University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 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

by
Lisa Marie Cain

__________________________________________________________________

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

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Lisa Marie Cain
ii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents,
James and Suzanne Cain.
Without their love, incredible support, and unfaltering faith;
writing this dissertation would not have been possible.
A special thanks and appreciation to my partner,
Richard Palmer;
For your love, dedication, and most importantly, patience.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Lawrence Picus
Dr. John Nelson
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Members of this Parallel Dissertation Group:
Jennifer (a very special companion in the journey),
Jami, Kevin, Jason, J.D., and Wendy.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………....ii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………iii

List of Tables..…………………………………………………………..viii

Abstract……...……………………………………………………………ix

CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ........................................................................1
Introduction ..........................................................................................1
Background to the Problem..................................................................3
The Statement of the Problem..............................................................7
The Purpose of the Study ...................................................................10
Research Questions ............................................................................10
Signifiance of the Study.....................................................................11
Limitations .........................................................................................13
Delimitations......................................................................................13
Assumptions.......................................................................................14
Definition of Terms............................................................................14
Organization of the Study ..................................................................16
CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................18
REVIEW OF LITERATURE.........................................................................18
Introduction ........................................................................................18
Influence of Teacher Quality on Student Learning............................19
Professional Development as a Key Element in Educational Reform
Efforts.................................................................................................27
An Evidence-Based Approach to Professional Development............38
The School Site as Decision Maker ...................................................44
Resource Allocation for Professional Development ..........................50
Summary ............................................................................................58
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................60
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................60
Introduction ........................................................................................60
Sample and population.......................................................................61
Overview of district and school ......................................................62
District leaders .............................................................................65
Site administrators........................................................................65
v
Teacher ........................................................................................66
Instrumentation ..................................................................................66
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................67
Framework for research question one ..........................................70
Framework for research question two..........................................71
Framework for research question three........................................71
Framework for research question four: ........................................72
Data Collection Instrument ................................................................73
Instrument 1: Interview Guide: .......................................................74
Instrument 2: Document Review Guide:.........................................75
Data collection ...................................................................................76
Data analysis ......................................................................................77
Qualitative Data ..............................................................................77
Document Review Guide ................................................................78
Summary ............................................................................................78
CHAPTER FOUR .....................................................................................80
FINDINGS ................................................................................................80
Introduction ........................................................................................80
Utilization of Personnel for the Delivery of Professional
Development: Data for Research Question One ................................83
Utilization of Human Resources .....................................................84
Effectiveness of Professional Development....................................90
Evaluation of Allocation Practices................................................100
Summary of Findings for Research Question One ......................102
Decision-making for the Allocation of Professional Development
Resources: Data for Research Question Two...................................105
Decision-Making Rationale ..........................................................106
Vision for Learning ....................................................................107
Observation of Teacher Needs ...................................................111
Collaboration..............................................................................112
Using Data..................................................................................115
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two.......................119
Professional Development Funding: Data for Research Question
Three ................................................................................................121
Allocations for Professional Development ...................................122
District........................................................................................122
School Site .................................................................................126
Efficient Use of Resources............................................................130
Autonomous Decision-making for the Allocation of Resources ..131
District Support .............................................................................133
The Role of Categorical Funds .....................................................135
Evaluation of Sutherland's Allocation Practices ...........................138
vi
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three.....................140
Promoting Organizational Capacity and Student Achievement
Through Professional Development:
Data for Research Question Four.....................................................142
Sharing a Vision............................................................................143
Collaboration.................................................................................151
Data-driven Decision Making & Technology ..............................154
Data ............................................................................................155
Technology.................................................................................157
Accountability...............................................................................161
Reinforcing Student Achievement ................................................161
Restructuring Teacher Compensation and the Contractual Year..164
Summary of Findings for Research Question Four.......................168
Summary ..........................................................................................170
CHAPTER FIVE .....................................................................................171
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS.........171
Overview of the Problem .................................................................171
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................172
Methodology ....................................................................................173
Sample and Population..................................................................174
Instrumentation .............................................................................174
Data Collection..............................................................................175
Data Analysis ................................................................................176
Qualitative Data .........................................................................176
Document Review Guide ...........................................................176
Summary of the Findings .................................................................177
Framework for Research Question One........................................177
Findings for Research Question One ............................................177
Framework for Research Question Two .......................................178
Findings for Research Question Two............................................179
Framework for Research Question Three .....................................179
Findings for Research Question Three..........................................180
Framework for Research Question Four .......................................181
Findings for Research Question Four ...........................................181
Conclusions......................................................................................182
Six Core Strategies of the Conceptual Framework .......................182
Recalibrate Goals .......................................................................183
Re-engineer Schools...................................................................183
Redesign Teacher Development ................................................185
Reinforce Achievement..............................................................185
Retool Schools' Technology.......................................................186
Restructure Teacher Compensation ...........................................186
vii
The District's Role in a Decentralized Setting ..............................187
Decentralized and Centralized Management Styles......................188
Recommendations ............................................................................189
Suggestions for Further Research ....................................................193

REFERENCES ........................................................................................196
APPENDICES .........................................................................................203
APPENDIX A .........................................................................................203
Interview Guides ..............................................................................203
District Level Interview Guide......................................................203
Site Administrator Interview Guide ..............................................206
Teacher Interview Guide...............................................................209
APPENDIX B..........................................................................................212
Document Review Guide .................................................................212

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Characteristics of Effective Professional Development 37

Table 2: Similarities Between the Evidence-Based Model, Six Structural 44
Features, Key Improvement Elements, and Six Core Strategies
for Developing Effective Professional Development

Table 3: Glenn Park Unified School District and Sutherland Elementary 63
Student Population Counts 2005-2006
Table 4: Sutherland Elementary School Enrollment by Ethnicity 64

Table 5: Relationship Between the Six Core Strategies and the Research 70
Questions

Table 6: Relationship Between Data Collection Instruments and Research 73
Questions
Table 7: Sutherland’s Student Achievement Results for Writing 96

Table 8: Glenn Park Unified School District’s Student Achievement 97
Results for Writing
Table 9: CST English Language Arts Results for Sutherland Elementary 98

Table 10: Sutherland’s API Scores Related to the Increase of English 99
Language Learners
Table 11: Comparative Analysis of Evidence-Based Standard to 101
Current Human Resource Allocation Practices of
Sutherland Elementary
Table 12: Glenn Park’s 2005-2006 Professional Development 123
Expenditures and Funding Sources

Table 13: Sutherland’s 2005-2006 Budget and Funding Sources 127

Table 14: Sutherland’s 2005-2006 Professional Development Allocations 127

Table 15: Comparative Analysis of Evidence-Based Standard to Current 139
Financial Allocation Practices of Sutherland Elementary
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate how much funding a site-
based managed school allocated toward promoting effective professional
development at an elementary school level. Additionally, the study examined a
district and school’s practice of allocating resources for professional development
and determined how funding and where the funding for professional development
originated. Furthermore, an evaluation process was used to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the school’s professional development programs as they
compared to an evidence-based professional development model.
This study used conceptual frameworks adapted from the research
literature to guide data collection and analysis for four research questions: (a)
How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development? (b) How
are resource allocation decisions for professional development determined? (c)
How much funding is directed toward professional development and from what
sources do these funds originate? (d) How is professional development used to
promote organizational capacity and student achievement?
This descriptive-analytic case study was conducted in one elementary
school, Sutherland Elementary, in a decentralized unified school district, Glenn
Park Unified, located just 30 miles outside of Los Angeles’ metropolitan area in
Southern California. The district and school were selected on the basis of: (a)
implementation of innovative professional development; (b) evidence of
x
administrative freedom to allocate funds to professional development; and (c)
significant gains in the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) over the last
5 years.
Data analysis revealed that Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified
School District employed several research-based strategies pertaining to
professional development that aimed at building the capacity of the organization
and the individuals. Additionally, the data uncovered that while Sutherland
Elementary had the autonomy to decide upon professional development activities,
the district supported the school site. An evaluation of Sutherland’s allocation
practices for professional development revealed a disconnect with the research
provided by the evidence-based model. However, the data also highlighted that
Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified School District received a greater
amount of professional development resources than could be accounted for in the
school and district’s expenditures due to partnerships with universities and
educational foundations.
The study provided conclusions addressing the six core strategies of the
conceptual framework, the role of the district office in a decentralized setting, and
the analysis between the decentralized setting of Glenn Park Unified as compared
to a centralized management style. Five major themes surrounding professional
development practices appeared to illustrate the overall success of the school and
district: (a) a vision for learning; (b) data-driven decision making; (c) effective
xi
utilization of resources; (d) collaboration; and (e) site autonomy.
Recommendations for successful professional development practices at other
schools and districts included: (a) establishing a clear vision and goals for
teaching and learning; (b) utilizing data to make professional development
decisions; (c) establishing the needed access to ongoing, on-site, fulltime
coaching; (d) adopting a financial plan that mirrors those used in the private
sector; (e) collaboration across the school and district; and (f) encouraging site
autonomy for professional development decisions coupled with district support as
needed. Finally, suggestions for future research consisted of: (a) uncovering the
impact of lost instructional time for the purpose of professional development; (b)
investigating how to efficiently fund on-site coaches and understand the
knowledge and skills coaches must possess to be effective; (c) comparing the
professional development practices of decentralized and centralized districts on a
larger scale; and (d) performing experimental studies for the purpose of
establishing statistically significant correlations between professional
development practices and student learning outcomes.

1
CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study
Introduction of the Problem
Access to effective teachers is an essential ingredient for promoting high
levels of student achievement in our public schools (Berry, 2004; Koppich, 2004;
Lau, 2004). To produce teachers of the highest quality, schools must promote
ongoing learning through professional development. Effective professional
development programs have the ability to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills
for the purpose of positively influencing student learning.
There is growing research to support the idea that teachers’ knowledge
and skills are the primary variables to impact student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 1999; Marzano, 2001; Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich, 2005).
According to Koppich (2004); “teacher effectiveness trumps nearly every other
variable, from class size to class composition, as the determinant of student
achievement” (p. 2). Furthermore, Lau (2004) highlighted, in Teacher
Professional Development: A Primer for Parents & Community Members, that
40% to 90% of the differences reported on student achievement tests were
attributable to teacher quality. With the critical roll that teachers play in student
achievement, it is pertinent that effective professional development opportunities
be supplied to teachers.
2
Unfortunately, professional development programs are not always
effectively implemented in public schools (CED, 2004). The lack of knowledge
on the part of some administrators adds to such shortcomings. Administrators
create trainings that meet the wants of the teachers but are not based on evidence.
They book one-time workshops, or send a select group of staff members to
participate in a conference that is not correctly aligned with the vision of the
school or district (Cocoran, 2003). Research shows that such ill matched and
fragmented professional development does little to build the capacity of
individuals or the institution (Darling-Hammond, 1999).
Current research recommends that professional development be ongoing
and embedded within the teachers’ regular workday (Sparks, 1999; Odden, et al.,
2005). Additionally, teachers must have the opportunity to perfect newly acquired
skills through the coaching process and be given the needed time to collaborate
with fellow teachers (Sparks, 1999; Odden, et al., 2005). Odden, Picus, Goetz,
and Fermanich (2005) recommend that 200 hours a year be dedicated to teachers’
professional development. By improving the quality of instruction through
evidence-based professional development strategies, student achievement will
improve (Odden, et al., 2005; Rowan, Correnti & Miller, 2002; Sanders & Horn,
1994; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Webster, Mendro, Orsak & Weerasinghe, 1998).
However, efforts to align professional development with evidence-based
strategies require that schools and districts direct human and financial resources
3
toward that process. With a tightening state budget, it is important that
California’s educational system look at how resources are presently allocated for
professional development. Once such an investigation takes place, the state and
local educational agencies (LEAs) can determine how resources can be most
effectively and efficiently used to provide evidence-based professional
development programs that will promote organizational capacity and student
achievement.
Background of the Problem
Reform movements, coupled with federal accountability legislation and
the settlement of educational lawsuits led to increased attention on teacher quality.
Within the last decade California initiated class size reduction (CSR) and
standards-based education in an attempt to increase student achievement. No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) as well as the settlement of Williams v. State of
California were two additional ways that the state, districts, and schools were
mandated to provide students with quality teachers. In the center of today’s
educational reform is teacher quality. Through effective professional development
California’s teachers can transform their learning into student achievement gains.
The demand for teacher quality is not new. In 1983, A Nation at Risk
recommended that teachers be put under contract for 11 months to ensure
adequate time for professional development opportunities. The eighteen-person
commission recognized the importance that teachers served in educating students.
4
However, while teacher preparation and development was a concern of the
commissions, other recommendations focusing on curricular content and
standards took precedence (U.S. Department of Education, 1983).
A Nation at Risk helped to bring attention to the weaknesses in the
nation’s educational system. Since its publication, various reform efforts have
attempted to remedy the shortcomings of public education including CSR and
standards-based reform.
In 1996, California passed SB 1777 cutting class size in grades
Kindergarten through 3 from an average of 28 students to a maximum of 20
students (CSR Research Consortium). At the time, many believed that CSR would
be the silver-bullet reform needed to increase student learning in California
(Jespen & Rivkin, 2002). This assumption was supported by the findings from
Tennessee’s four-year longitudinal study. The Student-Teacher Achievement
Ratio (STAR) Project was conducted from 1985-1989 in Tennessee and found
that students in small class sizes during early grades displayed greater educational
gains than students not assigned to small classes (Nye, Achilles, Zaharias, &
Fulton, 1993).
With the decreased student-to-teacher ratio, an increased demand for
additional teachers at the elementary level followed. Given the increased
expenditure for additional teachers’ salaries, CSR proved to be one of the most
costly reforms that California ever initiated (CSR Research Consortium, n.d.). Not
5
only was it a costly reform for the state, it was also costly for the students. Unlike
the Tennessee STAR Project, California did not have enough qualified teachers to
place in its classrooms. Many districts were forced to hire inexperienced and non-
credentialed individuals (Ogawa, 1998). Unfortunately, the decline in teacher
quality was most apparent in districts and schools serving the highest proportions
of minority and low-income students (CSR Research Consortium, n.d.). This
reform effort directly influenced the quality of teachers entering the classroom.
Besides CSR at the elementary level, reform was needed that would
positively impact the educational system as a whole. Several states, including
California, created statewide content standards for the K-12 system. In 1995,
Assembly Bill 265 called for specific content and performance standards to be
designed and adopted by January 1998 (Massell, 1997). Unlike the old curriculum
frameworks previously established by the state, the new content standards were
designed to promote high levels of achievement in every student, by defining the
knowledge and skills that students should acquire at each grade level (CDE,
2006).
Additionally, California content standards acted as a guide for teachers.
Prior to the creation of specific content standards, many educators complained
that the curriculum frameworks were too broad and ambiguous in nature (Massell,
1997). With the development of specific content standards and the bold move
toward a standards-based educational system, attention was focused on teacher
6
quality. Given the advanced skills that students were expected to master,
California needed teachers who were competent in the subject areas that they
were teaching (Massell, 1997). To help ensure teacher competency, additional
accountability measures were certain to follow.
Shortly after California adopted content standards and Senate Bill 376
authorized the implementation of California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program in 1997, the state passed Senate Bill 1X; the Public School
Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999. PSAA represented the final component of
the standards-based reform movement. The act established a statewide
accountability program for Kindergarten through twelfth grade public schools.
Schools were held accountable based on collective criteria that established the
schools’ similar schools ranks (SSRs) system. This ranking system compared
schools based on several school characteristics including the quality of teaching
faculty. The percentage of teachers who were fully credentialed as well as those
teachers who were teaching on emergency credentials helped to determine the
similar school ranks (Technical Design Group of the Advisory Committee for the
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999). Lower achieving schools were more
likely to have less experienced teachers and more teachers operating on
emergency credentials than higher achieving schools (Goe, 2002).
As California was self-imposing accountability measures, the federal
government also increased accountability for districts, schools, teachers, and
7
students across the nation. Through the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2001, the federal government placed new
accountability requirements on teachers. While NCLB legislation focused closely
on improving the achievement of disadvantaged students, it also placed an added
emphasis on teacher quality. The legislation required that all public school
teachers meet particular competency requirements and that state educational
agencies (SEAs), in connection with LEAs, establish and implement professional
development programs that met the needs of its teachers. To accomplish the
above, NCLB provided additional funding under Title II to SEAs for the purpose
of increasing teacher and principal quality within schools (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
While categorical funding is provided to districts to increase the skills and
knowledge of teachers through professional development, the employment of
human and financial resources must be aligned with credible research findings.
Districts and schools must strategically utilize funding for professional
development purposes in accordance with the existing evidence of effective
practice. Through the establishment of effective, evidence-based professional
development programs, positive student achievement results will be realized.
Statement of the Problem
Mediocre student achievement on tests like the TIMSS and high school
exit exams, prompted concern over our country’s educational system. The
8
national focus on poor student achievement coupled with the negative media
attention on this topic, led the public to demand educational reform. Such
demands placed political pressure on Washington and state policymakers to
improve our educational system. Policymakers increasingly focused on improving
the educational system through the application of school accountability measures
that focused on teacher qualifications (Koppich, 2004).
NCLB established several expectations for schools to meet in order to
improve student achievement. One of the expectations was that teachers in the
nation’s schools be highly qualified. Research displayed the importance that
effective teachers had on student learning (Berry, Hoke, & Hirsh 2004; Koppich,
2004; Lau, 2004). Therefore, teachers need intense, high-quality professional
development to improve their instructional capacity and that of the schools’
(Miles, Odden, Fermanich, & Archibald, 2004). Effective professional
development is an essential component of comprehensive school reform.
To successfully reform schools, more needs to be known about how
schools utilize personnel to promote student learning. Understanding how
decisions are made to allocate resources for professional development, may offer
insight into the importance that schools place in offering professional
development and advancing student learning. Discovering the similarities and
differences between how district-managed and site-based managed schools
9
allocate personnel, make allocation decisions, and fund their professional
development programs may increase understanding of effective school practices.
Although other states were placed under the magnifying glass to better
understand how their educational resources were allocated, California has yet to
be subjected to such scrutiny (Odden, et al. 2005; Odden, Picus, & Fermanich,
2003). There is limited research about how site-based managed schools within
California direct resources toward professional development programs. An
examination of how site-based managed schools utilize and allocate personnel as
a resource for professional development may offer California’s educational
system a greater understanding of current and best practices. Although
information is available about the state’s existing educational funding levels,
more should be known about how much money is needed to run effective
professional development programs in California’s schools. This study may begin
the journey toward uncovering that answer.
Given the responsibility of educating over 6 million students, it is critical
that California’s educational system is designed to promote the capacity of
schools, educators, and students (Spring, 2003). Such capacity building can be
supported by continually improving instruction through the implementation of
effective professional development (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Yoon,
2002). When professional development is effective in producing positive changes
in teachers’ instructional practices, it is likely to improve student-learning
10
outcomes (Odden, Picus, & Fermanich, 2003). Therefore, a comprehensive
analysis of effective professional development programs; human and financial
resource allocation; and funding determinants is needed to positively guide policy
and practice toward improving organizational capacity and student learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate how a site-based manage
school determined the staff and funding levels for promoting effective
professional development at an elementary school level. Additionally, the study
examined the school and district’s allocation of human resources for professional
development and determined where the funding for professional development
originated. Furthermore, the evaluation process was used to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the school’s professional development programs as they
compared to an evidence-based professional development model.
The research questions guiding this study were:
1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?
2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?
3. How much funding is directed toward professional development and
from what sources do these funds originate?
4. How is professional development used to promote organizational
capacity and student achievement?
11
Significance of the Study
While a significant volume of research exists pertaining to professional
development, little of this research focuses on the allocation of resources for the
implementation of professional development programs in California. Through the
examination of one elementary school’s professional development program in a
site-based district and resource distribution practices, other researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers may gain insight that will further facilitate the
effort of building instructional capacity and improving student achievement in
California. This study described how a site-based managed school allocated
human and financial resources to professional development programs for the
purpose of strengthening instructional capacity and student learning. The study is
important to California state policymakers, educational researchers, district and
site administrators, educational program directors, and support providers at the
site level as they work to improve teaching and learning by increasing teacher and
school capacity.
Policymakers and educational researchers will gain insight into how
schools fund and implement professional development programs. Policymakers at
the local, state, and federal levels will better understand what strategies and
components of professional development programs are effective in strengthening
instructional practices. Additionally, policymakers and educational researchers
may gain a better understanding of what resources are needed for professional
12
development programs to be successful and how such resources can be effectively
allocated. Armed with this knowledge, educational researchers and policymakers
will be able to influence and compose policy that will directly and positively
effect teaching and learning.
The results of this study may provide a framework for site administrators
and district personnel to refer to when designing, implementing, and funding
professional development programs. By understanding how resources can be
effectively and efficiently utilized for professional development purposes,
administrators and district personnel may strengthen their institutions’ vision of
being a community of learners while also strengthening their own abilities as
instructional leaders. Furthermore, this study may offer district personnel and site-
based managed school administrators a better understanding of the perceived
relationship between budget projections and allocation of resources for
professional development.
Finally, those individuals who are responsible for designing teacher
education programs in California will be able to more effectively prepare teachers
by understanding how educators are utilized for professional development
purposes. Although this study examined the funding and implementation of
professional development at the elementary school level, educational program
directors at the university level may gain insights from this study into how
programs can be designed to promote continual learning among teachers. Also,
13
support providers may discover how to more effectively use their time and
material resources to facilitate teacher learning.
It was the goal of this study to evaluate a site-based school’s professional
development program as a way to offer those in the educational arena a greater
understanding of how schools and districts allocate resources for professional
development. In addition to being of use to policymakers, educational researchers,
administrators, teacher-educators, it was hoped that this study would aid
independently run schools, decentralized districts, and centralized districts in
identifying and allocating adequate resources toward the creation and
implementation of effective professional development.
Limitations
The study faced the limitations associated with the small sample size of a
case study. These limitations included the willingness of participants to take part
in interviews and the collection of data over a restricted period of time.
Additionally, resource constraints hindered the researcher from collecting all
possible data in the study.
Delimitations
Delimitations were purposefully composed within this evaluative study.
The researcher chose to delimit the study to one elementary school using the
purposeful sampling strategies of maximum variation and criterion sampling.
Using these sampling strategies allowed the study to identify unique funding and
14
allocation practices for professional development in the identified decentralized
school. Additionally, criterion sampling was used to focus the study on a site-
based managed school. Such delimitations were consistent with a case study
analysis and therefore limited the ability to generalize the findings to a broader
scope.
Assumptions
It was assumed that the participants answered willingly and honestly
during the interviews. Additionally, all existing data collected and analyzed from
the identified schools were assumed to be complete and correct.
Definition of Terms
Academic performance index (API):
California’s numerical system used to rank schools’ performance based on
student achievement results on criterion referenced test.
Adequacy:
The supply of sufficient fiscal resources from the federal and state
government to each school within the state for the purpose of implementing
evidence-based professional development programs for the purpose of increasing
student performance (Odden, Picus, & Fermanich 2003).

15
Capacity:
The potential for instructional growth, development, or accomplishment at
the unit, site, and system levels using data, professional development, standards,
and interventions in order to positively influence student learning (Massell, 2000).
Effective Professional Development:
It is district or school delivered professional development that produces
change in teachers’ classroom-based instructional practice, which can be linked to
improvements in student learning (Odden, Picus, & Fermanich, 2003, p. 33)
Evidence-based Decision Making:
Decisions made by educational leaders that are based on sound research
or applicable district, school, and student information. It is also termed research-
based decision-making.
Instructional Leadership:
The act of educational leaders providing classroom teachers with guidance
in the form of practical teaching strategies, advice, and coaching as a way to
facilitate teaching and learning.
Resources:
The financial and human capital that is identified for professional
development use within an educational organization.

16
Stakeholder:
An individual who has a vested interest in the organization and the
outcomes of the educational system, including administrators, teachers, students,
parents, and community members.
Organization of the Study
The first chapter of the study provided an introduction detailing the
historical significance, purpose, and questions surrounding the problem proposed
in the study. Limitations, delimitations, and operational definitions of terms are
provided. Chapter Two reviews the significant literature in education as it pertains
to professional development. Several themes emerge including: (a) the influence
of teacher quality on student learning outcomes, (b) professional development as a
key step in educational reform efforts, (c) evidence-based components of high
quality professional development, (d) the role of the school site as the decision
maker, and (e) the allocation of resources for professional development. Chapter
Three provides the methodology of the study. Included within this chapter are the
researcher’s reasons for selecting: (a) the topic of focus, (b) the case study
design,(c) the sample of participants, (d) data collection instruments, and (e) the
methods by which data will be collected and analyzed. Chapter Four presents the
findings of the study and reflects on the significance of the results as they relate to
the initial research questions. Chapter Five summarizes the study, presents the
significance of the study, draws conclusions reached after analysis of the findings,
17
highlights implications for practice, and provides suggestions for further study in
the area of professional development. Additionally, this chapter will compare the
study’s findings to those conducted in a centralized district. This chapter is
immediately followed by a list of references and appendices.
18
CHAPTER TWO
Review of the Literature
Introduction
Concerns about America’s educational system began to surface in the
minds of the American people with the announcement that Russia successfully
launched its first satellite in October 1957. Since that time, documents like A
Nation At Risk (1983) only exacerbated the worry felt by Americans surrounding
public education. Growing concern centered on the quality and rigor of America’s
public education system in comparison to other industrialized nations’ (U.S.
Department of Education, 1983). It is no surprise that within the last couple of
decades, school reform efforts aimed at increasing student achievement
dominated the educational arena at the federal, state, and local levels. In an era of
standards-based educational reform, researchers have begun to identify effective
professional development as a critical component in influencing student
achievement scores (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gallagher, 2002).
However, despite the mounting research pointing to the significant influence that
effective professional development plays in increasing student-learning outcomes,
the quality of professional development practices within schools continues to be
questionable.
A review of the literature will highlight the important role that quality
teachers play in influencing student-learning outcomes and how effective
19
professional development can influence the quality of teachers within our nation’s
schools (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006;
Wenglinsky, 2000). More specifically, it will address the need for educational
leaders to better understand how schools should allocate resources for
professional development so that practices can be effective and increases in
student achievement can be realized. To facilitate a review of the literature, this
chapter was organized around the themes identified below:
1. The influence that teacher quality has on student learning outcomes;
2. The role that professional development plays in an era of educational
reform efforts;
3. The use of an evidence-based approach as a model for implementing
effective professional development;
4. The role of the school site in making decisions related to professional
development and learning;
5. An examination of how schools commonly allocate resources for
professional development purposes and a model to follow according to the
literature.
Influence of Teacher Quality on Student Learning
Researchers identified several factors that influenced student learning.
Some research in the middle of the 20
th
century suggested that schools and
teachers bore little influence on student achievement (Coleman,1966; Jencks,
20
1972). Many of these early studies placed socioeconomic factors as paramount in
determining student performance. However, more recent research cited the
significant role that individual teachers played in student learning outcomes. A
wide range of teacher quality research pointed to individual teacher characteristics
as variables in quality determination. In addition to exploring teacher
characteristics, researchers designed and implemented value-added models to
estimate teacher effects on student learning outcomes. Both groups of research
highlighted the large and significant impact that teachers had on student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999b; Goldhaber & Anthony, 2003; Marzano,
2001; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wenglinsky,
2000; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). With evidence linking quality education
to future economic growth, it is imperative that students be supplied with the most
effective teachers possible to compete in a global market (Hanushek, 2002).
Improving teacher effectiveness through high quality professional development is
a key step in increasing student learning outcomes (Odden, Picus, Goetz, &
Fermanich, 2006).
The quality of public education became a popular topic in educational
research by the middle of the 20
th
century. Research conducted and reported by
Coleman (1966) and Jencks (1972), concluded that background characteristics
accounted for the majority of variation in student achievement. Prompted by the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Coleman’s (1966) study, Equality of Educational
21
Opportunity, examined the variables affecting student achievement. The results of
his study asserted that family background was the most significant variable in
determining student achievement and that school-level and teachers-level
characteristics contributed little to student learning outcomes. A study by White
(1982) reported similar findings. He claimed that a student’s socioeconomic status
was the most powerful indicator of student performance. According to his results,
family income and occupation accounted for 11.02% of the variance in student
achievement.
By the 1990s and early 21
st
century, several researchers reexamined earlier
research results and conducted new studies to determine variables of influence on
student learning. These researchers discovered that family background, while still
significant as a student-level variable, was not the only significant variable to
impact student achievement. Researchers revealed that teachers had a statistically
significant impact on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999b; Goldhaber
& Anthony, 2003; Marzano, 2001; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Sanders &
Rivers, 1996; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997).
Linda Darling-Hammond (1999b) conducted a mixed-methods study
titled, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy
Evidence. In her study, she utilized surveys and existing assessment data at the
state level to examine how teacher level qualifications and school inputs effected
student achievement. Two of her findings were very meaningful in emphasizing
22
the important role of teacher effectiveness in student learning outcomes. First, she
concluded that while student demographics and family background were related
to learning outcomes, they were less influential in predicting student achievement
than variables assessing teacher quality. Second, she found that teacher quality
was more strongly related to students’ academic achievement than class size or
per pupil spending levels.
Darling-Hammond was not the only researcher to draw such conclusions.
Goldhaber and Anthony (2003) conducted a monograph study to determine the
traits that made teachers effective. Through their research, they discovered “that
among all education factors and school resources (e.g., investments in technology,
educational materials, class size) teacher quality has the largest impact on student
achievement” (p. 9). Similarly, Hanushek (1986) revealed that differences in
school quality were not reflected in variations in per pupil spending or reduced
class sizes. Instead, he concluded in his study that school quality differences
appeared to be the result of differences in teachers’ skills and effectiveness.
Marzano (2001) also concluded that teacher-level characteristics directly
and significantly influenced student-learning outcomes. He conducted a
monograph study of previous research in which he synthesized other researchers’
qualitative and quantitative studies to determine the impact of school and teacher
effects on student learning outcomes. Through his analysis, A New Era of School
Reform: Going Where the Research Takes Us, Marzano was able to generate
23
variables within the school-, teacher-, and student-level categories that impacted
student learning. Under the teacher-level category he highlighted three variables
that determined teacher effectiveness: (a) instruction, (b) curriculum design, and
(c) classroom management. The results of his study, uncovered that more than
half of the variation in student achievement in schools was attributable to teacher-
level variables. In fact, by averaging the effect estimates from other researchers,
he concluded tat 13.34% of student performance variation was due to teacher-
level variables, while only 6.66% was due to school-level variables. Additionally,
Marzano identified professional development as an integral component of
enhancing teacher effectiveness and increasing student learning outcomes.
Beyond examining specific teacher-level characteristics, several studies
were conducted that investigated the impact of teacher effectiveness on student
achievement through a value-added approach. The use of such a method
established a clear statistical approach for determining school and teacher effects
on student achievement. In 1994, Sanders and Horn utilized the Tennessee Value-
Added Assessment System (TVAAS) to determine the effectiveness of schools.
Those schools and school systems deemed most effective through this model were
the schools that provided educational opportunities for all learners as witnessed
by year-to-year achievement gains of individual students.
Two years later, Sanders and Rivers (1996) published a study titled,
Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic
24
Achievement. In their study, Sanders again employed the TVAAS to determine
effects on student achievement. However, the focus shifted from school- to
teacher-level effects. The study consisted of a cohort of students who were in
second grade in 1991-1992, third grade in 1992-1993, fourth grade in 1993-1994,
and fifth grade in 1994-1995. The study provided teacher effect estimates in
mathematics for grades 3 through 5. Sanders and Rivers determined that the effect
of teachers on student achievement was both additive and cumulative.
Furthermore, the residual teacher effects, both positive and negative, were
measurable even two years later regardless of the effectiveness of teachers in later
grades. Such a finding had serious implications for students routinely placed with
high- or low-effect teachers. Results displayed a difference of 52 to 54 percentile
points by grade 5 for students placed successively for three years with high
effective teachers as compared to low effective teachers. With differences of 50
percentage points observed as a result of a three year teacher effectiveness
sequence, students who were routinely assigned to more effective teachers had a
greater advantage in terms of reaching higher levels of academic achievement.
This study clearly pointed to the fact that teacher effectiveness played a
significant role in determining student achievement gains.
Similar results were found in Wright, Horn, and Sanders’ (1997) expanded
study, Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement. This
study used the TVAAS to statistically estimate the teacher effect on student
25
achievement in five subject areas as opposed to just mathematics. Like the studies
before it, it found that teacher effect was highly significant in all of the analyses
conducted. Additionally, the study provided evidence that effective teachers
appeared to be effective with students of all achievement levels, and that lower
achieving students were the first to benefit as teacher effectiveness increased.
Results of this study statistically documented that “the most important factor
affecting student learning [was] the teacher” (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997,
p.63). Furthermore, the Wright, Horn, and Sanders’ results implied that “more
[could] be done to improve education by improving the effectiveness of teachers
than by any other single factor” (p. 63). With so much evidence pointing to the
significant role teachers play in increasing student learning, teachers need
professional development aimed at increasing the effectiveness of instructional
practices so that increases in student achievement can be realized (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006).
The need for increased teacher effectiveness is twofold. First, as described
above, teacher effectiveness directly influenced the educational experiences and
learning outcomes of students (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Goldhaber & Anthony,
2003; Marzano, 2001; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Sanders & Rivers, 1996;
Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Second, evidence complied by educational
economist, Eric Hanushek (2002) highlighted that the quality of students’
education was related to academic achievement, and that “higher achievement is
26
associated both with greater individual productivity and earnings and with faster
growth of the nation’s economy” (p. 164). The quality of education delivered in
public schools effects the future earning potential of today’s students. Similarly,
the nation’s human capital is either strengthened or weakened depending on the
quality of schooling. Although Hanushek’s research did not narrowly focus on a
discussion of the specific variables that constitute quality schooling, one can
conclude from his later research and other researchers’ findings that teacher
effectiveness was one significant factor in influencing student-learning outcomes.
Effective teachers help to produce cognitively proficient individuals who will
meaningfully contribute to the nation’s labor force. It is imperative that students
be supplied with the most effective teachers possible so that they are prepared to
compete in a global market and strengthen the nation’s economy.
A growing amount of research identified professional development as the
key to increasing teacher effectiveness (Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich,
2006). High quality professional development that positively changes teacher
practice was shown to have a significant impact on student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 1999). Research conducted by Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich,
(2006), concluded that “effective professional development is the primary way
[that] resources get transformed into effective and productive instructional
practices” (p. 66). Actively teaching and using effective practices is necessary to
increase student learning (Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002). To create effective
27
professional development so that teacher quality is increased and therefore student
learning is realized, schools must better understand the research findings
surrounding professional development practices.
Professional Development as a Key Element in Educational Reform Efforts
Professional development has been a part of the educational repertoire for
decades. However, the focus of professional development shifted from developing
knowledge about generic teaching skills to focusing on developing specific,
content-related teaching and learning strategies. Unfortunately, while growing
research on professional development continues to point to necessary and
effective characteristics, most teachers still do not receive high-quality
professional development as described in the educational research (Birman,
Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman,
2002; Elmore, 2002; Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006; Sparks, 2002).
And from the research on teacher effectiveness, one knows that teachers influence
student-learning outcomes. To improve teacher quality, schools and districts must
provide more opportunities for teachers to participate in effective and meaningful
professional development (Wenglinsky, 2000).
Two distinct phases represented the educational focus of professional
development over the last five decades. In the 1960s, educators and politicians
were concerned with developing students’ basic knowledge and skills. Therefore,
professional development aimed at equipping teachers with generic teaching
28
strategies (Holland, 2005; Little, 1994). Such professional development yielded
small student learning gains (Holland, 2005). The basic skills reform of the 1960s,
lasted into the 1990s in many urban schools (Little, 1994). In the 1990s, a second
wave of research impacted the reform efforts in education. Research highlighted
the positive influence on student learning outcomes that resulted as a matter of
providing teachers with the knowledge of how to teach problem-solving and
higher order thinking skills (Carpenter, Peterson, & Chiang, 1989; Holland, 2005;
Little, 1994). The research results displayed that professional development that
focused on (a) how students learned particular subject matter, (b) instructional
practices that were specifically related to the content and how students learned
content, and (c) strengthening teachers’ knowledge of subject matter was effective
and impacted student achievement (Holland, 2005).
Educational reformers and policymakers witnessed the positive influence
that effective professional development had on student achievement gains. In
2002, the reauthorization of the 1965, Elementary and Secondary Education Act
emphasized four elements of reform including the use of research-based
educational methods. Better known as No Child Left Behind, this pillar of the act
included provisions for increasing student achievement through strategies such as
improving teacher and principal quality (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
With resources appropriated through Title II of the No Child Left Behind
legislation, schools and districts had access to additional funds for the purpose of
29
providing effective professional development. However, even with the presence
of federal oversight, most schools and districts failed to identify, develop, and
implement professional development practices that were documented as effective
(CED, 2004).
Several researchers criticized current professional development practices
for their lack of adequately meeting the challenges of today’s educational system
(Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Sparks, 2002). In an era of high-
stakes accountability and standards-based reform, professional development that
is “a mile wide and an inch deep” is not sufficient in meeting the needs of today’s
students (Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006, p. 18). While research
continues to mount on characteristics of effective professional development
practices, schools and districts continue to ignore the evidence. In doing so, the
effects of standards-based reform efforts cannot be fully realized.
In Designing Professional Development That Works, Birman, Desimone,
Porter, and Garet (2000) addressed the significant role that professional
development played in bridging the gap between teacher preparation and
standards-based reform efforts aimed at increasing student achievement through
improved teaching. In their qualitative study, they representatively sampled more
than 1,000 teachers and conducted surveys and case studies to identify
characteristics of effective professional development. In addition to their
conclusions pertaining to the characteristics of effective professional
30
development, they determined that most professional development did not meet
the challenges of standards-based reform efforts. Additionally, they stated that
most teachers didn’t get high-quality professional development because the costs
associated with it were greater than most districts were willing to spend.
The longitudinal study titled, Effects of Professional Development on
Teacher Instruction: Results from a Three-Year Longitudinal Study conducted by
Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002) revealed similar results on the
state of professional development practices. The team purposefully sampled 30
schools within ten districts and surveyed over 200 teachers at three different
points in time to determine the effectiveness of professional development on
teachers’ instructional practices. In their study they identified the link between
effective professional development and standards-based reform efforts when they
stated:
The success of standards-based reform depends on teachers’ ability to
foster both basic knowledge and advanced thinking and problem solving
among their students (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stile, 1998;
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996), and such
effective practices require teachers to have a deep understanding of the
content they teach (Ma, 1999). Professional development is considered an
essential mechanism for deepening teachers’ content knowledge and
developing their teaching practices. As a result, professional development
could be a cornerstone of systemic reform efforts designed to increase
teachers’ capacity to teach to high standards (Smith & O’Day, 1991) (p.
81).

Unfortunately, their findings pointed to the fact that most teachers did not
experience consistent, high-quality professional development.
31
The Consortium for Policy Research in Education conducted a study that
examined how district office and school staff utilized research as evidence in
making instructional improvement decisions. Corcoran (2003) outlined the
study’s findings in a CPRE Policy Brief titled, The Use of Research Evidence in
Instructional Improvement. After studying three large urban districts in three
different states, Corcoran found that districts had difficulty developing,
implementing, and sustaining effective professional development practices
because: (a) the district did not focus on key initiatives, (b) professional
development time was used to transmit information from the district office to the
school sites, (c) the existing culture around professional development did not
value research as evidence, and (d) professional decisions were not coherent
across the district.
In his report, Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement,
Elmore (2002) used a consensus view within the literature to determine how
schools established a positive culture around effective professional development
within the institutional structure. In addition to unmasking nine main features of
effective professional development within the literature, he also reported that few
schools treated professional development as a key step in school reform and
improvement. He commented that most professional development was
disconnected from the goals of the school and district and that research evidence
32
pertaining to professional development practices was not witnessed on a large-
scale in most schools.
Although most schools and districts are not supplying teachers with high-
quality professional development, several pieces of educational literature point to
the features and qualities consistent with effective professional development
practices. Researchers like Elmore (2002), Guskey, (1994); Sparks (2002),
Birman (2000), Desimone (2002), and Odden and Picus (2006) clearly articulated
characteristics essential in high quality professional development. Additional
researchers also emphasized the importance of similar features in creating
effective professional development opportunities for educators. If professional
development were to be designed and implemented around the features described
by these educational researchers, then organizational capacity could be built
within America’s schools.
Elmore’s (2002) report, Bridging the Gap Between Standards and
Achievement, revealed nine features of effective professional development. He
concluded that professional development that: (a) focused on the mission of the
school, (b) understood how students learned content specific material, (c) utilized
research-based curriculum and instructional practices, (d) understood how adults
learned, (e) reinforced collaboration, (f) encouraged active participation, (g) was
continuous, (g) was modeled after effective classroom practice, and (h) used
33
assessments and evaluation to determine next steps, could build the organizational
capacity of schools and increase student learning outcomes.
Guskey (1994) presented his paper, Professional Development in
Education: In Search of the Optimal Mix, to the American Educational Research
Association. He emphasized the position that “we cannot improve schools without
improving the skills and abilities of the teachers within them” (p. 9). Furthermore,
he saw reform efforts to improve learning outcomes as both an individual and
organizational change process. Within his paper, he discussed six guidelines for
establishing and sustaining successful professional development: (a) recognition
of a gradual change process, (b) implement strategies slowly, (c) maintain support
through collaboration, (d) provide feedback on results, (e) offer ongoing follow-
up, (f) integrate programs. Given these guidelines he asserted that change, though
gradual and incremental, would occur.
In Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and
Principals, Sparks (2002) commented on the positive difference that quality
teaching made on student achievement and the central role of professional
development in building a quality teaching force. He highlighted the relationship
between effective professional development and the standards-based reform
movement, as well as the need for professional development to be driven by the
vision of increasing student achievement. Five elements of high quality
professional development practices were listed in Sparks’ book. Similar to
34
Elmore’s (2002) findings, Sparks noted that professional development should (a)
deepen teachers’ content knowledge, (b) provide opportunities for practice and
reflection, (c) be embedded within the workday and school environment, (d) be
ongoing, and (e) promote collaboration.
Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet’s (2000) qualitative study, Designing
Professional Development That Works, identified a total of six effective
characteristics. The team classified the characteristics as either structural or core
features. The three structural features included (a) form (type of activity, e.g.,
reform or traditional), (b) duration (amount of hours and span of time dedicated to
the activity), and (c) participation (collective or individual). The remaining three
characteristics (a) content focus (aimed at increasing teacher content knowledge),
(b) active learning (opportunities for engagement in and analysis of learning), and
(c) coherence (alignment with goals and mission) were classified as core features
that reflected the process that occurred during the professional development
experience.
Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002) found similar
characteristics in a study that they conducted between 1996 and 1999. They
reported their findings just two years later in a report titled, Effects of Professional
Development on Teacher Instruction: Results from a Three-Year Longitudinal
Study. They found that learning specific instructional practices increased teachers’
use of them in the classroom. Furthermore, they reported that the effects of
35
professional development were positively increased when teachers were given the
opportunity to be actively engaged in the learning process. From the results of
their study, they concluded that five strategies (three structural features and two
core features) constituted high-quality professional development: (a) form of
activity, (b) duration of activity, (c) collective participation, (d) active learning,
and (e) coherence to goals.
In addition to being identified as a central component in the standards-
based reform effort, professional development was important in adequacy studies
conducted by educational researchers Allan Odden and Lawrence O. Picus (2003;
2005; 2006). Several of the team’s adequacy studies, including those conducted in
Arkansas, Wyoming, and Washington, focused on allocating resources to
professional development. After considering the research evidence on
professional development, the team proposed six structural features of high-
quality professional development. Similar to those features discussed above,
Odden and Picus (2003; 2005; 2006) found that (a) form (school-based and job-
embedded), (b) duration (continuous), (c) collective participation (organized
around groups of teachers), (d) content focus (deepening teachers’ content
knowledge and knowledge about how students learn), (e) active learning
opportunities, and (f) coherence (connected to goals and student learning) were all
necessary elements in creating and implementing effective professional
development.
36
The researchers mentioned above all pointed to similar effective
professional development characteristics. Table 1 on the next page, displays a
visual comparison of the common themes that emerged as a result of analyzing
the studies mentioned above.
37
Table 1:
Characteristics of Effective Professional Development
Common Themes
Elmore
(2002)
Guskey
(1994)
Sparks
(2002)
Birman, et. al
(2000)
Desimone, et. al
(2002)
Odden & Picus
(2003; 2005;
2006)
Subject matter
content
Focus on
curriculum and
instruction
Deepen
teachers’
content
Content focus Content focus Content focus
How students learn
Analyze how
students learn
Feedback on
results
Content focus
Connect to
classroom practice
Model after
effective
classroom
practice
Feedback on
results
Opportunity to
practice
embedded
within the
workday
Form Form Form
Collaborative
Reinforce
collaboration
Collaborative
support
Promote
collaboration
Collective
participation
Collective
Participation
Collective
Participation
Ongoing Continuous Follow-up Ongoing Duration Duration Duration
Link to goals
Focus on
mission
Integrate
programs
Coherence Coherence Coherence
Changes practice
Use assessment
and evaluation
Gradual and
feedback on
results
Active learning Active learning Active learning
38
Utilizing the research-based characteristics in developing professional
development opportunities could greatly increase the knowledge and teaching
strategies of teachers and therefore positively influence student achievement.
An Evidence-Based Approach to Professional Development
As opposed to constructing professional development programs on
unsubstantiated recommendations, educational leaders and professional
development providers should refer to the evidence. Several researchers provided
the educational community with information about the essential qualities of
effective professional development. Two educational leaders constructed an
evidence-based model to provide a frame of reference for designing and
implementing effective professional development.
Allan Odden and Lawrence O. Picus conducted several financial adequacy
studies throughout the United States. Through a review of pertinent research
findings, they constructed an evidence-based approach for allocating an adequate
amount of resources per pupil toward educational endeavors. Included within
their evidence-based model were provisions for supplying the needed human and
financial resources to professional development. Several pieces of educational
literature support Lawrence O. Picus and Associates’ (2003, 2005, 2006)
recommendations for designing effective professional development.
In their study, An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy
in Washington, Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich (2006) defined effective
39
professional development as “professional development that produces change in
teachers’ classroom-based instructional practice, which can be linked to
improvements in student learning” (p. 66). In order to produce the desired change
and reveal improvements in student achievement, the team made several design
and resource allocation recommendations for providing effective professional
development. The recommendations were influenced by the six structural features
that they identified as essential to establishing high-quality professional
development: (a) form, (b) duration, (c) collective participation, (d) content focus,
(e) active learning, and (f) coherence.
Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich (2006) emphasized the need for
professional development to be school-based and embedded within the normal
workday. Similar recommendations were made by several other researchers
including Elmore (2002); Guskey (1994); Sparks (2002); Birman, et.al. (2000);
Desimone, et.al. (2002); and Darling-Hammond (1999a). Darling-Hammond not
only emphasized the need for professional development to be embedded within
the school-day; she also reported findings supporting the model’s assertion for
focusing on academic subject matter (content focus) and creating engaging,
hands-one activities (active learning).
The evidence-based approach to professional development also
recommended that additional time be devoted to professional development. The
model called for intensive training sessions to be offered to teachers. Such
40
training consisted of a two-week summer institute that added an additional 10
days to the contractual year. Additionally, the model called for a total of at least
100, but preferably 200, hours of professional development for teachers annually.
Holland (2005) also reported that time spent on professional development
mattered. She cited that the more time teachers spent engaged in effective
professional development, the more significantly they changed their classroom
practice.
However, time alone was not enough to constitute effective professional
development according to the model. Coaching was found to have a significant
effect on facilitating the change process and was considered to be one of the most
important components to creating effective professional development. The
evidence-based approach suggested that a facilitator/coach be allocated to schools
for every 200 students. The model provided estimated effect sizes of 1.25 to 2.70
for professional development in classrooms with instructional coaches to help
facilitate new learning. Given that an effect size of 1.0 meant that student
achievement results shifted from the 50
th
percentile to the 83
rd
percentile,
coaching had a significant effect on changing classroom practice. Darling-
Hammond (1999a) also commented on the significant impact that coaching and
collaboration had on improving student learning outcomes. Collective
participation of teachers in professional development yielded greater teaching and
41
learning results than individually focused professional development (Odden,
Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006).
Another important element identified in the model for creating effective
professional development opportunities for teachers was the content focus on
improving teachers’ classroom practice. Like the evidence-based approach,
Desimone, et.al. (2002) and Birman, et.al., (2000) also emphasized the need to
enhance teachers’ knowledge of specific subject matter and instructional
practices. Similarly, Sparks (2002) highlighted the need for deepening teacher’s
content knowledge. One of Elmore’s (2002) nine essential features emphasized
the need to focus on curriculum and instruction in high-quality professional
development.
An additional component of the model’s content focus feature centered on
understanding student learning. Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich (2006) were
not the only researchers to claim that this factor influenced effective teaching
practices. Carpenter, Peterson, & Chiang (1989) conducted an experimental study
titled, Using Knowledge of Children’s Mathematics Thinking in Classroom
Teaching: An Experimental Study, that examined the relationship between
teachers’ knowledge of how students think about problem solving and student
achievement. The study provided for 20 randomly assigned teachers to participate
in an ongoing, research-based professional development course about students’
mathematical reasoning skills. The results of the study concluded that students
42
achieved at higher levels when their teachers understood how children thought
about and learned specific subject matter. The researchers stated:
Our results suggest that giving teachers access to research-based
knowledge about students’ thinking and problem solving can affect
teachers’ beliefs about learning and instruction, their classroom practices,
their knowledge about their students, and most important, their students’
achievement and beliefs. (p. 530)

Finally, the evidence-based approach recommended that professional
development be connected to the goals of the school and district to build
coherence. Sparks (2002) recommended that professional development be driven
by the vision of student achievement. Likewise, one of the nine features listed by
Elmore (2002) called for professional development to linked to the mission of the
school.
As a way to verify the effectiveness of the model’s recommendations and
learn how successful schools improved student learning, Fermanich, Mangan,
Odden, Picus, Gross, and Rudo (2006) conducted the Washington Learns:
Successful District Study. Nine districts and their respective schools were
purposely selected in a qualitative case study design. Several of the schools that
were identified improved student performance two- and three-fold. The team
recognized six key improvement elements of the successful districts. The
elements employed by these districts (a) focused on educating all students, (b)
used data to drive decision-making, (c) adopted rigorous curriculum and aligned
to state standards, (d) supported instructional improvement with effective
43
professional development, (e) restructured the learning environment, and (f)
provided struggling students with extended learning opportunities. The team
determined that “professional development was an essential element in these
districts’ success” (p. 18) in promoting academic improvements.
There was noteworthy overlap between the evidence-based conceptual
framework, the six structural features of effective professional development, the
key improvement elements identified in the Washington Learns: Successful
District Study report, and the six core strategies used to evaluate the model’s
effectiveness. On the next page, Table 2 offers a visual comparison of
recommendations and characteristics within each category. Given this table, the
relationship between these elements and the conceptual framework strategies is
clarified.

44
Table 2:
Similarities Between the Evidence-Based Model, Six Structural Features, Key
Improvement Elements, and Six Core Strategies for Developing Effective
Professional Development
Evidence-Based
Approach
Six Structural
Features
Key Improvement
Elements
Six Core
Strategies
School-based and
embedded
Form
Restructure the
learning
environment
Re-engineer
school
Two-week summer
institute
Duration
Improvement
through professional
development
Redesign teacher
development
100-200 hours of
professional
development
annually
Duration
Improvement
through professional
development
Redesign teacher
development
Coaching
Collective
participation
Improvement
through professional
development
Redesign teacher
development
Improved
instructional
practice
Content
Focus/Active
learning
Improvement
through professional
development
Redesign teacher
development
Understand student
learning
Content Focus
Provide students
with extended
learning
opportunities
Reinforce
achievement
Link to vision and
goals
Coherence
Focus on educating
all students
Recalibrate goals
Although research on the effectiveness of professional development is
extensive, little empirical data directly links the effects of professional
development with student learning outcomes. This offers an area of additional
study for researchers.
The School Site as Decision Maker
Through a more decentralized system, schools would have the power and
authority to make collective decisions and allocate resources to areas like
45
professional development that would have the largest impact on student learning.
In fact, the framework’s strategies offer a lens through which to view the process
for empowering school sites. The six core strategies: (a) recalibrate goals, (b) re-
engineer school, (c) redesign teacher development, (d) reinforce achievement, (e)
retool schools’ technology, and (f) restructure teacher compensation encompass
the path toward making schools the ultimate decision-maker.
Currently, there is a move in education by reformers toward re-
engineering the organizational structure of schools. The move toward
decentralization holds promise of success for schools. The authority of school
sites over staffing and budgetary concerns was shown to enhance efficiency and
performance in studies and research conducted in both business and school
settings (Ouchi, 2003a; 2003b; 2004).
The restructuring of large, centralized districts received increased attention
in the media. In 2006, New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, initiated a
move toward decentralizing the school district into a network of independently
empowered schools. Such a move displayed a reversal from action taken by the
mayor just four years earlier when he took control of the city schools and
centralized all decision-making (Kolben, 2006). Likewise, the Chicago Reform
Act looked to site-based management as a way to increase student performance,
better serve disadvantaged and minority students, and lower the drop-out rates in
their public schools (Crump, 1999). The mayor of the city of Los Angeles,
46
Antonio Villaraigosa, admired the success experienced by these large urban
districts as he attempted to restructure the schools in Los Angeles Unified School
District (L.A.U.S.D.). Mayor Villaraigosa promoted decentralization of the
L.A.U.S.D. by calling for local control of the schools.
The actions by these political leaders were substantiated by educational
research pointing to the positive influence of re-engineering schools through
decentralization. In one of William Ouchi’s (2003a) studies reported in, The
Impact of Organization on the Performance of Nine School Systems: Lessons for
California, he was able to conclude from the data that “top-down management
fails, but bottom-up districts succeed” (p. 5). Ouchi attributed the success of
decentralized school systems to their ability to hand authority to the school site in
making decisions that affected the students. In a centralized system the decisions
that effect teaching and learning were far removed from the classroom. By re-
engineering schools so that principals had the needed authority over hiring and
budgetary concerns, student learning could be positively impacted through (a)
identifying the educational needs of students, (b) determining the staff resources
needed, (c) building a staff plan to provide services to students, and (d) designing
a creative, efficient, and effective school schedule (Ouchi, 2003a).
Furthermore, Ouchi (2003a) discovered a relationship between the
organization of the school district and the academic success of the district’s
students. He found that decentralized public schools outperformed more
47
centralized schools on student performance outcomes and administrative
efficiency. When he compared the achievement results of students in Houston
(decentralized) to students in L.A.U.S.D. (centralized), he found that the students
in the decentralized district of Houston outperformed students in centralized
L.A.U.S.D. in spite of similar minority and socioeconomic status.
Stinnette (1993) also highlighted the benefits of decentralization in a
NCREL Policy Brief, Decentralization: Why, How, & Toward What Ends? In
addition to increasing the leadership of the staff and stakeholders in the decision-
making process, several other positive results of site-based management were
mentioned including improved student achievement. Another researcher to
comment on the advantages of decentralized districts was Allan Odden (1998). In
his article, How to Create and Manage a Decentralized Educational System, he
directed attention to the evidence of success surrounding the New American
Schools design. The coalition of reformers constituting this organization aimed at
re-engineering the whole school through setting clear and consistent goals,
focusing on results, and holding all stakeholders accountable. The use of such
decentralized designs yielded results displayed as high student performance
(Odden, 1998; Picus, 2000).
Decentralizing management was not only a consideration in education.
Businesses showed impressive growth utilizing such strategies. Both Odden
(1998) and Ouchi (2003a) referred to the impact that decentralized management
48
played on companies’ productivity. Ouchi, who originally studied decentralization
in business, found that decentralization of decision-making authority produced
higher levels of performance. He transferred the logic behind decentralization in
business to school districts to determine how decentralization impacted student
performance and administrative efficiency. He determined that like businesses,
schools needed autonomy. Site-based management allowed decision-makers to
actively respond to the needs of the students and collectively implement effective
professional development to increase student performance.
To re-engineer schools, schools must recalibrate their goals. Focusing the
vision and goals of the institution on important variables that influence student
learning was identified as critical in developing the capacity of schools (Odden,
Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich, 2006). The principal plays a key role in promoting a
shared vision (Lashway, 1997), and Conley (1992b) saw the role of vision-
building in public schools as an internal compass for restructuring the educational
system. Within the vision, goals stressing a commitment to professional
development should be included to promote student achievement outcomes.
When schools are placed in the position of ultimate decision-maker, an
important consideration is the redesigning of teacher development. Schools that
fundamentally restructure need professional development to build the knowledge
needed to make effective decisions that encourage change within the organization
(Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994). Re-engineered schools would have the authority
49
and power to focus professional development on teaching and learning utilizing
the recommendations made in the evidence-based approach (Lawrence O. Picus
& Associates, 2006).
Empowered with the ability to effect organizational change for the
improvement of student learning, the reinforcement of student achievement is
recommended in the evidence-based approach (Odden, Picus, Goetz, &
Fermanich, 2006). School and community resources should be targeted to
reinforce the achievement of at-risk students. The allocation of resources toward
the design of effective professional development offers a way to focus on specific
instructional strategies for students below proficiency. To meaningfully intervene
with at-risk students, teachers must learn how to personalize instruction, create
and supply meaningful learning materials, and provide success-based tasks
(Conley, 1992a).
With the freedom to allocate resources in creative and efficient ways,
schools have the chance to tap the educational opportunities provided through
technological features like the Internet. Retooling schools’ technology offers a
direct and indirect approach to increasing student learning (Odden, Picus, Goetz,
& Fermanich, 2006). Not only could technology be directly used by students to
increase performance, it could also be a tool for creating and implementing
effective professional development.
50
The final step of establishing the school site as the decision maker
involves the power of schools to restructure teacher compensation (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006). Teacher compensation designed to reward
knowledge and skills acquired through effective professional development and
utilized in effective classroom practices would help to reinforce the vision and
goals surrounding improved teaching and learning. The traditional compensation
model of experience and educational units demonstrate little relationship to
increasing student learning outcomes. However, the teacher unions within the
state will likely fight this component of school-based authority.
With the empowerment offered through re-engineering school sites,
schools would have the ability to focus the needed resources on effective
professional development designed to produce change and increase student
performance.
Resource Allocation for Professional Development
The role of the school in deciding how to allocate resources was
previously addressed as a way for schools to assure that appropriate efforts were
made to provide effective professional development activities. Several researchers
recognized the function of professional development as a tool in educational
reform. Additionally, researchers pointed to the need to guarantee that spending
on professional development was done in an efficient and productive manner. As
Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and Archibald (2004) stated:
51
Professional development has the potential to be a significant part of a
district’s improvement strategy. To use dollars effectively, districts need
to think about how to best integrate professional development
expenditures and activities with their overall strategies to improve student
performance. To develop and implement a coherent professional
development strategy that maximizes their return on investment and is
aligned with district goals, districts need to understand how much they
spend, what activities those funds support, how the activities align with
district goals, and how flexible resources are (p. 3).

When professional development and allocation practices are identified and
understood, schools can go about allocating resources toward the most effective
forms of professional development-those practices that will positively impact
student learning outcomes.
The Committee for Economic Development (CED) reported in its 2004
publication, Investing in Learning: School Funding Policies to Foster High
Performance, that schools spend $400 billion annually on education. However,
the CED also pointed out that although such sums of money are spent on
education, the resources are not spent in a way that encourages or reinforces
educational outcomes. This would support the finding declared by Hanushek
(1986) that “there appears to be no strong or systematic relationship between
school expenditures and student performance” (p. 62). Perhaps the lacking
relationship was due to the fact that schools and districts spent precious resources
on characteristics that were not correlated to student learning outcomes.
In Hanushek’s (1986) study, The Economics of Schooling: Production and
Effiecny in Public Schools, he examined the differences in schools through the
52
production function theory. He concluded that schools were economically
inefficient because they paid for teacher attributes that were not correlated with
student achievement. The traditional salary schedule utilized in most districts and
schools within the nation financially rewarded teachers for their experience and
educational units. However, research displayed little correlation of these
characteristics to improvements in teaching or learning (Darling-Hammond, 1999;
Goldhaber & Anthony; 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005).
Such findings created a strong argument for knowledge and skill based
pay systems that were linked to student performance outcomes (CED, 2004;
Hanushek, 1996, Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006). In this way, schools
and districts could allocate resources toward what mattered and reward
improvements in outcome (CED, 2004). Restructuring teacher compensation
would also offer teachers greater opportunity for advancement in earning potential
through attainment and implementation of effective instructional practices.
Additionally, a knowledge and skill based pay system would make more efficient
and effective investments in professional development necessary so that teachers
were properly equipped with the knowledge to grow their students’ learning
potential for monetary reimbursement (CED, 2004). Then the outlay of money
toward teacher salaries would represent sound investments.
On average, districts spend 60% of their budget on instruction (CPRE,
2006). Within this category, instructional personnel-namely teachers-constituted a
53
significant proportion of the 60% of funds directed toward instrution. Goldhaber
and Anthony (2003) gathered data to display the cost of a teacher to a district.
They found that an average teacher’s salary alone (excluding the cost of
administration, health care, or retirement plans) would cost a district $1.7 million
dollars over 30 years. Given such a noteworthy educational investment, teachers’
knowledge and skills should continually be invested in thorough professional
development so that they yield a return seen through student achievement results.
The amount of money allocated to professional development was difficult
to determine by researchers due to the broad definitions utilized by districts in
reference to professional development. Literature showed a wide range of
spending for professional development from 1% to more than 8% of a district’s
operating budget (Miles, Odden, Fermanich, & Archibald, 2004). The in-depth
case studies conducted by Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and Archibald (2004) and
reported in Inside the Black Box of School District Spending on Professional
Development in Education: Lessons From Five Urban Districts, determined that
school districts spent an average of 3.6% of their budget for the purpose of
professional development. However, the team still found the level of investment
in professional development ranged widely between the districts studied.
In Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student
Achievement and Adult Success, by Burtless (1996), Hanushek contributed a piece
of his work titled School Resources and Student Achievement. Within this work
54
Hanushek pointed out school expenditures steadily increased since the 1940s.
Similarly, Ouchi (2004a) documented that California does spend relatively large
sums of money to educate its youth.
During the 1999-2000 school year, for example, total operating spending,
excluding construction costs for school buildings, but including all state
and federal funding, was $44.28 billion (Izumi and Coburn, 2000: 60). If
we divide that by the total number of students, 5.96 million, the total
operating expenditure per student was $7,535, well above the U.S. average
of $6,508 per student (p. 4).

In fact, Ouchi (2004b) asserted that schools had plenty of resources to promote
successful student learning, but that those resources were inefficiently allocated.
The challenge for schools “is to organize them [resources] so as to maximize their
efficiency and performance” (p. 25).
According to Ouchi (2003a), schools were allocating their resources
inefficiently largely because they were not given authority to control spending.
Without the power to significantly control their own budget, schools could not
make the effective decisions necessary to substantially improve teaching and
learning outcomes. In The Impact of Organization on the Performance of Nine
School Systems: Lessons for California, he suggested that school systems institute
Williamson’s (1975) M-form, or multidivisional organization, structure. Such a
structure was designed to take advantage of the economies of scale by centralizing
activities like payroll and insurance, while giving schools independent decision-
making power over matters of local concern like professional development
activities, staffing issues, and curriculum design and implementation. With
55
control over the budget, schools could easily adjust and meet the needs of
struggling students by acquiring the needed resources (i.e. specialists, coaches,
professional development) to help them succeed.
Unfortunately, research showed that district spending on professional
development was not as effective or productive as it should have been. Odden
(2002) stated “typical professional development has had little impact on teacher
practice or student performance” (p. 51). Furthermore, Odden, Picus, Goetz, and
Fermanich (2006) criticized traditional professional development activities for
being “a mile wide and an inch deep with little if any follow through coaching”
(p. 18). The research displayed that professional development had to be ongoing
and collaborative with an on-site facilitator to coach teachers in the
implementation of new knowledge or significant results would not be witnessed.
Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and Archibald (2005) uncovered that although districts
allocated resources toward professional development, they often did not purchase
the instructional facilitators called for in research-based professional development
models. Even districts that believed they were allocating an adequate amount of
resources on professional development revealed they did not. District did not
utilize their resources to acquire the research proven components of effective
professional development (CED, 2004). After conducting an analysis of the
professional development budget, the Committee for Economic Development
(2004) reported ineffective practices in Boston Public Schools.
56
The district discovered that it was spending about 4 percent—a respectable
$23.4 million—on professional development. It expected to find most of
these funds focused on its key reform strategy: in-school coaching to
improve instruction. Instead, it learned that only $5 million was integrated
into this effort (p. 16-17).

Additionally, districts studied in Inside the Black Box: School District Spending
on Professional Development in Education, failed to develop formal strategies to
integrate investments in professional development activities. Without such
strategies, districts likely lacked coherence in their professional development
plans making them less effective.
Some researchers called for more money to be invested in education
(Greenwald, 1996). However, even though research pointed to effective
professional development characteristics, Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and
Archibald (2005) revealed that many districts spent resources on the same
ineffective professional development activities. In such instances, more money
would not correct the situation.
Instead research pointed to the need to make money matter in education
(Hanushek, 1986; 1996; Odden, Picus, Goetz, Fermanich, 2006, Picus, 2000).
Picus (2000) suggested “before seeking additional funds, there may be ways to
restructure what is done with existing funds” (p. 5). Through this strategy,
researchers asserted that existing resources could be utilized in ways that linked
them to student learning outcomes (Hanushek, 1996). In An Evidence-Based
Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Washington, the team stated, “it is the
57
way money is spent that will make the largest and critical differences” in
education (p.20). They argued that money should be reallocated to “focus on
student needs and surround classrooms with supports that help all teachers
dramatically improve their classroom instructional practices” (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006, p. 16). Money spent on professional development was
identified as the key to improving teaching and learning. Darling-Hammond
(1999) concluded that money spent on effective professional development had a
greater impact on student achievement than money spent to reduce class size,
purchase experienced teachers, or increase salaries. If society was serious about
improving teaching and learning, resources need to be allocated to it.
Through the evidence-based model, Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich
(2006) identified key elements needed to enhance professional development.
Three of the specified elements required direct resource allocation: (a) two-week
summer institute, (b) 100 to 200 hours of professional development annually, and
(c) coaching. Engagement in an intensive summer training session that was
followed-up throughout the school year and supported by facilitators (one for
every 200 students), would provide teachers with greater opportunities to improve
their learning and their students’ achievement.
Researchers supplied the educational field with a framework to redesign
teacher development. The evidence-based approach provided research-based
suggestions for creating and implementing effective professional development.
58
The recommendations presented through the framework will allow educational
leaders to understand where money should be directed. Equipped with such
information, professional development should be on a path toward improving
student learning.
Summary
The literature indicates that teacher effectiveness is a crucial component in
improving student achievement. Furthermore, researchers have pointed to the role
that high quality professional development plays in increasing the effectiveness of
teachers’ knowledge and instructional skills. However, evidence also highlights
the fact that schools have little authority to make responsive decisions around
teaching and learning because of the bureaucratic structure of school districts.
Such organizational structures perpetuate inefficient decision-making and
allocation of resources. It is important to understand how successful schools have
utilized their autonomy to improve teacher quality through the allocation of
resources for effective professional development. Currently, the research is
inclusive about how much funding is directed toward professional development in
site-based managed schools and how those resource allocation decisions are
made. Therefore, I intend to clarify the role of professional development funding
in building school capacity. I propose four research questions to examine this
phenomenon:

59
1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?
2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?
3. How much funding is directed toward professional development and from
what sources do these funds originate?
4. How is professional development used to promote organizational capacity
and student achievement?

60
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sampling procedures, instrument
development, data collection, and data analysis of the study presented. The
purpose of this study was to investigate how a school with site-based management
allocated human and financial resources to promote organizational capacity
through professional development. More specifically, the study evaluated the
current practices of the selected elementary school and its respective district in
relation to an evidence-based model for effective professional development. A
decentralized school district in Los Angeles County, California and one of its
elementary schools was purposely selected in the attempt of answering the four
established research questions:
1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional
development?
2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional
development determined?
3. How much funding is directed toward professional development
and from what sources do these funds originate?
4. How is professional development used to promote organizational
capacity and student achievement?
61
The research methods utilized in this study were qualitative in nature.
Through a descriptive, analytic case study design, an in-depth understanding and
analysis of the school and district’s present implementation of professional
development practice was realized. Interviews with key informants and analysis
of existing documentation were used to collect data pertaining to the study. The
interview and document guides were designed using the study’s conceptual
framework to promote the emergence of themes surrounding the above-stated
research questions. The qualitative case study approach was selected to offer a
description and evaluation of the phenomena identified above (Gall, Borg &
Borg, 1996; Merriam, 1998).
Sample and Population
The sample for this study was small (a single elementary school in a
unified school district) and purposeful so as to develop a deeper understanding of
how a school within a decentralized setting established professional development
opportunities for its teachers. The district and school were purposefully selected
based on a criterion sampling strategy. Unified school districts and respective
school sites within California believed to meet the criteria were identified and
considered for the study. The district ultimately selected for the study fulfilled the
requirement of having a decentralized management style that allowed the schools
to independently allocate resources toward the programs and professional
development opportunities needed to advance student learning. Similarly, the
62
school selected met the following criteria: (a) implemented innovative
professional development; (b) evidence of administrative freedom to allocate
funds to professional development; and (c) significant gains in the school’s
Academic Performance Index (API) over the last 5 years.
Overview of District and School
Located in the San Gabriel Valley, the selected district, Glenn Park
Unified School District (GPUSD), is a unified district (Kindergarten through
12th) located in suburban Los Angeles County, California. The district has 15
elementary schools, 3 intermediate schools, 2 high schools, 2 alternative
education centers, and 1 adult learning center. Sutherland Elementary School has
2 full-time administrators and 37 full-time teachers. Tables 3 and 4 (on the next
page) provide demographic information about GPUSD and Sutherland
Elementary School.

63
Table 3:
Glenn Park Unified School District and Sutherland Elementary
Student Population Counts 2005-2006
As % of Enrollment
Student Populations

School
Count

District
Count
School
District
Statewide
EL: English Learner
Students

157 5,554 21.5% 31.7% 24.9%
Free/Reduced Price
Meals for Children

124 9,832 16.7% 55.8% 50.8%
Special Education 59 1,700 8% 9.6% 10.1%
Total Enrollment 730 17,548 100% 100% 100%
Note: Data collected from the California Department of Education, 2006

64
Table 4:
Sutherland Elementary School Enrollment by Ethnicity 2005-2006
As % of Total
Enrollment
Ethnicity Enrollment School District
American Indian

1 0.1% 0.2%
Asian

242 33.2% 20.3%
Pacific Islander

4 0.5% 0.4%
Filipino

209 28.6% 7.8%
Hispanic

183 25.1% 60.6%
African American

33 4.5% 3.2%
White

31 4.2% 4.8%
Multiple/No Response

27 3.7% 2.8%
Total 730 100% 100%
Note: Note: Data collected from the California Department of Education, 2006

Sutherland Elementary School earned the title of Distinguished School in
1987. In 2006, the school received an honorable mention through the California
School Recognition Program. One of the qualifying criteria for selection was that
the school displays “strong professional development that is aligned to standards-
based instructional materials and evaluated based upon student progress” (CDE,
2006).
Key informants participated in structured interviews at the district and
school levels. District level employees were interviewed at the district office,
while the school administrator and teachers were interviewed at the school site.
65
Lasting approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour, the interviews were conducted using
a Case Study Interview Guide grounded within the conceptual framework.
District leaders.
Three district leaders were interviewed as part of this study: the Deputy
Superintendent for Elementary Education, the Assistant Superintendent for
Administrative Services, and the Director of Instructional Services. The Deputy
Superintendent of Elementary Education held her position within the district for
several years. Her responsibilities included hiring and supervising school
principals and vice principals, as well as overseeing all curriculum matters and
instructional support services. The Assistant Superintendent of Administrative
Services has been in his current position for five years. Previously, he was the
principal of Sutherland Elementary School. As the Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services, he provided and maintained the infrastructure necessary
for GPUSD to productively operate. He was responsible for overseeing
purchasing, food services, maintenance, operations, finance, and payroll. Finally,
the Director of Instructional Services has been in his current position for four
years. His responsibilities included aligning the district's curriculum to the state
content standards and supplying instructional support.
Site administrator.
The principal has served GPUSD for over eight years in an administrative
capacity. During this time, she has supplied the staff and students of the school
66
with leadership, vision, and learning opportunities. She has been the principal at
Sutherland Elementary School for five years, and before that she was the vice
principal. Her experiences within other districts included vice principal and
bilingual program facilitator.
Teachers.
There are 37 teachers at this school. Two teachers were selected for in-
depth interviews based upon grade level experience criteria established by the
researcher and the recommendation of the principal. The administrator described
the teachers selected as instructionally sound teachers. All of the teachers selected
had a minimum of 5 years teaching experience at the school site.
Instrumentation
A thematic dissertation group form the University of Southern California
agreed upon a common conceptual framework and co-created data collection
instruments. For the conceptual framework, the group collectively agreed to
utilize Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich’s (2006) evidence-based model with a
focus on the model’s Six R’s. The thematic team was comprised of nine Ed.D.
students who routinely met throughout the summer of 2006 to discuss the design
of the needed data collection instruments. Two members from the team then
generated the instruments to specifically address the research questions focused
on effective professional development. The data collection instruments were
refined and piloted in the fall prior to data collection.
67
Conceptual Framework
This case study utilized a single conceptual framework as a lens through
which to examine and evaluate the phenomena of professional development. The
evidence-based approach by Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich (2006) served
as the study’s framework, allowing the researcher to investigate and analyze the
school’s current practices involving professional development. The model
requires schools and districts to “rethink, if not restructure, their entire
educational program and reallocate all current and any new resources to a
restructured and more effective educational program” (Odden, Picus, Goetz, and
Fermanich, 2006, p. 4). This model provided the researcher with six core
strategies by which to evaluate educational practices pertaining to resource
allocation for professional development. The strategies to be considered in
providing all students with an adequate education were:
1. Recalibrating goals
2. Re-engineering schools
3. Redesigning teacher development
4. Reinforcing achievement
5. Retooling school’s technology
6. Restructuring teacher compensation
68
The first strategy, recalibrating goals, was central to determining the
desired outcome of the school or district. Schools must clearly articulate a vision
for learning and hold all individuals accountable for meeting the goals.
Re-engineering schools referred to a school’s ability to implement more
research-based instructional strategies and utilize resources in the most efficient
way possible. In doing so schools should clearly understand how resources are
allocated so that instructional practices and curriculum used inside the classroom
can be enhanced.
Odden and Picus’ third strategy, redesigning teacher development, was a
main focus of this study because it concentrated on developing the instructional
expertise of the teacher to positively influence student learning outcomes. This
strategy aimed at delivering the needed resources to schools for thorough and
intensive professional development following a specific funding model.
The purpose of reforming education is to reinforce achievement for
students. This strategy referred to reinforcing achievement for struggling, at-risk
students through the use of high learning standards and proven instructional
strategies including additional instructional time.
Retooling a school’s technology referred to a school’s ability to acquire
and successfully implement computer technology for learning purposes. The
Internet, as well as other software programs, can provide schools with numerous
opportunities to enhance the knowledge and skills of its staff and students.
69
The final strategy proposed within the model was restructuring teacher
compensation. The system based on years of experience and educational units
would be traded for a knowledge and skill-based pay system. Effective
professional development delivered by the school and/or respective district would
be central in developing the knowledge and skills within its teachers to move
them through the new pay system.
Table 5 visually describes the relationship between the six core strategies
proposed through the Conceptual Framework and the research questions.

70
Table 5:
Relationship Between the Six Core Strategies and the Research Questions
Six Core Strategies
(6 R’s)

RQ 1: How are
personnel used for
the delivery of
professional
development?

RQ 2: How are
resource
allocation
decisions for
professional
development
determined?

RQ 3: How much
funding is
directed toward
professional
development and
from what source
do these funds
originate?

RQ 4: How is
professional
development used
to promote
organizational
capacity and
student
achievement?
1. Recalibrate
Goals
X X
2. Re-engineer
Schools
X X X X
3. Redesign
Teacher
Development
X X X X
4. Reinforce
Achievement
X
5. Retool
Schools’
Technology
X
6. Restructure
Teacher
Compensation
X X
Framework for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How are personnel used for the
delivery of professional development?” Two of the six core strategies were
emphasized to answer this question. Re-engineering schools was one of the six
core strategies utilized to focus this question because it addressed the way in
which resources were supplied to the school to reinforce instructional practices.
Additionally, the question was aimed at revealing how effective the school’s
71
resource allocation practice was in relation to the evidence-based approach.
Finally, by selecting redesigning teacher development another lens was used to
understand and evaluate the effectiveness of personnel usage for professional
development by examining learning outcomes. This question was primarily
analyzed through structured interviews.
Framework for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How are resource allocation
decisions for professional development determined?” The first three core
strategies guided this research question in designing structured interviews with
multiple stakeholders. To understand the rationale behind the decision-making
process, it was important to look at the school and district’s goals pertaining to
learning. Therefore, recalibrating goals was an essential strategy to examine. Re-
engineering schools and redesigning teacher development also served as a lens for
this question because it offered an understanding of the possible criteria used for
determining allocation practices. Decisions based on improving instructional
practice and enhancing teacher expertise was central to the strategies offered in
the evidence-based model.
Framework for Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How much funding is directed toward
professional development and from what sources do these funds originate?” Three
of the six strategies provided through the conceptual framework were utilized in
72
focusing this research question. Re-engineering schools was chosen because it
concentrated on understanding how the resources were utilized and from where
funding came from so that it could be used as efficiently as possible. Redesigning
teacher development was selected because it was necessary to determine if the
levels of funding are sufficient to produce the needed teacher expertise. Finally,
restructuring teacher compensation offered another perspective through which to
view this question because it examined the possibility of additional cost factors to
the school’s professional development. Structured interviews and the review of
pertinent documents were utilized to analyze this research question.
Framework for Research Question Four
The fourth research question asked, “How is professional development
used to promote organizational capacity and student achievement?” All of the six
core strategies were utilized as lenses for this research question. All six of the
core strategies focused on building the capacity of educational institutions in
varied ways so that increased student learning could be realized. Reviewing
relevant documents and conducting structured interviews with multiple
stakeholders will analyze this research question.
Table 6 displays the relationship between the data collection instruments
and the research questions.

73
Table 6:
Relationship Between Data Collection Instruments and Research Questions
Data Collection
Instrument
RQ 1: How are
personnel used
for the delivery
of professional
development?
RQ 2: How are
resource
allocation
decisions for
professional
development
determined?
RQ 3: How
much funding
is directed
toward
professional
development
and from what
sources do
these funds
originate?
RQ 4 : How is
professional
development
used to
promote
organizational
capacity and
student
achievement ?
Interview Guide
District
Administrators,
Site
Administrators,
Teachers
(composed of
different grade
levels and
experience levels)

X X X X
Document Review Guide X X
Data Collection Instruments
Developed after the conceptual framework and respective strategies were
articulated, the data collection instruments were developed to record the design,
development, implementation practices, and impact of professional development
on the selected school. Two data collection instruments were created by the
group-the Interview Guide and the Document Review Guide. The Interview
Guide expanded each research question into a series of interview questions with
aligned probing questions for each of the identified stakeholder groups. The
Document Review Guide provided structure for the analysis of documents based
on the conceptual framework. Both of the data collection instruments were piloted
74
with subjects outside of the sample to measure the effectiveness and accuracy of
the instruments. Revisions were made as needed to the instruments after the pilot
sessions took place. These data collection instruments provided the necessary
structure to analyze and record the vital data related to the study through each
research question.
Instrument 1: Interview Guide
Interviews were conducted with a total of 6 individuals:
Deputy Superintendent, Elementary Education
Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services
Director of Instruction Services
Principal, Sutherland Elementary School
Two lead classroom teachers, Sutherland Elementary School
(one from lower elementary and one from upper elementary)
The Interview Guide was developed from a synthesis of current research
on organizational improvement for instruction and educational funding. The
Interview Guide consisted of three formatted interviews (Appendix A) designed
for each stakeholder group. The aim of the interviews was to elicit explicit
information about the school’s educational practices as they relate to the framed
research questions. Additional probing questions were generated within the
Interview Guide to add clarity to the topic and to elicit the varied understanding of
multiple stakeholders.
75
Designed as a 60 minute data collection period, the interviews varied in
focus depending on the position and responsibilities of the individuals
interviewed. While all of the interviews addressed the same core strategies for
each research question, interview questions and probes were designed around the
expected understanding of the organization based on the interviewees’ current
role within the school and district. District leaders were interviewed at the district
office, the site administrator was interviewed at the school site, and the teacher
interviews were conducted in the respective teacher’s classroom to ensure comfort
and accessibility to supporting documentation. Confidentiality and anonymity was
guaranteed to all participants.
Instrument 2: Document Review Guide
The Document Review Guide (Appendix B) was designed to provide an
organizational format for the analysis of school, district, and state documentation.
As documents are collected and reviewed, analysis of the documents took place
via the review guide. The Document Review Guide assisted the researcher in
coding materials into the corresponding themes expressed in the conceptual
framework. Furthermore, the review guide allowed for comparisons and
complimentary information to be realized between the data collected in the form
of documents and interviews.
Documents were analyzed to determine which research questions they
addressed. The documents were further analyzed in relation to the six core
76
strategies presented in the conceptual framework. Strategies relevant to the
documents were identified and noted. Finally, comparisons were made between
the findings presented through the document review process and the interview
process to add to the validity of the study (Patton, 2002).
Data Collection
The collection of data occurred between October 2006 and January 2007.
Prior to initiating the data collection process, the researcher contacted the
Superintendent of GPUSD to discuss the purpose of the study and the anticipated
participants and collection methods so that approval to continue the study within
the district could be granted. The Superintendent approved the project and she
instructed the researcher to contact the district level interviewees and the school
administrator. A telephone conference was conducted with Sutherland’s principal
to negotiate the data collection process to be utilized at the site.
Data collection began with the site administrator during the month of
October 2006. The administrator was interviewed in her office. During that time,
the researcher asked the school principal for any site-level documents pertaining
to the school’s capacity-building practices and budget for professional
development. Two follow-up interviews were conducted with the principal in
early January and February.
The district-level interviews took place over the course of the month of
December. All three of the identified district participants (Deputy Superintendent
77
of Elementary Education, Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services,
and Director of Instructional Services) were interviewed during that time frame.
Additionally, district documents pertaining to the allocation of resources for
professional development were collected including the District Priorities and
Objectives, the mission statement, and applicable budget documentation.
The two teachers identified by the site administrator were interviewed in
the month of January. These 60 minute interviews took place either at the school
site within the respective teachers’ classroom or over the telephone.
Prior to all interviews, the interviewees consented to participate in the
study and they gave their permission to be audio-taped.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to understand how one site-based managed
school allocated human and financial resources for professional development.
Furthermore, the study’s focus was to evaluate the selected school’s professional
development practices to that presented in the current educational research. The
data collection instruments and process utilized addressed the purpose of the study
by examining the four research questions as they applied to the conceptual
framework in the following manner:
Qualitative Data:
Interviews were conducted, taped, and transcribed. The transcriptions
were then reviewed for common themes, coded, and sorted. These patterns and
78
themes were identified using the conceptual framework and other relevant pieces
of educational research literature. Pertinent points were extracted and compared to
the evidence-based model and other data collected.
Document Review Guide:
Data collected from the Document Review Guide was sorted according to
research questions, and cross-referenced to the six domains presented in the
conceptual framework. The data collected from the Document Review Guide was
entered into a spreadsheet and compared to other collected data as well as the
evidence-based model presented in the conceptual framework.
By utilizing multiple forms of evidence through the establishment of
varied data collection instruments, using key informants in a criterion sampled
case study, and pilot testing the instruments, construct validity was ensured (Yin,
2003). Furthermore, internal validity was addressed through the triangulation of
multiple data collection methods and sources, uncovering patterns, and providing
a detailed description of the phenomena (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003). Reliability was
also ensured through pilot testing the instruments and employing multiple
instruments to collect data.
Summary
This chapter discussed the qualitative research methodology for the case
study that will investigate the resource allocation of one site-based managed
elementary school, and respective district, for professional development purposes.
79
The discussion included a description of the sample and population, the
conceptual framework guiding the study, the data collection instruments,
collection process, and analysis of the data. In chapter four, the findings and
analysis of the study will be presented.

80
CHAPTER FOUR
Findings
Introduction
This chapter offers an analysis of the data and presents the findings of the
study. The purpose of the study was to understand how a site-based managed
school allocated human and financial resources to promote organizational
capacity through professional development. This study also evaluated the
professional development practices of the selected elementary school and its
respective district as it related to the study’s conceptual framework. The data for
this study was obtained through document reviews and interviews. The researcher
reviewed relevant documents related to student achievement and the allocation of
resources for professional development, namely the School Accountability Report
Card (SARC), Single Plan for Student Achievement, District Priorities and
Objectives, budget documents, district website, and the California Department of
Education website. Additionally, two teachers, one site administrator, and three
district leaders were interviewed in this study. The structured interviews were
audio-taped and transcribed to aid with the coding and theme development phase.
The framework provided by Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich’s (2006)
evidence-based approach served as a lens through which to evaluate the school’s
and district practices with regard to funding for professional development. The
model requires schools and districts to “rethink, if not restructure, their entire
81
educational program and reallocate all current and any new resources to a
restructured and more effective educational program” (Odden, Picus, Goetz, and
Fermanich, 2006, p. 4). Relationships between the model’s six core strategies and
the research questions were identified by the researcher and utilized in
conjunction with the data to answer the following four research questions:
3. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional
development?
4. How are resource allocation decisions for professional
development determined?
5. How much funding is directed toward professional development
and from what sources do these funds originate?
6. How is professional development used to promote organizational
capacity and student achievement?
An examination of professional development practices at Sutherland
Elementary and Glenn Park Unified School District revealed that resource
allocation decisions were based on strategic planning that was linked to the
standard-based reform efforts of the school and district. The allocation of
resources toward professional development was determined through a gap
analysis approach conducted at the site level. The findings from the four research
questions offered in-depth clarity into how personnel were utilized for
professional development, the decision-making rationale behind allocation
82
practices, the amount of funding directed toward professional development, and
how professional development promoted student achievement and school
capacity.
The findings for research question one highlighted how human resources
were utilized to develop teacher expertise. This question also explored the
effectiveness of the professional development offered to staff, and it evaluated
how the human allocation practices of Sutherland Elementary compared to that of
the framework’s model.
Research question two uncovered the priorities of the school and district.
It exposed the relationship between the district and school’s improvement goals
and the decision-making rationale for professional development. Research
question two also drew attention to the emphasis placed upon the use of student
achievement data in determining professional development needs for the staff.
Research question three examined how much funding was dedicated to
professional development, and it revealed the financial autonomy of the school
site in allocating funds for professional development. The findings for this
research question pointed to the role that categorical funding played in
professional development funding. Question three also offered an evaluation of
Sutherland’s funding practices in reference to the evidence-based model.
The findings for research question four focused on the capacity building
practices of collaboration and data-driven decision-making. The findings from the
83
research question led to an increased understanding of how the school used
professional development to promote student learning outcomes. It is also
revealed the important role that technology played in organizing, analyzing, and
using student data to understand the professional development needs of teachers.
Utilization of Personnel for the Delivery of Professional Development
Data for Research Question One
Re-engineering schools and redesigning teacher development were two of
the core strategies within the framework that guided research question one in
asking “How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?”
The purpose of this question was to determine how human resources were utilized
within the school and district to develop teachers’ instructional expertise.
Additionally, the question strove to gain insight into the effectiveness of the site’s
professional development as witnessed by positive student achievement. Finally,
the question revealed how effective the school’s resource allocation practice was
in relation to the evidence-based approach. Data were collected from district and
site artifacts (District Priorities and Objectives, SARC, and the Single Plan for
Student Achievement), the California Department of Education website, and
interviews, providing for the triangulation of data sufficient to effectively answer
research question one.

84
Utilization of Human Resources
The school site and district recognize the impact that professional
development has on increasing student learning outcomes. This belief is identified
in the District Priorities and Objectives, Single Plan for Student Achievement,
SARC, and interviews. The interviews offered the greatest insights into how
personnel were utilized for the delivery of professional development.
Glenn Park Unified School District places professional development as
one of its top priorities. This commitment was reiterated by both the Deputy
Superintendent for Elementary Education and the Director of Curriculum and
Staff Development. The Deputy Superintendent referenced the dedication of the
district to providing quality professional development when she commented that
“we [GPUSD] are known for staff development in this district.” Likewise, Dr.
Christianson opened her interview with the statement:
If you believe in teacher quality issues and if you really believe that the
teacher makes the difference I don’t know how you can’t support it
[professional development]. We put a tremendous amount of time, money,
resources into professional development –even with the cuts that we have
had.

The district’s goal in regards to professional development is to “provide
research-based professional development training for all staff to support students
in reaching rigorous state standards” (District Priorities and Objectives, 2006, p.
4). According to the evidence-based model, to re-engineer schools, as well as
districts as a whole, the institution must be able to increase the implementation of
85
research-based instructional strategies. To increase the use of research-based
strategies within the classroom, Glenn Park USD employs a full-time team of
competent experts to offer teachers overall instructional support as well as
training in the specific area of standards-based instruction (School Accountability
Report Card, 2006). The SARC highlighted that Glenn Park USD is unique
because it is:
one of the few school districts in the region to maintain a Professional
Resource Center for teachers, support staff, parents, and principals. A
seasoned team of educators train new and current teachers in technology,
standards-based instruction and other topics throughout the school year.
(p. 14).

The Single Plan for Student Achievement offered a description of the centralized
services offered within the curriculum department. The staff development trainers
and specialists at the Professional Resource Center were listed as responsible for:
Supporting classroom teachers with the special needs of their students
Developing curriculum, research-based teaching strategies, and
instructional methodologies
Providing staff development in research-based instructional strategies,
standards, curriculum implementation, and teaching methodologies.
The role of the Professional Resource Center was further realized by the
researcher through the interviews. Four of the six individuals interviewed
mentioned the Professional Resource Center, the two staff development trainers
that run it, and the support specialists. These two trainers and specialists are
86
utilized in several ways within the district to provide training as well as act a
resource to teachers. The Deputy Superintendent commented on the various roles
that the staff development trainers fill:
… they also help with BTSA and training of the support providers. So
what we have done with the two district folk is, Nicole and Vicky, we give
them specific things that they do throughout the whole district. They do
every new teacher, librarian, any person who comes in new to the district.
They also train the support providers and they do a couple of the modules
from BTSA.

The Director of Curriculum added that although:
We have fulltime release specialists-I have a curriculum specialist, an
induction specialist, a bilingual / EL specialist, I have two fulltime staff
development specialists, and we have special education specialists as well.
All of these people are out of the classroom fulltime and available [to
teachers and school sites]. Even with this number [of staff developers and
specialists], considering that we have 900 or so staff, it feels like we’re
scrambling. But we’re lucky to have that kind of support.

While support from district personnel is available for teachers and school
sites, outside consultants are also utilized to train teachers. The Deputy
Superintendent remarked that “we use outside consultants frequently.”
Additionally, the Director of Curriculum cited several independent consultants
that the district secured to train teachers including Marilyn Tabor for coaching,
Dolores Beltran for ELD training, and John and Debbie Meadows for technology
training. Furthermore, county office trainers, publisher representative trainers, and
professors from partnering universities were also employed as methods for
delivering staff development. When the site administrator was asked about the
access her staff has to outside professional development she stated:
87
Absolutely! We’re using it right now going into the inquiry method. We’re
trying to find someone right now who can come in and do a little bit of
training for my leadership team on this project. It’s a consultant. We’re
going IB. Before I submit the paper work to become an IB-PYP
(International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program) school I’m trying to
find someone to come in and work with my leadership team to develop
some strategies.

The dedication to professional development moved beyond the district
office and was internalized by the school site as well. The Single Plan for Student
Achievement is written yearly by Sutherland Elementary and it lists six major
objectives including: “teachers will continue their professional development,
learning the latest strategies and practices to promote student learning” (Single
Plan for Student Achievement, 2006, abstract). To achieve this goal the school
cited that they would utilize the district personnel to train teachers in research-
based strategies related to reading, writing, mathematics, and ELD strategies.
However, Sutherland actually goes beyond the resources listed in the plan. During
interviews with teachers, the site administrator, and the director of curriculum it
was routinely mentioned that Sutherland, and most schools within the district,
implement a trainer-of-trainers model. This model serves a practical purpose as
witnessed by the statement given from the Director of Curriculum:
We can’t afford to bring 900 people to training, but we want to get this
information out. So being a staff development person is a very particular
skill. It takes a very particular type of person who is willing to do prep,
who is willing to get up in front of people, who can tactfully handle
difficult people in a group and manage difficult questions that may arise…
We were looking for people who really wanted to step forward and take a
leadership role… These are teachers that we really invest some extra time
in. They’re still in the classroom fulltime but we release them and they are
88
willing to take some leadership roles. So we have leaders who have
received extra training in Thinking Maps, Write From the Beginning,
which is our new writing program. We have ELD lead teachers at each of
our elementary schools-there’s a teacher or two identified and we’ve been
giving them now three years of training. They were selected by the
schools, they come and get this extra training, and then the idea is that
they go back to their sites and work with the staffs there. They can either
do large group in-services, small groups, or grade-level planning, they
may do demonstrations inside the classroom. But all of that unfortunately
is on top of them carrying a full load as a teacher.

The reasoning behind the trainer-of-trainers model was restated by the principal:
We try to do trainer of trainers just since we can’t afford to get a
consultant to train the whole staff or send the whole staff to trainings. We
couldn’t afford to send someone from each grade level. So I alternated
grade levels to get upper and lower grade levels. I sent the VP just so that
we could get an administrative perspective on the training and program.
And so we use that model a lot.

From these statements, it is revealed that Sutherland Elementary and the district is
attempting to use their available resources in the most efficient way possible.
Whatever the original intent behind starting the trainer-of-trainers model,
the teachers see themselves “as a resource to bring curriculum to the staff.” One
of Sutherland’s teachers stated that “teachers are used to deliver professional
development.” She further explained the informal criteria that the principal used
to select teachers for the delivery of professional development:
… she tries to use teachers who are going to bring a positive attitude to
whatever we are presenting and recruiting teachers who are willing to put
forth extra effort toward learning ahead of the other teachers. I think that
that is a good thing because you want them to invest. You want them to
invest in the new philosophy or program or whatever it is even if it is a
new math curriculum. You want them to be able to own it.

89
Another teacher reported that she is part of the staff development team for the
new inquiry method and International Baccalaureate programs and that she is one
of the teachers “responsible for coming back and sharing the professional
development that [she] received with [her] fellow staff members.” She remarked
on the inventive way in which Sutherland Elementary facilitated teacher
development:
I have worked in several other school sites, not just as a teacher. I have
seen teachers in their staff meetings and typically it is run by
administrators, unlike at our site where our administrator really tries to get
the teachers involved and collaborating and working and kind of fostering
each others learning no matter what it is we are doing. So it is different
creative ways of presenting some of it is just leading and facilitating in
groups; it’s just different things at different times.

Although district support exists for the individual school sites, the nature
of Glenn Park’s decentralized structure leaves many of the professional
development responsibilities in the hands of the site administrator. A case study
conducted by Springboard Schools in 2006 titled, Minding the Gap: New Roles
for School Districts in the Age of Accountability, pointed to the independence that
Glenn Park Unified offered its principals and schools.
… [Glenn Park Unified] has always been a district that gives school sites
great independence to innovate. Led by entrepreneurial principals,
individual schools are given the authority to hire teachers, make budget
decisions, forge partnerships with outside groups, raise additional funds by
renting out school facilities, seek out professional development
opportunities and shape instruction (p. 37).

The principal played a significant role in developing, delivering, and
supporting professional development for teachers at Sutherland Elementary. The
90
teachers witnessed the principal’s commitment to developing the teachers’
expertise. One teacher mentioned that, “our administration at this school does a
lot more in terms of staff development and delivering the information. They do a
lot of it, more so than I have seen in other schools that I have worked at in the
past.” The principal was used as an instructional leader and was responsible for
acquiring the needed resources and training for the staff. The principal remarked
that:
If it’s something to do with textbook adoption the district is there to offer
professional development. But if it’s something in isolation-something
that just you are doing as a school site, then it’s really up to you as the site
administrator to find those resources. You may be able to call district
office to get direction on who to call or who to get in contact with. But if
it’s something that is really inventive, then you are on your own to get the
resources as far as that goes… If you really want to think differently you
can-and some see it as a negative. I see it as a positive because only you
know what your staff needs. To just have someone assigned to you or do
that work for you-you don’t know if it’s going to be a good match.

The role of the site administrator in delivering professional development was
acknowledged by the Director of Instruction’s comment; “I really want to give
them [the principals] credit, they supply the supervision and support [for
professional development].”
Effectiveness of Professional Development
When asked about the effectiveness the various types of professional
development delivered by independent consultants and personnel at the site-level
and district-level, the interviewees were complementary. The administrators
discussed the effectiveness of the district staff developers and both staff and
91
administrators remarked on the effectiveness of the outside trainers. However,
while some interviewees believed that the trainer-of-trainers model was an
effective and efficient form of teacher development, others reported that the
trainer-of-trainers model was not as effective as it could be. Overall, they believed
that the professional development was effective as evidenced by the increase in
student achievement scores on district and state tests.
The overall quality of professional development was mentioned by all of those
interviewed. The Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services’
commented, “Our staff development in the district is very strong considering all
of the factors [declining enrollment, funding shortages, programmatic cuts]
involved.” The site administrator of Sutherland Elementary also referenced the
quality of professional development provided to new teachers by the Professional
Resource Center:
Overall, I think that in this district at least I have been very pleased with
how professional development is handled. They try to do as much as
possible at the district level to find the resources-the people and the
trainers necessary. As far as how personnel are used, I’ve been in 3
different districts, and I feel that this district is the most proactive in
providing professional development for teachers. Starting with teachers
just out of school, they have a really good program for them that takes
them through the basic cycle from everything from classroom
management to differentiation. They really give them quite a span of
classes that they offer their teachers as they cycle through. It’s a two year
program, and that’s in addition to the BTSA support that they get. It’s on
top of BTSA and they still get BTSA. So they’re really just immersed in
support and strategies. They provide professional development in house.
They’ve created this program in our district and it kind of crosses over
with BTSA. It’s a really good model and it’s really effective. I feel that the
first year teachers that I have had here – they don’t stay for very long-we
92
have declining enrollment – have been very pleased with the program. So
in that situation it’s been really good.

Similarly, the Director of Instruction stated:
I think that the people that we have very effective personnel for
professional development. All of the specialists have been here at least 12
to 15 years and are very experienced. They are excellent at working with
people and facilitating committee work-difficult committees that can’t
come to a consensus on something. Part of it is just a skill. And the
problem that I am facing is that many of them are coming up to retirement.

Reports about the staff developers at the district were not reflected in the teacher
interviews. Likely, this could be attributed to the fact that Sutherland has a
veteran staff. Since the majority of the trainings offered through the Professional
Resource Center were aimed at first and second year teachers, as well as training
BTSA providers, it would be less likely that Sutherland teachers would attend
them.
Discussion about the quality of professional development delivered from
outside consultants emerged as a theme across five of the six interviews
conducted by the researcher. When asked about the effectiveness of the
professional development offered by outside consultants, one of the teachers
commented, “Our outside consultants are excellent. They are very good about
coming back and seeing what you are doing and asking how they can help you.”
Another teacher admitted that she did not receive the training offered by the
outside consultant because she was not one of the staff trainers. However, she
93
alluded to their effectiveness through the training that she saw teachers come back
to the site with. She stated:
I never had training from the outside consultants, I only had training from
the staff trainers. But I do know that the teachers who did the original
training with the Write From the Beginning trainers had a lot of intensive
training.

The principal further emphasized the effectiveness of the consultants that they
contract with when she stated that the inquiry method trainers “that we use are
very effective.”
One possible reason for the unanimous agreement pertaining to the
effectiveness of outside consultants could be attributed to the fact that the district
and sites were very selective in choosing consultants. The Director of Curriculum
stated, “The people that we bring in from the outside are effective or to be honest
we don’t bring them back.” A similar statement was made by the Deputy
Superintendent: “Yes, absolutely! The consultants that we use have a history with
us, and if we use one and they’re not effective then we don’t use them again.”
Although the Sutherland staff receives district sponsored professional
development as well as training from outside consultants, the majority of the
staff’s development is delivered via the trainer-of-trainers model and by their site
administrator. As stated earlier, the site administrator is responsible for bringing
back professional development to the staff. To be effective she must be
knowledgeable about current research and instructional strategies. As the Deputy
Superintendent said:
94
You can’t be creative and innovative and bring new programs in if you
aren’t knowledgeable. So that’s why principals and myself are always
going out and seeing what’s out there and continuing our learning. That’s
the only way that we lead innovative programs.

In addition to the site administrator delivering professional development,
the staff members at the school site do also. The move toward the trainer-of-
trainers model and its effectiveness was mentioned by the Deputy Superintendent:
We have also gone to a coaching, trainer-of-trainers model. You may have
heard that from [Sutherland’s principal]. With our Write From the
Beginning program we trained about six to seven people from each site at
each grade level. We gave them extensive training and then their
responsibility is to go back and help their team. But it’s really like a coach
because they share ideas, plan together, give pointers, and do
demonstration lessons-that kind of a thing. It has been so effective that
most schools are training another set of seven. We have found that the
stronger the level of coaching, there is more support for teachers.

While the trainer-of-trainer model has served a practical purpose, some
interviews highlighted that the model may not be as effective as it could be.
The Director of Curriculum pointed to the effectiveness of the trainer-of-trainers
model when she reported, “We have some people who are fantastic…” However,
she also admitted that, “we have some people who are still developing-they’re in
route.” In reference to the effectiveness of staff trainers one teacher responded
that:
Yes, for the most part yes… I can still go to our staff trainers and ask
implementation questions, but I also think that not all of the staff trainers
were as effective as they could have been due to presentation style.
Presentation styles are different… but the information was there and it was
enough for me to learn what I needed to learn. But as far as an entire day
sent out of class it wasn’t worth it. I thought, ‘No we aren’t going to hear
this again.’ It was very dry. But, yes, I gain knowledge from the activities.
95
Another teacher highlighted the inability of the trainers to coach the staff through
implementation issues and concerns:
I would say if we talking strictly about our staff inside, our teachers who
are helping to train, I would score it a 3 out of a 5 because other than the
training that they give, they are not following through in the
implementation. They are there to train us and go over the information, but
they are really not able to guide or practice or help us when we need it or
get stuck. And we struggle because they really aren’t following through on
their own. The lack of them not fully implementing it in their classrooms
and the lack of coaching, makes it not as effective for the staff as a whole.
I think that I gain knowledge, but I think that it depends on who is
presenting and how they are presenting and how much they believe in the
program. For me I try to take what I have and use it, but I can only go so
far if who’s giving it to me can’t help me later.

Likewise, the Director of Curriculum commented that the failure of an earlier
writing project sponsored by the University of California, Los Angeles was due to
the fact that they did not “have enough coaching to really help them and it just
didn’t stick.”
However, in spite of the above stated issues, the latest professional
development in the area of writing appeared to be related to increased student
achievement results on district writing prompts. The Director of Curriculum
attested to the growth witnessed across the district in writing using the trainer-of-
trainers model for the Write From the Beginning Program:
The Deputy Superintendent may have shared with you that we had a very
low proficiency rate in writing-oh writing is so difficult. We had like an
8% proficiency rate, and the first year [of implementation] it jumped to
32% proficiency. We had phenomenal results, and I credit that to a couple
of things: first the program is one that is research-based and it built on top
of Thinking Maps which the staff already had training for. I think that we
96
had excellent training and support, and I think that people really got
behind it and really worked at it. I think that the fidelity to the
implementation was really good.

In 2005, Sutherland Elementary implemented the Write from the
Beginning Program. They utilized the trainer-of-trainers model to deliver
professional development to the staff. Table 7 displays three years of student
writing results for grades 2 to 6.
Table 7:
Sutherland’s Student Achievement Results for Writing
Grade Level
Percentage of Students Scoring in
the Advanced and Proficient
Range
2004 2005 2006
2
nd
Grade 25% 15% 32%
3
rd
Grade 24% 33% 49%
4
th
Grade 22% 37% 32%
5
th
Grade 53% 28% 38%
6
th
Grade 30% 36% 44%
Note: Data collected from Sutherland’s Edusoft system

The site administrator has “seen the growth with the kids and from year to year;
we’re seeing our writing scores improving.” Her statement pointed to the
effectiveness of the professional development delivered and received by the staff
in writing. In 2005, Sutherland’s teachers received professional development
training and began to implement the Write from the Beginning program. Table 7
displayed the growth in student achievement in the area of writing since teachers
were trained and put their training into action. With the exception of fifth grade
achievement scores, increases in student outcomes were witnessed with the
addition of professional development in writing. One possible explanation for this
97
occurrence could be the lack of continuous, on-site coaching. The fifth grade
teachers may have had difficulty implementing the professional development
training with fidelity. Without the coaching component, the struggling teachers
would not be able to effectively increase student learning outcomes.
Similarly, the district overall has witnessed increases in student
performance in the area of writing. The Director of Curriculum highlighted the
success of the professional development in writing across the district as a whole:
We brought in a new writing program for the elementary two years ago
and last year for the secondary. So a lot of the training has been focused
on bringing that in successfully and we have already seen results in
student achievement.

Table 8 displays three consecutive years of student results in writing for all of
Glenn Park Unified.
Table 8:
Glenn Park Unified School District’s Student Achievement Results for Writing
Grade Level
Percentage of Students Scoring in
the Advanced and Proficient
Range
2004 2005 2006
2
nd
Grade 15% 15% 17%
3
rd
Grade 15% 14% 29%
4
th
Grade 21% 32% 21%
5
th
Grade 30% 32% 32%
6
th
Grade 23% 37% 37%
Note: Data collected from Glenn Park’s Edusoft system

Like the achievement results from Sutherland, the district as a whole witnessed
overall increases in student performance in the area of writing that may be
accredited to the professional development received and implemented by the
teachers.
98
While the English-Language Arts component of the CST tests students’
knowledge of reading, it also tests their knowledge of writing. More specifically,
it measures students’ understanding of writing strategies, writing applications, and
written and oral conventions (CDE, 2007). After examining the CST English-
Language Arts results over a three year period, some gains were realized that may
be attributable to the professional development delivered to the staff. Table 9
offers a visual description of three years of CST English-Language Arts results
for Sutherland Elementary.
Table 9:
CST English-Language Arts results for Sutherland Elementary
2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade 6
th
Grade
%
Advanced
34% 32% 45%
46% 30%
2004
%
Proficient
32% 35% 33%
33% 42%
%
Advanced
21% 26% 54%
47% 39%
2005
%
Proficient
52% 34% 30%
28% 38%
%
Advanced
36% 25% 50%
41% 55%
2006
%
Proficient
40% 42% 18%
32% 31%
Note: Data collected from the California Department of Education, 2007
The scores for the sixth grade students in English-Language Arts were
particularly noteworthy. Although the enrollment of sixth grade students at the
school has continued to decrease over the last three years, the number and
percentage of students scoring in the advanced range has continued to grow.
Before the implementation of the writing program, only 30% (27 students) of the
99
sixth graders were scoring in the advanced range. After the first year of
implementation, 39% (32 students) were in the advanced range, and by 2006 55%
(35 students) were scoring advanced in English-Language Arts.
Additionally, this academic growth came during a time when Sutherland’s
English language learner population was the largest it had been in over 12 years.
The number of students designated as English language learners noticeably
increased since 2003 at a time when overall student enrollment was declining.
Sutherland’s principal referenced this increase in English language learners
during one of the interviews. She commented that although they have over 150
designated English language learners;
even many of our English only students speak another language at home.
Whether these EOs [English only student] are fluent in the other language
or not, when they get home they are immersed in a second language at
home. There is no way that that doesn’t have an impact on their learning.
They’re still influenced by the language and the sentence structure of the
language. I think that it will always be a challenge for us and we’ll always
be working on that.

Furthermore, Sutherland’s API continued to grow over the last four years when
most schools would notice a decline in growth due to increases in the number of
English language learners. Table 10 presents four years of data displaying API
scores and the number of English language learners.
Table 10:
Sutherland’s API Scores Related to the Increase of English Language Learners
2003 2004 2005 2006
API 890 895 899 902
Number of EL Students 102 123 134 157
Note: Data collected from the California Department of Education, 2007

100
One teacher also commented on the effects that professional development
had on student learning outcomes. She stated:
I think that when there is that follow-through, and you take the
professional development seriously, and you know that it is for student
achievement – for helping them grow academically. It’s personal
accountability. I see it through student gains individually, it may not be
across the board all of the time, but even if one student grows, you see it.

Although one cannot prove that the professional development caused the
positively influenced student achievement, one can infer that there is a correlation
between the two. Given the data, the professional development delivered by
district, site, and outside personnel appears to be effective.
Evaluation of Allocation Practices
Based upon the enrollment and demographic data, the human resource
allocation practices of Sutherland Elementary were evaluated in relation to the
evidence-based model. Table 11 offers a visual comparison of the evidence-based
recommendations set forth by the Washington Learns: Successful District Study.
101
Table 11:
Comparative Analysis of Evidence-Based Standard to Current Human Resource
Allocation Practices of Sutherland Elementary
730 Students (458 K-3; 272 4-6)
16.7% Free and Reduced Price Lunch (127)
21.5% ELL (157)
School Element
Washington
Standard
Washington
Recommendation
Sutherland
Elementary
Core Teachers
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
41.4 37
Specialist Teachers 20% more 8.3 0
Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
1:200 3.6 0
Tutors for struggling
students
1 for every
100 poverty
students
1.3 0
ELL Teachers
1 for every
100 ELL
students
1.6 0
Extended Day
2 hour/day
for ½ of
FRPL
students at
1:15
1.1 0
Summer School
Six week
session for ½
of FRPL
students at
1:15
1.1 0
Special Education
Model would
generate 4
FTE teacher
positions for
a school of
432 students
7 2
Total Teachers 65.4 39
Note: Adapted from Odden and Picus’ Washington Learn: Successful District Studys Model
From the information presented in the above table, it appeared that
Sutherland Elementary was missing some key human resources identified in the
102
Washington Model. These resources could be used to help further increase the
student learning outcomes. Although the teachers had access to specialists and
facilitators, those individuals were district based and are not full-time equivalent
employees of the school site. Additionally, the school offered “Before the Bell”
tutoring five days a week with credentialed teachers on site. However, those
teachers were not released within the day to tutor identified students. Likewise, 35
of the 37 teachers at Sutherland Elementary taught SDAIE and ELD strategies to
English language learners (CDE, 2007). However, those strategies were
embedded within the daily classroom instruction and there is no single designated
teacher who provides a pull-out ELD class to the school’s English language
learners. While the school extended the day for Kindergarten students, that was
the only grade that offers an extended program and it was not specifically targeted
to disadvantaged students. Finally, Sutherland provided a resource specialist
teacher for special education. However, based on the enrollment data, the
evidence-based recommendation was for 7 teachers to offer the 77 special
education students services (CDE, 2007).
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Research question one sought to describe the how personnel were used for
the delivery of professional development and highlight its effectiveness as
understood through student achievement data and interviewee responses.
103
Furthermore, an evaluation of the allocation of human resources in reference to
the framework’s evidence-based model was addressed through this question.
Overall, the data collected for research question one revealed that
Sutherland Elementary had autonomy to decide upon professional development
activities coupled with the support of the district office. Furthermore, the
autonomy of the school allowed for the development of leadership roles among
staff members on site. Additionally, while this trainer-of-trainers model was
deemed to be effective and efficient by administrators, the teachers saw that that
its effectiveness was hindered due to a lack of on-going coaching from the staff
trainers. Finally, the data revealed that although Sutherland Elementary was
making positive student achievement growth as witnessed by district and state
assessments, they were not making the human resource allocations needed
according to the evidence-based model.
While the school site had the autonomy to select, develop, and deliver
professional development needed to advance teacher expertise, it also had district
support. Sutherland’s principal saw that she and her fellow administrative
colleagues were encouraged to take risks and bring new ideas to their schools in
terms of professional development. Additionally, the district offered human
resource support to the site when able and applicable.
The leadership role of the site and district staff trainers was frequently
addressed in the interviews. According to the data, these individuals took on
104
several responsibilities and wore multiple hats to bring the needed professional
development to the teachers. The teachers saw themselves as being responsible
for bringing professional development to their fellow staff members. The
leadership was shared across the district and the site creating greater stakeholder
investment in the professional development.
Teachers and administrators’ perceptions over the effectiveness of the
trainer-of-trainers model varied. Teachers reported that the effectiveness of the
professional development delivered by fellow staff trainers often depended upon
individual and their presentation styles. They reported that the staff trainers who
were most effective were those individuals who displayed positive attitudes, were
willing to put forth extra effort, and invested in the new philosophy or program.
While administrators believed that the model was effective overall, one district
leader remarked that some of the trainers are still developing as staff trainers. All
of the administrators agreed that the trainer-of-trainers model was an efficient use
of resources.
Administration and teachers understood the importance of coaching in
sustaining a quality professional development program. One of the district leaders
addressed the issue of coaching as an integral part of effective professional
development. Similarly she commented that without it knowledge gained through
professional development activities were not likely to be implemented fully.
While teachers and administrators realized the role of coaching, it was the
105
teachers who identified the lack of on-going and consistent coaching within the
trainer-of-trainers model utilized by Sutherland Elementary and the district as a
whole. Their belief was that this gap negatively impacted the implementation of
the professional development originally supplied to the staff.
Student learning outcomes continued to increase at Sutherland
Elementary. This growth was witnessed even at a time when the school’s English
language learner population was increasing and became a numerically significant
subgroup. However, the question should be raised, “what else needs to be done to
move student learning outcomes forward?” Even the principal herself stated, “you
have to keep looking at your strengths and weakness so that you can continue to
show that growth.” When evaluating the allocation of human resources at
Sutherland Elementary in relationship to the evidence-based model, it was clear
that key personnel were missing. This lack of adequate human resources could act
as an obstacle to further increasing student learning.
Decision-making for the Allocation of Professional Development Resources
Data for Research Question Two
The three core strategies; re-engineering schools, redesigning teacher
development, and most notably recalibrating goals, directed research question two
in asking “How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?” This question sought to reveal the rationale behind the decision-
making process for distributing resources for professional development.
106
Additionally, the question attempted to determine if professional development
practices were related to school and district goals. Key documents, including the
district’s Mission Statement and Core Values, the District Priorities and
Objectives, the SARC, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, and interview
data from all interviewees facilitated the collection of data. The instruments stated
above were employed to triangulate the data and provide a rich body of evidence
from which to answer research question two.
Decision-Making Rationale
“[GPUSD] uses strategic planning and other sound business practices to
guide resource allocation and decision-making,” (School Accountability Report
Card, 2006, p. 1) for all organizational activities. The rationale and criteria behind
allocation decisions made for professional development were part of a strategic
improvement plan guided by the school’s and district’s vision. In addition,
professional development decisions were based on the needs of the staff as
observed by the administrators. However, although administrators may have
witnessed a need, the determination for professional development activities was
collaborative in nature with several stakeholders’ perspectives addressed. Finally,
the utilization of student achievement data in professional development allocation
decisions was consistently addressed throughout the research data collected for
research question two.

107
Vision for Learning
The resources dedicated to professional development were linked to the
vision of learning held by the school and district. The goal of improving teaching
and learning was observed in the District Priorities and Objectives, the district’s
Core Values, the SARC, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, and the
research conducted by Springboard Schools. Interview data emphasized the
relationship between the goals of the school and district and allocation decisions
made for professional development.
The values espoused by the district revealed a vision of learning. The
mission of Glenn Park Unified is “to inspire and educate individuals to realize
their dreams and fulfill their responsibilities to society. We proudly join the
parents and community in preparing each generation to meet the challenges of
today and tomorrow.” The district identified six core values – Integrity, Respect,
Safety, Student-centered Focus, Excellence, and Responsibility with
Accountability - to realize their mission. The values of Student-centered Focus,
Excellence, and Responsibility with Accountability highlighted the district’s
focus on promoting learning. A Student-centered Focus affirmed the belief of the
district “in keeping the student at the center of all decisions,” surrounding
curriculum and programs as a way to “ensure a strong academic foundation…”
The value of Excellence stated, “We believe in high standards for personal
performance in pursuit of an ideal in all of our endeavors, as demonstrated by:
108
well-defined expectations within a supportive environment; rigorous instructional
programs; [and a] commitment to succeed.” The value of Responsibility with
Accountability declared, “We believe each individual can and should be
responsible and accountable for his/her decisions and actions. In support of this
value, we will: promote the development and empowerment of individuals and
groups; [and] develop appropriate goals and measures of success.” (Mission
Statement, 2007)
With a vision for learning as a central focus of the district, it was not a
surprise to observe that one of the district’s priorities was to improve the
instructional practice of teachers in an attempt to increase learning outcomes for
students. The priority of the district was to “provide research-based professional
development training for all staff to support students in reaching rigorous state
standards” (District Priorities and Objectives, 2006, p. 4). Furthermore, the
district “fully fund[s] district priorities” (District Priorities and Objectives, 2006,
p. 2). Therefore, according to the District Priorities and Objectives, the needed
human and financial resources were directed toward professional development
activities.
Findings from Springboard School’s (2006) case study, Minding the Gap:
New Roles for School Districts in the Age of Accountability, pointed to the
relationship between the district’s vision and professional development. Through
a qualitative, in-depth examination of three California school districts – one of
109
which was Glenn Park Unified - an educational research organization, discovered
that, “successful school districts place[d] a premium on professional development
so that administrators’ and teachers’ knowledge [was] continually updated and
that they [were] provided with the tools they need[ed] to raise student
achievement” (p. 5). As the organization reported, “[GPUSD] has a historical
commitment to investing in new learning for educators” (p. 39). “Professional
development for teachers [was] a high priority” within the district and by offering
activities that met the needs of their teachers, the district and site administrators
helped to grow human resources for the purpose of increasing student learning
outcomes (Springboard Schools, 2006, p. 37).
Sharing the district’s vision, Sutherland Elementary also strove to
continually promote learning. Not only were learning outcomes a goal for
students at Sutherland, they were also a goal for staff members. As the SARC
stated, “with Excellence as a core value, we have consistently sustained high
performance standards for our teachers and administrators” (p. 14). Sutherland
promoted the “Excellence” of its staff by allocating resources for the provision of
professional development. By assisting teachers in their continuing “professional
development, learning the latest strategies and practices;” Sutherland supported its
overarching goal of “[providing] for high quality instruction…for all students”
(Single Plan for Student Achievement, 2006, p. 5).
110
The data collected through interviews solidly emphasized the connection
between the goals of the school and district and the allocation decisions for
professional development. As the site administrator stated:
Yes, the criteria for determining the allocation of funds for professional
development are based on the goals for the school. We have been very
good at knowing our strengths and weaknesses and where we need to
focus school wide. It’s been very easy for us to see that and reach
consensus. So we know where we need to keep working and put that
allocation of time and money toward it.

She added that:
A certain amount of money is taken right off of the top of our funding
allocations from the state for professional development with the Director
of Curriculum and the Cabinet making that decision. And those decisions
are based on what our goals are for the year and what our district priorities
are for the year.

Even the teachers were acutely aware that professional development
allocation decisions were rooted in the goals and vision of the school and district.
One teacher commented:
I think that decisions for spending and professional development are tied
to the school’s goals. All of our professional development has been tied to
Write from the Beginning or Thinking Maps. The site chose there
programs and supplied professional development in it once they saw the
state requirements and they saw where we were falling in terms of writing
and that we were beneath proficiency. So as a school and district we saw
this and it became a focus.

Another teacher stated that “the allocation and professional development
decisions are usually based on whatever our goals are. It’s usually based on our
focus and where our needs are.”
111
The uncommon priority that the district placed on professional
development was addressed by the Director of Curriculum. She declared:
I feel very fortunate. I have friends that work in other districts and they are
not able to give near the amount of support and training to teachers that we
are. I have one friend that said if they adopt a new textbook series the
books are just sitting there in September and the teachers get no support
with implementation. Teachers that come to us from other districts
comment that they get so many growth opportunities here compared to
where they came from. We’ve always felt like professional development is
a priority.

Observation of Teacher Needs
The site administrator’s observations also provided insight into the
instructional needs of teachers. Equipped with such evidence, the site
administrator made professional development decisions aimed at increasing the
instructional skills of the site’s teachers. The site administrator addressed the use
of observation in determining professional development needs when she
discussed the gap in the implementation of the writing program. She stated:
Like for example, here’s an example that may clarify this for you. With
the Write from the Beginning program my trainer-of-trainers did the site
implementation. We scheduled all of the dates for professional
development and got training dates set throughout the school year. As we
were getting to the end of our first year of implementation last year, I felt
like the teachers were missing the connection in the classroom. They were
implementing the program, but they weren’t taking it across the
curriculum. I said, “Yes, it is a writing program. But to get the bang for
our buck we really need to take it across the curriculum. This isn’t just a
site implementation, this is an elementary division implementation; it’s a
middle school and high school implementation. They’re going to be
hearing this language all the way through, so we can’t just say only think
of Thinking Maps and Write from the Beginning in isolation.” So, they
were really struggling with that. Every time that I met with my grade level
teams I would ask, “How is the implementation was going?” When doing
112
evaluations I would say, “Now be sure to incorporate Thinking Maps or
Write from the Beginning into whatever lesson you’re going to do - that’s
what I’m looking for.” That’s not what I was seeing when I was going into
the classrooms. It was there but it was not fully implemented as far as the
other curricular areas. So based on that and talking with the leadership
team, we did some release time for them to sit down. We have a Saturday
workday in the first week of November and couple of grade levels who
have decided to do a release day during the school week. So I let them
chose how they want to do it. I create an agenda of what I’m looking for
and what I think needs to be done and what their goals are for the day. So
we did one last spring and they planned with their teacher manuals and
their Write from the Beginning manuals. I heard them saying, “This would
apply with this lesson and I could teach fact families using a brace map.”
So it was just an allocation of time for them to sit down and work through
that and plan through the different curricular areas. And also to take
ownership of it…I still think that the timing worked out. They needed that
time to figure out what they knew and didn’t know and find out what they
could apply. So it worked out well and I gave them a release day in spring
and everyone got through English language arts and Math and some got
started on Science. That was a great use of funds for them. This next
release day is to work on Social Studies and finish up on the other
curricular areas they wanted to work on that they couldn’t get to last time.

The Deputy Superintendent also mentioned her use of classroom
observations in determining strengths and weakness of professional development
implementation. She stated:
I also go out to schools weekly and a lot of times I’m seeing what
kids are writing by studying the boards and observing what they
are doing in class. Actually when I look at [grades] K and 1, I see
Kindergarten students who are writing 3 sentences and I know that
it [the professional development] is working and I think great-yes!

Collaboration
Professional development decisions were not unilaterally determined at
the district level. There was a component of collaboration in the decision-making
process at the district and the site levels. The collaboration between teachers and
113
administrators appeared to lead to more meaningful professional development due
to the fact that multiple stakeholders were involved in the decision-making
process.
The educational research organization highlighted that the resources
allocated for professional development in Glenn Park Unified emphasized “topics
that reflect[ed] teachers’ felt needs in teaching…” (p. 37), and that “the [Glenn
Park] model is built upon collaboration among teachers and administrators” (p.
39). Collaboration was practiced at Sutherland Elementary with the utilization of
site-based decision-making “to determine the best allocation of resources”
(School Accountability Report Card, 2006, p. 2). Additionally, Sutherland’s
Single Plan for Student Achievement promoted the development of parents as
decision-makers and collaborators for the purpose of strengthening school
programs and student learning.
The collaboration over professional development allocations that took
place at Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified was addressed in every
interview conducted. The Deputy Superintendent pointed to the collaboration
between various site administrators when she said:
This [professional development] is something that the sites chose. We go
back and forth. We are very decentralized, but because the fifteen
principals talk, we find that if we pull our resources together we can
maximize [our professional development offerings]. We sometimes then
pull it together, but it is never me saying that you have to do this. It’s,
“Here is a great program. I’ll get the consultant. How many of you are
interested in training?” And sometimes it’s half of them, okay then let’s
try it. And then for things like Write from the Beginning where everybody
114
said, “We loved it!” It was just easy [to implement]. And it was one of the
best programs that we have ever implemented. Teachers really jumped on
it.

The Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services pointed to the
collaborative efforts of the site in determining their professional development
needs. He stated:
…Again it’s kind of the board sets the goals and focus for [the year]. We
call them areas of focus, but the schools are really responsible for
implementing it. There is guidance from the district, but it’s really not a
top-down type of structure in this district. It’s more about, here are the
goals and then each site – and sites sometimes work together – decide how
they are going to get there. Again, I think that this is unique and it is part
of the culture of this district and it’s the way it has always been.

The Director of Curriculum also commented on the collaborative decision-making
practiced within the district:
We have our Board Members [who make decisions]… Administrators
request. Commonly I will go in with both the elementary and secondary
divisions and they meet with their principals on a regular basis every
couple of weeks. And those of us in instructional services are invited and
that’s when we go in and have instructional conversations. Out of those
conversations is when we decide what is needed…We get direction from
the principals and the teachers themselves when we work with them
directly…So, even out of those discussions we find what we need more of.

The site administrator also commented on the collaboration that took place at the
district and site levels:
At the district level, as I said the Director of Curriculum meets with the
cabinet and looks at where we are as a district and determines what things
are imperative and what things we can hold off on. It’s very much a team
decision before the recommendation is taken to the Board and the Board
takes action on that. At the site level I would like to say that it is a
combination of both. Sometimes it is just something that as a sight
administrator I feel we have a need for. So I will go ahead and make that
115
determination and take it to SSC and bounce it off of my council that gives
me input and I’ll go from there. And sometimes it’s something that I will
discuss with my leadership team and kind of say, “How are you feeling?
What things are you hearing from your grade level? What things do you
feel you need further assistance with?” So it’s a balance of both.

The teachers also identified the collaborative quality of determining
professional development needs. One teacher stated, “I believe the teachers do
have a voice here in making those [professional development] decisions.”
Another teacher pointed to the honest discussions that occurred between
stakeholders in attempts to reach consensus on allocating resources for
professional development. She mentioned that:
There is often debate about how the funds will be spent. They [the
members of School Site Council] don’t always agree, but when it comes
down to understanding that it is for the needs of the students and greater
good of the community and the school, then consensus does happen.

Using Data
The utilization of student achievement data by the school and district was
noted in the educational research organizations (2006) report, and by five of the
six school and district employees interviewed. The relationship between student
data and professional development was also evidenced in the Single Plan for
Student Achievement.
The educational organization ‘s (2006) report highlighted that, “the new
strategies being adopted by the most successful districts [included] …creating and
using data in a continuous improvement process…” (p. 4). Glenn Park Unified
School District was one of the three districts that the network identified as
116
successfully using student data results to strategically make professional
development decisions for the common purpose of increasing student
achievement. The network discovered that Glenn Park’s district administrators
were “working to create mechanisms to help teachers and site administrators look
at benchmark data and adapt their teaching strategies based on what they learn
form the data” (p. 38). The report also pointed out that “as teachers have delved
into student data, their choices of professional development activities have also
become more data-informed” (p. 39). The Director of Curriculum highlighted that
the Springboard Schools network was:
very impressed with our use of data. They commented that we are one of
the most data driven school districts they have ever seen. That
complement goes to a superintendent that we had years and years ago –
Miranda Rubenstein. Probably a good 20 years ago Sharon decided that
we needed an assessment office and director of assessment. At that time it
was practically unheard of and she took a lot of grief at the time.

The majority of the interviews explicitly referenced the school’s and
district’s utilization of data to drive professional development decisions. The
Deputy Superintendent remarked that outside organizations identified Glenn Park
Unified as one of the most data-driven districts in the state and nation:
[Data analysis] that is one of our strengths. In fact, we had someone
analyze our district and they said that we are the most data-driven district
that they had been in. [The educational research organization] said that, as
did the [Smith] Foundation, who is our new partner. We are constantly
asking, “What are our needs and how can we best meet them? Yes we did
that, but how can we make it even better?”

117
She also commented on the relationship between effective professional
development and the impact of quality teachers on student learning outcomes
when she stated:
One of the things that we have talked about is that we feel that it is the
teacher that makes the difference in the classroom. So that is why
professional development is critical because the more skills that we can
develop - it’s going to immediately translate [into increased student
learning]. And everything that we talk about is hopefully impacting
student achievement because that is what we’re looking at. Our district has
been selected many times because our scores are higher than our
demographics would indicate. We’re kind of one of those outlier districts
where because we have a very high and diverse population with a large EL
population it’s surprising how well our kids score and I think that
professional development is a key to that. So that’s why we’re working at
it [professional development].

Similarly, the Director of Curriculum stated that everything that the district and
schools do is focused on student achievement data and providing professional
development that is research-based and aligned to the trends that they witness
through the data:
All staff development ideally is research-based and standards aligned and
it’s data driven. If you read our mission statement it’s obviously on the
development of the whole child, but it is really focused on student
achievement. The standards are our guiding light and they really do
determine so much for us. They drive our programs, our selection of
resources, and our staff development… it’s all around student achievement
and we analyze our API and AYP scores and we give local benchmark
[assessments] in our core areas. They’re given twice a year. And in
English we give two plus a writing benchmark so there are three. And boy
do we scrutinize those; we analyze the data, bring people together to share
how the kids did.

118
The site administrator also commented on the utilization of data to identify
learning and performance gaps and determine where to focus instructional
attention:
We also do data analysis. I have a form that I created that they fill out
about the gaps and so that’s where I get school wide input to put into the
school plan. And we look by grade level to find our focus and see what
trends we are noticing. If it’s still literary analysis and vocabulary all the
grade levels look at it. So even K and 1 though not tested still look at the
trends and achievement so that they know what the students need to know
and if I have to change their grade level then they’re not so out of the loop
that they won’t be able to teach the things needed… pulling up the student
scores and looking at what the students strengths and weaknesses are
individually. Looking at the benchmarks and determine what they really
need to do between now and the next trimester.

The teachers also identified the role that data played in driving professional
development when asked; Are assessment outcomes utilized to drive professional
development? One teacher responded that “we look at the students’ benchmark
assessments and CST results. So it [professional development decisions]
definitely goes back to the data.” Another teacher answered:
We always look at how we did last year and the areas that we improved in
and where we think our area of weakness is that we need to focus on this
year. So I think that it [analyzing data] is constant. And how we did and
what areas we need to work on definitely determines what professional
development activities we will have during a year.

Within the Single Plan for Student Achievement, the Summary for
Improving Teaching and Learning highlighted the use of staff development to
“examine student data and teaching practices in relation to results on grade level
standards” (Section III). The plan also included a gap analysis of the school’s
119
student performance based on district and state assessments at each grade level.
The identified gaps in student performance were further aligned with professional
development activities that were focused on minimizing and eliminating the gaps
presented.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
Research question two strove to uncover the rationale behind the decision-
making process for allocating resources for professional development.
Furthermore, the question attempted to reveal if professional development
practices were related to school and district goals.
Overall, the data collected for research question two verified that
professional development activities were aligned to an overarching vision and the
supporting goals established by the school and district. Evidence provided
through interviews and documents displayed that allocation decisions for
professional development were strategically made based on the use of student
performance data, administrative observations, and school-community
collaboration.
The allocations made for professional development were linked to the
vision and goals of the school and district. While the vision of the GPUSD
permeated throughout the schools within the district, Sutherland’s site
administrator was also identified as having a vision for the students and school as
a whole that was driving professional development decisions. One teacher
120
remarked that “now we [GPUSD] are the best kept secret so I think that it starts
with the vision and it then really breaks down to the individual schools and then
they have to look at what they need to work on.” Performance goals were
identified and established at Sutherland Elementary as a way to move student
learning forward in a measurable way. These performance goals also acted as a
guide for determining where professional development resources needed to be
distributed to positively influence student learning.
Glenn Park Unified and Sutherland Elementary used student achievement
data gathered through state and district assessments to help them set their goals
for increased student learning. The district was identified as a successful model
due to its systematic use of data in making instructional decisions including those
for professional development. Individual schools, including Sutherland, engaged
in numerous hours of data analysis to determine the strengths and weaknesses of
their programs and instructional practices. It was through such data analysis that
the school was able to determine where resources needed to be allocated for
expanding teachers’ knowledge and skills as educators.
Observational evidence was also highlighted by administrators as a basis
for professional development decisions. Administrative observations served two
functions according to the data collected by the researcher. First it offered
reasonable justification for selecting professional development activities that
addressed gaps in instructional and curricular practices on the part of teachers.
121
Second, it acted as evidence of successful implementation of practices earlier
received through professional development activities.
The collaborative nature of the school and district in allocation decisions
for professional development was markedly noticeable. The educational research
organization cited the collaboration that took place between teachers and
administrators in determining goals for student performance and learning
activities for teachers. Teachers and administrators also commented on the
collaboration that existed between them at Sutherland Elementary for determining
staff learning needs. Additionally, collaboration with parents pertaining to the use
of resources for professional development was addressed by the site administrator
and one of the teachers.
Professional Development Funding
Data for Research Question Three
Research question three utilized re-engineering schools, re-designing
teacher development, and re-structuring teacher compensation as a lens through
which to evaluate the question, “How much funding is directed toward
professional development and from what source do these funds originate?” The
purpose of this question was to discover how much funding was dedicated to
professional development and from where the money for professional
development activities stemmed from. Research question three also offered an
opportunity for an evaluation of Sutherland’s funding practices in connection to
122
the evidence-based model. Several imperative instruments assisted in the
collection and analysis of data including the SARC, budget information supplied
by the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services and Sutherland’s site
administrator, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, and interview data. The
above mentioned instruments were used to triangulate the data and offer a full
body of information for which to answer research question three.
Allocations for Professional Development
The district and school placed a priority on providing quality professional
development to their staff as evidenced by the Single Plan for Student
Achievement, the SARC, the District’s Priorities and Objectives, and interview
data. However, the provision of resources for professional development appeared
to be somewhat inconsistent across the data.
District
Although each school site had its own site budget from which professional
development activities were paid for, the district also had a professional
development budget. The Director of Curriculum pointed out that the district’s
professional development budget was supplied by various funding sources. She
commented that her budget for instructional services alone “is probably up to
about one million dollars.” Additionally, the Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services was responsible for managing some of the funds targeted
at professional development. Table 12 displays the total amount of district dollars,
123
the amount of money that the district directed toward professional development,
and it identifies the funding sources.
Table 12:
Glenn Park’s 2005-2006 Professional Development Expenditures and Funding
Sources
Funding Source Expenditures
Induction Program $250,000
Title I, IIa, IId, III $700,000
School Improvement Training $917,000
Professional Consulting Services $150,000
Unrestricted General Fund $163,854
Restricted General Fund $453,040
Total Professional Development
Dollars

$2,633,894

Total District Dollars $121, 988,996
Note: Data supplied from budget information and interviews

Some of the above figures were estimations due to the fact that
professional development was only one component of several included within a
particular budget category. For example, the Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services commented that:
a third [budget] area we looked at was Professional Consulting Services.
Expenditures totaled just over $3,000,000. However, in this category are
our legal, audit, and other non-instructional services we contract for. We
estimate the professional development “piece” to be only $150,000.

Some of the professional development dollars spent by the district and
reflected in Table 12 purchased staff resources for the purpose of improving
124
teacher practice. The Director of Curriculum highlighted the human resources
that are afforded within the district:
First of all we have many of our inside people. We have full-time release
specialists. I have a curriculum specialist, and induction specialist, a
bilingual/ELD specialist, I have two full-time staff development
specialists, and we have special education specialists as well. All of these
people are out of the classroom fulltime and available [to teachers and
school sites].

In addition to paying the specialists salaries, the professional development dollars
within the district were also expended on stipends for Beginning Teacher Support
and Assessment (BTSA) providers, purchasing ten release days for ELD lead
teachers across the district to “upgrade their skills,” and purchasing consultants
for various programs.
While the funding sources addressed in Table 12 were connected to a
particular amount of money, interview data revealed that additional professional
development resources were provided to the staff. The interview data from the
Director of Curriculum pointed to resources provided via partnerships with
universities and educational foundations.
We’ve been in partnership with the universities. We’re very close with Cal
Poly Pomona. They had a three year grant that provided us with some
funds and access to faculty. We’ve done things with Cal State Fullerton in
the past, particularly the special ed department. They supported our
Induction Program. Their chairperson and another person came up once a
month and did some training with our teachers for a year or two, now we
are not in that partnership right now. But we’re still working with Pomona
pretty closely. Right now our focus with Pomona is on induction and
another one that we have is a professional development school that is
starting up at one of our elementary schools. It came out of a teacher
quality grant from Cal Poly. So of course we’re in partnership with that.
125
They have faculty that come and work with our staff. And that is just
getting up off of the ground. We’re under a grant on that. I sit on a
committee; it’s called the All University Committee on Teacher
Education. That’s just me going over [to the campus], but there is
articulation back and forth. We have different types of partnerships with
them. We just finished a 3 year partnership on secondary mathematics.
They had funding available so that staff could go and take classes on
mathematics or other staff development could be offered here and I could
apply to the university to have that reimbursed. That was a wonderful
grant and that just ended in September after 3 years. I told them at the last
meeting that if they have another grant like that come up that we are
interested…

We have the Ball Foundation partnership and they are just wonderful.
That’s a fairly new partnership-we’re going into six or eight months on
that. They’re wonderful, they are out of Chicago so that’s another
partnership and it’s just getting off the ground… We need to have a plan
to do an assets profile to determine what we are doing well in relation to
literacy that are already in place and try to identify our areas of need. They
will work with us in any way that we determine. If we want training then
they provide us with training. If we want to hire particular consultants that
we identify then they provide the funding. It may be that we want direct
facilitation and they may train us in direct facilitation. They are just
terrific. They’ll basically do whatever we want-it’s our project and we
define it. They just come in with the resources and they are just
wonderful… So they’re working with [Glenn Park] Unified and
Allentown Pennsylvania. We’re the 2 districts that they will be working
with for the next 5 years… If they so much as look in our direction, they
pay for it. When they came and interviewed us, they went to two or three
schools to talk to teachers and principals. They sent a $1,000 donation to
them afterwards. They are extremely generous and we are very luck-only
one of two in the country.

These partnerships have afforded the district additional resources to
develop the expertise of their teachers; however dollar amounts were not ascribed
to these resources. According to the financial data derived from the budget
information presented by the Assistant Superintendent and the interview data
from him and the Director of Curriculum, only 2.2% of the district’s 2005-2006,
126
budget was allocated to professional development activities. However, this figure
excluded the additional resources received by the district for which they did not
expend dollars. Therefore, if dollar amounts were assigned to the trainings,
materials, and donations accepted by the district for the purpose of growing
teachers’ knowledge and skills, professional development would be identified as a
more significant line item of the district’s budget.
The Director of Curriculum also highlighted resources that schools were
acquiring outside of the scope of district expenditures and partnerships. She stated
that a few of the schools received additional funds through various grants for
which they were planning on purchasing staff training and coaches. Two schools
had received a new high priority grant “and with that money they are hiring each
a new fulltime literacy and a fulltime math coach for those schools.”
School Site
Sutherland, as well as all of the schools in Glenn Park Unified, had its own
site budget. Sutherland Elementary’s 2005-2006 School Plan specified the
spendable dollars that it had through the School-Based Coordinated Program and
Title III funding sources. While the Title III funds provided money for English
language development materials, the School Based Coordinated Program
provided funding for Gifted and Talent education, intervention materials, teacher
stipends for teaching intervention courses before school, technology software and
hardware, supplemental teaching materials, and professional development
127
materials and release time. It was from this budget that the Sutherland allocated
resources for professional development. Table 13 displays the funding sources
and total amount of dollars within Sutherland’s budget.
Table 13:
Sutherland’s 2005-2006 Budget and Funding Sources
Funding Source Amount of Dollars
School Based Coordinated Program $173,456
Title III $8,659
Total Budget

$182,115

Note: Data collected from Sutherland’s Single Plan for Student Achievement
Interview data and documents revealed how much money Sutherland
Elementary spent on professional development for the 2005-2006 school year.
The site administrator provided the data for Table 14 that itemizes how
professional development dollars where spent.
Table 14:
Sutherland’s 2005-2006 Professional Development Allocations
Resources Purchased Expenditures
Teacher Release Days (Substitute Pay) $4,255
Program Training and Materials $1,500
Total Professional Development
Expenditures

$5,755

Total Budget

$182,115

Note: Data collected from interview data with site administrator and Sutherland’s Single Plan for
Student Achievement

From the data presented in Table 13 and Table 14, only 3% of the school’s
budget for the 2005-2006 school year was directed toward professional
128
development activities. However, that percentage of the school’s professional
development budget reflected non-personnel costs. Sutherland did not have the
cost associated with a full-time coach because the site did not have one. Although
there were on-site teachers who acted as trainers, their stipend was provided
through the district’s budget and not reflected on Sutherland’s site budget.
Although Sutherland only spent 3% of its budget on professional
development activities and materials, the teachers on the site received more
training than reflected in the school’s budget expenditures. Interview data
revealed that often the larger categorically funded schools and district absorbed
the cost of the consultants for schools like Sutherland that did not have large
categorical budgets. Therefore, the cost of the consultants were not reflected in
the program training and materials line item because that expense was covered by
funds provided outside of Sutherland’s budget. With the exception of purchasing
substitute time for releasing the teachers, Sutherland did not have to pay for the
teacher’s time when in professional development, as that was covered through
district funds. Those costs were deferred to other schools within the district or the
district office.
Additionally, Sutherland had an extra $60,000 sitting in savings. That
money was the remainder of the original $100,000 left from California’s initial
API incentive program. Some of the $100,000 was used the previous year to
129
supply professional development to the staff in writing. The site administrator
stated:
So it was our fund for professional development when I needed money to
get training for Write from the Beginning. The district would say,
“Schools that are not Title I need to pay for the materials but not the
training.” And it was still costly. It was still about $200 per teacher for the
binder and materials for the program. So I was able to use that [incentive]
money. It was my emergency money and now we’ve made the decision to
use that money to take the next steps to move this school into the future. I
see the implementation of IB [International Baccalaureate] as rounding
that corner for us.

The remainder of the money was earmarked for professional development
pertaining to the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program. At least
$50,000 of the $60,000 was anticipated to be used for the first year of training
scheduled for 2006-2007. An additional $50,000 would be spent the next year to
train the other half of teachers. When this additional expenditure and funding
source was added to the existing equation, over 20% of Sutherland’s upcoming
2006-2007 non-personnel budget will be directed toward professional
development. The site administrator was cognizant of the upcoming change to
professional development allocations. She commented that professional
development expenditures “used to be only 5% to 10% [of the budget]. But now
with us going to IB it will probably be about 20% [of non-personnel costs].”

130
Efficient Use of Resources
Sutherland’s use of resources was strategic and efficient. The site
purposefully saved its money that it received from the state for meeting API
targets the first year of implementation. As the site administrator added:
I have an allocation of API bonus money that we received the first year
that API came out in 1999-2000. And we got $100,000 because we had
made our API and that was the time when the state was giving an
incentive to recognize that your school did well. And the state was quick
to pull that one when they saw how many schools met their goal. And so
we got that money-it was the year before the former principal and I made
these transitions. He’s now the Assistant Superintendent of Business
Services at the district office. And I was the Assistant Principal [at
Sutherland] and took his job [as principal]. One of the things that he told
me as he was passing the throne was, “Do not spend this money. We’re
heading into some financially tough times.” He said, “Just sit on the
money and don’t spend it. If district office starts asking you to spend it tell
them that it is for those leaner times.” So that’s what I did and it’s been the
resource of money that I have been able to pull from as our enrollment has
dropped. So this has been money that has helped us to get through. So it
was our fund for professional development when I needed money… I see
the implementation of IB [International Baccalaureate] as rounding that
corner for us. Working out our plan for the next 10 years as far as the
direction of this school…And I think that this program is the way to do it.
Since we are so multi-ethnic and the leadership team who’s been through
the training feel that this is the right way to go. I have about $60,000 left
in the fund that I will be using to get this going. I really stretched that
money out and that was the best advice that I got. To really wait until there
was something that I wanted to use this money towards.

As seen above, Sutherland’s administrator reserved those resources for
professional development opportunities that were systematically selected for
moving the school and the expertise of the staff forward.
131
District level administrators further instilled the value of using resources
wisely. Sutherland, as well as other schools within the district, was counseled by
the Assistant Superintendent to set aside non-categorical funds. He stated:
[Sutherland] got incentive money that first year when the state was
handing it out and we counseled the schools to hold onto that money. Hold
onto all of the unrestricted money that you can for as long as you can.
These things with declining enrollment and shrinking resources if you
have a pot of money then you can get what you need with it.

Autonomous Decision-making for the Allocation of Resources
Sutherland Elementary had the freedom to make professional development
decisions based on the needs of its staff. According to Ouchi (2003a), the
authority of the school site in making decisions that affected the students – like
professional development decisions – led to the success of decentralized school
systems. The autonomy of Sutherland and the other school sites in reference to
professional development decision-making was highlighted in several interviews
conducted by the researcher.
Sutherland’s site administrator addressed the sovereignty of the school
when she stated:
Once the money is distributed to each school, we really are very
autonomous with how we want to spend that money. They do send
recommendations with the money as far as how the Board [of Education]
would like to see you spend some of this money toward technology or
some other specific support for teachers. But for the most part, if we can
write the rational and bring it to our School Site Council and gain their
support, then they allow us to make those decisions to meet the needs of
our staff and our students.

132
Due to that decentralized decision-making structure, the site administrator had the
ability to allocate the needed resources toward the professional development
strategically selected. She further stressed the liberty that site administrators
within the district had in bringing new and inventive professional development to
their staffs. According to her, “If you really want to think differently you can.
And some see it as a negative. I see it as a positive because only you know what
your staff needs.”
The Director of Curriculum also remarked on the overall decentralized
organization of the district in relationship to professional development. She
announced:
We are decentralized. Certainly we’re centralized in some ways but we are
more decentralized than centralized…Here [at Glenn Park] you can say
my staff wants this and we’re going to do this. So you have this autonomy
and flexibility. You don’t have to wait for everyone else to do it.

The Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services also pointed out
the decentralized decision-making structure throughout the district. He
highlighted the fact that student achievement goals drove instructional actions and
professional development allocations, but the district was not responsible for
determining the actions needed at the school level. Instead the school sites
retained the autonomy to make site-based decisions to reach the identified goals.
When asked about school site budgets, he responded:
Does each school have its own budget? Yes. And again it’s kind of the
board sets the goals and focus for [the year] - we call them areas of focus.
But the schools are really responsible for implementing it. There is
133
guidance from the district but it’s really not a top-down type of structure
in this district. It’s more about, here are the goals and then each site - and
sites sometimes work together - decides how they are going to get there.
Again I think that that is unique and it is part of the culture of this district
and it’s the way it has always been.

The Deputy Superintendent also emphasized the autonomy of the school
sites in determining how to utilize instructional dollars. She stated:
There isn’t a set amount [of money that schools have to use on
professional development]. Every school uses their categorical dollars the
way that they want to. So [Sutherland] with the IB process is probably
going to use more. We try to have schools use about 10% of their funds
for professional development but there are times that they go over that.
And they get to decide what types of professional development they need
as a staff…So if they want to do something, then they can use their money
toward it and they actually have more flexibility with their budget than we
do [at the district office].

District Support
Although Sutherland Elementary enjoyed decision-making freedom
pertaining to professional development, the school also enjoyed the support of the
district and fellow school sites. When discussing the amount of professional
development dollars allotted to training and materials, Sutherland’s site
administrator remarked, “we split training costs amongst all of the elementary
schools in the district. So our [Sutherland’s] overall cost is minimal.” She further
commented on the support provided by the district:
Because right now we’re looking at making some big changes at this
school, we’re trying to reach out to as many people as possible as
resources. So we call up to district office and if they can’t assist us then
they try to put us in contact with some one who could help us.

134
All of the district level administrators also emphasized the financial
support that the district offered schools. Often the administrators within the
district worked together to purposefully combine their resources for professional
development activities. The Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services
stated, “what they will sometimes do is combine their resources together and get
professional development training that way.” The Director of Curriculum further
accentuated the supportive relationship between the district and independent
school sites when she commented that:
The district tries to where possible to support them and give them a little
extra here and there. Let’s say we have a consultant coming in for training.
The schools will split the cost of the consultant with their categorical
funds and the other schools will have to just pay for their subs, but they
don’t have to kick in for the cost of the consultant. So that’s how it is with
[Sutherland, they’re] still benefiting without having to pay for all the
entire cost of the training.

Additionally the Deputy Superintendent referenced the coordination of resources
for teacher development between the district and school sites. She stated that she
was planning on “paying for the consultant and they’re paying for the subs to get
them there.”
Such fiscal support influenced the amount of professional development
resources that were realized by Sutherland’s staff. Since the site did not have to
expend the full amount of money to supply professional development to the
teachers, an accurate percentage of total budget expenditures for professional
development was not able to be identified in Table 14. If the full price of the
135
professional development received by Sutherland’s staff was reflected in its 2005-
2006 budget, a larger professional development allocation would have been
exposed.
The Role of Categorical Funds
The role that categorical funding played in providing professional
development for teachers was witnessed through the Single Plan for Student
Achievement and interview data.
Sutherland Elementary had a minimal amount of categorical funds from
which it could pull financial resources for the purpose of providing professional
development and implementing evidence-based strategies for the purpose of
advancing student learning outcomes. According to Sutherland’s Single Plan for
Student Achievement, only $8,659 was derived from a categorical source. Title III
monies for limited English proficient students and immigrant education was the
only categorical funding that Sutherland received. The largest proportion of the
site’s budget originated from the School Based Coordinated Program. Even with
that funding source, Sutherland’s budget was small in comparison to many of the
other schools within the district.
According to the Director of Curriculum, other schools in Glenn Park
Unified had larger categorical budgets and “shared their [categorical] funds and
bought a literacy coach.” However, Sutherland did not have access to such
resources. As the site administrator stated, “when you’re a non-Title I school, you
136
really have to look at how to get the resources that you need.” The disparity of
funding between schools within the district due to categorical sources was further
addressed by the Deputy Superintendent and the Director of Curriculum. The
Deputy Superintendent specifically cited the financial challenges witnessed by
Sutherland’s principal in supplying professional development opportunities to her
staff. She stated:
We really find that there is some disparity when you look at a [Sutherland]
in comparison to some of our categorical schools. Let’s say [Harvey
Elementary] which has like 900 at-risk kids. They may have a categorical
fund of $400,000; while [Sutherland] is only going to have around
$70,000 to $80,000. So that is one of our issues; how we do we help
[Sutherland] and do the things that her staff needs when [it] doesn’t have
the allocations. So we have done a variety of things. Sometimes it is the
goodness of our categorical school administrators’ hearts and they’ll say,
“We’ll pay for the consultants if you can pay to get your teachers here.”
So those are some of the ways that we share our resources so that it makes
it more reasonable.

The Director of Curriculum similarly remarked:
Some of our schools that are smaller don’t have the categorical support so
they call themselves the haves and the have-nots because we have some
that have very small operating budgets from the district-most of them do.
But then we have some schools that have huge categorical dollars. Their
whole general fund budget is only $80,000 but then $500,000 is in
categorical [funding]. So that school can just take off. But then that school
over there is just struggling and can hardly buy a release day. They are just
so tight. And what is surprising is how these schools can move forward
and how they are creative.

Later in the interview, she revisited the role of categorical support in establishing
school budgets. She mentioned that “each school had its own budget, but it is
137
pretty minimal unless they have categorical money. Those schools with
categorical [funds] can do more.”
The Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services stressed the
significant role of categorical funding for the provision of professional
development. He stated:
Most of the professional development is handled through categorical
funding, not out of the unrestricted general fund because we don’t have a
lot of money… Probably 80-90% of that [unrestricted] portion is going to
salaries and benefits, so there is not a lot left over. So what you see over
time is that the general unrestricted fund does grow but, what has really
grown over, let’s say the last 10 years, is the restricted side of the budget –
the categorical side of the budget.

Although money from the unrestricted side supported the salaries and stipends for
the district and site level individuals providing professional development, the
unrestricted side of the budget did not have the amount of financial resources
necessary to significantly support the cost of the various outside consultants or
materials needed to supply professional development to the schools. He further
commented that the amount of money from the:
…general unrestricted fund [that] goes toward professional development -
it’s minuscule. It’s probably covering some things like administrators’
training but even that is just a drop in the bucket…The real in-depth type
of training is through categorical programs, Title I, school improvement –
the big ones. It’s funded by the state and they write it into their plans…
[Sutherland] was my old school. I was principal there before moving here
to the district office. I was there when we broke the 800 API barrier and
now they just broke 900 API. Again that school doesn’t have a lot of
categorical money.

138
Although Sutherland did not have a large amount of categorical funding,
the former site administrator – currently the Assistant Superintendent – added that
“there was a lot of professional development done on a personal level where we
would have the grade-level meetings and so on and discuss the students’
performance.” Additionally, the current site administrator commented on the
alternative funding sources that could be tapped by Sutherland. She stated that she
planned on “looking at [her] resources and the state allocations and any additional
money. We’re going to write some grants and apply to become a magnet school
[because] magnet schools get other allocations.”
Evaluation of Sutherland’s Allocation Practices
Based upon the enrollment and demographic data, the resource allocation
practices of Sutherland Elementary were evaluated in relation to Odden and
Picus’s (2006) evidence-based model. Table 15 offers a visual comparison of the
evidence-based recommendations set forth by the Washington Learns: Successful
District Study and Sutherland’s allocation practices.

139
Table 15:
Comparative Analysis of Evidence-Based Standard to Current Financial
Allocation Practices of Sutherland Elementary
730 Students (458 K-3; 272 4-6)
16.7% Free and Reduced Price Lunch (127)
21.5% ELL (157)
School Element
Washington
Standard
Washington
Recommendation
Sutherland
Elementary
Gifted and Talented $25/student $18,250 $5,148
Substitutes
10 days per
teacher at
$121 per day
$79,134 $4,255
Pupil Support Staff
1 for every
100 poverty
students
1.3 0
Non-Instructional
aides
2.0 1
Instructional Aides
(not special
education)
0 4
Librarians/media
specialists
1 0
Principal 1 1
Assistant principal 0.7 1
School Site Secretary 3.6 3.5
Funds for
Professional
Development beyond
the ten additional
contract days and the
facilitators
$100 per
pupil
$73,000 $1,500
Technology
$250 per
pupil
$182,500 $11,500
Instructional
Materials, equipment
including textbooks
$140 per
pupil
$102,200 $51,015
Student Activities
$200 per
pupil
$146,000 $2,000
Operations and
Maintenance
$609 per
pupil
$445,570 $166,654
Note: Adapted from Odden and Picus’ Washington Learn: Successful District Studys Model
140
From the information presented in the above table, it appeared that
Sutherland Elementary was not allocating resources in the same pattern as
suggested in the as identified by the Washington Evidence –Based Model. Almost
all of Sutherland’s expenditures were significantly less than that recommended
through the evidence-based model. However, as the data described earlier, the
school received additional resources that were not reflected in its budget
expenditures. Other schools and the district supplemented Sutherland’s budget by
purchasing consultants and training for its staff. Those supplemented items were
not given a monetary value by the school or district. Since those professional
development items were not included within the school or district’s expenditure
data they were not be included within Sutherland’s expenses.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three
Research question three strove to discover how much funding was
dedicated to professional development by the school and the district. The question
also sought to uncover the funding sources for professional development
activities. Additionally, an opportunity for an evaluation of Sutherland’s funding
practices in connection to the evidence-based model was offered through this
question.
A preliminary appraisal of the allocation of resources for professional
development appeared to be inconsistent with the priorities of the district and
school as well as the evidence-based model. That initial assumption was due to
141
the fact that a small measurable percentage of the district’s and school’s budget
was dedicated toward professional development. However, through a closer
examination of the data, it was revealed that a greater amount of resources were
committed to professional development than could be easily measured.
Partnerships with universities and educational foundations were not reflected in
the district’s professional development expenditures since they did not count as a
cost against the district. Furthermore, the splitting of training costs amongst
different school sites was not articulated in Sutherland’s professional
development expenditures. Given the above information, it became obvious that
Glenn Park Unified and Sutherland Elementary devoted healthy amounts of
resources to developing the expertise of their teachers.
The impact of categorical funding was also highlighted throughout the
data. Sutherland Elementary had an extremely small categorical budget as
compared to the majority of the schools within the district. As interview data
revealed, those schools with larger categorical budgets “can just take off,”
whereas Sutherland with its small categorical budgets “is just struggling and can
hardly buy a release day.” The way that Sutherland could continue to move
forward in light of a small categorical budget was due in part to the support of the
district and other schools.
Sutherland Elementary enjoyed the freedom to make professional
development decisions coupled with support from the district. Due to the
142
decentralized decision-making structure, the site administrator had the ability to
allocate the needed resources toward the professional development strategically
selected. The district goals drove instructional actions and professional
development allocations, but the district was not responsible for determining the
actions needed at the school level. Instead the school site retained its autonomy to
make site-based decisions based on the needs of the staff and students to reach the
identified goals. While Sutherland had the sovereignty to make professional
development choices, the site was fiscally supported by fellow schools within the
district and by the district itself. Sutherland’s professional development budget
was supplemented to provide a greater opportunity for its teachers to receive
needed professional development, than the school site alone could have offered.
Promoting Organizational Capacity and Student Achievement Through
Professional Development
Data for Research Question Four
All six core strategies were utilized as a lens through which to answer the
fourth research question that asked, “How is professional development used to
promote organizational capacity and student achievement?” The findings for
research question four focused on the capacity building practices of sharing a
vision, collaboration, and data-driven decision-making. It is also uncovered the
important role that technology played in organizing, analyzing, and utilizing
student data to understand the professional development needs of teachers. The
143
findings from the research question led to an increased understanding of how the
school used professional development to promote student learning outcomes.
Finally the data revealed a need to restructure the compensation and the
contractual teaching year to further increase the capacity of the school and
district. Several instruments assisted in the collection and analysis of data
including the SARC, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, the District
Priorities and Objectives, Springboard’s research, and interview data. The above
mentioned instruments were used to triangulate the data to effectively answer
research question four.
Sharing a Vision
Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified shared a common vision
that worked to build organizational capacity and coherence throughout the district
and school. The district’s mission statement was proclaimed by Sutherland in its
SARC. It stated that the mission of the school and district was “to inspire and
educate individuals to realize their dreams and fulfill their responsibilities to
society. We proudly join the parents and community in preparing each generation
to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow” (SARC, 2005, p. 1). The mission
statement applied a broad vision for developing student success. However, the
underlying vision of the school and district was to promote student learning and
advance student performance. As the Director of Curriculum stated:
If you read our mission statement it’s obviously on the development of the
whole child, but it is really focused on student achievement. The standards
144
are our guiding light and they really do determine so much for us. They
drive our programs, our selection of resources, and our staff development.
Obviously it doesn’t drive every little thing, like our classified people –
custodians and office managers. But on the instructional side, everything
goes back to standards or should.

While the school and district’s mission was broad, the District Priorities
and Objectives addressed specific goals that supported the vision. Those
objectives included ones centered on student achievement and professional
development. Eleven objectives were listed as:
Support student achievement for all students with a highly
qualified staff in meeting state standards and higher targets for
student performance at the proficient and advanced level;
Maintain financial solvency, while adapting to uncertain state funding, the
statewide declining enrollment trend, and its impact on revenue and
services;
Maintain quality, safe, clean, and inviting school facilities
Promote school that are family friendly;
Provide research-based professional development training for all staff to
support students in reaching rigorous state standards;
Strengthen and promote [Glenn Park] Unified’s core values and
Community of Caring;
Develop a strategic plan to make [Glenn Park] Unified the first choice for
all residents;
145
Support the transition of the new Superintendent in building relationships
with the Board, staff, and community;
Develop and implement a five-year technology plan;
Streamline the administrative processes in order to be more accessible to
students, staff and community; and
Continue to embrace the philosophies of Good to Great (District Priorities
and Objectives, 2005).
Of the eleven Priorities and Objectives, five focused on increasing the capacity of
individuals, as well as the district and schools as organizations.
The first objective was to support student achievement. Capacity building
of individual students was addressed through this goal. Reading interventions
designed to “assist struggling readers at all grade levels,” as well as Advancement
Via Individual Determination (AVID) that provided “support services to enable
students to successfully graduate from high school and attend four-year
universities,” aimed at assisting at-risk students (District Priorities and Objectives,
2006, p. 1). Additionally, the capacity of the organization was addressed within
that objective due to the fact that special programs were implemented to “attract
more families and assist in reversing the declining enrollment trend,” (District
Priorities and Objectives, 2006, p. 2). Programs listed under this goal included;
the International Baccalaureate Program, two-way language immersion, extended
146
kindergarten, pre-kindergarten, orchestra, career certification, and the Music
Intelligence Neural Development (M.I.N.D.) Program.
The second objective strove to maintain the financial solvency of the
organization. To build the capacity of resources within the district, Glenn Park
Unified searched “for outside, supplemental funding including grants, foundation
funding, collaborations, and corporate underwriting,” (District Priorities and
Objectives, 2006, p. 2). Glenn Park Unified received funding and resources from
grants and partnerships with several universities. Additionally, the district
recently partnered with a private foundation for identifying the needs and
developing the skills of teacher practice in the area of literacy. The Director of
Curriculum informed the researcher of the foundation’s history, selection process
of districts, and financial generosity of the foundation. She stated:
We have the [Smith] Foundation partnership and they are just wonderful.
They are out of Chicago so that’s another partnership and it’s just getting
off the ground… We were selected because they approached us. They only
support two or three school districts at a time. They had just finished a
round with [Vista Colorado] and [Evansville, Indiana]. We got a letter
from them and they look for certain district profiles like high needs and
low funding situations. They identified 130 school districts in the country
and wrote to all of them to apply and something like thirty or forty
responded. We responded and they then narrowed it to five and they came
and interviewed us. Then they narrowed it to 2. So they’re working with
[Glenn Park] Unified and [Pleasanton, Illinois]. We’re the two districts
that they will be working with for the next five years. So they took us all
to Chicago this summer and the two leadership teams spent three days
together back there. We’re looking at some similar things and some
different things. They anticipate that we [the 2 districts] will probably
meet again, perhaps in [Pleasanton], or they will come here, or we’ll meet
again in Chicago. They have a beautiful facility right outside of Chicago.
Their background is very interesting. [Christopher Smith] was the largest
147
seller of ornamental flower seeds. He just passed away a few years ago.
He retired and was very discouraged by the education that his
granddaughter was receiving and complained about the schools. When he
was seventy he went back and got a sub credential so that he could teach
in the Chicago schools. When he did that, he began to appreciate the needs
of the schools and he left an endowment-I think it is $20 million. What is
interesting is that it is not perpetual. They are to spend it all-they’re not to
keep it going. They’re not working off of interest only-they’re to spend it
all. I have no idea what they spent over the last few years with
[Evansville] and [Vista Colorado]. If they so much as look in our
direction, they pay for it. When they came and interviewed us, they went
to two or three schools to talk to teachers and principals. They sent a
$1,000 donation to them afterwards. They are extremely generous and we
are very luck-only one of two in the country. One thing that I’ll say about
[Glenn Park] is that we step-up. They invited 130 districts to apply and
only thirty or forty applied. We filled out the application and participated
in the interview process.

She also commented on the district’s vision for utilizing the foundation’s
resources, and the fact that the foundation fully funded professional development
in the area of literacy. She remarked:
We’re going to focus on literacy. In January we’re going to plan a needs
assessment that we are going to run in spring to really hone in on what we
think we need to focus on and that will be K-12. We have a leadership
group for this, there are about eighteen of us-it’s administrators,
elementary principals and teachers, it’s secondary principals and teachers,
it’s bilingual representatives, and a union representative. We’re the
leadership team and we’re doing some things to get the word out. We need
to have a plan to do an assets profile to determine what we are doing well
in relation to literacy that are already in place and try to identify our areas
of need. They will work with us in any way that we determine. If we want
training, then they provide us with training. If we want to hire particular
consultants that we identify, then they provide the funding. It may be that
we want direct facilitation and they may train us in direct facilitation.
They are just terrific. They’ll basically do whatever we want-it’s our
project and we define it. They just come in with the resources and they are
just wonderful.

148
Partnering with the Smith Foundation afforded Glenn Park Unified to further
build the capacity of its people and schools.
The fourth objective promoted family friendly schools. Through the
implementation of the “Family Friendly Schools Program and/or strategies to
engage families in student learning,” the district aimed at building the capacity of
the organization and community as a whole (District Priorities and Objectives,
2005, p. 3). The district provided several resources to the parents and families for
the purpose of supporting student learning. The Family Resource Center offered
“courses, activities, and support services for children and families,” (District
Priorities and Objectives, 2005, p. 3). Additionally, CBET courses helped
“parents support their children with homework, and help[ed] them improve their
ability to speak, read, and write English,” (District Priorities and Objectives,
2005, p. 3).
The fifth priority strove to increase the individual capacities of teachers
through professional development for the purpose of moving the organization as a
whole forward. By providing research-based professional development, the
district was increasing the expertise of teachers within the organization for the
purpose of advancing student learning outcomes. The professional development
trainings equipped teachers with the knowledge to “implement challenging
instructional practices in each classroom that [were] aligned to research-based
149
methodologies and the California State Standards,” (District Priorities and
Objectives, 2005, p.4).
The seventh objective also strove to systematically build the capacity of
the district. Through the development of a strategic plan, Glenn Park Unified
aimed to promote itself to the community’s residents. This plan included the
consideration of “programmatic and organizational recommendations from the
Task Force on Declining Enrollment including the feasibility of specialty
academies and charter schools and establishing an implementation plan to ensure
that [Glenn Park] remains competitive,” (District Priorities and Objectives, 2005,
p. 4). The goal of this priority also included the “effective use of available space,”
and the exploration of “unique configurations (e.g., magnets, academies,
specialized schools, and schools within schools)” (District Priorities and
Objectives, 2005, p. 4).
The vision and goals of the district were an important focus, and they were
known by all stakeholders. Additionally, the Deputy Superintendent commented
on the prominence of the Priorities and Objectives within the district. She stated
that:
They are posted. Like in the boardroom our priorities are listed. We have
posters that go up that have our priorities on them. It’s listed in the peachy
folders that list our goals and they’re shared with all of the staff.

Likewise, Sutherland’s administrator promoted the vision of the
organization and the vision for her individual school site. One teacher commented
150
on the vision of Sutherland’s administrator in moving the school forward as an
organization. She proclaimed,
My site administrator definitely has a vision. She is very clear about where
she wants our school to go. She’s knowledgeable about the community
and the community’s needs. I think that she is knowledgeable about where
our community is headed because our community is changing… But I do
think that the money that [the principal] allots toward professional
development is moving us toward that ultimate goal or vision. I think that
it has to do with the principal’s vision and whether that principal can move
her staff in that same direction.

The principal’s vision was known and shared by Sutherland staff. Another teacher
commented that the staff is included in identifying goals for the school. She stated
that, “we discuss [the goals] together… Our goals and everything are very data
driven…We look at the students’ benchmark assessments and CST results. So it
definitely goes back to that data. That’s actually how we determine our school’s
goals each year.”
Furthermore, Sutherland’s Single Plan for Student Achievement identified
several objectives for the purpose of supporting the school and district’s vision.
The school plan provided direction and focus for developing the capacity of the
school site as an organization. As stated in the abstract, the “purpose of the
Sutherland school plan is to provide for high quality instruction, a rigorous
curriculum, and a supportive and secure learning environment for all students,”
(Single Plan for Student Achievement, 2006, Abstract). Of the six major
objectives listed in Sutherland’s Single Plan for Student Achievement, three of the
objectives addressed the capacity of the school in promoting student success: (a)
151
“the entire school community will work diligently to ensure students are reading
and comprehending literature from a variety of genres;” (b) “students will be
exposed to a well balanced curriculum, including science, technology, social
science, physical education, and visual-performing arts;” (c) “teachers will
continue their professional development, learning the latest strategies and
practices to promote student learning,” (Single Plan for Student Achievement,
2006, Abstract). To achieve the objectives specified, the school plan emphasized
the use of professional development (“district personnel in specialized
departments, will train and/or inservice teachers in the areas of reading, writing,
mathematics, and ELD strategies”) and collaboration to promote the capacity of
the individuals and the school organization.
Collaboration & Communication
Collaboration and communication were key components in building the
capacity of the school. Communication of goals and the collaboration amongst
staff to reach those goals were common in both the school and the district. As
uncovered in research question two, collaboration was a key element in
determining the professional development needs of teachers.
In addition to collaborating for the purpose of determining professional
development needs, Sutherland Elementary utilized collaboration as a
professional development tool. They used their “ongoing Leadership Team, Multi
Grade Articulation Meetings, and Staff meetings to communicate goals and
152
objectives to move students towards proficiency based on Standardized test
scores, State and District Standards,” (Single Plan for Student Achievement,
2006, Abstract). One teacher commented on the use of site meetings to build
capacity through collaboration and staff development. She remarked that they
“have early release on Tuesdays and usually the meetings, especially if it’s a
professional development meeting, lasts from about one and a half hours to two
hours at the most.” The Deputy Superintendent also stated:
We have a short day on Tuesday so everyday the remaining days are
lengthened so they get an hour of staff development on Tuesday. So they
get out an hour early on Tuesdays and that time is for team collaboration,
staff meetings, and trainings. So when they set the calendar, maybe the
first Tuesday of the month is going to be training, second Tuesday is going
to be the team meeting where we might have some specific things that we
need to do, and the third would be a regular staff meeting. So they
calendar those all up.

The site administrator utilized collaboration with staff to promote the
capacity of the school. By meeting with each grade level and discussing student
learning, she encouraged reflective conversations aimed at determining the needs
of the students and teachers. She stated:
I meet with each grade level individually on a monthly basis. So it usually
takes me a week to get through all of the grade levels. When I go to these
[meetings] I have pre-selected students who I want to focus teacher
attention on. And it’s not the same students every time. That way they
know that they need to know about the performance of all students, not
just a couple targeted ones. So I jump around so that they are prepared.
These meetings last about an hour to hour and a half. Sometimes they’re
real quick and the teachers have answers about the students. Other times
they’re longer-it just depends on how much has to be covered at the
meeting. I meet with my leadership team-so each grade level lead-and I
front load them with what I plan to go over at the grade level meeting.
153
Then they know what their team has to have prepared for the meeting.
And I say please come prepared so that I don’t have to waste your time at
grade level meetings so don’t waste my time. I give them information and
they are prepared and then we can go over the other stuff, but have the
majority of the time to discuss students.

The site administrator also commented on the listening component of
collaboration. She highlighted that listening to staff conversations was essential to
providing the staff with new and needed learning opportunities for the purpose of
increasing the expertise of the teachers and advancing the capacity of the school
site. She remarked:
Sometimes I will talk and just hearing their conversations my VP and I
will hear that they just aren’t getting it. She and I will talk about it and we
take notes during the meetings. If we hear the same things across multiple
grade levels then we know to come prepared to the next meeting. I’ll talk
to the leadership team and say that we’re going do to this or give you
some extra support on that. We’ll start to hear things and we allocate some
time to it during the next meeting if it’s effective instructional strategies or
something like that.

The collaboration piece was not exclusive to Sutherland alone. The
Director of Curriculum also remarked on the collaboration among the district
leaders as well. The free-flowing communication and formal and informal
conversations pertaining to student learning trends, worked to build the capacity
of the district. The Director highlighted that she worked;
with other departments and within instructional services division I have
the Induction Office, the Curriculum Office next door, the Assessment
Office, the Bilingual Department, the Special Projects, the Categorical
Department, [and] the Media Center. We’re all together so while
technically they are all their own department, we are all under the
umbrella of Instructional Services Support. So we are constantly meeting
and discussing, even though sometimes the meetings are more formal than
154
others. It’s mostly informal and I might meet with some of the directors
and they may work together to supply the needed support to the teachers.
So the Induction Director may ask the Bilingual Director to come in a do a
lecture about EL strategies that fit with the induction standard on EL
learners. It’s very free flowing when we talk, but it is purposeful. One of
the things that I like about this district is that there are no artificial
barriers. No sense of ‘I can’t talk to anybody.’ No sense of protocol. If I
am available and can sit in on a meeting-fine. If the Induction Director
needs something and I am not available; go ahead and talk to whoever you
need to. I want to know what happens, but I don’t have to be there. I feel
so bad when I talk to some other people that I know in other districts. One
Induction Director that I know said that she was instructed not to talk to
any of the principals, not to approach them, not to call them on problems,
‘I have to go through the Assistant Superintendent,’ she said. In fact she
just left that district within the last couple of weeks. That’s the culture of
the district. It’s a very hands off and very much run by a chain of
command. It was just not to be done. If I’m not available people don’t
have to wait to get what they need, they just go to the director that they
need, and I find out from them later what happened – it’s fine. We’re all
here, in my mind, to get the district work done and I don’t stand on
ceremony. Half of the work would not get done if people were waiting for
me. Also if you have good people who are strong and smart and have good
judgment you can trust them even if you are not directly with them. I
know that when I’m not here that they are all working really hard. They
know how to make good decisions and when they don’t know something
they are not afraid to say, ‘I don’t know.’ They know how far they can
commit and they go to the people that they need to go to and they don’t
over commit – they don’t over promise. That is just so invaluable.

Data-driven Decision Making & Technology
The school and district’s utilization of student learning data was an
additional capacity building factor. Research data from Springboard Schools and
Washington Learns: Successful District Study (2006), pointed to the important
role of data-driven decision making. Interview data also highlighted the school
and district’s long-time use of student achievement data in determining
professional development and curricular needs. Additionally, the implementation
155
of technology-based data organization programs added to the capacity of the
school and district.
Data
Picus and Associates’ Washington Learns: Successful District Study
(2006), revealed that the utilization of data in making decisions was a common
thread among successful schools. The study highlighted that schools and districts
that focused available resources toward the improvement of teaching and learning
and were able to make “a commitment to data-driven decision making... were able
to make significant and steady progress,” (p. 2).
Similarly, the educational organization presented research that uncovered
that “the new strategies being adopted by the most successful districts
include…creating and using data in a continuous improvement process,”
(Springboard Schools, 2006, p. 4). Furthermore, the organization pointed out
Glenn Park’s systematic use of student data. The report stated that Glenn Park
Unified;
is administering benchmark assessments district-wide to measure progress
toward student achievement goals. By setting clear targets for sub-groups
such as English Language Learners, the district central office is able to
point each school in the desired direction without issuing mandates such
as pacing guides for teaching. While encountering some challenges,
district administrators are also working to create mechanisms to help
teachers and site administrators look at benchmark data and adapt their
teaching strategies based on what they learn from the data. They are also
using the data to adapt district policies for re-designating English
Language Learners (p. 38).

156
Additionally, the district and school were utilizing the student achievement data to
inform instructional decisions and make the needed corrections and modifications
to curriculum and teaching practices. As Glenn Park’s Director of Student
Assessment stated in the Springboard Schools report:
Part of my ongoing meetings with staff every year include the continued
reminder that we will never evaluate teachers based upon the
standardized test scores of their students. We will, and should, however
utilize this data to evaluate program and identify areas of strength and
weakness. From the strengths, we can possibly connect best practices
across sites, and the weaknesses allow the district to focus and combine
diminishing resources to best serve all sites (p. 43).

Interview data also addressed the school and district’s commitment to the
utilization of data. The Director of Curriculum commented:
They [Smith Foundation] were very impressed with our use of data. They
commented that we are one of the most data-driven school districts they
have ever seen. That complement goes to a superintendent that we had
years and years ago – [Miranda Rubenstein]. Probably a good 20 years
ago [Miranda] decided that we needed an assessment office and Director
of Assessment. At that time it was practically unheard of and she took a
lot of grief at the time.

She further added:
Even when we went through budget cuts, [Miranda] conceived this office
and hired a director. We went through some pretty severe budget cuts and
this office was at the top of every list with, ‘We don’t need it-get rid of it.”
She persisted, and of course now we’re so far into it [data] that practically
every job flown now looks like an assessment job. Districts have realized
that this is the way that they have to go. We have a wonderful assessment
system in place.

The site administrator addressed the how student achievement data was
continuously analyzed at the school site. She commented:
157
I want to know what they are doing for our students. And if it’s one of our
students who fall into one, two, or three of our subgroup categories then
they better focus on that kid and have an answer about why that student is
or isn’t being successful and what we need to do to move that child along
and keep the parents informed… We also do data analysis. I have a form
that I created that they fill out about the gaps and so that’s where I get
school wide input to put into the school plan. And we look by grade level
to find our focus and see what trends we are noticing.

The Director of Curriculum also shared that the analysis of student data aided in
determining the needs of the school and the district. She said:
It’s all around student achievement and we analyze our API and AYP
scores and we give local benchmark [assessments] in our core areas.
They’re given twice a year. And in English we give two plus a writing
benchmark so there are three. And boy do we scrutinize those; we analyze
the data, bring people together to share how the kids did, sometimes it’s
across schools but mostly it is internal… We share reports in the
principals’ meetings… they analyzed where the needs are and they talk
about what they are going to do about it and what strategies they are going
to use. Then they bring that in a written form to the principal meeting and
they take all of that back [to their school sites].

Finally, the Deputy Superintendent pointed to the importance of student data
when she stated that the “professional development needs of our district are
decided mostly though data analysis.”
Technology
The use of technology assisted Glenn Park Unified and Sutherland
Elementary in developing their capacity to effectively analyze and utilize data.
The school and district’s technology use was addressed in several interviews and
the Springboard Schools report.
158
The educational research organization discovered that Glenn Park Unified
utilized technology as a tool to provide current and continuous feedback
pertaining to student performance. Through such action, the capacity of the
district was increased by addressing the learning needs of the students and
teachers. The organization reported:
Four years ago, the district invested in a software program, EduSoft, to
give teachers easier access to all kinds of student data. Teachers have been
trained in the program over the past couple of years and its use is growing,
especially now as the district expands the capabilities of the program to
include re-teach lesson plans. The system contains references to relevant
portions of text books and suggests lesson plans for addressing each
standard so teachers who wish to review a standard can do so easily (2006,
p. 42).

Interview data from the Springboard Schools report also pointed to the growing
need to adopt a computer program so that data could be reviewed by staff in a
timely manner. The Director of Assessment stated that:
the move to EduSoft was critical to really becoming data-driven in
decision making. In the past, the delay between assessment and return of
results was significant – to a point that the outdated data was not relevant
to teachers. With immediate same-day results and analysis, the focus is not
on instructional strategies and not on data delays (Springboard Schools,
2006, p. 42).

Several interviews conducted by the researcher also pointed to the
retooling of technology within the district and school. The role of the relatively
new computer program offered greater management of the data and therefore
increased the capacity of the school and district to make instructional decisions
based on up-to-date student data. The Director of Curriculum commented on the
159
enhanced capacity of teachers to address the individualized learning needs of
students when she stated:
We manage all of the data with EduSoft. We use EduSoft and we just had
to. There is to much data to analyze and keep track of otherwise. It really
gives teachers immediate access to student achievement information. It
can reconfigure data, and you can generate individualized homework from
it.

The Director of Curriculum and one of the teachers commented on the fact
that some teachers do not utilize the program to the degree that they should.
However, they also said that no matter how technologically savvy one was,
everyone was supplied with the basic data needed to support student learning. The
Director of Curriculum stated:
Now the problem with data is particularly with some of the veteran staff
who does not feel comfortable with technology, in fact that was one of the
questions that you had. They have access to a lot of data-if they want. We
have as you can imagine some teachers who love this and they are going
in there all the time and looking at their kids’ progress and they know
exactly what they are doing. Then I dare say we have other teachers who
have never been on it. But they receive the data because the school sites
print it up for them. Schools have either identified a lead person or a
department chair; someone who gets it printed and distributed so that the
principal can have staff discussions around the data and the staff are
presented with the data. You may be one of those teachers that know the
data backward and forward or this may be the first time that you have seen
the data. But everyone has access to the data and everyone gets the data.

Similarly, one of the teachers stated:
We have a program called EduSoft. It keeps all of the data from our
students benchmark assessments and CST results, for our EL students…
We have this across our district and all grade levels. Each teacher has
access to this information. Not everyone accesses it however, but teachers
are given a print out how their students are doing… A big part of it is that
160
several of them are not computer savvy and they are just scared of the
technology.

Additionally, professional development activities addressed increasing
teachers’ expertise in accessing, analyzing, and implementing data using the
computer software. One teacher commented on the training that Sutherland’s staff
received in the area of technology. She stated that to decrease their fear of
technology and build their skills, “we will have staff development and go into the
lab together and be instructed to pull something up about the students and grade
level.” The site administrator also remarked on this point. She stated that:
During the next release day, the second half of the day is going to be the
teachers going into the computer lab and pulling up the student scores and
looking at the students’ strengths and weaknesses are individually.
Looking at the benchmarks and determining what they really need to do
between now and the next trimester.

Furthermore, the retooling of technology within the district and school
created a greater sense of personal accountability. With the EduSoft program, the
site administrator expected that teachers be informed about their students’
performance and proactive in helping them achieve at even higher levels. The site
administrator remarked:
Through EduSoft we have not only the CST loaded, but we also scan [in]
all of our benchmark district tests. So when I scan them all in, I print out a
report classroom by classroom and student by student. So the teachers
know that they have to know strengths and weakness for every student
because I can access them and they can access them and they don’t want
to sit down with me at a grade-level meeting and not know about a student
that I bring up. I know that they know that I know what is happening with
each student.

161
Accountability
The accountability of the administrators, staff, and school site and district
as a whole was addressed by the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative
Services. He believed that one possibility for why Glenn Park Unified and
Sutherland Elementary were doing so well was because of the internal
accountability created from the decentralized organizational structure.
When [the educational research organization] interviewed me, they were
fascinated with the decentralized structure and decision-making of the
district; and how it seemed to make principals and school sites take more
ownership of their programs. So again, is that why we are doing better? I
don’t know. I think that it creates a greater sense of internal accountability.
I think so. I mean principals have always been held to account for student
achievement and obviously with the state and the feds it’s gotten much
more involved, not necessarily for the better. But there has always been
ownership of your program [within the district] it’s never just the status
quo and that has been a real strength of the district.

Reinforcing Student Achievement
Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified School District supported
the learning and built the individual capacity of all of its students as witnessed
through the review of the District Priorities and Objectives, SARC, and interview
data. The first of the eleven District Priorities and Objectives strove to “support
student achievement for all students with a highly qualified staff…” (2006, p. 1).
The SARC provided further confirmation of the school’s role in supporting the
learning of at-risk students. Part of the school’s curriculum and instruction
included before- and after- school tutoring by certificated classroom teachers.
162
Interview data further supported this information and addressed the school and
district’s shift toward differentiating learning experiences for all students.
The focus of increasing learning outcomes for at-risk students was
addressed by both teachers and administrators interviewed. Additionally, they
highlighted the goal of the school and district in differentiating learning
opportunities. One teacher stated that, “we focus on supporting at-risk students
which is a big thing, and then focusing on differentiating instruction because our
demographics are changing. It’s a big goal for us because we are a changing
school.” She further added:
One of our biggest things is that we focus on our struggling students and
our ELD students. We really focus on the students who are right there on
the borderline. It doesn’t matter if they are a low achieving student or an
average achieving student if they are right there on the border we look at
what they need to get them over that line and pushed over to the next
level.

The Deputy Superintendent also commented that the schools:
…really focus the most on the students who are struggling. But we are
beginning to put in more differentiation for our gifted kids. And we are
really starting to analyze what different types of students need. So this
group of kids needs more of this type of strategy and this group of kids
needs this type of intervention. So we are really trying to look at children
on an individual basis instead of them all lumped together because their
needs are so different.

Similarly, the Director of Curriculum addressed the district’s reputation for
meeting the needed of various learners. She remarked:
We have kids at all different levels including some really high fliers. We
have 100 and some kids who are taking algebra in 6
th
grade. They are very
advanced. They take algebra 2 and geometry in 8
th
grade and they go into
163
high school ready for calculus. We have others that are just struggling. We
have a very large special education population and we have an excellent
special education program. We tend to draw people into our community
for this and some move here just for our [special education] program.

The site administrator commented on the new reading program that she
purchased for the site to help at-risk students with decoding, reading fluency, and
comprehension. She remarked that there was a real need for some of her students
in this content area and that she had financial resources to put toward a new
program. She stated:
I just purchased a new reading intervention program for grades 2 to 6. I
used money from a discretionary block grant and the remainder is going to
go toward our IB training. It cost us $21,000 but this includes so many
things. It has student consumable books, three benchmark assessments a
year, computer support and assessments, and a trainer to come out and
train the staff who will be providing the intervention. The trainer came out
for a full day of training with the staff – I had nine volunteers and I would
have liked more but we will start with this. Then she followed up with
them a couple of weeks later. It has such wonderful customer service. We
identified 155 students who were deemed at-risk of not meeting grade
level standards in ELA. Unfortunately, some parents turned down the
opportunity because they said that their child would be too tired if they
had to get to school an hour early. It does require more out of the student –
the program will run 5 times a week in the mornings until the end of the
year. But don’t they realize that this type of tutoring would cost them so
much if they had to pay out of pock and this is offered to them for free.
The program includes thirty minutes of reading comprehension followed
by ten to twenty minutes of word knowledge and fluency. It’s a research-
based program and I think that it is really going to make a difference for
our students.

A teacher also addressed the new reading intervention program for at-risk
students. She said:
Right now we just implemented the Voyagers Tutoring program and again
teachers were offered, we were all offered, the opportunity to take the
164
training and there was a need for teachers to teach it. People were going to
be compensated and it was all in place. But we the teachers chose the kids
and we discussed their needs and their scores. We had those kids ready so
that when we had our grade level meeting we had the names. When there
was a break down and we only had twenty spots left we could determine
who should take those spots. We looked at the students who were scoring
basic or performing below grade level. As far as how they determined who
stayed on the list and who was more at risk than others we looked at a
couple of things. Like if you had a student who didn’t come to school
consistently or was repeatedly late then those students were likely taken
off of the list. However, the parents had to grant permission so some
parents didn’t take us up on the opportunity for tutoring-which is unreal-
so those kids were removed from the list. This is free-I had to pay another
teacher $35 to tutor my daughter because I knew that she didn’t want to
hear it from me.

Additionally, the SARC provided evidence of expended learning
opportunities for all students. A review of Sutherland’s instructional minutes for
grades K to 6 displayed the fact that the school provided more instructional
minutes than required by the state. On average, each grade level offered almost
5% more instructional time than required.
Restructuring Teacher Compensation and the Contractual Year
The call for a skill-based pay system is something that has emerged in
education for years. When interviewees were asked about whether or not they
believed that skill-based pay would increase the organizational capacity of
schools there was a mixed response. Additionally, a discussion pertaining to the
contractual year and the use of substitute coverage also emerged out of the
interview data.
165
One teacher thought that skill-based pay would work, “as long as it was
not student achievement based.” She also stated that, “maybe it would help…It
depends on who is going to be the merit police.” However, she remained skeptical
as to its benefits to the organization. When another teacher was asked the same
question she responded much more positively. She stated:
Yes. Because I think that a lot of people are driven by the monetary part of
it. Then they would have to live up. You’re either going to sink or swim.
That was the motivation for many of the teachers to get their Masters. It
was their initial drive to go to school, but they got much more out of it.
They brought back research and strategies to use in their classrooms and
learning to collaborate together. They went for the wrong reason, or not
the wrong reason but not the noblest reason, but they got so much more
out of it. I think that anything that is driven by pay pushes people.

Similarly, the site administrator was asked about her opinion on skill-based pay.
While she attested to the positive aspects of such a system, she also commented
on the difficulty of applying one general standard to all. She informed the
researcher that she had:
…thought about it. It’s been something that has been discussed in
education for years now. I see merits but it would be a big union issue. I
see pluses and minuses with it. I have a different perspective since I had a
whole different career before coming into education and being a principal.
I worked in television - it wasn’t what you knew, it was who you knew. I
knew people who didn’t know anything and are making gobs of money
because they are surrounded by good people. And so having that and
working with Wall Street Journal marketing I had another life before
getting into education…And I walk around [campus] and I think if you
were paid based on what you know or if you were in the business world
you would be fired over night. Nobody would stand for the things that you
do or the things that you say or the lack of effort that you put into your
job-at least in the Wall Street Journal. There you had to walk you walk
and talk the talk or you wouldn’t be there the next day. I see some people
and think that they would never make it in the business world. You’d be
166
fired or would not get paid. As far as merit pay I think that it would make
people step up and see that they are professionals and that they have to be
current on research and strategies and philosophies of education. And I
understand that trends come and go, but every time when one comes
around it’s a new revision of the old it’s been fine tuned and reworked and
it’s not the exact same thing. It’s like bell bottoms they came back as a
flare leg or boot cut. So there is something that you can always get out of
it. So in some ways I think that it would be great because it keeps people
on their toes and current with the research. On the other hand, there would
just be people who wouldn’t be able to do that. Sometimes their love for
teaching and core of who they are outweigh that and you have to be able
to see that. There are some by-the-book teachers who just aren’t creative
and then there are people who were born to be teachers and they would be
good at anything that they do because they have that insight. So I can see
it on both sides. I don’t think that it would hurt, but it is hard to apply a
general standard for everybody because they all have their own strengths
and weaknesses just like everybody does including administrators.

While the data pertaining to the restructuring of compensation was
somewhat inconclusive, the data provided by district leaders dealing with the
restructuring of teacher contracts was much clearer. Both the Assistant
Superintendent of Administrative Services and the Director of Curriculum
commented on the concern of substitutes used to cover classes for various
purposes including professional development activities. The Director of
Curriculum stated:
Most training is done – this is a problem – it goes back to the time. We do
a lot of training using substitutes and we are very concerned. We have just
way to many teachers out of class and we are really struggling with it.

Likewise, the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services voiced his
concern over the abundant utilization of substitute teachers. He declared:
Well now, what I see is when we want to do an all day training, we hire a
substitute and the teacher is gone. And I think that the kids lose. How do
167
they make up for that day of lost teaching? Or two, three, four days or a
week or two weeks a teacher is out of the class for training. This will be
the case for the IB program, except the big training is in the summer. I
don’t know what my solution would be. But the state really did us a
disservice when they did that because we used to have days that we could
count on; student free days. But teachers, the average, if you take all of the
absences in the district for all reasons and divide it by the number of
teachers, it’s twenty-two days per teacher. That’s illness, jury duty,
maternity leave, but also the training. So kids have a teacher and my
teacher’s not with me for a month. Now that is an average, but still a week
to me seems like a lot if you’re out. Then you add five days of illness on
top of training days and you’re up to half a month out of the classroom.

The Director of Curriculum and the Assistant Superintendent had similar
solutions to solving the issue of out-of-class time for teacher training. Both
individuals recommended that teachers’ contractual years be extended. In this
way professional development activities would be largely built into the teachers’
work year and substitute time would not be relied on as heavily as it currently is.
Such solutions mirror researchers’ recommendations including those conducted
by Odden & Picus (2006). The Director of Curriculum stated:
The ideal solution to me [for eliminating the amount of time that teachers
our out of the classroom for training] would be for the state to increase the
work year for teachers and add like fifteen days of per diem rate. Let the
teachers come when they don’t have kids and aren’t trying to prep for that
and steal time away from the kids. We need to give them professional
development time.

The Assistant Superintendent also supported this solution when he commented:
I just raise the concern about what impact on instruction does the fact that
on an average our teachers are out for twenty-two days. In my ideal world
we would have five or six non-student days throughout the year and we
would extend the work year for the teachers. I don’t think that kids should
go less, it would just be to extend the work year for the teachers. I would
do additional days in summer.
168
Summary of Findings for Research Question Four
Research question four was designed to uncover the school and district’s
capacity building practices. The question hoped to reveal several research-based
strategies adopted by the school and district for the purpose of strategically
building organizational capacity. The findings from the research question also
sought to increase the understanding of how the school and district utilized
professional development opportunities to promote organizational and individual
capacity.
Glenn Park Unified and Sutherland Elementary employed several
research-based strategies aimed at building the capacity of the organization and
the individuals within the organization. Those strategies included: (a) a clear
vision for learning shared between the district and school; (b) collaboration
utilized as a professional development tool; (c) the utilization of student data to
inform teaching and learning decisions; (d) personal ownership of programs and
activities; and (e) addressing the learning needs of students. Additionally, the data
revealed a need to restructure the contractual year for teachers.
Although the structure of the district was decentralized, the vision and
goals of the district and school were shared. A shared vision provided increased
continuity between the district and site that promoted the success of all.
Additionally, the specific goals of the district and school addressed the capacity
building practice of building teacher expertise through professional development.
169
Research question two exposed the significance of collaboration in
reaching consensus pertaining to professional development activities. However,
research question four also uncovered the use of collaboration as a direct
professional development tool. Used as a professional development strategy,
collaboration increased the capacity of the staff as a whole through the sharing of
instructional ideas and analysis of student data.
Student data was utilized to inform instruction and curriculum. It was from
the data that professional development activities were determined as well as the
needs of the school and district. Through the use of data, teaching and learning
decisions were more purposeful. Additionally, technology was utilized to better
organize and analyze data. Training on the EduSoft computer software was
another area of professional development offered to the teachers.
The decentralized structure of the district appeared to add to the personal
ownership of programs and activities selected by the individual school site.
Interview data pointed to this ownership as establishing greater internal
accountability. It was through this internal accountability that organization’s
capacity was further increased.
A shared and central focus of the school and district was student
achievement. The school and district strove to reinforce the achievement of all
students as a capacity building strategy. Sutherland Elementary directly addressed
the needs of at-risk students. However, they were making progress toward
170
differentiating learning experiences for all students. Sutherland Elementary was
supplying the needed human and financial resources, including professional
development, to help students succeed.
While the data were somewhat inconclusive about the need to shift to a
skill-based pay system, data did emerge pertaining to the restructuring of the
contractual year. District leaders pointed to the concern of the loss in quality
instruction time when teachers were out of the classroom for professional
development training. According to the interview data, the capacity of the
organization could be increased be lengthening the contractual year to build in
professional development days so that instructional days were not impacted.
Summary
Chapter Four presented and discussed the study’s data, and accompanying
analysis and findings, for determining how a site-based managed school allocated
human and financial resources to promote organizational capacity through
professional development. This chapter also offered an evaluation of the
professional development practices of Sutherland Elementary School and Glenn
Park Unified School District as it related to the study’s conceptual framework.
The study is summarized in Chapter Five with discussion of the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further study.

171
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications of the Findings
Overview of the Problem
The demand for quality teachers is not new. In 1983, an eighteen-person
federal committee published their recommendation to extend the contractual year
for teachers by one month for the purpose of providing professional development.
Titled A Nation at Risk, this document drew attention to the weaknesses of the
nation’s educational system. Although the teacher effectiveness factor never
disappeared, it was overshadowed for several years by other highly publicized
reform efforts including class size reduction (CSR) and standards-based
education. However, in reaction to increased accountability measures at both the
state and federal level, new light has been shed on the impact that effective
teachers have on student learning outcomes.
There is a growing body of literature pointing to the positive influence that
effective teacher practice has on student learning outcomes (Berry, 2004;
Koppich, 2004; Lau, 2004; Marzano, 2003). Furthermore, the research highlights
the relationship between effective teacher practices and quality professional
development. By increasing the expertise of teachers in delivering quality
instruction through evidence-based professional development strategies, student
achievement outcomes can be positively affected (Odden, et al., 2005; Rowan,
172
Correnti & Miller, 2002; Sanders & Horn, 1994; Sanders & Rivers, 1996;
Webster, Mendro, Orsak & Weerasinghe, 1998).
To successfully reform schools, more needs to be known about how
schools utilize human resources to promote student learning. Understanding how
allocation decisions are made for professional development activities, may offer
insight into the importance that schools place in offering professional
development and advancing student learning. Revealing the similarities and
differences between how district-managed and site-based managed schools
allocate resources, make allocation decisions, and fund their professional
development programs may increase school leaders’ understanding of effective
school practices.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate how a site-based managed
school allocated resources for the purpose of building organizational capacity
through professional development activities. The study further examined the
decision-making processes and funding sources for professional development
within the school and district. An evaluation process was used to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the school’s professional development programs as
they compared to an evidence-based professional development model. Four
research questions were developed to guide the study:

173
1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?
2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?
3. How much funding is directed toward professional development and from
what sources do these funds originate?
4. How is professional development used to promote organizational capacity
and student achievement?
These research questions were basis for the collection, analysis, and
discussion of the data.
Methodology
A qualitative, descriptive case study design was utilized in this study to
provide an in-depth understanding and analysis of the school and district’s present
implementation of professional development practice. Interviews and pertinent
documents were used to collect data for the study. The corresponding instruments
were designed based on the study’s conceptual framework in order to promote the
emergence of themes surrounding the above-stated research questions. The
qualitative case study method was utilized in order to offer a rich description and
evaluation of the phenomena identified above (Gall, Borg & Borg, 1996;
Merriam, 1998)

174
Sample and Population
The study focused on a single elementary school within a unified school
district, selected on the basis of its decentralized management style that allowed
the school to independently allocate resources toward the programs and
professional development opportunities needed to advance student learning.
The district selected, Glenn Park, is a unified school district (Kindergarten
through 12) located in suburban Los Angeles County, California. The district has
fifteen elementary schools, three intermediate schools, two high schools, two
alternative education centers, and one adult learning center. Sutherland
Elementary School has 730 students in grades K to 6, 37 full-time teachers, and
two full-time administrators.
Instrumentation
A common conceptual framework and data collection instruments were
developed by a thematic dissertation group form the University of Southern
California. The thematic team was comprised of nine Ed.D. students who
routinely met throughout the summer of 2006 to discuss the design of the needed
data collection instruments. The conceptual framework was based on Odden,
Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich’s (2006) evidence-based model with a focus on the
model’s Six R’s.

175
Data Collection
The collection of data occurred between October 2006 and January 2007,
following the Superintendent’s approval of the project. A telephone conference
was conducted with Sutherland’s principal to negotiate the data collection process
to be utilized at the site.
Data collection began with the site administrator during the month of
October 2006 and continued through January 2007. During that time, interviews
were conducted and pertinent documents were collected for review including the
Single Plan for Student Achievement and School Accountability Report Card
(SARC).
The district-level interviews took place over the course of the month of
December. All three of the identified district participants (Deputy Superintendent
of Elementary Education, Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services,
and Director of Instructional Services) were interviewed during that time frame.
Additionally, district documents pertaining to the allocation of resources for
professional development were collected including the District Priorities and
Objectives, the mission statement, and applicable budget documentation.
The two teachers identified by the site administrator were interviewed in
the month of January. These 60 minute interviews took place either at the school
site within the respective teachers’ classroom or over the telephone.
176
Prior to all interviews, the interviewees consented to participate in the
study and they gave their permission to be audio-taped.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to understand how Sutherland Elementary
allocated human and financial resources for professional development.
Furthermore, the study’s focus was to evaluate the site-based managed school and
district’s professional development practices to that presented in the current
educational research. The study’s design and instrumentation addressed the
purpose of the study by examining the four research questions as they applied to
the conceptual framework in the following manner:
Qualitative Data:
Interviews conducted (six in all) were taped and transcribed. The
transcriptions were reviewed for common themes, and patterns were identified
using the conceptual framework. Salient points were extracted and compared to
the evidence-based model and other data collected.
Document Review Guide:
Data collected utilizing the Document Review Guide was sorted
according to research questions, and cross-referenced to the six domains
presented in the conceptual framework. The data was entered into a spreadsheet
and compared to other collected data as well as the evidence-based model
presented in the conceptual framework.
177
Summary of the Findings
The data collected from interviews, documents, and reports worked
together to answer the four research questions and presented an in-depth picture
of Sutherland Elementary within Glenn Park Unified School District. The study’s
conceptual framework aided in the analysis of the data and allowed the researcher
to identify significant patterns and themes across the research questions.
Framework for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How are personnel used for the
delivery of professional development?” Two of the six core strategies were
emphasized to answer this question. Re-engineering schools was one of the six
core strategies utilized to focus this question because it addressed the way in
which resources were supplied to the school to reinforce instructional practices.
Additionally, the question was aimed at revealing how effective the school’s
resource allocation practice was in relation to the evidence-based approach.
Finally, by selecting redesigning teacher development another lens was used to
understand and evaluate the effectiveness of personnel usage for professional
development by examining learning outcomes. This question was primarily
analyzed through structured interviews.
Findings for Research Question One
Research question one sought to describe how personnel were used for the
delivery of professional development. It also offered an evaluation of the
178
allocation of human resources in reference to the framework’s evidence-based
model.
Overall, the data collected for research question one revealed that
Sutherland Elementary had the autonomy to decide upon professional
development activities coupled with the support of the district office. The site
autonomy allowed for the development of leadership roles among staff members
on site through the implementation of the trainer-of-trainers model. While the
trainer-of-trainers model was deemed to be effective by administrators and
student achievement results appeared to increase as a result of the professional
development model, the teachers saw that its effectiveness was hindered by the
lack of on-going coaching from the staff trainers. An evaluation of Sutherland’s
allocation of human resources revealed a disconnect with the research provided
by the evidence-based model. In light of the schools’ outstanding performance,
the site may not need to allocate every human resource identified in the model.
Framework for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How are resource allocation
decisions for professional development determined?” Recalibrating goals, re-
engineering schools, and redesigning teacher development were the core
strategies that guided this research question in understanding the rationale behind
the decision-making process and the possible criteria used for determining
allocation practices. Decisions, based on improving instructional practice and
179
enhancing teacher expertise, were central to the core strategies offered in the
evidence-based model.
Findings for Research Question Two
Research question two strove to uncover the rationale behind the decision-
making process for allocating resources for professional development.
Furthermore, the question attempted to reveal if professional development
practices were related to school and district goals.
Glenn Park Unified School District and Sutherland Elementary utilized
systematic decision making practices for professional development trainings
based on goals, data, and collaboration. The school and district shared a common
vision and established specific goals for teaching and learning that guided
professional development decisions. Evidence provided by the data displayed that
allocation decisions for professional development were strategically made based
on the use of student performance data, administrative observations, and school-
community collaboration.
Framework for Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How much funding is directed toward
professional development and from what sources do these funds originate?” Three
of the six strategies identified in the conceptual framework were utilized in
focusing this research question. Re-engineering schools was chosen because it
concentrated on understanding how the resources were utilized and from where
180
funding came from. Redesigning teacher development was selected because it
was necessary to determine if the levels of funding are sufficient to produce the
needed teacher expertise. Finally, restructuring teacher compensation offered a
possible examination of additional cost factors to the school’s professional
development.
Findings for Research Question Three
Research question three sought to reveal how much funding was dedicated
to professional development by the school and the district. The question also
sought to uncover the funding sources for professional development trainings, and
provide an evaluation of Sutherland’s funding practices in relationship to the
evidence-based model.
The findings revealed that a greater amount of resources were committed
to professional development than could be easily measured due to partnerships
with universities and educational foundations that were not reflected in the school
or district’s professional development expenditures. Additionally, due to
Sutherland’s extremely small categorical budget, other schools covered
Sutherland’s professional development costs. Finally, while district goals drove
instructional actions and professional development allocations, the school site was
responsible for determining the actions needed to attain the goals including the
sovereignty to make professional development choices based on the learning and
performance gaps of students and teachers.
181
Framework for Research Question Four
The fourth research question asked, “How is professional development
used to promote organizational capacity and student achievement?” All of the six
core strategies were utilized as lenses for this research question. The six core
strategies focused on building the capacity of educational institutions in varied
ways so that increased student learning could be realized.
Findings for Research Question Four
Research question four was designed to uncover the school and district’s
capacity building practices including any research-based strategies adopted for the
purpose of strategically building organizational capacity. The findings from the
research question also sought to increase the understanding of how the school and
district utilized professional development opportunities to promote organizational
and individual capacity.
Glenn Park Unified and Sutherland Elementary employed several
research-based strategies aimed at building the capacity of the organization and
the individuals within the organization. The organization shared a vision that
provided increased continuity between the district and site that promoted the
success of all. The findings also revealed the use of collaboration as a direct
professional development tool utilized to increase the capacity of the
organization. Student achievement data was utilized to inform instruction and
182
curriculum. The school and district strove to reinforce the achievement of all
students as a capacity building strategy.
The data further highlighted the increased accountability established by
the decentralized structure of the district. That finding appeared to add to the
overall success of the school and district. Finally, interview data pointed to the
concern over the loss of instructional time due to professional development
training.
Conclusions
The researcher provided conclusions pertaining to: (a) the findings as they
related to the study’s conceptual framework; (b) the role of the district in a site-
based managed setting; and (c) a comparative analysis between a decentralized
and centralized district in relation to professional development allocations and
practices.
Six Core Strategies of the Conceptual Framework
One conceptual framework was utilized in conjunction with the research
questions during the case study to examine and evaluate the allocation of
resources and the effectiveness of professional development. The conceptual
framework incorporated the evidence-based model by Odden and Picus (2006).
The six core strategies the authors recommended to improve student achievement
were:

183
1. Recalibrate goals
2. Re-engineer schools
3. Redesign teacher development
4. Reinforce achievement
5. Retool schools’ technology
6. Restructure teacher compensation
These core strategies from the evidence-based model served as a guide for the
research questions to investigate how an identified school within a site-based
managed school district allocated human and financial resources to promote
organizational capacity through professional development to increase student
achievement.
Recalibrate Goals
Recalibrating goals focused on the utilization of goals to promote student
achievement. Professional development opportunities for teachers at Sutherland
Elementary were aligned with school and district goals focusing on supporting
student achievement and providing research-based training to increase the
instructional expertise of teachers. Sutherland’s Single Plan for Student
Achievement specifically addressed the vision and goals for teaching and learning
by listing an action plan for reaching each of the goals. Research conducted by the
educational organization found that Glenn Park was a successful district because
it used data and goals to drive its instructional decisions. The professional
184
development decisions were made by the site administrator in light of her school’s
achievement data and goals.
Re-engineer Schools
Re-engineering schools referred to a school’s ability to implement more
research-based instructional strategies and utilize resources in the most efficient
way possible. Teachers at Sutherland Elementary were provided with on-site
professional development opportunities on almost a weekly basis. The grade-level
meetings functioned as a time for collaboration about student learning, reflection
on teaching practices, and areas to re-teach and refocus. Additionally, the trainer-
of-trainers model was utilized to provide professional development training
opportunities to teachers on an ongoing basis throughout the year. Outside trainers
were also utilized for the inquiry model and they were going to be utilized for the
new International Baccalaureate training.
Although the trainer-of-trainers model provided for ongoing training
throughout the year, the coaching component was not present as addressed in
educational literature. The trainers were full-time classroom teachers and were not
given the needed release time coach fellow teacher in the writing program. The
evidence-based recommendation set forth by the Washington Learns: Successful
District Study called for Sutherland Elementary to employ three to four full-time
on-site coaches according to the enrollment and demographic data of the school
site. The coaches should be released of classroom duties and accessible to
185
teachers throughout the day for co-planning and co-teaching opportunities.
Unfortunately, Sutherland’s teachers did not have the needed accessibility to on-
site coaches.
Redesign Teacher Development
Professional development was a critical strategy in redesigning teacher
development because it strove to develop the instructional expertise of the teacher
for the purpose of positively influencing student learning outcomes. The
decentralized nature of Glenn Park Unified allowed Sutherland Elementary, and
its other respective schools, to design professional development trainings that
matched the learning needs of the staff and students as witnessed through
observational data and achievement data. The site administrator and staff
members at Sutherland worked collaboratively to determine the professional
development needs based on data analysis. The main focus for professional
development activities in Sutherland’s school plan addressed research-based
strategies for helping at-risk learners. However, interview data also displayed a
new shift toward differentiating learning for all students.
Reinforce Achievement
Reinforcing achievement for students who are struggling is vital for
improved student achievement. Sutherland Elementary focused its attention on the
needs of its at-risk learners. The school had just invested in an intervention
program for struggling readers. Professional development was delivered to the
186
teachers and the trainer followed up with them on a monthly basis. Specific,
targeted students were invited to participate five days a week before school for the
remaining five months of school.
Retool Schools’ Technology
Retooling a school’s technology referred to a school’s ability to acquire
and successfully implement computer technology for learning purposes.
Technology was a vehicle to access data for data-driven decision making at
Sutherland Elementary. The school personnel utilized EduSoft to access students’
data from CSTs and district benchmark assessments. After the teachers and site
administrator accessed the data, they were able to disaggregate it to determine the
students’ strengths and weaknesses. The data accessed through the technology
program was valuable to the site personnel in making effective decisions for
professional development, utilizing research-based strategies for re-teaching, and
identifying how to best meet the needs of the students.
Restructure Teacher Compensation
Some school districts are restructuring how teachers are compensated
based on skills and student achievement scores. Currently, Glenn Park Unified
and Sutherland Elementary do not employ skill-based or merit pay. While a skill-
based pay system intrigued some of the individuals interviewed, there was overall
hesitation to the prospect. They were concerned about a fair evaluation of skills
and skeptical about the individuals selected to determine the level of teacher
187
expertise. Although Sutherland’s teachers were on a traditional steps and columns
pay scale, they were supplemented for professional development trainings that
they attended. If the trainings were provided by district level employees, the
teachers received training pay. Often the teachers received comparable release
time for which the site administrator covered the teachers’ class or procured a
substitute when the training was provided by outside consultants as part of
Sutherland’s individualized professional development plan.
The District’s Role in a Decentralized Setting
Sutherland Elementary had the sovereignty to make professional
development decisions based on the needs of its staff and students. However, in
light of that autonomy, the school was also supported by the district office. As
long as a clear rationale could be supplied that supported the vision and goals of
the district and school, the district promoted independent thinking and risk taking
in the selection process for professional development activities. Additionally,
Glenn Park Unified often financially supported professional development
activities selected by Sutherland Elementary. Other schools with larger budgets
also assisted Sutherland in acquiring professional development opportunities for
its teachers.
The role of a district in a decentralized setting should be to provide a
vision and support the learning taking place in schools. By supplying an
overarching teaching and learning vision, the schools have a destination for which
188
they can plan the appropriate route that takes into consideration the school and
community’s culture. Furthermore, the district has to be able and willing to
provide needed resources to the schools since they often have different budgets
based on varying demographics and enrollment numbers. Not all schools need the
same amount of resources. This was seen in light of Sutherland’s success. The
school did not have many of the resources recommended by the evidence-based
model and it may not have needed them all because they were being successful
with less resources. However, if a school is not being successful with the present
resources, then the role of the district should be to evaluate the practices of the
school, determine the resources that may be lacking, and support the site in
acquiring the needed resources so that all students at all of the district’s schools
have access to an adequate education.
Decentralized and Centralized Management Styles
Part of this study included a comparison of professional development
practices between the decentralized district of Glenn Park Unified and the
centralized district of Serrano Unified. The significance of studying the two
different districts was to better understand how the management styles influenced
professional development practices at school sites. The researchers found that the
espoused management styles of the districts studied did not appear to significantly
influence professional development practices. It appeared that both districts
utilized similar research based practices in the area of professional development.
189
Additionally, the researchers uncovered that despite the management style of the
districts, school sites had the autonomy to make professional development
decisions based on the needs of their individual teachers and students.
Upon discussion of findings, the researchers for the above mentioned studies
discovered several common themes in relationship to professional development.
The emergence of these themes was supported by the study’s conceptual
framework. Additionally, the findings reinforced the assertions made in the body
of literature pertaining to teacher quality, professional development strategies, and
management styles. The data revealed five major themes that appeared to
illustrate the overall success of the school and district:
1. Vision for learning
2. Data-driven decision making
3. Effective utilization of resources
4. Collaboration
5. Site autonomy
These themes were interrelated and played an important role in
determining the study’s recommendations and suggestions for future research.
Recommendations
The findings and conclusions of the study led to the following
recommendations:
190
1. The study revealed that Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified
shared a common vision for learning. Both Sutherland and Glenn Park had a clear
and systematic vision and goals that supported teaching and learning for students
and educators. The school and district strove to improve instructional practices
through professional development for the purpose of increasing student learning
outcomes. Furthermore, the goals of the district and school site were known by all
stakeholders.
In order to provide meaningful professional development, schools and
districts should have clear goals for teaching, learning, and student achievement.
Specific school site goals should be implemented to support the overarching
district vision and goals. The goals should serve as a guide in determining the
decisions and resource allocations made in regards to professional development.
2. Sutherland Elementary and Glenn Park Unified based their instructional
decisions on student achievement data. The utilization of data in the decision
making process was overtly apparent in all of the interview data, several
documents, and reports collected and analyzed by the researcher. The school and
district identified and strategically addressed student and teacher learning and
performance gaps through the use of achievement data and observational data. It
was based on data and the determination of gaps that professional development
selections were made. Additionally, Sutherland, and the district as a whole,
191
utilized the EduSoft program to store and aide in the analysis of various forms of
student achievement data.
Student achievement data and observational data should be the catalyst for
determining professional development activities. Educational research
(Springboard Schools, 2006) continually reinforces the importance of data-driven
decision making for improving the nation’s educational system. By using data to
determine professional development needs, the quality of instruction can be
improved therefore positively influencing student learning outcomes (Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich, and Gallagher, 2002). Furthermore, to organize and
delineate achievement gaps and determine teaching and learning needs, schools
and districts need to invest in a computer program that stores student data from
assessments and assists educators in the analysis of data.
3. Sutherland Elementary efficiently utilized resources. While outside
consultants and two district level trainers provided professional development to
the staff, the majority of on-site trainings were provided by the site administrator
and teachers. They largely shared the responsibility for determining and
delivering professional development trainings. However, due to the fact that
trainers were also full-time teachers or administrators, the access to coaching and
immediate feedback appeared to be complicated.
The study also revealed that the financial allocation of resources at both
the school and district levels was not clearly articulated. It was difficult to
192
determine the overall spending and funding levels for professional development
activities. That inconsistency was largely due to the fact that several professional
development activities were not billed to the school because other schools or the
district absorbed the cost. Additionally, some professional development trainings
were not even identified in the district’s budget because charitable foundations or
grants provided by university partnerships provided the funding.
Educators need to have access to personnel for professional development
that targets the learning needs of the teachers and students. The study’s data and
educational research (Darling-Hammond, 1999a; Odden, Picus, Goetz, &
Fermanich, 2006) supported the need for ongoing, on-site, and fulltime coaching
to reinforce the professional development trainings so that student learning is
realized. The data revealed that the district and site personnel were unaware of the
exact financial allocation of resources for professional development. Since the
funding was derived from various funding sources, it was difficult to disaggregate
exactly how much money went toward the implementation of professional
development activities. Therefore, it is recommended that schools and districts
review the possibility of adopting a financial plan that mirrors those used in the
private sector.
4. The data uncovered that collaboration was utilized in making
professional development decisions as well as being a direct tool for professional
development. This data was further supported by research pointing to the need of
193
professional development to be on-going and embedded within the work day so
that teachers could collaborate and effectively plan instruction (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, & Fermanich, 2006). Therefore, the researcher recommends ongoing
collaboration at both the school and district levels to build capacity for improving
instructional practices and student and teacher learning. Collaboration should
include: (a) horizontal articulation; (b) vertical articulation; (c) site to site
articulation; (d) site to district collaboration; and (e) district leader collaboration.
5. Sutherland Elementary enjoyed the autonomy to make professional
development decisions based on individual site needs of students and teachers.
However, within the autonomous management structure, the district still offered
support to the school site(s). School sites need the autonomy to make professional
development decisions based on their own personal data and goals for teaching
and learning. One educational researcher, Ouchi (2003a), attributed the success of
decentralized school systems to their ability to hand authority to the school site in
making decisions that affected the students. Although the school site should have
the independence to make professional development decisions, the district should
support and provide human and financial resources as needed for professional
development activities at individual school sites.
Suggestions for Further Research
Based on the findings of the study the following suggestions are made
regarding future research in this area:
194
1. Through this study, the data suggested a negative impact on student
learning due to the use of substitutes to provide release time for professional
development. Further research needs to be conducted to investigate the impact of
lost instructional time for the purpose of professional development.
2. The study uncovered a need for full-time, on-site coaching to reinforce
program implementation. Furthermore, the data displayed the need for coaches to
be effective in supporting teacher learning. An investigation should be undertaken
to determine how to efficiently fund on-site coaches. Additionally, research
should be conducted to understand the knowledge, delivery strategies, and level
of support necessary for a coach to be effective.
3. Due to the small case study design pertaining to the two management
styles, the findings on the resource allocation and practices for professional
development cannot be generalized. Therefore, an in-depth, large scale study
should be conducted comparing how a decentralized school district and a
centralized school district provide and fund professional development to promote
teacher learning and student achievement.
4. The effectiveness of professional development activities appeared to
have a positive influence on student learning outcomes. However, the
effectiveness of the professional development could not be directly measured
and/or correlated to student learning outcomes. Finally, experimental studies
195
including control groups need to be conducted in order to determine statistical
significance of professional development strategies on student learning outcomes.

196
REFERENCES
Berry, B., Hoke, M., & Hirsh, E. (2004). NCLB: Highly qualified teachers-The
search for highly qualified teachers. Phi Delta Kappan 85(9), 684-689.

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

Blasé, J. & Blasé, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’
perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141.

Borman, G. D. & Hewes, G. (2003). Long-term effects and cost effectiveness of
Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 243-
266.

California Department of Education. (2004).
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/documents/nclbresourceguide.pdf

Carpenter, Peterson, Chiang. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics
thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American
Education Research Journal, 26, 499-533.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M.,
Weinfield, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of eduational opportunity of
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Committee for Economic Development (2004). Investing in learning: School
funding policies to foster high performance. Washington, DC.

Conley, D. (1992a). Five key issues in restructuring. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED344329.

Conley, D. (1992b). The “vision thing” and school restructuring. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED343246.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education (2006). Traditional resource
reallocation and use. Retrieved August 12, 2006, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/allocation.php

197
Corcoran, T. (2003). The use of resource evidence in instructional improvement.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of
Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Crump, D. (1999). Road to school reform: The Chicago model. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED447606.

Daley, R. M., & Bloomberg, M. R. (2006, August). N.Y. and Chicago mayors on
L.A. schools. [Electronic version] Los Angeles Times.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999a). Target time toward teachers. Journal of staff
development, 20(2), 31-36.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999b). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy, National Research Consortium.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999c). What can policymakers do to support teaching to
high standard? CPRE Policy Bulletin. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management. ED468989.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., LaFors, J., & Young, V.
(2002, April 4). Building instructional quality: Inside-out, bottom-up, and
top-down perspectives on San Diego’s school reform [Electronic version].
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association in New Orleans, LA from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/SDCS-Reform-
AERAdraft.pdf

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F.
(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction:
Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

District Priorities and Objectives. (2006). http://www.rowland-
unified.org/pdfs/News/DISTRICT%20PRIORITIES%202006-
07%20working%20doc.pdf

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement,
Albert Shanker Institute.
198
Fermanich, M., Mangan, M. T., Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Gross, B., & Rudo, Z.
(2006). Washington learns: Successful district study. Prepared for
Washington Learns. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus &
Associates.

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

Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational Research: An
introduction (6
th
ed.). White Plains, N.Y.:Longman Publishers USA.

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

Goe, L. (2002, October 14). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency
permit teachers in California, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42).
[Electronic version] Retrieved April 20, 2006, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n42/

Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2003). Teacher quality and student achievement
[Electronic Version]. ERIC CLearinghouse on Educational Management,
ED477421.

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

Guskey, T. R. (1994). Professional development in education: In search of the
optimal mix [Electronic Version]. America Educational Reseach
Association.
Hanushek, E. A., (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency
in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177.

Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In Burtless
(Eds.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student
achievement and adult success.
Hanushek, E. A., (2002a). Teacher quality. In Lance T. Izumi & Williamson M.
Evers’ Teacher quality: Hoover Press. Retrieved on August 9, 2006 from
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/teacher.html#toc
199
Hanushek, E. A., (2002b). The importance of school quality. Hoover Press:
Peterson/Schools, 141-173.

Hanushek, E. A., (2005). Why quality matters in education. Finance &
Development, 15-19.

Hanushek, E. A., & Kimko, D. (2000). Schooling, labor force quality, and the
growth of nations. The American Economic Review, 90(5), 1184-1208.

Holland, H. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve
student achievement.

Jencks, C., Smith, M.S., Ackland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Grintlis, H.,
Heynes, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the
effects of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books

Klump, J. (2005). Leadership practices of successful principals. Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland: OR.

Kolben, D. (2006, June). Mayor, in shift, tries decentralization. [Electronic
version]. The New York Sun.
Lashway, L. (1997). Visionary leadership. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management. ED402643.

Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management. ED466023.

Lau, B. (Ed.). (2004). Teacher professional development: A primer for parents &
community members. The Finance Project and Public Education Network.
Washington D.C.: Public Education Network.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of
educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2),
129-151.

Marzano, R. J. (2001). A new era of school reform : Going where the research
takes us. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora:
CO.

200
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools : Translating research into action.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria:
VA.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

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

Neville, K. S. & Robinson, C. J. (n.d.) The delivery, financing, and assessment of
professional development in education : pre-service preparation and in-
service training. The Finance Project. Washington, DC.

Odden, A. (1998). How to create and manage a decentralized educational system.
Annenberg Foundation, St Davids: PA; Education Commission of the
States, Denver: CO.

Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance,
28(1), 51-74.

Odden, A., Picus, L. O., & Fermanich, M. (2003). An evidence-based approach to
school finance adequacy in Arkansas. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates.

Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An evidence-based
approach to school finance adequacy in Washington. Report prepared for
the K-12 Advisory Committee. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.Picus
& Associates.

Ouchi, W. G., Cooper, B. S., & Segal, L. G. (2003a). The impact of organization
on the performance of nine school systems: Lessons for California.
California Policy Options. Los Angeles: School of Public Policy and
Social Research.

Ouchi, W. G., Cooper, B. S., Segal, L. G., DeRoche, T., Brown, C., & Galvin, E.
(2003b). Organizational configuration and performance: the case of
primary and secondary school systems. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
201
Ouchi, W. G. (2004). Academic freedom. Education Next, 21-25

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

Picus, L. O. (2000). How schools allocate and use their resources. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED452578.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and
academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale survey research
tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the
Prospects Study of Elementary Schools. Teacher College Record, 104(8),
1525-1567.

Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System (TVAAS): Mixed-Model Methodology in Educational
Assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299-311.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of
teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
School Accountability Report Card (2006). http://www.rowland-
unified.org/pdfs/Parents%20Section/Student%20Achievement%20Section
/Student%20Achievement%20Report%20Cards/Elementary%20School%
20Reports/oswalt%20-%20full%20report.pdf

Single Plan for Student Achievement. (2006). Rowland Unified School District.

Sparks, D. (1999, March). How can schools make time for teacher learning?
[Electronic version]. RESULTS, National Staff Development Council.
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and
principals. National Staff Development Council.

Springboard Schools (2006). Minding the gap: New role for school districts in the
age of accountability.

202
Stinnette, L. J. (1993). Decentralization: Why, how, and toward what ends?
National Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved August 5,
2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/93-
1toc.htm

U.S. Department of Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform [Electronic version]. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

Webster, W. J., Mendro, R. L., Orsak, T. H., and Weerasinghe, D. (1998). An
application of hierarchical linear modeling to the estimation of school and
teacher effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management. ED424300.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into
discussions of teacher quality. Educational Testing Service, Princeton: NJ.

White, K. R. (1982). The relationship between socioeconomic status and
academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481.

Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S. A. (1994). School-based management: Promise
and process. CPRE Finance Center. Retrieved on August 5, 2006 from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/fb2sbm.html

Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Chau, D., & Polhemus, J. L. (2003). Improving
schools through networks: A new approach to urban school reform.
Educational Policy, 17(4), 399-430.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom
context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher
evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

203
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Interview Guides
District Level Interview Guide

1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?

Describe the way in which staff is utilized for professional development in your
district.
Probing Questions:
Do personnel have access to an instructional facilitator and/or coach?
Do personnel have access to outside professional development consultants?
How are facilitators, coaches, mentor teachers, BTSA providers, and/or
outside consultants utilized for professional development?
How are district level personnel utilized in the design and implementation
of professional development activities?
Do you use personnel in an inventive or new way?

2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?

What is your opinion about the way in which personnel are utilized for
professional development?
Probing Questions:
Do you think the personnel (staff/outside consultants) are effective?
Do you gain knowledge from the professional development activities?
Do you think that the knowledge gained through professional development is
translated into increased student learning outcome?

Does each school have its own budget?

3. How much funding is directed toward professional development and from what
sources do these funds originate?

Do you have a district budget for professional development?
Probing Questions:
Are there multiple funding sources used for professional development?
How much money does the district dedicate in total to professional
development?

204
In your opinion, how much money should be dedicated to professional development?
What funding source(s) do you utilize for professional development?

Do teachers receive compensation for attending and participating in professional
development activities?
Probing Questions:
Is there a standard amount of compensation established for teachers?
4. How is professional development used to promote organizational capacity and
student achievement?

How often are professional development activities offered to personnel?
Probing Questions:
Are opportunities for professional development standard across the district?

Probing Questions:
Do you collaborate with fellow district administrators?
With whom do you collaborate?
How do you have the opportunity to collaborate within the working day?
Do you use your staff meetings for collaboration and/or professional
development?
Do you provide your staff with current research pertaining to educational
issues?
Do you have district wide goals to promote student achievement?
Probing Questions:
What are the district’s goals?
Are all school sites and personnel knowledgeable about these goals?
Who determined these goals?
Are these goals aligned with professional development?

Do you strategically link professional development activities to student learning
outcomes?
Probing Questions:
How do you determine professional development needs of your district?
Is professional development aligned with the standards based curriculum?
Does professional development focus on research-based instructional
strategies?
Are professional development activities specifically designed to advance
the learning of struggling, at-risk student?
Do students in your district take benchmark assessments?
205
Are these assessment outcomes utilized to drive professional development?
Do you or personnel utilize technology to access data to assist you in
identifying learning gaps for your district and students?

206
Site Administrator Interview Guide

1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?

Describe the way in which staff is utilized for professional development at your
school site
Probing Questions:
Do you have access to an instructional facilitator and/or coach?
Do you have access to outside professional development consultants?
How are facilitators, coaches, mentor teachers, BTSA providers, and/or
outside consultants utilized for professional development?
How are you utilized in the design and implementation of professional
development activities at your site?
Do you use personnel in an inventive or new way?

What is your opinion about the way in which personnel are utilized for
professional development?
Probing Questions:
Do you think the personnel (staff/outside consultants) are effective?
Do you gain knowledge from the professional development activities?
Do you think that the knowledge gained through professional development is
translated into increased student learning outcome?

2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?

Who decides how resources are utilized for professional development?
Probing Questions:
Are multiple stakeholders involved in the decision-making process?
What criteria are those decisions based upon?
Are these criteria linked to school or district goals?
Was there consensus on the allocation of resources for professional development?

3. How much funding is directed toward professional development and from what
sources do these funds originate?

Do you have a site budget for professional development?
Probing Questions:
How much money do you dedicate to professional development?
What funding source(s) do you utilize for professional development?
207
In your opinion, how much money should be dedicated to professional
development?

Do teachers receive compensation for attending and participating in professional
development activities at the site?
Probing Questions:
Is there a standard amount of compensation established for your staff?

4. How is professional development used to promote organizational capacity and
student achievement?

How often are professional development activities offered to your staff?

What strategies do you use to build organizational capacity at your school site?
Probing Questions:
Do your teachers collaborate horizontally and vertically?
How often are your teachers given the opportunity to collaborate within the
working day?
Do you use your staff meetings for collaboration and/or professional
development?
Do you provide teachers with current research pertaining to effective
educational strategies?
How do you build capacity with your Leadership Team and School Site
Council, etc.?

Do you have school wide goals to promote student achievement?
Probing Questions:
What are the school’s goals?
Who determined these goals?
Are all personnel knowledgeable about these goals?
Are these goals aligned with professional development?

Do you strategically link professional development activities to student learning
outcomes?
Probing Questions:
How do you determine professional development needs of your staff?
Is professional development aligned with the standards based curriculum?
Does professional development focus on research-based instructional
strategies?
Are professional development activities specifically designed to advance
the learning of struggling, at-risk student?
Do your students take benchmark assessments?
208
Are these assessment outcomes utilized to drive professional development?
Do you and/or your teachers utilize technology to access data to assist you
in identifying learning gaps for your staff and students?

Do you observe your teachers effectively implementing the knowledge and skills
gained through professional development activities?

Do you think that skill-based pay could add to the organizational capacity of the
school?
209
Teacher Interview Guide

1. How are personnel used for the delivery of professional development?

Do you deliver professional development to fellow staff members?
Probing Questions:
If so, what do you do?

How are fellow staff members utilized for the delivery of professional
development?

Are personnel utilized in an inventive or new way?

Does anyone beside fellow staff members deliver professional development?
Probing Questions:
Do you attend professional development activities off of your school
campus?

What is your opinion about the way in which personnel are utilized for
professional development?
Probing Questions:
Do you think the personnel (staff/outside consultants) are effective?
Do you gain knowledge from the professional development activities?
Do you think that the knowledge gained through professional development is
translated into increased student learning outcome?

2. How are resource allocation decisions for professional development
determined?

Who determines how money is spent on professional development?
Probing Questions:
Are multiple stakeholders involved in the decision-making process?
What criteria are those decisions based upon?
Are these criteria linked to school goals?
Was there consensus on the allocation of resources for professional
development?

3. How much funding is directed toward professional development and from what
sources do these funds originate?

Do you know how your principal pays for professional development activities?

210
Do you receive compensation for attending and participating in professional
development activities?
Probing Questions:

Is there a standard amount of compensation established for teachers?

4. How is professional development used to promote organizational capacity and
student achievement?

How often are professional development activities offered to you?

What strategies are used to build organizational capacity at your school site?
Probing Questions:
Do you and your grade-level team collaborate horizontally and vertically?
How often are you given the opportunity to collaborate within the working
day?
Are your staff meetings used for collaboration and/or professional
development?
Are you provided with current research pertaining to effective educational
strategies?
Do you have school wide goals to promote student achievement?
Probing Questions:
What are the school’s goals?
Who determined these goals?
Are you knowledgeable about these goals?
Are these goals aligned with professional development?
Are professional development activities specifically designed to advance
the learning of struggling, at-risk student?

Is professional development strategically linked to student learning outcomes?
Probing Questions:
Who determines professional development needs for your staff?
Is professional development aligned with the standards based curriculum?
Does professional development focus on research-based instructional
strategies?
Do your students take benchmark assessments?
Are these assessment outcomes utilized to drive professional development?
Do you utilize technology to access data to assist you in identifying learning
gaps for your students?

211
Do staff members actively participate in professional development activities?

Do you effectively implement the knowledge and skills that you gain from
professional development activities?
Probing Questions:
Do you have access to personnel that can reinforce what you learned?
Do you have an instructional coach and/or peer coach to co-plan and co-
teach?
How do you know that you are effectively implementing the new
knowledge?

Do you think that skill-based pay could add to the organizational capacity of the
school?

212
Appendix B
Document Review Guide
Title of
Document

Date

Type of
Document

Author/Decision-
Maker

Location of
Source

How closely is
the document
related to the use
of personnel for
professional
development?

How closely is
the document
related to
funding sources
and resource
allocation for
professional
development?

Documents
reflecting
relationship
between
professional
development and
organizational
growth/capacity

Linkages stated
within document
to improving
student
achievement

Reflections

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate how much funding a site-based managed school allocated toward promoting effective professional development at an elementary school level. Additionally, the study examined a district and school's practice of allocating resources for professional development and determined how funding and where the funding for professional development originated. Furthermore, an evaluation process was used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the school's professional development programs as they compared to an evidence-based professional development model.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Cain, Lisa Marie (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2007-08

Publication Date 07/21/2007

Defense Date 05/01/2007

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

Tag effective strategies,evidence based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,student achievement

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Sutherland Elementary School (geographic subject), Glendora (city or populated place), Los Angeles (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

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

Creator Email lcain@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m636

Unique identifier UC1452679

Identifier etd-Cain-20070721 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-519843 (legacy record id),usctheses-m636 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Cain-20070721.pdf

Dmrecord 519843

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cain, Lisa Marie

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