry groups among the staff (Fullan, 2002).
Resnick and Fink (2001) describe an instructional leader as one who
continuously improves a school’s capacity to teach children. This entails: selecting
and cultivating a teaching staff that can effectively teach the district’s demanding
programs in literacy and mathematics; understanding the instructional programs that
the district has adopted well enough to actively guide teachers; having sufficient
content knowledge to judge the teaching they see; figuring out what to do for a
teacher and determine what kind of professional development would be appropriate
for a given person at a given time; leading by creating a culture of learning; and
providing the right kinds of specialized professional development opportunities.
Consequently, school principals are crucial actors in the effectiveness of a
school. Principals in effective schools use measurable goals to establish a culture of
achievement, create a collective sense of responsibility for school improvement, and
act as models of instructional leadership. They are persistent and innovative in
obtaining resources to serve students (EdSource, 2006).
61
Summary
Education researchers who study the impact of various school reforms on
student achievement consistently come to least one shared conclusion: instructional
improvement is unlikely to result from a single policy or practice (EdSource, 2006).
Improvement within the standards based environment is correlated with the
implementation of multiple educational practices. Organizing an entire school
system around high student achievement requires a thoughtful, systematic approach
to teaching and learning in which standards, curriculum, and assessment (both
formative and summative), professional practices, and professional development are
carefully designed and mutually reinforcing (Weis, 2007).
The necessary component for implementing these instructional improvement
strategies is school funding. School finance must be explicitly linked to the quality
and type of educational resources children need to be successful. And, resource
allocation and use must then be linked to targeted effective instructional
improvement strategies that lead to improved outcomes. Valencia, Valenzuela,
Sloan, and Foley (2004) indicate equal attention to input, process, and output is
needed. If schools are to be successful and educate all students to the expected
levels of proficiency then they must be provided with adequate resources and
strategies to increase student learning.
Consequently, school finance must be more than providing the resource base
for ensuring an “adequate” education. It must also address how resources can be
allocated and which strategies can be utilized to increase student achievement. The
62
necessary link between school improvement and school finance is in determining the
necessary inputs for an adequate education and then using those resources in a
systematic, targeted manner to implement research based strategies that lead to
student achievement.
The crucial question in California is, “How can we target our current
resources in a more effective manner to increase the achievement of our students?”
The Evidence Based Model provides a framework of analysis to guide CA schools’
allocation of resources toward the strategies recommended in the best practices
literature. The Evidence Based approach to defining and costing out adequacy is
based on research based strategies needed to meet performance goals (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, Turner Mangan, Fermanich, 2006). Allocating resources effectively to
support instructional improvement strategies may just be the key to turning schools
around and increasing student achievement.
63
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine eight Southern California elementary
schools located in one elementary school district. The schools in this study are those
identified as middle performing schools with API scores of 680-765 but have
demonstrated the largest API gains in their district since 1999 and, at a minimum,
have doubled their percent proficient in English Language Arts since 2002. This
study reports the resource allocation patterns, resource use, and implemented
instructional improvement strategies for these eight schools. It compares the
resource allocation patterns to a research based model of educational adequacy, The
Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). In addition, this study reports each
school’s instructional improvement strategies to gain insight on how these schools
have increased their academic performance on the API measure. The conclusions of
this study provide the reader with an understanding of local school level resource use
and implemented instructional improvement practices.
The research questions for this particular study are:
• How the resource allocation patterns at the school sites are aligned with
or different from the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-
Based Model?
• What instructional improvement strategies are currently being
implemented at the school sites?
64
• How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan? (Instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
• What does it take to have an adequate education in California schools

Research Design
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study research method was used to
conduct this study and analysis of the eight particular Southern California elementary
schools. Two types of data were collected for this study: quantitative and qualitative
data. In-person interviews with the school principals were the primary data collection
method. Each interview consisted of two parts: closed ended quantitative questions
and open-ended qualitative questions. The quantitative data was triangulated
through document analysis of school staff lists, the master schedule, class size, and
the professional development budget and/or plan. Data were collected on full-time
equivalencies (FTEs) of multiple staff positions, student demographics, instructional
minutes, planning and collaboration time for teachers, intervention programs and
staffing, class size, and general expenditures for professional development. The
resulting data were entered into a common database. The quantitative analyses
included both individual school resource use and frequencies and averages among
the eight schools.
Interviews with the site principals also allowed the researcher to obtain
qualitative information on the implemented instructional improvement strategies.
The qualitative information was obtained through principal interviews and
65
triangulated through analyses of the schools’ Single Plan for Student Achievement
(SPSA), the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), vision and mission
statements, and additional school documents listing teacher practice. The qualitative
information provided insight into the school’s process of selecting and focusing on
specific curricular and instructional practices.
The described multi-methods qualitative approach was appropriate for this
particular study because document analysis only yielded general information on the
school improvement process without specifications on how resources were used and
allocated. The principal interviews allowed the researcher to connect the use of
resources to support the school’s overall improvement process.
Sample
Purposeful sampling of eight Southern California elementary schools was
conducted. Initial identification of the schools was based on the schools, within a
particular Southern California elementary school district, that had demonstrated the
greatest Academic Performance Index (API) growth between 1999 through 2008
and, at minimum, had doubled their School wide percent proficient in English
Language Arts since 2002 (See Table 3.1 for school sample demographics).
66
Table 3.1: School Sample Characteristics
School
English
Learner
percent
Free and
Reduced
Price Lunch
API
growth
from 1999-
2008
School Wide Percent
Proficient in ELA
School Wide Percent
Pro-ficient in Math
2002 2008 2002 2008
Rivera 80% 97% 299 points 9.6 % 30.7% 15.1% 47.9%
Alger 84% 89% 239 points 9.7% 30.6% 18.8% 34%
FSK 73% 90.5% 255 points 5.5% 39.4% 9.3% 52%
Hepburn 64% 100% 239 points 16.1% 38.4% 26.7% 44.8%
Rosewood 68% 92% 234 points 13.3% 32.2% 22.8% 38.7%
Grande
Vista
74% 89% 268 points 10.9% 30.4% 10.9% 30.4%
XYZ 71% 89% 275 points 7.9% 30.6% 16.3% 39.7%
Venezia 80% 89% 323 points 14% 38.3% 16% 54.8%

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status was not accounted for in the selection
criteria as this measure can label a school as not improving even when there is a
significant academic test score gain. Four schools in the sample are classified as
Program Improvement (PI) schools and two additional schools did not meet all of
their 2008 AYP targets. The selected schools all have similar student population
demographics. These school demographics include:
• 85% or more of its student population qualifies for Free and Reduced
Price Lunch (FRPL).
• 60% or more of its student population is identified as an English Learner
(EL).
• Student enrollment of 650 or more.
67
Description of Population
The population includes eight of ten schools within a district that have
demonstrated more than a 230 point gain in the API Index within the last nine years
and have doubled their School wide percent proficient in English Language Arts
since 2002. The study schools are eight of twenty-four schools located within a
Southern California elementary school district. The district educates approximately
19,240 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. District-wide 65% of the
students are identified as English Learners and 82% qualify for Free and Reduced
Price Lunch (FRPL). All schools span Kindergarten through sixth grades and all
have significant numbers (more than 60% of total school population) of English
Learners and students who qualify for Free and Reduced Price Lunch. The average
English Learner school population is 74% and the average Free and Reduced Price
Lunch population is 89%. The schools range in total student population from 684 to
1,358 with an average of 908 students.
Instrumentation
The data collection instruments for this study were based on the data
collection tools used to conduct the Picus, Odden, Aportola, Mangan, Goertz’ (2008)
Wyoming state adequacy study. These instruments include a data collection
codebook, which identifies data collection items and their definitions, a data
collection protocol to record quantitative information, and an open-ended interview
protocol.
68
These data collection tools were based on a school-based expenditure
reporting framework developed by Odden, Archibald, et al. (2003). This framework
has been expanded and utilized to conduct several U.S. state adequacy studies in
Kentucky (Odden, Fermanich, & Picus, 2003), Arkansas (Odden, Picus, &
Fermanich, 2003; Odden, Picus, & Goertz, 2006), Arizona (Odden, Picus,
Fermanich, & Goertz, 2004), Wyoming (Picus, Odden, Aportola, Mangan, & Goertz,
2008; Odden, Picus, Goertz, Fermanich, Seder, Glenn, & Nelli, 2005), Washington
(Odden, Picus, Goertz, Fermanich, Mangan, 2006) and Wisconsin (Odden, Picus,
Archibald, Goertz, Mangan, & Aportola, 2007).
The data collection protocols were modified and used to capture the school
resource indicators for the eight elementary schools (See Table 3.2 for School
Resource Indicators).

Table 3.2: School Resource Indicators
Percent English Learners
Percent Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Instruction
Length of Mathematics Instruction
Core Academic Class Size
Class Size
Staffing Ratios
Number of Support Staff
** Adapted from Picus & Odden (2006)
69
In addition, these protocols were utilized to capture the schools’ available
resources in instructional staff, professional development, support staff, and extra
help for students (See Table 3.3 for School Resources).

Table 3.3: School Resources
1. Core Academic Teachers
English Language Arts
Math
Social Studies
Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
Art, music, physical education
Academic Focus with or without special funding
3. Extra Help
Tutors
Resource Specialist Program (Special Education)
Inclusion Teachers
English as a Second Language Teacher
Special Education Classes for severely disabled students (including aides)
Extended Day and Summer School
4. Professional Development
Teacher Time- Substitutes
Trainers and Coaches
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
Coordinators
Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA)
Building Substitutes
Instructional Aides
6. Administration
Principal
Vice Principal
Office Staff

** Adapted from Picus and Odden (2006)
70
Since these data collection instruments have been employed in various state
level adequacy studies, it was assumed the instrumentation tools were reliable and
valid. The quantitative data collection tool was modified by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus,
the principal investigator in the Washington, Arkansas, Wyoming, North Dakota,
Arizona, and Kentucky state adequacy studies, and the nine students participating in
this thematic dissertation (See Appendix A). The qualitative collection protocol was
based on the interview protocol used in the Picus et al. (2008) Wyoming adequacy
study. It was modified by the researcher, a graduate student in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California, under the direction and
supervision of Dr. Picus (See Appendix C).
Data Collection
In June 2008, the researcher was trained, with eight other graduate students in
the parallel thematic dissertation group, in the data collection methodology. In June
2008, the researcher met with the superintendent, the interim assistant superintendent
of educational services, and the director of program evaluations of the potential
school district to discuss and seek authorization to conduct the study. The researcher
received approval in June 2008. A group Institutional Review Board (IRB)
application through the University of Southern California was submitted in July
2008. All graduate students in the parallel thematic dissertation group contributed to
the application and documentation process for the approval. The approval was
secured on July 22, 2008. Initial contacts with nine site level principals via email
communication occurred in early September 2008. The initial email communications
71
provided the principals with an overview of the study and selection criteria for the
study.
All nine principals responded within a week and indicated their willingness to
participate in the study. As soon as the researcher received the confirmation from the
principals, she sent out a second email, with two attachments, that provided in-depth
information on the study. Each principal received a letter explicating the purpose of
the study, the confidentiality guaranteed with their participation, what participation
entails, how the results will be used, and additional contact information (See
Appendix D). In addition, they received a letter of sponsorship from the principal
investigator, Dr. Picus (See Appendix E). Within two weeks, the researcher
contacted the principals via telephone to answer any questions they may have had
and to schedule the interviews. Eight principal interviews were scheduled and
conducted between September and November 2008.
School site data collection occurred from September 27, 2008 to November
7, 2008. Ten days before each school site visit, the researcher sent each principal a
memo requesting specific documents and provided the principal with a copy of the
open-ended interview questions (See Appendix F). Prior to each school site visit, the
researcher searched the district’s internet pages for background data and information
for the particular school. During the site visit, the researcher ensured the collection
of school level documents indicating professional development focus, general
professional development budgetary information, staff list, student enrollment count
and classroom enrollments, the master calendar, and additional documents providing
72
school expectations and practice. Each site visit involved an in-depth interview with
the school principal. (One principal invited her vice principal to sit in for part of the
interview to provide additional information on specific instructional improvement
strategies). The principal interviews yielded both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative data gathering consisted of using the quantitative information
protocol. During the quantitative data gathering portion of the interview, the staff list
was utilized to count staff FTEs and discuss their use. Quantitative data included:
• Staff (Core, Specialist, Support, Tutors)
• Student demographics (English Learner and Free and Reduced Price
Lunch)
• Current student enrollment
• Instructional Minutes for core academic subjects
• Pupil-Teacher ratios
• Intervention and Summer School program minutes and teacher ratios
• Additional supplemental program minutes
• How many teachers are teaching particular grade levels and subjects?
• Allocation of staff to meet specific instructional goals and objectives
• Use of support personnel to support student learning
The principals were also asked to provide general budgetary information for
professional development such as how many substitute/release days they planned for,
money spent on professional development trainers and/or consultants, and other
professional development costs.
73
The qualitative data was gathered using the open-ended interview protocol.
The principals were asked questions that queried their professional development
plans, strategic plan for improvement, the school’s instructional vision, and
implemented instructional improvement strategies. These school improvement
strategies are: focus on educating all students, a rigorous curriculum that aligns to
state standards, providing effective professional development, using data to drive
instruction, extra support for struggling students, instructional leadership,
professional learning communities, and restructuring the learning environment.
Once school level data were collected, the researcher sorted the data into
quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative data involved calculating
staff FTEs, instructional minutes, and general professional development
expenditures. When the school’s quantitative data was figured, the researcher
inputted the quantitative results onto Picus and Associates’ web based database
program. To derive the basic calculations of the Evidence Based Model, the
researcher inputted raw data such as student enrollment for each grade level, number
of staff into the web page: http://cpre.wceruw.org/finance/reports.php which
generated basic comparison numbers to the Evidence Based Model. The researcher
then performed basic sums and percentages calculations using an Excel spreadsheet
to derive the remaining quantitative data needed for the Evidence Based Model
comparison.
For the qualitative information, the researcher transcribed the interview notes.
Once the notes were transcribed, the researcher coded and organized the data into the
74
following categories: Focus on Educating all Students; Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum
and Align to State Standards; Use Data to Drive Decisions; Support Instructional
Improvement with Effective Professional Development; Restructure the Learning
Environment; Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities;
Professional Learning Communities; and Instructional Leadership. A case study for
each school was written. Each case study captured the school’s general background,
history of improvement and data on the school’s Academic Performance Index (API)
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets, key elements and themes of the
improvement process, a comparison of the school’s actual resource use to that
provided in the Evidence Based Model, the linkages between resource allocation/use,
and lessons learned.
Data Analysis
The conceptual framework for the quantitative data analysis is the Picus and
Associates Evidence Based Model. School level resource allocation and use were
compared to the EBM recommendations. The resource allocation patterns for these
particular CA schools were framed within the following question, “How do the
schools’ resource allocation and use compare to the Evidence Based Model?”
Quantitative data analysis involved the use of frequency statistics
encompassing percentages and averages for instructional minutes and FTE staffing
ratios. All analytic procedures captured the current resource use in the eight
elementary schools. Staffing data was figured using percentages of full-time
equivalents and teacher-pupil data was analyzed using ratios. Instructional minutes
75
were analyzed through percentages to determine how much of the instructional day
is allocated to particular academic subjects.
The qualitative information was analyzed using the findings of the
Washington Successful Districts Study (Odden et al., 2006). Qualitative data
included the strategies within the instructional improvement plan, instructional
vision, and professional development plan. These data were analyzed to determine if
they aligned with the research based instructional strategies: focus on educating all
students; adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state standards; use data to drive
instruction; support instructional improvement with effective staff development;
restructure the learning environment; provide struggling students with extended
learning opportunities; instructional leadership; and professional learning
communities. The analyses of the quantitative data were limited to whether these
“best practices” strategies were in existence at the school site and not whether these
strategies impacted student achievement.
Limitations
Data collection was limited to the availability of data at each school site.
Each site had varying capacities in their internal data collection systems. This
impacted the ability of the researcher to collect specific information on professional
development at some school sites.
Summary of Methodology
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study research method was used to
conduct the study and analysis of eight particular Southern California elementary
76
schools. The analysis data for the different instructional strategies and resource use
was obtained through interviews with the school principals and triangulated through
school document analysis of the master schedule, school staff list, master calendar,
school vision and mission statements, school improvement plan, and general
budgetary allocations for professional development. The study’s data collection
instruments were based on Picus and Associates’ data collection instruments, which
have been used to conduct adequacy studies in several U.S. states. Quantitative data
was analyzed through a comparison with the Evidence Based Model and the
qualitative data was analyzed through the Washington Successful School District
(Fermanich et al., 2006) framework.
77
Chapter 4: Results
The results of the study are presented in this chapter. First, school resource
indicators are reported for the schools. Second, the school resource use results are
compared to the resources recommended in the Evidence Based Model. Third, the
implemented school improvement strategies are discussed within the framework of
the eight instructional improvement strategies discussed in the supporting literature.
Lastly, the results are discussed through the lens of the Evidence Based Model and
Instructional Improvement.
School Resource Indicators
This section provides a general description of the resources available at the
eight school sites and provides an average of the school resource indicators.
The eight study schools are part of a Southern California elementary school
district. There are 24 schools within a district that educates approximately 19,270
students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. The elementary schools are eight
of ten schools that have demonstrated the largest achievement gains on the Academic
Performance Index (API) and have doubled, at a minimum, their School wide
English Language Arts percent proficient since 2002 (See Table 4.1 for school API
and growth).
In 1999, all schools’ API fell within the 400 range and in 2008, the API in all
but two schools fall within the 700 range. All of the schools have demonstrated, at a
minimum, a 230% increase in the number of students scoring proficient in English
Language Arts since 2002. Four schools in the sample are classified as Program
78
Improvement (PI) schools and two additional schools did not meet all of their 2008
AYP targets (See Table 4.2 for AYP status).

Table 4.1: Elementary School API and Percent Proficient Growth
School
1999
API
2008
API
API
Growth
%Proficient in
ELA
% Increase in
ELA
2002 2008
Rivera 425 724 299 points 9.6 % 30.7% 320%
FSK 487 742 239 points 5.5% 39.4% 716%
Alger 442 681 255 points 9.7% 30.6% 315%
Hepburn 489 728 239 points 16.1% 38.4% 238%
Rosewood 477 711 234 points 13.3% 32.2% 242%
Grande Vista 423 691 268 points 10.9% 30.4% 279%
XYZ 428 703 275 points 7.9% 30.6% 387%
Venezia 438 761 323 points 14% 38.3% 274%

Table 4.2: AYP Status
School 2008 Program Improvement Status
Rivera PI Year 2. Did not make AYP in ELA in its School wide group
and Latino, SE, and EL subgroups
FSK Not PI. Made all AYP targets
Alger Not in PI. Did not make AYP for its school wide group
and Latino, EL, and SED subgroups in ELA and Math
Hepburn Not PI. Did not make AYP for its EL subgroup in 2008
Rosewood PI Year 2. Did not make AYP for its School wide group
and EL, SED, and Latino subgroups in ELA
Grande Vista PI Year 2. Did not make AYP for its School wide group
and Latino, EL, and SED subgroups in ELA and Math
XYZ PI Year 3. Did not make AYP in ELA for its EL subgroup
Venezia Not in PI. Made all AYP targets
79
All schools span Kindergarten through sixth grades and have significant
numbers (more than 60% of total school population) of English Learner (EL)
students and students who qualify for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL). The
average EL school population is 74% and the average Free and Reduced Price Lunch
population is 89%. The schools range in total student population from 684 to 1,358
with an average of 908 students (See Table 4.3 for average school resource
indicators). Five schools are on a traditional school year calendar which provides a
total of 180 instructional days. Three schools are on the year round calendar which
provides a total of 175 instructional days per track. In the year round calendar, all
students are divided into one of four tracks with differing in-session days.

Table 4.3: Average School Resource Indicators
School Enrollment 908 students
English Learners 89%
Free and Reduced Lunch 74%
Length of Instructional Day Traditional: 314 minutes for grades 1-6
Year Round: 324 minutes in grades 1-6
Daily Minutes of Reading Instruction 135 minutes
Daily Minutes of Mathematics Instruction 60 minutes
Daily Minutes of Other Curricular Instruction 17 minutes for social studies
22 minutes for science
Class Size Kinder: 33 students
Grades 1-2: 20.5 students
Grade 3: 28 students
Grades 4-6: 30 students
Staffing Ratios (Core teachers only for K-6) 1: 26
Support Staff Full Time Equivalents (FTE) Attendance Clerk: .22 FTE
School Nurse: .2 FTE
Parent Advocate/Community Liaison: .82 FTE
Psychologist: .64 FTE
80
The traditional school calendar’s instructional day varies for the different
grade levels. The Kindergarten instructional day is 208 minutes, first through third is
301 minutes, and fourth through sixth is 327 minutes. These instructional minutes
do not account for 15 minutes of recess and 45 minutes for lunch for grades first
through sixth. The average instructional day at the traditional elementary school is
314 minutes. The year round instructional day for kindergarten is 214 minutes, first
through third grade is 311 minutes, and fourth through sixth grade is 337 minutes
(these do not account for the 15 minutes for recess and 45 minutes for lunch). The
average instructional day at the year round school is 324 minutes.
During the instructional day, all the elementary school teachers spend an
average of 60 minutes daily for mathematics instruction for kindergarten through
sixth grades. All schools spend a minimum of: 60 minutes daily for reading
instruction in kindergarten, 150 minutes daily of reading instruction in first through
third grade, and 120 minutes daily for fourth through sixth grade. The average
minimum minutes spent in reading and/or language arts instruction is 135 minutes
for grades first through sixth. Three individual schools exceeded this minimum and
added an additional 30 to 45 minutes of intervention and/or enrichment reading
instruction to the language arts block for first through sixth grades.
Because the district has not reconciled the allocation of core instructional
minutes with actual minutes available during in the school day, especially for first
through third grades, the school site principals indicated there is simply not enough
time to teach all subjects daily. Thus, the norm is for science and social studies to
81
not be taught on a daily basis. At all schools, social studies are usually integrated
into other subjects and are taught an average of 17 minutes per day. In all schools
but one, science is also integrated into other subjects; though the principals did
indicate science was also taught on its own. All principals reported science being
taught more frequently in fifth grade because fifth grade students take the California
Standards Test in Science. Science is taught an average of 22 minutes per day in
grades first through sixth.
In the schools, the average kindergarten class has 33 students, first and
second grade has 20.5 students, third grade has 28 students, and fourth through six
grades have 28 students. Hence, the average core teaching staffing ratio for
kindergarten through sixth grade is one teacher for every 26 students. All school
sites have an average support staff of: .22 FTE Attendance Clerk; .2 FTE School
Nurse; .82FTE Parent Advocate/Community Liaison; and .64 FTE School
Psychologists.
School Resource Use
This section is organized into the different elements that reflect the core
components of the Evidence Based Model (EBM). It compares each school’s current
school resource use to the recommendations of the Evidence Based Model. All
elements contain results of actual staffing Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and the
professional development element contains general fiscal resources found in the
schools.
82
Administration
The Evidence Based Model allocates one Principal for a school enrollment of
432 and generates a .5 additional administrative position per 216 student enrollment
above 432.
All the schools in the study have one full time principal and at least one full-
time vice principal (VP). The larger schools, those with 1,000+ students have two
full-time vice principals. Two schools, those with respective student enrollments of
907 and 908 are also allotted (in addition to a Vice Principal position) a full time
Leadership Assistant. The Leadership Assistant has the same duties as a VP except
she does not conduct teacher evaluations. No other administrative categories such as
Bilingual or Title 1 Coordinators exist at the school sites.
Based on the EBM, all of but one school (Alger ES) are overstaffed with
administrators. EBM recommendations would allot 3.14 FTE administrative
positions for the largest school, 2.65 FTE for the second largest school, 2.10 FTE
administrative positions for the schools with the leadership assistants, and at most
1.83 FTE administrative positions for the schools with student enrollments below
792 (See Table 4.4 for administrative allocations).
83
Table 4.4: Administrators
School Enrollment Administrators EBM Comparison
EBM School 432 1 principal for 432 students
.5 additional administrator for
additional 216 students above 432

Rivera 907 1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Leadership Assistant
1 Principal
1.10 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .90 FTE
FSK 698 1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Principal
.60 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .40 FTE
Alger 1358 1 Principal
2 Vice Principal
1 Principal
2.14 Assistant Principal
Understaffed by .14
Hepburn 1146 1 Principal
2 Vice Principals
1 Principal
1.65 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .35 FTE
Rosewood 792 1 Principal
1 Vice Principals
1 Principal
.83 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .17 FTE
Grande Vista 773 1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Principal
.80 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .20 FTE
XYZ 908 1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Leadership Assistant
1 Principal
1.10 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .90 FTE
Venezia 684 1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Principal
.60 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .40 FTE

Core Academic Teachers
The EBM recommends staffing ratios of 1 core academic teacher for every
15 students in grades kindergarten through third grade and one teacher per 25
students in fourth through sixth grades.
84
Current staffing ratio averages for the eight schools are 33 students to one
core academic teacher in kindergarten, 21 students to one core academic teacher in
first and second grades, 28 students to one core academic teacher in third grade, and
30 students to one core academic teacher in fourth through sixth grades. Based on
EBM recommendations, all schools have twice the recommended enrollment per
classroom in kindergarten and third grade, and one quarter more enrollment per
classroom in first and second grade. In fourth through sixth grades, the schools have
one sixth more student enrollment per classroom. Currently, all schools under staff
core teachers; they staff at 58% to 66% of the EBM recommendations (See Table 4.5
for core teacher allocations).

Table 4.5: Core Academic Teachers
School Core Academic Teachers EBM Comparison
EBM School One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students n 4-6

Rivera 30 Teachers 50 Core Teachers
Currently staffs at 60% of EBM recommendations
FSK 22.5 Teachers 39 Teachers
Currently staffs at 58% of EBM recommendations
Alger 52 teachers 76 Teachers
Currently staffs at 68% of EBM recommendations
Hepburn 39 teachers 62 Teachers
Currently staffs at 60% of EBM recommendations
Rosewood 29 teachers 44 Teachers
Currently staffs at 66% of EBM recommendations
Grande Vista 26.5 Teachers 43 Teachers
Currently staffs at 62% of EBM recommendations
XYZ 31 Teachers 50 Teachers
Currently staffs at 62% of EBM recommendations
Venezia 25 Teachers 39 Teachers
Currently staffs at 64% of EBM recommendations
85
An additional 149 classroom teachers would need to be hired to staff all the schools
at the level recommended in the Evidence Based Model.
Specialist and Elective Teachers
The EBM recommends that Specialist and/or Elective teachers are staffed at
20% of the total core teachers per school site. The rationale for staffing these
positions is that these teachers will teach music, art, and physical education to
students on a daily basis so the regular teachers can have 45 to 60 minutes of daily
planning time.
Currently, none of the schools have specialist/elective teachers on site. But,
district-wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide all teachers
with weekly planning time. Every Wednesday, all students are dismissed an hour
earlier from school; this provides teachers with an hour and a half of planning time
per week. To conform to the EBM recommendations and provide core teachers with
daily planning time, the school site with the smallest student enrollment (Venezia
ES) would need to hire 7.8 FTE specialist/elective teachers and the school site with
the largest student enrollment (Alger ES) would need to hire 15 FTE
specialist/elective teachers (See Table 4.6 for specialist/elective teacher allocation).
If the schools were to provide daily teacher planning time and enrichment instruction
for students, then 80.5 FTE Specialist/Elective teachers would need to be hired.
86
Table 4.6: Needed Specialist/Elective Teachers
School Core Teachers EBM Comparison
EBM School 20% of Core Teachers
(Core Teacher Calculation based
on EBM core teacher allocation)

Rivera 50 teachers Would need to hire 10 teachers
FSK 39 teachers Would need to hire 7.7 teachers
Alger 76 teachers Would need to hire 15 teachers
Hepburn 62 teachers Would need to hire 12.5 teachers
Rosewood 44 teachers Would need to hire 9 teachers
Grande Vista 43 teachers Would need to hire 8.5 teachers
XYZ 50 teachers Would need to hire 10 teachers
Venezia 39 teachers Would need to hire 7.8 teachers

Extra Help for At-Risk Students and Struggling English Learner
To provide immediate, intensive assistance to remediate struggling students,
the EBM recommends one fully licensed (credentialed) teacher for every 100 at-risk
students. In addition, it recommends additional assistance for English Learners
(ELs) who are academically struggling and triggers one additional full time teacher
for every 100 ELs.
Every school has Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA) who service and
tutor struggling students. These TOSAs work with students who fall or are at-risk of
falling within the Far Below Basic (FBB) and Below Basic (BB) ranges in reading
language arts and English Language Development (ELD). Though all the schools
employ TOSAs to provide in-school support for their struggling students, they do not
staff them at the levels recommended in the EBM (See Table 4.7 for extra support
87
teacher allocations). TOSAs were staffed at an average of 1 TOSA per 333 students
(both at-risk and ELs) with a range of 1:228 to 1:792. An additional 100 TOSAs
would need to be hired for the schools to staff extra support teachers at EBM levels.

Table 4.7: Extra Support Teachers
School Extra Support Teachers EBM Comparison
EBM School 1 FTE per 100 at-risk
1 FTE per 100 ELs

Rivera 3.0 FTE TOSAs provide reading and
ELD support.
9 Tutors and 7.25 EL Teachers
Need an additional 13.25 FTEs
FSK 3.15 FTE TOSAs provide reading
support from 7:45-12:00am
6 Tutors and 5.1 EL Teachers
Need an additional 7.95 FTEs
Alger 4.5 FTE TOSAs work with students
identified as “Intensive” or “Strategic” in
English Language Arts.
12 Tutors and 11.4 EL Teachers
Need an additional 18.9 FTEs
Hepburn 2.0 FTE TOSAs provide assistance in
reading
11.5 Tutors and 7.3 EL Teachers
Need an additional 16.8
Rosewood 1.08 FTE provides support to kinder
students in reading and provide support
to 6
th
grade in ELD
7.5 Tutors and 5.4 EL Teachers
Need an additional 11.8 FTEs
Grande Vista 2.0 TOSAs work with 1-3 grades and
newcomer students in language arts
6.9 Tutors and 5.7 EL Teachers
Need an additional 10.6 FTEs
XYZ 3.0 FTE TOSAs provide support for
these struggling students in reading.
8.1 Tutors and 6.4 EL Teachers
Need an additional 11.5 FTEs
Venezia 3.0 TOSAs provide reading support for
students in K-6
6.3 Tutors and 4.7 EL Teachers
Need an additional 8 FTEs

Instructional Aides
The evidence based model does not recommend funds for instructional aides.
It does, however, provide for instructional aides in special education at a ratio of .5
FTE per mild to moderate credential teacher. It does not, however, indicate an FTE
88
for more severe special education classes; EBM recommends FTEs should be
allotted based on need.
Regular Education. Only Rivera ES employs 3.0 FTE regular education
instructional assistants. According to the EBM, Rivera does not require these
instructional assistants and is overstaffing in this category.
Special Education. All schools have Special Education instructional
assistants. Special education instructional assistants work in Special Day Classrooms
(self contained), Resource Specialist Programs (RSP), or as Inclusion Aides. The
number of instructional assistants varies from school to school and depends on the
number of Special Education classrooms and students. Special Education
instructional assistants employed at the school sites range from a low of .5 FTE to a
high 19.0 FTEs. (See Table 4.8 for instructional aides).
89
Table 4.8: Extra Support Teachers and Aides
School RSP
Teachers
Special Ed
Teachers
GATE
Teachers
Special Ed
Aides
EBM Comparison
EBM
School
Depends
on Needs

Rivera 1.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.2 FTE Non-Severe Sp.
Ed Teachers
3.13 FTE Sp Ed Aides
FSK 1.0 5.0 2.0 9.5 4.82 FTE Sp Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
2.41 FTE SP Ed Aides
Alger 2.0 1.0 9.4 FTE Sp Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
4.7 FTE Sp Ed Aides
Hepburn 2.0 6.0 3.0 19.125 7.76 FTE Sp Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
3.88 FTE Sp Ed Aides
Rosewood 1.0 1.0 .5 5.47 FTE Sp Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
2.73 FTE Sp Ed Aides
Grande
Vista
1.25 2.0 .5 5.34 FTE Sp. Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
2.67 FTE Sp. Ed Aides
XYZ 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.58 6.27 FTE Sp. Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
3.14 FTE Sp. Ed Aides
Venezia 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.5 4.73 FTE Sp. Ed Teachers
(Non-Severe)
2.36 FTE Sp. Ed Aides

Other Extra Help Staff
This section involves all other teachers, which include categorical program
teachers for special education, gifted and talented program teachers, and other
teachers paid for out of categorical funds (Special Education, Title 1, EL, and other
federal and state categorical monies) who do not fit into the extra support categories.
90
EBM recommendations allocate 3.0 FTE Special Education teachers (non-severe) for
the prototypical school of 432, which is 1 Special Education teacher for every 144
students.
The school district currently staffs each school site with one RSP teacher for
every 28 students who are eligible for RSP services. All schools currently have at
least one RSP teacher with the two largest schools (Alger ES and Hepburn ES) with
2.0 FTEs (See Table 4.8 for RSP teachers). The EBM model staffs one Special
Education teacher for every 20 mild special education students, assuming 13.7% of
the student population has a mild disability (Odden, Goetz, Picus, 2007). Hence, all
schools are currently staffing Special Education teachers (non-severe) at 71% of the
EBM recommendations. The EBM does not specify the number of self-contained
Special Education classroom teachers as it depends on the need of the schools. Five
of the eight schools have SDC classroom teachers on campus, which average 3.6
FTEs per school (See Table 4.7 for SDC teachers).
Student Support
This includes counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers. The
recommended EBM strategy is one licensed professional for every 100 students from
a low-income background, with a minimum of one for each prototypical school of
432 students. This recommendation enables school districts and schools to allocate
the FTE staff across guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, etc. in a way that
best fits the need of the schools.
91
The available school site student support includes psychologists, social workers,
counselors, nurses, attendance liaisons, Parent Involvement TOSAs, and Community
Liaisons. Each school’s level of available student support varies and depends on site
needs, school provided resources to staff these positions, and district provided
resources (See Table 4.9 for Student Support Staff). All schools have a school
psychologist, whose primary duty is to conduct special education testing with an
average of .64 FTE per site. All sites have a .2 FTE school nurse and an average .25
FTE attendance liaison. Fifty percent of the schools have an average 1.1 FTE
counselor. One school (FSK ES) has a .5 FTE social worker. Three schools each
employ a 1.0 FTE Parent Involvement TOSA who serves as the facilitator between
the school and the community. Seven of eight schools staff a classified person to
serve as a community liaison. The schools employ an average .9 FTE community
liaison per site.
The EBM model does not indicate how many FTEs of each category to
employ because the level of support varies and is based on school needs. It does,
however, make specific FTE recommendations based on the student Free and
Reduced Price Lunch. When comparing the actual staffing levels of schools’ student
support staff to the EBM, all schools fall short of the recommendations by 50% to
80%.
92
Table 4.9: Student Support Staff
School Support Staff EBM Comparison
EBM School The recommended EBM strategy is
one licensed professional for every
100 students from a low-income
background, with a minimum of one
for each prototypical school of 432.

Rivera 1.8 FTE Counselors + 2.56 FTE student
support staff= 4.36 FTE
.5 FTE Counselor and 8.9 FTE of
student support. Staffing at 46%.
Need additional 5.04 FTEs
FSK 1 FTE Counselor + 2.2 FTEs student
support staff = 3.2 FTE
.43 FTE Counselor and 6.3 FTE of
student support. Staffing at 48%.
Need additional 3.5 FTEs
Alger 0 FTE Counselor and 2.45 FTE student
support staff
.7 FTE Counselor and 12 FTEs of
student support. Staffing at 20%.
Need additional 10.25 FTEs
Hepburn 0 FTE Counselor and 3.2 FTE student
support staff
.8 FTE Counselor and 11.5 FTEs of
student support. Staffing at 26%.
Need additional 9.1 FTEs
Rosewood 1.2 FTE Counselor + 1.78 FTE student
support staff = 2.98 FTE
.4 FTE Counselor and 7.5 FTEs of
student support. Staffing at 38%.
Need additional 4.92 FTEs
Grande Vista 0 FTE Counselor and 1.9 FTE student
support staff
44 FTE Counselor and 6.9 FTE of
student support. Staffing at 26%.
Need additional 5.44 FTEs
XYZ 0 FTE Counselor and 3.2 FTE student
support staff
.5 FTE Counselor and 8 FTEs of
student support staff. Staffing at 37%.
Need additional 5.3 FTEs
Venezia 4 FTE Counselor + 2.95 FTE student
support staff = 3.35 FTE
.35 FTE Counselor and 6.3 FTEs of
student support. Staffing at 50%.
Need additional 3.3 FTEs

Professional Development
The Evidence Based Model recommends ten annual professional
development days (in addition to the normal work year); collaborative work with
teachers during planning and preparation periods, on site coaching for all teachers,
and funds for training at a cost of approximately $100 per pupil.
93
Currently, the school district allots one staff development day per year as
stipulated in the teacher’s contract. In addition, the teacher’s contract requires
teachers, as part of their normal workweek, to attend weekly Tuesday staff meetings
for a maximum of 60 minutes. Teachers attend either professional development staff
meetings or collaborative planning sessions with their grade levels colleagues on
most Tuesdays. To provide staff development for their teachers, principals have
Professional Development during: staff meetings, Saturday trainings, extended
weekday meetings, grade level meetings, release time, and planning days (See Table
4.10 for Professional Development).

Table 4.10: Professional Development
School Professional Development EBM
Comparison
EBM
School
10 days of PD a year. $100 per pupil allocation for PD
Rivera 37 sub days planned for the year for grade level planning. Approximately
6,000 dollars for collaborative planning. 10% of Title I Budget is used for PD
$90,700
FSK Each grade level is allocated five 1/2 day planning days. Approximately
10,000 spent on collaborative planning
$69,800
Alger Will spend about spend about 30,000 dollars for the 2008-09 in consultant
fees and teacher release time school year. 10% of Title I funds for PD; 30%
of categorical budget earmarked for PD
$136,000
Hepburn About 41, 000 used for PD. 25,000 used for teacher release time and stipends
to attend PD; 13,000 for an external consultant; and 3,000 on other PD costs
$112,500
Rosewood 30,000 dollars are allocated to toward writing PD- consultants, coaching,
teacher release time. 52,000 dollars allocated toward buying twenty six days
of training for Direct Interactive Instruction (DII).
$79,200
Grande
Vista
Most of the PD budget is spent on teacher release time and stipends. 10% of
Title 1 budget earmarked for PD. 16,000 will be spent on PD
$77,300
XYZ Each grade level provided with four 2 hours planning days a year. PD costs
are approximately 15, 000 dollars for the current school year for teacher
release time for PD.
$90,000
Venezia Grade levels receive four one half planning days. 50,000 will be dollars in PD
for teacher release time and training fees.
$68,400
94
According to EBM recommendations, all teachers are short nine staff
development days. Though all principals indicate they earmark a certain amount of
money toward professional development, most do not appear to spend the amounts
indicated by the EBM. For example, Venezia ES’s principal indicates she will spend
about 50,000 dollars on professional development. Based on the EBM
recommendation, she will spend 18,400 dollars less.
Instructional Facilitators
Instructional facilitators coordinate the instructional program and provide the
necessary ongoing instructional coaching and mentoring that constitutes effective
staff development. The EBM recommends 2.5 FTE instructional facilitators or
coaches for a school unit of 432 students. The formula for this position is 1
instructional facilitator for every 200 students.
Five of eight schools have one instructional reading coach per site (See Table
4.11 for coaches). Two schools have 2.0 FTE reading coaches and one school has
1.75 FTE reading coach. According to the EBM, none of the schools staff sufficient
instructional coaches to support the instructional program. An additional 26.4 FTE
instructional facilitators are needed for all schools to have the instructional support
recommended by the EBM.
95
Table 4.11: Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
School Facilitators/Coaches EBM Comparison
EBM School 2.5 FTE instructional facilitators or coaches
for a school unit of 432 students. The
formula for this position is 1 instructional
facilitator for every 200 students

Rivera
1.0
4.5 FTE
Need 3.5 FTE
FSK 1.0 3.5 FTE
Need 2.5 FTE
Alger 1.0 6.8 FTE
Need 5.8 FTEs
Hepburn 2.0 5.8 FTE
Need 3.8 FTEs
Rosewood 1.0 5.62 FTE
Need 3.62 FTE
Grande Vista 2.0 3.96 FTE
Need 1.96 FTE
XYZ 1.75 4.5 FTE
Need 2.75 FTE
Venezia 1.0 3.4 FTE
Need 2.4 FTE

Extended Day
The Evidence Based Model suggests resources should be provided for 50%
of the adjusted Free and Reduced Price Lunch pupil count and that one position be
provided for every 15 students in the program. Odden & Picus (2008) recommend a
2 hour after school program, 5 days a week with teachers providing at least one hour
of assistance.
All schools have an Extended Day program as part of the district’s
partnership with the local YMCA. The extended day program is run and organized
96
by YMCA staff. It begins immediately after school and ends at 6pm. In the
extended day program the students receive homework help, do arts and crafts, and
play outdoor activities. This program serves approximately 80-100 students per site.
After school programs to support instructional improvement and provide assistance
for struggling students is coordinated by each individual school site and varies
depending on school needs (See Table 4.12 for extended day program). Though
seven of the eight schools provide after school support for struggling students, they
are not providing support at the levels recommended in the Evidence Based Model.
Three schools provide after school support for less than 1% of its Free and Reduced
Price Lunch (FRPL) population. Four schools provide after school support for an
average of 23% of its FRPL population.
The majority of the schools staff their after school programs at ratios similar
or better than the EBM. Venezia ES staffs its after school program at a ratio of 7:1
and XYZ ES staff it’s after school program at a ratio of 13:1. Alger ES staffs at a
17.5:1 ratio but for its K-2 after school intervention, it staffs its program at an
average ratio of 9:1.
97
Table 4.12: Extended Day Program
School Extended Day Program Free and Reduced
Price Count (50%)
EBM Comparison
EBM School Two hour after school program, 5 days a
week.
50% of the adjusted
FRPL count; one
teacher for every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes= .3
FTE per class
Rivera 0* 445 students 30 Teachers= 8.9 FTEs
FSK 9 Teachers servicing 144 2-6 gr. students
Average of 87 min. a session 2-3x per
week
Average Ratio 17. 5 students per teacher
314 students 21 Teachers= 6.3 FTEs
Currently provides for
22% of FRPL
Alger 17 teachers servicing 274 K-6 students
Average of 76 min a session, 3x per week
Ratio ranges from 8 to 20 students per
teacher
605 students 40 Teachers=12 FTE
Currently provides for
23% of FRPL
Hepburn 20 teachers servicing 300 K-6 students
API Prog.: 30 min, 3x a wk
AYP Prog.: 90 min, 2x per week
Ratio 15 students per teacher
573 students 38.2 Teachers=11.5
FTEs
Currently provides for
26% of FRPL
Rosewood 6 teachers servicing 57 students in 2, 3, 4
40 min, 4x a wk
Ratio is 8 students to 1 teacher
376 students 25 Teachers= 7.5
FTES
Currently provides for
22% FRPL
Grande Vista 7 teachers servicing 155 students in 3-6
gr.
Average of 75 min, 3x a week
Ratio: 22.5 students per teacher
344 students 23 Teachers=6.9 FTEs
Currently provides for
less than 1% FRPL
XYZ 4 teacher servicing 52 students in K, 1, 3
193 minutes per week
Ratio of 13 students to 1 teacher
404 students 27 Teachers=8.1 FTEs
Currently provides for
less than 1% FRPL
Venezia 7 teachers servicing 48 students in 1-6 gr.
60 min, 3-4 x per week
Ratio of 1 teacher per 7 students
315 students 21 Teachers=6.3 FTEs
Currently provides for
less than 1% FRPL

* At time of data collection, no after school program had been organized. In December 2008, the school organized a 4 week
after school program for students in grades 2-6.

Summer School
The EBM includes a summer school provision for 50% of all adjusted Free
and Reduced Price Lunch students. The recommendation is for a session of eight
weeks, six hours per day, and a class size of 15 students.
98
It is difficult for the study schools to implement an eight week program due
to the district calendar schedules. In the year round calendar, students are off for six
weeks at a time and in the traditional school calendar, students are off for a
maximum of eight weeks during the summer. Due to the calendar year, the five
schools that had summer school (year round and traditional) organized it in two to
three week sessions and offered two sessions (See Table 4.13 for summer school
program) per track or summer. Two schools opted for a short 1.5 to 2 week session.
All schools, with the exception of FSK ES, offered three hour summer school
days for their students, which is 50% less than what is recommended in the EBM.
All schools, with the exception of Grande Vista ES, staffed their summer school
programs at levels close to EBM recommendations, an average ratio of 16:1. All the
study schools fell significantly short of providing summer school for 50% of their
Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRLP) population. All of the schools (except Alger
ES, who provides for .04%) provide summer school for an average of 11.5% of their
FRLP population.
99

Table 4.13: Summer School Day Program
School Summer School Day Program Free and Reduced
Price Count (50%)
EBM Comparison
EBM School Session of eight weeks, six hours per day,
and a class sizes of 15 students
50% of FRLP
students.

Rivera Focus: Language Arts; 3.5 hours per day.
Grades 1-6
18:1 Staffing
2 weeks, 2x in summer
108 students at a time
445 students
30 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 12% FRPL
FSK Focus: Language Arts and Math: 6 hours a
day
Grades 1-5
17.5:1 Staffing
1.5 week session for 90 students
314 students 21 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 14% FRPL
Alger Focus: Language Arts and Math. 3 hrs per
day
2-5 grades
17:1 Staffing
3 weeks, 2x per year per track for 34-51
students (depends on space) at a time
605 students 40 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for .04% FRPL
Hepburn Focus: Language Arts. Three hours per day.
K-5 grades
15:1 Staffing
2 weeks for 135 students
573 students 38.2 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 18% FRPL
Rosewood No summer school due to construction during
2008
376 students 25 FTE teacher
Grande Vista Focus: Language Arts. 3 hours a day
Grades 3-6
20:1 Staffing
3 weeks, 2x per year per track for 80 students
at a time
344 students 23 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 12% FRPL
XYZ Focus: Language Arts. 3 hours a day.
Grades 2-6
15:1 Staffing
2 weeks, 3x per year for 90 students at a time.
404 students 27 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 11% FRPL
Venezia Focus: Language Arts. 3 hours per day.
Grades K-5
15:1 Staffing
2 weeks, 2x in summer for 90 students at a
time.
315 students 21 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 14% FRPL
100
Instructional Improvement Strategies
The eight study schools have all demonstrated significant improvement
within the last nine years. Since 1999, all of the schools have demonstrated an API
gain of 230 points or more. The Successful Schools Studies (Turner Mangan et al.,
2008; Odden et al., 2007; & Fermanich et al., 2006) found that successful schools
follow a similar set of steps in implementing specific instructional improvement
strategies. These instructional improvement strategies align with the Evidence Based
Model. The EBM recommends strategies for professional development,
restructuring the school day by providing specialist teachers and for allowing
teachers the opportunity to meet during the school day to collaborate, providing
support for struggling students, and providing extended learning opportunities for
students. This section will discuss how eight instructional improvement strategies
are implemented at the different school sites.
Focus on educating all students
All of the schools have a strong focus on educating all students and are
committed to providing them with a standards based education in language arts and
mathematics. All the school principals discussed their staff’s commitment to
educating all students, regardless of language ability and Socio-Economic status and
indicated all children have the capacity to learn. For example, Dr. Lacy Mace,
principal at Alger ES, indicates it is expected that every student read at grade level,
attain basic facts math fluency, write to grade level proficiency, and attain one level
of ELD proficiency by the end of each school year. The focus on educating all
101
students reflected several practices: Differentiation and EL needs; Standards Based
Learning; High Expectations; and a Focus in Language Arts.
Differentiation and EL Needs. Rivera’s principal believes it is important to
not only maximize instruction but that each student needs to be taught at his/her
level. Differentiating to student needs is especially important because of the high
English Learner concentration. Alger ES staff also believes it is important to meet
student needs and their focus on educating all students is examined through the EL
lens to ensure all instruction is differentiated to support EL needs. Similarly, Dr.
Sabrina, principal at Hepburn ES, states Hepburn teachers spend considerable time
on increasing the academic vocabulary of students because of their large EL student
concentration.
To differentiate instruction and meet EL needs, Rivera practices “Teaming”.
Teaming is where teachers within or across grade levels take groups of students that
fall within specific instructional levels (i.e. Strategic, Benchmark, or Challenge) for
finite periods of the day and provide instruction at their level. At Hepburn ES, the
staff meets student needs and differentiates instruction during their Universal Access
(UA) time. UA is a 30 period during the Language Arts block, where students work
on different skills and concepts at their instructional level.
Standards Based Learning. The focus to educating all students is to provide
children with a Standards Based Learning environment. According to Dr. Mace, all
instructional practices at Alger ES are driven by the Standards Based philosophy.
Explicit teaching and mindfully engaging students are cornerstones to student
102
learning. Similarly, Rosewood ES’ focus to educate all students lies in the belief that
every child will receive a very explicit instruction that is focused on grade level
standards. Both Alger ES and Rosewood ES focus on effectively implementing
Direct Interactive Instruction. They focus on what, why, and how the teachers will
support student learning to meet monthly grade level goals. Dr. Marie Lewis,
Rosewood’s principal, indicates teachers should continually “raise the bar” and
increase expectations so students learn and perform better.
High Expectations. High expectations are the cornerstone to academic
achievement. At Hepburn ES, staff is focused on high expectations for all students at
whatever level they currently are. The focus is on “catching” students up to grade
level and implementing targeted instructional strategies that are quick, effective, and
facilitate effective long term academic progress for students. According to Dr.
Sabrina, in the current age of accountability, there is a need to academically move
students beyond one year. The focus is to bring them up to grade level as soon as
possible. At XYZ ES, high expectations for all students are essential because of the
current academic achievement of their students. Currently, 30.6% are proficient in
English Language Arts and 39.7% are proficient in Mathematics. The focus on
educating all students is driven by Mr. Greene’s “…constant discontent with the
immediate present”. He believes student achievement should be better than it is now.
Similarly, Venezia ES’ focus on educating all students is on establishing an
“acceptable outcome” for students. The “acceptable” outcome is for 70% of all
103
students to score within the proficient range on the California Standards Test in
Language Arts and Mathematics by 2010.
Focus on Language Arts. Because reading is the foundation for all academic
achievement and is crucial for learning, all schools focus their improvement efforts
in Language Arts. All the school principals iterated their commitment to providing
their students a strong foundation in reading. Specifically, Dr. Sabrina and Mr.
Santiago (principals at Hepburn and Grande Vista Schools) described their staffs
commitment to following the Reading First guidelines which include, but are not
limited to: the use of reading assessments; a common adopted reading program for
all K-3 students; and implementing a balanced literacy program which includes
explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, and phonics,
comprehension, and vocabulary development (California Department of Education,
2002).
At XYZ ES, to increase student reading achievement, the staff is provided
with standards based instructional materials and is expected to analyze assessment
results on an ongoing basis to guide instruction. Mr. Greene indicates his school’s
focus is twofold, to have a continuous improvement in instructional strategies so
students learn and to identify those students who are not responding to instruction so
it changes and improves.
Adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state standards
Weiss (2007) indicates the standards must be at the center of the system;
curriculum must correlate to the standards and test items must correlate to the
104
standards. Hence, districts and schools must make it a priority to select curriculum
that is aligned to state standards. All of the study schools utilize curriculum that is
aligned to state standards. Because all the schools belong to the same district, the
instructional materials and some implemented strategies are similar. All of the
schools: adhere to the minimum allocation of instructional minutes for English
Language Arts, mathematics, and English Language Development; use the core
curriculum to teach the standards; focus on Standards Based Instruction; and
implement Power Standards.
Minimum Allocation of Instructional Minutes. All schools must adhere to the
minimum allocation of instructional minutes for English Language Arts,
mathematics, and English Language Development. According to the district’s Office
of Curriculum and Instruction (Memorandum, 2007), each school site must ensure its
teachers spend a certain portion of their instructional day in teaching the core
academic subjects (Refer to Table 4.14 for minutes).

Table 4.14: District’s Allocation of Instructional Minutes
Grade Levels Language Arts Mathematics
English Language
Development
Kindergarten 60 minutes 50-60 minutes 30 minutes
Grades 1-3 150 minutes 50-60 minutes 30-45 min
Grades 4-6 120 minutes 50-60 minutes 30-45 min
105
The district’s memorandum also indicates social science, science, and
visual/performing arts standards are to be integrated within the language arts context
when appropriate. Because the district has not reconciled the allocation of core
instructional minutes with actual minutes available during in the school day,
especially for first through third grades, there is simply not sufficient time to teach
all subjects daily. Thus, science and social studies are integrated into the core
curriculum and not taught on a daily basis (See Table 4.1 for daily minutes for Social
Studies and Science).
Use of core curriculum to teach state standards. At all school sites, the
curricula are aligned to state standards because all staff is expected to use the district
adopted materials. Some schools believe in fidelity to the curriculum and the
principals expect their staff to fully implement the curriculum. Six of eight school
principals indicated they expect their staff to have fidelity to the curriculum. FSK’s
principal indicates, “…the two big components are fidelity to the curricula and
teaching the standards.” At XYZ ES the focus is to use the curriculum, make it
better, and implement it more effectively. Venezia ES primary grade teachers teach
the state standards by implementing the district adopted curriculum. Because all of
the schools utilize the district adopted curriculum, instruction is rigorous and aligned
to state standards.
As the push toward systematically and mindfully teaching to state standards
increases, some site principals are training their staff to become “consumers” of the
curriculum. The principals are asking their staff to re-conceptualize the use of the
106
curriculum and use it as a tool to teach specific standards. (They are training their
teachers to move away from teaching the entire curriculum from front to back as a
way to cover all of the standards). FSK ES teachers are learning to be proficient in
choosing which components of the district adopted curriculum support Standards
Based Instruction. Similarly Hepburn, Grande Vista, and XYZ Elementary School
teachers are learning to choose which components of the district adopted curriculum
support Standards Based Instruction. XYZ staff has gone a bit further and uses the
curriculum to teach the standards. The teachers are being trained to continually ask,
when planning instruction: What do we want students to learn; How do we know
they have learned it; and How do we respond when they are not learning? In
addition, they look at the essential skills within the Power Standards to guide
instruction and focus on three guiding elements to plan instruction: endurance of the
concepts and skills; leverage; and application on tests.
Standards Based Instruction. The shift toward teaching to the standards has
occurred at Alger and Rosewood Elementary schools. At Alger ES, the California
content standards and the California state frameworks are the foundation on which
all practice is based. Teachers are expected to fully know and understand the content
standards. They are trained to be critical consumers of the curriculum; they learn to
choose curricular materials that best teach and support the learning of a particular
standard. Teachers are trained to not only know the power standards but understand
them to the point where they are cognizant of the skills and cognitive demands
107
(Blooms Taxonomy) of each standard. This deep understanding enables teachers to
teach students to be proficient in language arts and mathematics.
Like Alger ES, the California content standards are the foundation on which
all of Rosewood’s practice is based. Teachers are expected to fully know and
understand the content standards. Rosewood teachers are not necessarily expected to
have fidelity to the district adopted curriculum but fidelity to the state standards. The
teachers are trained to use core instructional materials are fully as they can to teach
the standards. They also utilize other materials when the core curriculum does not
sufficiently address the standards.
Power Standards. For the 2008-09 school year, the district has implemented
the “Power Standards”. The Power Standards are a district initiative and were chosen
during the 2008 summer through a district level group composed of administrators,
teacher representatives from each school site, and district level curriculum
specialists. These Power Standards form the core curriculum for each grade level;
each student is expected to master their respective grade level power standards.
Essentially, all grade level teachers must focus on these power standards and use the
district curriculum to plan lessons and activities that will enable the students to learn
and master the standards. In addition to teaching the “Power Standards” to mastery,
all teachers are expected to cover the other grade level standards. The principals at
six of eight schools are currently working with their staffs to learn, understand, and
implement the Power Standards.
108
Two schools, Alger and Rosewood schools have fully implemented Power
Standards at their sites. Their Power Standards are not the district’s but those chosen
through process with a consulting company, CST Route 66, LLC. Both site
principals indicate there is overlap between their Power Standards and the District’s
Power Standards. In 2006-07, Alger worked with CST Route 66 to select Power
Standards for each grade level. Rosewood ES worked with CST Route 66 in 2007-08
to select their Power Standards. At both schools, once the grade level power
standards were selected, the teachers mapped out the standards they would teach on a
quarterly basis. Each school then bought benchmark assessments from Action
Learning Systems (ALS) that align with the chosen grade level Power Standards.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
Data analysis is an important component of school improvement. Obtaining
ongoing feedback is the glue that holds the school improvement process together.
Successful schools use assessment data from multiple sources—curricular programs,
commercial assessments, and state assessments and used it in a variety of ways
(EdSource, 2006). The eight elementary school principals indicated data analysis
regularly occurs at their school sites. But, the different school sites are at varying
levels of data analysis expertise and proficiency. Three schools have developed a
systematic process for analyzing data and have gotten to the point where their
teachers are setting monthly SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic,
Timely) goals. The teachers analyze data to determine if the goals were met. The
other sites are still developing their data analysis practice and are at varying levels of
109
expertise. All principals, even those with more developed data analysis processes,
indicated their teachers need continual training and support and within grade levels,
there are varying levels of implementation and capacity.
Systematic data analysis
Systematic Data Analysis is occurring at four schools sites. Based on the
principal descriptions, each school has a developed process for analyzing data. All
of their staff regularly looks at data, uses it to drive instruction, and looks at both
summative and formative assessments in their data analysis process. The teachers at
three of the four schools set monthly SMART goals and use these goals to drive
instruction.
Rosewood ES and Alger ES. Both Rosewood and Alger ES have developed
similar systems of data analysis. This may be due to the fact that each school has
contracted with ALS and has received extensive training in utilizing and analyzing
their benchmark assessments. In both schools, data analysis occurs at three levels:
individual, grade level, and school wide. Individually, teachers track student progress
on pre and post monthly assessment measures (developed from the monthly grade
level goals), formative classroom assessments, and quarterly benchmark
assessments. In grade levels (some grade levels may meet more than once), teachers
discuss the monthly goals data from pre and post measures and they quarterly discuss
benchmark data. School wide, the staff meets monthly to discuss school data such as
CST data, CELDT data, and benchmark assessments to determine if they are meeting
school wide proficiency targets and monthly grade level goals.
110
Alger’s and Rosewood’s teachers set monthly SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) grade level goals and develop pre- and
post- assessments to measure student proficiency on these goals. The grade levels
meet monthly to discuss these pre- and post- measures. In addition to meeting
monthly to discuss SMART goals and assessments, teachers meet to discuss
benchmark assessments. Quarterly, the second through six grade levels meet to
discuss the benchmark data. All grade levels utilize a specific data analysis protocol
and look at data through two lenses: grade and teacher level. The data analysis
process addresses several areas: identifying two standards students were successful
in and two standards they were not so successful in; discussing why or why not they
were successful; discussing the strategies used to teach those standards; and
analyzing whether the strategies were effective. At the end of the discussion, the
grade level teachers develop an action plan to improve the teaching and learning of
those grade level standards. Kindergarten and first grade do not have benchmark
assessments; they still meet and analyze data. Kindergarten and first grade teachers
analyze data from the Houghton Mifflin Theme Skills Test (end of unit assessments).
According to Dr. Mace, within the last three years, Alger ES staff’s data
analysis practice has evolved from looking at school wide data to grade levels,
regularly analyzing data to drive instruction. She indicates her staff is becoming
more proficient in data analysis. All grade levels partake in the data analysis process
on a regular and continual basis. Most grade levels now discuss some type of data
111
on a weekly basis. The more proficient grade level teachers are beginning to conduct
some formative assessment data analysis and regularly looking at student level data.
Hepburn ES. School wide data analysis occurs at the beginning of the school
year to discuss California Standards Test (CST) data. Ongoing data analysis occurs
during the biweekly grade level meetings. Each grade level is involved in analyzing
data in two different methods; one structured uniform method facilitated by someone
else (TOSA, Principal, Vice Principal) and the other facilitated and determined by
the grade level. The first data analysis session, which is facilitated by an outside
staff member, centers on setting monthly goals and systematically analyzing
assessment results. These systematic data analysis sessions are Literacy Dialogues
and occur once a month. In the Literacy Dialogues, the grade levels discuss data, set
monthly action goals based on assessment results, discuss successful practices,
unsuccessful practices, and what else they can do to increase student achievement.
During the second biweekly grade level meetings, each grade level spends time
looking at student work and progress. The teachers meet and discuss formative
assessments such as classroom tests, skills tests, and inventories. Thereafter they
plan lessons and activities, and share best practices. The content for these grade
level meetings is determined and facilitated by each grade level.
FSK ES. During the 2007-08 school year, the staff received training on how
to effectively utilize data to drive instruction. In their staff development sessions
they learned to: Effectively use data analysis; link daily practices to known data; how
to use CST release items to help with instructional choices; and how to work
112
together as a grade level to ensure consistency in data (Staff Development Blueprint,
2007). For the 2008-09 school year, the district formulated Benchmark Assessments
for second through sixth grade students. Currently, each grade level is beginning to
meet every six to eight weeks to discuss Benchmark Assessment data. In addition to
benchmark assessments, grade levels are expected to analyze interim data such as
formative assessments, developed by the grade levels, to drive instruction. They
continuously analyze formative assessment data such as classroom assessments,
grade level developed assessments, inventories, and skills tests.
Emerging practice in data analysis
The following four schools have implemented some data analysis processes
at their school sites and are working to implement a regular process across all the
grade levels. The principals indicate their staffs are learning to use and analyze data
to drive instruction and describe them as being in the beginning phases of data
analysis. Two of the four schools are working toward their teachers developing
SMART goals and using these goals to drive instruction.
XYZ ES. XYZ ES staff analyzes both summative and formative data.
Summative data analysis occurs four times per year per grade level and is facilitated
by the literacy coach and principal. These summative data analysis sessions occur
during the grade level planning days (two hour sessions). These data sessions follow
a specific protocol and are centered on common assessments (formative or
benchmark assessments) and best practices. Formative data analysis occurs during
monthly grade level meetings and is facilitated by the grade level representative.
113
These formative data analysis sessions center on monthly SMART grade level goals
and whether the students met the goals. The formative assessments are common
grade level assessments that measure a specific skill or standard and are reflective of
the monthly grade level Power Standards. According to Mr. Greene, the principal,
these data analysis sessions are not quite at the point where the data is driving
instruction. Rather, data analysis is still at the “sharing ideas phase”. The teachers
discuss the strategies and lessons they feel worked for teaching a particular standard
or skill.
Grande Vista. At Grande Vista, data analysis has become a more regular
practice. According to Mr. Luis Santiago, principal, most of the staff is still in the
late beginning stage of data analysis. The teachers regularly look at data but they are
not yet regularly using it to guide instruction. The grade levels are in the process of
learning to develop and implement SMART goals. These monthly SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) grade level goals are expected
to drive instruction. With the SMART goals, pre- and post-assessments are being
developed to track student progress and analyze whether the grade level goal was
met. Some of the more proficient grade levels are developing the monthly pre and
post formative assessments to guide instruction.
For the 2008-09 school year, Grande Vista’s staff has not yet used the district
Benchmark Assessments for data analysis. According Mr. Santiago, “…We are
trying to figure out the Benchmarks and are waiting for the third benchmark to start
analyzing the results”. Since the school is transitioning into utilizing and analyzing
114
the Benchmark Assessments, second through sixth grade teachers are not currently
using a formal assessment for data analysis. The literacy coaches have taken a
proactive approach and have instituted strategies to analyze individual student level
data. They currently facilitate data discussions and use curriculum based
assessments, classroom assessments, checklists, reading inventories.
Venezia ES. Because Venezia is the recipient of the High Priority School
Grant (HPSG), it receives additional funding to implement school improvement
strategies. One of these school improvement strategies is data analysis. As part of
the HPSG grant plan, the staff was trained in utilizing the district’s data systems to
retrieve and generate student test data. Though the staff has been trained in utilizing
the data systems, the principal indicates they are not yet using it to drive instruction;
data analysis is not yet a uniform practice throughout the school. She indicates some
grade levels do analyze data more frequently and have developed their own protocols
for doing so. She believes the staff needs additional support in how to use data for
instruction. The next step is to instruct teachers in how to use data to drive
instruction.
Rivera ES. The instructional leader brings his staff together two to three times
a year to analyze school wide data and discuss trends. Each grade level meets
regularly (about once a month) to discuss ongoing assessment results. For the 2008-
09, each grade level discusses Benchmark Assessment data.
115
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Effective staff development is crucial for improving and maintaining high
teacher quality. For schools to be most effective, teachers must be able to respond to
changes in the characteristics, conditions, and learning needs of students. Each
school site structures its own staff development based on site needs and district
initiatives. All staff is provided one staff development day per year. All of the
principals use a variety of strategies to make the time for Professional Development
throughout the year. They use substitute release time, the coaching cycle, staff
meetings, grade level meetings, planning days, voluntary Wednesday workshops,
and extended staff meetings to provide their staff with Professional Development
(See Table 4.15 for site Professional Development). The principals indicate they use
in-house experts, such as other staff members and instructional coaches, district
Curriculum Specialists, and out of district consultants as Professional Development
facilitators. Six principals primarily utilize in-district personnel; two principals use
out of district consultants, with one indicating she only uses out of district
consultants for Professional Development.
116
Table 4.15: School Site Professional Development
School Professional Development
Rivera PD is provided in-house or from district curriculum specialists. PD occurs during the
school day, at staff meetings, grade level planning meetings, and through the coaching
cycle.
37 sub days planned for the year for grade level planning.
FSK PD is provided in-house or from district curriculum specialists. Occurs in cycles and
conducted during staff, grade level meetings, planning days, and coaching cycle.
Each grade level is allocated five 1/2 day planning days.
Alger Both out of district consultants and district level curriculum specialists provide PD.
PD through trainings school wide one hour staff meeting, extended staff meeting
hours, Saturday trainings, grade level meetings, voluntary Wednesday workshops,
PLC model, and the coaching cycle.
Hepburn Utilizes in-house experts and curriculum specialists for PD. Sometimes uses external
consultants. PD provided during staff meetings, Wednesday workshops, and grade
level meetings.
Rosewood Utilizes external consultants for the bulk of its staff training. PD provided through
staff meetings, grade level meetings, and the coaching cycle.
PD- consultants, coaching, teacher release time for Writing PD.
Twenty six days of training for Direct Interactive Instruction (DII).
Grande
Vista
The bulk of PD provided by “in-house” experts. PD provided through staff meetings,
grade level meetings, and through release time.
XYZ Utilizes in-house site experts. PD provided through staff meetings, grade level
meetings, four yearly grade level planning days, and the coaching cycle.
Each grade level provided with four 2 hours planning days a year.
Venezia For 08-09 uses “in-house” experts for PD.
PD provided during at staff meetings, grade level planning meetings, and the coaching
cycle.
Grade levels receive four one half planning days.

The Power Standards and implementing the Dennis Parker strategies are
current PD topics at all school sites. The Power Standards are the essential grade
level standards each student is expected to master at the end of each school year. The
Dennis Parker strategies are part of his “Strategic Schooling” model that is used in
schools with high percentages of struggling students. Its goal is to reverse the norm
117
of low achievement for low income and minority students. Strategic schooling is
organized around four domains: Targets- achievement targets, student targets,
content targets; Feedback-data and examples of student work directly related to the
targets; Know-How—the application of organizational, classroom, and personal
expertise by educators, students, and parents in an effort to hit the targets; and
Context—the environment in which all of this occurs (Parker, 2006).
Due to the fact that each school structures its Professional Development
based on site needs and the school’s focus, each schools’ Professional Development
plan focuses on different instructional strategies and practices.
Rivera ES. Since reading and differentiation are key components of the
school improvement process, PD at Rivera for the 2008-09 school year includes:
Thinking Maps, continued refinement of data analysis, Power Standards, Positive
Behavior Intervention Support, Benchmark Assessments, and the new district ELD
adoption. Due to the new district ELD program adoption, the instructional coaches
are focusing their resources on ELD. They provide support to teachers so they can
successfully implement the program and learn the strategies to effectively teach
ELD.
FSK ES. School wide Professional Development topics for the 2008-09
school year are: English Language Development; Data Analysis; “Strategic
Schooling” with Dennis Parker; and the use of the Inspect software to assess
standards mastery. FSK’s principal looks at the current district initiatives and school
needs and plans out the professional development year.
118
Alger ES. Alger’s instructional focus is to provide a standards based
education to all students. Consequently, all professional development is focused
toward teachers providing a standards based education. The main professional
development content focus for the 2008-09 school year is, “Deconstructing the
power standards”. Dr. Mace wants to ensure all teachers not only know the
standards but understand which skills and cognitive levels are needed for students to
master them. She believes all students must be provided with direct instruction to
master the standards, hence the key instructional strategy focus continues to be
Direct Interactive Instruction. The purpose for all professional development is to
support the teachers so they fully understand the Power Standards and become more
proficient in implementing the instructional strategies they have been trained in.
Hepburn ES. Hepburn’s Professional Development is designed to “go deep”
and promote teacher expertise in effective, targeted teaching strategies. When a
strategy or topic is introduced, teachers participate in numerous training
opportunities, discuss implementation during grade level meetings, and refine their
knowledge and implementation through the coaching cycle. Since 2005, the content
focus for Professional Development has been English Language Arts and meeting
EL needs within the ELA curriculum. The principal has kept Hepburn’s Professional
Development focused on effective strategies teachers can use to meet diverse student
needs. For the 2008-09 school year, the staff continues to receive training and refine
their knowledge and practice of Thinking Maps, Academic Vocabulary, and
119
Universal Access. Hepburn teachers continue to develop their capacity to implement
effective Universal Access during their language arts block.
Rosewood ES. All Professional Development is centered around the
following topics: Direct Interactive Instruction; Data Driven Decision Making;
Response to Intervention (RTI) and focusing on Tier I Interventions encompassing
sound and effective teaching; Writing; ELL needs; Thinking Maps; and Student
Motivation. According to the principal, the mission, vision, and their commitments
drive professional development. Rosewood ES utilizes external consultants for the
bulk of its staff training. Dr. Lewis indicates she initially used the district office
curriculum specialists but moved away from utilizing them once their expertise had
been exhausted. Now, she looks to these external consultants to provide “deep” and
targeted professional development. Dr. Lewis’ goal is to cultivate expertise within
her staff. She has invested significant sums of money to train her teachers to be
experts in specific instructional strategies.
Grande Vista ES. Grande Vista’s Professional Development is designed to
promote teacher expertise in effective, targeted teaching strategies. The Professional
Development focus is to provide teacher support through the introduction of
instructional best practices; the goal is to increase teacher capacity. When a strategy
or topic is introduced, teachers participate in training opportunities, discuss
implementation during grade level meetings, and refine their knowledge and
implementation through the coaching cycle. Since 2006, the content focus for
Professional Development has been English Language Arts and meeting EL needs
120
within the ELA curriculum. Currently, the staff is spending time on understanding
and learning the Power Standards and Benchmark Assessments.
XYZ ES. Since 2006-07, the teachers have been trained in Thinking Maps,
Academic Vocabulary, ELD strategies, Power Standards and Writing Instruction
(Super strategies). Because of the focus on English Language Development,
Language Arts, and Writing, the staff has received training in: Thinking Maps;
Reciprocal teaching; Get Ahead Writing; Vocabulary and Comprehension strategies;
EL/SDAIE strategies (English Learner strategies); Bridges to Understanding;
Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
Venezia ES. For the 2008-09 school year, the principal is continuing her
focus on PLCs, Thinking Maps, and Bridges to Understanding. Staff development
focuses on refining the strategies teachers have learned and provides them with the
knowledge and assistance to more effectively implement them in their classrooms.
For the 2008-09 school year, the principal has decided to not use consultants and
instead is relying on district Curriculum Specialists and in-school experts to provide
the bulk of staff development.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Struggling students should be quickly identified and provided with extended
learning opportunities. In the Washington Successful School District study
(Fermanich et al., 2006); schools utilized several strategies for struggling students
through in-school tutoring, before and after school programs, programs for ELs, and
summer school. All school principals indicated it is important to provide extra
121
support for struggling students. Dr. Sabrina, Hepburn ES’ principal states, “The
focus is on ‘catching’ students up to grade level and implementing targeted
instructional strategies that are quick, effective, and facilitate effective long term
academic progress for students”. She indicates that in the current age of
accountability, there is a need to academically move students beyond one year;
hence, the focus is not on making one year’s progress if the students are below grade
level. The focus is to bring them up to grade level as soon as possible. All of the
schools in this study provide support for struggling students through before and/or
after school programs, in-classroom supports, use of Teachers on Special
Assignment (TOSA) to provide tutoring support for struggling students, and summer
school or intersession programs.
Teachers on Special Assignment. All schools have TOSAs who provide
remediation to struggling students. These TOSAs work in either push-in, where the
teacher goes into the classroom to provide academic support, or pull-out, students are
pulled out of the classroom for small group instruction, models. Six of the eight
schools use the pull out model and two schools use a push in model for either all or
part of the school day. The TOSAs work with small groups of children in English
Language arts and their groups average approximately 5-8 students. The students
receive extra support for 30-45 minutes (See Table 4.16 for TOSA use). The TOSAs
work with the students who struggle in Language Arts and English Language
Development. Each school has organized its TOSA support differently and targets
different grade levels based on student needs and the school’s priorities.
122
Table 4.16: Teachers on Special Assignment
School Teachers on Special Assignment
Rivera 3.0 FTE TOSAs provide reading and ELD support to students in 1-6. Pull out
program with 6-7 students for 45 minutes.
One TOSA provides remediation to 14 students for the two hour core reading block.
FSK 3.15 FTE TOSAs and 1 RSP teacher provide reading support for students in 1-6
grades.
TOSAs work with 5-8 students for 30-45 min during language arts block.
18 FBB students receive extra support instruction during two hour reading block.
RSP teacher pulls additional 15 students.
10:35-12:00 TOSAs pull 1-2 grade students and provide 35 min of additional reading
remediation
Alger 4.5 FTE TOSAs work with K-6 students identified as “Intensive” or “Strategic” in
ELA
TOSAs work with small groups of eight students throughout the school day.
Hepburn 2.0 FTE TOSAs provide assistance in reading
1 TOSA provides kinder support in a pull out model for 40% of school day, small
groups of 4-5. 60% push in and provides extra assistance to teachers.
Rosewood 1.0 FTE provides support to kinder students in reading in a push in model.
TOSA goes into each classroom for 20 minutes and provides support to students.
.08 FTE provides ELD support to two groups of 6
th
grade students in ELD.
Grande
Vista
2.0 TOSAs work with 1-3 grades and newcomer students in language arts.
Small groups of students for 30 minutes a day.
XYZ 3.0 FTE TOSAs provide support for these struggling students in reading.
Participating students are pulled for this small group instruction (about 7 per group)
for 45 minutes a day, 4x per week.
Venezia 3.0 TOSAs provide reading and ELD support for students in K-6
The TOSAs work with small groups of students (6-8) throughout the day in a pull-out
model.
Small group instruction varies from 30-45 minutes

In-classroom supports. For all struggling students the first intervention is
effective instruction in the classroom. All students receive sound teaching through
the use of effective strategies. Some of these strategies include Thinking Maps to
build comprehension and concept formation, Bridges for Understanding and GLAD
strategies for English Language Development, and academic vocabulary instruction.
123
All schools have implemented Universal Access (UA) where students are grouped by
instructional level and receive targeted practice in areas of need for thirty minutes a
day within the language arts block. All students in kindergarten through sixth grade
receive some differentiated instruction and support during Universal Access.
Six schools have added additional reading instruction to the core period.
Rosewood ES, Hepburn ES, Rivera ES, and Venezia ES have added an additional
thirty minutes of reading skills instruction (in addition to the core instructional time).
Students are divided into grade level groups and rotate to different teachers to
receive targeted instruction based on their instructional needs. Each school has
different grade levels to implement this model for providing an additional thirty
minutes of reading skills instruction: Venezia’s first and second grades; Rivera’s
third through sixth grades; Rosewood’s first and second grades; and Hepburn’s first
through sixth grade. Alger and XYZ Schools have respectively added an additional
forty and forty five minutes of extra reading skills instruction for their respective K-6
and 1-6 grade students. Both schools also ask their staff to divide their students into
reading groups and the students rotate to different teachers to receive targeted skills
based instruction.
In mathematics, two schools have also added additional instructional minutes
to the core academic block. At Alger ES, each teacher allocates fifteen minutes to
basic math skills instruction to review the skills students need to master grade level
math standards. Hepburn ES second through sixth grade teachers have their students
124
spend five minutes a day using the Fastt Math program, which is a progressive skills
based computer program, in the classroom.
Before and After School Programs: All eight elementary schools provide
support for struggling students outside of the regular schools day. One school,
Hepburn ES, provides before school support for its struggling students. Intervention
support for struggling K-6 grade students occurs before the start of the school day,
(Hepburn is a late start school and the instructional day begins at 8:30), are three
times per week, and last thirty minutes per session. All eight schools provide after
school support for struggling students. The after school programs are targeted
toward providing additional ELA instruction. Two schools provide extra math
support. The after school programs occur two to four times per week and have
student-teacher ratios that ranges from 8 to 25 per teacher (See Table 4.11 for after
school programs).
Summer School. In the year round calendar, students are off for six weeks at a
time and in the traditional school calendar, students are off for a maximum of eight
weeks during the summer. Due to the calendar year, the five schools that had
summer school (year round and traditional) have organized it in two to three week
sessions and offered two sessions per track or summer (See Table 4.12 for summer
school information). All schools, with the exception of FSK ES, offered three hour
summer school days for their students. The schools targeted Language Arts during
their intersession or summer session.
125
Restructure the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment involves restructuring periods or
student groupings throughout the school day to facilitate better instruction. At the
elementary school level this may include uninterrupted core blocks for reading and
math instruction, increasing the school day, and reallocation of staff to reduce class
size (Fermanich et al., 2006). At all schools, first and second grade participates in
California’s Class Size Reduction (CSR) program and the instructional week has
been modified to provide teachers with instructional planning time. Some schools
have utilized creative strategies to reduce class size in kindergarten and have
restructured the school day to provide additional skills instruction in reading and
mathematics.
Class Size Reduction. All first and second grade classrooms are part of the
Class Size Reduction (CSR) program with ratios of twenty students to one teacher.
All kindergarten classrooms are half day and each kindergarten classroom is slotted
to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher. To reduce kindergarten
numbers four schools have restructured the kindergarten day to reduce class size to
16 to 1 for 110 minutes a day. Rivera, Rosewood, XYZ, and Venezia Elementary
Schools have implemented a restructured kindergarten day. Each kindergarten class
has two start and dismissal times which allows for a ratio of 16:1 for two blocks of
one hundred and ten instructional minutes (See Table 4.17 for schedule). For
approximately half of the kinder day, the kindergarten classes have sixteen students
126
in the classroom. During the class size reduction block, the instructional focus is on
language arts, differentiation, and ELD.

Table 4.17: Restructured Kindergarten Day
Early Bird Start 7:45
Late Bird Start 9:30
Early Bird Dismissal 11:28
Late Bird Dismissal 1:18

The other four schools (Alger, FSK, Hepburn, and Grande Vista) have the
traditional morning and afternoon kindergarten classrooms. These schools have
these traditional classes because they do not have the classroom space to implement
the restructured kindergarten day. The district provides each school with a .5 Kinder
Class Size Reduction (KCSR) teacher to lower the class ratios. These schools use
the KCSR as a push in teacher who goes into each classroom to provide support to
each teacher for approximately 20-30 minutes a day. Also, each traditional
kindergarten teacher is required to partner team with another kindergarten teacher for
90 minutes a day. For 90 minutes a day, each kindergarten’s ratio is 16 to 1. At
Hepburn ES, to provide additional support to the kindergarten teachers, a TOSA
spends 60% of her work day as a kinder push in teacher to further reduce class size
for 20-30 additional minutes.
Modified Instructional Week. District wide, the instructional schedule has
been modified to provide teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly,
127
teachers have an hour and a half to discuss instruction with their grade level
colleagues or plan their lessons. Though this time is available, per teacher contract,
administrators cannot require teachers to attend meetings during this planning time.
As such, on Wednesdays, teachers can meet and collaborate for voluntary grade level
planning.
Innovative Restructuring. Two schools have instituted creative methods to
restructure their school day. FSK has found an innovative way to provide additional
support to their kindergarten students and lower class size in third through six
grades. Rivera ES has found a way to work with their combination classes and
ensure these students receive grade level standards based instruction.
FSK ES. FSK has three traditional kindergarten classrooms. This school has
purposefully chosen to have traditional kindergarten morning classrooms so it can
have an extensive kindergarten after school program. During the school day, the
principal has the KCSR teacher and a TOSA go into each classroom (at different
times) for an hour a day each. This provides each kindergarten classroom with
reduced ratios for 120 of the 208 instructional minutes a day. Three kindergarten
teachers, one KCSR Teacher, and one TOSA work with approximately 94 students
to reduce the ratio to 18 to 1. After the morning kindergarten classes end, each
kindergarten teacher spends the afternoon working with a small group of children
(approximately 10-12 students) for 90 minutes a day, four times per week. Two
kindergarten teachers provide the skills deficit intervention and one teacher provides
128
enrichment for “challenge” students (students who are mastering grade level
standards at a faster rate).
To reduce class size in grades 3-6, four TOSAs are utilized to reduce class
size to 22 to 1. Because of limited space, the TOSA in third grade is a push in
teacher. The 4
th
, 5
th
, and 6
th
grade TOSAs serve in a pull out model and work with
small groups of children providing targeted skills instruction for thirty to forty five
minutes at a time. (See Table 4.18 for information on TOSA use to reduce class size)

Table 4.18: FSK’s use of TOSAs
Program Service Number of Teachers
Third Grade 8:30-12:00 CSR: 1 TOSA reduces 3
rd
grade
to 22 to 1 in a push-in model
1 TOSA and 2 regular teachers
Fourth Grade 8:30-10:30 CSR: 1 TOSA reduces to 22/1
during flexible groupings
1 TOSA, 2 Regular Teachers,
1 3/4 GATE Teacher
Fifth Grade 8:30-10:30 CSR: 1 TOSA reduces to 22/1
during flexible groupings
1 TOSA, 2 Regular Teachers,
1 5/6 GATE Teacher
Sixth Grade 8:30-10:30 CSR: 1 TOSA reduces to 22/1
during flexible groupings
1 TOSA, 2 Regular Teachers,
1 5/6 GATE Teacher

Rivera ES. Rivera has two combination classes, a third/fourth grade class and
a fifth/sixth grade class. When adhering to standards based curriculum, the
combination classes make it difficult for teachers to consistently teach the standards
to both grade levels and meet student instructional needs. A Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA) pulls about 14 students from sixth grade to provide intensive
reading remediation skills. When the sixth grade students leave their classrooms, the
numbers in the other six grade classes decrease which then allows the 5/6 combo
129
teacher to send her six grade students to the other six grade classrooms for the core
reading curriculum. In turn, the 5/6 teacher can share students with the other fifth
grade teachers. This slightly lowers class sizes for the fifth and sixth grades. The 3/4
combination class teacher sends her students to other third and fourth grade
classrooms and takes in struggling third and fourth grade students. This teacher
provides intensive reading intervention for third and fourth grade students who are
reading at the same level.
Professional Learning Communities
A professional learning community is a group of professionals who
demonstrate clarity of purpose, precision in the use of language and concepts, work
interdependently, learn by doing, are results oriented, and focus on the learning of
every student (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). In the school improvement
process, professional learning communities are essential components to improving
teacher practice and student learning. All of the study schools have processes in
place where the teachers come together to discuss instruction, analyze data, and
engage in collaborative grade level planning. The teachers at the eight school sites
meet in grade level teams at least once a month for collaborative grade level
planning sessions. Some schools have started to implement DuFour’s PLC model
and follow its particular process while other schools have allowed their teachers to
set up their own grade level meeting process. Regardless of whether they follow the
PLC model of not, all principals called their grade level teams Professional Learning
130
Communities. In some form, all of the schools have elements of the PLC in
existence.
Rivera ES. At Rivera, teachers work in grade levels to analyze data, team,
and plan lessons. Teachers meet during planning days, some Wednesdays, and staff
meetings to discuss student learning. Though there is no formal professional
learning community protocol at Rivera, the principal indicates the teachers work as
PLCs because they consistently work collaboratively.
FSK ES. At FSK, teachers meet by grade levels two to three times per month
to discuss student learning and assessment. Within the grade levels, curricular
consistency is expected. All grade levels must work together to plan which power
standards they will teach and how they will be assessed. In addition, teachers, within
their grade levels, are expected to discuss and decide for themselves what actions
and strategies they need to implement to increase student achievement. They are
expected to arrive at a grade level consensus when discussing implementation of
strategies.
Alger ES. During the 2006-07 school year, Alger sent its staff to Rick
DuFour’s Professional Development training on Professional Learning Communities
(PLC). Since then, Alger’s staff has collaboratively used the PLC model. The staff
believes collaboration is the key to teacher and student success. Grade levels meet
on a regular weekly basis. During the grade level collaboration time, grade levels
analyze assessment data. They plan instruction by mapping the power standards;
131
discussing instructional strategies and lessons that will support student learning; and
discussing strategies that work best.
Hepburn ES. Teachers are expected to work in collaboration and meet with
their grade levels on a biweekly basis. All grade level meetings involve data analysis
and improving instruction. One grade level meeting is devoted to Literacy Dialogues
and is facilitated by an administrator or coach. During the Literacy Dialogues
student language arts assessment data is analyzed and monthly action goals are
established. A second grade level meeting is facilitated by the grade level teachers
and is used to discuss grade level student needs, concerns, and practice.
Rosewood ES. Teachers are expected to work in collaboration and meet with
their grade levels three times per month. When teachers meet in their grade level
meetings, the expectation is for 80% of their meetings to be focused on student
learning and achievement. One grade level meeting per month is devoted to data
analysis to determine if the students met the grade level monthly goal.
Grande Vista ES. In 2006-07, the leadership team received School
Leadership Training which provided them with the tools to implement Professional
Learning Communities within the school. Currently, PLCs have been introduced to
the staff and the leadership team is working to ensure they are a common, uniform
practice at the school. Though teachers are required to meet in biweekly grade level
teams, Mr. Santiago indicates PLCs are still in the beginning phases of
implementation. But, they are beginning to evolve and grow as the teachers become
more proficient in data analysis. As the teachers meet and analyze data on a monthly
132
basis, they become more accountable to each other and this primes them for being
more collaborative.
XYZ ES. The leadership team learned about PLCs during the SLT training in
the 2006-07 school year. During the 2007-08 school year, XYZ implemented the
PLC model at the school site. Teachers meet biweekly to analyze data, share
practices, and discuss common assessments. One teacher meeting is facilitated by a
leadership team representative and runs like a PLC. During these PLC meetings, the
teachers collaborate and set monthly grade level goals to guide instruction.
Venezia ES. During the 2007-08 school year, four teachers and the vice
principal attended Rick DuFour’s Professional Learning Community (PLC) two day
training. Two of the four teachers provided an in-service training to the staff at the
beginning of the 2008-09 school year. The principal expects to provide additional
training and support to the staff on PLC and continue to work with them in
implementing the PLC model. Currently, the kindergarten team meets one time per
month in their PLC to set monthly goals and work toward their common writing
assessments. It is expected that during the 2009-10 school year, this grade level will
serve as the support and model to implement the PLC model across all grade levels.
All grade level teachers are expected to meet with their grade level team two times
per month. The grade levels plan lessons and discuss Standards Based Instruction.
Instructional Leadership
One of the keys to unlocking continuous school improvement is effective
leadership. The effective leader provides daily opportunities for staff to dialogue
133
with each other, empower teachers to identify, reflect, and experiment with ways to
improve learning (Bernauer, 2002). All of the school principals indicate they use a
shared leadership style when making instructional decisions that will impact their
staff. They all have leadership teams with whom they consult with on instructional
and some operational issues. They meet with their leadership teams one to two times
per month. All principals see it as their responsibility to guide their leadership teams.
Venezia’s principal indicates it is her responsibility to guide her staff in the right
direction.
At the school sites, instructional decisions are made in three different ways
depending on the situation and circumstances. When there is a pressing need, the
principal will make the decision. When the implementation of a new program or
strategy is being considered, the decision is made in collaboration with the leadership
team. When it involves the implementation of a strategy at the grade level then a
decision is made based on teacher direction and feedback. Each principal uses
different inputs to base his/her instructional leadership and set the school’s direction.
First, all site principals indicated instructional decisions are based on site
specific needs. Venezia’s principal follows the guiding principal of doing “what’s
best for kids.” At Alger ES, all school improvement efforts have been developed and
based on its student population. Because Alger has a high population of low SES
and EL students who historically have not demonstrated high levels of academic
achievement in Language Arts and Math, the force behind its school improvement
initiatives is to increase the achievement of its students.
134
Second, the principals indicated they do not look to the district to set the
school’s direction; but, they do implement district instructional programs and
initiatives. Venezia ES’ principal stated she does not look to the district to set a
direction but has implemented district initiated programs and strategies such as the
Power Standards and the Dennis Parker Test Taking Strategies. She feels that the
only district driven direction is the pressure to maintain test scores. FSK’s principal
takes what the district mandates and implements it throughout the grade levels.
Similarly, Mr. Greene, XYZ’s principal, indicated instructional improvement ideas
and strategies often result from district initiatives. His leadership team decides how
the new instructional improvement strategy will fit with what they are already doing
and figures out how to include the new strategy so that it becomes an enhancement
and supports their current work.
Third, the school principals use their vision and mission statements to guide
their instructional decisions. At Hepburn ES, the decision to proceed is based on
teacher input and whether it fits with the school’s overall vision and direction. Dr.
Lewis, Rosewood’s principal, indicates her school’s direction is a reflection of its
vision, mission, and its commitments. When there is an instructional need, the
leadership team looks at the vision and mission to guide their direction. Similarly,
Mr. Greene, XYZ’s principal states the school’s long term goals, which are reflective
of the vision and mission, set the direction; decisions are based on these goals and
whether the new initiatives fit into what the leadership team is trying to accomplish
at the school.
135
Lastly, principals look at research and evidence to make instructional
decisions. At Alger ES, instructional decisions are based on research and the results
they can produce at the school. When a new program or strategy is proposed for
implementation (this proposal can come from the instructional leader or a teacher) it
is first piloted by a teacher or a small group of teachers. Results of the pilot program
are discussed with the administrator and a decision is made to more widely
implement it at the school. Hepburn ES follows a similar approach. When it is
decided the school will implement a particular program or strategy, a few teachers
may be asked to pilot it and provide their feedback on whether it was effective or
worthwhile. At Grande Vista ES, when an instructional strategy or program is
considered for implementation several factors are considered: does it fit with the
school’s needs, is there support available to ensure effective implementation; and is
there evidence of effectiveness at other sites? The principal looks at other school
sites and the district office for support and evidence of effectiveness. If there is
evidence of effectiveness elsewhere, the team will examine it to determine the
feasibility of implementing the instructional improvement strategy.
Discussion of Results
Resource Use Similarities and Differences
Similarities. The resource allocation patterns in the eight schools have both
similarities and differences. The similarities stem from the fact that all of the study
schools belong to the same district; thus, specific allocations such as core teacher
staffing, class size, school support staff, and basic instructional minutes in Language
136
Arts and Mathematics are pre-determined through district practice and district
allocations. All schools are staffed with the following recommendations: 33 students
in kindergarten, 20.5 students in first and second; 30 students in third grade; 33
students in fourth through six grades. Basic instructional minutes are pre-set by the
district and follow the California State Framework recommendations in Language
Arts and Mathematics and education code mandates.
Differences. The differences in the resource allocation patterns between the
schools are a result of each school’s practice and focus on school improvement. The
resource allocation pattern differences are in the number of TOSAs utilized for extra
support, professional development focus and expenditures, and extra support
programs.
The first difference is in the TOSA FTE. Each school has a different FTE
count of TOSAs with a range of 1.0 to 4.5 FTEs. Because each school allocates its
categorical money toward TOSA salary, the FTE count depends on how much
money is available and whether it is seen as a priority at the site. Venezia ES, the
school with the smallest student enrollment, has three TOSAs because it received
over 300,000 dollars more in categorical school funding (recipient of the High
Priority School Grant) than the other schools. In addition, Venezia’s principal
believes in the effectiveness of her school’s resource program. She indicated one of
her most effective school improvement strategies is her TOSA support program. She
stated, “The TOSA support has been instrumental. The Training they have received
has really lent them to teach those Far Below Basic students….They have
137
contributed to improvement efforts because they have received training in Linda-
Mood Bell and other programs and they have a strong knowledge of teaching
reading”.
In contrast, -Rosewood ES reduced its TOSA staffing for the 2008-09 school
year; they went from three instructional TOSAs in 2007-08 to one instructional
TOSA in 2008-09. The reasons for this reduction were effectiveness of the TOSA
program and the principal’s focus on school improvement. Test scores did not
demonstrate the effectiveness of the pull-out TOSA intervention model. In addition,
the school’s focus is on building teacher capacity and bringing resources into the
classroom to support student learning. Dr. Lewis indicates her goal is for teachers to
become proficient in addressing student needs within the classroom and the focus is
on pushing in resources rather than pulling children out.
The second area of difference is in each school’s professional development
allocations. Though all schools utilize similar models of disseminating professional
development such as the coaching cycle, staff meetings, grade level meetings, and
planning days, the schools have varying allocations for Professional Development.
The professional development allocations at each school site are dependent on the
school’s school improvement plan and the practice of using in-house or out of
district consultants. Both Alger and Rosewood Elementary Schools rely on external
consultants for their Professional Development because they are implementing
school improvement strategies that have not been widely practiced or introduced
within the district. Both have implemented Direct Interactive Instruction through
138
Action Learning Systems (ALS), have selected their Power Standards through Route
CST, LLC, and have purchased their benchmark assessments from ALS. Thus they
allocate more of their categorical budget toward PD. Alger allocates 30 percent of
its budget and Rosewood allocates over 70,000 dollars for Professional
Development.
The school sites that use in-school and in-district staff for Professional
Development and implement district driven programs allocate significantly less
money. Grande Vista allocated approximately 15,000 dollars toward PD and 60% is
utilized for teacher release time. When choosing PD trainings, Mr. Santiago chooses
district endorsed strategies to increase staff buy in and participation. Similarly,
Rivera ES has an approximate allocation of 25,000 dollars for Professional
Development for its teachers. Rivera ES also utilizes district resources to provide
Professional Development. Consequently, the schools’ Professional Development
allocations are dependent on the school’s focus and the practice of looking within or
outside the district for training.
The third area of difference among the schools is in the extra support
programs provided for their struggling students. Though all schools provide these
programs, there are differences in how many students are serviced. The range of
students served in the extended day programs range from 50 to 300. One of the
reasons for this variance is the availability of teachers to participate in extended day
programs. FSK’s principal indicates he only utilizes his teachers to provide extended
day programs to ensure a quality after-school curriculum. He builds his after school
139
program based on teacher interest and availability. Venezia ES does not have an
extensive after school program because it is difficult to staff their after school
programs.
Program Improvement status may also impact the after school program
offerings. Three of the four schools who service the most students in the after school
programs, are schools that have been or are in danger of becoming Program
Improvement schools. Hepburn and Alger Elementary Schools, who respectively
provide after school programs for 300 and 274 students, did not make their AYP
targets and are danger of entering PI status if they do not meet their targets in 2009.
It is likely they offer extensive after school support to ensure their students increase
their academic performance. FSK ES, who provides support for 144 students, just
left Program Improvement status; they are looking to maintain and increase their
students’ achievement.
It is possible that the Program Improvement schools may not feel the urgency
to provide after school programs for their students since they already provide extra
support through Supplemental Educational Services (SES). Since PI schools must
provide SES after their first year of PI status, many struggling students in the PI
schools receive additional academic support through contracted tutoring providers.
The PI schools instead focus their resources more on providing extra instructional
support during the school day. Three of the four schools in Program Improvement do
not provide extensive after school support.
140
Availability of Resources
The availability of resources impacts a school’s ability to implement specific
instructional strategies. All the school principals indicated they had to make some
reductions and small changes at the end of the 2007-08 school year that impacted
their academic program for the 2008-09 school year. Six of the eight schools, lost
Resource TOSAs (approximately 1-2 FTEs) and one coach. Additional reductions
were also in instructional materials funds, the use of out of district consultants, and
teacher planning days. Despite these reductions, the principals indicated they have
been able to maintain the integrity of their instructional programs. They all indicated
these changes were minimal and they have been able to implement the strategies they
need to support their school’s plan for improvement. Three principals indicated their
programs were minimally affected for different reasons. One maintained the same
programs because he always made it a point to “keep it simple” and his school did
not need a lot of money to continue to do what they were doing. Two principals
stated they had the resources they needed to provide an adequate education for their
students. One principal indicated he had everything he needed within the reality of
today and a second indicated all the local district schools had the resources they
needed. The key was to know student needs and making them a priority.
All schools have significant numbers of ELs and FRPL students and received
categorical funds ranging from 494,290 dollars to 827,756 dollars (SPSA, 2008). The
dollar amounts depend on student enrollment, English Learner percentage, and Free
and Reduced Price Lunch count. This categorical money has allowed the principals
141
the flexibility to continue to fund certain programs and positions they feel are
necessary to maintain the quality of their instructional program. Only one principal
indicated his staff’s perception of the level of available support had changed. At his
school, they do not have sufficient money to run student support programs because
teachers are now more responsible for intervention programs other staff once ran.
Because of categorical funds, all principals continue to have money to
allocate toward effective strategies. All the principals utilize their categorical money
toward TOSAs and Professional Development. The TOSAs are primarily utilized to
provide academic support for struggling students. They also focus some of their
resources on building teacher capacity and by providing instructional coaches and
Professional Development. Thus, the schools’ available resources are currently
utilized to support instructional strategies that have a direct impact on student
achievement.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
The analyses of the schools’ improvement strategies indicate all eight schools
have implemented the eight instructional strategies of: focus on educating all
students; adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state standards; use data to drive
instruction; implement effective staff development; provide extra support for
struggling students; restructure the learning environment; professional learning
communities; and instructional leadership. Though there is variance in how the
strategies are implemented, each school site has implemented actions that fall within
142
these eight practices. This may be the reason why these particular schools are eight
of the “most improved” in their district.
Each school has made a commitment to educating its students and has
focused on differentiating their instruction to meeting their students’ needs,
providing standards based instruction, using Power Standards to drive instruction,
having high expectations, and providing students with a balanced language arts
program. These foci may attribute to these schools having, at minimum, doubled
their English Language Arts percent proficient since 2002. The schools align their
curriculum to reflect the state standards. In addition, the district’s implementation of
the Power Standards increases teachers’ practice of using the curriculum as a tool to
teach the standards.
Along with using the standards to guide instruction, the schools have
developed and implemented during- and after- school intervention programs. As the
proficiency targets annually increase, each school provides its students additional
academic support. Each school has some type of before- or after- school
intervention program to remediate its struggling students.
All of the school site principals understand the importance of Professional
Development (PD) and each has a developed plan for providing his/her teachers
with the training and support they need. The main focus for PD is building teacher
capacity. Seven principals indicated they had invested, in prior school years, much
time and resources to exposing their teachers to sound teaching strategies. They were
143
now focusing this year’s (2008-09) effort toward refining their staff’s knowledge and
providing them with the support to implement the strategies more effectively.
Additionally, all of the schools are using data to inform instruction and are
using collaborative processes to support teacher practice. Although the schools
demonstrate varying internal capacities for analyzing data and implementing the
PLC model, each school is working toward instituting these practices more
effectively.
What do principals need to continue to expand their efforts?
Though all the school principals indicated they have the resources they need
to continue their instructional program, they did provide strategies they felt would
assist them further in their school improvement effort. Some of these suggestions
align with EBM recommendations.
• Smaller class sizes in kindergarten; -the ideal would be to have a 20 to 1 all
day kindergarten class.
• Smaller class size in 3
rd
and 4
th
grades, at a minimum during the core reading
block of time.
• More funding for instructional support for struggling students.
• Additional TOSA support for grades with high numbers of enrollment.
• More TOSAs to support reading instruction.
• Maintain, at minimum, a K-6 Literacy coach.
144
• Provide teachers with more effective Professional Development. Provide
training in explicit instruction for all teachers so fewer students are in the
reading resource program.
Other strategies they recommended are not part of the Evidence Based Model
but address the needs of the schools:
• More resources to include more pupil development in social and emotional
skills such as the 40 development assets and Safe Schools/Healthy Choice
programs.
• Institutionalize a certificated teacher to serve as a Parent Involvement TOSA.
The Evidence Based Model in California Schools
The Evidence Based Model provides recommendations on research based
strategies to increase student academic achievement. Currently, under California’s
school funding policies it is not feasible to implement all of the strategies within the
EBM. Given the current fiscal landscape where there is a 42 billion dollar deficit in
the state of California and all districts must reallocate their resources and readjust
their budgets to offset expected mid-year cuts, some of the strategies in the EBM
may seem unlikely. The EBM is useful for CA school leaders because it provides
information on how to allocate school resources. A school leader may not be able to
fund the strategies at the level of EBM recommendations but can use it as a model to
make decisions on how to allocate existing resources. The EBM provides
recommendations that school principals and leaders can look toward when deciding
which strategies to implement.
145
Conclusion
The crucial question in California is, “How can we target our current
resources in a more effective manner to increase the achievement of our students?”
The Evidence Based Model provides a framework of analysis to guide CA schools’
allocation of resources toward the strategies recommended in the best practices
literature. The resource allocation patterns and use of eight schools were analyzed
and compared to the Evidence Based Model to determine if the recommended
strategies are currently being implemented. Though these schools do not provide the
level of support stipulated in the EBM, they do implement many of the
recommended strategies. These strategies include: providing extra support for
struggling students through tutoring and summer school programs, instructional
coaches for Professional Development, administrative support, staffing ratios for
their after school programs and in-school intervention programs, and use of support
staff.
These particular schools are eight of the most improved schools within their
district. It can be inferred that these schools are successful because they are
implementing research based strategies and are allocating their resources to effect
student academic gains. This analysis hopefully provides educational leaders with
information on how to allocate resources more effectively. Allocating resources
effectively to support instructional improvement strategies may just be the key to
turning schools around and increasing student achievement.
146
Chapter 5: Case Studies
This chapter includes the case studies for the individual schools. This chapter
provides the reader with specific information on the school improvement strategies
that are implemented in each site. Each case study includes background information,
history of improvement, the eight school improvement strategies, and a brief
summary of resources and comparison with the Evidence Based Model.
The case studies are primarily comprised of the qualitative data collected
during the principal interviews. This qualitative data is organized into the
framework from the Washington Successful Schools Study. This framework
consists of: Focus on Educating All Students; Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum and
Align to State Standards; Use Data to Drive Decisions; Support Instructional
Improvement with Effective Professional Development; Restructure the Learning
Environment; Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities;
Instructional Leadership; and Professional Learning Communities.
All instructional improvement strategies are represented in each case study.
Each school has implemented a strategy or program that aligns with the
recommendations in the Successful Schools study. Because all of the schools are
part of the same Southern California elementary school district, the reader will note
similarities across the schools, specifically in district implemented programs,
instructional minutes, the use of Teachers on Special Assignment, and the structure
of Professional Development. But, each school’s story of improvement is different
147
as all the implemented strategies are based on site specific needs and guided by the
school’s principal and leadership team.

School #1: Pablo Rivera Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
Pablo Rivera Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school
located within a Southern California Elementary District. The district educates
approximately 19,270 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. Rivera has
907 students and is located in a heavily populated business and residential area in a
city in Southern California. Many students live in several large apartment complexes
both near and some distance away from the school. As a result, approximately 300
students are bussed daily to school. 80% of the student population is identified as
English Learners and 97% are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. At the school
site, there are approximately 150 students with Individualized Education Plans, with
31 of those students placed in Special Day Classrooms (SDC). The other students
receive Speech and Language and/or Resource Specialist Program services.
Rivera ES’ mission is to provide a high quality education for a diverse
population of children focusing on the mastery of skills to enable them to live
productively in a changing society. The education of Rivera’s students involves
interactive participation of parents, staff-wide collaboration; essential agreements by
all staff on systems of grouping, teaming, and allocation of resources; and
148
coordination of interventions focused on the goals of the schools. The purpose of this
case study is to tell the story of significant improvement in student learning at Rivera
Elementary School and identify how the corresponding resources were allocated.
History of Improvement
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s 2001 No Child
Left Behind Act. Thus, Rivera’s school improvement is judged on two different
measures. Rivera Elementary School students’ scores have dramatically increased
since 1999. From the 1999-2000 to 2007-08 school years, the Academic
Performance Index (API) has increased two hundred and ninety-nine points from 425
to 724 (Refer to Table 5.1 for Rivera’s API scores). Since 1999, Rivera’s API scores
have consistently increased; the school has met its API targets in all but two years
(2004 and 2006).

Table 5.1: Rivera’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base year 444 471 509 559 612 615 649 654 680
Actual API 425 454 491 546 602 605 641 646 674 724

Despite making significant API gains, under the No Child Left Behind Act
requirements, Rivera ES is a Program Improvement Year 2 School. It did not make
149
AYP in 2008. It did not meet its percent proficient School wide, Hispanic/Latino,
Socially-Economically Disadvantaged, and English Learner targets in English
Language Arts (Refer to Table 5.2 for AYP Measures). Since 2003, Rivera has made
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in Language Arts in three of six years (2003, 2004,
and 2007). Rivera has consistently met its AYP targets in Mathematics since 2003.
Rivera did not meet the percent Proficient school wide, Hispanic/Latino, English
Learner, and Socially-Economically Disadvantaged targets for English Language
Arts in 2005, 2006, and 2008. For Rivera ES, its Latino, Socially Economically
Disadvantaged (SED), and English Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of
the school aged population.

Table 5.2: Rivera’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Targets
Base Year 13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16% 24.4% 26% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.2% 37%
School
wide
9.6% 15.1% 15.7%
Yes
26.8%
Yes
17.4%
Yes
24.7%
Yes
19.3%
No
32.5%
Yes
24.3%
No
33.8%
Yes
27.3%
Yes
38.9%
Yes
30.7%
No
47.9%
Yes
ELs 7.6% 13.6% 13.8%
Yes
24.8%
Yes
14.7%
Yes
22.6%
Yes
17.2%
No
31.5%
Yes
22.3%
No
32.1%
Yes
26.3%
Yes
38.5%
Yes
29.7%
No
47.5%
Yes
Latino 8.8% 14% 14.1%
Yes
25.1%
Yes
15.7%
Yes
23%
Yes
18.5%
No
30.9%
Yes
23.2%
No
32.3%
Yes
26.1%
Yes
38%
Yes
30.1%
No
47.2%
Yes
SED 9% 14.3% 14.6%
Yes
25.1%
Yes
16.4%
Yes
23.4%
Yes
18.7%
No
32.6%
Yes
23.1%
No
32.5%
Yes
26.2%
Yes
37.7%
Yes
30%
No
46.7%
Yes
150
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students
At Rivera, there is a strong focus on educating all students. The principal’s
philosophy is, “…differentiation is the key to educating all students.” He believes
each student needs to be taught at their appropriate level and “our kid’s time should
not be wasted.” There is stronger focus on goals with assessment comprising an
integral component to ensure instructional needs are met. One of the key strategies,
to keep the focus on educating all students is teaming. During teaming, teachers
within or across grade levels take groups of students that fall within specific
instructional levels (i.e. Intensive, Strategic, Benchmark, or Challenge) for finite
periods of the day and provide instruction at their level.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
At Rivera, the principal has yearly “Stull Bill Data Conferences” with all
teachers to discuss STAR data. Stull Bill are conferences pertaining to teacher
evaluation and goals and involve the use of data to inform the discussion. These
conferences are held within the first two months of the new school year. The
purpose of these conferences is to discuss the teacher’s professional learning plan for
the year, discuss student learning, and use student data and results to guide the
discussion. They help teachers reflect on what worked, what did not, and what they
need to refine to increase student achievement. Within the last two years, these
conferences have evolved and focus on examining STAR assessment results. During
these data conferences, the teachers examine which of their students jumped a
151
performance band, which stayed within the band, and which students went down a
performance band. In addition to these face to face data conversations, each teacher
keeps a data notebook with last year’s students’ STAR results and their current
students’ ongoing assessment results. The data notebooks are used to track student
progress and plan for instruction.
The principal brings his staff together two to three times a year to analyze
school wide data and discuss trends. In addition, each grade level meets regularly
(about once a month) to discuss ongoing assessment results. Prior to this school year,
the grade levels analyzed data from the reading curriculum theme skills tests and
inventories. This year (2008-09) each grade level will meet every six to eight weeks
to discuss Benchmark Assessment data (This is the first year of district wide
Benchmark Assessments).
At a staff meeting, in the beginning of the school year, each teacher is asked
to identify and target a few students, based on the assessment data. During the year,
the teachers are expected to specifically target and work with those students. They
provide progress reports to the principal via email and meet with him once a year to
discuss the students’ work and progress. Throughout the year, the teachers are
responsible for providing the necessary support and resources to assist these
students. Teachers can look to the instructional coaches for support in implementing
instructional strategies and programs to assist these students or can refer them to the
intervention programs at the school.
152
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
At Rivera ES, all curricula are rigorous and aligned to state standards because
they believe in fidelity to the district adopted materials. All district adopted
materials fulfill the state adopted criteria for the curriculum in Language Arts and
Mathematics. For the 2008-09, the district has introduced “Power Standards”. The
Power Standards are a district function and were chosen during the 2008 summer
through a district level group composed of administrators, teacher representatives
from each school site, and district level curriculum specialists. These Power
Standards form the core curriculum for each grade level; each student is expected to
master his/her respective grade level power standards. Essentially, all grade level
teachers must focus on these power standards and use the district curriculum to plan
lessons and activities that will enable the students to learn and master the standards.
In addition to teaching the “Power Standards” to mastery, all teachers are expected to
cover the other grade level standards.
Furthermore, teachers must adhere to the minimum allocation of instructional
minutes for English Language Arts, mathematics, and English Language
Development. (Refer to Table 4.14 for instructional minutes). According to the
district’s memorandum social science, science, and visual/performing arts standards
are to be integrated within the language arts context when appropriate”
(Memorandum, 2007). Because the district has not reconciled the allocation of core
instructional minutes with actual minutes available during in the school day,
especially for first through third grades, there is simply not enough time to teach all
153
subjects daily. Thus, science and social studies are integrated into the core
curriculum and not taught on a daily basis. According to the principal, primary
grades spend approximately half an hour a day for science and social studies and
upper grades average about 2 hours per week per subject.
Rivera believes in fidelity to the state adopted reading program and ongoing,
reported assessment of all children to ensure appropriate differentiation (SPSA,
2008). In addition to these core practices, Rivera ES has standards of practice that
must be evident in the classrooms. These include:
• Rigorous student work is displayed in all classrooms.
• Indicators of student progress. How do teachers communicate the
progress of their students?
• Skill specific comments must be evident in student work.
• Skill specific comments and feedback should be on returned homework.
• Student engagement must be evident throughout the day.
• Direct instruction is the key to good, rigorous instruction.
• Differentiation is important to allow students to meet state standards.
Because Rivera ES has a disproportionate amount of EL students, a
significant Free and Reduced Price Lunch population, and has not consistently met
its Language Arts school wide and subgroup targets, its instructional focus is English
Language Arts (ELA) and differentiation of instruction to meet student needs.
Within the language arts curriculum, comprehension is the focus for the current
school year. The principal is continuing to support and expand the implementation
154
of “Thinking Maps” as a strategy to increase comprehension. In addition to
Thinking Maps, strengthening English Language Development is crucial because it
is so integral to the vocabulary development and reading comprehension of ELA.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) has been a focus at Rivera for
four years. This program was developed with its local county department of
education and two Positive Behavior Support (PBS) experts. The first two years of
PBIS were spent training the staff on the need and rationale for PBIS. The leadership
team did an extensive site needs assessment and designed, in consultation with the
local agency and its consultants, the program they have in place. This program was
implemented during the 2007-08 school year. This year, training and refinement in
PBIS will continue. Because all instruction lies on the foundation of positive
behavior supports and the belief that all students can learn, teachers will continue to
receive support and “booster” trainings in those areas.
Since reading and differentiation are key components to the school
improvement process, PD at Rivera for the 2008-09 school year includes: Thinking
Maps, continued refinement of data analysis, Power Standards, PBIS, Benchmark
Assessments, and the new district ELD adoption. Due to the new district ELD
program adoption, the instructional coaches are focusing their resources on ELD.
They will provide support to teachers so they can successfully implement the
program and learn the strategies to effectively teach ELD. In addition to ELD,
Dennis Parker strategies are also a professional development topic. The district has
155
contracted a particular consultant to train the leadership teams and all district
administrators in Program Improvement on instructional strategies to increase test
scores. Rivera’s leadership team is currently being trained in Dennis Parker
strategies.
The Dennis Parker strategies are part of his “Strategic Schooling” model that
is used in schools with high percentages of struggling students. Its goal is to reverse
the norm of low achievement for low income and minority students. Strategic
schooling is organized around four domains: Targets- achievement targets, student
targets, content targets; Feedback—data and examples of student work directly
related to the targets; Know-How—the application of organizational, classroom, and
personal expertise by educators, students, and parents in an effort to hit the targets;
and Context—the environment in which all of this occurs (Parker, 2006).
The two site based literacy coaches and district level personnel serve as
professional development facilitators for the staff at Rivera ES. On some occasions,
three to four teachers will attend a PD and then they train the other staff members
during a grade level or staff meeting. Hence, all PD and training is “in-house”.
Money spent on professional development is for substitute costs to release teachers
from their classrooms. All professional development occurs during the school day,
at staff meetings, grade level planning meetings, and through the coaching cycle.
Wednesdays, which are early student release days, are used by teachers to come
together and plan and discuss instruction.
156
The two literacy coaches provide in-depth and personalized PD to teachers
throughout the school year. They demonstrate lessons in classrooms and engage
teachers in the coaching cycle. The principal formally meets with the literacy
coaches two times per month to discuss instructional needs. The activities or strands
for PD are guided through the school improvement plan, what occurs in the
classrooms, and topics pulled from the monthly district coach meetings.
In addition to the formal training sessions, teachers are provided with
opportunities to participate in different projects. These projects can include district
office initiatives such as curriculum adoptions, specific curricular study groups and
committees. Teacher capacity and professionalism is further developed through their
participation in developing and implementing site specific programs and
instructional strategies. Furthermore, each teacher has a professional learning plan
that indicates what they will do to build their capacity. The principal, whenever
possible, will offer different resources and/or ask for teacher participation in
activities and events that will support their professional growth.
Restructure the Learning Environment
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of twenty students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher. As a
result, Rivera has restructured the kindergarten day to reduce the staffing ratios.
Each kindergarten class has two start and dismissal times which allow for an
approximate ratio of sixteen students to one teacher for two blocks of one hundred
157
and ten instructional minutes (See Table 5.3 for schedule). For half of their kinder
day, all students have a ratio of approximately 16 to 1. During the class size
reduction block, the instructional focus is on language arts, differentiation, and ELD.

Table 5.3: Rivera's Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule
Early Bird Start 7:45am
Late Bird Start 9:50am
Early Bird Dismissal 11:38am
Late Bird Dismissal 1:46m

Rivera has two combination classes, a third/fourth grade class and a
fifth/sixth grade class. When adhering to standards based curriculum, the
combination classes make it difficult for teachers to consistently teach the standards
to both grade levels and meet student instructional needs. Rivera has a creative
resource allocation solution to working around the combination classes during the
core reading period. A Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) pulls about 14
students from sixth grade to provide intensive reading remediation skills. When the
sixth grade students leave their classrooms, the numbers in the other six grade
classes decrease which then allows the 5/6 combo teacher to send her six grade
students to the other six grade classrooms for the core reading curriculum. In turn,
the 5/6 teacher can share students with the other fifth grade teachers. This lowers
class sizes for the fifth and sixth grades. The 3/4 combination class teacher sends her
students to other third and fourth grade classrooms and takes in struggling third and
158
fourth grade students. This teacher provides intensive reading intervention for third
and fourth grade students who are reading at the same level.
District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, voluntary workshops and
grade level meetings can be held during this time. As such, on many Wednesdays,
teachers can meet and collaborate for voluntary grade level planning and data
analysis.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Extra support for struggling students is provided at Rivera to all students in
grades K-6. Two full time TOSAs and two half-time TOSAs (who also serve as half
time literacy coaches) work with struggling students. These TOSAs provide reading
and ELD intervention to students during the school day. One TOSA provides two
hours daily of reading remediation to fourteen struggling sixth grade students. To
differentiate instruction based on student instructional levels, grades three through
six each have one high, medium, low core class and one reading intervention class.
The curricula used for fourth through sixth grade struggling readers are Highpoint,
Fast Track, and core supplementary reading materials.
Third grade students are instructed using the Voyager curriculum, and first
and second graders are instructed using a combination of core materials and basic
159
reading skills materials. Two TOSAs work with students in grades one through
three. These two teachers work with small groups of 6-7 students for 45 minutes at a
time. These students are not pulled from their classrooms during core instruction
rather they are pulled during the skills portion of the reading program. Students
identified for small group instruction are identified through various assessments, i.e.
Basic Phonics Skills Test (BPST); Houghton Mifflin (HM) grade leveled reading
passages, initial STAR assessments, and other classroom based informal measures.
Kindergarten classrooms each receive about 45 minutes of daily aide time with the
expectation that 85% of that time is spent working with students. The instructional
aides provide additional reading support to students.
Other in-school intervention components include extra support in the
classrooms using supplementary instructional materials. To support reading and
mathematics instruction, each classroom uses Accelerated Reader and Accelerated
Math, both computer based programs. Accelerated Reader quizzes and keeps track
of student progress in reading comprehension. Accelerated Math reinforces and
tracks mastery of basic math skills. In addition to in-class support, all TOSAs also
provide additional support to struggling students during the ELD instructional time.
Each TOSA has group of low ELD students that she works with.
Currently, (at time of data gathering), Rivera does not have an after school
intervention program for two reasons. The principal has not yet received the final
approval from the district office and he is figuring out how after school intervention
can best serve student needs. During the 2007-08 school year Rivera changed from a
160
multi-track calendar to a single track calendar, forcing the school to redesign its
intervention component. When Rivera was on a multi-track calendar, the school
offered additional support to approximately 320 students. This was done by
extending the school year for struggling students. Struggling students attended
school an additional 40 days. These students attended half day school sessions
during their off track time.
During the 2007-08 school year, Rivera offered after school intervention
classes for students in grades 4-6. The classes were targeted at students falling
within the Below Basic and Basic ranges (CST performance bands are Far Below
Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced). Students either attended a
language arts/writing program, math club, or homework club twice a week from
2:12-3:30pm. There was one class of each after school program per grade level.
Summer school was provided in 2008. Nine classes were formed for grades
1-6 and focused on language arts. Each class had approximately eighteen students
per class and was scheduled for three and half hours per day. The summer school
session lasted four weeks and was designed for students who scored within the Far
Below Basic and Below Basic ranges on reading assessments.
Professional Learning Communities
At Rivera, teachers work in grade levels to analyze data, team, and plan
lessons. Teachers meet during planning days, some Wednesdays, and staff meetings
to discuss student learning. Though there is no formal professional learning
161
community established at Rivera, in terms of using specific protocols, the principal
indicates the teachers work as PLCs because they consistently work collaboratively.
Instructional Leadership
The principal admits “…it all came together” when he began working at
Rivera ES. He has figured out what his school needs and how to address those
needs. He has developed a vision and has mapped out how that vision will become a
reality. His school’s instructional direction and all his actions are propelled by the
vision and what needs to be accomplished.
The principal indicates he was once a “benevolent dictator”; during his tenure
at Rivera ES, he has learned to work collaboratively with the staff. Instructional
decisions are made with grade level feedback. When implementing a new action, he
sets the parameters and depends on his staff to find and implement the instructional
strategies. The principal has found this method is most effective for increasing
teacher buy-in when new programs or instructional strategies are implemented.
Instructional decisions are made in collaboration with the leadership team
and literacy coaches. The literacy coaches and the principal meet twice monthly to
discuss instructional needs and plan professional development. The Leadership team
then provides feedback for instructional decisions. During monthly leadership
meetings, the principal announces the agendas for upcoming staff meetings and the
team discusses and provides input on those topics. In addition, the grade level
leadership representatives discuss grade level concerns and needs and disseminate
information to their colleagues.
162
Additional Strategies
An additional component to Rivera’s success is parent involvement. Rivera
has a Leadership Assistant, whose focus is parental involvement. This leadership
assistant facilitates communication between staff and parents and provides support in
organizing parent/community events. Throughout the year, Rivera hosts several
parenting classes to provide parents with information and resources on how to raise
successful children.
In addition to the parenting classes, Rivera has one morning and two evening
ESL classes per week. Family Nights are held three times per year. Each family
night introduces parents to different language arts and mathematics skills and
provides them with activities/resources for planning at-home educational enrichment
activities. To maintain a rapport with parents, the principal has “Charlas” on a
quarterly basis. “Charlas” are forums where groups of parents come to informally
discuss concerns or ideas.
The principal indicates these parental activities are important components to
student success. As a result of these activities, he has tremendous success during
“Back to School Night” and “Open House”. For Open House 2008, he had 90%
parental participation; he averages about 92% parental attendance at parent-teacher
conferences.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.4 provides an overview of
163
Rivera’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based Model.
Though Rivera does not have the level of resources stipulated in the EBM, many of
the strategies are implemented. Rivera provides instructional coaches, teacher tutors,
and summer school support for its struggling students. It does fund Professional
Development and provides teacher release days for trainings and planning days. In
addition, for student support, it provides counselors, an attendance liaison, school
psychologist, school nurse, a community liaison, and speech teacher.

Table 5.4: Rivera's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
Rivera ES
Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School
configuration
K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in EBM
school vs. 7 grade levels in
ES
School size 432 907
Has 475 more students than
prototypical schools
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count
50% 97%
Has 47% more than the
prototypical schools
Number of ELL
Students
80%
Class Size- K-3 15 25 Has 10 more per class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has 5 more students per
class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
30 Teachers
50 Core Teachers
Currently staffs at 60% of
EBM recommendations
2. Specialist /
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire 10
teachers
164
Table 5.4, continued
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200 students 1.0FTE
4.5 FTE
Need 3.5 FTE
4. Tutors/EL
Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk Students
(Free and Reduced Price
Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
3.0 FTE TOSAs provide
reading and ELD
support.
9 Tutors and 7.25
EL Teachers
Need an additional
13.25 FTEs
6a. Extended Day
Program and
Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a week.
50% of the adjusted FRPL
count; one teacher for
every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes= .3 FTE
per class
0*
50% FRPL= 445
students
30 Teachers= 8.9
FTEs
7. Summer
School Program
and Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged students
Session of eight weeks, six
hours per day, and a class
size of 15 students per 1
teacher
Focus: Language Arts;
3.5 hours per day.
Grades 1-6
18:1 Staffing
2 weeks, 2x in summer
108 students at a time
50% FRPL = 445
students
30 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 12% FRPL
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 FTE licensed professional
for every 100 low income
students or a minimum of 1
FTE for a prototypical
school of 432 students
1.8 FTE Counselors +
2.56 FTE student support
staff= 4.36 FTE
.5 FTE Counselors
and 8.9 FTE of
student support.
Staffing at 46%.
Need additional
5.04 FTEs
17. Administrators 1
1 Principal
1 Assistant Principal
1 Leadership Assistant
1 Principal
1.70 Assistant
Principal
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive
professional development
included in teacher contract
in summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning & Prep
Time
Calculate: $100/pupil for
additional conferences,
consultants, trainings, etc.
37 sub days planned for
the year for grade level
planning. Approximately
6,000 dollars for
collaborative planning
10% of Title I Budget is
used for PD
$90,700

* At time of data collection, no after school program had been organized. In December 2008, the
school organized a 4 week after school program for students in grades 2-6.
165
School #2: FSK Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
FSK Elementary School is a pre-kindergarten through sixth grade school
located within a Southern California Elementary District. The district educates
approximately 19,270 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. FSK ES has
698 students; approximately 73% of the student population is identified as English
Learners and 90% are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. All FSK students are
bussed into the school since the students come from an attendance area that is over
three miles away. Students are bussed into the school to relieve overcrowding in the
attendance area. There are approximately 100 students with Individualized
Education Plans (IEPs). There are seven self-contained special education classrooms
in FSK Elementary School. Consequently, FSK’s accountability measures include a
Special Education subgroup. In addition, Special Education students receive Speech
and Language and/or Resource Specialist Program services.
FSK’s mission is “To become an academic community where students, staff,
and parents work together to create a lifelong love of learning” (SPSA, 2008). FSK
teachers and administrators use the state standards as a guide for instruction and
focus on maintaining a respectful, disciplined, and collaborative environment that
promotes learning and achievement and provides for the needs of the students”
(SPSA, 2008). The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of significant
166
improvement in student learning at FSK Elementary School and identify how the
corresponding resources were allocated.
History of Improvement
FSK’s current principal has been at the school since January 2005. When the
principal first came in 2005 he focused on two areas: stabilizing the school and staff
and building the school culture. In January 2005, FSK was the lowest achieving
school in the district and was a Program Improvement Year 4 school. School
improvement efforts first focused on “fixing it and making it more conducive to
student learning” and on building relationships between the staff. In 2005, FSK had
limited shared leadership, little collaboration existed, and some staff had “outdated
notions” of teaching and learning. Consequently, initial efforts were spent on
improving the school climate, building a positive culture, team building among the
staff, and increasing parent and community involvement. As these areas improved,
the focus shifted more toward increasing achievement gains.
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s No Child Left
Behind Act. Thus, FSK’s school improvement is judged on two different measures.
FSK Elementary School students’ scores have dramatically increased since 1999.
From the 1999-2000 to 2007-08 school years, the Academic Performance Index
(API) has increased two hundred and fifty five points from 487 in 1999 to 742 in
2008. (Refer to Table 5.5 for API scores). Since 1999, FSK’s API scores have
167
annually increased and the school met its API targets in six of nine years. It did not
meet its API targets in 2000, 2001, and 2005.

Table 5.5: FSK’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API
Target
Base
year
503 509 507 532 590 607 616 661 699
Actual API 487 494 492 518 579 597 606 654 694 742

Despite making significant API gains, FSK was a Program Improvement School
from 2002-2008. FSK made AYP in 2007 and 2008. In 2008, it left Program
Improvement Status by exceeding all of its proficiency targets (Refer to Table 5.6 for
AYP Measures).

Table 5.6: FSK’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.25% 37.5%
School wide 5.5% 9.3% 13.1%
No
24.4%
Yes
13.1%
No
23.6%
Yes
18.5%
No
26%
Yes
24.1%
No
34.4%
Yes
33.2%
Yes
41.6%
Yes
39.4%
Yes
52%
Yes
ELs 4.1% 7.6% 11.2%
No
24.2%
Yes
10.6%
No
22.5%
Yes
17.2%
No
26.0%
Yes
24.1%
No
34.4%
Yes
33.2%
Yes
41.6%
Yes
39.4%
Yes
37.0%
Yes
Latino 4.1% 8.6% 11.8%
No
23.6%
Yes
11.7%
No
22.2%
Yes
18%
No
25.7%
Yes
21.5%
No
32.6%
Yes
30.3%
Yes
49.7%
Yes
37.8%
Yes
50.6%
SE 5.4% 9.1% 13.3%
No
24.8%
Yes
11.7%
No
22.1%
Yes
17.5%
No
25.1%
Yes
23.5%
No
32.5%
Yes
33.3%
Yes
41.4%
Yes
37.4%
Yes
50.3%
Yes
Sp Ed 0% 5.4% NA NA NA NA 29.1%
Yes
31.6%
Yes
39.1%
Yes
44.9%
Yes
168
For FSK ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE), and English
Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged population.
During the 2006-07, Special Education became a significant accountability
subgroup; thus Special Education students’ performance on the CST impacts FSK’s
AYP measures.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students
Since January 2005, when the current principal arrived at FSK, the focus has
been to get out of Program Improvement status. That meant increasing the academic
performance of all students to meet the proficiency targets. Now that the school has
gotten out of PI Status, its focus continues to be on increasing the achievement gains
of all students. According the principal, the next logical step is for FSK to set its
sights on becoming a California Distinguished school. It is a multi-year goal that the
staff is keeping their focus on to ensure they continue to implement all of the nine
criteria elements of a successful school. These criteria are:
• Clear and Shared Focus
• High Standards and Expectations
• Effective School Leadership
• High Levels of Collaboration and Communication
• Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Aligned with Standards
• Frequent Monitoring of Teaching and Learning
• Focused Professional Development
169
• Supportive Learning Environment
• High Levels of Community and Parent Involvement
The staff believes in increasing student achievement and educating the whole child
to produce children that can function in life.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
At FSK, all curricula are rigorous and aligned to state standards because they
believe in fidelity to the district adopted materials. All district adopted materials
fulfill the state adopted criteria for the curriculum in Language Arts and
Mathematics. The teachers at FSK have become competent in implementing the
core curriculum. Now that the district shifts toward Standards Based Instruction,
FSK teachers must now become proficient in choosing which components of the
district adopted curriculum support Standards Based Instruction.
For the 2008-09, the district has implemented “Power Standards”. The Power
Standards are a district initiative and were chosen during the 2008 summer through a
district level group composed of administrators, teacher representatives from each
school site, and district level curriculum specialists. These Power Standards form
the core curriculum for each grade level; each student is expected to master his/her
respective grade level power standards. Essentially, all grade level teachers must
focus on these power standards and use the district curriculum to plan lessons and
activities that will enable the students to learn and master the standards. In addition
to teaching the “Power Standards” to mastery, all teachers are expected to cover the
other grade level standards.
170
Because of the change in the district’s focus, FSK’s focus is on teachers
becoming consumers of the adopted curriculum so they are able to “pick and choose”
what is best for teaching the standards. As the shift towards the “Power Standards”
continues, the expectation is for the staff to use the district adopted core curricula
materials and exhaust them before turning to another curriculum.
In addition to teaching the “Power Standards” and using the core curriculum,
the teachers focus on maximizing instruction at all times. All teachers adhere to the
minimum allocation of instructional minutes for English Language Arts,
mathematics, and English Language Development. (See Table 4.14 for instructional
minutes).
According to the district’s memorandum, social science, science, and
visual/performing arts standards are to be integrated within the language arts context
when appropriate (Memorandum, 2007). Because the district has not reconciled the
allocation of core instructional minutes with actual minutes available during in the
school day, especially for first through third grades, there is simply not enough time
to teach all subjects daily. Thus, science and social studies are integrated into the
core curriculum and not taught on a daily basis. According to the principal, science
and social studies are integrated into the core curriculum and the instructional
minutes vary by grade level.
Within the grade levels, curricular consistency is expected. All grade levels
must work together to plan which power standards they will teach and how they will
be assessed. At FSK, the two big constants are fidelity to the curricula and teaching
171
the standards. What is taught in the classrooms is non-negotiable because the
expectation is for the standards to drive instruction. The other component is
negotiable; how the teachers teach is negotiable. According to the principal, effective
teaching can look different; what are important are the outcomes of teaching. Grade
levels are expected to discuss and decide for themselves, with support, what actions
and strategies they need to implement to increase student achievement and come to a
consensus of how they are going to do that. Though the staff has been given with
some autonomy on how they will teach, the staff has decided there are some
universal components to effective teaching: use of the HM sound spelling cards,
reciprocal teaching, student engagement, and high expectations about student
achievement.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
FSK staff is expected to look at data two to three times per month. Data
analysis has been an integral component to FSK’s success for the past two years.
During the 2007-08 school year, the staff received training on how to effectively
utilize data to drive instruction. In their staff development sessions they learned to:
Effectively use data analysis; link daily practices to known data; how to use CST
release items to help with instructional choices; and how to work together as a grade
level to ensure consistency in data (Staff Development Blueprint, 2007). Prior to this
school year, the grade levels analyzed data from the reading curriculum theme skills
tests and inventories.
172
For the 2008-09 school year, the district formulated Benchmark Assessments
for second through sixth grades. This year (2008-09) each grade level meets every
six to eight weeks to discuss Benchmark Assessment data. In addition to benchmark
assessments, grade levels expected to look at interim data, formative assessments
developed by the grade levels, to discuss and drive instruction. FSK’s staff does not
spend an exorbitant amount of time looking at summative data such as CST and
CELDT results. When that data are available they discuss it and may initially group
their students based on those results. With time, they move away from that data and
spend more time on data that provides them with information on how students are
currently progressing and base instructional decisions on that. They continuously
analyze formative assessment data such as classroom assessments, grade level
developed assessments, inventories, and skills tests.
Though the expectation is for all grade levels to collaborate and analyze data,
each grade level is given the autonomy to discuss the data they feel is relevant to
driving instruction and meeting their students’ needs. The principal has not instituted
a specific protocol for data analysis as he indicates he trusts his grade level teams to
do what is needed to increase academic progress and achievement. The staff is
provided with the tools to analyze data but they ultimately decide how their process
will look like.
To ensure results are produced, the principal carefully monitors classroom
data on the district assessment system. He carefully looks at reading skills
173
assessment data for kindergarten and first grade and monitors benchmark assessment
data for grades two through six.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Professional Development at FSK School runs on two levels: school and
grade level. When professional development is school wide, it is focused on district
initiatives. School wide Professional Development for the 2008-09 school year is:
English Language Development; Data Analysis; “Strategic Schooling” with Dennis
Parker; and the use of the Inspect software to assess standards mastery. At the
district level, a new ELD curriculum was adopted for the 2008-09 school year,
“Strategic Schooling” was provided for Program Improvement schools, and the
Inspect Test Making Software was purchased for all schools to use. The principal
looks at the current district initiatives and school needs and plans out the professional
development year. Professional Development is targeted and occurs for small
periods of time, cycles, and is conducted during staff and grade level meetings. All
teachers have one full day of training at the beginning of the school year and for the
rest of the year, their training occurs on staff development Tuesdays.
In addition to the school level Professional Development, grade level PD is
differentiated and occurs during grade level meetings, scheduled “planning days”, or
through the coaching cycle. The philosophy behind grade level professional
development is to go deep and narrow and to differentiate it based on grade level
needs. The need for additional grade level training comes from teachers’ discussions
and their “discovering” of what they need to do to become more effective.
174
To build capacity and promote collaboration, each grade level is allocated
five 1/2 day planning days. The literacy coach facilitates each planning day by
providing the focus for the session, guiding the teacher discussion, and providing
them with support in planning effective instructional strategies to teach their
students. For each grade level planning day, the administrator and coach discuss and
plan how the day will be facilitated based on grade level needs. After the planning
day sessions, the coach provides additional support and resources as needed. She
assists the teachers in “figuring out” curriculum, pulls resources for them, and
conducts demonstration lessons.
Restructure the Learning Environment
FSK School has class size reduction for grades one and two as implemented
by the district. Kindergarten is 33 to 1 and is structured around the traditional three
hour morning and three hour afternoon classroom. At FSK, all kindergarten
classrooms are scheduled in the morning. The district provides a half time teacher to
assist as part of the Kindergarten Class Size Reduction (KCSR) initiative. The KCSR
teacher goes into the three kindergarten classrooms as a “push in” teacher to reduce
the student/teacher ratio for approximately an hour a day for each classroom. In
addition, a Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) provides additional support to
the kindergarten team; this further reduces class size for an additional hour per day
for each teacher. Thus, three kindergarten teachers, one KCSR Teacher, and one
TOSA work with approximately 94 students to reduce the ratio to 18 to 1.
175
Four TOSAs are utilized to bring down class size to 22 to 1 in grades 3-6.
Because of limited space, the TOSA in third grade is a push in teacher (goes into the
classroom to provide additional support). The 4
th
, 5
th
, and 6
th
grade TOSAs serve in a
pull out model and work with small groups of children providing targeting skills
instruction for thirty to forty five minutes at a time. (See Table 5.7 for information on
TOSA use to reduce class size)

Table 5.7: FSK’s use of TOSAs
Program Service Number of
Students
Serviced
Number of
Teachers
Frequency
Third
Grade
8:30-12:00 CSR: 1 TOSA
reduces 3
rd
grade to 22 to 1
in a push-in model
75 1 TOSA and 2
regular teachers
Five days per
week
Fourth
Grade
8:30-10:30 CSR: 1 TOSA
reduces to 22/1 during
flexible groupings
75 1 TOSA, 2 Regular
Teachers, 1 3/4
GATE Teacher
Five days per
week
Fifth
Grade
8:30-10:30 CSR: 1 TOSA
reduces to 22/1 during
flexible groupings
75 1 TOSA, 2 Regular
Teachers, 1 5/6
GATE Teacher
Five days per
week
Sixth
Grade
8:30-10:30 CSR: 1 TOSA
reduces to 22/1 during
flexible groupings
75 1 TOSA, 2 Regular
Teachers, 1 5/6
GATE Teacher
Five days per
week

Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Additional support is provided to FSK students through the targeted use of
TOSAs during the language arts block and after school programs taught by regular
classroom teachers. During the instructional day, extra support is provided during
the language arts block in grades kindergarten and third through sixth grades. TOSAs
176
provide additional support to struggling students either through a push in or pull out
model. TOSAs usually work with about 5-8 students at one time for about 30-45
minutes. The amount of time is dependent on student needs and grade level focus.
For 18 “intensive” students (students that are far below grade level) in grades 4-6, a
core replacement program, Highpoint, is taught from 8:30-10:30. In addition, the
Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher pulls an additional 15 “intensive”
students in grades 4-6 and teaches a core replacement Language Arts program using
core materials and basic skills instruction. Thus, thirty three of the lowest
performing students in grades four through sixth receive intensive Language Arts
instruction in classes with smaller student/teacher ratios for a two hour block.
After the Language Arts block, the Key Club, an intensive intervention
program staffed by the TOSAs, services approximately 40-50 students in grades 1
and 2. The first and second grade students are pulled out four times per week for 35
minute sessions in small groups of 4 to 6. The pull out intervention service occurs
outside of the Language Arts core block from 10:50-12:00pm. As a result, struggling
first and second grade students receive an additional 35 minutes of language arts
targeted instruction.
The kinder intervention program, CORE Plus, occurs from 12:45-2:31 four
days a week. After the morning kindergarten classes end, each kindergarten teacher
spends the afternoon working with a small group of children (approximately 10-12
students) for 90 minutes a day, four times per week. These groups are flexible and
change based on student needs and focus standards. Two kindergarten teachers
177
provide the skills deficit intervention and one teacher provides enrichment for
“challenge” students (students who are mastering grade level standards at a faster
rate). All kindergarten students receive some type of extra support (either
intervention or enrichment) since the teachers rotate the kindergarten groups
throughout the year.
After school programs also provide additional support for struggling students.
The after school intervention program is offered for two sessions: one from mid
October to mid December and the second from late January to mid April. These after
school programs are often created based on teacher interest and student needs. The
principal indicates he only utilizes his teachers in the after school programs to ensure
a high quality intervention program. In order to have a pool of teachers, he is
flexible and allows his teachers to design their after school intervention programs. In
the early part of October 2008, the FSK teachers were surveyed and asked to provide
input on after school program needs. The after school program was developed based
on those needs. As the teachers designed their after school programs they were
asked to systematically address, “Why and how are the students selected? What is
taught? and How is progress assessed?” As a result of teacher input and interest
there are currently eight different intervention programs servicing 134 students in
grades 2 through 6 (See Table 5.8 for after school programs). The intervention
programs run two per week. In addition, 8-10 third grade students receive Language
Arts instruction using the Voyager curriculum. They receive an additional 42
minutes of instruction four times per week.
178
Table 5.8: FSK’s After School Intervention Programs
Grade
Level
Focus Target Students
# of
students
Intervention
minutes per
session
2
Language Arts and
Mathematics Power
Standards
Students falling in on the
Basic band (CST) of
achievement
20 89 minutes
2 Language Arts focus
Intensive to Strategic
students
16 31 minutes
3 Language Arts
Students falling in the
Basic performance band
(CST)
10 31 minutes
4
Language Arts and
Mathematics
Strategic Student (Below
Basic students)
15 118 minutes
4 Language Arts (Basic performance band) 15+ 118 minutes
5
Science (Power
Standards)
Basic performance band 20 118 minutes
5
Science (Power
Standards)
Basic performance band 20 118 minutes
6 Math Operations Intensive Students 15-18 118 minutes

Professional Learning Communities
At FSK, teachers meet by grade levels two to three times per month to
discuss student learning and assessment. Each grade level has autonomy to
determine how they will implement certain initiatives. During the 2008-09 school
year, all grades are expected to use the new ELD curriculum but are allowed to
decide for themselves the timeline for implementation, how the teachers will
organize themselves to deliver instruction, and how students will be grouped for the
delivery of instruction.
179
Instructional Leadership
Instructional decisions at FSK school are both bottom up and top bottom.
School wide curricular decisions are a result of top to bottom initiatives. The
principal takes what the district mandates and implements it throughout all grade
levels. For this current school year, he has implemented “Strategic Schooling”,
Power Standards, and English Language Development (all stemming from district
direction and resources). But, grade level instructional decisions are bottom up. The
principal, vice principal, and coach facilitate discussions and data analysis with
different grade levels so they “figure out” which effective strategies for teaching and
learning they need to implement. Once the grade level determines the direction they
will go in, high teacher support is provided.
Grade level practices are teacher directed because the principal believes it is
important for teachers to “buy into” them so they can efficiently implement them.
Though grade level autonomy is practiced, all grade levels are expected to teach the
standards and have consistency amongst its teachers. Consequently, constant
discussions between the coach, principal, and vice principal occur around how to
provide resources and support to teachers.
At the school site, FSK has two leadership teams. One regular leadership
team is comprised of one grade level representative for each grade level. This
leadership team primarily discusses policy and operational issues. These leadership
representatives also serve on the School Site Council. A second leadership team
focusing on instruction meets monthly to discuss instructional initiatives and provide
180
progress of implementation of strategies. This instructional team gathers staff input
on instructional practices and discusses it at the meetings. School wide instructional
decisions are made based on instructional leadership team input.
Additional Strategies
At FSK School, there is targeted use of resources to provide additional
support for struggling students. The principal utilizes part time TOSAs to provide
this service and leverages his budget to provide maximum teacher and student
support. The majority of the budget is spent on staffing for different programs and
providing release time for teachers. Little money is spent on outside consultants,
with the majority of the training being provided by district level support personnel
such as curriculum specialists to provide assistance to the site.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.9 provides an overview of
FSK’s current resources use along with a comparison to the Evidence Based Model.
Though FSK does not have the level of resources stipulated in the EBM, many of the
strategies are implemented. FSK provides instructional coaches, teacher tutors,
extended day support, and summer school support for its struggling students. It does
fund Professional Development and provides teacher release days for trainings and
planning days. In addition, for student support, it provides a counselor, an attendance
liaison, school psychologist, school nurse, a community liaison, a social worker, and
a speech teacher.
181
Table 5.9: FSK's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
FSK ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School
configuration
K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in EBM
school vs. 7 grade
levels in ES
School size 432 698
Has 475 more students
than prototypical
schools
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count
50% 90.5%%
Has 40.5% more than
the prototypical
schools
Number of ELL
Students
73%
Class Size- K-3 15 25 Has 10 more per class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has 5 more students
per class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
22.5 Teachers
39 Teacher
Currently staffs at
58% of EBM
recommendations
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire 7.7
teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200 students 1.0
3.5 FTE
Need 2.5 FTE
4. Tutors/EL
Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free and
Reduced Price Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
3.15 FTE TOSAs
provide reading
support from 7:45-
12:00am
6 Tutors and 5.1 EL
Teachers
Need an additional
7.95 FTEs
6a. Extended Day
Program and
Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a week.
50% of the adjusted
FRPL count; one teacher
for every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes= .3 FTE
per class
9 Teachers servicing
144 2-6 gr. students
Average of 87 min. a
session 2-3x per week
Average Ratio 17. 5
students per teacher
50% FRPL=314
students
21 Teachers= 6.3 FTEs
Currently provides for
22% of FRPL
182
Table 5.9, continued
7. Summer
School Program
and Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged students
Session of eight weeks,
six hours per day, and a
class size of 15 students
per 1 teacher
Focus: Language Arts
and Math: 6 hours a
day
Grades 1-5
17.5:1 Staffing
1.5 week session for
90 students
50% FRPL= 314
students
21 FTE teachers
Currently provides for
14% FRPL
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 low income students
or a minimum of 1 FTE
for a prototypical school
of 432 students
1.8 FTE Counselors +
2.56 FTE student
support staff= 4.36
FTE
.5 FTE Counselor and
8.9 FTE of student
support. Staffing at
46%. Need additional
5.04 FTEs
17. Administrators 1
1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Principal
.55 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .45
FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive
professional development
included in teacher
contract in summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning & Prep
Time
Calculate: $100/pupil for
additional conferences,
consultants, trainings,
etc.
Each grade level is
allocated five 1/2 day
planning days.
Approximately 10,000
spent on collaborative
planning
$69,800
183
School #3: Horatio Alger Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
Horatio Alger Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade
school located within a Southern California Elementary District. The district
educates approximately 19,270 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade.
Alger ES has 1,358 students and is on a year round calendar. The year round
calendar has students in session throughout the year; the students are divided into
four tracks with differing in-session days (all totaling the required 175 days of
instruction). As a result, a quarter of the student population is always off-track, or
not in session. Approximately 95% of the student population is Latino (higher than
the district proportion) with 84% identified as English Learners and 89% eligible for
free and reduced price lunch. There are approximately 170 students with
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). Alger ES does not have self contained special
education classrooms; the special education students receive Speech and Language
and/or Resource Specialist Program services.
Alger ES’ mission is to “…strive for personal, professional, and academic
excellence while building relationships and honoring our cultural diversity” (SPSA,
2008). Alger ES is dedicated to the education of all students through standards-based
instruction, setting high expectations in a focused standards-based learning
environment, community involvement, collaboration, exchanging, sharing, and
welcoming ideas to develop a community of learning, and innovation (SARC, 2008).
184
The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of significant improvement in
student learning at Alger Elementary School and identify how the corresponding
resources were allocated.
History of Improvement
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s 2001 No Child
Left Behind Act. Thus, Alger’s school improvement is judged on two different
measures. Since 1999, Alger Elementary School’s API has dramatically increased
since 1999. From the 1999-2000 to 2007-08 school years, the API has increased two
hundred and thirty nine points from 442 in 1999 to 681 in 2008 (See Table 5.10 for
API scores). The school has met its API targets in all but two years (2004 and 2007).

Table 5.10: Alger's API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base year 460 494 526 563 625 623 651 678 683
Actual API 442 478 512 550 616 614 643 672 677 681

Despite making significant API gains, under the No Child Left Behind Act
requirements, Alger is on Program Improvement watch. If it does not make AYP in
2009, it will become a Program Improvement school. In 2008, Alger did not meet its
percent proficient school wide, Hispanic/Latino, Socially-Economically
185
Disadvantaged, and English Learner targets in English Language Arts and
Mathematics. (Refer to Table 5.11 for AYP Measures). Since 2003, it has made
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in two of the six years (2006 and 2007).

Table 5.11: Alger’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA* Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.5% 37.5%
School wide 9.7% 18.8% 15.0%
Yes
32.5%
Yes
15.7%
Yes
27.6%
Yes
18.5%
No
34.2%
Yes
26.7%
Yes
38.3%
Yes
30.3%
Yes
32.7%
Yes
30.6%
No
34%
No
ELs 6.2% 16.4% 11.1%
No
30%
Yes
12.2%
No
24.2%
Yes
14.8%
No
31.2%
Yes
23.2%*
Yes
35.2%
Yes
28.5%
Yes
31.8%
Yes
28.2%
No
32.3%
No
Latino 9.1% 18.6% 14.2%
Yes
31.6
Yes%
15.3%
Yes
27.3%
Yes
18.1%
No
33.5%
Yes
26.8%
Yes
38%
Yes
30.4%
Yes
32.9%
Yes
29.6%
No
33.4%
No
SE 9% 17.9% 14.2%
Yes
31.6%
Yes
14.5%
Yes
26.2%
Yes
16.8%
No
32.5%
Yes
25.6%
Yes
37.3%
Yes
29.2%
Yes
32%
Yes
29.3%
No
33.2%
No
*Made AYP through Safe Harbor

For Alger ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE), and English
Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged population.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students
At Alger ES, the goal is to provide children with a Standards Based learning
environment. All instructional practices are driven by this philosophy. Along with
providing standards based education, explicit teaching and mindfully engaging
students are cornerstones to student learning. Teachers are expected to utilize Direct
Interactive Instruction strategies to educate their students. Direct Interactive
186
Instruction involves the following characteristics: knowledge objectives are clearly
and explicitly stated; continuous and intensive interaction and communication
between the teacher and students is evident; instructional communication is pre-
determined; during structured dialogue, teacher wordings and demonstrations are
unambiguous; students participate in a sequence of short, quick paced interactive
exercises; teachers reinforce student learning with explicit procedures; students
receive immediate correctives and feedback from teachers; and a high level of
intensity and orientation for success throughout the lesson is evident(Action
Learning Systems, 2007). In addition, the focus on educating all students is
examined through the EL lens to ensure that all instruction supports EL needs. It is
expected that every student read at grade level, attain basic facts math fluency, write
to grade level proficiency, and attain one level of ELD proficiency by the end of
each school year.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
The California content standards and the California state frameworks are the
foundation on which all practice is based. Teachers are expected to fully know and
understand the content standards. They are trained to be critical consumers of the
curriculum; they learn to choose curricular materials that best teach and support the
learning of a particular standard. Teachers are trained to not only know the power
standards but understand them to the point where they are cognizant of the skills and
cognitive demands (Blooms Taxonomy) of each standard; this deep understanding
enables them to teach students to be proficient in language arts and mathematics.
187
Since there are many content standards and not sufficient time during the
instructional year to teach all standards to mastery, Alger ES worked with an
educational consulting company, Route CST, LLC during the 2006-07 school years
to facilitate the selection of Power Standards for each grade level. Essentially,
“Power Standards” are standards each grade level thinks are critical to student
learning and success. Once the grade level Power Standards were selected, each
grade level mapped the standards they would teach during a two month block. The
school then purchased benchmark assessments from Action Learning Systems (ALS)
that are aligned with the grade level power standards. All students in second through
sixth grades take benchmark assessments every eight to nine weeks. Not only do the
“Power Standards” guide instruction, but each grade level sets monthly goals to
evaluate student learning. These grade level monthly goals are the basis for planning
specific skills instruction, assessing student learning through pre-post measures, and
providing teachers with data on how their students are progressing.
In addition, Alger ES established non-negotiable teaching practices to ensure
each student is instructed in an optimal educational environment and the strategies
used are effective instructional practices (See Table 5.12 for teaching practices).
188
Table 5.12: Alger's Non-Negotiable School Wide Practices
Read at Grade
Level
Basic Facts
Math Fluency
Write to Grade
Level Proficiency
Attain one level
of ELD
proficiency
English Learner
Needs
-Use of district
approved
materials.
-Use of
Accelerated
Reader
-Reading rotations-
Teaming
-Power standards
-Direct Interactive
Instruction
-Thinking Maps
-District
approved
materials.
-Fastt Math
-ST Math
-Power Standards
-Direct
Interactive
Instruction
-Thinking Maps
-Use of
Manipulatives
-Get Ahead
Instructional
Sequence
-Power Standards
-Direct Interactive
Instruction
-Thinking Maps
-Write From the
Beginning (writing
plan)
-District
approved
materials
-ELD – 30 min
daily
-Direct
Interactive
Instruction
-Thinking Maps
Need to explicitly
teach
Content objectives
-Language objectives
-Language
functions/school
language
-Academic
vocabulary
-Language structures

Use Data to Drive Decisions
Data analysis is an integral component to Alger’s school improvement
process. Data analysis occurs at three levels: individual, grade level, and school
wide. Individually, teachers track student progress on pre and post monthly
assessment measures (developed from the monthly grade level goals), formative
classroom assessments, and quarterly benchmark assessments. In grade levels,
teachers monthly (some grade levels may meet more than once) discuss the monthly
goals data from pre and post measures and they quarterly discuss benchmark data.
School wide, the staff meets monthly to discuss school data such as CST data,
CELDT data, and benchmark assessments to determine if they are meeting school
wide proficiency targets and monthly grade level goals.
Within the last three years, Alger’s data analysis has evolved from looking at
school wide data to grade levels regularly analyzing data to drive instruction. During
189
the 2006-07 school year, data analysis began its emergence as an integral component
to Alger’s school improvement process. During that school year, the staff was
trained in DuFour’s Professional Learning Community (PLC) model. Once trained,
the staff had the process and protocols to truly collaborate and begin data analysis. In
2006-07, Alger ES examined the California Standards Test (CST) data to identify
school wide areas of improvement. During the 2007-08 school year, it bought
benchmark assessments from Action Learning Systems (ALS) and the staff was
trained to analyze the data from these assessments.
Benchmark assessments are used for second through sixth grades in
Language Arts and Mathematics and are administered four times per year; which
averages to approximately every eight to nine weeks. Quarterly, all grade levels meet
to discuss benchmark data. All grade levels utilize a specific data analysis protocol
and look at data through two lenses: grade and teacher level. The data analysis
process involves: identifying two standards students were successful in and two
standards they were not so successful in; discussing why or why not they were
successful; discussing the strategies used to teach those standards; and analyzing
whether the strategies were effective. At the end of the discussion, the grade level
teachers develop an action plan to improve the teaching and learning of grade level
standards. Kindergarten and first grade do not have benchmark assessments; they
still meet and analyze data. Kindergarten and first grade teachers analyze data from
the Houghton Mifflin Theme Skills Test (end of unit assessments). Since October
2008, Kindergarten began using the ESGI software, which is a computer based
190
assessment tool to track student progress in learning basic reading and mathematics
skills.
In the 2006-07 school year, Alger’s grade level teachers began setting
monthly SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) grade level
goals and developing pre- and post- assessments to measure student proficiency on
these goals. The grade levels meet monthly to discuss these pre- and post- measures.
For each SMART goal, the grade levels develop a pre- and post-assessment to track
student progress and analyze whether the goal was met. Monthly, the grade levels
meet to discuss student attainment of the goal. They are expected to discuss if their
goal is at a standards level and what else they can do to improve the teaching of that
goal. Once the grade level teachers have an opportunity to meet and discuss the
monthly grade level assessment data, the entire staff meets to discuss all grade
levels’ post-assessment data. The monthly goal data is used to assess and regroup
students for reading skills instruction.
Consequently, Alger’s staff is becoming more proficient in data analysis.
Though the teachers are now more proficient, Alger’s principal indicates the grade
levels are at varying levels of data analysis proficiency. Despite these varying levels,
all teachers partake in the data analysis process on a regular and continual basis.
Most grade levels now discuss some type of data on a weekly basis. The more
proficient teachers are beginning to conduct some formative assessment data analysis
and are regularly looking at student level data. A small number of teachers have
trained their students to track their own data. To keep track of all the assessment
191
data, all teachers have a data wall in their classroom which demonstrates student
growth and progress.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Alger’s instructional focus is to provide a standards based education to all
students. Consequently, all professional development is focused on training teachers
to provide a standards based learning environment for their students. The main
professional development content focus for the 2008-09 school year is,
“Deconstructing the power standards”. The principal wants to ensure that all
teachers not only know the standards but understand which skills and cognitive
levels are needed for students to master them. She believes all students must be
provided with direct instruction to master the standards, hence the key instructional
strategy focus continues to be Direct Interactive Instruction. The purpose for
professional development is to support the teachers so they fully understand the
Power Standards and become more proficient in implementing the instructional
strategies they have been trained in. Within the last five years, Alger ES teachers
have been trained in several strategies (See Table 5.13 for Professional Development
topics).
To provide the extensive training teachers have received, Alger utilizes both
out of district consultants and district level curriculum specialists. It has contracted
consultants to provide the needed trainings in Power Standards, Benchmark
Assessments, and Direct Interactive Instruction. Last year, Alger ES spent
approximately 44,000 dollars in consultant fees and will spend about 30,000 dollars
192
for the 2008-09 school year. Because it added 22 new teachers to its staff, which is
42% of its staff, during the 2007-08 school year, it spent a considerable amount of
money (about $36,000) for thirteen consultant days for Direct Interactive Instruction.

Table 5.13: Alger's Professional Development Topics from 2003-2008
Standards Based
Curriculum and
Assessment
Data Driven Decision
Making
Research Based Strategy
Instruction
Test Prep
Curriculum Mapping
(2004)
Standards Unwrapped
(2006-07)
Power Standards (2007-
08)
Deconstructing the
Standards
(2008-ongoing)
Benchmark Assessments
(2007-now)
Data Driven
Analysis/Accountability
(2007-now)
Reciprocal Teaching (2003-
05)
Skills Instruction-
Direct Interactive
Instruction (2004-ongoing)
Writing Applications (2004-
ongoing)
GLAD (2004-08)
Thinking Maps (2006-
ongoing)
Write From the Beginning
(2007-ongoing)
Mastering the Math Facts
(2007-ongoing)
Bridges to Understanding
(2007-ongoing)
Pam Noli (2003-
04)
UCLA Test
Thinking (2007)
Strategic
Schooling with
Dennis Parker
(2008-ongoing)

The staff receives their trainings through school wide staff development
meetings either through the traditional one hour staff meeting, extended staff
meeting hours, Saturday trainings, grade level meetings, voluntary Wednesday
workshops, PLC model, and the coaching cycle. All teachers are expected to utilize
the strategies they have learned in staff development trainings. Administrators are in
the classrooms often to observe and monitor implementation of teaching strategies
and adherence to the school wide expectations. If administrators observe a teacher
193
needing assistance, they will call in support (either in-school expertise or district
level curriculum specialists) or help the teacher find a resource (training, a book,
another teacher, etc) to overcome that difficulty. The coaching cycle is used
extensively to provide professional development and assistance for teachers.
Restructure the Learning Environment
District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, voluntary workshops and
grade level meetings are held during this time. As such, on many Wednesdays,
teachers can meet to participate in voluntary lesson studies and demonstration
lessons.
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of twenty students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher. Alger
has the traditional morning and afternoon kindergarten classrooms. Each
kindergarten teacher is expected to team for 90 minutes of the day, thus reducing
class size to 16 to 1 during that block. In addition, there is a KCSR teacher who
divides part of her time with the kindergarten classrooms to assist with Universal
Access time (small groups that work at their instructional level) for twenty to thirty
minutes a day, four times a week. During this time, class size is reduced 16 to 1.
194
In addition to the students receiving the minimum allocated minutes in
Language Arts and Mathematics (See Table 4.14 for instructional minutes), all
students receive additional skills instruction in Language Arts and mathematics.
Because Alger saw a drop in mathematics achievement within the last two years,
fifteen minutes per day are allocated toward math skills instruction and remediation.
All teachers focus these minutes on targeting specific basic math skills that students
need to master grade level math standards. In Language Arts, because there is a high
proportion of ELs, 40 minutes (in addition to the core minutes) are allocated toward
Language Arts skills instruction. During this time, students go into their reading
groups and receive targeted instruction and intervention based on their needs.
Different teachers within the grade level (the TOSAs take the lowest groups and
work with them) take a specific group of children and provide targeted instruction.
The monthly grade level goals provide the focus for the lessons and target
skills. Student assessment data indicate how students will be grouped and the
groupings may change on a monthly basis. In addition, the Resource Specialist
teacher has a push-in/collaborative service model for her Special Education students
during the Language Arts block so they do not miss core instruction. Pull out special
education services are generally conducted in the afternoons.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Extra support is provided to struggling students during school, after school,
and during intersession. During the school day, Alger employs two full time
equivalent and two three fourths equivalent Teachers on Special Assignment
195
(TOSAs) who work with kindergarten through sixth grade students identified as
“Intensive” or “Strategic” (students far below grade level) in English Language Arts.
The intervention teachers work with small groups of students throughout the day
with each group consisting of approximately eight students. The intervention groups
are flexible and may change on a monthly basis based on assessment data and
progress toward meeting academic goals. Currently, the TOSAs work with
approximately 136 students per day, four days a week (See Table 5.14 for
information on TOSA support).

Table 5.14: Alger's TOSA Support for Struggling Students
Teacher #1 (1.0 FTE) 4 groups of ELA, kinder PM group, 1 ELD rotation (8
students per group)
Teacher #2* (.5 FTE) 3 groups of ELA (8 students per group)
Teacher #3 (.75 FTE) 4 groups of ELA (8 students per group)
Teacher #4 (.75 FTE) 4 groups of ELA (8 students per group)
* Employed as 1.0 FTE but time is split between direct student intervention and parent education

In addition to the TOSA intervention support, fifty five minutes of the instructional
day (these are minutes in addition to the minimum required core instructional
minutes) are focused on skills instruction. Forty minutes of skills instruction are
allocated toward Language Arts. Students are broken up into grade level groups and
rotate to different teachers to receive targeted instruction based on their needs. Each
196
teacher allocates fifteen minutes to basic math skills instruction to review the skills
students need to master grade level math standards.
Since Alger ES has such a high percentage of English Learners, English
Language Development (ELD) is an instructional focus. During ELD, the “Teaming
Model” is utilized. The “Teaming Model” is when each teacher takes a group of
similar language needs students and provides instruction based on students’ English
proficiency levels. ELD teaming is done for 30-45 minutes a day, four times per
week.
After school support is targeted toward kinder through sixth grade students
struggling in language arts and mathematics. In kindergarten, the lowest eight
performing students receive targeted Language Arts support, one and a half hours per
day, four times per week. For first through sixth grades, after school intervention is
for students who fall within the Below Basic and Basic ranges on assessments, which
are those students who are just below grade level. In first and second grade,
approximately 40 students receive extra support in Language Arts for one hour, three
times per week. Each class has a ratio of eight to ten students per teacher.
In grade three, groups of 8-10 students receive targeted instruction in
Language Arts using the Voyager Reading Program. In grades four through sixth,
approximately 120 students receive Language Arts intervention for one and a half
hours per day, three times per week. Each after school intervention classroom has a
ratio of 15 to 20 students per teacher. Students in fourth through sixth grade also
197
receive additional mathematics support. Currently 100 students receive additional
mathematics support one hour per day, three times per week.
Intersession, additional schooling during the time a student is not in session,
is provided for second through five grade students who fell within the Far Below
Basic and Below Basic ranges on the CST in Language Arts. Each intersession lasts
approximately three weeks and occurs twice a year for each track, (All Alger
students are divided into one of four tracks; each track has two six week “off track”
sessions). Due to the shortage of classroom space, two to three classes of
intersession are conducted. Each intersession class has a ratio of approximately
seventeen students per one teacher. The focus for second and third grade students is
essential language arts skills and basic math facts. In fourth and fifth grade, the
intersession classes focus on reviewing the Power Standards in Language Arts and
Mathematics.
Professional Learning Communities
During the 2006-07 school year, Alger sent its staff to Rick DuFour’s
Professional Development training on Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
Since then, Alger’s staff has worked collaboratively using the PLC model. The staff
believes collaboration is the key to teacher and student success. Grade levels meet
on a regular weekly basis. During the grade level collaboration time, grade levels
analyze assessment data, plan instruction using the power standards, discuss
effective instructional strategies, and discuss how to improve instruction.
198
Instructional Leadership
All school improvement efforts have been developed and based on Alger
ES’s site specific needs. Alger has a high population of low SES and EL students
who historically have not demonstrated high levels of academic achievement in
Language Arts and Math. The force behind Alger’s school improvement initiatives
is to increase the achievement of their student population using specific instructional
strategies such as Direct Interactive Instruction to teach the grade level Power
Standards and to assess student learning through the benchmark and monthly grade
level goal post assessments. Though, the majority of Alger’s school improvement
efforts have been site specific, some district initiatives have been and are currently
used to support Alger’s efforts. During this school year, 2008-09, the district
adopted a new ELD curriculum. This new curriculum is used at Alger to improve
ELD teaching.
At the school site, instructional decisions are based on research and the
results they can produce at the school. When a new program or strategy is proposed
for implementation (this proposal can come from the instructional leader or a
teacher) it is first piloted by a teacher or a small group of teachers. Results of the
pilot program are discussed with the administrator and a decision is made to more
widely implement it at the school. When a decision to implement a new program or
strategy is made, the principal facilitates buy-in from the staff and provides the
necessary support for its successful implementation. According to the instructional
leader, most instructional decisions come about organically. Teacher buy-in and
199
support is first harnessed before a program or strategy is implemented. All decisions
are based on data and what is best for students.
Additional Strategies
An additional instructional strategy for Alger ES is its technology. The
instructional leader earmarks about 30 percent of her categorical budget toward the
upkeep of Alger’s technology and toward finding new technology to support student
learning. During Alger’s school renovation from 2003-2005 the principal ensured
certain technological devices were built into each classroom. Because of these
technological devices, every classroom is a SMART classroom. Each room has
voice enhancement-speakers built into the ceiling, a mounted projector, a mounted
document reader (ELMO), and student computers. First through third grade
classrooms have four computers and fourth through sixth grade classrooms have five
computers. In addition, second through sixth grade classrooms have Quizdom.
Quizdom is a computer program where multiple choice questions can be projected
onto a screen and each student has a remote control to choose the answer. With
Quizdom, the teacher is able to determine who is answering the question correctly
and who is not.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.15 provides an overview
of Alger’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based Model.
Though Alger does not have the level of resources stipulated in the EBM, many of
200
the strategies are implemented. Alger provides instructional coaches, teacher tutors,
and extended day and summer school support for its struggling students. It does
fund Professional Development and provides teacher release days for trainings and
planning days. In addition, for student support, it provides an attendance liaison,
school psychologist, school nurse, a community liaison, and a speech teacher.

Table 5.15: Alger's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
Alger ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School
configuration
K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in
EBM school vs. 7
grade levels in ES
School size 432 1358
Has 926 more
students than
prototypical schools
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count
50% 89%
Has 49% more than
the prototypical
schools
Number of ELL
Students
84%
Class Size- K-3 15 25 Has 10 more per class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has 5 more students
per class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
52 teachers
76 Teachers
Currently staffs at
68% of EBM
recommendations
2. Specialist /
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire
15 teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200 students 1.0
6.8 FTE
Need 5.8 FTEs
4. Tutors/EL
Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free and
Reduced Price Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
4.5 FTE TOSAs work
with students identified as
“Intensive” or “Strategic”
in English Language Arts.
12 Tutors and 11.4
EL Teachers
Need an additional
18.9 FTEs
201
Table 5.15, continued
6a. Extended Day
Program and
Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a week.
50% of the adjusted FRPL
count; one teacher for
every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes= .3 FTE
per class
17 teachers servicing
274 K-6 students
Average of 76 min a
session, 3x per week
Ratio ranges from 8 to
20 students per teacher
50% FRPL= 605
students
40 Teachers=12 FTE
Currently provides
for 23% of FRPL
7. Summer
School Program
and Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged students
Session of eight weeks, six
hours per day, and a class
size of 15 students per 1
teacher
Focus: Language Arts
and Math. 3 hrs per
day
2-5 grades
17:1 Staffing
3 weeks, 2x per year
per track for 34-51
students (depends on
space) at a time
50% FRPL= 605
students
40 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for .04% FRPL
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 FTE licensed
professional for every 100
low income students or a
minimum of 1 FTE for a
prototypical school of 432
students
0 FTE Counselor and
2.45 FTE student
support staff
.7 FTE Counselor
and 12 FTEs of
student support.
Staffing at 20%.
Need additional
10.25 FTEs
17. Administrators 1
1 Principal
2 Vice Principals
1 Principal
2.14 Assistant
Principal
Understaffed by .14
FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive
professional development
included in teacher
contract in summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning & Prep
Time
Calculate: $100/pupil for
additional conferences,
consultants, trainings.
Will spend about
spend about 30,000
dollars for the 2008-09
in consultant fees and
teacher release time
school year.
10% of Title I funds
for PD; 30% of
categorical budget
earmarked for PD
$136,000
202
School #4: Audrey Hepburn Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
Audrey Hepburn Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade
school located within a Southern California Elementary District. The district
educates approximately 19,270 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade.
Hepburn ES has 1,146 students and is on a modified traditional school calendar.
Eighty-five percent of Hepburn’s students are bussed into the school. Students are
bussed into Hepburn for two reasons: to relieve overcrowding in certain city areas
and the school is located in a business/industrial area where many homes are not
built. The students who live in the few nearby homes are split between Hepburn and
another neighboring school.
Since students are bussed into the school from different attendance areas it is
more difficult to build community-school relationships. Major school events, such
as Back to School Night, Parent Teacher Conferences, and Open House, need to
advance planning so parent transportation can be arranged; the school arranges
shuttle transportation from the different neighborhoods to the school site for major
school events.
Approximately 54% of the student population is identified as English Learner
and 100% are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. There are approximately 228
students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). One hundred and eighteen
203
students receive Speech and Language and/or Resource Specialist Program services
and 108 students are in self-contained Special Education classes.
The foundation for Hepburn’s school improvement is the “Hepburn Code of
Behavior”. The Hepburn Code of Behavior was developed during a two year
process by the leadership team and staff. In 2006-07, the staff developed the actual
code for the behavior; in 2007-08, the staff developed the accompanying values. In
its third year of implementation, the “Code of Behavior” has become an all
encompassing expectation for all staff and students. The “Code of Behavior”
includes the following expectations: respectful, responsible manners, having high
expectations for everyone, establishing a positive environment, teamwork
(establishing a culture of “our children” and consensus building), building
everyone’s capacity for leadership, and establishing the importance of families.
Hepburn’s vision is to promote a partnership between home, school, and the
community which creates an environment that provides a positive climate for
learning where all students will reach their fullest potential. Their mission is to
provide appropriate instruction, which will enable all students to progress towards
academic proficiency and develop a love of learning and social responsibility (SPSA,
2008). The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of significant improvement
in student learning at Hepburn Elementary School and identify how the
corresponding resources were allocated.
204
History of Improvement
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s No Child Left
Behind Act. Consequently, Hepburn’s school improvement is judged on two
different measures, meeting API targets and making AYP. Hepburn Elementary
School students’ scores have dramatically increased since 1999. From the 1999-
2000 to 2007-08 school years, the Academic Performance Index (API) has increased
two hundred and thirty nine points from 489 in 1999 to 728 in 2008 (See Table 5.16
for API scores). Since 1999, Hepburn’s API scores have annually increased; the
school has met its API targets in all but one year (2007).

Table 5.16: Hepburn’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base
year
505 546 605 622 670 681 696 720 712
Actual API 489 533 595 613 663 675 691 715 707 728

Hepburn made AYP in 2003 to 2007. In 2008, it met 16 of 17 AYP criteria.
It just missed meeting its English Language proficiency target by .6%. If Hepburn
does not make AYP in 2009, it will become a Program Improvement School (Refer
to Table 5.17 for AYP Measures).
205
For Hepburn ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE), and
English Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged
population.

Table 5.17: Hepburn’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.5% 37.5%
School wide 16.1% 26.7%
26.4%
Yes
30.6%
Yes
26.1%
Yes
32.3%
Yes
31.6%
Yes
34.3%
Yes
33.1%
Yes
42.6%
Yes
36%
Yes
37.3%
Yes
38.4%
Yes
44.8%
Yes
ELs 11.6% 22.7%
22.8%
Yes
27.3%
Yes
21.7%
Yes
29.2%
Yes
27.2%
Yes
31.9%
Yes
28.9%
Yes
39.4%
Yes
32.7%
Yes
35%
Yes
34.6%
No
41.6%
Yes
Latino 13% 23%
24.6%
Yes
29.2%
Yes
24.8%
Yes
30.6%
Yes
28.8%
Yes
32.5%
Yes
30.8%
Yes
40.6%
Yes
33.3%
Yes
36.4%
Yes
35.8%
Yes
43.2%
Yes
SE 13.6% 24.9%
24.3%
Yes
29.4%
Yes
25.3%
Yes
32%
Yes
28.2%
Yes
36.2%
Yes
31.3%
Yes
40.5%
Yes
34.7%
Yes
36.7%
Yes
35.7%
Yes
43.9%
Yes

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students
Hepburn teachers focus on maximizing instruction at all times. All teachers
adhere to the minimum allocation of instructional minutes for English Language
Arts, mathematics, and English Language Development. According to the district’s
Office of Curriculum and Instruction (Memorandum, 2007), each school site must
adhere to a specific minimum allocation of instructional minutes (See Table 4.14 for
instructional minutes). Social science, science, and visual/performing arts standards
are integrated within the language arts context when appropriate. Because the district
has not reconciled the allocation of core instructional minutes with actual minutes
206
available during in the school day, especially for first through third grades, there is
simply not enough time to teach all subjects daily. Thus, science and social studies
are integrated into the core curriculum and not taught on a daily basis. The principal
indicates social studies and science are integrated into ELD. On a weekly basis, the
students receive one and a half hours of science instruction and one and a half hours
of social studies instruction.
At Hepburn Elementary School there is a strong focus on educating all
students. The content focus has been in improving the performance of all students in
English Language Arts. Hepburn is a Reading First school; thus the staff has spent
considerable time on implementing Reading First components:
1. Use of reading assessments for four purposes: screening, diagnosis,
progressing monitoring, and outcome.
2. Use of a common adopted reading/language program for all pupils
enrolled in K-3 classrooms that has the following components:
a. All English/Language Arts Content Standards (i.e., the development
of skills and knowledge within each strand of the standards)
b. Universal access for English learners, students with reading
difficulties, and special education students, with each population
receiving a 30-45 minute daily lesson in addition to and connected
with the basic instruction (if needed)
207
c. Universal access for advanced/accelerated learners with additional
enrichment materials, special assignments, and guidance for teachers
working with these students
d. The provision that teachers have instructional materials to meet the
minimum hours of instruction per day- kindergarten (1 hour) and
grades 1-3 (2.5 hours)
3. Have a comprehensive, on-going professional development program.
4. Have one approved, onsite technical assistance team, i.e. literacy coach.
5. Implement a balanced literacy curriculum which includes the five
components of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic
instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, and phonics,
comprehension, and vocabulary development (California Department of
Education, 2002).
Hepburn has also focused on effectively implementing Universal Access (UA) to
meet student needs. The staff believes UA is an important strategy they can use to
differentiate instruction for their students. In addition, due to the large EL
concentration at Hepburn, teachers also spend considerable time on increasing the
academic vocabulary of students.
To increase the learning of all students, teachers focus and spend much time
in developing strategies and expertise in Language Arts’ Universal Access,
increasing student engagement, and maximizing instructional time. The four goals in
the Single Plan for Student Achievement are in English Language Development,
208
Language Arts, Mathematics, and student attendance. Hepburn ES staff is focused
on high expectations for all students at whatever level they currently are. The focus
is on “catching” students up to grade level and implementing targeted instructional
strategies that are quick, effective, and facilitate effective long term academic
progress for students. According to the principal, in the current age of
accountability, there is a need to academically move students beyond one year.
Struggling students need to catch up and acquire the grade level skills to master the
curriculum; hence, the focus is not on making one year’s progress if the students are
below grade level. The focus is to bring them up to grade level as soon as possible.
The focus on educating all students extends to parents and families. At
Hepburn ES, the staff believes it is important to build the community’s capacity to
meet student needs. There is a commitment to increasing parent-teacher
collaboration and building the capacity of parents so they can support their children
and help them reach their potential. Hepburn has a Parent Involvement Teacher on
Special Assignment (PI TOSA) who plans and/or facilitates parent volunteering,
parent education classes, Action Walks (where parents go into the classrooms to
observe their children during a lesson), Family Literacy and Math Nights, and serves
as the liaison between the staff and parents. Hepburn’s overall goal is for parents to
be true educational partners with the school so children learn and succeed.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
At Hepburn, all curricula are rigorous and aligned to state standards because
they believe in fidelity to the district adopted materials. All district adopted
209
materials fulfill the state adopted criteria for the curriculum in Language Arts,
Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science. Hepburn teachers have become proficient
in implementing the core district adopted curriculum. Now that the district shifts
toward Standards Based Instruction, Hepburn teachers must now become proficient
in choosing which components of the district adopted curriculum support Standards
Based Instruction.
For the 2008-09, the district has implemented “Power Standards”. The Power
Standards are a district initiative and were chosen during the 2008 summer through a
district level group comprised of administrators, teacher representatives from each
school site, and district level curriculum specialists. These Power Standards form
the core curriculum for each grade level; each student is expected to master their
respective grade level power standards. Essentially, the district focus is for all grade
level teachers to concentrate on these power standards and use the district curriculum
to plan lessons and activities that will enable the students to learn and master the
standards. In addition to teaching the “Power Standards” to mastery, all teachers are
expected to cover the other grade level standards. Due to the district’s direction,
Hepburn’s staff is currently delving deep into and developing expertise on the
“Power Standards”.
Because there are high concentrations of students with diverse needs, specific
instructional strategies have become the school’s focus. The school has focused on
increasing its writing instruction, on differentiation to meet student needs, and
effectively utilizing ELD strategies. All these instructional strategies fit into the
210
Reading First Blueprint of effective reading instruction. Hepburn is a Reading First
School and has spent time and resources on implementing the Reading First
practices. Within the Reading First practices, the staff has spent considerable time
on developing Universal Access as strategy to provide differentiation and meet
student needs.
In addition to the curricular strategies and focus of the last three years, in
2007-08, each grade level was asked to formulate essential agreements that captured
their commitment to a providing students with a rigorous, standards based
curriculum. Essentially, the principal provided the overall expectation for the grade
levels and each grade level hammered out how the expectations would look. Each
grade level has essential agreements about norms, learning environment, Universal
Access, and English Language Development.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
School wide data analysis occurs at the beginning of the school year to
discuss California Standards Test (CST) data. Ongoing data analysis occurs during
the biweekly grade level meetings. Each grade level is involved in analyzing data in
two different methods; one structured uniform method facilitated by someone else
(TOSA, Principal, Vice Principal) and the other facilitated and determined by the
grade level. The first data analysis session, which is facilitated by an outside staff
member, centers on setting monthly goals and systematically analyzing assessment
results. These systematic data analysis sessions are Literacy Dialogues and occur
once a month. In the Literacy Dialogues, the grade levels discuss data, set monthly
211
action goals based on assessment results, discuss successful practices, unsuccessful
practices, and what else they can do to increase student achievement. During the
second biweekly grade level meetings, each grade level spends time looking at
student work and progress. The teachers meet and discuss formative assessments
such as classroom tests, skills tests, and inventories. Thereafter they plan lessons
and activities, and share best practices. The content for these grade level meetings is
determined and facilitated by each grade level.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Teacher capacity is developed through the staff meetings, Wednesday
workshops, and grade level meetings. School wide staff meetings are held twice a
month. One staff meeting is devoted to the discussion of an instructional strategy or
topic. During these staff meetings, the coaches or other teachers will present
information that will improve teacher effectiveness and student learning. For the
instructional staff meetings, the “Curriculum Café” model, where teachers listen to a
short presentation and then discuss and delve deeper into the topic, is utilized. In
addition to the monthly instructional staff meetings, Hepburn schedules Wednesday
workshops. These Wednesday workshops are voluntary workshops where teachers
get additional information and support on specific topics. During grade level
meetings, “refresher” professional development is provided where teachers may
review an already discussed or implemented strategy or topic. In addition, at grade
level meetings, teachers receive the support and resources specific to their grade
level needs.
212
Hepburn’s Professional Development is designed to “go deep” and promote
teacher expertise in effective, targeted teaching strategies. When a strategy or topic
is introduced, teachers participate in numerous training opportunities, discuss
implementation during grade level meetings, and refine their knowledge and
implementation through the coaching cycle. Hepburn Elementary School has two
Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA) who serve as literacy coaches and focus on
the coaching cycle, professional development, and modeling lessons.
The majority of Hepburn’s professional development is provided by “in-
house” experts, such as other teachers, the administrators, literacy coaches, or the
district’s curriculum specialists. But, in 2007-08, five consultant training days were
bought to train the Leadership team on Cultural Proficiency. From this training, the
teachers learned about issues related to poverty. The principal felt it was important
for Hepburn’s teachers to understand their students’ culture to bridge the gap
between themselves and the families they serve.
Since 2005, the content focus for Professional Development has been English
Language Arts and meeting EL needs within the ELA curriculum. The principal has
kept Hepburn’s Professional Development focused on effective strategies teachers
can use to meet diverse student needs. Consequently, Hepburn staff has been trained
in: Thinking Maps, Universal Access, and Academic Vocabulary to increase reading
achievement through vocabulary development and comprehension; integrating
English Language Development with Social Studies and Science; utilizing ELD
strategies such as Bridges to Understanding and GLAD strategies; and Writing
213
Strategies (Nancy Fetzer and Supe). For the 2008-09 school year, the staff continues
to receive training and refine their knowledge and practice of Thinking Maps,
Academic Vocabulary, and Universal Access. Hepburn teachers continue to develop
their capacity to implement effective Universal Access during their language arts
block. In addition, the staff is spending time on understanding and learning the
Power Standards, introduced by the district in August 2008.
Restructure the Learning Environment
District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, voluntary workshops are
planned during this time. As such, on Wednesdays, some teachers can meet to
participate in voluntary workshops to increase their instructional proficiency.
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of twenty students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher.
Hepburn has the traditional morning and afternoon kindergarten classrooms. Each
kindergarten teacher is expected to team for 90 minutes of the day, thus reducing
class size to 16 to 1 during that block. In addition, there is a full time kindergarten
TOSA who provides additional instructional support to students using both the push
in/pull out models. The TOSA is 60% push in and spends time in each classroom
214
supporting each teacher’s instruction by working with small flexible groups of
children in English Language Arts. She is 40% “pull out” and works with small
groups of far below basic children.
In grades 1-6, 30 additional minutes (in addition to the core minutes) are
allocated toward Language Arts skills instruction. During this time, students are
provided leveled skills instruction through the Teaming Model. In the Teaming
Model, each grade level teacher takes a specific group of students, divided by skill
level, and provides targeted instruction and intervention specific to student needs.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Hepburn ES provides numerous extended learning opportunities for
struggling students. Hepburn staff use a variety of strategies to address student
learning which include: in-classroom support, in-school intervention, and before and
after school intervention programs. The first support for struggling students is
effective instruction in the classroom. All students receive sound teaching through
the use of effective strategies. Teachers are expected to use effective strategies, such
as Bridges for Understanding for ELD, Thinking Maps to build comprehension and
concept formation, and academic vocabulary instruction. Differentiation of
instruction is implemented during Universal Access (UA) time. All students in
kindergarten through sixth grade receive some differentiated instruction and support
during this time.
In addition to sound teaching strategies and differentiation of UA, students in
first through sixth grades receive an additional 30 minutes of targeted Language Arts
215
skills instruction. Students are divided in reading groups, based on assessment
results. Each grade level teacher takes one level and teaches the needed skills to
those students. In kindergarten, a TOSA provides extra support for students
struggling in language arts. The TOSA pulls out small groups of children (about 4-5
per group) for 30 minute sessions for 40% of the day and is a push in teacher for
60% of the day to provides additional in-class kindergarten support.
For math, there are various supports for students in grades one through sixth.
Second through fourth grade students participate in the ST Math Program. The ST
Math program is a computer program that focuses on teaching students math
problem solving and critical thinking skills. Each second, third, and fourth grade
classroom receives two 45 minute sessions per week in the ST Math Computer Lab.
In addition to the ST Math program, every student in second through sixth grade
spends five minutes a day using the Fastt Math program, which is a progressive skills
based computer program, in their classroom. Fastt Math adjusts itself so the students
receive practice in the math skills they have not yet mastered. School wide, to
promote basic math skills acquisition, Hepburn conducts a monthly facts competition
where first through sixth grade students take a monthly five minute timed test. The
pass rate averages approximately 96% for the different grade levels. All students
who pass the monthly five minute test are entered into the monthly school drawing in
which the big prize is a bike.
Academic support outside of the regular school day is also provided for
struggling students. Hepburn has two types of student intervention programs;
216
interventions that will help the school increase its API (support for below basic and
far below basic students) and interventions that will help the school meet its AYP
targets (support for Basic band performing students).
Intervention support for struggling students in grades K-6 who fall within the
Far Below Basic and Below Basic performance band began November 2008. These
intervention classes focus on the acquisition of basic language arts skills and focus
heavily on phonics instruction. Staff uses ELD support materials, Houghton Mifflin
Extra Support and Re-teaching materials; skills level materials, and focus on re-
teaching the core Language Arts curriculum. These intervention classes occur at the
before the start of the school day, (Hepburn is a late start school and the instructional
day begins at 8:30), are three times per week, and last thirty minutes per session.
A second intervention program targeted toward 4
th
through 6
th
grade students
who fall within the Basic to Proficient ranges on the CST in Language Arts also
began in November 2008. This intervention program takes place twice a week for
1.5 hours per session. Approximately, ninety students participate in this program
with a student-teacher ratio of 15 to 1. The focus for this intervention program is
Language Arts and the curriculum is Read 180, a reading intervention program. All
intervention programs run from November 2008 through May 2009.
In addition, summer school was provided for two weeks in July 2008.
Students attended half a day and the focus was English language Arts. There was
one class per grade level in grades K-5 and the target ratio was 15 to 1. The
217
principal indicates the attendance ratio for summer school was closer to 8-9 students
per teacher.
In addition to the before and after school intervention programs, summer
school, and in-school and in-classroom support, Hepburn teachers in grades 3-6
target specific students in their classrooms. The target students are those who fall
within the Basic to Proficient performance bands on the CST. The teachers are
expected to provide additional support and monitor these throughout the school year
to increase their academic performance. The teachers initially meet with an
administrator to discuss and develop an action plan to increase or maintain these
students’ performance levels. After the initial meeting, they meet an additional three
times throughout the year to provide progress updates on these target students.
During the meetings, the administrator provides input, resources, and ideas on what
to do to support the students’ performance.
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers are expected to work in collaboration and meet with their grade
levels on a biweekly basis. All grade level meetings involve data analysis and
improving instruction. One grade level is devoted to Literacy Dialogues where
monthly action goals are established based on student language arts assessment data.
A second grade level meeting is facilitated by the grade levels and is used to discuss
grade level student needs, concerns, and practice. Because data analysis has become
an integral component to the grade level meetings, teachers are fully aware of what
occurs in each other’s classroom and are accountable to each other. This data
218
transparency allows for true collaboration and ownership of all students. Every
student’s success is the grade level’s responsibility.
Instructional Leadership
Hepburn ES has a leadership team comprised of one instructional assistant,
literacy coach, an office staff member, Parent Involvement TOSA, Principal, Vice
Principals, and two teachers. The principal selected each leadership team member.
She selected them for various reasons: build their capacity for leadership; being an
effective teacher; having different teaching styles and views; and demonstrating
leadership potential. The leadership team is utilized to plan “big picture” actions
such as new programs and strategies and the school’s direction. Often with new
programs and strategies, the principal will take her leadership team and introduce
them to that idea and together they discuss the possibility of implementing it at the
school site. If it is decided the school will implement that particular program or
strategy, a few teachers may be asked to pilot it and provide their feedback on
whether it was effective or worthwhile. The decision to proceed is based on teacher
input and whether it fits with the school’s overall vision and direction.
In addition to the leadership team, Hepburn has grade level chairs that are
utilized to disseminate information to the teachers. The principal meets with the
grade level representatives once a month to discuss any concerns or happenings
within the grade level.
Instructional decisions at Hepburn ES are made in three different ways
depending on the situation and circumstances. When there is a pressing need, the
219
principal will make the decision. When the implementation of a new program or
strategy is being considered, the decision is made in collaboration with the leadership
team. When it involves the implementation of a strategy at the grade level then a
decision is made based on teacher direction and feedback.
Additional Strategies
Important components of Hepburn’s Code of Conduct are teamwork and
families; subsequently, parent involvement is an integral part of Hepburn’s school
improvement. Hepburn administrators work diligently to promote partnerships
between teachers and parents. The school received the Nell Soto Home Visit Grant
that supports the building of home-school connections. This grant has facilitated
teacher home visitations; primary grade teachers conduct six home visits per year
and kindergarten and upper grades conduct nine home visits per year. The purpose
of the home visits is to establish connections with the parents and discuss the
parents’ hopes and dreams for their child and how the teacher and parents will
support each other.
To further promote parent partnerships, the school has a full time Parent
Involvement TOSA who plans parent involvement activities and recruits parents to
volunteer at the school. The PI TOSA plans and facilitates different parent education
activities throughout the year to promote parental understanding of the school’s
expectations and curriculum so they can be true collaborative partners in their child’s
education. One of the most notable parent education opportunities are the Parent
Action Walks. During the Action Walks, parents go into their child’s classroom and
220
observe a lesson with a focus on how their child learns and interacts in the academic
setting. After the Action Walk, the PI TOSA facilitates a discussion with the parents
on how to support their child’s learning. This Action Walk is an important vehicle
for parents to understand, in a practical way, what occurs in the classroom. Every
teacher must participate in two action walks per year.
In addition to the parent involvement component, Hepburn provides
leadership building opportunities for their students. It has several clubs for upper
grade students. It has the K-PAL group, which is a student group that focuses on
conflict resolution and problem solving. It also has the Eco-Kids, which is a student
club focusing on recycling and environmental awareness. The Running Club is a
student club where students run about 3 miles twice a week.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.18 provides an overview
of Hepburn’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based
Model. Though Hepburn does not have the level of resources stipulated in the EBM,
many of the strategies are implemented. Hepburn provides instructional coaches,
teacher tutors, and extended day and summer school support for its struggling
students. It does fund Professional Development and provides teacher release days
for trainings and planning days. In addition, for student support, it provides a school
psychologist, school nurse, a community liaison, and a speech teacher.
221
Table 5.18: Hepburn's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
Alger ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School configuration K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in EBM
school vs. 7 grade
levels in ES
School size 432 1146
Has 714 more students
than prototypical
school
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count
50% 100%
Has 49% more than
the prototypical
schools
Number of ELL
Students
64%
Class Size- K-3 15 25 Has 10 more per class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has 5 more students
per class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
39 teachers
62 Teachers
Currently staffs at
60% of EBM
recommendations
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire
12.5 teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200
students
2.0
5.8 FTE
Need 3.8 FTEs
4. Tutors/EL Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free and
Reduced Price Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
2.0 FTE TOSAs
provide assistance in
reading
11.5 Tutors and 7.3 EL
Teachers
Need an additional
16.8
6a. Extended Day
Program and Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a
week.
50% of the adjusted
FRPL count; one
teacher for every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes = .3
FTE per class
20 teachers servicing
300 K-6 students
API Prog.: 30 min, 3x
a wk
AYP Prog.: 90 min,
2x per week
Ratio 15 students per
teacher
FRPL= 573 students
38.2 Teachers=11.5
FTEs
Currently provides for
26% of FRPL
222
Table 5.18, continued
7. Summer
School Program and
Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged
students
Session of eight
weeks, six hours per
day, and a class size of
15 students per 1
teacher
Focus: Language Arts.
Three hours per day.
K-5 grades
15:1 Staffing
2 weeks for 135
students
FRPL= 573 students
38.2 FTE teachers
Currently provides for
18% FRPL
13. Pupil Support Staff
1 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 low income
students or a minimum
of 1 FTE for a
prototypical school of
432 students
0 FTE Counselor and
3.2 FTE student
support staff
.8 FTE Counselor and
11.5 FTEs of student
support. Staffing at
26%. Need additional
9.1 FTEs
17. Administrators 1
1 Principal
2 Vice Principals
1 Principal
1.65 Assistant
Principal
Overstaffed by .35FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive
professional
development included
in teacher contract in
summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning &
Prep Time
Calculate: $100/pupil
for additional
conferences,
consultants, trainings,
etc.
About 41, 000 used
for PD. 25,000 used
for teacher release
time and stipends to
attend PD; 13,000 for
an external consultant;
and 3,000 on other PD
costs
$112,500
223
School #5: Rosewood Drive Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
Rosewood Drive Elementary School is a K-6 school located in a Southern
California Elementary District. The district educates approximately 19,270 students
in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. Rosewood has 792 students and is on a
modified traditional school calendar. Sixty eight percent of Rosewood’s students are
classified as English Learners (ELs) and 92 percent are eligible for free and reduced
price lunch. There are approximately 60 students with Individualized Educational
Plans (IEPs) and all receive either Speech/Language Services or Resource Specialist
Program (RSP) services. Rosewood does not have any self-contained Special
Education classrooms.
Rosewood’s vision is to ensure that each student will succeed. Its mission is
to provide a safe learning environment in which all students are valued, confident,
and successful critical thinkers. Rosewood staff wants to motivate students so they
become responsible risk-takers and contributing members of society (SPSA, 2008).
The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of significant improvement in
student learning at Rosewood Elementary School and identify how the
corresponding resources were allocated.
History of Improvement
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
224
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s No Child Left
Behind Act. Consequently, Rosewood’s school improvement is judged on two
different measures, meeting API targets and making AYP. Rosewood Elementary
School students’ scores have dramatically increased since 1999. From the 1999-
2000 to 2007-08 school years, the Academic Performance Index (API) has increased
two hundred and thirty four points from 477 in 1999 to 711 in 2008 (See Table 5.19
for API scores). Since 1999, the school has met its API targets in all but one year
(2004).

Table 5.19: Rosewood’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base year 493 525 545 598 623 612 642 670 685
Actual API 477 511 532 587 614 602 634 663 679 711

Since 2003, Rosewood has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in two of
the six years (2003 and 2007). In 2008, Rosewood met 12 of 17 AYP criteria (See
Table 5.20 for AYP measures). It did not make AYP In English Language Arts for
its School wide group and its English Learner, Latino, and Social Economically
Disadvantaged subgroups and in Mathematics in its English Learner and Latino
subgroups. Currently, Rosewood is a Program Improvement Year 2 school. For
Rosewood ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE), and English
Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged population.
225
Table 5.20: Rosewood’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.5% 37.5%
School wide 13.3% 22.8%
17.7%
Yes
24.6%
Yes
15.8%
Yes
21.5%
Yes
24.1%
Yes
25.5%
Yes
26.1%
Yes
31.6%
Yes
30%
Yes
35.1%
Yes
32.2%
No
38.7%
Yes
ELs 10.7% 21.2%
14.4%
Yes
21.1%
Yes
12.7%
No
17.5%
Yes
20.6%
Yes
22.8%
No
21.5%
No
28.3%
Yes
26.9%
Yes
31.9%
Yes
31%
No
36.9%
No
Latino 12.2% 21.5%
17.2%
Yes
23%
Yes
14.7%
Yes
21.1%
Yes
23.5%
Yes
24.3%
Yes
25.1%
Yes
30.6%
Yes
29.6%
Yes
33.5%
Yes
30.1%
No
36.5%
No
SE 13.6% 24.9%
17.2%
Yes
23%
Yes
15.7%
Yes
20.4%
Yes
23.1%
No
24.4%
Yes
24.4%
Yes
30.6%
Yes
27.5%
Yes
32.7%
Yes
30.6%
No
38.5%
Yes

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students
Rosewood staff focuses on maximizing instruction at all times. All teachers
adhere to the minimum allocation of instructional minutes for English Language
Arts, mathematics, and English Language Development (See Table 4.14 for
instructional minutes). Social science, science, and visual/performing arts standards
are to be integrated within the language arts context when appropriate. Because the
district has not reconciled the allocation of core instructional minutes with actual
minutes available during the school day, especially for first through third grades,
there is simply not enough time to teach all subjects daily. Thus, science and social
studies are integrated into the core curriculum and not taught on a daily basis. At
Rosewood, integration of Social Studies and Science occurs throughout all grade
levels and instructional minutes vary between grade levels due to how the curriculum
226
is integrated (See Table 5.21 for information on Social Studies and Science
Instruction).

Table 5.21: Rosewood's Social Studies and Science Instruction
Grade
Level
How does Social Studies and Science Look?
1
st
/2
nd

grades
• Two hours per week for both subjects.
• Integrated into teacher’s curriculum.
3
rd
grade • Integrated into writing.
• About one hour a week for both subjects
4
th
grade • Teachers team for Social Studies and Science
• Students rotate in groups through the different teachers.
• About one half hour per day for either subject (averaging to about one hour
per week per subject).
5
th
grade • Focus is mostly on science and the students receive about two hours per week
of science instruction.
• Social studies are integrated throughout the curriculum.
6
th
grade • Receive about an hour per day in either Science or Social Studies.
• Integrated into curriculum.
• Each teacher takes a topic: ELA, Math, Social Studies/Science and students
rotate through teachers to get enrichment (in addition to core curriculum).

In addition, Rosewood bought additional expository History and Science texts to
supplement the Language Arts curriculum. This was done because the principal
thinks the core ELA curriculum does not sufficiently expose students to expository
texts.
Rosewood’s focus to educate all students lies in the belief that every child
will receive a very explicit instruction that is focused on grade level standards. The
teachers focus on explicitly delivering instruction so students learn. The focus on
227
educating children lies in Rosewood’s refinement of teaching practices and
increasing teacher knowledge of student learning. Rosewood focuses on effectively
implementing Direct Interactive Instruction. Direct Interactive Instruction (DII)
involves the following characteristics: Knowledge objectives are clearly and
explicitly stated; continuous and intensive interaction and communication between
the teacher and students is evident; instructional communication is pre-determined;
during structured dialogue, teacher wordings and demonstrations are unambiguous;
students participate in a sequence of short, quick paced interactive exercises;
teachers reinforce student learning with explicit procedures; students receive
immediate correctives and feedback from teachers; and a high level of intensity and
orientation for success throughout the lesson is evident (Action Learning Systems,
2007).
Rosewood’s philosophy is that a focus on DII will allow students to learn.
The teachers need to consistently think of what the students are learning and how
they will learn it. They focus on what, why, and how they will support student
learning to meet the monthly grade level goals. As time progresses, the expectation
is for the grade levels to set monthly goals that are higher than the last; the teachers
should continually “raise the bar” and increase expectations so students learn and
perform better. Rosewood staff believes it is imperative for their students to receive
explicit instruction in English Language Arts. In addition, they believe academic
language support needs to be integral to language arts and mathematics instruction.
228
The focus on educating all students also extends to parents and families.
There is a commitment at Rosewood ES to increase parent-teacher collaboration and
build the capacity of parents so they can support their children and help them reach
their potential. Rosewood has a Parent Involvement Teacher on Special Assignment
(PI TOSA) who plans and facilitates parent volunteering, parent education classes,
Action Walks (where parents go into the classrooms to observe their children during
a lesson), Family Literacy and Math Nights, and serves as the liaison between the
staff and parents. Rosewood’s overall goal is for parents to be true educational
partners with the school so children learn and succeed.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
The California content standards are the foundation on which all practice is
based on. Teachers are expected to fully know and understand the content standards.
Rosewood teachers are not necessarily expected to have fidelity to the district
adopted curriculum but fidelity to the state standards. The teachers are trained to use
all the materials they can from the core curriculum to support standards based
instruction. They utilize other materials when the core curriculum does not
sufficiently cover the standards. To provide the teachers with additional standards
based materials, Rosewood bought the Standards Plus curriculum, (Learning Plus
Associates), which is a compilation of standards based mini lessons in English
Language Arts and Mathematics. This curriculum is used in conjunction with the
core materials in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
229
Core replacement curricula are not utilized at Rosewood due to the
principal’s hesitancy to “water down” core instruction for struggling students. She
questions whether these materials truly address the standards. Thus, struggling
students receive instruction using the core curriculum and receive additional support
in the areas where they demonstrate learning gaps.
Since there are many content standards and not sufficient time during the
instructional year to teach all standards to mastery, Rosewood ES worked with an
educational consulting company, Route CST, LLC, during the 2007-08 school year
to facilitate the selection of Power Standards for each grade level. The Power
Standards are the standards the grade level teachers think are critical to student
learning and success. Once the grade level power standards were selected, the
teachers mapped out the standards they would teach on a quarterly basis. The school
then purchased benchmark assessments, from Action Learning Systems (ALS) that
are aligned with the grade level power standards. Not only do the Power Standards
guide instruction, but each grade level sets monthly goals to evaluate student
learning. These grade level monthly goals (based on assessment data) are the basis
for planning specific skills instruction, assessing student learning through pre-post
measures, and providing teachers with data on how their students are progressing.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
Data analysis is an integral component to Rosewood’s school improvement
process. Data analysis occurs at three levels: individual, grade level, and school
wide. Individually, teachers track student progress on pre and post monthly
230
assessment measures (developed from the monthly grade level goals), formative
classroom assessments, and quarterly benchmark assessments. In grade levels,
teachers (some grade levels may meet more than once) discuss the monthly goals
data from pre and post measures and they quarterly discuss benchmark data.
Benchmark assessments are used for second through sixth grades in
Language Arts and Mathematics and are administered four times per year; which
averages to approximately every eight to nine weeks. Quarterly, all grade levels meet
to discuss benchmark data. They utilize a specific data analysis protocol and look at
data through two lenses: grade and teacher level. The data analysis protocol is built
around: identifying standards teachers were successful teaching and standards with
which teachers were not as effective; discussing why or why not they were
successful; discussing the strategies used to teach those standards; and analyzing
whether the strategies were effective. The grade levels then develop an action plan
to improve grade level teaching and learning of those standards. Kindergarten and
first grade do not have benchmark assessments; but they still meet and analyze data.
Kindergarten and first grades analyze data from the Houghton Mifflin Theme Skills
Test (end of unit assessments). Recently (October 2008), Kindergarten began using
the ESGI software, which is a computer based assessment tool to track student
progress in learning basic reading and mathematics skills.
This current school year (2008-09), in addition to the benchmark data
analysis, Rosewood’s first through sixth grade teachers, in grade level teams, began
setting monthly goals. The teachers use benchmark data and other formative
231
assessments, to set monthly SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic,
Timely) grade level goals. For each SMART goal, the grade level teachers develop a
pre- and post-assessment to track student progress and analyze whether the goal was
met. Monthly, the grade levels meet to discuss student attainment of the goal. They
are expected to discuss whether their goal is at a standards level and what they need
to do differently to teach that goal. The monthly goal data is used to assess and
regroup students for reading skills instruction.
Rosewood staff also conducts data chats with every fourth, five, and sixth
grade student. Each teacher is expected to discuss with each student how S/he
performed on the California Standards Test (CST) and set goals based on that
performance. The student and teacher discuss what they will each do to ensure the
set goals are met.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Teacher capacity is developed through staff meetings, grade level meetings,
and the coaching cycle. Staff meetings are usually held one time per month and are a
combination of administrative and teacher collaboration and discussion. During staff
meetings, the teachers will break into small groups to discuss topics in depth or go to
other classrooms to see the discussed strategy or topic in action. All Professional
Development is centered around the following topics: Direct Interactive Instruction;
Data Driven Decision Making; Response to Intervention (RTI) and focusing on Tier
I Interventions encompassing sound and effective teaching; Writing; ELL needs;
232
Thinking Maps; and Student Motivation. According to the principal, the mission,
vision, and their commitments drive professional development.
Rosewood ES utilizes external consultants for the bulk of its staff training.
The principal indicates she initially used the district office curriculum specialists but
moved away from utilizing them once their expertise had been exhausted. Now, she
looks to these external consultants to provide “deep” and targeted professional
development.
The principal is working to cultivate expertise within her staff. She has
invested significant sums of money to train her teachers to be experts in specific
instructional strategies. In January 2007, she spent approximately 10,000 dollars to
send seven of her teachers to the “Training of Trainers” in Thinking Maps. These
seven teachers, in turn, have trained the entire Rosewood ES staff and have served as
the experts in implementing Thinking Maps. Similarly, during the 2007-08 school
year, 21,000 dollars were allocated to send four teachers to the Kristina Supe “Get
Ahead” Writing Program and provide consultant support for the teachers. This year,
about 30,000 dollars are allocated to continue to provide consultant time, additional
writing training for teachers, training for trainers, release time for coaching, and
release time for demonstration lessons.
During the 2007-08 school year, after Rosewood’s extensive work with ALS,
the leadership team and staff found that the missing piece to their school
improvement process was instruction and consistently implementing sound
instructional practices across the grade levels. In the current 2008-09 school year,
233
52,000 dollars have been allocated toward buying 26 days of training for Direct
Interactive Instruction (DII). All teachers had one day of training at the beginning of
this current school year. Every teacher then had an opportunity to observe a
demonstration lesson. Currently, each teacher is being observed while S/he conducts
a DII lesson. A coach from ALS works with each teacher to plan a lesson, conduct
it, and then debrief with him/her. At the end of the teacher support, the ALS
consultants will meet with the leadership team to discuss any needed additional
support. The consultants will meet twice more with the administrative and
leadership teams to build their capacity to monitor and guide the implementation of
DII.
In 2006-07, Rosewood’s Leadership team went through a School Leadership
training program, offered through the local county’s Office of Education. The focus
of that training was on collaboration and shared decision making. As the leadership
team worked together and developed their capacity to lead, they saw the connection
between collaboration and data analysis. In 2007-08, Rosewood contracted with
Action Learning Systems (ALS) and purchased benchmark assessments. In 2008-09,
the school not only purchased the assessments but also an accountability coach. The
accountability coach comes to the school to conduct data analysis sessions with
teachers to train them on using data and drive instruction. This accountability coach
works with the administrators and staff in creating SMART goals, monitoring data
analysis protocols, and discussing actions with teachers.
234
Restructure the Learning Environment
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of 20 students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher. As a
result, Rosewood has restructured the kindergarten day to reduce the staffing ratios
(See Table 5.22 for schedules). Each kindergarten class has two start and dismissal
times which allow for an approximate ratio of sixteen students to one teacher for two
blocks of 90 minutes. For half of their kinder day, all students have a ratio of
approximately 16 to 1. During the class size reduction block, the instructional focus
is on language arts, differentiation, and ELD. In addition to the restructured
kindergarten day, a TOSA goes into each classroom for 20 minute segments to
provide additional support and work with small flexible groups of children. Thus,
each kindergarten classroom receives 40 minutes of additional TOSA support, five
days per week.

Table 5.22: Rosewood's Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule
Early Bird Start 7:45am
Late Bird Start 9:54am
Early Bird Dismissal 11:13am
Late Bird Dismissal 2:07pm

District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
235
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, voluntary workshops and
grade level meetings can be held during this time. As such, on many Wednesdays,
teachers can meet and collaborate for voluntary grade level planning and data
analysis.
In first and second grade, thirty additional minutes (in addition to the core
minutes) are allocated toward Language Arts skills instruction. During this time,
students are provided leveled skills instruction through the Teaming Model. In the
Teaming Model, each grade level teacher takes a specific group of students, divided
by skill level, and provides targeted instruction and intervention specific to student
needs. In first grade, a TOSA is part of the language arts teaming to lower the
numbers.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Since Rosewood is diligently working to build every teacher’s capacity to
provide effective instruction, meeting the needs of struggling students is first
addressed during the school day. Teachers are expected to support the learning of
students by providing effective instruction using DII and Universal Access within the
Language Arts block. Rosewood does not utilize Intervention TOSAs, with the
exception of kindergarten, to remediate struggling students; nor does it use the pull-
out model for in-school intervention. Rather its focus is to bring resources into the
classroom to support struggling students and train teachers to meet student needs.
236
The in-classroom support for struggling students looks different across the grade
levels (See Table 5.23 for in-school support).

Table 5.23: Rosewood's In-School Student Support
Grade Level In-School Intervention
Kindergarten TOSA goes into every classroom for twenty minutes in the morning and 20
minutes in the afternoon to work with small, flexible groups of students with a
focus on language arts, five days a week.
First Grade Language Arts teaming for a half hour a day. This half hour is in addition to the
core instruction. Teaming occurs 5x a week. Student groupings are based on Basic
Phonics Skills Test data; groups are reassessed every 4 weeks. Curriculum used is
leveled readers and a focus on skills and ELA content. TOSA is part of the
Language Arts teaming to lower the numbers during this time.
Second
Grade
Language Arts teaming for a half hour a day. This half hour is in addition to the
core instruction. Teaming occurs 5x a week. Student groupings are based on Basic
Phonics Skills Test data; groups are reassessed every 4 weeks. Curriculum used is
leveled readers and a focus on skills and ELA content.
Fifth/Sixth
Grade
Focus is English Language Development. Two TOSAs are part of ELD teaming
and pull out small groups of students for forty minutes, 4 days a week. Each
TOSA works with approximately 7 students per group.
Sixth Grade The sixth grade team provides basic intervention. Students are grouped with
different teachers who work with students at different levels to teach the core ELA
curriculum. The teachers who have students with lower levels skills, which include
RSP students, are provided with additional support. The coach provides support
for the sixth grade teachers. Give additional support for teachers who have lower
levels of students- 2 years below grade level. Includes RSP students in that class.
Use of HM leveled Reading passages to assess.

In addition to the in-classroom teacher support, each classroom is equipped with
various computer programs to support student learning. These programs include:
ELD programs such as Rosetta Stone; and decoding and phonics like ABC World,
Read 180, Starfall, and Reading Counts.
237
Struggling students in second through fourth grade receive additional support
in after school programs that run from September to early May. Though the
intervention program runs continuously, the students are not always the same.
Monthly data is collected and analyzed to determine if the students continue to
require the extra support. Student participation in the after school program may
change on a monthly basis and is dependent on student data. Currently (at time of the
data collection), the after school programs serve 50 struggling students: 8 in second
grade; 14 in third grade; and 28 in fourth grade. The target students for this after
school program are those that fall within the Far Below Basic performance range
(they are significantly below grade level). After school classes are 40 minutes per
session, four days a week. The student teacher ratios for the after school program are
as follows:
• Second grade: 8 to 1
• Third grade: 7 to 1 (2 teachers)
• Fourth grade: Ratio depends on data but there are three teachers who
currently teach. Some groups may have larger numbers depending on the
need. An average ratio is approximately 9 to 1.
The focus for the after school intervention classes is Language Arts. The literacy
coach provides support, resources, and direction for the after school programs.
In mathematics, second through fourth grade students participate in the ST
Math Program. The ST Math program is a computer program that focuses on
teaching students math problem solving and critical thinking skills. Each second,
238
third, and fourth grade classroom receives two 45 minute sessions per week in the ST
Math Computer Lab. Students in grades three through five use Fastt Math, which is a
progressive skills based computer program that provides students practice in basic
math skills. The Fastt Math program is programmed to increase or decrease practice
in specific skills based on student performance.
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers are expected to work in collaboration and meet with their grade
levels three times per month. When teachers meet in their grade level meetings, the
expectation is that 80% of their meetings are focused on student learning and
achievement. One grade level meeting is devoted to data analysis for the grade level
monthly goal. Because the grade level regularly looks at data, all teachers know
what goes on in each other’s classroom.
Instructional Leadership
All instructional decisions are based on site specific needs and are a
reflection of the school’s vision, mission, and its commitments. Rosewood’s
instructional leadership is based on collaboration and shared decision making with
grade level input. Rosewood has a leadership team who works with the
administrative team to make and implement decisions. When there is an
instructional need, the leadership team looks at the vision and mission to guide their
direction. Both the principal and the leadership team work together to make the
vision a reality.
239
Additional Strategies
Rosewood has an additional important component to its school improvement
process, it has a full time Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) whose
responsibility is increasing and facilitating parent involvement. The principal
believes this position is crucial to developing the community relationships needed to
foster true school-home partnerships. The PI TOSA coordinates and facilitates
several parental involvement activities throughout the year: parent education classes
and Action Walks. The PI TOSA conducts classes for groups of parents whose
children perform in the Far Below Basic (FBB) range and helps them understand the
data and what it means to be FBB and prepares them so that they know which
questions to ask during Parent-Teacher conferences and informal conferences with
teachers. In addition, the PI TOSA teaches classes where parents are taught what the
Power Standards really are. The Rosewood leadership team and staff want to build
parent capacity so they feel comfortable and ask questions and question practice.
In addition, Rosewood is a school where communication is considered a
priority. The staff believes it is important to communicate regularly and clearly with
parents. A communication envelope is sent home every Tuesday containing
pertinent school information. Furthermore, the principal believes in regularly
communicating with her staff. Every Friday she provides a motivational
communication to the staff when writing the weekly bulletin. Her weekly
communication revolves around building teachers’ cultural proficiency so they truly
believe all students can learn.
240
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.24 provides an overview
of Rosewood’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based
Model. Though Rosewood does not have the level of resources stipulated in the
EBM, many of the strategies are implemented. Rosewood provides instructional
coaches, teacher tutors, and extended day support for its struggling students. It funds
Professional Development at the level the EBM suggests and provides in-depth
teacher support. In addition, for student support, it provides a counselor, an
attendance liaison, school psychologist, school nurse, and a speech teacher.

Table 5.24: Rosewood's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
FSK ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School
configuration
K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in EBM school
vs. 7 grade levels in ES
School size 432 792
Has 360 more than
prototypical school
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count
50% 92%
Has 42% more FRPL
students
Number of ELL
Students
68%
Class Size- K-3 15 25
Has ten more students per
class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has five more students per
class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
29 teachers
44 Teachers
Currently staffs at 66% of
EBM recommendations
241
Table 5.24, continued
2. Specialist /
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire
9 teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200 students 1.0
5.62 FTE
Need 3.62 FTE
4. Tutors/EL
Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk Students
(Free and Reduced Price
Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
1.08 FTE provides
support to kinder
students in reading
and provide support to
6
th
grade in ELD
7.5 Tutors and 5.4
EL Teachers
Need an additional
11.8 FTEs
6a. Extended Day
Program and
Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a week.
50% of the adjusted FRPL
count; one teacher for every
15;
120 minutes/408 total teacher
minutes= .3 FTE per class
6 teachers servicing
57 students in 2, 3, 4
40 min, 4x a wk
Ratio is 8 students to
1 teacher
FRPL= 376 students
25 Teachers= 7.5
FTES
Currently provides
for 22% FRPL
7. Summer
School Program
and Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged students
Session of eight weeks, six
hours per day, and a class size
of 15 students per 1 teacher
No summer school
due to construction
during 2008
FRPL= 376
25 FTE teacher
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 FTE licensed professional
for every 100 low income
students or a minimum of 1
FTE for a prototypical school
of 432 students
1.2 FTE Counselor +
1.78 FTE student
support staff= 2.98
FTE
.4 FTE Counselor
and 7.5 FTEs of
student support.
Staffing at 38%.
Need additional
4.92 FTEs
17.
Administrators
1
1 Principal
1 Vice Principals
1 Principal
.76 Assistant
Principal
Overstaffed by
.24FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive professional
development included in
teacher contract in summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning & Prep
Time
Calculate: $100/pupil for
additional conferences,
consultants, trainings, etc.
30,000 dollars are
allocated to toward
writing PD-
consultants, coaching,
teacher release time.
52,000 dollars
allocated toward
buying twenty six
days of training for
Direct Interactive
Instruction (DII).
$79,200
242
School #6: Grande Vista Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
Grande Vista Elementary School is a K-6 community school located in a
Southern California Elementary District. It is one of 24 schools in a district that
educates approximately 19,270 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade.
Grande Vista has 773 students and is on a Year Round school calendar. The year
round calendar indicates the school is in session throughout the year; the students are
divided into four tracks with differing in-session days (all totaling the required 180
days of instruction). As a result, a quarter of the student population is always off-
track, or not in session. Seventy four percent of Grande Vista’s students are
classified as English Learners (ELs) and 89 percent are eligible for free and reduced
price lunch. There are approximately 59 students with Individualized Educational
Plans (IEPs) and all receive either Speech/Language Services or Resource Specialist
Program (RSP) services. Grande Vista does not have any self-contained Special
Education classrooms.
Grande Vista’s vision is to be a place where all students are challenged to
learn and achieve their academic goals. Its mission is to empower all students to be
motivated, engaged, and responsible for their academic achievement. The staff is
committed to high expectations, collaboration, and using best practices to ensure that
all students learn and meet grade level standards. In addition, they focus on building
and nurturing partnerships with all stakeholders to help every student reach their full
243
potential and become contributing members in our society (SPSA, 2008). The
purpose of this case study is to tell the story of improvement in student learning at
Grande Vista Elementary School and identify how the corresponding resources were
allocated.
History of Improvement
Grande Vista’s current principal has been at the school since January 2006.
When the principal first came in 2006 he began his focus on building the school
culture and changing it into one where all staff work collaboratively together to
improve student achievement and believe all students can learn. Within the last three
years, the school culture has evolved into one where there is a community of
educators that believe all children can learn. The principal indicates it has been a
struggle to change the school’s culture and he continues to work on this through
instilling team and culture building activities throughout the year. But, Grande Vista
continues to have some of the “only my 20 students” mentality; it is improving as
teachers are working together and becoming more accountable to each other through
data transparency. Consequently, school improvement efforts are spent on
improving the school climate, building a positive culture, and increasing student
achievement.
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s No Child Left
Behind Act. Grande Vista’s school improvement is judged on two different
244
measures, meeting API targets and making AYP. Grande Vista’s Elementary
School’s scores have dramatically increased since 1999. From the 1999-2000 to
2007-08 school years, the Academic Performance Index (API) has increased two
hundred and fifty eight points from 423 in 1999 to 691 in 2008 (See Table 5.25 for
API scores). Since 1999, the school has met its API targets in all but one year (2006).

Table 5.25: Grande Vista’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base year 442 508 534 589 619 629 667 670 682
Actual API 423 493 520 578 609 620 660 663 676 691

Since 2003, Grande Vista has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in one
of the six years (2005). In 2008, Grande Vista met 9 of 17 AYP criteria. It did not
meet its ELA and Math targets in its School wide group and English Learner, Social
Economically Disadvantaged, and Latino subgroups. Currently, Grande Vista is a
Program Improvement Year 2 school. (See Table 5.26 for AYP measures).
For Grande Vista ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE),
and English Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged
population.
245
Table 5.26: Grande Vista’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.5% 37.5%
School wide 10.9% 21.1%
14.4%
Yes
25.6%
Yes
15.1%
Yes
26%
Yes
23%
Yes*
34.8%
Yes
23.7%
No
32.5%
Yes
26.8%
Yes
29.6%
Yes
30.4%
No
29.7%
No
ELs 8.1% 19.9%
12%
No
23%
Yes
10.8%
No
24%
Yes
18.2%
Yes*
32.6%
Yes
17.5%
No
28.3%
Yes
22.4%
No
27.9%
Yes
26.3%
No
27.3%
No
Latino 8.7% 19.4%
11.8%
No
23.1%
Yes
14.1%
Yes
25.5%
Yes
21.7%
Yes*
34.2%
Yes
22%
No
31.4%
Yes
25.8%
Yes
29%
Yes
29.5%
No
28.6%
No
SE 9.3% 20.3%
9.3%
No
20.3%
Yes
11.9%
No
23.5%
Yes
22%
Yes*
34.2%
Yes
20%
No
29.3%
Yes
22.4%
No
27.9%
Yes
26.3%
No
27.3%
No
*Made AYP through the Safe Harbor Provision

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students
At Grande Vista, the instructional focus has been in English Language Arts
and providing English Language Development Support. Grande Vista’s focus on
educating all students lies in its commitment to following the Reading First
guidelines even though it is not an “official” Reading First school. Kinder through
third grades follow the Reading First Guidelines which asks for the use of a common
adopted reading/language program for all pupils enrolled in K-3 classrooms that has
the following components:
a. All English/Language Arts Content Standards (i.e., the development of
skills and knowledge within each strand of the standards).
b. Universal access for English learners, students with reading difficulties,
and special education students, with each population receiving a 30-45
246
minute daily lesson in addition to and connected with the basic instruction
(if needed).
c. Universal access for advanced/accelerated learners with additional
enrichment materials, special assignments, and guidance for teachers
working with these students.
d. The provision that teachers have instructional materials to meet the
minimum hours of instruction per day- kindergarten (1 hour) and grades
1-3 (2.5 hours).
e. Have a comprehensive, on-going professional development program.
f. Have one approved, onsite technical assistance team, i.e. literacy coach.
g. Implement a balanced literacy curriculum which includes the five
components of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic
instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, and phonics,
comprehension, and vocabulary development (California Department of
Education, 2002).
Though fourth through sixth grades are not following all of the Reading First
guidelines, there is a commitment to implement “focus walls” to support language
arts instruction. Focus walls are interactive learning walls where instructional
strategies, academic vocabulary, and theme phonics lessons, are posted in one area
for student reference and support. At Grande Vista, there is a focus on having
fidelity to the curricular program for purposes of establishing a common language
247
between grade levels and enabling collaboration. There is a uniform school wide
schedule where all grade levels teach the same subjects at the same time.
The focus on educating all students also lies in the school’s focus on grade
level collaboration and consistency. The expectation is that there will be equality in
instructional quality between classrooms; all children need to have quality
instruction wherever they are and wherever they go within the school. There is also
an expectation for teacher collaboration and having a uniform instructional schedule
facilitates that and allows for this instructional consistency. Due to the increased
level of collaboration all teachers are focusing on the same standards and use similar
instructional methodologies.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
Within the last three years, a strategic approach to teaching the standards has
been followed. The first impetus was to train the staff to utilize the district adopted
curriculum so that students received a strong foundation in reading. All district
adopted materials fulfill the state criteria for the curriculum in Language Arts and
Mathematics. Once the teachers at Grande Vista learned to implement the core
curriculum, they then identified which standards were taught in the curriculum and
received training in utilizing instructional strategies that support and enhance the
core curriculum. Now that the district shifts toward Standards Based Instruction, the
teachers are learning to choose which components of the district adopted curriculum
support Standards Based Instruction.
248
For the 2008-09, the district implemented Power Standards. The Power
Standards are a district initiative and were chosen during the 2008 summer through a
district level group composed of administrators, teacher representatives from each
school site, and district level curriculum specialists. These Power Standards form
the core curriculum for each grade level; each student is expected to master his/her
respective grade level power standards. Essentially, all grade level teachers must
focus on these power standards and use the district curriculum to plan lessons and
activities that will enable the students to learn and master the standards. In addition
to teaching the Power Standards to mastery, all teachers are expected to cover the
other grade level standards.
Because of the change in the district’s focus, Grande Vista’s leadership team
is currently working with teachers to train them to become consumers of the adopted
curriculum so they are able to “pick and choose” what is best for teaching the
standards. As the shift towards the Power Standards continues, the expectation is for
the staff to use the district adopted core curricula to teach the standards.
In addition to teaching the “Power Standards” and using the core curriculum,
the teachers focus on maximizing instruction at all times. All teachers adhere to the
required minimum allocation of instructional minutes for English Language Arts,
mathematics, and English Language Development. (See Table 4.14 for instructional
minutes). According to the district’s memorandum, social science, science, and
visual/performing arts standards are to be integrated within the language arts context
when appropriate (Memorandum, 2007). Because the district has not reconciled the
249
allocation of core instructional minutes with actual minutes available during in the
school day, especially for first through third grades, there is simply not enough time
to teach all subjects daily. Thus, science and social studies are integrated into the
core curriculum and not taught on a daily basis. At Grande Vista, integration of
Social Studies and Science occurs throughout all grade levels and instructional
minutes vary between grade levels due to how the curriculum is integrated.
As the Grande Vista staff has learned to work collaboratively and discuss
instructional best practices, they have devised essential agreements about what
should be evident in all K-6 classrooms on any given day. These essential
agreements are reflective of the district’s expectations, the school’s Single Plan for
Student Achievement (SPSA), and the Reading First guidelines. The essential
agreements cover the areas of instruction, classroom management, room
environment, and student work on display. The instructional components include:
• Full implementation of adopted Language Arts (Houghton Mifflin) and
Math (Houghton Mifflin) programs.
• Lessons plans are accessible; standards based, and reflect appropriate
instructional minutes.
• Morning instructional block is dedicated to Language Arts and Math.
• Evidence of rigor and intensity (direct instruction).
• Evidence that assessment data is used to guide instruction.
• Evidence of differentiated instruction that focuses on grade level
standards.
250
• Evidence of strategies designed to meet the needs of all students during
Universal Access time.
• Evidence of daily systematic explicit ELD and SDAIE throughout the
day.
• Evidence of Thinking Maps used across the curriculum.
• Evidence of the writing process.
• Teacher working with students (Curriculum and Instruction Classroom
Checklist, 2008).
Though the staff has discussed these instructional expectations, the principal
indicates this is not an exhaustive list and they need still need to go further in
distinguishing school criteria and implementing the expectations.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
At Grande Vista, data analysis has become a regular practice. At the school
level, data drives instruction. CST data and formative assessments are discussed
school wide. The leadership team looks at data and bases their instructional decisions
on what they see; they especially look at EL data to make decisions on instructional
programs. The principal looks at how curriculum addresses student needs and what
teachers need to support the core program and student learning. The leadership team
uses data to guide Professional Development. Data that is examined at the school
level is CST data and formative assessments.
In 2006-07, the leadership team received training through the local county’s
Office of Education. This School Leadership Training provided the leadership team
251
with the essentials on how to implement and conduct data analysis at the school site.
Since then, the principal and the leadership team have consistently used data to make
decisions. The leadership team has spent the last two years, training staff in data
analysis. Data analysis became a commonplace practice last year. During the 2007-
08 school year, the administrators prompted data discussion with questions regarding
the Houghton Mifflin Theme Skills Tests and Math Chapter Tests. The
administrators set the focus for the monthly grade level data discussions and the
literacy coaches visited with the different grade levels and helped facilitate the data
meetings.
For the 2008-09 school year, the district has formulated and adopted uniform
Benchmark Assessments in Language Arts and Mathematics for second through
sixth grades. These benchmark assessments are aligned to the district’s Power
Standards and are administered every six to eight weeks. Because the Benchmark
Assessments are a new district practice, Grande Vista’s staff has not yet used these
assessments for data analysis. According to the principal, “…We are trying to figure
out the Benchmarks and are waiting for the third benchmark to start analyzing the
results” (Personal Communication, 2008). Because the school is transitioning from
the previous core program’s Theme Skills Assessments to the Benchmark
Assessments, second through sixth grade teachers do not yet have a formal measure
of data analysis. The teachers are still learning the benchmark assessments. The
literacy coaches have taken a proactive approach and have instituted strategies to
analyze individual student data. They currently facilitate data discussions and use
252
curriculum based assessments, classroom assessments, checklists, reading
inventories to facilitate data discussions with the grade levels.
According to the principal, most of the staff is still in the late beginning stage
of data analysis. The teachers regularly look at data but they are not yet regularly
using it to guide instruction. Some of the more proficient grade levels are developing
monthly pre and post formative assessments to guide instruction. Currently, the
principal indicates data is 50% transparent in that all teachers are aware of how all
the students are performing on assessments. Data is now used as the primary
indicator to recommend students for intervention or extra support services. In the
past, within the last two years, a student’s participation in extra support services was
based on teacher judgment.
In addition to the monthly grade level meetings, the grade levels are in the
process of learning to develop and implement SMART goals. These monthly
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) grade level goals are
expected to drive instruction. With the SMART goals, pre- and post-assessments are
developed to track student progress and analyze whether the grade level goal was
met.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Teacher capacity is developed through the staff meetings, grade level
meetings, and through release time. Because the school is on a year round calendar,
they sometimes can utilize teachers’ off track time to train a specific group. School
wide staff meetings are held twice a month. One staff meeting per month is devoted
253
to the discussion of an instructional strategy or topic. Sometimes, extended day
trainings that go until 5:30-6:30 will be utilized when discussing new strategies or
programs that will be implemented. During these staff meetings, the coaches, an
administrator, or other teachers will present information that improves teacher
effectiveness. Currently, many of the instructional staff meetings focus on team
building to promote increased collaboration and Professional Learning Communities.
Grade level meetings are scheduled two times per month. During the grade
level meetings, teachers receive support and training specific to their needs. The
grade levels have a pre-determined topic for one meeting and during that meeting
they are required to look at data and analyze it. The teachers within the grade level
determine the topic for the second grade level meeting. In addition to the biweekly
grade level meetings, each grade level gets two full planning days per year. These
planning days are facilitated by a literacy coach and revolve around planning
instruction for the trimester and discussing which standards and strategies will be
used to teach the students.
Grande Vista’s Professional Development is designed to promote teacher
expertise in effective, targeted teaching strategies. The Professional Development
focus has been on providing teacher support through the introduction of instructional
best practices; the goal is to increase teacher capacity. When a strategy or topic is
introduced, teachers participate in training opportunities, discuss implementation
during grade level meetings, and refine their knowledge and implementation through
the coaching cycle. Grande Vista Elementary School has two Teachers on Special
254
Assignment (TOSA) who serve as literacy coaches and focus on the coaching cycle,
professional development, and modeling lessons.
Since 2006, the content focus for Professional Development has been English
Language Arts and meeting EL needs within the ELA curriculum. Grande Vista
staff has been trained in: Thinking Maps, effective English Language Development,
Bridges to Understanding, Direct Instruction; and conducting Lesson Studies to
increase student learning. The staff has also been trained in the 40 Development
Assets to build student capacity. During the 2006-07 school year, specific staff
members belonging to the leadership team were trained in School Leadership and
Professional Learning Communities. Currently (2008-09 school year), the staff is
spending time on understanding and learning the Power Standards and Benchmark
Assessments. For the 2009-10 school year, the staff will begin implementation of a
new writing program called “Write from the Beginning” which is the Thinking Map
writing program. Also, the principal will look further into increasing teaching
capacity in mathematics instruction.
The majority of Grande Vista’s professional development is provided by “in-
house” experts, such as other teachers, the administrators, literacy coaches, or the
district’s curriculum specialists. According to the principal, 85 percent of
professional development is conducted by in-house experts. As such, the bulk of the
PD budget is spent on teacher release time and stipends for the teachers to participate
in training such as the coaching cycle, off hour trainings, or planning days.
255
When introducing new programs or strategies into the school, the principal
does invest to build teacher capacity. When implementing Thinking Maps, he sent
teachers to the “Training of Trainers”, which cost $1,500 per teacher, to develop on-
site expertise. For the 2008-09 school year, he allocated 6,000 dollars for four
teachers to attend the “Training for Trainers” for the Write from the Beginning
program. These teachers will train the rest of the staff and serve as the on-site
experts for this program when it is implemented during the 2009-10 school year.
Restructure the Learning Environment
District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, teachers can schedule
their grade level meetings during this time. As such, on Wednesdays, some teachers
can meet to collaborate and work together to increase student learning.
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of 20 students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher.
Grande Vista has the traditional morning and afternoon kindergarten classrooms.
Each kindergarten teacher is expected to team for 90 minutes of the day, thus
reducing class size to 16 to 1 during that block.
256
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Support for struggling students is provided through in-school and after school
interventions. Grande Vista has one full time Teacher on Special Assignment
(TOSA) who works with struggling students in first and second grades and a half
time TOSA who works with third grade and newcomer (recent immigrants) students.
Each TOSA works with small groups of students throughout the day and sees each
one for approximately 30 minutes a day, 4 times per week (See Table 5.27 for TOSA
use). The student groups are flexible and change every trimester based on reading
assessment data. Approximately 116 struggling students (when the TOSA groups are
filled to capacity) receive extra support.

Table 5.27: Grande Vista's TOSA Use during the Instructional Day
Grade Level Length of Sessions, times per
week, students in group
Curriculum and students targeted
TOSA #1-
Grades 1, 2
30 minutes, 4x per week.
6-8 students per groups; has 7
groups per day.
SIPPs program. Works with intensive (far
below grade level) students. Uses fluency
criteria and teacher recommendation to choose
target students.
TOSA #2-
Grades 3 and
Newcomers
Newcomer groups: 30 minutes
per day, 4x per week.
3
rd
grade: 45 minutes per day,
4x per week.
6-10 students in a group and
serves six groups per day.
SIPPs and Voyager for 45 minutes for third
grade groups.

Works with Far Below Basic and Below Basic
students. Reading fluency, reading
comprehension scores, and teacher
recommendation to choose target students.

After school intervention is provided for approximately 75 struggling
students in fourth through sixth grades. This particular program targets students who
257
perform within the Far Below Basic and Below Basic ranges in language arts. There
is one class per grade level with a ratio of 25 to 1. This program occurs three times
per week and lasts 90 minutes per session. A second after school program, targets 80
students who fall within the Far Below Basic ranges in language arts and
mathematics in third through sixth grades. There is one class per grade level with a
ratio of 20 to 1. The focus for this intervention program is language arts and
mathematics. The teachers focus on one subject per month.
Intersession, additional schooling during the time a student is not in session,
is provided for second through sixth grade students who fell within the Far Below
Basic and Below Basic ranges on the CST in Language Arts. Each intersession lasts
approximately three weeks and occurs twice a year for each track; each class has a
student/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. The intersession program lasts three hours a day, 5
times per week.
Professional Learning Communities
A major focus at Grande Vista is implementing a collaborative culture where
all staff believes students can learn. In 2006-07, the leadership team received School
Leadership Training which provided them with the tools to implement Professional
Learning Communities within the school. PLCs have been introduced to the staff
and the leadership team is working to ensure they are a common, uniform practice at
the school. Though teachers are required to meet in grade level teams twice a month,
the principal indicates PLCs are still in the beginning phases of implementation.
But, they are beginning to evolve and grow as the teachers become more proficient
258
in data analysis. As the teachers meet and analyze data on a monthly basis, they
become more accountable to each other and this primes them for being more
collaborative. The teachers are beginning to look at assessment results and realize
that what they do impacts student performance on the assessments. As teacher
accountability increases, more collaboration ensues. The leadership representatives
are also holding themselves more accountable as leaders because they have realized
they impact what occurs at their grade levels; they are beginning to understand that
they are equally responsible for facilitating and supporting their grade level’s
performance.
Instructional Leadership
Grande Vista has a leadership team which is composed of grade level
representatives, two coaches, and administrators. The leadership team meets once a
month to discuss curriculum and instruction. Curricular decisions are based on data
and school needs. Often, the principal introduces new programs and strategies
during the leadership team and a discussion ensues on whether to implement it. The
principal is the lead for introducing new instructional topics or issues. Decisions are
made in concert with staff input and leadership team recommendations.
When making an instructional decision, the leadership team makes sure that
what they implement builds a common language across all grade levels. The
instructional team ensures there is a school wide consistency to what they do and
implement. Thus, instructional decisions are made with the leadership team, are
259
based on data and site needs, and are based on the level of support available to
effectively implement the improvement strategy.
When an instructional strategy or program is considered for implementation
at Grande Vista, several factors are considered: does it fit with the school’s needs, is
there support available to ensure effective implementation; and is there evidence of
effectiveness in other sites? The principal looks at other school sites and the district
office for support and evidence of effectiveness. If there is evidence of effectiveness
elsewhere, the team examines it to determine the feasibility of implementing the
instructional improvement strategy. If limited support is available, the school does
not go forward with it. Often, when new strategies are chosen for implementation,
the principal chooses a district endorsed strategy to increase staff buy-in and prime
the environment so the transition is easier. The principal states it is difficult for the
staff to argue against a strategy endorsed by the district.
Additional Strategies
Another key strategy at Grande Vista Elementary School is parent
involvement. The administrative team is working to increase parental participation
at school. A six hour Community Liaison, a classified person, facilitates and
organizes parent education opportunities such as parenting classes, workshops,
family literacy nights, classes on nutrition. Every year, the school runs a ten week
parenting session that is facilitated through outside community mental health
organizations. In addition, the Community Liaison assists with the Parent Teacher
Association and works with the administrators to make it more independent and self-
260
sufficient. Though these actions have increased parental involvement, the principal
indicates that day to day parent presence is still low; he would like to see a higher
average of participation. His goal is to have one hundred percent participation for
key school events such as Open House, Back to School Night, and Parent
Conferences.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.28 provides an overview
of Grande Vista’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based
Model. Though Grande Vista does not have the level of resources stipulated in the
EBM, many of the strategies are implemented. Rosewood provides instructional
coaches, teacher tutors, extended day and intersession support for its struggling
students. It provides professional development and teacher release days for PD. In
addition, for student support, it provides an attendance liaison, school psychologist,
school nurse, and a speech teacher.
261
Table 5.28: Grande Vista's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
FSK ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School
configuration
K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in EBM
school vs. 7 grade levels
in ES
School size 432 773
Has 341 more students
than prototypical school
Free and
Reduced Lunch
Count
50% 89% 49% more FRPL
Number of ELL
Students
74%
Class Size- K-3 15 25
Has ten more students
per K-3 class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has five more students
per 4-6 grade class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
26.5 Teachers
43 Teachers
Currently staffs at 62%
of EBM
recommendations
2. Specialist /
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire 8.5
teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200 students 2.0
3.96 FTE
Need 1.96 FTE
4. Tutors/EL
Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free and
Reduced Price Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
2.0 TOSAs work with
1-3 grades and
newcomer students in
language arts
6.9 Tutors and 5.7 EL
Teachers
Need an additional 10.6
FTEs
6a. Extended
Day Program and
Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a week.
50% of the adjusted FRPL
count; one teacher for
every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes= .3 FTE
per class
7 teachers servicing
155 students in 3-6 gr.
Average of 75 min, 3x
a week
Ratio: 22.5 students
per teacher
FRPL= 344 students
23 Teachers=6.9 FTEs
Currently provides for
less than 1% FRPL
262
Table 5.28, continued
7. Summer
School Program
and Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged students
Session of eight weeks,
six hours per day, and a
class size of 15 students
per 1 teacher
Focus: Language Arts.
3 hours a day
Grades 3-6
20:1 Staffing
3 weeks, 2x per year
per track for 80
students at a time
FRPL= 344 students
23 FTE teachers
Currently provides for
12% FRPL
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 FTE licensed
professional for every 100
low income students or a
minimum of 1 FTE for a
prototypical school of 432
students
0 FTE Counselor and
1.9 FTE student
support staff
44 FTE Counselor and
6.9 FTE of student
support. Staffing at 26%.
Need additional 5.44
FTEs
17.
Administrators
1
1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Principal
.8 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .2FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive
professional development
included in teacher
contract in summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning & Prep
Time
Calculate: $100/pupil for
additional conferences,
consultants, trainings
Most of the PD budget
is spent on teacher
release time and
stipends.
10% of Title 1 budget
earmarked for PD.
16,000 will be spent
on PD
$77,300
263
School #7: XYZ Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
XYZ Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school located
within a Southern California Elementary District. The school is one of 24
elementary schools in a district that educates approximately 19,270 students in pre-
kindergarten through sixth grade. XYZ ES has 908 students and is on a year round
calendar.
The year round calendar has students in session throughout the year; the
students are divided into four tracks with differing in-session days (all totaling 175
days of instruction). As a result, a quarter of the student population is always off-
track, or not in session. Approximately 71% of the student population is identified
as English Learners and 89% are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. There are
approximately 127 students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). There are
two self-contained Special Education classrooms, one preschool and one
kindergarten classroom who together serve 31 students. The other 96 Special
Education students either receive Speech and Language and/or Resource Specialist
Program services.
XYZ’s mission is to create a caring and safe learning community where all
members are life-long learners with high expectations. The staff builds a strong
academic and social foundation that promotes critical thinking skills and the
appreciation of diversity, encouraging self-expression and embracing technological
264
advancement for the success of their students (SPSA, 2008). The purpose of this case
study is to tell the story of improvement in student learning at XYZ Elementary
School and identify how the corresponding resources were allocated.
History of Improvement
The current principal at XYZ Elementary School is in his fourth year at the
school. During his four year tenure, the school’s modernization was completed and
the school was able to go off its staggered schedule. (The staggered schedule is
where two classes are housed in one classroom and have two beginning and ending
sessions, 7:45am-1:15am and 10:30am-4:00pm. The staggered session was
implemented because there were not sufficient classrooms to house all students). In
addition, the school leadership team participated in the School Leadership Training
provided by the local county’s Office of Education. During that training, the team
identified the school’s values and gained the tools to facilitate the launching of the
school’s vision, mission, and accompanying values. As a result, the staff is working
together to improve student academic performance and increase their capacity to
effectively teach diverse learners.
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s No Child Left
Behind Act. Consequently, XYZ’s school improvement is judged on two different
measures, meeting API targets and making AYP. XYZ Elementary School scores
have dramatically increased since 1999. From the 1999-2000 to 2007-08 school
265
years, the Academic Performance Index (API) has increased two hundred and
seventy five points from 428 in 1999 to 703 in 2008 (See Table 5.29 for API scores).
Since 1999, the school has met its API targets in all but two years (2006 and 2007).

Table 5.29: XYZ’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base year 447 487 509 543 620 642 677 676 672
Actual API 428 470 494 529 610 634 671 669 665 703

Since 2003, XYZ has met all of the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria in one
of six years (2004). It has always met its school wide and Latino subgroup
proficiency targets for Language Arts and Mathematics but has struggled to meet the
Language Arts proficiency targets for its English Learner and Social Economically
Disadvantaged subgroups. In 2008, XYZ met 16 of 17 AYP criteria; it did not meet
the proficiency criteria for English Learners. Currently, XYZ ES is a Program
Improvement Year 3 school. (See Table 5.30 for AYP measures).
For XYZ ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE), and
English Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged
population.
266
Table 5.30: XYZ’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.5% 37.5%
School wide 7.9% 16.3%
14.9%
Yes
31.2%
Yes
16.2%
Yes
28.7%
Yes
23.7%
Yes*
39.4%
Yes
25%
Yes
35.5%
Yes
24.5%
Yes
31.3%
Yes
30.6%
Yes*
39.7%
Yes
Latino 7.8% 16.2%
14.6%
Yes
30.4%
Yes
16.2%
Yes
28.6%
Yes
23.3%
Yes*
38.8%
Yes
24.8%
Yes
34.9%
24.2%
Yes**
27.9%
Yes
30.7%
Yes*
39.5%
SE 7.5% 15.7%
14.9%
Yes
30.8%
Yes
15.1%
Yes
27.6%
Yes
22.5%
Yes*
38.7%
Yes
23.6%
No
34%
Yes
23.6%
No
30%
Yes
29.6%
Yes*
38.9%
Yes
EL 6.2% 14.1%
13.3%
No
29.8%
Yes
14.1%
Yes
27.6%
Yes
19.9%
No
37.3%
Yes
23.1%
No
33.9%
Yes
22.3%
No
30.2%
Yes
28%
No
39.5%
Yes
*Made AYP through the Safe Harbor Provision
** Made AYP through a 2 Year Average Calculation

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Focus on Educating All Students:
XYZ ES’ focus on educating all students is reflected in its instructional focus
to increase the students’ reading achievement by implementing the following
practices:
• Providing standards based instructional materials.
• Assessing and analyzing the assessment results on an ongoing basis to
guide instruction.
• Providing teachers with effective English Language Development (ELD)
strategies such as Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) and the
Focused Approach toward ELD.
• Implementing research-based instructional strategies such as Reciprocal
Teaching and Thinking Maps.
267
• Applying various instructional support systems in the classroom such as
Accelerated Reader.
The focus on educating all students is driven by the principal’s “…constant
discontent with the immediate present” (Personal communication, 2008). In other
words, student achievement can be better than it is now. The focus is on a
continuous improvement in instructional strategies so students learn, and in
identifying those students who are not responding to instruction so that it changes
and improves.
At XYZ, goal setting drives instruction. Goal setting is involved at all levels:
school wide, grade level, classroom level, and student level. The school has: pre-set
goals that are reflective of federal and state criteria and site needs; grade level
monthly interim goals that support the school’s goals; classroom goals that enable
the achievement of the grade level goals; and student yearly goals to support their
learning. The staff believes goals are integral for school improvement and
demonstrating academic progress. At the beginning of the school year, each teacher
spoke with each individual student about his/her performance on the state
assessments; together they set learning goals in Language Arts and Mathematics to
support the student’s learning. To track progress toward these goals, each classroom
has a progress goal chart.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
At XYZ ES, the staff uses the district adopted core curriculum, the Houghton
Mifflin Language Arts and Mathematics programs. All district adopted curricula are
268
reflective of the state standards and contain the academic rigor stipulated in the state
frameworks. XYZ’s focus is to use their core curricula, make it better, and
implement it more effectively. The staff focuses on utilizing curricula that reflect
best practices and implementing effective teaching strategies that increase student
learning. Increasing the rigor and having a strong language arts program is reflected
in the school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) goals.
Establishing high expectations for student achievement and teacher
performance is part of the XYZ’s mission statement; each classroom has the mission
statement posted as a reminder for all to stay true to the school’s goals. Common
XYZ practices are: high expectations among students and teachers; academic
progress of each student is closely monitored; persistent support is provided for those
who need assistance; and students apply problem solving skills in all academic areas.
In addition, XYZ staff are expected to implement three universals to increase the
academic rigor: writing samples and the writing process must be evident for every
student; Thinking Maps must be used to support the teaching of the curriculum; and
some phase of Direct Instruction must be present during whole group lessons such as
explicit presentation of the skill and/or concept; guided practice; and independent
practice. To monitor student progress, all classrooms have data charts that indicate
how students are performing in the core academic areas.
For the 2008-09 school year, XYZ is focusing on Power Standards and using
them to guide instruction. The Power Standards are a district initiative and were
chosen during the 2008 summer through a district level group composed of
269
administrators, teacher representatives from each school site, and district level
curriculum specialists. These Power Standards form the core curriculum for each
grade level; each student is expected to master his/her respective grade level power
standards. Essentially, all grade level teachers must focus on these power standards
and use the district curriculum to plan lessons and activities that will enable the
students to learn and master the standards. In addition to teaching the “Power
Standards” to mastery, all teachers are expected to cover the other grade level
standards. XYZ staff is using these Power Standards or the skills embedded within
them to set the monthly grade level SMART (Strategic, Measureable, Attainable,
Realistic, Timely) goals which drive instruction and ensure students are learning and
progressing toward mastery of the standards.
When planning instruction based on the Power Standards, teachers and staff
focus on three essential questions:
• What do we want students to learn?
• How do we know they have learned it?
• How do we respond when they are not learning?
They look at the essential skills within the Power Standards to guide instruction and
focus on three guiding elements to plan instruction: endurance of the concepts and
skills; leverage; and application on tests. They use frequent checking for
understanding, collaborative data conferences, and sharing of strategies to ensure
students receive the instruction to be academically successful.
270
In addition to teaching the “Power Standards”, the teachers focus on
maximizing instruction at all times. All teachers adhere to the minimum allocation of
instructional minutes for English Language Arts, mathematics, and English
Language Development (See Table 4.14 for instructional minutes). In addition to the
minimum allocation of instructional minutes in Language Arts, XYZ ES provides an
additional 45 minutes of reading instruction for K-6 students. These additional 45
minutes are used for reading rotations to provide additional targeted instruction in
basic reading skills. Social science and visual/performing arts standards are
sometimes integrated within the language arts context when appropriate. At XYZ,
the staff is asked to teach science separately. Kindergarten through sixth grade
teachers plan for two science lessons a week for a total of 90 minutes. For social
studies, the staff may teach the subject separately or integrate it into Language Arts.
Kindergarten through third grade students receive approximately 60 minutes of
social studies instruction and fourth through sixth grade students receive
approximately 135 minutes per week.
Use Data to Drive Decisions
Data analysis is an integral component to XYZ’s push for instructional
improvement. During the 2006-07 school year, the leadership team was trained in
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and the importance of analyzing data to
drive instruction. In 2007, data analysis was facilitated with the implementation of
PLCs. Currently, each grade level meets monthly to discuss formative assessments.
These formative data analysis sessions center on the monthly SMART grade level
271
goals and whether the students met the goals. These sessions are facilitated by the
grade level leadership team representative. The formative assessments are common
grade level assessments that measure a specific skill or standard and are reflective of
the monthly grade level Power Standards. According to the principal, these data
analysis sessions are not quite at the point where the data is driving instruction.
Rather, data analysis is still at the “sharing ideas phase”. The teachers discuss the
strategies and lessons they feel worked for teaching a particular standard or skill.
But, progress has been made since the staff regularly meets to discuss data.
Summative data analysis occurs four times per year per grade level and is
facilitated by the literacy coach and principal. These summative data analysis
sessions occur during the grade level planning days (two hour sessions). These data
sessions are centered on common assessments (formative or benchmark assessments)
and best practices.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Teacher capacity is developed through the staff meetings, grade level
meetings, four yearly grade level planning days, and the coaching cycle. School
wide staff meetings are held twice a month. One staff meeting per month is devoted
to the discussion of an instructional strategy or topic. During these staff meetings, the
coaches, an administrator, or other teachers present information that improves
teacher effectiveness and student learning.
Grade level meetings are scheduled two times per month. During the grade
level meetings, teachers receive support and training specific to their needs. The
272
grade levels have one pre-determined grade level meeting topic per month. Data
analysis is conducted during this meeting. The leadership team representative
generates the agenda, leads the discussion, celebrates, and facilitates the setting of
grade level goals. The second grade level meeting is facilitated by the teachers and
the meeting topics are generated by them. In addition to the biweekly grade level
meetings, each grade level gets four two hour planning days per year. These
planning days are facilitated by a literacy coach and principal and are centered on
data analysis, common assessments, and sharing of best practices. Additional
support is provided to the teachers through the coaching cycle. XYZ ES has two
literacy coaches, one full time equivalent who works with the primary grades and a
three quarters equivalent who works with the upper grades.
For staff development, XYZ ES has used in-house site experts such as the
literacy coaches, administrators, teachers, and district office Curriculum Specialists.
Since 2006-07, the teachers have been trained in Thinking Maps, Academic
Vocabulary, ELD strategies, Power Standards and Writing Instruction (Supe
strategies). As such, the bulk of Professional Development expenditures,
approximately 15, 000 dollars for the current school year, will be spent on substitutes
for teacher release time to participate in the various professional development
opportunities.
Restructure the Learning Environment
District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
273
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, voluntary grade level
meetings can be held during this time. As such, teachers can meet to participate in
voluntary grade level meetings or collaboration.
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of 20 students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of 33 students per teacher. As a result,
XYZ has restructured the kindergarten day to reduce the class size. Each
kindergarten class has two start and dismissal times which allow for an approximate
ratio of 16 students to one teacher for two blocks of one 108 instructional minutes
(See Table 5.31 for schedule). For approximately half of the kinder day, the
kindergarten classrooms have a ratio of 16 to 1. During the class size reduction
block, the instructional focus is on language arts and ELD.

Table 5.31: XYZ's Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule
Early Bird Start 8:30am
Late Bird Start 10:18am
Early Bird Dismissal 12:04pm
Late Bird Dismissal 2:17pm
274
In addition to the students receiving the district required minutes in Language
Arts, K-6 students receive an additional 45 minutes of skills instruction in Language
Arts. During this time, students are grouped into reading groups and receive targeted
instruction and intervention based on their basic reading skills needs. Different
teachers within the grade level take a specific group of children and provide targeted
instruction. The reading groups are flexible and change on a monthly basis based on
monthly assessment data.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Support for struggling students is provided through in-school intervention,
after school intervention, intersession, and Supplementary Educational Services
(SES). In-school Language Arts intervention for students are provided for all K-6
students through the Teaming Model. All students receive an additional 45 minutes
of Language Arts skills instruction, in addition to the core required minutes.
Students are placed in similar skills reading groups and each teacher within the grade
level takes one group to provide targeted skills instruction. The reading rotation
groups are flexible and may change monthly based on assessment data. In addition,
far below grade level students are provided additional in-school support through a
pull-out intervention program called the Learning Academy. Three full time
Resource Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) run the Learning Academy and
provide additional support for these struggling students. Participating students are
pulled for this small group instruction (about 7 per group) for 45 minutes a day, 4x
per week. At least 20 of the lowest performing students in each grade level
275
participate in the Learning Academy. Currently, there are approximately 240
students that receive these intensive Language Arts intervention services. A few
participating students may move in and out of the Learning Academy program on a
monthly basis depending on assessment data and whether they have made sufficient
academic progress.
In mathematics, all fourth and fifth grade students participate in the ST Math
Program. The ST Math program is a computer program that focuses on teaching
students math problem solving and critical thinking skills. Each fourth and fifth
grade classroom receives two 45 minute sessions per week in the ST Math Computer
Lab. In addition, first through sixth grade students participate in monthly math
quizzes that test basic math skills. A basic computational skill is targeted during the
month so that the grade level achieves an 80% pass rate; once they achieve the pass
rate they move on to another skill.
After school support is provided for students in kindergarten, first, and third
grade. Two teachers in kindergarten and two teachers in first grade conduct
individual and/or small group Title 1 tutoring with 22 struggling students. In
kindergarten, each student receives five hours of tutoring per week. In first grade,
each student receives two hours of tutoring per week. Third grade students receive
40 minutes of Mathematics instruction, 4 days per week. Forty eight students are
serviced year round through this program. Because of the year round schedule there
are approximately 30 students in the Math Passport program at any given time. Two
teachers teach this program; the ratio is 15 students to one teacher. According to the
276
principal, there is little movement of students in and out of the Math Passport
program. Participating students generally stay in the program for the duration of the
intervention within one school year.
Intersession, additional schooling during the time a student is not in session,
is provided for second through sixth grade far below grade level students. Each
intersession lasts approximately two weeks for a total of 30 hours per session and
occurs three times per year for each track. There is one intervention classroom per
grade level and each classroom has a ratio of fifteen students for every teacher. The
intersession program runs from July-May.
Because XYZ ES is a Program Improvement school, over 200 students
participate in Supplementary Educational Services (SES). Supplementary
Educational Services are additional academic support interventions that are provided
by outside tutoring agencies at district expense. Students scoring Far Below Basic
(FBB) or Below Basic (BB) in Language Arts or Mathematics who attend Program
Improvement schools are eligible for these services. XYZ held a provider fair in
September 2008 where the parents browsed and asked questions of the different
providers. According to the principal, teachers have indicated these services are
effective and have made a difference in students’ performance. But, their
effectiveness has not been measured in any systematic method.
Professional Learning Communities
The leadership team learned about PLCs during the SLT training in 2006-07.
They read some Rick DuFour books that defined the PLC. During the 2007-08
277
school year, XYZ implemented the PLC model at the school site. Teachers meet
biweekly to analyze data, share practices, and discuss common assessments. One
teacher meeting is facilitated by a leadership team representative and is run like a
PLC. During these PLC meetings, the teachers collaborate and set monthly grade
level goals to guide instruction.
Instructional Leadership
XYZ has a leadership team comprised of the literacy coaches, administrators,
and one representative for each grade level. During the 2006-07 school year, the
leadership team participated in a five day School Leadership Training, conducted by
the local county’s Office of Education. During that training, the leadership team
learned about PLCs and formulated the school’s vision, mission, and values. After
this training, the leadership team acquired the tools to effectively work with the staff
and administration. The leadership team members facilitate the grade level meetings
and serve as the liaisons between the administration and the staff. The leadership
team meets once a month to discuss instructional issues.
XYZ ES’ instructional improvement ideas and strategies often result from
district initiatives such as School Leadership Training (SLT) and the implementation
of Dennis Parker Strategies. Occasionally, some instructional improvement ideas
come from the literacy coaches. The leadership team decides how the new
instructional improvement strategy will fit with what they are currently doing. They
discuss and figure out how to include the new strategy so that it becomes an
enhancement and support to their current work. The school’s long term goals set the
278
direction; decisions are based on these goals and whether the new initiatives fit into
what the leadership team is trying to accomplish. The leadership team decides the
means of implementation and helps facilitate it within the grade levels.
Additional Strategies
XYZ ES has additional instructional improvement strategies. The school
employs a full time Community Liaison, a classified person, whose main duty is to
facilitate and promote parental involvement at the site. XYZ ES hosts a variety of
parental involvement activities throughout the year such as parenting classes, parent
workshops, and Family Literacy and Math Nights. The school organizes one Family
Math Night and one Pajama Reading Night per year to provide parents with
educational strategies to support their child’s learning at home. Different parent
presentations such as the STAR presentation are organized throughout the year.
Monthly PTA meetings are conducted where guest city speakers are invited to share
city or community information. In addition, XYZ ES contracts with outside mental
health or parent education agencies to conduct two sessions of parenting classes
(which last about 10 weeks per session) per year. It also has two on-site ESL and
Family Literacy classes and one parent computer class per week. These classes are
organized and run by the county’s local community college district and occur on
different days from Monday through Thursday.
To foster communication with the parents and the community, the principal
sends out monthly newsletters that provide information on school events and
practices. Monthly grade level newsletters are sent out to parents to provide
279
additional information on their child’s education. These monthly newsletters contain
information on the focus standards for the month, sample California Standards Test
Language Arts and Mathematics questions, and information on grade level events.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.32 provides an overview
of XYZ’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based Model.
Though XYZ does not have the level of resources stipulated in the EBM, many of
the strategies are implemented. XYZ provides instructional coaches, teacher tutors,
extended day and intersession support for its struggling students. It provides
professional development and teacher release days for PD. In addition, for student
support, it provides an attendance liaison, community liaison, school psychologist,
school nurse, and a speech teacher.
280
Table 5.32: XYZ's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
FSK ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to
EBM
School
configuration
K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in
EBM school vs. 7
grade levels in ES
School size 432 908
Free and
Reduced Lunch
Count
50% 89%
Has 49% more
FRPL
Number of ELL
Students
71%
Class Size- K-3 15 25
Has ten more
students per K-3
class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has five more
students per 4-6
class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per:
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
31 Teachers
50 Teachers
Currently staffs at
62% of EBM
recommendations
2. Specialist /
Electiv
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to
hire 10 teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200 students 1.75
4.5 FTE
Need 2.75 FTE
4. Tutors/EL
Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk Students
(Free and Reduced Price
Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
3.0 FTE TOSAs provide
support for these
struggling students in
reading.
8.1 Tutors and 6.4
EL Teachers
Need an additional
11.5 FTEs
6a. Extended
Day Program
and Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a week.
50% of the adjusted FRPL
count; one teacher for every
15;
120 minutes/408 total teacher
minutes= .3 FTE per class
4 teacher servicing 52
students in K, 1, 3
193 minutes per week
Ratio of 13 students to 1
teacher
FRPL= 404
students
27 Teachers=8.1
FTEs
Currently provides
for less than 1%
FRPL
281
Table 5.32, continued
7. Summer
School Program
and Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged students
Session of eight weeks, six
hours per day, and a class size
of 15 students per 1 teacher
Focus: Language Arts. 3
hours a day.
Grades 2-6
15:1 Staffing
2 weeks, 3x per year for
90 students at a time.
FRPL= 404
students
27 FTE teachers
Currently provides
for 11% FRPL
13. Pupil
Support Staff
1 FTE licensed professional
for every 100 low income
students or a minimum of 1
FTE for a prototypical school
of 432 students
0 FTE Counselor and 3.2
FTE student support staff
.5 FTE Counselor
and 8 FTEs of
student support
staff. Staffing at
37%. Need
additional 5.3
FTEs
17.
Administrators
1
1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Leadership Assistant
1 Principal
1.10 Assistant
Principal
Overstaffed by
.90FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive professional
development included in
teacher contract in summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning & Prep
Time
Calculate: $100/pupil for
additional conferences,
consultants, trainings, etc.
Each grade level
provided with four 2
hours planning days a
year.
PD costs are
approximately 15, 000
dollars for the current
school year for teacher
release time for PD.
$90,000
282
School #8: Venezia Elementary School
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
Background Information
Venezia Elementary School is a K-6 community school located in a
Southern California Elementary District. It is one of 24 schools in a district that
educates approximately 19,270 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade.
Venezia ES has 708 students and is on a Modified traditional school calendar. Eighty
percent of Venezia’s students are classified as English Learners (ELs) and 89 percent
are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. There are approximately 105 students
with Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs). Venezia has one kindergarten, one
primary (1-3), and one upper (4-6) grade Special Day Classroom.
Venezia’s vision is that everyone deserves the opportunity to grow with
dignity and has the desire to achieve, improve and reach their potential. The staff’s
focus is on all children learning to read by grade three, so they can read to learn in
grades four through six. The entire staff works together to provide the students a
safe, supportive, learning environment. The staff is committed to providing a
challenging; standards based curriculum and instruction which develops knowledge
and skills in Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History/Social Science.
Their primary goal is student learning and achievement. (SPSA, 2008). The purpose
of this case study is to tell the story of improvement in student learning at Venezia
Elementary School and identify how the corresponding resources were allocated.
283
History of Improvement
Venezia’s current principal has been at the school since April 2007. When
the principal first came in 2007 she wanted to build the trust of the staff and cull the
effective strategies that were in place at the school site. She felt it was first important
to communicate the expectation of what are acceptable outcomes for the students.
Once that was accomplished, it was necessary to improve research based
instructional strategies that have a direct outcome on student achievement. During
the 2007-08 school year, the staff spent time building instructional cohesiveness and
having conversations on what actions are necessary to increase student achievement.
All California schools have two accountability measures, the Academic
Performance Index (API) from California’s 1999 Public School’s Accountability Act
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from the federal government’s No Child Left
Behind Act. Consequently, Venezia’s school improvement is judged on two
different measures, meeting API targets and making AYP. Venezia Elementary
School’s scores have dramatically increased since 1999. From the 1999-2000 to
2007-08 school years, the Academic Performance Index (API) has increased three
hundred and twenty three points from 438 in 1999 to 761 in 2008 (See Table 5.33 for
API scores). Since 1999, the school has met its API targets in all but one year (2004).

Table 5.33: Venezia’s API Scores from 1999-2008
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Target Base year 456 516 558 603 631 621 677 685 709
Actual API 438 501 545 593 622 612 670 679 704 761
284
Since 2003, Venezia has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in three of
the six years (See Table 5.41 for AYP measures). In 2008, Venezia met 17 of 17
AYP criteria. Though Venezia did not make AYP in 2003, 2004, 2005, it was never
classified a Program Improvement (PI) school. Prior to 2005, PI status for Title 1
schools that were identified as Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) was determined
by the SED (Socially Economically Disadvantaged) subgroup. In 2004, Venezia
made AYP for the SED group and for PI purposes it did not miss AYP for two years
in a row; it was saved from entering PI status (See Table 5.34 for AYP).
For Venezia ES, its Latino, Socially Economically Disadvantaged (SE), and
English Learner (EL) subgroups comprise the majority of the school aged
population.

Table 5.34: Venezia’s Adequate Yearly Progress
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Proficiency
Target for
ELA/Math
Base
Year
13.6% 16.0% 13.6% 16.0% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 24.4% 26.5% 35.5% 37.5%
School wide 14.0% 16.0%
16.6%
Yes
34.3%
Yes
14.1%
Yes
31%
Yes
22.2%
Yes*
46.5%
Yes
28.4%
No
46.6%
Yes
31.7%
Yes
50.8%
Yes
38.3%
Yes
54.8%
Yes
Latino 13.2% 26%
15.8%
Yes
33.9%
Yes
13.5%
No
30.5%
Yes
21.5%
Yes*
46%
Yes
27.2%
No
46%
Yes
30.7%
Yes
49.7%
Yes
37.5%
Yes
54%
Yes
SED 12.6% 26.1%
14.8%
Yes
32.4%
Yes
14%
Yes
30.8%
Yes
20.2%
No
44.6%
Yes
28.1%
Yes
45.8%
Yes
31.1%
Yes
49.9%
36.5%
Yes
54.5%
Yes
ELs 10.6% 24.7%
13.1%
No
32.3%
Yes
11.8%
No
28.9%
Yes
20.8%
Yes*
45.8%
Yes
26.5%
No
45.6%
Yes
29.2%
Yes
49.9%
37.4%
Yes
54.7%
Yes
*Made AYP through the Safe Harbor Provision
285
Focus on Educating All Students
At Venezia the focus on educating all students is on having all of the staff
agree on “acceptable” outcomes for students. The “acceptable” outcome is for 70%
of all students to score within the proficient range on the California Standards Test in
Language Arts and Mathematics by 2010. To meet the “acceptable outcome”, for
the 2008-09 school year, the staff is focusing its efforts in implementing Standards
Based Instruction and focusing on improving its English Language Development and
Writing instruction.
The focus on educating all students is based on providing students with a
solid foundation in reading and mathematics. The staff is focused on teaching
Dennis Parker Test Taking strategies. The staff believes it is important to not only
teach content but strategies to allow students to be successful on standardized tests.
In addition, the staff is focusing on reading comprehension; first, second, and third
grade teachers have implemented Thinking Maps which has been helpful in
increasing reading comprehension.
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
At Venezia ES, all curriculum is rigorous and aligned to state standards
because they believe in teaching to the state standards. Primary grade teachers teach
the state standards by implementing the district adopted curriculum while upper
grade teachers pick and choose curriculum to teach grade level standards, skills, and
content. At Venezia, the use of the Power Standards is what drives instruction.
286
According to the principal, the move toward Power Standards is having a bigger
impact than the adopted core curriculum.
For the 2008-09, the district implemented “Power Standards”. These Power
Standards form the core curriculum for each grade level; each student is expected to
master their respective grade level power standards. The Power Standards are a
district initiative and were chosen during the 2008 summer through a district level
group composed of administrators, teacher representatives from each school site, and
district level curriculum specialists. These Power Standards form the core
curriculum for each grade level; each student is expected to master his/her respective
grade level power standards. Essentially, all grade level teachers must focus on these
power standards and use the district curriculum to plan lessons and activities that will
enable the students to learn and master the standards. In addition to teaching the
“Power Standards” to mastery, all teachers are expected to cover the other grade
level standards. At Venezia, the grade level expectations are for standards mastery at
the 80% level.
In addition to using the Power Standards as a blueprint for instruction,
Venezia has standards of practice that must be evident in all classrooms:
• Evidence of direct instruction that focuses on ELD and building
vocabulary fundamentals in reading and math.
• ELD must be an integral part of the instructional day.
• Use and evidence of Thinking Maps.
• Student work is prominently displayed.
287
• Instructional time must be maximized.
• Use of adopted core curriculum.
• Base your decisions on what is instructionally best for kids.
• Data walls in the classrooms that list student achievement and progress.
Furthermore, all teachers must adhere to the minimum allocation of instructional
minutes for English Language Arts, mathematics, and English Language
Development (See Table 4.14 for instructional minutes).
Because the district has not reconciled the allocation of core instructional
minutes with actual minutes available during in the school day, especially for first
through third grades, there is simply not enough time to teach all subjects daily.
Thus, science and social studies are integrated into the core curriculum and not
taught on a daily basis. Primary grades spend approximately fifteen minutes a day
for science and/or social studies and upper grades average about 2 to 2 ½ hours per
week per subject (30 to 45 minutes of instruction for either subject daily).
Use Data to Drive Decisions
Because Venezia is the recipient of the High Priority School Grant (HPSG), it
receives additional funding to implement school improvement strategies. One of
these school improvement strategies is data analysis. During the 2007-08 school
year, Venezia contracted with the University of California, Los Angeles School
Management Program (UCLA SMP) to provide the leadership team and staff
training in the “Cycle of Inquiry”. The Cycle of Inquiry which essential asks teachers
to look at data, set goals, develop an action plan for meeting those goals, and then
288
revisit the data to assess if the goals were met. Because the principal did not feel it
was an effective tool, the practice was not uniformly implemented or practiced. In
addition to receiving this training, the staff was also trained in utilizing the district’s
data systems to retrieve and generate student assessment data.
Though the staff has been trained in utilizing the data systems, the principal
indicates they are not yet using it to drive instruction. She believes the staff needs
additional support in how to use data for instruction. The next step is to instruct
teachers how to translate the data and connect it to specific lessons and strategies.
Venezia’s teachers need continued support and training in making the connection
between how they will teach differently based on assessment data.
According to the principal, data analysis is not a uniform practice at the
school. Some grade levels are more adept at data analysis and regularly practice it.
In the primary grades, kindergarten looks at informal data and meets once a month as
a Professional Learning Community to set goals and look at results. First and third
grades are more proficient in data analysis and regularly (every 2-3 weeks) look at
some type of data. Second grade looks at data but is not yet analyzing it to drive
instruction. In upper grade, fourth grade looks at some type of data on a regular basis
(every 2-3 weeks).
Though formal data analysis has not yet become a regularly occurring school
wide practice, there is evidence of data use throughout the school. Each classroom is
expected to have a data wall that lists student performance and progress on the
Benchmark Assessments for grades 2-6 and the Theme Skills Tests for grades K-1.
289
In addition, all staff is expected to have some type of data notebook for each student.
At the beginning of the year, the staff had discussions on the use and parameters of
the data notebooks. Throughout the remainder of the 2008-09 school year, the
principal will continue to revisit the use of the data notebooks and expand on how
they can be used to drive instruction.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
Professional Development is provided school wide and in grade levels. All
professional development occurs during the school day, at staff meetings, grade level
planning meetings, and through the coaching cycle. Wednesdays, which are early
student release days, are used by teachers to come together to plan and discuss
instruction. All Professional Development focuses on English Language
Development, Language Arts, and Writing. The staff has received training in:
Thinking Maps; Reciprocal teaching; Get Ahead Writing; Vocabulary and
Comprehension strategies; EL/SDAIE strategies (English Learner strategies);
Bridges to Understanding; and Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
For the 2008-09 school year, the principal is continuing her focus on PLCs,
Thinking Maps, and Bridges to Understanding. Staff development will focus on
refining the strategies teachers have learned and providing them with the knowledge
and assistance to more effectively implement them. The principal indicates she will
spend about 50,000 dollars in professional development. These expenditures are a
combination of substitute pay for teachers to attend trainings and for cost of the
trainings. For the 2008-09 school year, the principal has decided to not use
290
consultants and instead is relying on district Curriculum Specialists and in-school
experts to provide the bulk of staff development.
At Venezia ES, both in-house experts and out of district consultants have
provided staff development. During the 2007-08 school year, Venezia ES contracted
with the University of California, Los Angeles School Management Program (UCLA
SMP) to provide Classroom Walk-Through (CWT) and Cycle of Inquiry training.
Venezia spent approximately 50,000 dollars in consultant fees and consultant
provided trainings. It also has utilized in-district Curriculum specialists and its
literacy coach to provide additional teacher training and support. The literacy coach
provides Language Arts and Test Taking strategies professional development to
teachers during grade level meetings or through the coaching cycle. She also
presents during monthly staff meetings and organizes voluntary workshop trainings
for teachers.
The literacy coach provides in-depth and personalized PD to teachers
throughout the school year. She conducts demonstration lessons in classrooms and
engages teachers in the coaching cycle. The principal informally meets with the
literacy coach on a weekly basis to discuss instructional needs. The activities or
strands for PD are guided through the school improvement plan, what occurs in the
classrooms, topics pulled from the monthly district coach meetings, and classroom
observations.
In addition to the monthly staff meetings, Venezia teachers meet twice a
month in their grade level teams. During this time, they not only collaborate but also
291
receive additional support and training specific to their grade level needs.
Furthermore, all grade levels are provided with a minimum of four half day planning
days a year.
Restructure the Learning Environment
District wide, the instructional schedule has been modified to provide
teachers with planning time on Wednesdays. Weekly, teachers have an hour and a
half to discuss instruction with their grade level colleagues or plan their lessons.
Though this time is available, per teacher contract, administrators cannot require
teachers to attend meetings during this planning time. But, voluntary grade level
meetings can be held during this time. As such, teachers can meet to participate in
voluntary grade level meetings or collaboration.
All first and second grade classrooms are part of the Class Size Reduction
(CSR) program with ratios of 20 students to one teacher. Each kindergarten
classroom is slotted to enroll a maximum of thirty-three students per teacher. As a
result, Venezia has restructured the kindergarten day to reduce kindergarten class
size (See Table 5.35 for schedule). Four of the six kindergarten classes have two
start and dismissal times which allow for an approximate ratio of sixteen students to
one teacher for two blocks of 90 instructional minutes. During the class size
reduction block, the instructional focus is on language arts, differentiation, and ELD.
292
Table 5.35: Venezia's Early Bird/Late Bird Schedule
Early Bird Start 7:45am
Late Bird Start 9:30am
Early Bird Dismissal 11:28am
Late Bird Dismissal 1:18pm

Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
K-6 struggling students receive additional support from three full time
equivalent Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA). Currently, one TOSA works
with kindergarten and first grades, one TOSA works with second and third grades,
and one TOSA works with fourth through sixth grades. These TOSAs provide
reading and ELD intervention to students during the school day (See Table 5.36 for
TOSA use). The TOSAs work with small groups of students (6-8) throughout the
day in a pull-out intervention model. The length of the small group instruction varies
from 30-45 minutes and depends on the targeted skills targeted and grade levels.
Beginning in January 2009, a fourth full-time equivalent TOSA will work with third
and fourth grade and provide reading and ELD support. This additional TOSA will
service approximately 40 struggling students.
293
Table 5.36: Venezia’s use of TOSAs
Program Service Number of Students
Serviced
Focus and Curriculum Frequency
Kindergarten-
First Grade
Reading
Intervention
support from
7:45-1:30
1 Full Time
Equivalent TOSA
Services 60 students
(7-8 per group); 30
minutes per group
Focus: Letters and
sounds and teaching
phonemic awareness;
Uses a variety of
teaching tools.
Five days
per week
Second-Third
Grade
Reading
Intervention
Support and
some
mathematics
support
2 half time equivalent
TOSAs service 60
(including one group
of first graders)
students (7-8 per
group). One group of
mathematics
instruction. 30
minutes per group.
Focus on fundamentals
of reading- blending and
sight words; use a
variety of teaching tools.
Math focus is on basic
skills- addition and
subtraction regrouping
Five days
per week
Fourth
through Sixth
Grade
Reading
Intervention
Support
1 Full Time
Equivalent services
40 students (5-8 per
group); 30-60
minutes.
Increase reading fluency
and comprehension.
Uses different programs
such as Fast Track and
Highpoint.
Four days
per week

In addition to the in-school intervention support for struggling students,
Venezia also provides in-class support for struggling students. All teachers are
expected to implement a first level response (Response to Intervention Model) for
struggling students and provide them with assistance. Most teachers provide
additional support during the Universal Access time block (30 minutes per day) and
work with flexible groups of struggling students to target specific skills. In addition,
some grade levels (first, second, and fifth grades) have reading rotation groups for
30-40 minutes, 4 times per week. The students are placed in reading groups
according to their skills and reading ability. They rotate to a specific grade level
teacher, who targets her instruction to meet their needs. In sixth grade, two of the
294
three (one is a Gifted and Talented Education classroom) divide their students into
two groups of low and medium-high. Each teacher takes a level for the entire
language arts block and targets her instruction to the students’ skill level. In
addition, fourth through sixth grades teachers have implemented the Read Naturally
program, a fluency and comprehension program, in their classroom. Struggling
students participate in the Read Naturally program two to three times per week for
30 minutes at a time in their classroom.
After school support is provided for a small number of students. Individual
teachers (approximately 5) provide after school tutoring to their students (about 5 per
teacher) four times per week. In addition, a homework club for students in grades 4-
6 occurs three times per week for an hour. There are currently 15 students in the
homework club. Six to ten third grade students participate in the Voyager after
school program, three times per week for 30 minutes.
Summer school was provided for struggling students in 2008. There was one
class per grade level (K-5) and 20 students were enrolled in each class. Actual
summer school attendance ratios were approximately 13-15 students per teacher.
Two summer sessions, each two weeks long, provided three daily hours of reading
and writing instruction. Approximately 90 students participated in summer school.
Target students for summer school were students who fell within the Strategic range
in English Language Arts.
295
Professional Learning Communities
At Venezia, teachers work in grade levels to team and plan lessons. All
teachers are expected to participate in at least one grade level meeting per month
where they are expected to engage in common planning and discuss Standards Based
Instruction. Teachers also have additional planning time to collaborate during their
four yearly half day planning days. With the introduction of the Power Standards and
the move toward Standards Based Instruction, all grade levels are asked to map out
the Power Standards they will teach each trimester. Each grade level meets
collaboratively to map out the common standards and then provides the principal
with the plan.
During the 2007-08 school year, four teachers and the vice principal attended
Rick DuFour’s two day Professional Learning Community (PLC) training. At the
beginning of the 2008-09 school year, the teachers provided an in-service PLC
training to the staff. The kindergarten teachers implemented the PLC into their grade
level practice and are currently in the process of refining the model. Currently, the
kindergarten team meets one time per month in their PLC to set monthly goals and
work toward their common writing assessments. It is expected that during the 2009-
10 school year, this grade level will support and lead the PLC implementation across
all grade levels. The principal expects to provide additional PLC training and
support to the staff so that it becomes more widely implemented.
296
Instructional Leadership
Venezia’s instructional decisions are based on site specific needs. The
principal does not look to the district to set a direction but does implement district
initiated programs and strategies such as the Power Standards and the Dennis Parker
Test Taking Strategies. The principal feels that the only thing driven by the district
is the pressure to maintain test scores.
Instructional decisions are based on a shared leadership model. The principal
has a leadership team comprised of grade level representatives, the literacy coach,
the vice principal, and the TOSAs. The principal does not choose the grade level
representatives and allows the staff to choose their own. The leadership team meets
once a month to discuss both instructional and operational issues.
The principal works with the leadership team to set the instructional focus for
the school. At the end of the 07-08 school year, the principal and the leadership
team analyzed assessment data and staff practices. Together they decided the
school’s instructional focus for the 2008-09 school year. Though the principal works
with the leadership team, she believes it is her responsibility to guide her staff’s
direction, specifically in implementing instructional strategies. She indicates it is a
fine line to balance. To make change, she believes it is necessary to get a few people
on board to rally around the change; with time, change spreads.
Additional Strategies
Venezia is the recipient of the High Priority School Grant; it received
approximately 330,000 dollars for the 2008-09 school year. The principal has
297
utilized this extra revenue to provide staff development, hire TOSAs to provide
reading support, hire a full time Parent Involvement TOSA, keep a full time
Community Liaison, keep a full time Technology Assistant, and have a .2 Network
Specialist. The principal’s priority is to provide support for staff and students. She
reserves most of her budget to fund positions to maintain a high level of student
support. Her second priority is staff development and she annually allocates money
to provide it. She allocated approximately 50,000 for Professional Development in
the 2008-09 school year. She also earmarks money for instructional materials.
Venezia’s staff is able to order additional instructional materials that are connected
to effective instruction and will improve student learning.
The principal believes parent involvement is important for student success
and fully supports programs and activities that increase parental involvement at
school. The PI TOSA, with the support of the community liaison, coordinates and
facilitates all parent involvement which includes volunteering at the school site,
facilitating Action Walks (Parents go into the classroom to observe their children
learn), serving as the liaison between parents and staff, and developing and
facilitating parent education classes.
In addition, Venezia has a program, which is a partnership with the local
city’s police department, the city, and the local county’s District Attorney to prevent
gang involvement. This program conducts truancy sweeps, curfew sweeps, and
provides: parent education classes, student and family support for at-risk students,
298
special activities for sixth grade students, and attendance incentives for students in
fourth through sixth grade.
School Resources and Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model delineates specific strategies for schools to
implement to double their academic performance. Table 5.37 provides an overview
of Venezia’s current resources along with a comparison to the Evidence Based
Model. Though Venezia does not have the level of resources stipulated in the EBM,
many of the strategies are implemented. Venezia provides instructional coaches,
teacher tutors, extended day and intersession support for its struggling students. It
provides professional development and teacher release days for PD. In addition, for
student support, it provides a clinical counselor, attendance liaison, community
liaison, school psychologist, school nurse, and a speech teacher.
299
Table 5.37: Venezia's School Resources and Evidence Based Model
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Recommendations
FSK ES Current
Resource Use
Comparison to EBM
School configuration K-5 K-6
6 grade levels in EBM
school vs. 7 grade
levels in ES
School size 432 684
Free and Reduced
Lunch Count
50% 89%
Number of ELL
Students
80%
Class Size- K-3 15 25
Has ten more students
per class
Class Size- 4-6 25 30
Has five more students
per class
1. Core Teachers
One teacher per
15 students in K-3
25 students in 4-6
25 Teachers
39 Teachers
Currently staffs at
64% of EBM
recommendations
2. Specialist /
Elective
Teachers
20% of core teachers 0%
Would need to hire 7.8
teachers
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 for every 200
students
1.0
3.4 FTE
Need 2.4 FTE
4. Tutors/EL Teachers
1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free and
Reduced Price Lunch)
1 per 100 ELs
3.0 TOSAs provide
reading support for
students in K-6
6.3 Tutors and 4.7 EL
Teachers
Need an additional 8
FTEs
6a. Extended Day
Program and Staffing
Two hour after school
program, 5 days a
week.
50% of the adjusted
FRPL count; one
teacher for every 15;
120 minutes/408 total
teacher minutes= .3
FTE per class
7 teachers servicing
48 students in 1-6 gr.
60 min, 3-4 x per
week
Ratio of 1 teacher per
7 students
FRPL= 315 students
21 Teachers=6.3 FTEs
Currently provides for
less than 1% FRPL
300
Table 5.37, continued
7. Summer
School Program and
Staffing
50% of Economically
Disadvantaged
students
Session of eight
weeks, six hours per
day, and a class size of
15 students per 1
teacher
Focus: Language Arts.
3 hours per day.
Grades K-5
15:1 Staffing
2 weeks, 2x in
summer for 90
students at a time.
FRPL= 315 students
21 FTE teachers
Currently provides for
14% FRPL
13. Pupil Support Staff
1 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 low income
students or a minimum
of 1 FTE for a
prototypical school of
432 students
4 FTE Counselor +
2.95 FTE student
support staff=3.35
FTE
.35 FTE Counselor
and 6.3 FTEs of
student support.
Staffing at 50%. Need
additional 3.3 FTEs
17. Administrators 1
1 Principal
1 Vice Principal
1 Principal
.58 Assistant Principal
Overstaffed by .42FTE
19. Professional
Development
10 days intensive
professional
development included
in teacher contract in
summer
Instructional Coaches
(delineated above)
Weekly Planning &
Prep Time
Calculate: $100/pupil
for additional
conferences,
consultants, trainings,
etc.
Grade levels receive
four one half planning
days.
50,000 will be dollars
in PD for teacher
release time and
training fees.
$68,400
301
Chapter 6: Summary, Conclusions, Implications
Summary
In the era of limited resources, California policy makers need to prioritize
where new money should go and how to phase it in over time so it has the expected
impact and schools make the expected gains. In California, resources are not an
unlimited supply thus educators need the tools and research base to ground their
instructional decisions. At the district and school level, it is necessary for educators
to know how to efficiently utilize resources to increase academic achievement. The
Evidence-Based Model may be a viable framework for California educators. It can
be used as a tool to allocate and expend resources more effectively.
NCLB and California’s PSAA inform schools on the expected levels of
student achievement for all students but provide schools with limited suggestions on
how to get there when they continuously fail. Due to the accountability pressures
that all schools face, it is necessary to examine how California schools can use their
resources more efficiently to increase student achievement. The question to ask is
“How can we target our current resources in a more effective manner to increase the
achievement of our students?”
In the era of standards based accountability, schools have the responsibility to
educate all of their students so they meet proficiency benchmarks. NCLB mandates
pressure schools to improve and use research based instructional strategies; hence,
schools must consistently implement strategies that lead to student learning and
achievement. Because resources are finite, it is important for schools to utilize their
302
resources effectively. Resource allocation studies can assist schools in determining
how to best employ their existing resources. These studies indicate that money
matters when there is a targeted deployment of resources at the school and classroom
level (Goe, 2006).
According to Jefferson (2005), dollars have the potential to enhance
educational opportunities if they are effectively used. Increased dollars do not
transform themselves into greater learning but they can make a difference if spent on
specific programs or other investments known to be effective (Slavin, 1999). In a
meta-analysis of 60 studies investigating the relationships between several school
inputs and student achievement, Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1996) found that the
level of resources is positively related to student achievement. But, they found that
simple dollar amounts are not enough; rather, schools should focus on the
effectiveness of particular resources as they are enacted (and interact with each
other) in specific school contexts. Consequently, money alone is not enough but a
more precise targeting of specific resources with careful consideration of context and
resource interactions (Goe, 2006).
Despite the abundance of research in instructional best practices, resource
allocation and school finance, policies often do not reflect these best practices at the
district/school levels. Goertz & Duffy (1999) found that districts and schools make
few linkages between resource allocation and reform. Schools and districts do not
utilize any specific tools to make the link between school budgets to school plans
303
and district improvement goals. The Evidence Based Model can be a tool to assist
educators in linking student achievement to allocating and using resources.
The Evidence Based Model is based on a cost reporting structure framework
developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003). This cost reporting
expenditure structure was designed to report school level expenditures, differentiate
the spending of multiple education units, and categorize expenditures by expenditure
elements to reflect current thinking about effective instructional practices. The
Evidence-Based model was developed by Dr. Allan Odden from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus from the University of Southern
California as they conducted and worked on state adequacy studies in Kentucky
(Odden, Fermanich, & Picus, 2003), Arkansas (Odden, Picus, & Fermanich, 2003;
Odden, Picus, & Goertz, 2006), Arizona (Odden, Picus, Fermanich, & Goertz, 2004),
Wyoming (Picus, Odden, Aportola, Mangan, & Goertz, 2008; Odden, Picus, Goertz,
Fermanich, Seder, Glenn, & Nelli, 2005), Washington (Odden, Picus, Goertz,
Fermanich, Mangan, 2006) and Wisconsin (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goertz,
Mangan, & Aportola, 2007).
According to Odden & Picus (2008), the Evidence Based Model identifies a
comprehensive and high-quality instructional program within the school, the
evidence on effective strategies, and then determines an adequate expenditure level
by placing a price on each component and aggregating the components to a total
cost. Its foci are to: include spending within the instructional function; enhance
spending in core subjects; and to spend more directly on strategies that have
304
evidence of being successful. The specific instructional improvement strategies, as
described in Odden & Picus (2008) are the framework for the Evidence Based Model
(See Table 2.1 for EBM recommendations).
Successful school studies conducted in Washington (Fermanich, Mangan,
Odden, Picus, Gross, & Rudo, 2006), Wisconsin (Odden, Picus, Goertz, Turner
Mangan, & Aportola, 2007), and Wyoming (Turner Mangan, Odden, Picus, Goertz,
& Gurgel, 2008) found that many of the schools doubled their performance and in
many cases narrowed the achievement gap by utilizing resources in the manner that
the Evidence Based Model recommends. Some of the strategies the schools
specifically implemented were small classes in K-3; heavy investments in
professional development including school-based instructional coaches; and extra
help strategies for struggling students such as individual and small group tutoring
and extended day programs. Hence, there was a high degree of alignment between
the recommended strategies in the Evidence-Based Model and those used in the
actual schools. Most schools improved in either both reading and math or one
content area (Odden, 2008).
The successful schools implemented similar research based practices and had
instructional improvement strategies in common. The strategies found in the
successful schools studies are: Focus on Educating all Students; Use Data to Drive
Decisions; Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards; Support
Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development; Restructure the
Learning Environment; Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning
305
Opportunities; and Professional Learning Communities. In addition, the Washington
study identifies instructional leadership as part of the needed resource strategies to
increase student achievement.
California’s Educational System
California’s educational system is framed by the expectation that all students
will achieve at proficient or above levels in reading and math and master all core
content standards. The state standards specify in concrete terms what students are
supposed to learn; state assessment and accountability systems identify certain gaps
in student preparation and achievement in relation to those expectations (Rebell,
2007). California has an established accountability system but is this sufficient for
schools to provide an adequate education? Do increased expectations equal an
adequate education and propel student achievement? This can only be answered by
conducing school level analyses of resource allocation and use in California schools.
School level analysis of resource allocation is necessary to determine if schools are
utilizing the appropriate resources to increase student achievement (Picus, 2000). In
an era of limited resources, school finance researchers are looking at how schools
link their resources to improve the academic achievement of their students.
The Study
This study reports the resource allocation patterns, resource use, and
implemented instructional improvement strategies for eight California elementary
schools. It compares the resource allocation patterns to a research based model of
educational adequacy, The Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). In
306
addition, this study reports each school’s instructional improvement strategies to gain
insight on how these schools have increased their academic performance on the API
measure and have, at a minimum, doubled their percentage of students proficient in
English Language Arts.
There are four research questions for this study. The first question is: How
the resource allocation patterns at the school sites are aligned with or different from
the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based Model? The data for this
particular question sought to compare the resource allocation patterns and use of the
eight study schools with the resource allocation recommendations of the Evidence
Based Model. Quantitative data was obtained through principal interviews. The
quantitative data were triangulated through document analysis of school staff lists,
the master schedule, class size, and the professional development budget and/or plan.
Data were collected on full-time equivalencies (FTEs) of multiple staff positions,
student demographics, instructional minutes, planning and collaboration time for
teachers, intervention programs and staffing, class size, and general expenditures for
professional development.
The second research question is: What instructional improvement strategies
are currently being implemented at the school sites? This question was developed to
gain an understanding of the implemented school improvement strategies and
compare them to research based best practices. These data were obtained through
principal interviews. The qualitative data were triangulated through analyses of the
schools’ Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), the School Accountability
307
Report Card (SARC), vision and mission statements, and additional school
documents listing teacher practice. These data provided insight into the schools’
process of selecting and focusing on specific curricular and instructional practices.
The third research question is: How are resources used to support the
school’s instructional improvement? This particular question examined how the
schools’ existing resources are utilized and aligned with the school’s overall plan to
improve. It sought to describe uncover how resources are targeted and used for the
schools’ improvement strategies.
The fourth research question is: What does it take to have an adequate
education in California schools? This question was included to explore if these
schools had sufficient resources to provide its students with an adequate education.
Data were collected from the schools to determine if they had sufficient resources to
implement a standards based curriculum in a manner that provides students the
opportunity to learn and subsequently meet all proficiency requirements.
The research questions were answered through interviews with principals
who provided both quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative data
analysis involved the use of frequency statistics encompassing percentages and
averages for instructional minutes and FTE staffing ratios. All analytic procedures
captured the current resource use in the eight elementary schools. Staffing data was
figured using percentages of full-time equivalents and teacher-pupil data was
analyzed using ratios. Instructional minutes were analyzed to determine how much
of the instructional day is allocated to particular academic subjects.
308
The qualitative information was analyzed using the findings of the
Washington Successful Districts Study (Odden et al., 2006). Qualitative data
included the strategies within the instructional improvement plan, instructional
vision, and professional development plan. These data were analyzed to determine if
they aligned with the research based instructional strategies: focus on educating all
students; use data to drive instruction; adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state
standards; support instructional improvement with effective staff development;
restructure the learning environment; provide struggling students with extended
learning opportunities; instructional leadership; and professional learning
communities. The analyses of the quantitative data were limited to whether these
“best practices” components were in existence at the school site and not whether
these components impacted student achievement.
Conclusions
Chapter Four provides a detailed description of the results and discussion of
data. It discusses the school resource indicators, school resource use, compares the
resource allocation of the eight schools to the recommendations in the Evidence
Based Model, and provides a discussion of the eight implemented instructional
improvement strategies. The conclusions in this section describe the data within the
framework of the research questions. It is expected the data in this study, which
provide information on school level resource use and a description of the school
improvement strategies, will enable educational leaders to make decisions on how to
effectively allocate resources to increase the academic achievement of their students.
309
Research Question One
How the resource allocation patterns at the school sites are aligned with or
different from the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based Model?
The data demonstrate that the majority of the Evidence Based Model (EBM)
strategies, with the exception of administration and staffing ratios for extended
school day and summer school, are not funded at the recommended levels in the
sample schools. The disparity between the recommended and actual levels of
funding for the majority of the EBM strategies was expected. California’s
educational finance system does not provide schools with sufficient resources to
implement the EBM strategies at the recommended levels. The purpose of this
research question was to examine if EBM strategies were in existence, in any form,
in these schools. The data indicate the majority of the EBM strategies are present in
some form in all of the schools sites. Only one strategy, the use of specialist/core
teachers to provide non-core instruction to students so core teachers have time during
the instructional day to collaborate, is not currently implemented at any of the
schools.
The two strategies exceeding EBM recommendations are in the categories of:
administration and staffing ratios for extended day and summer school. In the
administrator category, all but one school are overstaffed with administrators. The
overstaffing in this category ranges from .17 FTE to .90 FTE. The staffing ratios for
extended school and summer school are at a similar or better ratio. Four schools staff
their extended day programs at lower staff ratios, with an average of 10.5:1. Three
310
schools staff at an average ratio of 18:1. All schools, with the exception of one,
staffed their summer school programs at levels close to EBM recommendations, an
average of 16:1.
Instructional Strategies. EBM core instructional strategies are implemented in
the schools but not at the recommended level. California’s Class Size Reduction
(CSR) Program provides schools with additional revenues to fund CSR in
kindergarten through third grades. This particular elementary school district chooses
to implement CSR only in first and second grade. The reason for this is the expense
for providing it for kindergarten and third is too great. There are not sufficient
classrooms and not sufficient funds to hire all the teachers. The eight elementary
schools have: 33:1 ratio in kindergarten; 20:1 ratio in first and second grade; and
28:1 ratio in third grade. Class size and core teacher staffing for K-3 is not at the
level recommended by the EBM. Based on EBM recommendations, all schools have
an average of twice the recommended enrollment for each kindergarten and third
grade classroom. Class size in fourth through sixth grades is at an average ratio of
30:1. The schools have one sixth more student enrollment for each fourth through
sixth grade classroom. Consequently, all schools currently under staff core teachers;
they staff from 58% to 66% of the EBM recommendations.
In addition to core teacher recommendations, the EBM indicates all schools
should have 20% specialist/elective teachers on site. Currently, none of the schools
have specialist/elective teachers on site. To conform to the EBM recommendations
311
and provide core teachers with daily planning time, the schools would need to staff a
total of 80.5 specialist/elective teachers.
Extra Support. The Evidence Based Model recommends extra help for at-risk
students and English Learners (EL). All of the study schools provide extra help for
at-risk and/or EL students. They employ Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA)
who provide in-school support for struggling students; but, they do not staff them at
the EBM recommended level. TOSAs are staffed at an average ratio of 1 teacher for
every 333 students with a range of 1:228 to 1:792. An additional 100 TOSAs need to
be hired to conform to EBM recommendations.
Though seven of the eight schools provide after school support for struggling
students, they are not providing support at the EBM recommended level. Three
schools provide after school support for less than 1% of its Free and Reduced Price
Lunch (FRPL) population. Four schools provide after school support for an average
of 23% of its FRPL population. The Evidence Based Model recommends that extra
support should be provided for 50% of the Free and Reduced Price Lunch
population. All the study schools fell significantly short of providing summer school
for 50% of their Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRLP) population. All of the
schools (one provided for .04%) provide summer school for an average of 11.5% of
their FRLP population.
Student Support. The EBM model does not indicate how many FTEs of each
category to fund because the level of support will depend on each school’s needs. It
does however, make specific FTE recommendations based on the student Free and
312
Reduced Price Lunch. When the schools’ actual student support staffing levels were
compared to the EBM, all the schools were understaffed by 50% to 80%.
Professional Development. Currently, the school district allots one staff
development day per year as stipulated in the teacher’s contract. According to EBM
recommendations, all teachers are short nine staff development days. Though all
principals indicate they earmark a certain amount of money toward professional
development, most do not appear to spend the amounts indicated by the EBM. In
addition, none of the schools staff sufficient instructional coaches to support the
instructional program. An additional 26.4 FTE instructional facilitators are needed
for all schools to have the EBM recommended instructional support.
Research Question Two
What instructional improvement strategies are currently being implemented
at the school sites?
The analyses of the schools’ improvement strategies indicate all eight schools
have implemented the eight instructional strategies of: focus on educating all
students; adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state standards; use data to drive
instruction; implement effective staff development; provide extra support for
struggling students; restructure the learning environment; professional learning
communities; and instructional leadership. Though there is variance in how the
strategies are implemented, each school site has implemented actions that align with
these research based practices. This may be why these particular schools are eight of
the “most improved” in their district.
313
Each school has made a commitment to educating its students and has
focused on differentiating their instruction to meeting their students’ needs,
providing standards based instruction, using Power Standards to drive instruction,
having high expectations, and providing students with a balanced language arts
program. This focus may attribute to these schools having, at minimum, doubled
their English Language Arts percent proficient since 2002. This focus is supported
by the schools aligning their curriculum to reflect the state standards. In addition,
the district’s implementation of the Power Standards is supporting the practice of
teachers using their curriculum as a tool to teach the standards.
Along with using the standards to guide instruction, the schools have
developed and implemented during- and after- school intervention programs. As the
proficiency targets annually increase, each school provides student with additional
academic support. Each school has some type of before- or after- school
intervention program for struggling students.
All of the school site principals understand the importance of Professional
Development (PD) and each has a developed plan for providing his/her teachers with
the training and support they need. All PD is driven by the goal of building teacher
capacity. Seven principals indicated they had invested, in prior school years, much
time and resources to exposing their teachers to sound teaching strategies and were
now focusing this year’s (2008-09) effort toward refining their staff’s knowledge of
effective instruction. They were now focusing on providing their teachers with the
support to more effectively implement the strategies.
314
Additionally, all of the schools are using data to inform instruction and are
using collaborative processes to support teacher practice. Although the schools
demonstrate varying internal capacities for analyzing data and implementing the
PLC model, each school is working toward instituting these practices more
effectively. As these practices become institutionalized they will continue to provide
teachers with more opportunities to improve their practice and student achievement.
Research Question Three
How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
All eight principals indicated their school improvement plan was based on
site specific needs and their implemented strategies are based on student/teacher
needs. The resources principals have direct control of categorical funds, which are
spent on Professional Development and hiring TOSAs to provide students with extra
support. Extended day and after school programs implemented using district funds;
these funds are finite and limit the number of students who can participate in the
extended day and after school programs.
Professional Development. All principals indicated they earmarked a specific
amount of their categorical funds toward Professional Development. Each principal
spent varying amounts, from 10,000 dollars to over 75,000 dollars on PD. This
dollar amount depended on how they structured their professional development.
Most principals utilized in-district and in-school experts to provide teacher staff
development; thus, the bulk of their expenditures were spent on teacher’s time, i.e.
315
substitutes or teacher stipends. Consequently, those who utilized “in-house” experts
spent less money. Three of the four principals with the highest amount of money
spent on Professional Development were those who utilized out of district
consultants. They spent more money to pay for more expensive trainers and teacher
release time.
An additional professional development expenditure, instructional coaches, is
funded through the district’s Reading First fund. For the 2008-09 school year, the
district made a commitment to fund one coach per school site. Some school sites
decided to use part of their categorical resources to fund an additional coach. With
the impending mid-year cuts and next year’s cuts, funding for instructional coaches
in the 2009-10 school year is uncertain.
TOSAs. Seven principals indicated they utilized their resources to employ
TOSAs to provide extra Language Arts and/or ELD support for their at-risk students.
Each TOSA is paid for from the categorical funds each school site receives.
Consequently, the number of TOSAs varied between the schools and was dependent
on each school’s allocation of resources to fund them.
In addition to the Resource TOSAs, three school sites fund Parent
Involvement TOSAs. These two principals iterated their commitment to increasing
parent involvement in their schools and felt their PI TOSAs were invaluable to their
improvement efforts. One of the two principals chose to fund her PI TOSA over an
intervention TOSA. She is targeting her efforts in building her teachers’ capacity.
She thinks it is more important to provide the teachers with the support and training
316
to make them the experts in remediating reading difficulties than to have someone
pull their students out of the classroom.
Extended Day Programs. All but one school had an extended day program.
The extended day programs are paid for from district funds. All sites had limited
extended day programs, when compared to EBM recommendations. There are two
reasons for this: teacher availability and not sufficient district funding to provide
extended day support to all students. Teacher availability to staff the after school
programs was an issue. Some principals expressed the difficulty of finding sufficient
teachers to staff their programs. One principal overcame this by surveying his
teachers and organizing the after school program around teachers’ availability and
subject matter interests. In addition, district funds are finite and are not sufficient to
provide support for all students. The district only provides a set amount of
resources, thus not all at-risk students are able to participate in the programs. Each
site must determine which groups of students to target.
Research Question Four
What does it take to have an adequate education in California schools?
The availability of resources impacts a school’s ability to implement specific
instructional strategies. All the school principals indicated they had to make some
reductions and small changes at the end of the 2007-08 school year that impacted
their academic program for the 2008-09 school year. Six of the eight schools each
lost Resource TOSAs (approximately 1-2 FTEs) and one FTE coach. Additional
resource reductions were in the areas of instructional materials funds, using out of
317
district consultants, and teacher planning days. Despite these reductions, the
principals indicated they were able to maintain the integrity of their instructional
programs. They all indicated these changes were not significant and they have been
able to implement the strategies they need to support their school’s plan for
improvement. One principal indicated he has everything he needs within the reality
of today and a second indicated all the local district’s schools had the resources they
need. The key was to know student needs and make them a priority.
Ultimately, though the schools did lose some funds from the 2007-08 school
year, most were able to sustain, at similar level, their previous year’s programs.
Only one principal indicated his staff’s perception of the level of available support
had changed. One principal perceived it as not having lost much but rather them
having to become smarter about how they use resources; they have had to become
more strategic. Another iterated a similar sentiment and stated he has to make greater
choices on what they do. At his school, they needed to prioritize and keep what is
important which is classroom support and programs for intervention. Other
principals indicated they had the staff and support they needed for their schools to
effectively educate their students. Three principals indicated they would be able to
sustain their efforts and increase student achievement if funding remained at the
2008 level.
Since all of the schools have significant numbers of EL and FRPL students
they received categorical funds ranging from 494,290 dollars to 827,756 dollars
(SPSA, 2008). The dollar amounts depended on student enrollment, English Learner
318
percentage, Free and Reduced Price Lunch count, and for some, additional grants.
This categorical money has allowed the principals the flexibility to continue to fund
certain programs and positions they feel are necessary to maintaining the quality of
their instructional program. Though the level of available resources has been
reduced, all principals felt they have been able to provide an adequate education for
their students. They still have categorical funds from which they can allocate and use
for specific instructional improvement strategies. The difference now, in the era of
reduced funding, is that they have to be more strategic about how they use their
money and target it toward school improvement strategies.
Though all the school principals indicated they have the resources they need
to maintain their instructional program, they suggested strategies that would further
support their school improvement effort. These suggestions align with EBM
recommendations.
• Smaller class sizes in kindergarten; the ideal would be to have a 20 to 1
all day kindergarten class.
• Smaller class size in 3
rd
and 4
th
grades, at a minimum during the core
reading block.
• More funding for instructional support for Far Below Basic and Below
Basic students.
• More TOSAs to support reading instruction.
• Additional TOSA support for grades with high numbers of enrollment.
• Maintain, at minimum, a K-6 Literacy coach.
319
• Lower the coach to teacher ratio and hire more coaches.
• Provide teachers with more effective Professional Development. Provide
training in explicit instruction for all teachers so fewer students are in
resource program.
Other strategies they recommended are not explicit recommendations of the
Evidence Based Model but do meet school needs:
• More resources to include more pupil development in social and
emotional skills such as the 40 development assets and Safe
Schools/Healthy Choice programs.
• Institutionalize a certificated teacher to serve as a Parent Involvement
TOSA.
Implications
Some principals in the study schools indicated they would be able to maintain
the integrity of their programs if funding continued at the 2008 level. Currently,
with the state’s deficit, looming education mid-year and next school year cuts, one
can conclude that the integrity of their programs will suffer. Subsequently, the
students will not receive an adequate education. Now, more than ever, the district
must re-examine its spending structure and determine how they can best support
their schools’ efforts. Until now, each school utilized its own resources to
implement specific school improvement strategies. It may be necessary, for the
district to go back and determine which instructional improvement strategies are the
most efficient and geared toward maximizing student achievement. Some of the
320
strategies that have proven to be successful may need to be institutionalized (become
a district-wide practice) while those less effective ones need to be done away with.
Always, it is best to determine which strategies are those that directly impact student
achievement. Based on the Evidence Based Model, research based best practices,
and this study’s results and conclusions, the implemented instructional improvement
strategies should be directly related to:
• Providing students with effective instruction.
• Providing support to teachers so they can sustain a high quality
instructional program.
• Provide teachers with the resources to provide effective academic support
for struggling students.
• Maintaining intervention support for struggling students so they can
succeed.
• Providing effective staff development that will maintain and increase
teacher capacity.
Final Thoughts
The Evidence Based Model provides recommendations on research based
strategies to increase student academic achievement. Currently, under California’s
school funding formula it is not feasible to implement all of the strategies within the
EBM. Given the current fiscal landscape where there is a 42 billion dollar deficit in
the state of California and all districts must reallocate their resources and readjust
321
their budgets to offset expected mid-year cuts, many of the EBM recommendations
may seem unlikely.
The Evidence Based Model is useful for school leaders because it provides a
resource allocation framework. A school leader may not be able to fund the
strategies at the level of the EBM recommendations but can use it as a model to
make decisions on how to allocate and use existing resources. The EBM provides
specific strategies such as extra support intervention strategies, staffing ratios for
extra help programs, and Professional Development allocations. School principals
and leaders can look at these recommendations when deciding which strategies to
implement. Principals can use the model to allocate their resources in a manner that
aligns to it as much as possible. Hence, a school principal with a certain amount of
resources can look at the model and choose to fund instructional coaches, teacher
tutors, or after school programs rather than allocate it toward supplementary
instructional materials. Because school resources are finite, leaders need to use a
model that will assist them with effectively utilizing their resources. In the context
of the current economic situation, it is prudent to ask, “How can we most effectively
utilize our existing resources to increase student achievement?”
322
Bibliography
Addonizio, M.F. (2003). From fiscal equity to educational adequacy: Lessons from
Michigan. Journal of Educational Finances, 28, 457-484.

Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3),
259-287.

Bernauer, J. (2002). Five ways to unlock continuous school improvement. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 38(2), 89-92.

Beach, R.H. & Lindahl, R. (2004). Indentifying the knowledge base for school
improvement. Planning and Changing, 35(1-2), 2-32.

Birman, B.F., Desimone, L, Porter, A.C., Garat, M.S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Brinson, V.R., & Mellor, L. (2005). How are high performing schools spending their
money? A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY. Retrieved
February 2, 2008 from
http://www.nc4ea.org/files/Atlantic.pdf#search=%22How%20are%20high-
performing%20schools%20spending%20their%20money%3F%22

Burney, D. (2004). Craft knowledge: The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(7), 526-532.

California Department of Education (2002). Information retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov on July 7, 2008.

California School Finance website (2008). Retrieved on June 15, 2008 from
http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org.

Chambers, J.G., Levin, J.D., Parrish, T.B. (2006). Examining the relationship
between educational outcomes and gaps in funding: An extension of the New
York adequacy study. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 1-32.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern
California.
323
Desimone. L, Porter, A., Birman, B, Garet, M., & 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.

Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-734.

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). Retrieved on March 9, 2008 from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2FArticles%2FArticle
%2Easp%3Ftitle%3DHow%2520California%2520Compares.

EdSource (2004). No Child Left Behind in California? The Impact of the Federal
NCLB Act so Far. EdSource Report, January 2004.

Edsource. (2005). School Accountability Under NCLB: Ambitious Goals and
Competing Systems, August 2005.

Edsource (2006). Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do
Better? June 2006.

Elliot, M. (1998). School Finance and Opportunities to Learn: Does Money well
spent enhance students’ achievement? Sociology of Education; 71(3), 223-
245.

Fermanich, M., Turner Mangan, M., Odden, A., Picus, L., Gross, B., Rudo, Z.
(2006). Washington Learns: Successful School District Study. Study
prepared for Washington Learns, September 2006.

Finn J.D., & Achilles, C.M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings,
implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
21(2), 97-109.

Fink, E. & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(8), p. 589

Fullan, M. (2002). The Change. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

324
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D. (1996). The effect of school resources on
student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.

Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D., Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and
empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and
student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record,
109(4), 877-896.

Goe, L. (2006) Evaluating a state sponsored school improvement program through
an improved school finance lens. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 395-
419.

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

Griswald, P.A. (2005). Relating academic data from the elementary grades to state
test results in high school: Implications for school improvement through
professional development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
20(2), 65-74.

Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.
Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Hall, J. (2006). The dilemma of school finance reform. The Journal of Social,
Political, and Economic Studies, 31(2), 175-190.

Hanushek, E. (1994). Making America’s schools work: This time money is not the
answer.” The Brookings Review; 12(4), 10-13.

Hanushek, E.A. (1996). The identification of school resource effects. Education
Economics, 4(2), p.105-125.

Hanushek, E.A. and Rivkin, S.G. (1997). Understanding Twentieth-Century Growth
in U.S. School Spending. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68.

Heritage, M. & Chen, E. (2005). Why data skills matter in school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86(9), 707-711.
325
Jefferson, A.L. (2005). Student performance: Is more money the answer? Journal of
Education Finance, 31(2), 111-124.

Johnson, J.P., Livingston, R.A., Schwartz, R.A., Slate, J.R. (2000). What makes a
good elementary school? A critical examination. The Journal of Educational
Research, 93(6), 339-48.

Knight, J. (2006). Instructional Coaching. School Administrator, 63(4), 36-40.

Koski, W.S. & Weis, H.A. (2004). What educational resources do students need to
meet California’s educational content standards? A textual analysis of
California’s educational content standards and their implications for basic
educational conditions and resources. Teachers College Record, 106(10),
1907-1935.

Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D., Marks, H.M. (1996). School wide Professional
Community. In F. Newman & Associates (Eds). Authentic Achievement:
Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality (pp.179-203). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Mason, B., Mason, D.A., Mendez, M., Nelson, G., & Orwig, R. (2005). Effects of
top-down and bottom up elementary school standards reform in an
underperforming California District. The Elementary School Journal, 105(4),
353-376.

Miles, K.H. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study of teacher
allocation in Boston public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 17(4), 476-493.

Miles, K.H. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Information retrieved on June 15, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (2008). Glossary of
Research Terms. Retrieved on July 7, 2008 from
http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Glossary.pdf .

Lee, J. & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and
socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement
outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 797-832.
326
Lee, J. (2006). Input-guarantee versus performance-guarantee approaches to school
accountability: cross state comparisons of policies, resources, and outcomes.
Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 43-64.

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

Miller, L.J., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost allocation model for shared
district resources: A means for comparing school spending across schools.
CPRE Working Paper 2004-4.

Murray, S.E., Evans, W.N., & Schwab, R. M. (1998). Education finance reform and
the distribution of education resources. The American Economic Review,
88(4), 789-812.

Nakib, Y. (1995). Beyond district-level expenditures: Schooling resource allocation
and use in Florida. In L. Picus & Wattenbarger (Eds). Where does the money
go? pp. 85-105. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.

O’Day, J. & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S.
Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 250-312). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Odden, A.R. (2000). The costs of sustaining change through comprehensive school
reform. Phi Delta Kappan. 81(6), 433-438.

Odden, A.R., Goetz, M.E, & Picus, L.O. (2007). Paying for school finance adequacy
with the national average expenditure per pupil. Report prepared for the
School Finance Redesign Project, March 2007.

Odden and Picus (2009) Chapter 6 (Resource Allocation pile)

Odden, A.R., Picus, L., Archibald, S., Goertz, M., Turner Mangan, M., Aportola, A.
(2007). Moving from Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools
Adequately and Doubling Student Performance. Report prepared for the
Wisconsin Legislature, March 2007.

Odden, A.R. (2008). CPRE’s School Finance Research: Fifteen Years of Findings.
CPRE Report: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Odden, A.R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(2), 120-125.
327
Odden, A.R., Picus, L.O. et al (2005) An Evidence Based Approach to School
Finance Adequacy in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming
Legislature. Retrieved from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2006/interim/schoolfinance/Recalibration/WY%2
0RecaFinal.pdf on December 29, 2007.

Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The story of the education
dollar. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-169.

Parker, Dennis (2006). Strategic Schooling. Professional Development seminar in
September 2008.

Perez, Maria, Anand, P., Speroni, C., Parrish, T., Ersa, P., Socias, M. et al. (2007).
Successful California Schools in the Context of School Adequacy. Report
prepared for the American Institute for Research: Stanford University,
January 2007.

Petrides, L.A. (2006). Using data to improve instruction. T.H.E. Journal, 33(9), 32-
34.

Picus, L.O. (2000). Student level finance data: Wave of the future? The Clearing
House; 74(2), 75-80.

Picus, L.O. (2002). How schools allocate their resources. ERIC Document
Reproduction no. ED 452 578.

Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Aportela, A. Mangan, M.T., and Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing School Finance Adequacy: School Level Resource Use in
Wyoming Following Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform. North Hollywood,
CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Prepared for the Wyoming
Legislative Service Office. Available at www.lopandassociates.com

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher
College Record, 109(6), p. 1303-1373.

Slavin, R.E. (1999). How can funding equity ensure enhanced achievement? Journal
of Education Finance, 24(2), 519-528.

Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The
importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher,
25(9), 9-11.

328
SPSA (2008). Single Plan for Student Achievement. Retrieved from
www.acsd.k12.ca.us from September 2008-December 2008.

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

Timar, T. (2006). How California Funds K-12. Report prepared for Institute for
Research Education: Stanford University, 2006.

Valencia, R.R., Valenzuela, A., Sloan, K., & Foley, D. (2004). Let’s treat the cause,
not the symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. In L. Skrla &
J.J. Scheurich (Eds.), Educational Equity and Accountability: Paradigms,
policies, and politics. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, (pp. 29-38).

Verstegen, D.A. & King, R.A. (1998). The relationship between school spending
and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of production
function research. Journal of Educational Finance, 24(2), 243-262.

Walter, F.B. & Sweetland, S.R. (2003). School finance reform: An unresolved issue
across the nation. Education, 124(1), 143-150.

Weiss, J. (2007). Conditions for student success: The cycle of continuous
instructional improvement. Working Paper No. 4: School Finance Redesign
Project, March 2007.
329
Appendix A: Quantitative Data Collection Protocol
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number

Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

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

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

330

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

331

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

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

332

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

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

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

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-
contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:

333

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular
Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:

334

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:

NOTES:

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:

335

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

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal
Dollars:

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

336

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

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

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

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

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

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

337

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

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

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

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants

$
Administration

Travel

$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities

$
Tuition & Conference Fees

$
Other Professional Development

$
Other Professional Development Staff
Funded with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

338

Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:

NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

NOTES:

339

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

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
340
Appendix B: Data Collection Codebook
This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School
Resource Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. It identifies data collection
items and their definitions. This document is organized according to the
corresponding Data Collection Protocol and the web portal for data entry
(www.lopassociates.com).

I. School Profile

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

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

II. School Contacts

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

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael
instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
341
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

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

IV. District Contacts

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

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael
instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
342
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

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

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school
on the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in
any pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit.
These students should not be included in the previous category, Current
Student Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary
schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in.
(E.g. K-5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the
number of students eligible for services as an English language learner
(ELL) as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the
site visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education
services. (This will most likely be a larger number than the number of
students who are in a self-contained special education classroom.) Does
not include gifted and talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of
students in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP)
indicating their eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school
day begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the
school day is 405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the
school bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch,
and passing period’s time from the total minutes in the school day. This
calculation is different from how the state measures the “instructional
day.” (E.g. If the length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the
343
students have 20 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the
length of the instructional day is 360 minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially
grouped for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per
day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading,
English, and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods
when students are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction.
(E.g. reading, writing, comprehension) Report an average per day
length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per
day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction.
Report an average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”

VI. Core Academic Teachers

The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular
education classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize
certain core subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades.
These teachers are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools,
high schools, or any other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of
those teachers who are members of the English/language arts, mathematics,
science, social studies, and foreign language departments along with special
education or ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes in these subjects.
The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. (E.g. a half-time teacher would be entered as 0.5) If
teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms, divide up the FTEs weighted
by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that corresponds to
the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields. Indicate in parentheses if
the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
344
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courteny Cox Arquette (0.33), Matt
LeBlanc

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

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

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

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide
instruction in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education
teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director,
which would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.
345

VIII. Library Staff

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

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

IX. Extra Help Staff

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

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-
5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-
5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title
I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
346
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language
(ESL) classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach
them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students
in the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program
for the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra
help staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provides supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other”
extra help classified staff does.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for
most or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified
version of a school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their
students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who
assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have
physical or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students
generally have “less severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in
self-contained special education classrooms and work with “severely”
disabled students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally
have “less severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education
aides who provide small groups of students in special education with
extra help in specific areas.
347
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate
in the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per
week that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week
in the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provides
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of
classified staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in
session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number
of students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer
school program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in
the summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards
in the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

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

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all
other consultants other than professional development contracted
services.
348
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not
included in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction,
but were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes
who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace
teachers who are participating in professional development.)

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

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

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract:
Number of days the teacher contract specifies for professional
development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional
development. For time outside the regular contract day when students are
not present before or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half
days or early release days, the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying
the teachers’ hourly salary times the number of student-free hours used
for professional development. For planning time within the regular
contract, the dollar amount is calculated as the cost of the portion of the
salary of the person used to cover the teachers’ class during planning time
used for professional development. For other time during the regular
school day, including release time provided by substitutes, cost is
calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school day,
including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on
the hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their
time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional
facilitators and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district
coaches (though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded).
Outside consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an
349
estimated FTE amount depending on how much time they spend at the
school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from
the district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the
specific school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or
other costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional developments
is, and indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

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

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage
attendance and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who
serve as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working
with parents to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or
educational diagnosticians.
350
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g.
Lunchroom aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT
include cooks – the defining difference is whether the staff member is
supervising students or not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use
this category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff
member does.

XIII. Administration

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

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

XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and
high schools.)

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but
other times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many
students are in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a
(preferably electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data.
When entering the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every
class that is taught at the school. Click on the Class Size option from the
main menu and a new menu will be displayed on the left. This menu will
have options for grades Pre-8 plus Special Education. When you click on a
351
grade, the page with that grade's sections will be displayed where you can
enter the individual class sizes.
352
Appendix C: Qualitative Data Collection Protocol
Story of how your school has improved student performance.

What is the instructional vision for your
improvement efforts?

What has been the content focus of your
school improvement process?

What are the curricular and instructional
components to your school improvement?

What curricula have you used during your
instructional improvement effort?
Aligned with state standards?
How do you know it is aligned?

Are there supplemental curricula that you
use? Why were these particular ones
chosen?

Which implemented instructional
practices have been important components
of your school improvement process?
E.g. individualized instruction,
differentiated instruction, and an
uninterrupted block of reading instruction.

353
Has data analysis been an integral part of
your improvement process?
If so, what types of assessments have you
used? (E.g. formative, diagnostic,
summative)
How often are those assessments utilized
and analyzed?
What actions were taken with the results?

Does your staff have an agreed upon
definition of what constitutes effective
teaching?

What instructional strategies (school wide
focus) have teachers been trained in?
-How do you know that those instructional
strategies were being implemented?

How is the professional capacity of
teachers developed at your school site?
I.e. coaching, grade level meetings, PLCs,
school wide staff development,

Are there any additional
instructional/curricular strategies that you
think are integral to your school
improvement process?

354
What were the resource pieces of your school improvement strategy? How long
have the resources been in place?

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

Kindergarten- Full Day?

Class Size Reduction- Do you reduce class
size throughout the day?
E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading with only
15

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

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

Parent outreach or community involvement

Technology

355
Additional Information

Is your school improvement effort
driven by district priorities or is it
developed based on site specific needs?

How are instructional decisions made
at your school site?

Other than API and AYP measures is
there additional accountability built
into your improvement plan? (E.g.
School Board report which helped
solidify focus)

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

How has the district supported your
instructional improvement efforts?

Given the current budgetary situation,
what trade-offs have you had to make
to ensure that your instructional
improvement focus stays intact?

356
Appendix D: Principal Letter
September 5, 2008
Dear Principal,

Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in my thematic dissertation study.
This letter provides a brief description of the topic, the study, and additional
background information.

I am a current graduate student at the University of Southern California and am
working on my Ed.D dissertation under Larry Picus, Ph.D. Dr. Picus is a nationally
recognized expert in school finance adequacy and has conducted state adequacy
studies in Washington, Arkansas, Wyoming, Kentucky, Arizona, and Wisconsin.
The topic of my study is allocation of educational resources to improve student
learning. This study is based on two bodies of educational research: instructional
improvement practices and school finance adequacy. The instructional improvement
literature indicates there are specific practices schools should engage in to increase
student academic achievement. School finance literature currently examines which
resources are needed to improve schools. The questions that arise are, “Do schools
have the necessary resources to increase student achievement?”; “What constitutes
an adequate education?” and “Does effective resource use increase student
achievement?” The basic premise of my study is to conduct case studies of ten
Southern California schools to look at the existing resources at each particular school
and describe how these resources are used to support the instructional improvement
program.

I hope to contribute to research efforts that look at resource allocation and use by
identifying and describing how it looks at your particular school. I will study how
teaching staff is utilized, how instructional minutes are spent, how much is allocated
toward professional development, and what additional instructional strategies are
used at your school. The ultimate plan is to add to the research base that examines
what an adequate education looks like in California and which resources and/or
instructional strategies are needed to ensure all students achieve proficiency in the
core content areas. I expect to gather this information through a structured
interview with you (and other appropriate staff members if you deem it necessary).
The structured interview format will include an examination of your master
schedule, bell schedule, staffing list, and your school improvement plan.

I am excited to work with you as I have learned your school is involved in
implementing sound and innovative instructional practices. Not only will your
school’s participation add important data to my study but will add to the general
knowledge base of school improvement.
357
Within a week, I will follow up this letter with a phone call to your school to answer
any questions and schedule an appointment at your convenience. Please know that
your school will remain anonymous and I will only ask you for information and
collect data that are public types of information.

Thank you for your consideration in helping me complete my Ed.D dissertation
while contributing to research on educational adequacy. Please do not hesitate to
contact me with any questions. I can be reached as follows:

Many Thanks!!!

Patricia G. Sandoval
358
Appendix E: Pre-Interview Principal Memo
To:
From: Patricia Sandoval
Re: Dissertation Study Document Request

Once again, Thank You for your willingness to participate in my study. To ensure
that our upcoming interview appointment on September 29, 2008 is as concise as
possible, I am requesting that you please send me via email to psandova@usc.edu a
copy of your:
• Staff List
• Master Schedule
• Professional Development Plan- general description and money allocated
for it.
• School’s vision and mission statements.

If possible, can you please send the documents by Friday, September 26, 2008?
Having these documents prior to our scheduled appointment will allow me the
opportunity to gain a general understanding of your school site and make for a
successful interview. During our interview, I will ask you questions seeking specific
quantitative data, such as: Professional Development- Budget and expenditures per
teacher, length of core academic daily instruction, class size, number of teachers,
number of support staff, number of special education students, and intervention and
summer school programs. I will also ask you questions seeking qualitative
information such as your instructional focus, your school plan for improvement, and
the utilized instructional strategies at your site. I am attaching, for your perusal, a
copy of the interview questions.

I look forward to meeting with you on September 29, 2008 at 3:30. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at (714)517-8920 should you have any questions.

Thank you!!!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the era of NCLB and standards based instruction, CA schools have mounting pressures to make AYP and meet their API growth targets. Consequently, educational researchers are focusing on which resources are necessary to increase the achievement of all students. In the current age of accountability, schools must target their existing resources and link them to strategies that will lead to student achievement. School level resource use studies examine how schools utilize their existing resources and whether they allocate them toward effective strategies. This research is comprised of school level resource allocation and use case studies that inform how eight schools have implemented effective instructional practices. It discusses strategies the schools have implemented to increase their API scores and double their percent proficient scores in English Language Arts. The resource allocation patterns are analyzed using the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the school improvement strategies are explicated through the Washington Successful School Study (Fermanich et. al, 2006).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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 a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Sandoval, Patricia Gonzalez (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/14/2009

Defense Date 03/02/2009

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

Tag educational adequacy,elementary school case studies,evidence based model,instructional improvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,resource use,school finance,school improvement

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email pgscoautlicue@aol.com,psandova@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2088

Unique identifier UC1466108

Identifier etd-Sandoval-2704 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-235159 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2088 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Sandoval-2704.pdf

Dmrecord 235159

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sandoval, Patricia Gonzalez

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