University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ALLOCATION OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE STUDENT
LEARNING IN A SAMPLE OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

by

Rosa Chan

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Rosa Chan

ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abstract
Chapter 1: Overview of Study
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 4: Findings
Chapter 5: Conclusions
References
Appendices:
Appendix A: Data Collection Codebook
Appendix B: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol
Appendix C: Data Collection Protocol
Appendix D: Case Study – Mark Point High School
Appendix E: Case Study – Armada High School
Appendix F: Case Study – San Marcos High School
iii
v
vii
1
13
31
41
83
97

100
111
113
122
147
172

iii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 – Evidence-Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical
Schools

Table 2.2 – Expenditures Per K-12 Pupil in Fall Enrollment for California from
1997 to 2006

Table 3.1 – Sample School Enrollment, API & Percent Free and Reduced Lunch

Table 4.1 – XYZ Unified API Scores 2005 to 2009 Including Subgroups

Table 4.2 – XYZ Unified 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup 2006 to
2009

Table 4.3 – API Growth of Sample Schools from 1999 to 2009

Table 4.4 – Characteristics of Sample Schools in 2009-2010

Table 4.5 – Sample School API Scores of Asian Subgroup from 1999 to 2009

Table 4.6 – Sample School API Scores of Hispanic Subgroup from 1999 to 2009

Table 4.7 – Asian/Hispanic API Achievement Gap from 1999 to 2009

Table 4.8 – Sample school API Scores of English Learner Subgroup from 2005
to 2009

Table 4.9 – Sample School API Scores of Low SES Subgroup from 1999 to
2009

Table 4.10 – Sample School 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Pass Rates from 2006 to 2009

Table 4.11 – Comparison of Sample Schools and Evidence Based Model
Allocations of Core and Elective/Specialist Teachers (FTEs)

Table 4.12 – Average School-Level Resource Use in Full-Time Equivalencies
(FTEs)

Table 5.1 – Elements of Improvement Strategies Implemented by Sample
Schools

Table 5.2 – Average School-Level Resource Use in Full-Time Equivalencies
(FTEs)

16

20

35

44

45

49

50

52

52

54

55

56

60

71

77

90

91

iv
Table D.1 – MPHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Table D.2 – MPHS Statewide and Similar School Rankings 1999 to 2008

Table D.3 – MPHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient 2003 to 2009

Table D.4 – MPHS 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup 2006 to 2009

Table D.5 – MPHS and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison

Table E.1 – AHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Table E.2 – AHS Statewide and Similar School Rankings 1999 to 2008

Table E.3 – AHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient 2003 to 2009

Table E.4 – AHS 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup 2006 to 2009

Table E.5 – AHS and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison

Table F.1 – SMHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Table F.2 – SMHS Statewide and Similar School Rankings 1999 to 2008

Table F.3 – SMHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient 2003 to 2009

Table F.4 – SMHS 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup 2006 to 2009

Table F.5 – SMHS and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison

124

125

126

128

141

149

150

151

153

166

174

175

176

178

191
v
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 – API Growth of Sample Schools from 2005 to 2009

Figure 3.2 – Percent Free and Reduced Lunch of Sample Schools from 2005 to
2009

Figure 4.1 – XYZ Unified Percent Free Reduced Lunch 2004 to 2009

Figure 4.2 – XYZ Unified API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Figure 4.3 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the English Portion

Figure 4.4 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the Math Portion

Figure 4.5 – Percent Free and Reduced Lunch of Sample Schools from 1999 to
2009

Figure 4.6 – API Growth of Sample Schools from 1999 to 2009

Figure 4.7 – Sample School API scores of Asian subgroup from 1999 to 2009

Figure 4.8 – Sample School API scores of Hispanic Subgroup from 1999 to
2009

Figure 4.9 – Asian/Hispanic API Achievement Gap of Sample Schools from
1999 to 2009

Figure 4.10 – Sample School API Scores of English Learner Subgroup from
2005 to 2009

Figure 4.11 – Sample School API Scores of Low SES Subgroup from 1999 to
2009

Figure 4.12 – Students Scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST English from
2003 to 2008

Figure 4.13 – Students Scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST Math from
2003 to 2008

Figure 4.14 – Students Scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST Science from
2003 to 2008

Figure 4.15 – Students scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST History from
2003 to 2008
36

36

43

44

46

46

48

48

51

51

53

54

56

57

58

59

60

vi

Figure 4.16 – Sample School 10
th
Grade CAHSEE English Pass Rates from
2006 to 2009

Figure 4.17 – Sample School 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Math Pass Rates from 2006
to 2009

Figure D.1 – MPHS Percent Free Reduced Lunch 1999 to 2009

Figure D.2 – MPHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Figure D.3 – MPHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient

Figure D.4 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the English Portion

Figure D.5 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the Math portion

Figure E.1 – AHS Percent Free Reduced Lunch 1999 to 2009

Figure E.2 – AHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Figure E.3 – AHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient

Figure E.4 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the English Portion

Figure E.5 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the Math Portion

Figure F.1 – SMHS Percent Free Reduced Lunch 1999 to 2009

Figure F.2 – SMHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including Subgroups

Figure F.3 – SMHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient

Figure F.4 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the English Portion

Figure F.5 – CAHSEE Pass Rates by Subgroup for the Math Portion

61

61

123

125

127

129

129

148

150

152

154

154

173

175

177

178

179

vii
ABSTRACT
Due to current and projected state budgetary constraints, California schools are
forced to allocate resources even more effectively in order to meet state mandated student
achievement targets, in accordance with NCLB. The need to effectively educate such a
diverse student population with limited resources calls for educational adequacy
measures to effectively allocate resources to support student achievement growth.
Therefore, determining and planning for effective resource allocation strategies are vital
to the success of K-12 schools across the U.S.
This study examines the resource allocation strategies of improving Southern
California high schools in comparison to the Evidence-Based Model. The investigator
will use a mixed methods research approach, where both quantitative and qualitative
methods will be used to collect data for the development of case studies of schools that
have demonstrated high student achievement despite serving significant numbers of
socioeconomically-disadvantaged students. The efforts made by the sample schools to
improve student achievement will be compared to the Evidence-Based Model for costing
out an education in which essentially all students attain academic proficiency. The
collection of multiple types of data will provide a means for district and school
administrators to link instructional vision/strategies and effective resources allocation
practices to improving student performance.
1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, the focus of
K-12 educational finance has shifted to respond to the need to effectively implement
standards-based education. School districts and sites are charged with increasing student
academic performance with specific annual targets under increased accountability until
2014. Under the NCLB standards-based reform effort, the student achievement of schools
is measured through high-stakes standardized testing. School districts and school sites
must meet annual student achievement targets set for all students and demographic
subgroups, as well as test participation and graduation rates, in order to meet adequate
yearly progress (AYP). Schools districts and sites that fail to meet adequate AYP
requirements may be presented with progressive interventions and sanctions (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005).
The reform movement to provide quality education for all students has largely
been affected by landmark Supreme Court decisions and legislation, as well as state level
rulings to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States (U.S.) Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that all U.S. citizens have equal protection under
state and federal law, which prohibits discrimination in public schools (Zirkel, 2002). The
Supreme Court ruling in the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the
“separate but equal” decision from the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, which in effect
banned segregation in schools (Ravitch, 1983). Following in the footsteps of the equity
movement on the state level, the California State Supreme Court ruling in the Serrano v.
2
Priest (1976) case called for funding equity, which dictated that the revenue limits of
schools be equalized within certain criteria (EdSource, 2009).
Equally significant, was the passage of Title I of the 1965 Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA). Title I provided further financial assistance to local education
agencies serving areas with high concentrations of children from low-income families. In
2000, the Williams v. State of California decision called upon public schools to provide
equal access to instructional materials, as well as a safe educational environment and
qualified teachers.
While the focus of educational policies continue to center around educational
equity among all levels of K-12 education, the pressure to meet NCLB requirements has
essentially caused the basis of school finance to shift from educational equity to
educational adequacy. More than ever, school districts and school sites are forced to
shape their finance policies to adequately allocate resources to implement educational
strategies in efforts to reach desired student achievement outcomes (Odden, 2003).
However, these efforts are often hindered by decreased funding caused by the state of the
economy of the U.S. and State of California.
In California, the governor and state legislature control the school finance system
by determining how much money school districts receive. Although school districts then
decide where monies should be spent, many funds are considered categorical and are
earmarked for special purposes. However, with the passage of Proposition 98 as an
amendment to the California Constitution, schools would be guaranteed levels of funding
that are aligned with the growth of the student population (EdSource, 2006). Despite the
positive intentions of Proposition 98, difficult economic years have allowed funding for
3
schools to often lag behind inflation and generally grow more slowly than education
spending in other states.
California has been consistently trailing the national average of per pupil
spending, while above average in the ratio of students to teachers. In 2006-2007 rankings
of per pupil expenditures, California’s rank in the U.S. was 24
th
with an average of
$9,124. The District of Columbia sits at the top with $16,540, while Arizona spends
$5,255 per pupil (EdSource, 2007). These expenditures are impacted by revenues for K-
12 education, including: state funds, local property taxes, federal aid, lottery funds, as
well as local miscellaneous funds. Funds for schools are also affected by school
enrollment. In many areas of California, declining enrollment has caused school districts
to lose revenues calculated by the average daily attendance (ADA). Coupled with higher-
than-average teacher salaries, California experiences higher-than-average student-teacher
ratios when compared with other states (Ed-Data, 2008).
Despite challenges with state educational revenues, teacher salaries and per pupil
expenditures in educating one of the most diverse school populations in the country, the
expectation to meet NCLB requirements continues to be a reality. The question now
remains: What is the cost of education that will allow school districts and sites to reach
desired student achievement outcomes? Odden & Picus (2008) identifies this cost of
education to be known as “adequacy,” which is the level of funding necessary to meet
student academic performance expectations as determined by state standards, NCLB and
state assessment programs.
Four methods have emerged in determining educational adequacy including the
following: (1) successful district approach, (2) cost-function approach, (3) professional
4
judgment approach, and (4) evidence-based approach (Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden,
2003; Hanushek, 2006; Rebell, 2007).
The successful district approach calls for the identification of school districts that
have met student proficiency standards. Weighted averages of per pupil expenditures are
then set as the adequacy level. Critics of this approach contend that per pupil
expenditures do not match up to the needs of urban or rural areas, even with additional
differentials based on geographic areas (Odden, 2003).
The cost-function approach uses regression analysis with per pupil spending as
the dependent variable, and characteristics of the district and desired performance levels,
as the independent variables. Adjustments are made for differences in the needs of the
schools and cost of education in other districts. Critics of this approach determine that
complex nature of this analysis can be problematic. The combination of the rise and fall
of per pupil spending, which is impacted by the desired performance level of schools,
combined with complex statistical analysis makes this approach difficult to use.
These first two approaches -- the successful district approach and cost-function
approach -- both draw upon relationships between per pupil expenditures and
performance level. However, these approaches do not provide recommendations of
educational strategies to produce desired educational performance outcomes (Odden,
2003).
The next two approaches, including the professional judgment approach and the
evidence-based approach, link educational strategies to desired performance level
outcomes. The professional judgment approach, also called the “resource cost model,”
involves the use of educational experts to determine effective strategies for K-12
5
students. Once identified, the cost of the resources needed to implement these strategies
is estimated. Similarly, the evidence-based approach relies on extant educational research
to design schools that have the elements necessary to meet desired school outcomes. An
adequate expenditure level is then estimated at the school level and aggregated to a total
cost that also includes district expenditures. The evidence-based approach therefore, is
able to guide schools in their spending in order to align per pupil expenditures to
necessary educational strategies (Odden, 2003).
Due to the current fiscal constraints of state of California, the notion of
educational adequacy and resource allocation are now affected by certain factors
including, but not limited to: the rising cost of education, declining enrollment in many
school districts, and most importantly the reduced funding and resources granted to
schools. With these increasing constraints placed on school districts and sites, the
necessity for more effectively allocating monies and resources becomes even greater – if
they are to work toward meeting NCLB requirements.
Statement of the Problem
In a time when resources are scarce and accountability standards for student
achievement continue to increase, the need to implement effective resource allocation
strategies to improve student achievement is vital. School districts and sites continue to
struggle with balancing budgets to fund the various components of a school, including,
but not limited to: staffing, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and
facilities.
The student demographics of California also weigh heavily on the resource
allocation strategies of schools. The state possesses diverse student populations, with
6
approximately 25 percent of students classified as English learners (ELs) speaking more
than 50 languages. Additionally, approximately 49 percent of students qualify for free or
reduced-priced meals, which is an indicator of low socioeconomic status (SES).
Nationally, the percentage of ELs is approximately nine percent and the percentage of
free and reduced meals is 43 percent (Ed-Data, 2008).
The need to effectively educate such a diverse student population with limited
resources calls for educational adequacy measures to effectively allocate resources to
support student achievement growth. The evidence-based model identifies components
that are necessary to “deliver a high-quality, comprehensive, schoolwide instructional
program” (Odden, 2003, p. 123). Prices of these components are then assigned and
calculated to produce a total cost. This model calls for specific allocations of funds and
resources to produce growth in student achievement.
However, given the demographic challenges and fiscal constraints of California,
the determination of an adequate education remains. How are schools allocating their
resources with decreasing funds? What choices are schools with significant numbers of
students in poverty making to produce a desired level of student performance?
Purpose of the study
Due to current and projected state budgetary constraints, California schools are
forced to allocate resources even more effectively in order to meet state mandated student
achievement targets, in accordance with NCLB. The purpose of this study is to examine
the resource allocation strategies of improving Southern California high schools in
comparison to the Evidence-Based Model.
7
Research questions
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
Model?
Importance of study
With the projected state budget for education being reduced in the current and
upcoming years, school districts and school sites will be forced to meet state academic
growth targets with fewer resources each year. Therefore, determining and planning for
effective resource allocation strategies are vital. The results from this study will support
district and school site administrators in making budgetary and resource allocations in
times of fiscal constraint. Legislators or others who are in the position of power can use
this study to inform their decisions on funding policies to better support K-12 education
under the requirements of NCLB.
Summary of methodology
This study will use a mixed methods research approach, where both quantitative
and qualitative methods will be used to collect data for the development of case studies
for three comprehensive public high schools. Use of the comparative case study
8
approach, along with an emphasis on the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
will help inform schools of how their practices compare to research-based practices that
have increased student performance in other states. The collection of multiple types of
data, gathered through interviews with school administrators and review of school
documents, will provide a means for district and school administrators to link
instructional vision/strategies and effective resources allocation practices to improving
student performance.
Limitations and delimitations
This study will include traditional 9-12 comprehensive high schools within the
state of California. These schools are all Title I schools servicing significant numbers of
economically-disadvantaged students. Over 50 percent of students qualify for Free
Reduced Lunch and trends indicate increased percentages in coming years. All schools
are making annual gains on their API rankings, both school-wide and for each significant
subgroup.
Because the sample size of schools is small and only within Los Angeles County,
the results are only generalizable to Southern California schools that meet the same
criteria used in this study. In addition, the data gathered for this study are limited to
expenditures and resource allocations in the 2009-2010 school year and are not
longitudinal. There are also limitations on the information gathered from administrator
interviews, as this data is limited only to sample school and district administrators.
Despite the limitations and delimitations of the study, it still has important implications
and contributes to the body of literature on school resource allocation and the Evidence-
Based Model.
9
Assumptions
This study assumes that the qualitative data, including interviews with school and
district administrators regarding school improvement and resource allocation, reflect
truthful and accurate information. It is also assumed that the analysis of the quantitative
data provided by schools and districts regarding resource indicators accurately reflect the
schools’ resource allocation practices. Whenever possible, data provided by each sample
school will be referenced by the California Department of Education website to ensure
accuracy.
Definitions
This section will include operational definitions of vocabulary and terms to
provide increased clarity and understanding of this study.
1. Academic Performance Index (API): “Single number, ranging from a low of
200 to a high of 1000, that reflects a school’s, a local educational agency’s
(LEA’s), or a subgroup’s performance level, based on the results of statewide
testing” (California Department of Education, 2009).
2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): NCLB mandate requiring schools and
districts to measure and report students’ annual progress toward proficiency in
English/language arts and mathematics by 2013-14. Progress is based on whether
the school or district met its Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated
95% participation on standardized tests, achieved its target on the API and, for
high schools, met target graduation rates (Ed-Data, 2008).
10
3. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Target percentage of students whose
state test results identify them as proficient or advanced each year as determined
by NCLB.
4. Average Daily Attendance (ADA): “The total number of days of student
attendance divided by the total number of days in the regular school year. A
student attending every school day would equal one ADA. Generally, ADA is
lower than enrollment due to such factors as transience, dropouts, and illness. A
school district’s revenue limit income is based on its ADA. The state collects
ADA counts at the district but not the school level” (Ed-Data, 2008).
5. California Standards Test (CST): “Tests in English/language arts and
mathematics in grades 2-11, science in grades 5 and 9-11, and history/social
science in grades 8, 10 and 11 based on California's academic content standards.
This is the core of California's statewide Standardized Testing and Reporting
Program (STAR)” (Ed-Data, 2008).
6. Categorical funds: Federal and/or state monies available to LEAs and schools
based on specific needs and criteria. These funds are separate from the general
fund and are earmarked for specified programs/resources.
7. Cost-function approach: Model using regression analysis with per pupil
spending as the dependent variable, and characteristics of the district and desired
performance levels as the independent variables to determine the cost of adequate
education.
8. Certificated employees: Faculty and staff holding appropriate state credentials.
11
9. Educational adequacy: Sufficiency of per pupil expenditures necessary to
reach desired outcomes.
10. English Learner (EL): Designation for students not yet sufficiently proficient to
access and learn from the regular instructional programs offered at the school.
11. Evidence-Based Model: Model that identifies research-based elements that are
required to deliver a high-quality, comprehensive, schoolwide instructional
program. An adequate expenditure cost is then determined and aggregated to a
total cost.
12. General fund: Primary budget for LEAs or school sites based on student average
daily attendance.
13. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Federal law affecting K-12 education built on
the principles of accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater local
control and flexibility, and an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific
research.
14. Professional judgment approach: Model using of a panel of educators,
specialists, and administrators to determine resources necessary to achieve
desired/required student achievement outcomes.
15. Professional Learning Community (PLC): “Educators committed to working
collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to
achieve better results for the students they serve” (DuFour, et al., 2006).
16. Program Improvement (PI): Identification of schools and LEAs that do not
make AYP under NCLB (California Department of Education, 2009).
12
17. Socioeconomically-disadvantaged students: Students who qualify for
free/reduced priced meals.
18. Successful district approach: Identification of programs, strategies, and
resources used in “successful schools” with the intention of transferring them to
other schools to achieve desired/required student achievement outcomes.
19. Title I: “Program that provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools with
high numbers or high percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children
meet challenging state academic standards” (U.S. Department of Education,
2009).
13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter explores various themes in research and literature that speak to
educational adequacy and the allocation of educational resources to improve student
performance. This literature review will consist of three sections, including: (1)
educational adequacy, (2) resource use, and (3) research-based reform strategies. The first
section will discuss trends that lead to the rise of educational adequacy, as well as the
development of adequacy models to link expenditures to student outcomes. The
Evidence-Based Model will be highlighted as a means to identify educational strategies
and the cost of those strategies in order to produce desired performance outcomes. The
second section will focus on how schools have traditionally used their resources to
support student achievement. Changes to resource allocation strategies due to increased
accountability measures will be discussed. The final section will address research-based
reform strategies that are employed to support implementation of instructional and
curricular changes influenced by changes to resource allocation strategies.
Educational adequacy
While the focus on education in the U.S. has been equity, as evidenced by the
landmark Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the passage of
Title I of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to equalize educational
opportunities for all students, the standards-based movement of NCLB has shifted the
focus to student performance outcomes. Schools across the U.S. continue to face
mounting pressure to demonstrate improved student performance on standardized tests
and other measures in order to be in compliance with NCLB.
14
Under the standards-based movement, the success of a school’s finance policy
is determined by its ability to educate an average student to state-determined performance
standards, as well as support students with special needs to reach the same standards
(Odden, 2003). Now with these pressures coupled with economic uncertainties that will
affect school funding by the state, local educational agencies and school districts must
find answers to the questions: What is the cost of an adequate education?
According to Odden (2003), designing an adequate school finance system calls
for the identification of the level of spending for a typical student in a typical school
district, along with additional costs necessary to support various student needs. Equally, it
is necessary that districts and schools manage those resources to ensure student learning
is taking place to meet state performance standards.
Four methods have been used to determine educational adequacy. They include
the following: (1) successful district approach, (2) cost-function approach, (3)
professional judgment approach, and (4) evidence-based approach (Odden & Picus, 2008;
Odden, 2003; Hanushek, 2006; Rebell, 2007).
The successful district approach, used in Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and
Ohio, identifies districts that have met student proficiency standards and uses weighted
averages of per pupil expenditures as the adequacy level. Districts not used in the
analysis of this approach include those that are highest and lowest in spending, and
wealth. Large urban districts are also excluded from the analysis. As a result, the districts
identified in this model are typically non-urban districts that are demographically
homogenous and spend less than the state average. Critics of this model note that per
15
pupil expenditures do not match up to the needs of urban or rural areas, even with
additional differentials based on geographic areas (Odden, 2003).
The cost-function approach uses regression analysis with per pupil spending as
the dependent variable, and characteristics of the district and desired performance levels,
as the independent variables. Because the spending level required to adequately educate a
student increases and decreases depending on desired performance levels, the suggested
expenditures vary so dramatically that they are problematic for real world use. Currently,
no state uses this approach despite studies in New York, Wisconsin, Texas, and Illinois
(Odden, 2003).
The professional judgment approach, used in Kansas, Maryland, Oregon, and
Wyoming, uses educational experts to determine the elements necessary to fulfill the
implementation of effective educational strategies. Total per-pupil expenditures are a
then determined by summing up the elements. Critics of this approach contend that the
suggested strategies have no correlation to performance outcomes (Odden, 2003).
Similar to the professional judgment approach, the evidence-based approach also
links educational strategies to desired performance level outcomes. This approach
“identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a high-quality, comprehensive,
schoolwide instructional program” (Odden, 2003, p. 123). An adequate expenditure cost
is then determined and aggregated to a total cost. The evidence-based approach therefore,
is able to guide schools in their spending in order to align per pupil expenditures to
necessary educational strategies.
The strengths of the Evidence-Based Model, developed by Odden and Picus
(2008), lie in the identification of elements required to produce actual student
16
performance, as well as the ability to “cost out” each element to determine an adequate
level of funding (Odden, 2003). The elements include research-based strategies and best
practices that have proven to improve student performance. The Evidence-Based Model
is one of few models that provide the costs for resources at the school-level (Verstegen,
2007). However, Loeb, et al. (2007) asserts that the research supporting the model does
not have the ability to determine what strategies and interventions directly impact student
performance.
The recommendation of the Evidence-Based Model is the allocation of resources
using the following allocation guidelines in the Table 2.1 below:
Table 2.1 – Evidence-Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School Configuration K-5 6-8 9-12
Class Size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
6-8: 25 9-12: 25
Full-day Kindergarten Yes N/A N/A
Number of teacher
work days
200, including 10 days
for intensive training
200, including 10 days
for intensive training
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
% Disabled 12% 12% 12%
% Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
50% 50% 50%
% English Learner 10% 10% 10%
% Minority 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist Teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more: 8.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 2.25 3
4. Tutors for
struggling students
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
One for every 100
poverty students: 3
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students: .43
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students: .45
An additional 1.0
teacher for every
100 EL students:
.60
6. Extended Day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer School 1.8 1.875 2.5
17
Table 2.1, Continued
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 4
professional
teacher positions
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
10. Teachers for gifted
students
$25 per student $25 per student $25 per student
11. Vocational
Education
N/A N/A No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students: 3.25 total
1 for every 100
poverty students
plus 1.0 guidance
per 250 students:
5.4 total
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 2.0 3.0
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 1.0
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
16. Principal 1 1 1
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and
3.0 Clerical
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators,
Planning and prep
time, 10 summer
days
Additional: $100
per pupil for other
PD expenses -
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
19. Technology $250 per pupil $250 per pupil $250 per pupil
20. Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil $140 per pupil $175 per pupil
21. Student Activities $200 per pupil $200 per pupil $250 per pupil
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)

The resource allocation patterns suggested in the Evidence Based Model are
based on a collection of data from research that identifies strategies that improve student
performance. Although the Evidence Based Model is not used in the state of California, it
18
provides a comprehensive model for a point of comparison between what schools are
doing and what the model suggests. The comparison of resource indicators, including but
not limited to instructional time, class size, professional development, and core/specialist
teachers, and expenditures in relation to student performance, allows for schools to
identify areas of attention.
More than ever, school districts and school sites are forced to shape their finance
policies to adequately allocate resources to implement educational strategies in efforts to
reach desired student achievement outcomes (Odden, 2003). The Evidence-Based Model
is a promising approach to use, as it identifies the elements of a school-wide instructional
program that research has shown to be effective in improving student performance.
Schools will be able to gain a better understanding of how to determine educational
adequacy by not only understanding what resources positively impact student
performance, but also the funding available to acquire those resources and how schools
are actually allocating them.
Resource use
As the attention of educational policies shift from educational equity to adequacy,
resource allocation in relation to student performance outcomes becomes the primary
focus. In terms of state funding for education, California is unusual to the extent that the
state controls how much money school districts receive. Court rulings and ballot
propositions have allowed state policymakers, instead of local covers and school districts
to determine school revenues. As a result, the status of California’s General Fund directly
affects decisions regarding educational expenditures (EdSource, 2008).
19
Local educational agencies (LEAs) and school districts receive monies that are
categorized as general and categorical funds. They must allocate to individual school
sites according to state and federal guidelines. The federal government contributes about
11 percent of California’s education budget. The remaining monies come from the
following sources: California state taxes contribute 61 percent, local property taxes
contribute 21 percent, the California Lottery contributes 2 percent, and local
miscellaneous revenues contribute 6 percent (EdSource, 2006).
In addition to the General Fund, California schools may also qualify for federal
and state categorical funding including: Economic Impact Aid (EIA) which supports
English learners and students from low socio-economic backgrounds, Program
Improvement funds, and incentive programs such as Class Size Reduction (CSR) for
grades K-3 and grade 9. According to Timar (2006), categorical funds provide a
significant amount of money towards school programs. However, these programs may
work to compartmentalize schools instead of improving student outcomes. A reason for
this is in the development of these programs – they are typically created by individuals
and therefore lack the cohesiveness to facilitate a schoolwide improvement effort (Grubb,
Goe & Huerta, 2004; Timar, 2006).
Research has found that between 1890 and 1990, public expenditures on K-12
education in the U.S. have increased from $2 billion to over $187 billion (Hanushek &
Rivkin, 1997). Despite the continued rise in per-pupil expenditures, California has trailed
behind the rest of the U.S. as evidenced from Table 2.2 below (EdSource, 2008; Ed-Data,
2008). However, with the passage of Proposition 98 as an amendment to the California
20
Constitution, schools would be guaranteed levels of funding that are aligned with the
growth of the student population (EdSource, 2007).
Table 2.2 – Expenditures per K-12 Pupil in Fall Enrollment for California from 1997 to
2006
Year California Rank U.S. Average
2005-06 $8,486 29 $9,100
2004-05 $7,935 30 $8,717
2003-04 $7,745 27 $8,340
2002-03 $7,580 26 $8,065
2001-02 $7,055 31 $7,532
2000-01 $7,018 24 $7,296
1999-00 $6,333 27 $6,824
1998-99 $5,666 36 $6,455
1997-98 $5,580 31 $6,174
Source: Ed-Data (2008)

Odden & Picus (2008) have determined that the additional funds received by
school districts and sites each year have not been used for schoolwide instructional
purposes, but have been used to for support for students enrolled in courses outside of the
core academic area. The problem that comes out is the trend that despite increases in
educational spending, there have been no significant improvements to student outcomes
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). In order to resolve this issue, it is necessary to understand
where the new dollars have been spent and to determine whether or not the resources
bought were used effectively in relation to student learning.
The Finance Center of the Consortium for policy Research in Education (CPRE)
has conducted research on education funds – where they come from and how they are
spent. Spending patterns of districts and schools across the U.S. have revealed that the
funds have been used ineffectively (Odden, Monk, Nakib & Picus, 1995). Odden et al.
(1995) asserts that the largest portion of the spending has been used to hire additional
teachers to lower class sizes, as well as provide out-of-classroom services for students
21
requiring extra supports. However, the spending on these resources did not
demonstrate increased student achievement. Other funds have been used to raise teachers’
salaries, but they too have not been seen to improve teachers’ skills and strategies used in
the classroom. Odden et al. (1995) further found that high-spending districts spend in the
same proportions as low-spending districts, indicating the trend of lowering
student/teacher ratios and increasing average teacher salaries.
Most data related to educational resource use is presented as expenditures for
functions such as instruction, instructional support services, professional development,
curriculum development, administration, student support, operations, maintenance,
transportation, food services and other (NCES, 2006; Odden, at al, 1995). The data
reveal that the majority of educational expenditures are in the area of instruction. Odden
et al. (1995) report that 60 percent of the educational dollar is spent on instructional
services, including regular classroom instruction for core academic areas and instruction
for students with special needs. The figure of 60 percent is consistent across school
districts and states, regardless of size and demographics. Odden and Picus (2008) assert
that a substantial amount of instructional resources are spent on: (1) teaching staff for
courses outside of the academic core subject area to lower core class sizes, (2) special
education services, (3) support services for students in poverty and English learners, and
(4) small increases in teacher salaries.
Over the years, educational expenditures did not lead to significant increases in
student achievement, due to the small amount of money allocated toward improving
instruction in the core academic area (Odden, et al., 2005). Data on these spending
patterns shows that the majority of instructional funds are spent on instruction in courses
22
outside of the core academic areas and for instructors providing help to students with a
variety of special needs. As a result, fewer educational dollars are being spent on core
subject areas schools are held accountable for, including English, mathematics, social
science, and science. Other spending patterns in poor school districts show that new
monies are used for facilities, social services, and compensatory education, but little is
allocated toward the core educational program. The result of these resource allocations is
a system where services increase, but student achievement remains unchanged. Trends in
K-12 educational expenditures reflect a system where little is done to improve curriculum
and instruction in the core academic subject areas (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997; Odden &
Picus, 2008).
Data from educational research and literature assert that in order to ensure
students meet the state student performance standards, California must align the funding
system to its accountability system (Timar, 2007). Odden and Archibald (2000) make
recommendations to guide schools in redirecting resources to fund effective educational
strategies. They include:
1. Developing processes for analyzing school-level data that are aligned with the
needs of the needs of the students and the capabilities of the teachers
2. Developing formulas to determine budgets and costs of educational strategies
3. Encouraging the combination of categorical monies to fund schoolwide
educational strategies
4. Reallocating district resources to fund ongoing professional development for
teachers
5. Working with unions to increase flexibility in teacher contracts
23
6. Developing an accountability system that provides rewards and sanctions based
on student outcomes.
Odden, et al. (1995) further notes that an educational strategy must be developed in order
for schools to attain student performance goals set by states. It is vital that key features of
an educational institution include: ambitious goals, set curriculum standards, and
assessments that indicate what students know and if they are learning. Another strategy is
to decentralize power over school budgets, as well as change reward and compensation
structures (Odden, et al., 1995)
Research-based reform strategies
In striving to meet student performance standards mandated by NCLB, school
districts and sites are realizing the need to turn toward research-based reform strategies.
Pressure from federal and state directives to improve educational outcomes have now
pushed schools to realize that in order to achieve proficiency standards, there is a need for
stronger curriculum and instruction through school restructuring (Odden & Archibald,
2000). School districts are now working more closely with schools to ensure the presence
of high-quality instruction, high expectations for all students, support and interventions
for struggling students, effective professional development and training, as well as
progress monitoring that leads to data-driven decision making (Miles, 2000; Johnson,
2002; Marzano, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
To enact these ideas, school districts and site are moving toward the creation of
professional learning communities to facilitate the school improvement process. Dufour
(2006) proposes that schools create structures to support collaboration, such as assigning
teachers to teams or cohorts. However, the fact that teachers meet does not improve a
24
school, but rather the focus should rest on what they are collaborating about. It is also
necessary for teachers to develop characteristics that allow them to view issues from
others’ perspectives and be able to share constructive feedback with peers. Therefore,
challenges school leaders will face in implementing these steps will revolve around
bringing together teachers of varying age, gender, and cultural backgrounds, to
effectively communicate and improve school practices (Dufour, 2006).
However, the promise of professional learning communities paves the way for
other supporting research to inform effective instructional practices. Research on the
basis of effective curricular and instructional practices suggests effective curricular and
instructional practices, including the following principles: (1) identification of the types
of knowledge required for a lesson, (2) engagement through structured learning, and (3)
promotion of higher order thought processes. These principles, along with specific
attention to curricular sequencing and pacing, allow students to actively learn academic
material in an engaging and structured manner (Marzano, 2003).
In agreement, Darling-Hammond (2002, 2006) stresses that structural features of
schools must be aligned with instructional goals in order to improve student achievement.
She asserts that there are several common elements found in schools that are
demonstrating improvement to student performance. According to Darling-Hammond
(2006), positive, continuous relationships between students and teachers established in
personalized environments provide ideal conditions for learning. Equally important,
curriculum that is authentic and relevant to students’ lives will lead to higher engagement
among students. In order to achieve these conditions, school leaders and teachers must
work in collaborative groups or professional learning communities to share knowledge,
25
discuss school/student data, as well as plan for support and interventions for struggling
students (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Dufour, 2006).
In relation to the growing needs for support and interventions for struggling
students, language development must be addressed in order to develop a student’s social,
cultural, and linguistic background (Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Also, because of increasing
numbers of minority students and English Language Learners entering California
schools, English language development is a high priority. Fillmore and Snow (2000)
believe that the typical classroom teacher should be able to answer questions regarding
the English language including, but not limited to: basic units of language, language
irregularities, vocabulary acquisition and structure, and academic English.
Out of the elements discussed above, Darling Hammond (2006) contends that the
most important factor affecting student performance is the quality of the teachers at the
school. To support teacher quality, the school must have a consistent evaluation process
in place, effective recruitment process, and must also provide consistent support to
teachers in the form of professional development, professional dialogues, and coaching
(MacIver and Farley, 2003).
In order to provide high-quality instruction to improve student performance,
educational literature and research point to effective teacher professional development.
Lyman and Villani (2004) propose that ongoing professional development is a way to
help educators understand the lives of the students they are teaching in order to better
meet their needs. Although there are countless types of professional development and
training opportunities attended by educators, the translation from the point of learning to
26
implementation in the classroom is lacking. Therefore, there is a need to shift the focus
of professional development to address the needs and gaps of school site teachers.
Lyman and Villani (2004) further maintain that in order to build capacity in
teachers through professional development, administrative leadership is required to:
guide the faculty in developing a strong sense of efficacy in their teaching abilities,
structure collaboration time to ensure active communication between veteran and novice
teachers, and balance content and pedagogy in professional development. However,
implementation of these action steps may be a challenge as teachers may think their
knowledge and skills are in called into question. Administrators and school leaders can
overcome this obstacle by using student data and research to support their need to refocus
and restructure professional development.
Even with the element of strong professional development and training for
teachers, teacher self-reflection and peer feedback are necessary to improve instruction
(Stronge, 2006). Research on expert teachers show that they plan what they teach,
implement the plan, as well as consistently reflect on areas of strength and challenge.
Peer feedback also provides support to improving teacher knowledge and skills. Stronge
(2006) asserts that expert teachers are able to provide their peers with more thorough
improvement assistance than school administrators.
Another necessary element to improving student performance is having high
expectations for all students. According to Cotton (1989), high expectations for student
learning are fundamental to high-achieving schools. In high-achieving schools, teachers
believe that student learning is limitless and hold themselves responsible to improve
student academic achievement (Cotton, 1989). High expectations must be communicated
27
among school staff, students, parents, and other stakeholders through the creation and
implementation of policies that: (1) protect instructional time, (2) emphasize the
importance of academic achievement to students, and (3) establish a positive learning
environment (Cotton, 1989).
In order to demonstrate high expectations for all students, there is a need for a
collective effort among school district and site members. According to Hancock and
Lamendola (2005), collaborative time spent analyzing student data and aligning
curriculum will help teachers understand how their students learn. Equally important,
establishing a process for collaboration will focus and clarify the goals and mission of the
school (Hancock & Lamendola, 2005). Through structured active participation in
professional and collaborative settings, teachers can then carry their action steps into the
classroom in a seamless fashion. Darling-Hammond (2002) notes that such functions
allow teachers to increase their knowledge base, share best practices, and learn to hold
each other accountable for good teaching. However, one challenge school leaders may
face when implementing these actions steps include the need to restructure the school day
in order to provide time for collaboration among staff. Without built-in time in the school
day, it becomes difficult for groups to meet consistently and effectively. Structural
features of schools must be aligned with instructional goals in order to improve student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2002).
Another element that supports school improvement is progress monitoring.
Johnson (2002) believes that monitoring progress through the collection and analysis of
data is fundamental to the success of effective schools, and must become part of the
culture. Johnson (2002) maintains that the stages to more effectively make data-driven
28
decisions include: creating a leadership team around using data to influence change,
creating a culture of willingness to ask questions and seek solutions, setting goals for
student outcomes, and monitoring progress made toward goals. By doing so, school
stakeholders will be able to facilitate a process of changing systems and structures to
improve practices.
Although data-driven decision making may be a main focus of many districts and
school sites, the degree and fidelity of implementation continue to remain an area of
concern. There is also a range of knowledge of data analysis that teachers possess due to
varying district and school resources to provide ample professional development and
training sessions. On the leadership level, if administrators do not effectively guide
teachers in data analysis in a way that translates to the classroom, it will not happen
(Johnson, 2002).
Because the main challenge of data-driven decision at school sites is dependent on
a school environment that adequately fosters a culture of inquiry and commitment,
strategies for improvement fall on the administrative leadership. Dufour and Burnette
(2002) make recommendations to reshape the culture of the school – “the assumptions,
habits, expectations, and beliefs of the school’s staff” – in order to build and maintain an
effective culture (p. 1). In order to establish a collaborative culture, several steps must be
taken by: (1) providing time for collaboration, (2) structuring collaboration time with
operational protocols, (3) monitoring progress of faculty and students, and (4) creating
and celebrating small victories (Dufour & Burnette, 2002). Schools that adequately train
the administrators to be able to transfer data analysis knowledge to the faculty, and in
turn to the students will see progress. However, school leaders may face challenges when
29
taking these action steps including resistance from certain teachers to work
collaboratively with peers, as well as finding difficulty with the culture-building process
(Marzano, 2003). Creating and maintaining school culture is a lengthy process due to its
changing nature.
As there are more research findings from multiple sources showing what schools
are doing to dramatically improve student performance, district and school leaders may
focus their attention and allocate resources in more strategic ways. Supported by research
by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) in Washington and
Wisconsin, Odden (2007) identifies elements that are common among schools that have
shown dramatic improvement over a four to seven year period. They include: setting high
expectations for all students, analyzing data to make strategic decisions, implement
research-based best practices, using instructional coaches, providing interventions for
struggling students, allowing for smaller class sizes in early elementary grades, protecting
instructional time, creating professional learning communities, and empowering teachers
as instructional leaders. Although critics may offer other opinions, this promising
evidence from schools that are improving paves the way for up-and-coming schools.
Conclusions
In California, the educational finance system has not changed through the years
despite the steady increases in the school-age population and diversity within the state.
California has more than 6.2 million students, with the highest percentages of English
learners and close to the top when it comes to disadvantaged students when compared to
other states (Ed-Data, 2008). These elements present unique challenges for California in
educating its students. Combined with increasing pressures to meet NCLB requirements
30
and changing budget situations, the focus now rests on the educational adequacy. How
much does it cost to educate students to the desired standards of each state?
The Evidence-Based Model has emerged as a promising approach to determine
the cost of adequately educating students. Through studies conducted in various states
across the U.S., the Evidence-Based Model has identified some strategies that work at
schools, including: a rigorous curriculum program, intensive professional development,
strategies to support struggling students, and lower set class sizes for K-3 classes (School
Funding Matters, 2008).
Common threads from educational literature and research also guide improvement
strategies toward maintaining a collaborative culture at the school site, as well as
restructuring the organizational features to facilitate the process (Darling-Hammond,
2002). By taking these steps, teachers and administrators will be better prepared to handle
the day-to-day challenges of secondary instruction and maintain an effective environment
for student learning. However, it is not enough to rely solely on schools to make changes
– school districts must also provide adequate support to the school site. Research
recommends that school districts adopt system-wide approaches to improve teaching and
learning, as well as create supports that will transfer into student achievement at the
school site (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
31
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology used in the course of the study, including
a review of the study and research questions, how the sample schools were selected,
instrumentation that was used, and how the data was collected and analyzed. The purpose
of this study is to generate knowledge regarding resource allocation practices through
case studies of comprehensive public high schools in Southern California. More
specifically, this study aims to develop a better understanding of the following: (1) what
resources schools use to improve student academic achievement, (2) how schools allocate
their resources effectively to support effective instruction compared to the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), and (3) what relationships exist between resources
and student achievement. The findings of this study will support the efforts of district and
school site administrators by providing them with research-based knowledge and
practices to improve student performance by the effective allocation of resources.
The four research questions that guided the study were the following:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
Model?
32
This study utilized a mixed methods research approach, where both quantitative
and qualitative methods were used to gather data to develop case studies for the
comprehensive high schools. The comparative case study approach will help inform
schools of how their practices compare to research-based practices that have helped
schools improve student achievement in other states. Qualitative data were collected to
gain information regarding the sample schools’ current instructional vision and strategies
for improving student performance. These data were collected through interviews with
district and school site administrators to gain insights on how the instructional vision and
strategies were implemented. Quantitative data, including the schools’ current resource
allocation practices and student achievement were gathered to determine how the
resources are allocated to support the instructional vision and strategies. The collection of
multiple types of data will provide a means for district and school administrators to link
instructional vision/strategies and effective resources allocation practices to improving
student performance.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) for resource allocation was
used as a way to examine how resources are used in the sample schools as compared to
research-based practices that have shown promise in schools in previous studies. This
model was used to analyze the schools’ resource allocation practices based on those
identified in the research as effective strategies, including but not limited to: professional
development, coaching, and support/intervention for struggling students. Because the
goal of allocating resources based on the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
is to double student performance, the comparison with school practices will create a
deeper understanding of how resources are linked to student achievement.
33
Sample and population
This study used a purposeful sample of three comprehensive high schools within
the XYZ Unified School District in Los Angeles County, California that have
demonstrated high student achievement despite serving significant numbers of
socioeconomically-disadvantaged students. The selection of schools from XYZ Unified
School District made it possible to identify resource allocation patterns among the sample
schools making the most improvement compared to other schools in the district making
less progress. This selection method also supported the possibility of revealing uses of
educational resources unique to specific schools within the district.
The XYZ Unified School District currently serves a total of 18,800 students in
grades K-12 with three comprehensive high schools, 13 K-8 schools, and two alternative
education schools. There are approximately 10,300 students enrolled in kindergarten
through eighth grade and 8,500 students in grades nine through twelve. The ethnic
distribution of the school district is the following: 52 percent Asian, 40 percent Hispanic,
4 percent White, and 4 percent other. In individual schools, the Asian, Hispanic, and
White subgroups are considered significant. However, as a whole district, the African
American and Filipino subgroups are considered significant. Of this student population,
approximately 35 percent of the students have been identified as English Learners and 67
percent qualify fir Free Reduced Price meals. Many students have languages other than
English as their primary language, with Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin and Vietnamese
being the most represented.
All selected schools were traditional, public comprehensive high schools
operating a Title 1 schoolwide program. In order to qualify for the schoolwide Title 1
34
program, each school must enroll at least 40 percent of students from poor families
(California Department of Education, 2009). Each sample school served student
populations with over 50 percent qualifying for free or reduced lunch, as well as
demonstrated growth in their Academic Performance Index (API) scores in the past five
years, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. Despite significant numbers of disadvantaged students,
the schools were considered “improving schools” among California schools as each
school made annual API gains school-wide and for each significant subgroup. Under
NCLB, all public schools are charged with meeting performance goals specified by each
state. In California, the goal is for all schools to meet annual targets that lead each school
to an API score of 800. Additionally, across the district and within each of the sample
schools, the student population was predominantly minority students, with Asian and
Hispanic/Latino ethnicities accounting for over 95 percent of the total enrollment.
The selection process began with by downloading API data from the California
Department of Education (CDE) website that included all schools within the school
district. Although the majority of schools within XYZ Unified School District have
demonstrated steady growth in API scores, as well as increases in the numbers of
students qualifying for free and reduced lunches, the schools selected included all the
high schools meeting the selection criteria. Each school had over 50 percent of students
qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch, as well as demonstrated continued growth in API
scores over the past five years.
The school district and sample schools were assigned pseudonyms to honor the
promise of anonymity for each school. Table 3.1 below shows each school’s enrollment,
overall base API from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 school years, along with the percentage
35
of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch. All three sample schools showed
steady increases of students qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch, with Armada High
School making the largest growth with an increase of six percent over the past five school
years. In terms of enrollment, both Armada and San Marcos showed signs of declining
enrollment, while Mark Point increased enrollment by 50 students from 2004 to 2008.
The API of all three schools have shown continued improvement, as they have made
increases each school year as they move closer to 800.
Table 3.1 –Sample School Enrollment, API & Percent Free and Reduced Lunch
Mark Point High School
School Year School Enrollment API Score Percent Free and
Reduced Lunch
2004-2005 2,353 790 57.5
2005-2006 2,466 788 54.9
2006-2007 2,439 784 60.2
2007-2008 2,423 806 61.3
2008-2009 2,401 828 61.6

Armada High School
School Year School Enrollment API Score Percent Free and
Reduced Lunch
2004-2005 3,277 714 60.5
2005-2006 3,336 721 58.5
2006-2007 3,310 708 64.4
2007-2008 3,264 730 66.3
2008-2009 3,218 747 66.5

San Marcos High School
School Year School Enrollment API Score Percent Free and
Reduced Lunch
2004-2005 2,672 678 79.6
2005-2006 2,623 697 79.5
2006-2007 2,557 687 81.6
2007-2008 2,469 722 82.4
2008-2009 2,438 744 83.1

36

Figure 3.1 – API growth of sample schools from 2005 to 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index (API)
MPHS AHS SMHS

Figure 3.2 – Percent Free and Reduced Lunch of sample schools from 2005 to 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Free Reduced Lunch
MPHS AHS SMHS

Instrumentation and data collection
In May 2009, a fieldwork training session conducted by Dr. Lawrence Picus was
held for thematic dissertation students conducting studies on improving student
performance by effectively allocating resources. Dr. Picus trained the group to use
37
protocols and codebooks focusing on data collection, site visit preparation, interviews,
data entry, and data analysis, found in Appendices A, B, and C. The fieldwork training
manual is an adaptation from prior resource allocation studies in Wyoming, Washington
and Arkansas (Picus, et al., 2008). These studies were based on framework to track
school site expenditures with categories including: school/district profiles, contact
information, resource indicators, staffing, professional development, student services,
administration, class sizes, and methodology to determine FTEs (Picus, et al., 2008). The
complete School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators include all elements of
the framework developed be Odden et al. (2003), which are the basis for protocols
developed for this study.
After the training session, dissertation students were responsible for establishing
contact with administrators from sample schools and school districts to obtain consent,
schedule in-person interviews, and obtain relevant school documents necessary to prepare
for the visits. In order to prepare for the interviews, it will be necessary to collect data
including: school/district staffing lists, bell schedules, class sizes, and budget
information.
Both open-ended and close-ended questions were used to address research
questions pertaining to schools’ instructional vision and instructional strategies, school
resources, and resource allocation practices. Qualitative data was collected through open-
ended questions that will allow school administrators to tell the story of how the school is
working to improve student performance. They included the following overarching
questions:
1. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?
38
2. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the resources
been in place?
3. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or bottom
up?
4. What type of instructional leadership was present?
5. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan?
6. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?
Quantitative data was collected through close-ended questions including the following:
1. School Resource Indicators
a. Current school enrollment
b. Number of English Language Learner (ELL) students
c. Number of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL)
d. Number of special education students
e. Total length of school day
f. Length of instructional day
g. Length of core classes
h. AYP
i. API
2. School FTE counts
a. Core academic teachers
b. Specialist and elective teachers
c. Library staff
39
d. Extra help staff
e. Other instructional staff
f. Professional development staff and costs
g. Student services staff
h. Administration
These data served to illicit school improvement strategies that were linked to resource
allocation.
The quantitative data were organized under the guidelines of the common
codebook presented at the training session. The codebook coincides with the web data
entry portal, http://www.lopassociates.com, where all the quantitative data was compiled.
The data entry system is aligned with the expenditure structure model created by Odden,
et al. (2003) that allows examination of how resources are used at the school level to
support instructional strategies. Because the data collection strategy and instrumentation
were similar among the group, comparisons can also be made across the studies of all
group members. Once the data collection process was complete, any missing or unclear
data required follow-up contact with district and school administrators. The data was
checked for accuracy and corrected as needed.
Data Analysis
After data collection and entry were completed, case studies were written for each
sample school using a template provided at the fieldwork training session. The case
studies, found in Appendices D, E, and F, will provide an analysis of the quantitative and
qualitative data collected through administrator interviews and school document review.
The purpose of the case studies is to address the research questions and tell the story of
40
each sample school’s instructional improvement strategies and the resources allocated
during the improvement process.
Each case study will include the following elements:
1. Background on the school and school district
2. Test scores
3. Key elements of the improvement process
4. Themes of the improvement process
5. Comparison of the actual school resource use to the Evidence-Based Model
6. Lessons learned
7. Additional resources necessary to continue and expand efforts
A key component of the case studies will be the identification of similarities, differences,
and trends found at each sample school when compared to the Evidence-Based Model.
Because the Evidence-Based Model identifies research-based best practices to improve
student performance, it is of interest to determine how closely schools align to this model.
Additionally, resource indicators for each sample school were analyzed to find
areas of similarities or differences among the sample schools. Because all sample schools
are considered high-performing schools with significant numbers of disadvantaged
students, it will be of interest to determine how each school’s resource allocation
practices align with the instructional vision and strategies. Equally, because California is
currently undergoing massive budget cuts to education, it will be interesting to see how
district and school site administrators prioritize their expenditures in relation to staffing
and school programs.
41
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine resource allocation practices that result
in improvements in student achievement at sample comprehensive high schools within
the XYZ Unified School District in California in comparison to the resources allocation
strategies recommended by the Evidence-Based model. The results of this study may
provide ways to determine more effective funding strategies in order to obtain desired
academic outcomes. The four research questions guiding the overall study were:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model?
The district
The XYZ Unified School District currently serves a total of 18,800 students in
grades K-12 with three comprehensive high schools, 13 K-8 schools, and two alternative
education schools. There are approximately 10,300 students enrolled in kindergarten
through eighth grade and 8,500 students in grades nine through twelve.
The goals of the executive management team for the 2009-2010 school year
included:
42
1. Increase the number of proficient students in each significant subgroup as
measured by AYP.
2. Support student achievement by aligning resources with student needs while
maintaining at least a three percent reserve for economic uncertainty.
3. Support student achievement by promoting a positive and safe learning
environment ready for and reactive to emergencies.
4. Work collaboratively with colleagues; monitor certificated and classified
staffing; uphold contracts, policies and laws making decisions based on what
is in the best interest of students.
5. Oversee the successful implementation of all elementary and secondary
building projects.
Although these set goals were made in a very centralized manner within the district
office, they were widely accepted, as they reflected the goals and expectations of school
site staff.
The ethnic distribution of the school district is the following: 52 percent Asian, 40
percent Hispanic, 4 percent White, and 4 percent other. In individual schools, the Asian,
Hispanic, and White subgroups are considered significant. However, as a whole district,
the African American and Filipino subgroups are considered significant. Of this student
population, approximately 35 percent of the students have been identified as English
Learners and 67 percent qualify for Free Reduced Price meals. Many students have
languages other than English as their primary language, with Spanish, Cantonese,
Mandarin and Vietnamese being the most represented.
43
Although the district serves students that come primarily from middle class
communities, the percentage of students qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch has
increased with each passing year. This is a result of many immigrant groups that settle in
the surrounding communities, causing it to be a gateway community. From 2004 to 2009,
the number of socioeconomically-disadvantaged students increased by approximately 6
percent. Figure 4.1 shows the increase of students qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch
from 2004 to 2009.
Figure 4.1 – XYZ Unified Percent Free Reduced Lunch 2004 to 2009
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Free and Reduced Lunch

Despite the growing numbers of students qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch,
the student academic performance within the district also increased. Longitudinal data
from the California Department of Education show that the district has increased its API
by 56 points from 2004 to 2009. Under NCLB, the goal for all California schools is to
achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all significant subgroups. Significant
subgroup API data also indicated that the achievement gap between the Asian and
Hispanic subgroup has narrowed by 143 points from 2005 to 2009. Table 4.1 summarizes
44
the whole school and significant subgroup API scores from 2005 to 2009 for students
within the XYZ Unified School District.
Table 4.1 – XYZ Unified API Scores 2005 to 2009 including subgroups
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
2005 to
2009
All Students 748 767 768 783 804 56
African American 669 705 708 710 750 81
Asian 820 840 838 851 871 51
Filipino 771 788 795 834 853 82
Hispanic 652 667 669 690 708 56
White 744 760 766 779 807 63
Low SES 728 746 745 763 784 56
English Learners 741 777 770 758 774 33
Special Education 514 511 525 547 564 50
Asian/Hispanic gap 306 173 169 161 163 143

The greatest API gains were achieved by the Filipino and African American
subgroups with increases of over 80 points from 2005. The White subgroup also made
significant gains with an increase of 63 points over the five years. The English Learners
subgroup has remained stagnant and only produced a net gain of 33 points. Figure 4.2
shows trends in the API scores for all students and subgroups from 1999 to 2009.
Figure 4.2 – XYZ Unified API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index
(API)
All Students African American Asian
Filipino Hispanic White
Low SES English Learners Special Education

45
As a whole, the XYZ Unified School district is considered a high-performing
school district, with 12 of the 13 K-8 schools scoring an API score of 800 or above. One
of the K-8 schools was only one point away from 800. For high schools, the API ranges
from the mid 700s to over 800. Additionally, all schools have met school-wide growth
targets in 2009. However, there were six schools that did not meet the growth target for
all subgroups.
As a district, XYZ Unified has also met all 34 AYP Criteria. A large component
of the AYP score includes CAHSEE data, which indicated that over 80 percent of 10
th

grade students have passed the English portion and 87 percent have passed the Math
portion. Most significant, was the 97 percent pass rate by the Asian subgroup in 2009.
The subgroups that continued to struggle and remain stagnant were the English Learner
and Special Education subgroups. Table 4.2 shows the percentages of students from
various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from
2006 to 2009.
Table 4.2 – XYZ Unified 10
th
Grade CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup 2006 to 2009
English % Passed Math % Passed

2006
n=2,174
2007
n=2,139
2008
n=2,056
2009
n=2,094
2006
n=2,144
2007
n=2,113
2008
n=2,038
2009
n=2,088
All 10
th
Grade 76 75 78 82 83 82 84 87
Asian 80 80 83 86 94 93 96 97
Filipino 68 87 100 88 78 91 100 92
Hispanic 70 66 70 76 66 63 66 73
White 76 77 83 85 74 77 86 85
English Learner 53 51 50 58 78 74 74 78
Low SES 74 72 75 81 83 81 83 87
Special Education 28 22 23 35 33 24 34 34

Overall, there is pattern of improvement in the CAHSEE pass rates. However, the
growth rate has been slow and sometimes stagnant. Individual subgroup data show
various fluctuations in pass rates from 2006 to 2009. In particular, the Hispanic and low
46
socioeconomic status subgroups have experienced unstable growth. Figures 4.3 and 4.4
show patterns of improvement in CAHSEE English and Math pass rates from 2006 to
2009.
Figure 4.3 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0
20
40
60
80
100
2006 n=2,174 2007 n=2,139 2008 n=2,056 2009 n=2,094
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-
English
All 10th Grade Asian Filipino Hispanic
White English Learner Low SES Special Education

Figure 4.4 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0
20
40
60
80
100
2006 n=2,144 2007 n=2,113 2008 n=2,038 2009 n=2,088
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-
Math
All 10th Grade Asian Filipino Hispanic
White English Learner Low SES Special Education

Although AYP Criteria have continued to be met as a district, all the high schools
have not met AYP by missing the subgroup targets for English Learners and Hispanic
students. As a result, the district has focused on various improvement strategies to help its
high schools meet the annual AYP goals to avoid entering Program Improvement status.
Therefore, the push has been for schools to improve student achievement by
47
strengthening core instruction, as well as providing intervention and supports for
struggling students.
In order to establish a plan for improvement, the district has worked with school
sites to implement the RtI
2
Model through Professional Learning Communities. The K-8
schools have been moving in the direction of PLCs, as they have incorporated
collaboration as part of their staff meeting and professional development days. Because
high schools were new to these models, summer meetings before the start of the 2009-
2010 school year took place to guide the schools in creating Pyramid of Interventions to
establish tiers of support for all students. School site administrators and teachers
collaborated over several days and began the initial discussions that led to future school
site efforts.
Sample schools
This study used a purposeful sample of three public comprehensive high schools
within the XYZ Unified School District in Los Angeles County, California that
demonstrated high student achievement despite serving significant numbers of
disadvantaged students. All selected schools are Title 1 schools operating a school-wide
program, with increasing numbers of students qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch year
after year. Each sample school currently serves student populations with over 50 percent
qualifying for free or reduced lunch, as well as demonstrates growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API) scores in the past decade. Details of the sample schools’
improvement efforts are found in case studies in Appendices D, E, and F. Figure 4.5
illustrates the growth trends of students qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch from 1999 to
2009.
48
Figure 4.5 – Percent Free and Reduced Lunch of sample schools from 1999 to 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Free and Reduced Lunch
AHS MPHS SMHS

Despite significant numbers of disadvantaged students, the schools are considered
“improving schools” among California schools with each school making annual school-
wide API gains for the past decade. Figure 4.6 represents the increase of API scores from
1999 to 2009 made by sample schools.
Figure 4.6 – API growth of sample schools from 1999 to 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index (API)
AHS MPHS SMHS

49
Longitudinal data from the California Department of Education show that the
sample schools have steadily increased their API scores over the past decade. The API
score of SMHS has grown by over 200 points from 1999 to 2009, with MPHS following
close behind with a growth of 182 points. AHS has also made a large gain of 138 points
over the past ten years. Under NCLB, the goal for all California schools is to achieve an
API score of 800 for all students and all significant subgroups. Table 4.3 illustrates the
growth of API scores made by sample schools from 1999 to 2009.
Table 4.3 – API growth of sample schools from 1999 to 2009
AHS MPHS SMHS
1999 609 646 542
2000 651 652 568
2001 610 675 568
2002 640 726 600
2003 687 746 629
2004 695 770 651
2005 714 790 678
2006 721 788 697
2007 708 784 687
2008 730 806 722
2009 747 828 744
Change 1999 to 2009 138 182 202

The average enrollment size of the three sample schools was 2,650 students, with
approximately 64.9 percent of their students qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch. Equally,
all sample schools have predominately minority student populations, averaging about
97.9 percent. The Asian and Hispanic subgroups accounted for the majority of the student
population, with enrollment percentages of 57 percent and 36 percent respectively.
Within the Asian subgroup, the majority of the students are Chinese, Vietnamese, and
Southeast Asian. The percentage of English Learner students were also consistent among
the schools, ranging from approximately 23 percent to 28 percent, with the majority of
50
students speaking Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Spanish. Table 4.4 displays
the subgroup characteristics of the sample high schools in the study in the 2009-2010
school year.
Table 4.4 – Characteristics of sample schools in 2009-2010
School Grades Enrollment
%
Disabled
(IEPs)
%
Poverty
(Free/
Reduced
Lunch)
Title I
Funding
%
English
Learner
%
Minority
(non-
White)
%
Asian
%
Hispanic
AHS 9-12 3,100 6.3% 50.8% Yes 25.5% 97.1%
46% 45%
MPHS 9-12 2,410 4% 61.3% Yes 23.1% 97.8%
72.3% 21.5%
SMHS 9-12 2,440 6% 82.7% Yes 27.6% 98.8%
57% 39%

For each of the sample high schools, the length of a typical instructional day is
336 minutes for a six period school day. Each period within the regular school day is 56
minutes long. For students enrolled in zero or seventh period classes, an additional 50
minutes per period are added to the beginning or end of the school day. The instructional
day represents the number of minutes per day that students are present for instruction.
This does not include the 38 minute lunch period and eight minute passing periods. The
total length of the school day for all sample schools, which includes the minutes students
are required to be present at school, is 420 minutes or seven hours. Teachers are required
to be present for the duration of the instructional day. Overall, all schools spend
approximately six hours out of the seven hour school day on instruction.
Academic achievement data of sample schools
A closer look at sample school data indicate that significant subgroups are making
gains in academic progress as measured by CST scores. The dominant ethnic subgroups,
Asian and Hispanic, in all sample schools, have demonstrated steady positive gains in
their API scores from 1999 to 2009. Despite gains in both subgroups, the growth of the
51
Hispanic subgroup has increased at a slower rate than the Asian subgroup. Figures 4.7
and 4.8 show the trends of improvement for the Asian and Hispanic subgroups from 1999
to 2009, respectively.
Figure 4.7 – Sample school API scores of Asian subgroup from 1999 to 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index (API)
AHS MPHS SMHS

Figure 4.8 – Sample school API scores of Hispanic subgroup from 1999 to 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index (API)
AHS MPHS SMHS

From 1999 to 2009, the Asian subgroup from all sample schools increased an
average of 175.3 API points, from 665 to 840.3 points, with SMHS making the most
significant growth by increasing 208 points over ten years. Although SMHS has started
off being the high school with the lowest overall and subgroup API scores, it has made
52
great gains to reach the heels of AHS. AHS and MPHS also continued to show strong
positive growth within the Asian subgroup, following closely with increases of 172 and
146 points respectively, over the past decade. From 1999 to 2009, AHS increased from
685 to 831 points, while MPHS increased from 697 to 869 points. Table 4.5 shows the
positive change in the API scores of the Asian subgroup from 1999 to 2009.
Table 4.5 – Sample school API scores of Asian Subgroup from 1999 to 2009
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
AHS 685 722 699 715 754 767 786 804 799 817 831 146
MPHS 697 704 721 762 787 811 824 825 823 843 869 172
SMHS 613 632 628 670 702 727 740 763 756 796 821 208
Average 665 686 682.7 715.7 747.7 768.3 783.3 797.3 792.7 818.7 840.3 175.3

The Hispanic subgroup has also demonstrated substantial growth in API scores
from 1999 to 2009, with an average increase of 188.7 points, from 474.7 to 663.3 points,
among sample schools. The Hispanic subgroup from MPHS demonstrated the most
significant gains by growing 212 points from 1999 to 2009. Although SMHS has the
lowest API score among the sample schools, it has continued to make strong increases in
its API score with a growth of 195 points. The Hispanic subgroup at AHS has also
demonstrated steady growth, with an increase of 159 points, from 498 to 657 points.
Table 4.6 shows the growth in API scores of the Hispanic subgroup from 1999 to 2009.
Table 4.6 – Sample school API scores of Hispanic Subgroup from 1999 to 2009
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
AHS 498 550 507 551 603 610 630 634 609 635 657 159
MPHS 492 488 529 595 619 641 668 655 656 696 704 212
SMHS 434 473 485 514 526 535 582 594 575 614 629 195
Average 474.7 503.7 507 553.3 582.7 595.3 626.7 627.7 613.3 648.3 663.3 188.7

53
Despite substantial gains made by the significant subgroups at the sample
schools, an achievement gap continues to exist between the Asian and Hispanic
subgroups. The Asian and Hispanic subgroups both increased their API scores by
approximately 175.3 and 188.7 points respectively from 1999 to 2009. However, the
overall API subgroup scores showed that the Asian subgroup continued to score over
approximately 150 points higher than the Hispanic subgroup year after year. All sample
schools struggled with closing the Asian/Hispanic achievement gap, with unsteady trends
of increases and decreases to the gap from1999 to 2009. Figure 4.9 illustrates the
Asian/Hispanic achievement gap as measured by API scores from 1999 to 2009.
Figure 4.9 – Asian/Hispanic API Achievement Gap of sample schools from 1999 to 2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change in Asian/Hispanic Achievement Gap
AHS MPHS SMHS

Although the sample schools did not significantly close the Asian/Hispanic
subgroup achievement gap, both MPHS and AHS were able to decrease the gap by 40
and 13 points respectively from 1999 to 2009. SMHS API subgroup scores reflected
annual fluctuations in the achievement gap between the Asian and Hispanic subgroups.
54
From 1999 to 2001, SMHS was able to close the gap by 36 points, however, from 2001
to 2004, the gap increased substantially by 49 points. Table 4.7 shows the achievement
gap between the Asian and Hispanic subgroup from 1999 to 2009.
Table 4.7 – Asian/Hispanic API Achievement Gap from 1999 to 2009
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
AHS 187 172 192 164 151 157 156 170 190 182 174 -13
MPHS 205 216 192 167 168 170 156 170 167 147 165 -40
SMHS 179 159 143 156 176 192 158 169 181 182 192 13
Average 190.3 182.3 175.7 162.3 165.0 173.0 156.7 169.7 179.3 170.3 177.0 -13.3

Another subgroup that struggled with consistent academic growth was the English
Learner subgroup. Across the schools, approximately 25 percent of the student body was
classified as English Learners, with Mandarin, Cantonese, and Spanish being the
predominant languages. At all the sample schools, the English Learner subgroup showed
gains in API scores from 2005 to 2006, before making steady decreases from 2006 to
2008. Figure 4.10 shows the trends of academic performance of the English Learner
subgroup from 2005 to 2009.
Figure 4.10 – Sample school API scores of English Learner Subgroup from 2005 to 2009
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index (API)
AHS MPHS SMHS

55
Although showing overall stagnant growth in English Learner academic
performance as measured by API scores, SMHS was the only sample school to make a
small gain of 13 points, from 673 to 686 points, from 2005 to 2009. MPHS demonstrated
no net gain in the past five years, while AHS’s English Learner scores fell back by two
points, from 672 to 670 points. All sample schools made significant progress from 2005
to 2006, by increasing API scores from a range of 28 to 66 points.
After 2006, all sample schools showed decreases in English Learner academic
performance as measured by the CST. Possible factors contributing to the trend of
decrease may be the increased numbers of newcomer English Learner students, as well as
those with lower English proficiency levels. Across the sample schools, there were larger
number of students enrolled in the beginner levels of the English Language Development
classes, as opposed to the Intermediate and Advanced levels. There may also be the
possibility that newly-mainstreamed English Learner students have struggled with less-
language-supported classes. Table 4.8 illustrates the change of API scores of the English
Learner subgroup from 2005 to 2009.
Table 4.8 – Sample school API scores of English Learner Subgroup from 2005 to 2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
2005 to
2009
AHS 672 738 709 674 670 -2
MPHS 740 781 758 723 740 0
SMHS 673 701 677 695 686 13

The API scores of the low socioeconomic status subgroup at all sample schools
showed trends of consistent academic improvement from 1999 to 2009. Each sample
schools’ low SES subgroup steadily increased their API scores from the 500 to 600 range
to the 700 to 800 range, signifying improved performance on standardized exams over
56
the time period from 2005 to 2009. Figure 4.11 illustrates the trend of improvement of
API scores exhibited by the low SES subgroup at the three sample schools from 2005 to
2009.
Figure 4.11 – Sample school API scores of Low SES Subgroup from 1999 to 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic Performance Index (API)
AHS MPHS SMHS

Of all the sample schools, the low SES subgroup from SMHS improved its API
score by 208 points from 1999 to 2009. MPHS followed closely by making significant
growth with an improvement of 199 points, from 604 to 803 points, over the past decade.
MPHS improved the most from 2001 to 2002 with an increase of 48 points, from 641 to
689 points, in one year. AHS experienced fluctuations with the academic performance of
the low SES subgroup, however showed a net increase of 158 points, from 582 to 740
points, in the span of ten years. Table 4.9 shows the API scores of the low SES subgroup
of sample schools from 1999 to 2009.
Table 4.9 – Sample school API scores of Low SES Subgroup from 1999 to 2009
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
AHS 582 628 585 615 666 683 705 712 690 722 740 158
MPHS 604 610 641 689 720 738 759 766 753 772 803 199
SMHS 528 555 553 592 623 642 677 691 680 719 736 208

57
Another indicator of academic improvement is the number of students scoring
Advanced or Proficient on the California Standards Test (CST) in English Language Arts
(ELA), Math, Science, and History. In ELA, students are tested in grades 9-11 standards.
In History, students are tested in World History and US History. In Math, students are
tested in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math. In Science,
students are tested in Earth Science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
All sample schools demonstrated trends of positive academic growth, as the
number of students scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST English have steadily
increased from 2003 to 2008. SMHS made the largest growth, with an increase of 17
percent of students reaching proficiency on the CST English. Both MPHS and AHS
experienced similar growth trends of 9 percent from 2003 to 2008. Figure 4.12 shows
trends in the API scores for students who scored Advanced or Proficient on the CST
English from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.12 – Students scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST English from 2003 to
2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
AHS MPHS SMHS

58
Although the CST Math data indicated trends of improvement for sample
schools, all schools experienced periods of stagnant growth. MPHS, the school with the
largest number of students scoring Advanced or Proficient, experienced a period of
decrease from 2003 to 2005, before making the most of its improvement from 2005 to
2008. Both AHS and SMHS showed extended periods of stagnant growth, with minimal
improvements from 2003 to 2008. Figure 4.13 shows trends in the API scores for all
students who scored Advanced or Proficient on the CST Math from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.13 – Students scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST Math from 2003 to
2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
AHS MPHS SMHS

All sample schools showed similar growth trends for students scoring Advanced
or Proficient on the CST Science. Growth of proficiency rates remained stagnant from
2003 to 2006, before making an average growth of nine percent from 2006 to 2007.
MPHS experienced the greatest growth, with the percentage of students scoring
Advanced or Proficient on the CST Science increasing by 23 percent from 2003 to 2008.
AHS experienced stagnant growth from 2003 to 2006, before making more substantial
gains from 2006 to 2008. Overall SMHS demonstrated inconsistent growth, with periods
59
of increase and decrease over the time period. Figure 4.14 shows trends in the API
scores for all students who scored Advanced or Proficient on the CST Science from 2003
to 2008.
Figure 4.14 – Students scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST Science from 2003 to
2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
AHS MPHS SMHS

CST History scores also demonstrate similar growth patterns among the sample
schools. All sample schools experienced periods of decline of an average of 7.7 percent
of students scoring Advanced or Proficient from 2004 to 2006. Despite the rebound from
2006 to 2008, only AHS and SMHS were able to make significant net improvements of
20 percent and 9 percent respectively, from 2003 to 2008. MPHS showed the least
growth, with only a three percent improvement of students scoring at proficiency since
2003. Contributing factors to the decrease in students’ CST History scores from 2004 to
2007 may be attributed to the offering of summer classes in Social Sciences. Students
who have taken 10
th
and 11
th
grade Social Science courses in the summer are still
expected to take the CST exams for their grade level, despite the time gap between the
instruction and assessment. 10
th
grad students are assessed on the World History exam,
while 11
th
grade students are assessed on the U.S. History exam. Summer school students
60
have inadequately retained CA Social Science State standards, which are covered on
the CST. Figure 4.15 shows trends in the API scores for all students who scored
Advanced or Proficient on the CST History from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.15 – Students scoring Advanced or Proficient on the CST History from 2003 to
2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
AHS MPHS SMHS

A look at the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores of the sample
schools indicated that on average, over 80 percent of 10
th
grade students have passed the
exam. Table 4.10 shows the percentages of students from sample schools that have
passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Table 4.10 – Sample school 10
th
Grade CAHSEE pass rates from 2006 to 2009
English % Passed Math % Passed
2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009
AHS 78 74 80 82 82 81 83 86
MPHS 81 79 86 84 95 96 96 97
SMHS 74 68 72 78 69 65 69 73

Despite high overall pass rates, the sample schools have not experienced
significant improvement to their CAHSEE English pass rates. Sample schools have only
improved their pass rates by three to four percent from 2006 to 2009. In the math portion
of the CAHSEE, an average of over 85 percent of students at the sample schools has
61
passed the exam. MPHS had the highest CAHSEE Math pass rate of 97 percent in
2009, while AHS and SMHS followed with 86 percent and 73 percent respectively.
Again, despite high pass rates in CAHSEE Math, the sample schools have demonstrated
overall stagnant growth. Figures 4.16 and 4.17 show patterns of improvement in the
English and Math pass rates on the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Figure 4.16 – Sample school 10
th
Grade CAHSEE English pass rates from 2006 to 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE English
AHS MPHS SMHS

Figure 4.17 – Sample school 10
th
Grade CAHSEE Math pass rates from 2006 to 2009
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE Math
AHS MPHS SMHS

62
Findings by research questions
The next section of this chapter will address the research questions using data
from the sample schools. The first question identifies the instructional vision and
improvement strategies used by the sample schools to improve academic performance.
The second question discusses how resources are used to implement the sample schools’
instructional improvement plans. The third question examines how the allocation and use
of resources changed in response to recent budget reductions. Finally, the last question
addresses sample schools’ resource use patterns in comparison to the Evidence-Based
Model.
Research question #1: What are the current instructional vision and improvement
strategies at the school level?
With support of the district office, each sample school has implemented the
Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model through Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs). Using the RtI
2
Model, district administrators worked with school
site leaders, including site administrators and teachers, to develop a Pyramid of
Interventions. The Pyramid of Interventions each included three tiers. Tier 1 lies at the
base of the pyramid and represents core instruction for the student body. Approximately
80 to 85 percent of the students fall into this category, due to smaller percentages of
students requiring additional intervention and support to meet proficiency. Tier 2
represents the strategic level, which includes approximately 15 percent of the student
body. Despite strong core instruction, these students require additional support and
strategies to achieve proficiency. Tier 3 represents the intensive level, which includes
63
approximately five percent of students. This tier commonly includes Special Education
students and other struggling students who are far below grade level.
Within the created Pyramid of Interventions, each sample school implemented
English and Math intervention classes to support students who are below proficiency.
Two new Tier 2 reading support classes, English I Intensive Reading Support Stretch,
were implemented for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students. A Tier 3 core replacement English
course, EDGE, was also implemented for Special Education students in all grades.
Struggling English Language Arts students are identified for these classes based on CST
scores of Basic or below, as well as low reading lexile levels. In math, computer-based
Algebra and Geometry support program were piloted for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students with
goals of skill recovery, additional practice, and preparation for the CST and CAHSEE.
Students enrolled in these courses were selected on the basis of CST Math scores of
Basic or below.
Following a district mandate to integrate Special Education students in
mainstream classes, the Special Education Department at each sample school has
developed models to support the instruction of students with Individualized Education
Plans (IEPs). The collaborative model of mainstreaming was implemented with RSP
teachers team-teaching with selected regular classroom teachers. Special Education Aides
were also present in both Special Education and General Education classrooms to provide
support to the students. In the 2009-2010 school year, only the 9
th
and 10
th
grade Special
Education students were involved in the inclusion model. With each proceeding year, the
mandate is to include an additional grade until all grades are fully mainstreamed.
64
English Language Arts and Math have continued to be strong points of focus
for all sample schools in their improvement efforts. Each year, the master schedule
reflects the inclusion of English and Math support classes. Reading and math intervention
classes are scheduled for students in addition to their core English and Math classes. All
support classes are instructed by certificated teachers with the subject area. The primary
focus of the curriculum and instructional methods is to help students recover and
remediate skills, as well as support them in demonstrating proficiency on school
assessments and standardized exams. The curriculum and other instructional materials
used in the support classes are all approved by the district and aligned to state standards.
Along with the implementation of new intervention courses, a strong focus was
also placed on strengthening core instruction in core classes. In order to accomplish this,
each sample school worked on facilitating a collaborative culture through PLCs. The
movement toward PLCs began with changes to the bell schedules of all sample schools.
The faculty, staff, and administration of each school independently worked in modifying
their bell schedule to allow time for teacher collaboration once a week. All sample
schools selected Wednesdays as either early-dismissal or late-start days for students in
order to allow time for teachers to meet. Every Wednesday, classes were shortened and
students dismissed approximately 50 minutes early to create time for teachers to work in
collaborative groups. Approximately one collaboration day per month was set aside for
department meetings, while school site administration received a total of four
collaboration days to hold school-wide staff meetings.
During collaboration time, teachers worked on developing common achievement
goals that were aligned to school and district goals. District-mandated benchmark
65
assessment data were also utilized in facilitating pacing and measuring student
academic progress in the core subject areas. Benchmark reports generated from the
district data management system were used to inform instruction, as well as plan for re-
teaching opportunities. In department groups, teachers were expected to meet and set
goals using past and current student achievement data, as well as create action plans.
Core departments engaged in conversations regarding effective teaching practices and
how to support struggling students. All teachers were encouraged to utilize differentiated
instructional strategies in order to meet the needs of all students. Elective departments
also engaged in discussions of how to improve instruction, as well as how to better
support core departments in helping students reach proficiency. Because one of the
sample schools was undergoing the accreditation by the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC), the bulk of collaboration time was used by teachers in
collaborating in focus groups to prepare for the six-year cycle visit.
In all sample schools, the focus on professional development was fundamental to
the success of PLCs. Before the start of the 2009-2010 school year, summer professional
development provided by the district office was used to frontload and guide the teachers
in working in PLCs. The district professional development presented relevant school
achievement data and addressed to all the staff within the district the need to use the RtI
2

model to support students at all levels. At the school site level, sample schools worked
with teacher leaders and professional development committees to present workshops on
goal setting, instructional strategies, and other elements necessary to maintain successful
PLCs.
66
Research question #2: How are resources used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
Because all sample schools are School-wide Title I Programs, categorical funds
have been used to provide targeted intervention services for students who are below
proficiency in English Language Arts and Math. Title I funds have been used to
implement the new Tier 2 support classes in English and Math. Each sample school also
utilized these funds to ensure lower class sizes in intervention classes, allowing a range of
28 to 32 students to be enrolled, instead of the standard 36 students.
Categorical funds have also been used to provide various supports and
interventions at the sample schools. In the 2009-2010 school year, Title I and English
Learner funds have been used to hire certificated hourly positions to support students in
their English Language Arts and Math classes. These positions included an Intervention
Specialist for English and Math, as well as a Core Hourly Support Teacher for English.
Intervention Specialists were used to provide support for Tier 2 students struggling to
reach proficiency, while the Core Hourly Support Teachers were used for Tier 1 students.
During in-class support, the Core Hourly Teachers and Intervention Specialists used
flexible grouping strategies and small groups to provide more personalized support for
struggling students. In the months leading up to the 10
th
grade CAHSEE administration,
the Intervention Specialists were assigned to provide CAHSEE preparation for target
subgroups for both English Language Arts and Math.
Because all sample schools struggled with maintaining growth in the academic
achievement of the English Learner subgroup, the district office utilized English Learner
categorical funds to provide school sites with the Core Hourly Support Teacher. The
67
duties of the Core Hourly Support Teachers were to support primarily English Learner
students in the English Language Development (ELD) program, and mainstream English
Learner students on an as needed basis. Before arriving to the school sites, these teachers
were trained by the district office to identify and support students of varying language
levels.
Categorical funds have also been heavily used to provide teacher planning
committees and focus groups with release time to plan for student intervention and
support purposes at the school-wide, department, or classroom level. Teachers at all
sample schools have used planning time to prepare for departmental writing projects,
align curriculum, develop pacing guides, as well as coordinate school-wide academic
events.
Research question #3: How did the allocation and use of resources change in
response to the recent budget reductions?
In response to recent budget reductions, the school board and district has made
various personnel and program cuts to the sample school sites. Each sample school
experienced reductions to teacher and counselor FTEs allocations, as well as the
termination of all Health, Career Preparation, and CAHSEE support classes. The district
was also taking cost containment measures to protect the General Fund, as well as
various categorical funds, therefore heavily filtering expenditures.
As a result, the schools had to turn to other means in order to provide support and
interventions to struggling students that are not meeting proficiency. The school board
and district approved the hiring of hourly support and intervention teachers, which
included the Intervention Specialists and Core Hourly Support Teachers. Because these
68
teachers worked only five hours per day, the district did not have to provide them with
a contract or benefits. These hourly support and intervention teachers were utilized in
supporting the English Language Arts and Math instructional and intervention strategies
implemented by the sample schools.
The Intervention Specialists provided support to students in class by engaging in
flexible grouping models, as well as giving one-on-one help. Equally important, they
were utilized in providing CAHSEE support to targeted subgroups, as well as students
who scored Basic or below on the English and Math CSTs. Teachers were also able to
recommend students based on class academic performance. In response to supporting
struggling English Learner students, as indicated by API subgroup scores over the past
years, the Core Hourly Teacher focused primarily on students taking English Language
Development classes. The expectations were to further develop English language skills to
improve overall academic performance in the classroom, as well as on the CSTs and
CAHSEE.
Title I categorical funds were also used to provide English and Math intervention
classes for students who are below proficiency in English Language Arts and Math. Two
new Tier 2 reading support classes, as well as a computer-based Math intervention class
for Algebra and Geometry, were implemented in the 2009-2010 school year. All teacher
FTEs, as well as instructional equipment and materials associated with the courses were
funded through Title I.
With reductions in the overall budget and expenditures in the school district,
summer school classes were reduced considerably and the adult schools were scheduled
to close by the end of the school year. Students had few opportunities to recover credits
69
for failed courses, as well as meet the “a-g requirements” set by California State
University and the University of California. Working with the district, all sample schools
turned to online credit recovery courses provided by a local state university. Again, Title
I funds were used to pay for licenses for targeted students to recover credits to meet
graduation and “a-g” requirements.
Additionally, sample schools looked to the California Partnership Academies on
their school sites to fund various programs, including test preparation for the CAHSEE
and other standardized tests. Each academy received state funding as part of grant awards
to fund courses, activities, materials, and human resources to effectively run the academy
on the school site. Written into the budgets were funds to pay certificated teachers the
district hourly rate to provide tutoring for struggling and at-risk students. Academies
funded conferences and release time for their teachers to prepare for academy curriculum
and other events. Although the academies could only fund resources used for academy
students, they were able to cover services for a portion of the student body.
Also due to cost containment at the district level, sample schools found it difficult
to get teacher conferences approved. As a result, the district office began providing
various professional development opportunities for certificated teachers to support the
development of instructional strategies and best practices. The new seminars and
workshops included: Thinking Maps, Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)
Model, and Algebra Seminars. The Thinking Maps and SIOP Model training were
currently geared toward core teachers and especially those that taught EL students. The
Algebra seminars were created to support Algebra teachers in the use of “hands-on”
strategies to better instruct math and help struggling students recover skills.
70
In addition, school administrators were invited to participate in a summer
Principal’s Summit, which involved an in-depth look and analysis of district and school
performance indicators. Each school administrator was guided through a data harvesting
activity to obtain API, AYP, benchmark, and other data to inform instructional and
curricular decisions at the school site level.
Research question #4: How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites
aligned with or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-
Based Model?
In order to address this research question, the actual allocation of staffing and
funding resources for each sample school will be compared to the recommendations of
the Evidence-Based Model. Staffing allocations will be reported in actual totals and Full
Time Equivalencies (FTEs). The recommendations of the Evidence Based Model (EBM)
are based on a prototypical high school with an enrollment of 600 students. Because the
average enrollment across the sample schools is 2,650, the EBM recommendations will
be multiplied by a common factor for each sample school, depending on actual student
enrollment. The following sections will discuss each element of expenditure in
comparison to the EBM.
Core Academic Teachers
The first expenditure, core academic teachers, includes the credentialed classroom
teachers who teach a school’s core academic subjects including: English Language Arts,
Mathematics, Science, Social Science, Foreign Language, Special Education, and English
Language Development. In total, there were 215 core teachers across the sample schools
serving 7,950 students, making the average student to core teacher ratio 36.98 to 1.
71
In contrast, the ratio of students to teachers is much higher than the Evidence
Based Model, which recommends core teachers to be funded at a ratio of 25 students to
one teacher in a prototypical high school of 600 students. This data comparison indicates
that the sample high schools have larger average core class sizes than the EBM suggests.
Table 4.1 shows the number of core and specialist/elective teachers at each sample school
compared to the number of core and specialist/elective teacher allocations recommended
by the Evidence Based Model.
Specialist and Elective Teachers
Specialist and elective teachers consist of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes including, but not limited to the following: Art, Music, Physical Education,
Drama, Technology, Health, Career and Technical Education, and Athletics. At the
sample schools, a total of 51 Specialist and Elective teachers were present. The Evidence
Based Model suggests eight Specialist/Elective teachers for a prototypical school of 600
students, indicating a total of 105.9 FTE teachers recommended for the three sample
schools. This data confirms a large gap between the schools’ actual and suggested
allocation practices. Table 4.11 shows the number of Core and Specialist/Elective
teachers at sample schools compared to the suggestions of the Evidence Based Model.
Table 4.11 – Comparison of Sample Schools and Evidence Based Model Allocations of
Core and Elective/Specialist Teachers (FTEs)
Core Teachers FTE Allocations Elective and Specialist Teacher FTE
Allocations
School EBM School EBM
AHS 84 124 20 41.3
MPHS 60 96.4 16 32.1
SMHS 71 97.5 15 32.5
Total 215 317.9 51 105.9
72
Library Staff
Each of the sample high schools provided one Librarian and one Library
Aide/Technician. At each of the schools, the Librarian is certificated and is credentialed
to instruct Library Media classes. The Library Aide is considered a classified position at
each of the schools, which therefore does not allow for student instruction. The Library
Aide assists the librarian in the daily functions of the library, as well as support students
using the library. The Evidence Based Model provides 1.0 FTE Librarian and 1.0 FTE
Library Aide/Technician for a prototypical high school of 600 students, indicating the
sample schools were below the recommended allocations. The Evidence Based Model
suggests an allocation of 4.3 FTE Librarians and 4.3 Library Aides/Technicians across
the sample schools.
Extra Help Staff
The Extra Help Staff expenditure element includes teachers who support
struggling students, or students with special needs, to access the school’s regular
curriculum. These positions include, but are not limited to: tutors, teachers/aides of
English Learner students, Title I teachers/aides, Special Education/Inclusion teachers,
Resource teachers, and summer school teachers/staff.
All sample schools were given approval by the district and school board to hire
certificated hourly support and intervention teachers. Because these teachers worked only
five hours per day, the district did not have to provide them with a contract or benefits.
These support and intervention teachers were utilized in supporting the English Language
Arts and Math instructional and intervention strategies implemented by the sample
schools.
73
Each of the sample schools had an average of one Intervention Specialist for
English Language Arts, one Intervention Specialist for Math, and one Core Hourly
Support Teacher for English Language Arts. The Intervention Specialists focused mainly
on struggling Tier 2 students, while the Core Hourly Teachers supported Tier 1 English
Learner students taking English Language Development classes. They also provided
additional tutorial sessions during the school day and after school. On a need-basis, one
sample school provided certificated tutorial sessions in English and Social Science.
However, all sample school’s core and elective departments also provided volunteer
tutoring for students.
On average, sample schools funded 2.1 FTE positions to support approximately
300 students at each school site. However, the total number of struggling students at the
sample schools was 5,063, calling for the recommended 50 tutors as suggested by the
EBM. This data indicates that each sample school is far below the suggested allocations
recommended by the EBM to support the instructional needs of struggling students.
To support English Learner students, the three sample schools allocated a total of
14.2 FTE teachers to instruct 2,019 students. The Evidence-Based Model suggests an
additional 1.0 FTE teacher for every 100 English Learner students. Although the sample
schools are slightly below the suggestions of the EBM, they are far closer in this category
than the allocations for students in poverty.
To support Special Education students in an inclusion setting, all the sample
schools implemented a collaborative model of mainstreaming which involved a team-
teaching model. Special Education teachers were to team-teach with selected regular
classroom teachers. Special Education Instructional Aides were also present in both
74
Special Education and General Education classrooms to provide support to the
students. In the 2009-2010 school year, only 9
th
and 10
th
grade students were part of the
inclusion model. However, with each proceeding year the expectation is that an
additional grade will be included until all students are eventually mainstreamed.
On average, the sample schools fund a total of 32 FTE Special Education teachers
and 30 FTE Special Education aides to directly service 438 Special Education students.
The EBM suggests an additional four professional teacher positions for 600 students,
indicating that on average, the sample schools were close to meeting the suggestions of
the EBM.
Professional Development
The professional development expenditure element includes the funds allocated to
staff development and the resources required to support it. This category consists of
instructional facilitators, coaches, trainers, consultants, and other fiscal resources
necessary to support professional development. The Evidence-Based Model recommends
a total of ten days of summer professional development, in addition to $100 per pupil for
other professional development expenses such as trainers, conferences, travel, and other
elements.
Across sample schools, all certificated staff are required to attend two
professional development days during the school year – one during summer and one
during the school year. The certificated staff also has the option to attend a voluntary
professional development session during the school year. In addition, each sample school
is allowed to calendar three minimum days when teachers receive approximately an hour
and a half of in-service on instructional or intervention strategies.
75
Because the district is in cost containment, much of the professional
development funds have been frozen. Each time teachers or administrators request to
attend a conference, the request must be approved by site administrators, district
administrators, and the school board. If conferences or other professional development
activities do get approval, the majority of the funding comes from Title I or other
categorical funds. The school sites and district also depend on the California Partnership
Academies at each of the school sites to fund professional growth opportunities for their
teachers.
Also because of budget reductions, the district has provided its own professional
growth opportunities for certificated teachers in support of the development of
instructional strategies and best practices. The district offered sessions including:
Thinking Maps, Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model, and Algebra
Seminars.
In comparison to the EBM, all sample schools provided seven days less than the
suggested number of professional development days. Additionally, the EBM
recommended an average expenditure of $230,000 to fund professional development
opportunities for certificated staff. This amount is far higher than what the district and
sample schools were able to allocate during the 2009-2010 school year.
The EBM also calls for the allocation of one instructional coach for every 200
students in a prototypical school to support teacher instruction and student learning. Of
the sample schools, only two had part-time instructional coaches to support the English
and Math departments. However, the district has funded several instructional coaches to
support the new English and Math intervention classes, as well as provide Math
76
Seminars. These coaches work at the school sites on a need basis, but spend the
majority of the time at the district level.
Student Services
The Student Support Services expenditure element includes any school-based
support staff including: Guidance counselors, Attendance, Social Workers, Nurse,
Parent/Community Coordinators, Psychologist, Speech Pathologists, and other staff who
provide student support. On average, the sample schools allocated 11.0 FTE positions to
student services, which was well below the suggested 27.5 FTE positions funded by the
EBM.
Administration
The administration expenditure element includes the principal, assistant
principals, other administrators, clerical staff, technology coordinator, security,
custodians, and any other staffing resources related to the administration of the school.
Each sample school provided one full-time principal, and had a range of four to five
assistant principals each. The Evidence-Based Model funds 1.0 FTE principal and 4.0
FTE assistant principals. At the sample schools, there were an average of 5.3 FTE
secretaries and 3.0 FTE clerks to support the school site administrators. The positions
included: principal’s secretary, assistant principals’ secretaries, and Guidance Office
clerks. The EBM suggests 4.3 FTE secretaries and 13.0 FTE clerks, indicating the sample
schools are far below the recommended number of clerical staff. Each sample school also
had 1.0 FTE Plant Manager, who managed the school facilities, as well as 1.0 FTE
Technology Coordinator to manage the schools’ technological needs. These allocations
matched the suggestions of the EBM.
77
Summary of Findings

Through the findings, it is evident that the Evidence Based Model provides for
more resource allocations than the actual allocations found at sample schools. Overall,
the sample schools were closely aligned with the number of school site administrators
found at the schools. However, all sample schools staffed fewer core and elective
teachers, clerical staff, and extra student support staff than suggested by the EBM. Table
4.12 shows the average school-level resource use as compared to the suggestions of the
EBM.
Table 4.12 – Average School-Level Resource Use in Full-Time Equivalencies (FTEs)
Expenditure Element Staffing Category
Average Evidence
Based Model
Resources Generated
for the Schools in the
Sample
Average
Observed
Staffing
in the
Sample
Schools
Administration
Principals 1.00 1.00
Assistant Principals 4.00 4.67
Technology Coordinators 1.00 1.00
Other Administration 0.00 0.00
Secretaries 5.30 4.30
Clerical Staff 3.00 13.0
Core Academic
Teachers
Core Teachers 105.9 71.6
Specialist Staff
Specialist/Elective
Teachers
35.3 17
Librarians 1.0 1.0
Media Specialist 1.0 0.00
Extra Help
Certified Tutors 16.9 4.0
Non-Certified Tutors 0.00 0.00
Special Education
Teachers
17.3 10.67
ELL Teachers 6.73 4.73
Professional
Development
Instructional Facilitators 13.17 2.3
Student Support Pupil Support Staff 27.5 11.0
TOTAL ALL STAFF 204.8 180.6

78
Due to the impact of budget reductions caused by the current California budget
crisis, all school districts and school sites have been forced to make staffing and resource
reductions. Various coordinator positions in the district office, as well as administrative
and teaching positions, have been eliminated. As a result, the resources allocation
findings at the sample schools reflect a trend of downsizing. The projections for future
years also indicate that further trimming of staff and resources will take place. However,
in order maintain a strong core instructional program and provide support for students
struggling to meet proficiency standards, the school district and sample schools have
attempted to allocate resources in strategic ways.
Decision-making
Keeping in mind the executive goals set by the district executive management
team for the 2009-2010 school year and in light of large budget reductions, district
leadership has worked extensively on aligning resources with students needs while
maintaining reserves of funds for future economic uncertainty. The Board and district
management team have enacted cost containment measures and required that all
requisitions for purchases and personnel be accompanied by a rationale, as well as obtain
their approval. Even categorical funds and California Partnership Academy grants to
school site programs required higher approval. Due to these measures, the speed of
transactions has dramatically slowed and schools have learned to plan far ahead for
proposed expenditures.
In terms of allocating resources to school sites, district-level management has
used formulas and enrollment projections to determine the number of FTE teachers to be
assigned to schools. Because budget reductions have resulted in many teacher lay-offs,
79
the district office has compiled seniority lists to determine the shifting of teachers
between school sites to accommodate students’ instructional needs. Each sample school
experienced reductions to teacher and counselor FTEs allocations, as well as the
termination of all Health and Career Preparation classes. In previous years, the district
did not hold schools strictly to having full classes. However, now all had to be enrolled
with 36 students due to teacher FTE reductions.
The recent reduction in staff has also swayed the decision-making process from
the district-level to the school sites. Because cuts in the district office meant cuts to
particular offices and fewer personnel to complete traditionally district-level tasks, it was
becoming increasingly necessary to shift more control and responsibilities to the school
site level. In the summer before the 2009-2010 school year, school site administrators
were trained to harvest and analyze their schools’ data, as a result of downsizing district
personnel that used to perform those tasks. There were also discussions to give more
control to school sites to manage Special Education funds, as various district positions
have been reduced by the Board.
With respect to instruction, the district has worked collaboratively with school site
administrators and teachers to determine the academic support and interventions needed
to improve student academic achievement. Additionally, the necessary resources were
quickly approved and allocated to avoid delays to meeting student needs. The district has
initiated the start of various academic interventions and supports that were aligned with
school sites’ Pyramids of Interventions. New curriculum and resources to support
struggling students in English and Math were approved and purchased with categorical
funds for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year. Additionally, the Board and
80
district management team have approved the allocation of certificated hourly support
and intervention teachers in English and Math to support student needs, especially those
in target subgroups.
Overall, the Board and district management team have felt it to be important to
work collaboratively with the employees of the district. They took special care to ensure
certificated and classified contracts were not compromised, as well as the upholding of
existing policies and laws. However, the power has leaned to the side of the district as
fiscal concerns continued to arise. The district has continued to put forth effort to ensure
that cost-conscious expenditures are made, therefore requiring various levels of approvals
before any money is spent.
District and school relationship
Overall, the relationships between the district and sample schools were positive.
The district had set up structures that allowed for open communication with site
administrators, certificated teachers, and classified employees on a consistent basis.
Principals and the Assistant Principals in charge of the various school offices attended
regularly scheduled meetings to discuss district initiatives, school site concerns, as well
as collaborate over data, curriculum, and most of all issues instructional practices.
The district held quarterly department chair meetings, as well as specific
department chair meetings to disseminate instructional and curricular information. These
meetings also allowed school site department chairs the opportunity to discuss
departmental concerns and work with the district to plan for upcoming endeavors.
Teachers were regularly invited to attend curriculum writing and review sessions to
ensure buy-in and implementation of any new curriculum. Meetings for classified
81
personnel were also scheduled to meet regularly to foster and maintain collaborative
and positive relationships.
The district has also fostered positive relationships with the teacher and classified
employee unions through the establishment of weekly and monthly meetings. The
human resources administrator made it a primary focus to maintain open communication
with the leadership of these unions. By doing so, contract negotiations and grievance
concerns have been handled without many challenges and obstacles. Union leaders often
commented that the open communication between the district and its employees have
played a positive role in the strong relationships established within the school district.
Finally, the district focused on being more connected to school sites through
regularly-scheduled school site visits by the executive management team. Through these
visits, district and school site administrators visit classrooms and calibrate observations to
start discussions on how instruction can be further supported. Although these visits had
sometimes been perceived as the district checking in on school sites, it demonstrated that
the district was equally invested in student achievement. District administrators have also
worked with school department chairs to establish peer observations with the hopes of
improving instruction at the secondary level. Although many department chair
representations were in favor of this initiative, it is not known how teachers will respond.
The relationship between the district and school sites have fostered continued
academic growth, as the schools in the study have shown increases to their API scores
and CAHSEE pass rates, as well as decreases to achievement gap between minority
subgroups. The district has continued to work closely with the school sites in analyzing
data to inform instructional and curricular decisions, as well as handling personnel and
82
budgetary concerns. There is also a strong sense of trust that the district will respond
when schools sites are in need.
83
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This concluding chapter provides an overview and discussion of the resource
allocation practices of sample high schools within a school district in California in
comparison to the resources allocation strategies recommended by the Evidence-Based
model. The purpose of this study is to examine the resource allocation strategies of
improving Southern California high schools in comparison to the Evidence-Based Model.
The findings of this study may provide ways to determine more effective funding
strategies in order to obtain desired academic outcomes. Furthermore, a discussion of the
implications of this study may also provide suggestions for future practice and research.
This study used a mixed methods research approach, where both quantitative and
qualitative methods were used to collect data for the development of case studies for the
sample schools. For each sample school, case studies were written to include the
following data: interviews with school site and district administrators, academic
performance data, and school-level resource allocation. Use of the comparative case
study approach, along with an emphasis on the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) will help inform schools of how their practices compare to research-based practices
that have increased student performance in other states.
All sample schools are comprehensive public high schools within the XYZ
Unified School District in Los Angeles County, California that demonstrated high student
achievement despite serving significant numbers of disadvantaged students. All selected
schools are Title 1 schools operating a school-wide program. Each sample school served
student populations with over 50 percent qualifying for free or reduced lunch, as well as
84
demonstrated growth in their Academic Performance Index (API) scores in the past
decade.
The four research questions that guided the overall study were:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model?
In comparing the resource use patterns of sample schools to the Evidence-Based Model,
it is evident that the schools in the study are largely understaffed by certificated and
classified personnel. The Evidence Based Model provides for more resource allocations
than the actual allocations found at sample schools. Overall, all sample schools made
fewer allocations for core and specialist teachers, clerical staff, and teachers of EL
students.
Instructional Improvement and Intervention Strategies
Data collected at the sample schools showed that various instructional and
intervention strategies were implemented to improve student academic achievement.
Consistent with the objectives of the NCLB reform effort, all sample schools have
focused on meeting annual growth targets as measured by API and AYP scores. All
school districts and sites must meet annual student achievement targets set for all students
85
and demographic subgroups, as well as test participation and graduation rates, in order
to meet requirements. None of the sample schools have ever been in Program
Improvement and have met AYP growth goals until the 2008-2009 school year. In 2008-
2009, the sample schools fell short of meeting all 22 of the AYP Criteria, missing
primarily the English Learner and Hispanic subgroup goals. As a result, a strong focus
was placed on supporting target subgroups to avoid entering Program Improvement
status.
As a response to the needs of the overall student body, the district sought to
implement the RtI
2
Model through PLCs to ensure that all struggling students would
receive necessary interventions. The district worked in conjunction with sample schools
to create a Pyramid of Interventions used to provide students with students various levels
of strategic support. The Pyramid of Interventions included three tiers that focused on
delivering various treatments at different levels. Tier 1 represents core instruction for the
student body. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of the students fall into this category. Tier
2 represents the strategic level, which includes approximately 15 percent of the student
body. Tier 3 represents the intensive level, which includes approximately five percent of
students. This tier commonly includes Special Education students and other struggling
students who are far below grade level.
Sample schools first focused on strengthening core instruction by facilitating the
collaboration process of teachers. The movement toward PLCs began with changes to the
bell schedules of all sample schools to allow for collaboration time once a week. During
this time, teachers met to discuss and analyze school and student data, as well as share
best practices for instruction. Common themes among teachers working in PLCs were:
86
how to work in collaborative groups, goal-setting and follow-through, data analysis,
and working with English Learner students. Work on differentiating curriculum has also
been a main focus of PLCs in order to meet the needs of struggling students. One sample
school also used this time to hold focus groups among school stakeholders in preparation
for an accreditation visit. Additionally, all sample schools utilized collaboration time to
analyze data from the district-mandated benchmark exams to determine instructional
strategies.
In order to serve students who require strategic and intensive interventions, new
English and Math curriculum was implemented in the 2009-2010 school year in all
sample schools. These new classes were designed to support students who struggle to
reach proficiency in the classroom and on standardized tests. Teachers who instructed
these courses also received ongoing support through collaborative sessions held by the
district office. The district also provided instructional coaches to support teachers in the
classroom. However, because these courses are new to the school sites, teachers have
expressed the need for more time to collaborate with teachers from different schools in
the district. Despite the challenges of teaching a new course, teachers who instructed
these intervention courses indicated that students have made progress in skill recovery
and further developed skills in English Language Arts and Math.
Because English Language Arts and Math weigh heavily on high stakes
standardized exams, they have continued to be strong points of focus for all sample
schools in their improvement efforts. Each year, the master schedule includes English and
Math support classes. Students are scheduled into these classes in addition to their core
English and Math classes. Equally important, all support classes are instructed by
87
certificated teachers with the subject area. The primary focus of the curriculum and
instructional methods is to help students recover and remediate skills, as well as support
them in demonstrating proficiency on school assessments and standardized exams. The
curriculum and other instructional materials used in the support classes are all approved
by the district and aligned to state standards.
Through discussions with school site administrators and teachers, the district also
saw a need to provide additional support for struggling students and also those who
belonged to target subgroups. In 2009-2010, school sites were given the approval to hire
certificated hourly support and intervention teachers. These teachers worked five hours
per day and did not require the financial investment of full-time teachers. The role of
these hourly teachers was to provide in-class support, after school tutorial sessions, and
CAHSEE preparation. For in-class sessions, intervention and support teachers worked
closely with teachers to determine the knowledge and skills students must learn in order
to demonstrate proficiency. Common strategies used by the support teachers for English
Language Arts included working in small groups and one-on-on sessions to develop
reading comprehension and writing skills, as well as English Language development. In
Math, common strategies included working with students in small groups to reinforce
standards covered in class, as well as skill recovery sessions during student lunch or after
school.
In all sample schools, professional development was also a high priority in the
successful establishment and maintenance of PLCs. The district and school sites utilized
their contractual professional development days to frontload and guide the teachers in
working in PLCs. Each year, certificated teachers are required to attend two mandatory
88
professional development days – one at the end of summer and one during the school
year. There is an additional voluntary professional development day during the spring
quarter of each school year. Because there are only three opportunities to meet with the
whole staff, administrators and teacher leaders at sample schools have struggled to
maintain consistency in moving school goals and objectives forward.
Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine resource allocation practices of sample
high schools from the same school district in their efforts to improve student academic
achievement. All sample schools were schools that had large populations of students in
poverty, but have already reached an API score of 800 or were making steady
improvements toward 800. Despite consistently improving test scores, all the schools in
the study were unable to meet all 22 of the AYP Criteria in 2008-2009. One school fell
short by missing the English Learner target, while the others missed both the English
Learner and Hispanic targets. The schools have felt that the large increases to the annual
AYP targets from year to year will cause many schools to fall into Program Improvement
Status. As a result, a strong focus was placed on supporting target subgroups to meet
AYP targets and avoid entering Program Improvement status.
In working toward improving student performance, the schools in the study have
engaged in improvement strategies that are supported by research, including various
elements of Odden’s (2007) ten steps for doubling student performance. Odden (2007)
found that schools that have shown dramatic improvement in student achievement have
implemented the following ten steps: (1) conducting a needs assessment, (2) setting
higher goals, (3) adopting a new curricular programs, (4) implementing data-based
89
decision-making, (5) investing in long-term professional development, (6) using school
time more efficiently, (7) employing various extra-help strategies for struggling students,
(8) creating professional learning communities dedicated to improving student
performance, (9) supporting instructional improvement at all levels of leadership, and
(10) utilizing external professional expertise.
As a starting point, the schools began working with the teachers in establishing
Professional Learning Communities. During this effort, the structure of the school day
was modified with the inclusion of collaboration time in the bell schedule. Once a week,
the sample schools had early release or early dismissal days for students to allow time for
teachers to collaborate about instructional strategies, goal setting, data analysis, and other
elements necessary to improve instruction to meet the needs of their students and
especially the target subgroups. Concurrent to the development of Professional Learning
Communities, the RtI
2
Model was also introduced to provide the necessary tiered
supports for all students. New curriculum and courses were implemented, as well as extra
support opportunities in the form of tutorials and one-on-one classroom help.
However, because many elements of the sample schools’ improvement strategies
are new, the district and school site administrators and leaders have started to plan for
long-term staff development and additional support to ensure the successful
implementation of new courses, programs, and extra-help personnel. Because the district
and school sites have faced budget issues, they have not been at the point to be able to
obtain much external professional expertise besides allowing teachers to attend limited
conferences. Table 5.1 summarizes the implementation of improvement strategies made
by sample schools, as proposed by Odden’s (2007) research.
90
Table 5.1 – Elements of improvement strategies implemented by sample schools
Ten steps to doubling student
performance (Odden, 2007)
Implementation of improvement strategies
by sample schools
1. Conducting a needs assessment Schools have not conducted wide-range
needs assessments. Schools have based their
needs on NCLB requirements.
2. Setting higher goals Each year, the district office sets new and
higher goals for school sites. Schools are also
forced to meet higher targets as required by
annual AYP targets.
3. Adopting a new curricular programs New English Language Arts and Math
support and intervention courses have been
implemented. Additional support classes are
also being considered for following school
years.
4. Implementing data-based decision-
making
Data from district-mandated benchmarks and
site common assessments have been
examined to inform decisions. The district is
also in the process of finding a new data
management system.
5. Investing in long-term professional
development
The district and school sites have begun to
plan the scope and sequence of professional
development. Individual sites have also
worked on developing professional
development that is aligned with school
goals.
6. Using school time more efficiently The bell schedule has been modified to
support teacher collaboration once a week.
Administrators and instructional leaders have
been working with teachers to ensure bell-to-
bell instruction.
7. Employing various extra-help
strategies for struggling students
Certificated hourly support and intervention
teachers have been hired to provide in-class
and after school support for struggling
students.
8. Creating professional learning
communities dedicated to improving
student performance
Professional Learning Communities have
been created at all sample schools, however
they are in the beginning stages.
9. Supporting instructional improvement
at all levels of leadership
The district office has provided instructional
guidance for school site administrators.
Teacher leaders have also been fostered at
the site level.
10. Utilizing external professional
expertise
Limited professional expertise is utilized
currently, in light of current budget
reductions.
91

Despite the implementation of new programs, supports and interventions, it was
evident that the sample schools allocated for fewer resources than recommended by the
Evidence-Based Model. Overall, all sample schools staffed fewer core and elective
teachers, clerical staff, and extra student support staff than suggested by the Evidence-
Based Model. Additionally, the overall class size at the sample schools were much higher
than the 25:1 class size ratio suggested by the Evidence-Based Model. All sample schools
have been forced to fill classes up to 36 students for regular core and elective classes due
to overall staff reduction in the district and school sites. However, more relief was
provided for the new intervention support classes, which allowed for class capacities of
28 to 32 students. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the average school-level resource use
compared to the EBM.
Table 5.2 – Average School-Level Resource Use in Full-Time Equivalencies (FTEs)
Expenditure Element Staffing Category
Average Evidence
Based Model
Resources Generated
for the Schools in the
Sample
Averag
e
Observ
ed
Staffin
g in the
Sample
School
s
Administration
Principals 1.00 1.00
Assistant Principals 4.00 4.67
Technology Coordinators 1.00 1.00
Other Administration 0.00 0.00
Secretaries 5.30 4.30
Clerical Staff 3.00 13.0
Core Academic
Teachers
Core Teachers 105.9 71.6
Specialist Staff
Specialist/Elective
Teachers
35.3 17
Librarians 1.0 1.0
Media Specialist 1.0 0.00
92
Table 5.2, Continued
Extra Help
Certified Tutors 16.9 4.0
Non-Certified Tutors 0.00 0.00
Special Education
Teachers
17.3 10.67
ELL Teachers 6.73 4.73
Professional
Development
Instructional Facilitators 13.17 2.3
Student Support Pupil Support Staff 27.5 11.0
TOTAL ALL STAFF 204.8 180.6

The sample schools have focused their energies on strategic choices that have
proven to demonstrate improvement over the past decade. However as the number of
students in poverty and English Learner populations grow, it has been increasingly more
difficult to provide adequate support for all struggling students. Even though intervention
and support programs are in place, they are far too few to support the large numbers of
students in need. The reduced number of teachers and limited extra-help personnel also
contribute to the challenge of improving student achievement.
The current state of the California educational and district budgets simply have
not allowed for the hiring of additional human resources to service struggling students.
However, all schools in this study have looked to Title I and other categorical funds to
provide the new support and intervention programs and personnel. The concern then
becomes the fates of these new programs and personnel when these categorical funds
become depleted. How will schools then support struggling students to improve overall
student achievement?
It has been evident that the XYZ Unified School District has implemented many
of the research based strategies identified in the Evidence-Based Model and has
succeeded in improving its API scores considerably through the years. Moreover, the
93
improvement in the sample schools have happened with fewer resources than the
Evidence-Based Model suggests. Because the school district has found overall success
with implementing instructional strategies with current budget allocations, the biggest
fear lies with impending budget reductions. The result of reducing already thin resources
may make it difficult for the samples schools to sustain the level of progress they have
been making.
It is clear that sample schools have been making consistent progress and that
increased funding would allow for more rapid improvement. However, an examination of
the suggestions made by the Evidence-Based Model will provide allocation strategies that
will benefit schools. Even though the budget is limited, schools may interpret a more
beneficial pattern of allocation from the suggestions of the Evidence-Based Model to
inform decision-making.
Recommendations
In light of the current state of budget reductions across school districts in
California, it is important to consider how resource allocation strategies may impact
student academic achievement. The Evidence-Based Model provides a means for
comparing resource allocation strategies that have been shown to be effective in
improving student achievement. As each sample school works on supporting students to
meet proficiency standards set by NCLB, it is important to consider the following
recommendations:
First, sample schools must increase the number of core and specialist teachers.
Because data trends from the sample schools suggest that the number of students
94
qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch are increasing each year, more students will be
projected to require additional supports and interventions.
Additionally, because sample schools have shown a history of struggling to
support English Learner students, as indicated by API scores, there will be a need to
strengthen core instruction, as well as provide more supports for students within the
school day. Although sample schools currently have hourly certificated teachers
providing in-class support and tutorial sessions, they are not enough to service a growing
number of struggling students.
Equally important, certificated teachers and tutors will require additional
professional development to learn and share best practices for instruction. Also, because
sample schools are in the early stages of implementing the RtI
2
model in PLCs, it is
important that all school staff understand their roles and responsibilities. Working
effectively in collaborative teams will require consistent guidance and monitoring.
Another recommendation is the need for all sample schools to have a stronger
focus on technology. Because all sample schools are placed under similar budget
constraints, the investment into computer hardware, software, and other forms of
technology has been limited. Each sample school has one technology coordinator to
service the entire school that has aging technology. Students also have limited access to
updated computer laboratories to supplement their instruction.
Finally, budget continues to be a main concern at all sample schools. Findings
from this study indicate that there is inadequate funding at the school sites for staff and
resources when compared to the EBM. Because funding is projected to be an issue in the
95
upcoming years, the final recommendation is for districts to give more control to
school sites in deciding how to best allocate resources to improve student achievement.
Implications
Because this study was limited to all high schools within the same school district,
the data were limited to the resource use and improvement strategies specific of a
particular district. In order to obtain more definitive data regarding resource allocation
strategies that result in increased student performance, it would be necessary to study
neighboring school districts, as well as other schools with similar demographics. An
examination of a wider range of data in comparison to the Evidence-Based Model would
further indicate how schools should allocate resources in order to support the growth of
student academic achievement.
However, with the state of the budget crisis in California, school districts and sites
will be forced to meet state academic growth targets with fewer resources with each
passing year. School districts across the nation, and especially those in California, are
faced with impending staff reductions, as well as cuts to school programs. Not only is it
necessary to determine and plan effective resource allocation strategies, it is also
necessary for school districts to begin looking at ways to support student academic
achievement that will incur little or no cost. Schools may choose to focus on
strengthening core instruction by utilizing coaching resources within districts, or even
revising teacher evaluation methods. Another option may be modifying bell schedules to
include support and interventions within the school day to support struggling students.
Whatever the methods, schools will be faced with the challenge of making academic
progress with dwindling resources.
96
The results from this study will contribute to a larger body of research related
to resource allocation and will hopefully support district and school site administrators in
making budgetary and resource allocations in times of fiscal constraint. Legislators or
others who are in the position of power can use this study to inform their decisions on
funding policies to better support K-12 education under the requirements of NCLB. By
better understanding best practices in resource allocation strategies, better decisions can
be made so that teaching and learning will not be sacrificed at the school site level.
97
REFERENCES
California Department of Education (2009)

Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School
Improvement Research Series (SIRS). http://www.nwrel.org/sepd/sirs/4/cu7.html

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dufour, R. & Burnette, B. (2002). Pull negativity out by its roots: Those who grow
healthy school cultures must root out weeds of bad culture. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(3).
http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/burnette233.cfm.

Dufour, R., et al. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning
communities at work. Indiana: Solution Tree.

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

EdSource, (2009). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource (January 2009). School Finance 2008-2009: Fiscal crisis meets political
gridlock. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource. (2007). Keeping California school districts fiscally healthy: Current practices
and ongoing challenges. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource (2006). The basics of California’s school finance system. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.

EdSource. (2006). Proposition 98 guarantees a minimum level of funding for public
schools. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource (2009). School Finance 2008-2009: Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock.

EdSource (September 2008). How California compares

Fillmore, L. W. & Snow, C.E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. U.S.
Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Grubb, W. N., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. A. (2004). The unending search for equity:
California policy, the "improved school finance," and the Williams case. Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2081-2101.

98
Hancock, M. & Lamendola, B. (2005). Learning from urban schools: A leadership
journey. Educational Leadership. 62(1). 74-78.

Hanushek, E. (Ed.). (2006). Courting Failure: How school lawsuits exploit judges’ good
intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Education Next Books.

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the Twentieth-Century Growth in U.S.
School Spending. Journal of Human Resources 32(1), 35–68.

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

Loeb, S., Bryk, A., Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: School finance and
governance in California summary. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm.

Lyman, L. L. & Villani, C. J. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty schools.
Scarecrow Education: Maryland, Toronto, Oxford.

MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: Center
for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins
University. http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report65.pdf

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

Miles, K. (2000). Critical issue: Rethinking the use of educational resources to support
higher student achievement. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

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

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

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

Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y. & Picus, L. (1995), The story of the education dollar: No
academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-168.

Odden, A. (February, 2007). Redesigning school finance systems: Lessons from CPRE
research. (CPRE Policy Brief RB-50)

99
Picus, L., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming following
adequacy-oriented finance reform. Unpublished manuscript.

Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher College Record
109(6) ID Number 12743, Available at
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743.

School Funding Matters (2008).

Stronge, J. H. (2006). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best
practices. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

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

Togneri, W. & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

U.S. Department of Education (2009). Title I – Improving the academic achievement of
the disadvantaged. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html.

Wirt, F.M. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education.
Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Zirkel, P. (2002). Decisions that have shaped U.S. education. Educational Leadership,
59(4), 6-12.
100
APPENDIX A

DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

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

I. School Profile

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

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

II. School Contacts

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

101
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

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

IV. District Contacts

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

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

102
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

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

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is
405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the school
bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing
periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
Appendix A continued

103
lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360
minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped
for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English,
and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students
are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing,
comprehension) Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or “N”
or “NA.”
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers

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

Appendix A continued

104
A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

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

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

VIII. Library Staff

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

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

Appendix A continued

105
IX. Extra Help Staff

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

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

106
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most or
all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special education
with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the
extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school
program (a subset of the following item).
Appendix A continued

107
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

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

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

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

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

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number
of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
For time outside the regular contract day when students are not present before
Appendix A continued

108
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development.
For planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated
as the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers’
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is, and
indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services
staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in
Appendix A continued

109
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

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

XIII. Administration

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

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

110

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

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering
the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at
the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.
111
APPENDIX B

OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL – SCHOOL SITES

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

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

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

1. What has been the content focus of your improvement process?
(e.g., Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement effort?
(e.g., Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (e.g., District recent review for alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(e.g., Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional improvement
process?
• If so, what types of assessments have been key? (e.g., formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of your
reform efforts? (e.g., Individualized instruction, differentiated instruction, 90
minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
• How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?

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

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility? *
2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?*
Appendix B continued

112
3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (e.g., 15 all day K-3 or reading only with 15)*
4. Professional Development: (e.g., Summer Institutes, In-service Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• When are the professional development days scheduled?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, small groups (2-4), or medium groups (3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of times per
week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who
participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number weeks),
Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (e.g., double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology

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

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

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

F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?
113
APPENDIX C
Data Collection Protocol

School Profile
School Name School
Pseudonym

Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

Appendix C continued

114

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

Appendix C continued

115
District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of ELL Students

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

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:
Appendix C continued

116

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained/
Regular Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:

Appendix C continued

117
Specialist and Elective Teachers/
Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:

NOTES:

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:

Appendix C continued

118
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

NOTES:

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

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Appendix C continued

119
Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

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

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

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

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

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

$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

Appendix C continued

120
Professional Development

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

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants

$
Administration

Travel

$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities

$
Tuition & Conference Fees

$
Other Professional Development

$
Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

Student Services

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

NOTES:

Appendix C continued

121

Administration

FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

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

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
122
APPENDIX D

Case Study One:

Mark Point High School: A case study of instructional improvement strategies and
resource use

Mark Point High School (MPHS) is one of three comprehensive public high
schools in the XYZ Unified School District located in Los Angeles County, CA. XYZ
Unified School District currently serves a total of 18,800 students in grades K-12 with
three comprehensive high schools, 13 K-8 schools, and two alternative education schools.
MPHS is the second oldest of the high schools, opening its doors in the mid-1900s to
relieve a sister high school that was experiencing a student population boom. Students
feeding into MPHS come from the K-8 schools within the school district, as well as an
intermediate school in a neighboring city school district.
MPHS provides a total of 64,867 instructional minutes during a school year of
180 days. A regular day includes six instructional periods, however some classes are also
offered in zero and seventh periods. The 2009-2010 bell schedule was modified in
response to faculty input to allow for teacher collaboration time on Wednesdays to
implement the district initiative, Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model
through Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).
The population shift of the surrounding community has affected the student
demographics of MPHS. The population of students at the time of the school opening
was a mix of Caucasian and Mexican-Americans. MPHS currently serves approximately
2,400 students in grades 9-12, with an ethnic distribution of students mirroring that of the
Appendix D continued

123
community: 72.3 percent Asian, 21.5 percent Hispanic, and 6.2 percent other. The
balance of the student body is made up of African Americans and Caucasians.
From a socio-economic perspective, MPHS serves students that come primarily
from middle class communities, however the percentage of students qualifying for free
and reduced price lunch has significantly increased each year. MPHS is a Title I
Schoolwide Program, with 61.3 percent of students at MPHS qualifying for Free and
Reduced Lunch, slightly lower than the district average of 67.8 percent. Furthermore, 25
percent of the students are limited English proficient and 4 percent are in the Special
Education program. The district compares with 34.9 percent and 8.4 percent respectively.
In terms of primary languages in the largest groups in order of numbers of MPHS
students are Cantonese, Mandarin and Spanish. Figure D.1 shows the growth of students
qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch from 1999 to 2009.
Figure D.1 – MPHS Percent Free Reduced Lunch 1999 to 2009
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Free Reducecd Lunch

Appendix D continued

124
Despite increases of students qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch, MPHS has
demonstrated continued academic improvement through the years. Longitudinal data
from the California Department of Education show that MPHS has increased its
Academic Performance Index (API) by 182 points from 1999 to 2009. Under NCLB, the
goal for all California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all
significant subgroups. Significant subgroup API data also indicate that the achievement
gap between the Asian and Hispanic subgroup is narrowing over time, closing the gap by
40 points from 1999 to 2009. Table D.1 summarizes the whole school and significant
subgroup API scores from 1999 to 2009 for MPHS students.
Table D.1 – MPHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
All Students 646 652 675 726 746 770 790 788 784 806 828 +182
Asian 697 704 721 762 787 811 824 825 823 843 869 +172
Hispanic 492 488 529 595 619 641 668 655 656 696 704 +212
Low SES 604 610 641 689 720 738 759 766 753 772 803 +199
English Learners N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 740 781 758 723 740 0
Hisp/Asian Gap 205 216 192 167 168 170 156 170 167 147 165 -40

The greatest API gain was achieved by the Hispanic subgroup, with an increase of 212
points from 1999 to 2009. Following closely are the low SES and Asian subgroups, with
their gains of 199 and 172 points respectively in the past decade. The English Learners
subgroup has remained stagnant between 2005 and 2009, and ultimately has not able to
achieve a net gain. Figure D.2 shows trends in the API scores for all students and
significant subgroups from 1999 to 2009.
Appendix D continued

125
Figure D.2 – MPHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
API Scores
All Students Asian Hispanic Low SES English Learners

While all students and subgroups at MPHS continue to improve API scores, the
similar schools index ratings continue to fluctuate within the past decade. However, the
statewide rank has continued to remain strong at a nine for the past seven years. Table
D.2 shows MPHS’s statewide and similar school rankings from 1999 to 2008.
Table D.2 – MPHS Statewide and Similar School Rankings 1999 to 2008
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide 6 6 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Similar
Schools 4 N/A 2 3 3 7 6 6 4 6

Using API Base reports, schools are ranked in deciles, from one (lowest) to ten (highest).
MPHS’s statewide rank compares it to other schools of the same type in the entire state.
Each decile contains 10 percent of all schools of that type. MPHS’s 2008 statewide rank
of 9 represents the decile where that its API Base falls compared with the Base APIs of
the other schools statewide of the same school type (California Department of Education,
2010). Additionally, schools are ranked when compared to 100 other schools with similar
Appendix D continued

126
demographics. MPHS’s similar school rank of 6 in 2008 represents the decile where
MPHS’s Base API falls compared with the Base APIs of the 100 other similar schools in
the comparison group. The average statewide and similar school rankings indicate that
MPHS is maintaining a strong statewide rank with its annual improvements in API, but
struggles with the similar schools rank.
Another measure that illustrates the positive academic growth of MPHS students
are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core subject areas of
English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table D.3 shows the percent
of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The English Language
Arts scores represent students who scored advanced or proficient in grades 9-11
standards. The History scores represent students who scored advanced or proficient in
World History and US History. The Math scores represent students who scored advanced
or proficient in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math
(grades 9-11 standards). The Science scores represent students who scored advanced or
proficient in Earth Science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
Table D.3 – MPHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient 2003 to 2009
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Change
2003 to
2008
English Language Arts 50 54 53 56 58 59 9
Math 54 53 52 57 60 64 10
Science 35 45 48 48 56 58 23
History 52 52 46 42 45 55 3

The greatest gain in percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient was in the area
of Science, with an increase of 23 percent from 2003 to 2008. Science scores had been
Appendix D continued

127
stagnant from 2003 to 2006 before showing strong growth in 2007. Both English
Language arts and Math demonstrated a steady increase of nine and ten percent
respectively from 2003 to 2008. Percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient in
History showed a dip from 2005 to 2007 before increasing to show a net gain of three
percent. Figure D.3 shows trends in the API scores for all students who scored Advanced
or Proficient on the CST from 2003 to 2008.
Figure D.3 – MPHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
English Language Arts Math Science History

A look at the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at MPHS
shows that students have consistently achieved an approximately 80 percent pass rate on
both the English and Math portions of the exam since 2006. Most current scores for the
English portion showed that 88 percent 10
th
grade students passed. In Math, 94 of the 10
th

Appendix D continued

128
students passed the CAHSEE. Table D.4 shows the percentages of students from various
subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from 2006 to
2009.
Table D.4 – MPHS 10
th
Grade CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup 2006 to 2009
English % Passed Math % Passed

2006
n=619
2007
n=626
2008
n=609
2009
n=601
2006
n=618
2007
n=623
2008
n=611
2009
n=601
All 10th Grade 79 81 81 88 90 87 90 94
Asian 80 84 81 89 94 94 95 98
Hispanic 75 72 79 82 76 66 72 82
English Learner 51 58 44 63 83 77 80 85
Low SES 75 76 74 84 90 85 86 92
Special Education 41 41 29 41 44 32 24 57

The greatest gain in passing the English portion of the CAHSEE have been with
English Learners subgroup, who have increased their pass rate by 12 percent from 2006
to 2009. The low socio-economic status subgroup has also made a nine percent gain in
the English portion of the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009. Despite stagnant growth in the
English portion of the CAHSEE, the Special Education students, who are not a
significant subgroup at MPHS, have shown significant gains in the Math portion by
improving their pass rate by 25 percent. In other subgroups, MPHS students perform
better on the Math portion of the CAHSEE than the English portion, however annual
gains are small, ranging from two to six percent of growth.
The Hispanic subgroup has also shown improvement with increasing the pass rate
by 16 percent in Math from 2006 to 2009. Although the Hispanic subgroup has
demonstrated growth, the rate of improvement remained slower than the Asian subgroup.
As a result, a performance gap persisted between the two subgroups. Other subgroups
have shown minor increases in the percentage of students passing both the English and
Appendix D continued

129
Math portions, but still remain rather stagnant in terms of any significant improvements.
Figures D.4 and D.5 show patterns of improvement in the English and Math passing rates
on the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Figure D.4 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 n=619 2007 n=626 2008 n=609 2009 n=601
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-English
All 10th Grade Asian Hispanic English Learner Low SES Special Education

Figure D.5 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 n=618 2007 n=623 2008 n=611 2009 n=601
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-Math
All 10th Grade Asian Hispanic English Learner Low SES Special Education

The data summarized shows that MPHS has demonstrated overall slow, yet steady
growth in terms of student academic performance. All significant subgroups have made
Appendix D continued

130
gains in API from 1999 to 2009, as well as increase CAHSEE pass rates in both English
and Math. The school as a whole has also increased the percentage of students scoring
Advanced or Proficient on the CST in all tested subject areas from 2003 to 2008.
MPHS has never been in Program Improvement, and has met Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) growth goals until the 2008-2009 school year. In 2009-2009, MPHS met
21 of the 22 AYP Criteria, with only the English Learners subgroup missing the target
proficiency rate of 44.5 percent.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
MPHS has been demonstrating a trend of improvement for the past decade as
each significant subgroup has achieved rising percentages of students scoring at
Proficient or Advanced on the CST. MPHS has increased its 2008-2009 Academic API
score by 22 points to reach 828. API data also indicates that the achievement gap between
the Asian and Hispanic subgroup is narrowing over time. In 2007, the Base API
difference between the subgroups was 167. In 2008, the Base API performance gap
between the Asian and Hispanic subgroups closed by 20 points with a difference of 147.
Despite continued academic growth at MPHS, the annual increase in AYP targets for
English Language Arts have increased at a rate faster than MPHS’s rate of academic
improvement. In 2009, MPHS met 21 of 22 AYP Criteria, only falling short with the
English Learner subgroup. Failure to meet AYP for the next school year may cause
MPHS to enter its first year of Program Improvement.
Working to maintain and advance the academic achievement gains MPHS has
been making for the past decade, as well as supporting the English Learner subgroup in
Appendix D continued

131
making AYP growth targets, the XYZ Unified School District met with school
administration and teachers in the summer of 2009 to work on implementation of the
district-wide initiative, Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model through
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). The next section discusses the steps MPHS
stakeholders are taking to ensure the growth and improvement of student academic
achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Using the RtI
2
Model, MPHS has developed a Pyramid of Interventions which
provides support for students falling into three levels. Tier 1 lies at the base of the
pyramid and represents core instruction for the student body. Approximately 80 to 85
percent of the students fall into this category, due to smaller percentages of students
requiring additional intervention and support to meet proficiency. Tier 2 represents the
strategic level, which includes approximately 15 percent of the student body. Despite
strong core instruction, these students require additional support and strategies to achieve
proficiency. Tier 3 represents the intensive level, which includes approximately five
percent of MPHS students. This tier commonly includes Special Education students and
other struggling students who are far below grade level.
Because MPHS is a School-wide Title I Program, categorical funds have been
used to provide targeted intervention services for students who are below proficiency in
English Language Arts and Math. Two new Tier 2 reading support classes, English I
Intensive Reading Support Stretch, are in place for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students. A third
core replacement English course, EDGE, is also in place for Special Education students
Appendix D continued

132
in all grades. Struggling English Language Arts students are identified for these classes
based on CST scores of Basic or below, as well as low reading lexile levels. In math, a
computer-based Algebra support program is being piloted for 9
th
grade students with
goals of skill recovery, additional practice, and preparation for the CST and CAHSEE.
Class size reduction is in place for these intervention classes, allowing a range of 28 to 32
students to be enrolled, instead of the standard 36.
English Language Arts and Math have continued to be strong points of focus for
MPHS in its improvement efforts. Each year, the master schedule reflects the inclusion of
English and Math support classes. Reading and math intervention classes are scheduled
for students in addition to their core English and Math classes. All support classes are
instructed by certificated teachers with the subject area. The primary focus of the
curriculum and instructional methods is to help students recover and remediate skills, as
well as support them in demonstrating proficiency on school assessments and
standardized exams. The curriculum and other instructional materials used in the support
classes are all approved by the district and aligned to state standards.
With a focus on MPHS’s Tier 3 students, the Special Education Department has
implemented the inclusion model for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students under a district initiative
to mainstream Special Education students. The collaborative model of mainstreaming is
implemented with RSP teachers team-teaching with selected regular classroom teachers.
Special Education Instructional Aides are also present in both Special Education and
General Education classrooms to provide support to the students. SDC students are also
in mainstream classes when appropriate. There are six teachers in Special Education,
Appendix D continued

133
teaching a combination of classes Resource Specialist Program (RSP) and Special Day
Class (SDC). There are two full-time psychologists on campus who facilitate
Individualized Education Plan meetings and coordinates services with the Special
Education teachers as part of their duties.
Intervention Strategies
To support struggling students, MPHS provides a variety of intervention
programs. This year, Title I funds have been used to hire certificated English and Math
Intervention Specialists to support students who are not at proficiency. The two
Intervention Specialists support English and Math teachers throughout the school day by
working with students in small groups, engaging in flexible grouping, as well as
providing one-on-one support for students. Intervention Specialists also provide daily
tutorial during student lunch and twice a week after school. In the months leading up to
the 10
th
grade CAHSEE administration, the Intervention Specialists are assigned to
provide CAHSEE preparation for target subgroups twice a week for both English
Language Arts and Math. The Intervention Specialist positions are five hour certificated
positions with staggered schedules so that students can be supported throughout the
school day and after school.
MPHS also offers structured after school tutorials with certificated classroom
teachers for 9
th
and 10
th
grade English students and 11
th
and 12
th
grade Social Science
students three times a week. Based on academic grades, counselors and teachers refer
students to these tutorial sessions for extra academic assistance, remediation and help
with homework assignments. Students who attend these sessions get small group or one-
Appendix D continued

134
on-one tutoring by the teachers. Certificated teacher tutors are compensated at the school
district’s hourly rate using categorical funding.
Students are also provided with additional tutorial opportunities through sessions
operated by certificated teachers from the ELD, English, Social Science, and Math
Departments. Individual teachers also provide extra tutoring sessions before, after, and
during the school day. Students voluntarily attend sessions or set up appointment with
teachers to get help with school work, projects, or upcoming exams. Additionally,
students also have the option to attend after school study hall in the student cafeteria,
which is supervised by certificated personnel. The goal of study hall is to provide a quiet
place for students to complete class assignments with the option of seeking help from
certificated teachers.
In order to better support beginning English Learners and newcomers, MPHS is
offering targeted tutorial sessions for Sheltered English Instruction (SEI) students three
times a week. These sessions are instructed by two certificated teachers in the English
Learner Department. Two days are dedicated to supporting 10
th
grade students in
preparation for the CAHSEE and one day is used for general tutorial for all SEI students.
During these tutorial sessions, the teachers work with students on the writing process,
reading comprehension, and conversation skills.
Other academic support comes from the three California Partnership Academies
on the MPHS campus. Each academy receives state funding as part of grant awards to
fund courses, activities, materials, and human resources to effectively run the academy on
the school site. Written into the budgets are funds to pay certificated teachers the district
Appendix D continued

135
hourly rate to supervise an online CAHSEE preparation program twice a week. The
academies are currently using the 100 licenses they have purchased to prepare their
students for the March 2010 CAHSEE. Additionally, one academy has set up SAT
preparation courses once a week to support 11
th
grade students in preparation for the
upcoming exams.
Finally, students also have opportunities to make-up course credits to meet
graduation requirements. Although there are limitations of class offerings due to budget
constraints, students are able to enroll in summer school or adult school to recover
credits. A majority of students who attend summer school are taking courses they have
previously failed. Other students take courses through a foundation that supports the
XYZ Unified School District for enrichment. This year, the school district is looking to
contract with California State University, Fullerton, to provide online credit recovery
options for 12
th
grade students.
Collaboration
In order to facilitate the move toward PLCs, the 2009-2010 bell schedule was
modified to allow for teacher collaboration time once a week during the school day.
Every Wednesday, classes are shortened and students are dismissed approximately 50
minutes early to create time for teachers to work in collaborative groups. Approximately
one Wednesday per month is set aside for department meetings, which allows for the
discussion of non-instructional departmental business. During collaboration time,
teachers work on developing common achievement goals that are aligned to school and
district goals.
Appendix D continued

136
Before the start of the 2009-2010 school year, summer professional development
time was used to frontload and guide the teachers in working in PLCs. The district
professional development presented relevant school achievement data and addressed to
all the staff within the district the need to use the RtI
2
model to support students at all
levels. These expectations were also fundamental to the work to be completed at the
school sites. MPHS’s professional development committee collaborated and presented
workshops including: goal setting, gradual release of responsibility on the parts of
students and teachers, using protocols, and instructional strategies. Because of the wide
spectrum of teaching experiences at MPHS, the workshops were helpful for some
teachers and repetitive for others. However, the basic understanding of how PLCs work
was established.
Because the presence of collaboration time within the school day is new to
MPHS, school administration and department chairpersons agreed that collaboration
would first start within departments with hopes of moving into cross-departmental
collaboration. In order to document the collaborative process and hold staff accountable
for the time, each collaborative group had to complete a collaboration report. The
collaboration report documents the goals, action steps, and outcomes of collaborative
work.
Each department at MPHS proceeded to meet and set goals using past and current
student achievement data, as well as create action plans. Core departments have engaged
in conversations regarding effective teaching practices and how to support struggling
students. All teachers are encouraged to utilize differentiated instructional strategies in
Appendix D continued

137
order to meet the needs of all students. However, the varying skills and experience levels
of teachers at MPHS presents challenges. Elective departments have also engaged in
discussions of how to improve instruction, as well as how to better support core
departments in helping students reach proficiency.
The district has also continued to provide support for teachers through the use of
benchmark assessments and the data management system. Department chairs and
teachers across secondary school sites have had opportunities to work together to create
pacing guides, as well as formative and summative assessments. The use of the data
management system is encouraged to target struggling students, as well as inform
teachers on instructional and re-teaching strategies.
The PLC process is progressing slowly, but has positively influenced student
achievement and interventions for struggling students. Struggling students are now
identified more quickly and are referred to varied levels of intervention and support.
Teachers now have structured opportunities to collaborate on how to best support these
struggling students, as well as share instructional strategies. Overall, discussions over
common assessments, classroom management, and other areas of curriculum and
instruction have increased. Despite positive responses to collaboration, it remains a new
aspect of MPHS and continues to take shape each day. The district office continues to
support all the school sites through professional development opportunities and coaching
by district instructional specialists.
Appendix D continued

138
Professional Development
Because structured collaboration time is new to high schools in the district,
meetings involving district and school administrators, as well as teacher representatives
were held to establish the framework and logistics. Participants were asked to revisit and
dissect the district mission statement in order to discuss what steps need happen to
provide a high quality learning experience for students. The goal for all schools is to offer
a comprehensive academic program that will prepare them for post-secondary endeavors.
In addition, school administrators also participated in a summer Principal’s Summit,
which involved an in-depth look and analysis of district and school performance
indicators. Each school administrator was guided through a data harvesting activity to
obtain API, AYP, benchmark, and other data to inform instructional and curricular
decisions at the school site level.
A focus on supporting students to reach proficiency on the CAHSEE and CST has
driven the district to provide professional development on instructional strategies and
best practices for classroom teachers. New seminars and workshops have been developed
and funded for teachers including: Thinking Maps, Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) Model, and Algebra Seminars. The Thinking Maps and SIOP Model
training are currently geared toward core teachers and especially those that teach EL
students. The Algebra seminars were created to support Algebra teachers in the use
manipulatives and other “hands-on” strategies to better instruct math and help struggling
students recover skills.
Appendix D continued

139
Training for newly implemented courses, such as Reading and Math Support, is
also provided for teachers. The district office has assigned instructional specialists to
provide coaching and collaboration opportunities for teachers across all secondary school
sites. Teachers who have participated in these sessions have found it helpful and
appreciate the support of the instructional specialists. Due to this being the
implementation year, new challenges have arisen regarding classroom logistics,
transitions, monitoring, and elements of the curriculum. These are issues the groups of
teachers continue to work on during collaborative meeting sessions.
Professional development, in the form of three buy-back days, is also provided at
the school site. Two of the buy-back days are voluntary and one is mandatory. The first
buy-back day takes place before the start of the school year and is an opportunity for the
superintendent and other district administrators to review district goals, expectations, and
relevant data for school teachers and staff. The other two buy-back days occur at the
school site level. The agenda and content for these days are generated by the professional
development committee and includes topics related to PLCs, collaboration, and how to
support struggling students.
MPHS does not currently have instructional coaches that work with its teachers,
although the district office houses a team of instructional specialists working with Math,
English, and EL Departments. The district instructional specialists are assigned to various
projects and are called to the school sites on a need basis. They are able to collaborate
with teachers and serve as an additional element of support other than administrative
instructional leaders.
Appendix D continued

140
Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement at MPHS have been increasing since school
boundary changes were made prior to the 1995-1996 school year. The Parent Teacher
Student Association (PTSA) has grown in size and its participation with the school has
increased annually. The PTSA supports the school by funding teacher projects, student
programs, and school activities through fundraising efforts. The principal meets with the
PTSA monthly to share current school news, as well as discuss any concerns posed by the
group.
Additionally, the parents, community, and staff have established an alliance
organization, which has a mission to improve the learning and operating environment at
MPHS. There is also an active school site council (SSC), which meets a minimum of four
times per year to approve the Title I program and budget allocation. General School
Advisory Council and English Learner Advisory Council meetings inform parents of the
programs’ services available to the students and them, along with student achievement
data.
Partnerships have also been formed with community groups and organizations
which have led to the development of parent workshops. For four years parent programs
provide educational in-services that help parents to better understand and work with their
students at home and better understand the educational opportunities available to their
children and themselves. Additionally, MPHS and its sister schools have coordinated a
program called the Parent Academy, which recruits and teaches minority parents how to
Appendix D continued

141
get involved with their child’s academic life and how to utilize resources within the
community.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) for resource allocation will be
used as a way to examine how resources are used in the sample schools as compared to
research-based practices that have shown promise in schools in previous studies. Table
D.5 provides a comparison of the resource use at MPHS to the prototypical school
supported by the Evidence Based Model. The fourth column shows the difference
between the Evidence Based Model and MPHS resource use and indicates how the
Evidence Based model would staff a school of 2,410 students with the characteristics and
demographics of MPHS.
Table D.5 – MPHS and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Mark Point HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
MPHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
Enrollment 600 2,410 4 times bigger
Class Size 25 28
3 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
180, including 3 in-
service days
7 less in-
service days,
20 less school
days
Number students with
disabilities
97 (4%)
Number poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
1,477 (61.3%)
Number English Learner 557 (23.1%)
Minority students 97.8% percent
Appendix D continued

142
Table D.5, Continued
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 60
EBM suggests
96.4 for 2,410
students
2. Specialist Teachers 8 per 600 students 16
EBM suggests
32.1
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
2
EBM suggests
12
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students

3
EBM suggests
14.8
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
3.2
EBM suggests
5.6
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

0
EBM suggests
19.7 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School 0
EBM suggests
19.7 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
6 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers and 5
aides
EBM suggests
16 teachers for
2,410 students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2 FTE teachers and
3 aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$2,853.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$10,675
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled

0 N/A

Appendix D continued

143
Lessons Learned
MPHS is demonstrating a trend of positive academic growth, but the question of
whether it is growing fast enough remains a question. Although the school continues to
improve its API standing year after year, AYP targets have presented a critical challenge
– the need to better support EL students. However, with the district initiative to move
toward PLCs and to implement the RtI
2
Model, the each school site within the district is
expected to make curricular and instructional changes to support all students.
Although the movement toward the formation of PLCs was introduced by the
district, it was also widely supported by the administrators at each high school. Teachers
had also expressed the need for increased collaboration through the years and sought to
make a change in the bell schedule to accommodate this desire. There is strong support at
the district and school site level for developing PLCs, but because this is such a new
initiative, the staff is moving slowly in building knowledge and skills and is gradually
working to change their instructional and assessment practices.
In order to create time for teacher collaboration within PLCs, the 2009-2010 bell
schedule was modified. Every Wednesday, instructional periods are shortened and
students are dismissed earlier to allow time for teachers to collaborate. The school
administration is allowed four of these Wednesdays to hold staff meetings. Additionally,
one Wednesday per month is allowed for department meetings. During the weekly
collaboration opportunities, teachers are able to use school and student data to inform
goal setting, share best practices and instructional strategies, develop formative and
summative assessments, as well as align and develop new curriculum.
Appendix D continued

144
The introduction of new curriculum and support personnel were also key to
MPHS’s efforts to provide support for struggling students. This school year, Title I funds
were used to start two new Reading Support classes, one English core replacement class,
and one Algebra support class. Students are referred to these classes based on CST scores
of Basic or below, lexile levels below grade level, as well as recommendations by
teachers and counselors. The goal of these classes is to bring struggling students to meet
proficiency. Class size reduction is in place for these support classes, allowing enrollment
caps of 28 to 32, as opposed to the contract standard of 36 students per class. In addition,
Title I funds have also been used provide extra supports are provided for struggling
students. Intervention Specialists for English and Math have been hired to support
students in tutorial sessions during lunchtime and after school. They also hold CAHSEE
preparation sessions after school for students scoring Basic or below on the English and
Math CST. As supported by the RtI
2
Model, MPHS has made great efforts to ensure
struggling students are provided with interventions and supports to meet proficiency
standards.
Although the move toward PLCs has been positive, the transition is not without
challenges. Due to the varying knowledge, skills, and experience levels of teachers,
effective collaboration and implementation of best practices are only slowly occurring
through the school site. Professional development before the start of the school year was
provided to inform teachers of best practices in looking at student data, goal setting,
instructional strategies, and overall collaborative practices. With this training, teachers
are beginning to make slow progress on differentiating instruction. They are beginning to
Appendix D continued

145
deviate from the traditional lecture-style instructional methods and engage students in
collaborative and project-based learning. Observations by administration have also
stressed the importance of providing ample guided practice for students before moving
them to individual practice. Equally significant, teachers are beginning to develop lessons
that support a collaborative environment. Teachers in the English and Social Science
departments have worked together to create cross-curricular projects and assignments for
students.
Using data to drive instruction is another area of improvement for MPHS.
Because there exists collaboration time within the school day, teachers now have the time
to review student work and other relevant data to inform instruction. CST, CAHSEE, and
language proficiency scores have been provided for teachers to support them in
personalizing and targeting instruction. Benchmark exams are also administered and
analyzed quarterly to provide information on student achievement. Although these
various types of data is accessible, teachers are only slowly beginning to use them to
inform instruction. They continue to rely on traditional formative and summative
assessments to modify instruction and support for students. However, teachers of the
English and Math support classes continue to monitor student growth using several
structured formative assessment throughout the quarter and semester. Additionally, the
English department has also been working on common writing rubrics and prompts.
Future Implications
Due of the uncertainty of the district’s budget as a result of California’s financial
crisis, funding for the new courses and academic support and intervention personnel may
Appendix D continued

146
be affected in future years. Currently, MPHS is using categorical funding to offer
Reading and Math support classes, as well as fund additional human resources to support
struggling students. Consistent funding would be necessary to further develop
intervention strategies for struggling students and improve student achievement. Equally
important, because PLCs are new to MPHS, more focused and effective professional
development to support the varying skill and experience levels of teachers is necessary to
successfully operate within PLCs.
147
APPENDIX E

Case Study Two:

Armada High School: A case study of instructional improvement strategies and
resource use

Armada High School (AHS) is one of three comprehensive public high schools in
the XYZ Unified School District located in Los Angeles County, CA. XYZ Unified
School District currently serves a total of 18,800 students in grades K-12 with three
comprehensive high schools, 13 K-8 schools, and two alternative education schools. AHS
is the oldest and largest of the three comprehensive high schools, opening its doors in
1898. Students feeding into AHS come from the K-8 schools within the school district,
as well as an intermediate school in a neighboring city school district.
AHS provides a total of 64,867 instructional minutes during a traditional school
year of 180 days. A regular day includes six instructional periods, however some classes
are also offered in zero and seventh periods. The 2009-2010 bell schedule was modified
in response to faculty input to allow for teacher collaboration time on Wednesdays to
implement the district initiative, Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model
through Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).
AHS currently serves approximately 3,100 students in grades 9-12, with an ethnic
distribution of students mirroring that of the community: 46 percent Asian, 45 percent
Hispanic, and 8 percent other. The balance of the student body is made up of African
Americans and Caucasians. Of this student population, approximately 24.6 percent of the
students have been identified as English Learners (EL). Many students have languages
Appendix E continued

148
other than English as their primary language, with Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin and
Vietnamese being the most represented.
Although AHS serves students that come primarily from middle class
communities, the percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced price lunch has
increased by 7.4 percent over the past decade. AHS is a Title I Schoolwide Program, with
66.5 percent of students at AHS qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch, very close to the
district average of 67.8 percent. Figure E.1 shows the increase of students qualifying for
Free Reduced Lunch from 1999 to 2009.
Figure E.1 – AHS Percent Free Reduced Lunch 1999 to 2009
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Free and Reduced Lunch

Despite increases of students qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch, AHS has
demonstrated continued academic improvement through the years. Longitudinal data
from the California Department of Education show that AHS has increased its Academic
Performance Index (API) by 138 points from 1999 to 2009. Under NCLB, the goal for all
California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all significant
subgroups. Although significant subgroup API data indicates that the achievement gap
Appendix E continued

149
between the Asian and Hispanic subgroup has narrowed by 13 points since 1999, it can
not be considered a steady trend. The gap between the Asian and Hispanic subgroup has
widened and narrowed through the past decade, sometimes decreasing by as many as 28
points in a year to increasing by 20 points. Table E.1 summarizes the whole school and
significant subgroup API scores from 1999 to 2009 for AHS students.
Table E.1 – AHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
All Students 609 651 610 640 687 695 714 721 708 730 747 138
Asian 685 722 699 715 754 767 786 804 799 817 831 146
Hispanic 498 550 507 551 603 610 630 634 609 635 657 159
Low SES 633 658 590 647 690 682 718 685 685 N/A N/A 52
English Learners 582 628 585 615 666 683 705 712 690 722 740 158
Special Education N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 490 433 408 444 463 -2
Hisp/Asian Gap 187 172 192 164 151 157 156 170 190 182 174 -13

The greatest API gains were achieved by the Hispanic and EL subgroups, with
increases of 159 and 58 points, respectively, from 1999 to 2009. The Asian subgroup also
demonstrated strong growth by increasing 138 points over the past decade. The low
socioeconomic subgroup has remained stagnant, with small increases and decreases
throughout the years. The students with disabilities subgroup did not demonstrate gains,
as it decreased by two points from 2005 to 2009. Figure E.2 shows trends in the API
scores for all students and significant subgroups from 1999 to 2009.
Appendix E continued

150
Figure E.2 – AHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
API Scores
All Students Asian Hispanic
White Low SES English Learners
Students with Disabilities

While all students and subgroups at AHS continue to improve API scores, the
statewide and similar schools index ratings both continue to remain stagnant from 1999
to 2008. AHS’s statewide has only fluctuated around ranks between 5 and 7. The similar
schools ranking continues to remain at a 2 or 3 from 2004 to 2008. Table E.2 shows
AHS’s statewide and similar school rankings from 1999 to 2008.
Table E.2 – AHS Statewide and Similar School Rankings 1999 to 2008
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide 5 6 5 5 7 7 7 6 6 6
Similar
Schools 3 N/A 3 7 5 2 3 3 2 2

Using API Base reports, schools are ranked in deciles, from one (lowest) to ten (highest).
AHS’s statewide rank compares it to other schools of the same type in the entire state.
Each decile contains 10 percent of all schools of that type. AHS’s 2008 statewide rank of
6 represents the decile where that its API Base falls compared with the Base APIs of the
other schools statewide of the same school type (California Department of Education,
2010). Additionally, schools are ranked when compared to 100 other schools with similar
Appendix E continued

151
demographics. AHS’s similar school rank of 2 in 2008 represents the decile where AHS’s
Base API falls compared with the Base APIs of the 100 other similar schools in the
comparison group. The average statewide and similar school rankings indicate that AHS
is maintaining a strong statewide rank with its annual improvements in API, but struggles
with the similar schools rank.
Another measure that illustrates the gradual positive academic growth of AHS
students are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core subject areas of
English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table E.3 shows the percent
of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The English Language
Arts scores represent students who scored advanced or proficient in grades 9-11
standards. The History scores represent students who scored advanced or proficient in
World History and US History. The Math scores represent students who scored advanced
or proficient in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math
(grades 9-11 standards). The Science scores represent students who scored advanced or
proficient in Earth Science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
Table E.3 – AHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient 2003 to 2009
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Change
2003 to
2008
English Language Arts 40 41 44 43 45 49 9
Math 35 35 38 35 37 38 3
Science 28 32 31 31 38 40 12
History 35 39 35 30 38 50 15

The greatest gain in percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient was in the area
of History, with an increase of 15 percent from 2003 to 2008. Math scores have been
Appendix E continued

152
relatively stagnant from 2003 to 2008, only showing gains of three percent. English
Language Arts has also shown slow growth, only increasing by nine points over the past
five years. Both Science and History demonstrated steady increases of 12 and 15 percent
respectively from 2003 to 2008. Percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient in
History made a significant increase of 12 percent from 2007 to 2008, recovering from
fluctuating scores from 2003 to 2007. Figure E.3 shows trends in the API scores for all
students who scored Advanced or Proficient on the CST from 2003 to 2008.
Figure E.3 – AHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
English Language Arts Math Science History

A look at the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at AHS shows
that students have consistently achieved increasing pass rates from 2006 to 2009. English
Language Arts pass rates have increased by nine percent and Math by four percent since
Appendix E continued

153
2006. In 2009, 88 percent of students passed the English Language Arts portion, and 94
percent passed the Math section. Table E.4 shows the percentages of students from
various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from
2006 to 2009.
Table E.4 – AHS 10
th
Grade CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup 2006 to 2009
English % Passed Math % Passed

2006
n=816
2007
n=851
2008
n=810
2009
n=800
2006
n=814
2007
n=849
2008
n=808
2009
n=798
All 10th Grade 78 74 80 82 82 81 83 86
Asian 81 79 86 84 95 96 96 97
Hispanic 74 68 72 78 69 65 69 73
White 79 79 86 87 76 81 86 87
English Learner 60 51 59 60 78 75 76 79
Low SES 77 72 78 81 82 80 83 87
Special Education 23 15 21 32 28 18 33 25

The greatest gain in passing the English portion of the CAHSEE have been with
English Learners subgroup, who have increased their pass rate by 12 percent from 2006
to 2009. The Asian and low socioeconomic subgroups have also demonstrated significant
improvement by both increasing English pass rates by nine percent from 2006 to 2009.
The students with disabilities subgroup remained stagnant with no net change from 2006
to 2009, although showing a large decline of 12 percent from 2007 to 2008 and a
recovery from 2008 to 2009.
In the Math portion of the CAHSEE, the Special Education students have shown
significant gains by improving their pass rate by 13 percent. The White subgroup has also
shown improvement with increasing the pass rate by 11 percent in Math from 2006 to
2009. Other subgroups have shown minor increases in the percentage of students passing
both the English and Math portions, but still remain rather stagnant in terms of any
Appendix E continued

154
significant improvements. Figures E.4 and E.5 show patterns of improvement in the
English and Math passing rates on the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Figure E.4 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 n=816 2007 n=851 2008 n=810 2009 n=800
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-English
All 10th Grade Asian Hispanic White
English Learner Low SES Special Education

Figure E.5 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2006 n=814 2007 n=849 2008 n=808 2009 n=798
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-Math
All 10th Grade Asian Hispanic White
English Learner Low SES Special Education

The data summarized shows that AHS has demonstrated overall slow, yet steady
growth in terms of student academic performance. Most significant subgroups have made
gains in API from 1999 to 2009, as well as increase CAHSEE pass rates in both English
Appendix E continued

155
and Math. The school as a whole has also increased the percentage of students scoring
Advanced or Proficient on the CST in all tested subject areas from 2003 to 2008. AHS
has never been in Program Improvement, and has met Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
growth goals until the 2008-2009 school year. In 2009-2009, AHS met 20 of the 22 AYP
Criteria, with only the Hispanic and English Learners subgroup missing the target
proficiency rate of 44.5%.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
AHS has been demonstrating a trend of improvement for the past decade as each
significant subgroup has achieved rising percentages of students scoring at Proficient or
Advanced on the CST. AHS has increased its 2008-2009 Academic API score by 17
points to reach 747. API data also indicates that the achievement gap between the Asian
and Hispanic subgroup is narrowing over time. In 2008, the Base API difference between
the subgroups was 182. In 2008, the Base API performance gap between the Asian and
Hispanic subgroups closed by 8 points with a difference of 174. Despite continued
academic growth over the years, AHS did not make the AYP targets the 2008-2009
school year. In 2009, AHS met 20 of 22 AYP Criteria, only falling short with the
Hispanic and English Learner subgroups. Failure to meet AYP for the next school year
may cause AHS to enter its first year of Program Improvement.
Working to maintain and advance the academic achievement gains AHS has been
making for the past decade, as well as supporting the Hispanic and English Learner
subgroups in making AYP growth targets, the XYZ Unified School District met with
school administration and teachers in the summer of 2009 to work on implementation of
Appendix E continued

156
the district-wide initiative, Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model through
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). The next section discusses the steps AHS
stakeholders are taking to ensure the growth and improvement of student academic
achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Using the RtI
2
Model, AHS has developed a Pyramid of Interventions which
provides support for students falling into three levels. Tier 1 lies at the base of the
pyramid and represents core instruction for the student body. Approximately 80 to 85
percent of the students fall into this category, due to smaller percentages of students
requiring additional intervention and support to meet proficiency. Tier 2 represents the
strategic level, which includes approximately 15 percent of the student body. Despite
strong core instruction, these students require additional support and strategies to achieve
proficiency. Tier 3 represents the intensive level, which includes approximately five
percent of AHS students. This tier commonly includes Special Education students and
other struggling students who are far below grade level.
Because AHS is a School-wide Title I Program, categorical funds have been used
to provide targeted intervention services for students who are below proficiency in
English Language Arts and Math. Two new Tier 2 reading support classes, English I
Intensive Reading Support Stretch, are in place for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students. A third
core replacement English course, EDGE, is also in place for Special Education students
in all grades. Struggling English Language Arts students are identified for these classes
based on CST scores of Basic or below, as well as low reading lexile levels. In math,
Appendix E continued

157
computer-based Algebra and Geometry support programs are being piloted for 9
th
and
10
th
grade students with goals of skill recovery, additional practice, and preparation for
the CST and CAHSEE. Class size reduction is in place for these intervention classes,
allowing a range of 28 to 32 students to be enrolled, instead of the standard 36.
English Language Arts and Math have continued to be strong points of focus for
AHS in its improvement efforts. Each year, the master schedule reflects the inclusion of
English and Math support classes. Reading and math intervention classes are scheduled
for students in addition to their core English and Math classes. All support classes are
instructed by certificated teachers with the subject area. The primary focus of the
curriculum and instructional methods is to help students recover and remediate skills, as
well as support them in demonstrating proficiency on school assessments and
standardized exams. The curriculum and other instructional materials used in the support
classes are all approved by the district and aligned to state standards.
With a focus on AHS’s Tier 3 students, the Special Education Department has
implemented the inclusion model for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students under a district initiative
to mainstream Special Education students. The collaborative model of mainstreaming is
implemented with RSP teachers team-teaching with selected regular classroom teachers.
Special Education Instructional Aides are also present in both Special Education and
General Education classrooms to provide support to the students. SDC students are also
in mainstream classes when appropriate. There are 11 teachers in Special Education,
teaching a combination of classes Resource Specialist Program (RSP) and Special Day
Class (SDC). There are three full-time psychologists on campus who facilitate
Appendix E continued

158
Individualized Education Plan meetings and coordinates services with the Special
Education teachers as part of their duties.
Intervention Strategies
To support struggling students, AHS provides a variety of intervention programs.
This year, Title I funds have been used to hire an English and Math Intervention
Specialist to support Tier 1 students who are not at proficiency. Additionally, one Core
Hourly Support Teacher has been hired to support Tier 1 students. These positions are all
five hour certificated positions, as funding has not allowed for full-time certificated
positions. The English Intervention Specialist primarily works in a designated classroom
where she supports struggling students sent from core English classes throughout the
school day. The Math Intervention Specialist works with students in the classroom in
small groups, or in limited “pull out” sessions to receive help in a smaller environment.
Intervention Specialists also provide student tutorial after school or on an appointment
basis. In the months leading up to the 10
th
grade CAHSEE administration, the
Intervention Specialists are assigned to provide CAHSEE preparation for target
subgroups twice a week for both English Language Arts and Math.
Students are also provided with additional tutorial opportunities through sessions
operated by certificated teachers in all subject areas. These sessions primarily take place
after school or during the student lunch period. Students voluntarily attend sessions or set
up appointment with teachers to get help with school work, projects, or upcoming exams.
Additionally, students also have the option to attend after school study hall in the student
center, which is supervised by certificated personnel. The goal of study hall is to provide
Appendix E continued

159
a quiet place for students to complete class assignments with the option of seeking help
from certificated teachers.
Other academic support comes from the California Partnership Academy, which
started with an inaugural 10
th
grade class in 2008. It has expanded to include an 11
th

grade class this school year and will include a 12
th
grade cohort for the 2010-2011 school
year. California Partnership Academies receive state funding as part of grant awards to
fund courses, activities, materials, and human resources to effectively run the academy on
the school site. Written into the budgets are funds to pay certificated teachers the district
hourly rate to provide student support and tutorials for academy students.
Students also have opportunities to make-up course credits to meet graduation
requirements. Although there are limitations of class offerings due to budget constraints,
students are able to enroll in summer school or adult school to recover credits. A
majority of students who attend summer school are taking courses they have previously
failed. Other students take courses through a foundation that supports the XYZ Unified
School District for enrichment. This year, the school district is looking to contract with
California State University, Fullerton, to provide online credit recovery options for 12
th

grade students.
Additionally, AHS has developed a Behavioral Pyramid of Interventions that
focuses on the treatment of students who are affected by social factors causing them to
perform poorly on academics. Students who require various levels of social or emotional
counseling are referred to the various tiers of intervention, ranging from sessions with the
students’ counselors to the school psychologist. Students who are struggling in all
Appendix E continued

160
academic areas and experience problems with discipline are referred to Student Success
Team meetings. These meetings include the student’s teachers, guidance counselor, an
administrator, and sometimes a psychologist.
Collaboration
In order to facilitate the move toward PLCs, the 2009-2010 bell schedule was
modified to allow for teacher collaboration time once a week during the school day.
Every Wednesday, classes are shortened and students are dismissed approximately 50
minutes early to create time for teachers to work in collaborative groups. Approximately
one Wednesday per month is set aside for department meetings, which allows for the
discussion of non-instructional departmental business. During collaboration time,
teachers work on developing common achievement goals that are aligned to school and
district goals.
Before the start of the 2009-2010 school year, summer professional development
time was used to frontload and guide the teachers to work in PLCs. The district
professional development presented relevant school achievement data and addressed to
all the staff within the district the need to use the RtI
2
model to support students at all
levels. These expectations were also fundamental to the work to be completed at the
school sites. AHS’s administration and teacher leaders presented workshops including:
data-driven decision-making, goal setting, using protocols, and best practices. Because of
the wide spectrum of teaching experiences at AHS, the workshops were helpful for some
teachers and repetitive for others. However, the basic understanding of how PLCs work
was established.
Appendix E continued

161
Because the presence of collaboration time within the school day is new to AHS,
the school administration agreed that an accountability system was necessary to ensure
the Wednesday afternoons was used for collaborative purposes. Each collaborative group
was instructed to document all collaboration, as well as sign in on an attendance sheet.
Teachers who failed to sign in were given an affidavit by the administration. Although
most teachers followed through with using collaboration time effectively, a few teachers
were reprimanded for failure to attend collaboration.
Each department at AHS proceeded to meet and set goals using past and current
student achievement data, as well as create action plans. Core departments have engaged
in conversations regarding effective teaching practices and how to support struggling
students. All teachers are encouraged to utilize differentiated instructional strategies in
order to meet the needs of all students. However, because the various departments and
teachers have a range of knowledge and skills regarding working in PLCs and best
practices, there are some groups moving along more quickly and effectively than others.
In conjunction with implementing the RtI
2
model through PLCs, AHS has also
focused its collaborative efforts on preparing for a follow-up visit by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). WASC accreditation is based on a six-
year cycle where schools must demonstrate that they have addressed the critical areas of
improvement through school action plans. Schools must demonstrate appropriate
progress made toward the critical areas, as well as show that student academic
achievement is improving. AHS was in preparation for the three-year review through a
six-year accreditation.
Appendix E continued

162
As part of meeting the WASC accreditation requirements, the Principal and
Assistant Principal of Curriculum and Instruction have worked to re-establish school and
community focus groups. During collaboration time each Wednesday afternoon, focus
groups including: Organization for Student Learning, Curriculum and Instruction,
Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth, and Resource Management and
Development, met to discuss progress made to their previously approved WASC school
action plan. Within these four groups, smaller groups of teachers formed committees that
include: Academics, School Culture, Technology, and Parents/Community. Because
undergoing the WASC process is aligned with the district initiative to improve student
achievement through the implementation of the RtI
2
model via PLCs, AHS have also
used the Wednesday collaboration time to direct teacher discussion to center around
supporting struggling students based on the various tiers of intervention.
Instructional Leadership
In order to support district and school goals to improve student achievement, the
AHS administration have set goals to work on improving teacher instruction. Weekly
administration meetings have placed a focus on instructional best practices and teachers
who struggle to implement them. Each month, the administrators have been given a
teacher observation schedule which requires them to conduct a series of short
observations based on focus areas, including: student engagement, checking for
understanding, transitions, and other instructional methods and strategies. Teachers who
struggle with particular elements of instruction are then supported through coaching,
team-teaching, lesson planning, and other strategies. Following the RtI
2
model, the
Appendix E continued

163
administrators have stressed the importance of “first instruction.” Teachers have been
guided to plan and differentiate lessons in a way that engages and supports the learning of
at least 80 percent of students the first time around. They have also been guided to
provide ample guided practice for students, as well as perform various methods of
checking for understanding to ensure student learning. As soon as struggling students are
identified, the various tiers of intervention are to be implemented.
The XYZ Unified School District has also expressed the desire to have
department chairs move toward becoming instructional leaders. District department chair
meetings have reviewed job descriptions to communicate the need for department chairs
to lead their departments in using and modeling best instructional practices. School site
administrators have also supported the move in developing the instructional capacities of
department leaders. Although there has been resistance from the teacher leaders, the
district and school site leadership will continue to work on this agenda to improve student
achievement.
Professional Development
Because structured collaboration time is new to high schools in the district,
meetings involving district and school administrators, as well as teacher representatives
were held to establish the framework and logistics. Participants were asked to revisit and
dissect the district mission statement in order to discuss what steps need happen to
provide a high quality learning experience for students. The goal for all schools is to offer
a comprehensive academic program that will prepare them for post-secondary endeavors.
In addition, school administrators also participated in a summer Principal’s Summit,
Appendix E continued

164
which involved an in-depth look and analysis of district and school performance
indicators. Each school administrator was guided through a data harvesting activity to
obtain API, AYP, benchmark, and other data to inform instructional and curricular
decisions at the school site level.
A focus on supporting students to reach proficiency on the CAHSEE and CST has
driven the district to provide professional development on instructional strategies and
best practices for classroom teachers. New seminars and workshops have been developed
and funded for teachers including: Thinking Maps, Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) Model, and Algebra Seminars. The Thinking Maps and SIOP Model
training are currently geared toward core teachers and especially those that teach EL
students. The Algebra seminars were created to support Algebra teachers in the use
manipulatives and other “hands-on” strategies to better instruct math and help struggling
students recover skills.
Training for newly implemented courses, such as Reading and Math Support
classes, is also provided for teachers. The district office has assigned instructional
specialists to provide coaching and collaboration opportunities for teachers across all
secondary school sites in efforts to improve classroom instruction. Teachers who have
participated in these sessions have found it helpful and appreciate the support of the
instructional specialists. Due to this being the implementation year, new challenges have
arisen regarding classroom logistics, transitions, monitoring, and elements of the
curriculum. These are issues the groups of teachers continue to work on during
collaborative meeting sessions.
Appendix E continued

165
Professional development, in the form of three buy-back days, is also provided at
the school site. Two of the buy-back days are voluntary and one is mandatory. The first
buy-back day takes place before the start of the school year and is an opportunity for the
superintendent and other district administrators to review district goals, expectations, and
relevant data for school teachers and staff. The other two buy-back days occur at the
school site level.
AHS currently uses instructional coaches for English Language Arts and Math.
These coaches work with teachers in and out of the classroom, helping them with lesson
planning, pacing, aligning lessons with state and district standards, and other aspects of
instruction. The district office also houses a team of instructional specialists that are
assigned to various projects and are called to the school sites on a need basis. They are
able to collaborate with teachers and serve as an additional element of support other than
administrative
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) for resource allocation will be
used as a way to examine how resources are used in the sample schools as compared to
research-based practices that have shown promise in schools in previous studies. Table
E.5 provides a comparison of the resource use at AHS to the prototypical school
supported by the Evidence Based Model. The fourth column shows the difference
between the Evidence Based Model and AHS resource use and indicates how the
Evidence Based model would staff a school of 3,100 students with the characteristics and
demographics of AHS.
Appendix E continued

166
Table E.5 – AHS and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Armada HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between AHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
Enrollment 600 3,100 5.1 times bigger
Class Size 25 28
3 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10 days
for intensive training
180, including 3 in-
service days
7 less in-service
days, 20 less
school days
Number students with
disabilities
196 (6.3%)
Number poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
1575 (50.8%)
Number English Learner 790 (25.5%)
Minority students 97.1%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 84
EBM suggests
124 for 3,100
students
2. Specialist Teachers 8 per 600 students 20
EBM suggests
41.3
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
3
EBM suggests
15.5
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
3
EBM suggests
15.8
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
5
EBM suggests
7.9
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students (based
on half the number of
poverty students), 15
hours per week @ 25%
of salary
0
EBM suggests
26.3 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School 0
EBM suggests
26.3 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
11 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers and 7 aides
EBM suggests
20 teachers for
3,100 students

Appendix E continued

167
Table E.5, Continued
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
3 FTE teachers and 3
aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$3,843.00
EBM suggests
funds of $9,300
11. Vocational Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100 poverty
students plus 1.0
guidance per 250
students
6 Counselors
3.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 3 Psych,
(13 FTE)
EBM suggests
28.2 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide supervision
8
5 more than
EBM suggests
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests 5
Librarians and 5
Librarian Tech
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
5 Assistant Principals
EBM suggests 1
Principal and 4
Assistant
Principals
17. School Site Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
6.0 Secretaries &
5 clerks
EBM suggests 5
secretaries & 15
clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
1 PD summer day in
calendar, 2 during
school year; Monies
for PD subject to
approval
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$310,000 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$775,000
20. Instructional Materials $175 per pupil $155,000
EBM suggests
$542,500
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 section
Leadership/ASB
EBM suggests
$775,000

Appendix E continued

168
Lessons Learned
The emphasis of AHS has been the movement to provide targeted services to
students who struggle to meet proficiency through the Academic and Behavioral Pyramid
of Interventions. In order to do so, the district and school site leaders have worked to
guide teachers in working in PLCs to improve instruction and support struggling
students. The WASC accreditation visit has also supported the effort to have teachers
focus on the use of student achievement data to help AHS meet targets set by NCLB.
Although AHS continues to improve its API standing year after year, AYP targets have
presented a critical challenge – the need to better support the Hispanic and English
Learner subgroups. However, with the district initiative to move toward PLCs and to
implement the RtI
2
Model, the each school site within the district is expected to make
curricular and instructional changes to support all students.
The move toward PLCs called for the modification of the 2009-2010 bell
schedule to allow for teacher collaboration. Every Wednesday, instructional periods have
been shortened and students dismissed earlier to allow time for teachers to collaborate.
The school administration is allowed four of these Wednesdays to hold staff meetings.
Additionally, one Wednesday per week is allowed for department meetings. During the
weekly collaboration opportunities, teachers use the time to review school and student
data to inform goal setting, share best practices and instructional strategies, develop
formative and summative assessments, as well as align and develop new curriculum.
Also, because AHS is set for a WASC visitation, collaboration time has been spent to
coordinate and conduct focus groups.
Appendix E continued

169
The introduction of new curriculum and support personnel were also important in
providing support for struggling students. This school year, Title I funds were used to
start two new Reading Support classes, one English core replacement class, and math
support classes for Algebra and Geometry. Students are referred to these classes based on
CST scores of Basic or below, lexile levels below grade level, as well as
recommendations by teachers and counselors. The goal of these classes is to bring
struggling students to meet proficiency. Class size reduction is in place for these support
classes, allowing enrollment caps of 28 to 32, as opposed to the contract standard of 36
students per class.
In addition, Title I funds have also been used provide extra supports through three
new positions, including an English Intervention Specialist, Math Intervention Specialist,
and an English Core Hourly Support Teacher. These additional certificated support
personnel have been used to provide support and interventions for students who have not
met proficiency standards. The Intervention Specialists have been assigned to provide in-
class support, as well as tutorial sessions during and outside of the school day. They also
conduct CAHSEE preparation sessions after school for students scoring Basic or below
on the English and Math CST. As supported by the RtI
2
Model, AHS has made great
efforts to ensure struggling students are provided with interventions and supports to meet
proficiency standards.
A focus on instructional leadership has also facilitated the instructional
improvement process. Routine observations by administration have stressed the
importance of providing ample guided practice for students before moving them to
Appendix E continued

170
individual practice. Administrators have also placed a focus on meeting more routinely
with teachers who struggle with providing effective instruction in efforts to improve
overall school instruction. Equally significant, the district push to have department chairs
practice higher levels of instructional leadership supports the schools’ goals.
Overall, the improvement process is progressing slowly, but the work put forth to
establishing PLCs and the Pyramid of Interventions has positively influenced student
achievement and interventions for struggling students. Struggling students, whether
academically or emotionally, are now identified more quickly and are referred to varied
levels of intervention and support. Teachers now have structured opportunities to
collaborate on how to best support these struggling students, as well as share instructional
strategies. Overall, discussions over instructional best practices, student interventions,
using data, and other areas of curriculum and instruction have increased.
Future Implications
Due of the uncertainty of the district’s budget as a result of California’s financial
crisis, funding for the new courses and academic support and intervention personnel may
be affected in future years. Currently, AHS is using categorical funding to offer Reading
and Math support classes, as well as fund additional human resources to support
struggling students. Declining enrollment, coupled with increasing percentages of
economically-disadvantaged students, continue to challenge AHS in providing effective
instructional with decreasing funds. Consistent funding would be necessary to further
develop intervention strategies for struggling students and improve student achievement.
Equally important, because PLCs are new to AHS, more focused and effective
Appendix E continued

171
professional development to support the varying skill and experience levels of teachers is
necessary to successfully operate within PLCs.
172
APPENDIX F

Case Study Three:

San Marcos High School: A case study of instructional improvement strategies and
resource use

San Marcos High School (SMHS) is one of three comprehensive public high
schools in the XYZ Unified School District located in Los Angeles County, CA. XYZ
Unified School District currently serves a total of 18,800 students in grades K-12 with
three comprehensive high schools, 13 K-8 schools, and two alternative education schools.
SMHS is the oldest and largest of the three comprehensive high schools, opening its
doors in 1898. Students feeding into SMHS come from the K-8 schools within the school
district, as well as an intermediate school in a neighboring city school district.
SMHS provides a total of 64,867 instructional minutes during a traditional school
year of 180 days. A regular day includes six instructional periods, however some classes
are also offered in zero and seventh periods. The 2009-2010 bell schedule was modified
in response to faculty input to allow for teacher collaboration time on Wednesdays to
implement the district initiative, Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model
through Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).
SMHS currently serves approximately 2,400 students in grades 9-12, with an
ethnic distribution of students mirroring that of the community: 56.6 percent Asian, 39.3
percent Hispanic, and 4.1 percent other. The balance of the student body is made up of
African Americans and Caucasians. Of this student population, approximately 27.6
percent of the students have been identified as English Learners (EL), whose primary
Appendix F continued

173
languages include: Many students have languages other than English as their primary
language, with Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin and Vietnamese being the majority.
SMHS serves students that come primarily from middle class communities,
however the percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced price lunch has
significantly increased each year. SMHS is a Title I Schoolwide Program, with 82.7
percent of students at SMHS qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch, significantly higher
than the district average of 67.8 percent. Figure F.1 shows the increase of students
qualifying for Free Reduced Lunch from 1999 to 2009.
Figure F.1 – SMHS Percent Free Reduced Lunch 1999 to 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Free and Reduced Lunch

Despite substantial numbers of students qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch,
SMHS has demonstrated continued academic improvement through the years.
Longitudinal data from the California Department of Education show that SMHS has
increased its Academic Performance Index (API) by 202 points from 1999 to 2009.
Under NCLB, the goal for all California public schools and local educational agencies is
Appendix F continued

174
to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all significant subgroups. Although all
subgroups have demonstrated significant growth, the API data indicates that the
achievement gap between the Asian and Hispanic subgroup has increased over time. The
achievement the Asian and Hispanic subgroups have fluctuated up and down for the past
decade, finally expanding to a net gain of 13 points from 1999 to 2009. Table F.1
summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup API scores from 1999 to 2009 for
SMHS students.
Table F.1 – SMHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
1999 to
2009
All Students 542 568 568 600 629 651 678 697 687 722 744 202
Asian 613 632 628 670 702 727 740 763 756 796 821 208
Hispanic 434 473 485 514 526 535 582 594 575 614 629 195
Low SES 528 555 553 592 623 642 677 691 680 719 736 208
English Learners N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 673 701 677 695 686 13
Hisp/Asian Gap 179 159 143 156 176 192 158 169 181 182 192 13

The greatest API gains were achieved by the Asian and low socioeconomic
subgroups, both with increases of 208 points from 1999 to 2009. Also significant was
API growth from the Hispanic subgroup, which increased its API score by 195 points
from 1999 to 2009. The English Learners subgroup has remained stagnant and only
produced a net gain of 13 points. Similarly, the Hispanic and Asian subgroup
performance gap showed an inconsistent pattern, with years of increase and decrease to
the gap. Over the ten year time frame, the Hispanic and Asian subgroup gap only
changed 13 points. Figure F.2 shows trends in the API scores for all students and
subgroups from 1999 to 2009.
Appendix F continued

175
Figure F.2 – SMHS API Scores 1999 to 2009 including subgroups
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
API Scores
All Students Asian Hispanic Low SES English Learners Students with Disabilities

While all students and subgroups at SMHS continue to improve API scores, the
Statewide Index rating has only gradually increased a 3 to a 6 from 1999 to 2008. The
Similar Schools Index ratings have fluctuated between 2 and 3 from 1999 to 2007, before
increasing to a rating of 4. Table F.2 shows SMHS’s statewide and similar school
rankings from 1999 to 2008.
Table F.2 – SMHS Statewide and Similar School Rankings 1999 to 2008
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6
Similar
Schools 3 N/A 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 4

Using API Base reports, schools are ranked in deciles, from one (lowest) to ten (highest).
SMHS’s statewide rank compares it to other schools of the same type in the entire state.
Each decile contains 10 percent of all schools of that type. SMHS’s 2008 statewide rank
of 6 represents the decile where that its API Base falls compared with the Base APIs of
the other schools statewide of the same school type (California Department of Education,
2010). Additionally, schools are ranked when compared to 100 other schools with similar
Appendix F continued

176
demographics. SMHS’s similar school rank of 4 in 2008 represents the decile where
SMHS’s Base API falls compared with the Base APIs of the 100 other similar schools in
the comparison group. The average statewide and similar school rankings indicate that
SMHS is maintaining a strong statewide rank with its annual improvements in API, but
struggles with the similar schools rank.
Another measure that illustrates the positive academic growth of SMHS students
are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core subject areas of
English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table F.3 shows the percent
of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The English Language
Arts scores represent students who scored advanced or proficient in grades 9-11
standards. The History scores represent students who scored advanced or proficient in
World History and US History. The Math scores represent students who scored advanced
or proficient in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math
(grades 9-11 standards). The Science scores represent students who scored advanced or
proficient in Earth Science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
Table F.3 – SMHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient 2003 to 2009
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Change
2003 to
2008
English Language Arts 28 36 37 38 44 45 17
Math 27 33 32 32 41 41 14
Science 22 21 26 26 38 36 14
History 27 33 32 29 29 38 11

The greatest gain in percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient was in
the area of English Language Arts, with an increase of 17 percent from 2003 to 2008.
Appendix F continued

177
Math and Science scores have also increased 14 percent, making the greatest gains from
2006 to 2007. Students scoring proficient or advanced in History also demonstrated a
steady increase of 11 percent from 2003 to 2008. As a whole, SMHS has struggled with
strong History scores due to more students enrolling in Social Science classes during the
summer and being tested at the end of the school year during the CST administration
window. Although gradual, SMHS students have been improving academically through
from 2003 to 2008, as evidenced by their annual CST scores. Figure F.3 shows trends in
the API scores for all students who scored Advanced or Proficient on the CST from 2003
to 2008.
Figure F.3 – SMHS CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Advanced or Proficient
English Language Arts Math Science History

A look at the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at SMHS
shows that students have increased their passage rate from 2006 to 2009. The CAHSEE
English passage rate increased by six percent and the Math by three percent. Table F.4
shows the percentages of students from various subgroups that have passed the English
and Math portions of the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Appendix F continued

178
Table F.4 – SMHS 10
th
Grade CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup 2006 to 2009
English % Passed Math % Passed

2006
n=816
2007
n=851
2008
n=810
2009
n=800
2006
n=814
2007
n=849
2008
n=808
2009
n=798
All 10th Grade 74 71 75 80 82 80 82 85
Asian N/A 77 81 85 N/A 91 95 96
Hispanic N/A 61 66 71 N/A 63 64 69
English Learner 50 46 47 51 75 71 68 73
Low SES 72 69 74 79 82 80 82 85
Special Education 28 18 26 29 38 29 41 35

The greatest gain in passing the English portion of the CAHSEE has been with
Hispanic subgroup, which has increased its pass rate by 10 percent from 2007 to 2009.
Following closely behind were the Asian and low socioeconomic subgroups, have
increased their passage rates by eight percent and seven percent respectively. Both the
English Learner and students with disabilities subgroups have displayed fluctuating
passage rates from year to year, only to increase by one percent from 2006 to 2009.
Figure F.4 shows patterns of improvement in the English passing rates of subgroups on
the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Figure F.4 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 n=668 2007 n=624 2008 n=606 2009 n=656
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-English
All 10th Grade Asian Hispanic English Learner Low SES Special Education

Appendix F continued

179
In the math portion of the CAHSEE, all significant subgroups, except for the
English Learner and student with disabilities subgroups, have shown modest
improvements in the passage rate increases of two to six percent from 2006 to 2009. The
two subgroups that have struggled with demonstrating continued improvement and have
regressed in their CAHSEE Math passage rates are the English Learner and students with
disabilities subgroups. Special education students have demonstrated inconsistency in
academic growth, with a series of increases and decreases in CAHSEE passage rates from
2006 to 2009. Figure F.5 show patterns of improvement in Math passing rates of
subgroups on the CAHSEE from 2006 to 2009.
Figure F.5 – CAHSEE pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 n=649 2007 n=604 2008 n=591 2009 n=653
Percent pass rate in CAHSEE-Math
All 10th Grade Asian Hispanic English Learner Low SES Special Education

The data summarized shows that SMHS has demonstrated overall slow, yet steady
growth in terms of student academic performance. All significant subgroups, with the
exception of the students with disabilities subgroup, have made gains in API from 1999
to 2009, as well as increase CAHSEE pass rates in both English and Math. The school as
Appendix F continued

180
a whole has also increased the percentage of students scoring Advanced or Proficient on
the CST in all tested subject areas from 2003 to 2008.
SMHS has never been in Program Improvement, and has met Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) growth goals until the 2008-2009 school year. In 2009-2009, SMHS met
19 of the 22 AYP Criteria, with the Hispanic missing the target student proficiency of
44.5 percent in both the CAHSEE English Language Arts and Math, and English
Learners subgroups missing the target for the CAHSEE English section.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
SMHS has been demonstrating a trend of improvement for the past decade as
each significant subgroup has achieved rising percentages of students scoring at
Proficient or Advanced on the CST. SMHS has increased its 2008-2009 Academic API
score by 22 points to reach 744. Despite the positive academic growth in all subgroups,
API data also indicates that the achievement gap between the Asian and Hispanic
subgroup is widening over time. In 1999, the Base API difference between the subgroups
was 179 points. In 2009, the Base API performance gap between the Asian and Hispanic
subgroups expanded by 13 points to reach 192. The English Learner and students with
disabilities subgroups have also struggled with improvement on passage rates on the
CAHSEE. In 2009, SMHS met 19 of 22 AYP Criteria, only falling short with the
proficiency percentage of the Hispanic and English Learner subgroups. Failure to meet
AYP for the next school year may cause SMHS to enter its first year of Program
Improvement.
Appendix F continued

181
Working to maintain and advance the academic achievement gains SMHS has
been making for the past decade, as well as supporting the Hispanic and English Learner
subgroups in making AYP growth targets, the XYZ Unified School District met with
school administration and teachers in the summer of 2009 to work on implementation of
the district-wide initiative, Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtI
2
) Model through
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). The next section discusses the steps SMHS
stakeholders are taking to ensure the growth and improvement of student academic
achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Using the RtI
2
Model, SMHS has developed a Pyramid of Interventions which
provides support for students falling into three levels. Tier 1 lies at the base of the
pyramid and represents core instruction for the student body. Approximately 80 to 85
percent of the students fall into this category, due to smaller percentages of students
requiring additional intervention and support to meet proficiency. Tier 2 represents the
strategic level, which includes approximately 15 percent of the student body. Despite
strong core instruction, these students require additional support and strategies to achieve
proficiency. Tier 3 represents the intensive level, which includes approximately five
percent of SMHS students. This tier commonly includes Special Education students and
other struggling students who are far below grade level.
Because SMHS is a School-wide Title I Program, categorical funds have been
used to provide targeted intervention services for students who are below proficiency in
English Language Arts and Math. Two new Tier 2 reading support classes, English I
Appendix F continued

182
Intensive Reading Support Stretch, are in place for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students. A third
core replacement English course, EDGE, is also in place for Special Education students
in all grades. Struggling English Language Arts students are identified for these classes
based on CST scores of Basic or below, as well as low reading lexile levels. In math,
computer-based Algebra and Geometry support programs are being implemented for 9
th

and 10
th
grade students with goals of skill recovery, additional practice, and preparation
for the CST and CAHSEE. Class size reduction is in place for these intervention classes,
allowing a range of 28 to 32 students to be enrolled, instead of the standard 36.
English Language Arts and Math have continued to be strong points of focus for
SMHS in its improvement efforts. Each year, the master schedule reflects the inclusion of
English and Math support classes. Reading and math intervention classes are scheduled
for students in addition to their core English and Math classes. All support classes are
instructed by certificated teachers with the subject area. The primary focus of the
curriculum and instructional methods is to help students recover and remediate skills, as
well as support them in demonstrating proficiency on school assessments and
standardized exams. The curriculum and other instructional materials used in the support
classes are all approved by the district and aligned to state standards.
With a focus on SMHS’s Tier 3 students, the Special Education Department has
implemented the inclusion model for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students under a district initiative
to mainstream Special Education students. The collaborative model of mainstreaming is
implemented with RSP teachers team-teaching with selected regular classroom teachers.
Special Education Instructional Aides are also present in both Special Education and
Appendix F continued

183
General Education classrooms to provide support to the students. SDC students are also
in mainstream classes when appropriate. There are eight teachers in Special Education,
teaching a combination of classes Resource Specialist Program (RSP) and Special Day
Class (SDC). There are three full-time psychologists on campus who facilitate
Individualized Education Plan meetings and coordinates services with the Special
Education teachers as part of their duties.
Intervention Strategies
To support struggling students, SMHS provides a variety of intervention
programs. This year, Title I funds have been used to hire two certificated hourly positions
to support students in their English Language Arts classes. One of the positions is the
Core Hourly Support Teacher, who provides support for students in their Tier 1 core
English classes. The other position is the Intervention Specialist, who provides support
for struggling Tier 2 students who are not at proficiency. These two positions are five-
hour positions that require scheduling flexibility, as in-class support and tutorial sessions
take place during the school day, as well as after school. During in-class support, the
Core Hourly Teacher and Intervention Specialist use flexible grouping strategies and
small groups to provide more personalized support for struggling students. In the months
leading up to the 10
th
grade CAHSEE administration, the hourly teachers are assigned to
provide CAHSEE preparation for target subgroups twice a week for both English
Language Arts.
Students are also provided with additional tutorial opportunities through sessions
operated by certificated teachers from the core subject areas. Individual teachers also
Appendix F continued

184
provide extra tutoring sessions before, after, and during the school day. Students
voluntarily attend sessions or set up appointment with teachers to get help with school
work, projects, or upcoming exams. Additionally, students also have the option to attend
home work pods after school with certificated teachers. The goal of these sessions is to
provide a place for students to complete class assignments with the option of seeking help
from certificated teachers. Other academic support comes from the two California
Partnership Academies on the SMHS campus. Each academy receives state funding as
part of grant awards to fund courses, activities, materials, and human resources to
effectively run the academy on the school site. Written into the budgets are funds to pay
certificated teachers the district hourly rate to provide tutoring for struggling and at-risk
students.
Finally, students also have opportunities to make-up course credits to meet
graduation requirements. Although there are limitations of class offerings due to budget
constraints, students are able to enroll in summer school or adult school to recover
credits. A majority of students who attend summer school are taking courses they have
previously failed. Other students take courses through a foundation that supports the
XYZ Unified School District for enrichment. This year, the school district is looking to
contract with California State University, Fullerton, to provide online credit recovery
options for 12
th
grade students.
Collaboration
In order to facilitate the move toward PLCs, the 2009-2010 bell schedule was
modified to allow for teacher collaboration time once a week during the school day.
Appendix F continued

185
Every Wednesday, students are on a late-arrival schedule to allow time for teacher
collaboration in the mornings. Classes are shortened for the reminder of the day to allow
teachers approximately 50 minutes to work in collaborative groups. Approximately one
Wednesday per month is set aside for department meetings, which allows for the
discussion of non-instructional departmental business. During collaboration time,
teachers work on developing common achievement goals that are aligned to school and
district goals.
Before the start of the 2009-2010 school year, summer professional development
time was used to frontload and guide the teachers to work in PLCs. The district
professional development presented relevant school achievement data and addressed to
all the staff within the district the need to use the RtI
2
model to support students at all
levels. These expectations were also fundamental to the work to be completed at the
school sites. Although the implementation of the RtI
2
model through PLCs is the main
focus, as directed by the school district, SMHS also used collaboration time to prepare for
an upcoming accreditation visit by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC). WASC accreditation is based on a six-year cycle where schools must
demonstrate that they have addressed the critical areas of improvement through school
action plans. Schools must demonstrate appropriate progress made toward the critical
areas, as well as show that student academic achievement is improving. SMHS is in the
self-study phase of the accreditation process at the six-year mark.
As part of meeting the WASC accreditation requirements, the administration has
worked to re-establish school and community focus groups. During collaboration time
Appendix F continued

186
each Wednesday morning, focus groups including: Organization for Student Learning,
Curriculum and Instruction, Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth, and
Resource Management and Development, met to discuss progress made to their
previously approved WASC school action plan. Within these four groups, smaller groups
of teachers formed committees that include: Academics, School Culture, Discipline, and
Parents/Community. Because undergoing the WASC process is aligned with the district
initiative to improve student achievement through the implementation of the RtI
2
model
via PLCs, SMHS have also used the Wednesday collaboration time to direct teacher
discussion to center around supporting struggling students based on the various tiers of
intervention.
Use of data
The use of data has been vital to the collaborative efforts of school administration
and teachers at SMHS. In WASC focus groups, teachers within the various departments
have met and set goals using past and current student achievement data, as well as create
action plans. They have also engaged in conversations regarding effective teaching
practices and how to support struggling students. All teachers are encouraged to utilize
differentiated instructional strategies in order to meet the needs of all students. Elective
departments have also engaged in discussions of how to improve instruction, as well as
how to better support core departments in helping students reach proficiency.
Central to the WASC accreditation process is a focus on student achievement
results. The district office and school administrators have presented teachers with
longitudinal student achievement data trends and projections to support the work that
Appendix F continued

187
must be done. District administrators, school administration, and teachers have attended
meetings where data regarding struggling subgroups have been shared to facilitate a
discussion on strategies, supports, and interventions that must be implemented at the
school site level. Schools were also given district-wide goals they must reach in order to
move toward meeting 2009-2010 AYP targets.
The district has also continued to provide support for teachers through the use of
benchmark assessments and the data management system. Department chairs and
teachers across secondary school sites have had opportunities to work together to create
pacing guides, as well as formative and summative assessments. The use of the data
management system is encouraged to target struggling students, as well as inform
teachers on instructional and re-teaching strategies.
Professional Development
Because structured collaboration time is new to high schools in the district,
summer meetings involving district and school administrators, as well as teacher
representatives were held to establish the framework and logistics. Participants were
asked to revisit and dissect the district mission statement in order to discuss what steps
need happen to provide a high quality learning experience for students. The goal for all
schools is to offer a comprehensive academic program that will prepare them for post-
secondary endeavors. In addition, school administrators also participated in a summer
Principal’s Summit, which involved an in-depth look and analysis of district and school
performance indicators. Each school administrator was guided through a data harvesting
Appendix F continued

188
activity to obtain API, AYP, benchmark, and other data to inform instructional and
curricular decisions at the school site level.
A focus on supporting students to reach proficiency on the CAHSEE and CST has
driven the district to provide professional development on instructional strategies and
best practices for classroom teachers. New seminars and workshops have been developed
and funded for teachers including: Thinking Maps, Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) Model, and Algebra Seminars. The Thinking Maps and SIOP Model
training are currently geared toward core teachers and especially those that teach EL
students. The Algebra seminars were created to support Algebra teachers in the use
manipulatives and other “hands-on” strategies to better instruct math and help struggling
students recover skills.
Training for newly implemented courses, such as Reading and Math Support, is
also provided for teachers. The district office has assigned instructional specialists to
provide coaching and collaboration opportunities for teachers across all secondary school
sites. Teachers who have participated in these sessions have found it helpful and
appreciate the support of the instructional specialists. Due to this being the
implementation year, new challenges have arisen regarding classroom logistics,
transitions, monitoring, and elements of the curriculum. These are issues the groups of
teachers continue to work on during collaborative meeting sessions.
Professional development, in the form of three buy-back days, is also provided at
the school site. Two of the buy-back days are voluntary and one is mandatory. The first
buy-back day takes place before the start of the school year and is an opportunity for the
Appendix F continued

189
superintendent and other district administrators to review district goals, expectations, and
relevant data for school teachers and staff. The other two buy-back days occur at the
school site level. The agenda and content for these days are generated by the processional
development committee and includes topics related to PLCs, collaboration, and how to
support struggling students.
SMHS currently uses an instructional coach that works with math teachers in the
design and implementation of standards-based and hands-on lessons. Because math has
been an area of struggle for the English Learner and students with disabilities subgroups,
the focus of the math coach is the support of teachers who instruct these students. They
encourage teachers to focus on skill recovery and the use of manipulatives to teach math
standards. There are also district instructional specialists who are assigned to various
projects and are called to the school sites on a need basis. They are able to collaborate
with teachers and serve as an additional element of support other than administrative
instructional leaders.
School Culture
One of the goals of SMHS is to be supportive and work collaboratively to better
connect students to their learning, as well as the various resources on campus. Each
summer before the start of the new school year, the school hosts a 9
th
grade transition
program for all incoming freshman. Students are invited to meet with mentors one day
during the summer to receive an introduction to tour the school, hear about school
activities, and learn about the various resources available at the school. Additionally,
Appendix F continued

190
students are invited to meet with mentors once a quarter as a follow-up to their progress
on becoming more connected with the school.
The formation of PLCs has also encouraged teachers to become more connected
with their colleagues, as well as students. The new bell schedule supports a period of
collaboration time for teachers, which supports their efforts to improve instructional
practice to reach student achievement goals. Because teachers are meeting on a regular
basis and with a focus on data and student learning, the process facilitates the
development of relationships between teacher colleagues and with students.
Parent and community involvement at SMHS have also been encouraged at
SMHS to foster a positive school culture. The Parent Teacher Student Association
(PTSA) continues to grow in size and its participation with the school has increased. The
principal meets with the PTSA monthly to share current school news, as well as discuss
any concerns posed by the group. There is also an active school site council (SSC), which
meets a minimum of four times per year to approve the Title I program and budget
allocation. General School Advisory Council and English Learner Advisory Council
meetings inform parents of the programs’ services available to the students and them,
along with student achievement data.
Partnerships have also been formed with community groups and organizations
which have led to the development of parent workshops. For four years, parent programs
provide educational in-services that help parents to better understand and work with their
students at home and better understand the educational opportunities available to their
children and themselves. Additionally, SMHS and its sister schools have coordinated a
Appendix F continued

191
program called the Parent Academy, which recruits and teaches minority parents how to
get involved with their child’s academic life and how to utilize resources within the
community.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) for resource allocation will be
used as a way to examine how resources are used in the sample schools as compared to
research-based practices that have shown promise in schools in previous studies. Table
F.5 provides a comparison of the resource use at SMHS to the prototypical school
supported by the Evidence Based Model. The fourth column shows the difference
between the Evidence Based Model and SMHS resource use and indicates how the
Evidence Based model would staff a school of 2,438 students with the characteristics and
demographics of SMHS.
Table F.5 – SMHS and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
SMHS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
SMHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
Enrollment 600 2,440 4 times bigger
Class Size 25 28
3 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
180, including 3 in-
service days
7 less in-
service days,
20 less school
days
Number students with
disabilities
145 (6%)
Number poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
2,011 (82.7%)
Appendix F continued

192
Table F.5, Continued
Number English Learner 672 (27.6%)
Minority students 98.8%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 71
EBM suggests
97.5 for 2,440
students
2. Specialist Teachers 8 per 600 students 15
EBM suggests
32.5
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
2
EBM suggests
12
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
6
EBM suggests
20.1
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
6
EBM suggests
6.7
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students (based
on half the number of
poverty students), 15
hours per week @ 25%
of salary
0
EBM suggests
26.8 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School 0
EBM suggests
26.8 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
8 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers and 5 aides
EBM suggests
16 teachers for
2,400 students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2 FTE teachers and 3
aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$1,456
EBM suggests
funds of $5,475
11. Vocational Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100 poverty
students plus 1.0
guidance per 250
students
6 Counselors
2.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 2 Psych,
(11 FTE)
EBM suggests
29.8 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide supervision

5
2 more than
EBM suggests

Appendix F continued

193
Table F.5, Continued
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests 4
Librarians and 4
Librarian Tech
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
5 Assistant Principals
EBM suggests 1
Principal and 4
Assistant
Principals
17. School Site Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
5.0 Secretaries &
3 clerks
EBM suggests 4
secretaries & 12
clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
1 PD summer day in
calendar, 2 during
school year; Monies
for PD subject to
approval
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$240,000 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$609,500
20. Instructional Materials $175 per pupil $122,500
EBM suggests
$426,650
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 section
Leadership/ASB
EBM suggests
$609,500

Lessons Learned
SMHS is demonstrating a trend of positive academic growth, but the question of
whether it is growing fast enough remains a question. Although the school continues to
improve its API standing year after year, AYP targets have presented a critical challenge
– the need to better support the English Learner and Hispanic subgroups. However, with
the district initiative to move toward PLCs and to implement the RtI
2
Model, the each
school site within the district is expected to make curricular and instructional changes to
support all students.
Appendix F continued

194
In order to create time for teacher collaboration within PLCs, the 2009-2010 bell
schedule was modified. Every Wednesday, instructional periods are shortened and
students are put on a late-arrival schedule to allow time for teachers to collaborate. The
school administration is allowed four of these Wednesdays to hold staff meetings.
Additionally, one Wednesday per month is allowed for department meetings. During the
weekly collaboration opportunities, the school administration and teachers collaborate in
preparation for the an upcoming WASC visit. As part of focus group activities, teachers
were guided in using school and student data to inform goal setting, as well as sharing
best practices and instructional strategies.
The introduction of new curriculum and support personnel were also significant
factors in supporting struggling students. This school year, Title I funds were used to start
two new Reading Support classes, one English core replacement class, and math support
classes for Algebra and Geometry. Students are referred to these classes based on CST
scores of Basic or below, lexile levels below grade level, as well as recommendations by
teachers and counselors. The goal of these classes is to bring struggling students to meet
proficiency. Class size reduction is in place for these support classes, allowing enrollment
caps of 28 to 32, as opposed to the contract standard of 36 students per class. In addition,
Title I funds have also been used provide extra supports are provided for struggling
students. Two new hourly certificated positions, the Core Hourly Support Teacher and
Intervention Specialist, were added to support struggling students in English Language
Arts. They provide support and intervention during the school day, as well as after
school. As supported by the RtI
2
Model, SMHS has made great efforts to ensure
Appendix F continued

195
struggling students are provided with interventions and supports to meet proficiency
standards.
Using data to drive instruction is another significant area of improvement for
SMHS. Because there exists collaboration time within the school day, teachers now have
the time to review student work and other relevant data to inform instruction. CST,
CAHSEE, and language proficiency scores have been provided for teachers to support
them in personalizing and targeting instruction. Benchmark exams are also administered
and analyzed quarterly to provide information on student achievement. Although these
various types of data is accessible, teachers are only slowly beginning to use them to
inform instruction. They continue to rely on traditional formative and summative
assessments to modify instruction and support for students. However, teachers of the
English and Math support classes continue to monitor student growth using several
structured formative assessment throughout the quarter and semester.
The PLC process is in progress and has positively influenced student achievement
and interventions for struggling students. Struggling students are now identified more
quickly and are referred to varied levels of intervention and support. Teachers now have
structured opportunities to collaborate on how to best support these struggling students,
as well as share instructional strategies. Collaboration over the WASC accreditation
process has also fostered discussions over student achievement, how to support struggling
students, and other areas of curriculum and instruction. Despite positive responses to
collaboration, it remains a new aspect of SMHS and continues to take shape each day.
Appendix F continued

196
The district office continues to support all the school sites through professional
development opportunities and coaching by district instructional specialists.
Future Implications
Due of the uncertainty of the district’s budget as a result of California’s financial crisis,
funding for the new courses and academic support and intervention personnel may be
affected in future years. Currently, SMHS is using categorical funding to offer Reading
and Math support classes, as well as fund additional human resources to support
struggling students. Because SMHS currently has significant numbers of students in
poverty, and the trend indicates annual increases, it is even more imperative that current
academic supports and interventions continue to exist and grow. Consistent funding
would be necessary to further develop intervention strategies for struggling students and
improve student achievement. trend indicates future increases. Equally important,
because PLCs are new to SMHS, more focused and effective professional development to
support the varying skill and experience levels of teachers is necessary to successfully
operate within PLCs.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Due to current and projected state budgetary constraints, California schools are forced to allocate resources even more effectively in order to meet state mandated student achievement targets, in accordance with NCLB. The need to effectively educate such a diverse student population with limited resources calls for educational adequacy measures to effectively allocate resources to support student achievement growth. Therefore, determining and planning for effective resource allocation strategies are vital to the success of K-12 schools across the U.S.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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 four California charter schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Educational resources to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Chan, Rosa K. (author)

Core Title Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/14/2010

Defense Date 05/04/2010

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

Tag evidence-based model,OAI-PMH Harvest

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

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email rosakcha@usc.edu,rosakchan@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3132

Unique identifier UC1453947

Identifier etd-Chan-3732 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-356182 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3132 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Chan-3732.pdf

Dmrecord 356182

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chan, Rosa K.

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