University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SCHOOL LEVEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION
TO IMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE:
A CASE STUDY OF ORANGE COUNTY AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

by

Hiacynth Dewilla Martinez

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
(EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP)

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Hiacynth Dewilla Martinez

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, best friend, and biggest fan Edward
“Eddie” Martinez for always loving and supporting me. You are truly the reason I strive
to be a better me, because I see in you all that I love, admire, respect and hold sacred. I
love you today, tomorrow and always.
To my mother, you believed in me before I understood how to believe in myself.
You have been my rock through the storms and my model of what a mother’s love can be
and should be. My prayer is to one day be the kind of mother to my child that you have
been to Kirland, Gerald and me.
To the other men in my life, Kirkland and Gerald thank you for always supporting
me and giving me the inspiration to be the older sister that you can be proud of. The three
of us share a bond that I honor and hold in the highest regard. I would not trade you for
any other siblings in the world. Poppo, thank you for teaching me how a lady is to be
treated and must conduct herself in public. From a child, you have been my model for
strength, responsibility and drive; always requiring that each of your grandchildren strive
to do more, achieve more, and understand more. Dad, thank you for planting the seed
many years ago about attending USC. At the time I thought it was impossible, however
the gift of time gave me the confidence to make USC my reality.
Finally, to my grandmother, thank you for allowing that little five year girl to
know the joy and pride of a teacher who loved her work. That little girl remembers every
story you shared and the fun she had grading your students’ papers on the weekend.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My decision to enter the doctoral program at the University of Southern
California was greatly influenced by my mentor and (now) Retired Superintendent of
Westminster School District, Dr. Sharon Nordheim, who supported and encouraged me
every step of the way. Sharon’s candor, care, and commitment to my professional growth
inspired me to embark on this journey. I will always be thankful for the hand she played
on my behalf.
The Rossier School of Education has forever connected me with some of the best
minds, biggest hearts, and awesome colleagues, which I feel fortunate enough to call my
friends. Their ongoing support and relentless laughter helped to make every challenge a
cherished gift that continues to bring a smile to my face. I am so thankful for the OC
Cohort of 2008!
Lastly, this dissertation was made possible because of my Dissertation Chair, Dr.
Lawrence Picus, who pushed me when I needed to be pushed, cheered for me when I
needed cheering, and applauded me when I produced “a job well done”. Dr. Picus’
passion for his work and commitment to improving educational opportunities for students
is motivating and has broadened my depth and range of the infinite possibilities schools
can create to educate the whole child.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii
Abstract x

Chapter 1 – Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 5
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Importance of the Study 10
Limitations 10
Delimitations 10
Assumptions 11
Definitions 11

Chapter 2 – Literature Review 16
School Funding in California 16
Serrano v. Priest 17
Proposition 13 19
Proposition 98 19
Current Challenges In A Down Economy 21
Resource Use 29
Educational Adequacy 34
Evidence Based Model 40
Conclusion 52

Chapter 3 – Methods 53
Overview 54
Purposeful Sample 56
Identifying Schools 57
Instrumentation and Data Collection 58
Data Analysis 60
Summary 61

v
Chapter 4 – Findings 62
School Demographics and Performance Data 63
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Stategies 77
Resource Allocation 94
Current Budget Crisis and Its Affect In Schools 98
Conclusion 99

Chapter 5 – Discussion 101
Summary of Findings 103
Limitations of the Study 109
Recommendations for Future Research 110
Conclusion 111

References 113

Appendices
Appendix A – IRB Exempt Notification 119
Appendix B – Document Request List 120
Appendix C – School Visit/Interview Dates 122
Appendix D – List of Documents and Artifacts 123
Appendix E – Data Collection Codebook 124
Appendix F – Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol 134
Appendix G – Data Collection Protocol 136
Appendix H – Appleton Elementary School 142
Assessments and Data 143
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 146
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 159
Summary and Lessons Learned 161
Future Considerations 161
Appendix I – Everglade Elementary School 163
Assessments and Data 164
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 167
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 181
Summary and Lessons Learned 183
Future Considerations 183
Appendix J – Flint Elementary School 185
Assessments and Data 186
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 188
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 201
Summary and Lessons Learned 203
Future Considerations 204

vi
Appendix K – Smiley Elementary School 205
Assessments and Data 206
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 209
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 222
Summary and Lessons Learned 224
Future Considerations 224
Appendix L – Sunnyvale Elementary School 226
Assessments and Data 227
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 229
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 241
Summary and Lessons Learned 244
Future Considerations 244
Appendix M - Dissertation Defense Presentation 246
Statement of the Problem 247
Literature Review 248
Purpose of the Study 250
Research Questions 251
Methodology 253
Purposeful Sample 254
Findings 255
Implications for Practice 260
Recommendations for Future Research 261
Questions? 262

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: California’s Expenditure for K-12 Education 24
Table 2.2: School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 33
Table 2.3: EBM Recommendations for a Prototypical Elementary School 43
Table 3.1: Conceptual Framework Using Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategie 56
Table 3.2: Comparison of Elementary Schools to Criteria 58
Table 4.1: Summary of Case Studies Demographics and Enrollment, 2009-2010 64
Table 4.2: Similar School and Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools 68
Table 4.3: Summary of Case Studies MathPercent Proficient & Above by Subgroup 77
Table 4.4: 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance at Five Sample Schools 93
Table 4.5: Class Size of Sample Schools Compared to EBM 95
Table 4.6: Comparison of Resource Allocation to EBM 97
Table A.1: Appleton and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 158
Table A.2: Appleton and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 160
Table E.1: Everglade and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 181
Table E.2: Everglade and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 182
Table F.1: Flint and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 200
Table F.2: Flint and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 202
Table S.1: Smiley and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 221
Table S.2: Smiley and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 223
Table SV.1: Sunnyvale and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 241
Table SV.2: Sunnyvale and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 243

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Restricted v. Unrestricted Funding in California 21
Figure 2.2: Sources of Revenue for K-12 Education: 2008-2009 Revenues 27
Figure 2.3: The Evidence Based Model 42
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Makeup of the Five Sample Schools, 2009-2010 65
Figure 4.2: Percent of SED & EL Students Enrolled in the Sample Schools 66
Figure 4.3: Increase in API Scores for the Sample Schools from 2006 – 2010 67
Figure 4.4: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA School-wide 70
Figure 4.5: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA Hispanic 71
Figure 4.6: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA EL 72
Figure 4.7: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA SED 73
Figure A.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Appleton School 142
Figure A.2: Appleton Elementary School’s API 143
Figure A.3: Language Arts AYP for Appleton Elementary 144
Figure A.4: Math AYP for Appleton Elementary 146
Figure E.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Everglade School 164
Figure E.2: Everglade Elementary School’s API 165
Figure E.3: Language Arts AYP for Everglade Elementary 166
Figure E.4: Math AYP for Everglade Elementary 167
Figure F.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Flint School 185
Figure F.2: Flint Elementary School’s API 186
Figure F.3: Language Arts AYP for Flint Elementary 187

ix
Figure F.4: Math AYP for Flint Elementary 188
Figure S.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Smiley School 205
Figure S.2: Smiley Elementary School’s API 206
Figure S.3: Language Arts AYP for Smiley Elementary 207
Figure S.4: Math AYP for Smiley Elementary 208
Figure SV.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Sunnyvale School 226
Figure SV.2: Sunnyvale Elementary School’s API 227
Figure SV.3: Language Arts AYP for Sunnyvale Elementary 228
Figure SV.4: Math AYP for Sunnyvale Elementary 229
Figure SV.5: ELA AYP Targets for 2002 – 2014 232
Figure SV.6: Mathematics AYP Targets for 2002 – 2014 232

x
ABSTRACT
This study selected a purposeful sample of five Title I elementary schools in Orange
County and Los Angeles County in Southern California with similar demographics, yet
varying levels of academic growth as determined by the California Department of
Education. Using a case study approach, principal interviews, student performance data,
site-level data and documentation were used to evaluate leadership decisions regarding
hiring and firing practices, programmatic implementation and intervention services as a
means to closing the achievement gap for minority students, English learners and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden
& Picus, 2008) was the framework used for improving student performance in English
Language Arts and Mathematics. In conjunction with the EBM recommendations, this
study also examined evidence of the Ten Strategies to Doubling Student Performance
(Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
The findings from this study show a significant connection between the degree of
implementation of the ten strategies and the increase in student achievement at each
school. The most strongly implemented evidence-based strategies at all five schools were
set ambitious goals, use of formative assessments/data-based decision-making, using time
efficiently and effectively, and professional best practices. The findings also suggest that
ongoing, systematic professional development is critical to the improvement process.
None of the schools in this study were able to provide resources at the levels
recommended by the EBM and California’s economic downturn has magnified the

xi
challenges schools are facing to provide services for struggling students. Implications for
future research and decisions are discussed.

1
CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
California school administrators are faced with growing expectations and
challenges as a result of the changing landscape of public school demographics and
diminishing resources. With more than six million students in California public schools,
the student population is becoming more diverse with increasing numbers of minority
students and English learners (EL). Concurrently, the number of Title I elementary
schools in California has increased from 4,005 Title I schools in the 2004/2005 school
year to 4,153 in 2007/2008; this represents a state-wide expansion of 148 newly
designated Title I elementary schools for the 2007-2008 school year (EdSource, 2010).
Under section 1114(a)(1) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), schools with a low-income student population equal to or greater than 40% of
the total student population are designated as a Title I school, and therefore qualify for
federal Title I funding (California Department of Education [CDE], 2010).
In light of the ambitious student performance goals California has set, linking
educational spending to academic results must be a priority (Olson, 2005). This is
particularly important in Title I schools where a significant portion of the schools’
population is comprised of low-income, EL and/or ethnic minority students.
Consequently, leadership decisions made at the site-level need to be well informed and
data-driven so resources can be combined, as permitted, to improve student support
toward proficient and advanced levels of performance. Additionally, understanding the
importance of allocating adequate resources to meet the needs of diverse student
populations is very important.

2
According to the CDE (2010), the statewide number of EL exceeds 1.5 million
students, which is equivalent to one quarter of K-12 California students. As of the 2008-
2009 school year, approximately 50% of California’s students were Hispanic/Latino
(Hispanic), 28% white, 8.4% Asian, 7.3% African American, 3.4% Multiple or No
Response and 4% other (American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander and
Filipino). Hispanic students represent the largest ethnic subgroup in both Orange County
and Los Angeles County at 45% and 63% respectively, while 2% of Orange County
students and 10% of Los Angeles County students were African American (Data Quest,
2010). Comparatively, fifteen years ago, California’s student enrollment looked vastly
different. In 1993-1994, just over 42% of the K-12 student enrollment was white, 37%
Hispanic, 8.66% African American, 8.2% Asia, and 4.14% other (American Indian or
Alaska Native, Pacific Islander and Filipino) (Data Quest, 2010). The more noticeable
shifts over the fifteen-year period include a dramatic 14% decline in white student
enrollment and a 13% rise in Hispanic student enrollment. The changes in California’s
enrollment by ethnicity carry the challenge for school administrators to ensure EL and
students from low-income backgrounds perform at proficient and advanced levels.
At 53.7%, over half of all California students participate in the federal Free and
Reduced Price Meal Program under Title I (CDE, 2009). Eligibility for the meal program
is based on the low-income level of the student’s parents. Additionally, more than one out
of five children in California lives below the poverty level. Poor students, students of
color and EL students are over-represented among students with the lowest scoring levels
and under-represented among students scoring in the highest percentile (EdSource, 2010).

3
Changing demographics, consisting of larger percentages of minority, EL, and
low-income students in California’s public elementary schools, have had a monumental
impact on instruction, as it forces Title I school administrators to rethink their
instructional programs and practices. Although factors such as minority ethnicity, non-
English language background and low-income status do not cause low performance,
virtually any of these factors coupled with poverty set the conditions for low student
achievement, thus the achievement gap continues to exist (EdSource, 2010), which will
require rethinking the instructional program in schools. As documented in the book
entitled James S. Coleman, students who live in poverty experience double jeopardy; first
because they are more frequently exposed to medical illnesses, family stress and other
negative life conditions and second because they experience more serious consequences
from these risks than do their higher socioeconomic status (SES) counterparts, especially
if their poverty is long-term (Clark, 1996).
When schools are working to close the achievement gap, Feldman, Lucey,
Goodrich, and Frazee (2003) state how crucial it is for school districts lead the charge in
creating a culture that recognizes and supports ongoing data analysis from multiple
sources. Data analysis provides a comprehensive depiction of each school’s strengths and
weaknesses. Individual schools should then develop a plan to prioritize and address their
weaknesses using a five step process; 1) set a vision, 2) collect and analyze data, 3)
determine strengths and challenge areas, 4) brainstorm methods for dealing with barriers,
causes of the barriers, and solutions, and finally 5) assess annually by citing evidence of
achievement of the goal (Feldman, Lucey, Goodrich, & Frazee, 2003).

4
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 created the real impetus behind
district, school, principal, and teacher accountability for the performance levels of all
students, including ethnic minorities, EL, and low-income subgroups. Prior to NCLB,
schools were able to mask the underperformance of their minority students, namely
Hispanics, African Americans, EL and socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students.
Schools relied on the ever-increasing achievement scores of their middle-class students,
which subsequently raised the mean score. NCLB is praiseworthy for the attention it
places on consistently improved learning outcomes for student populations who have
been left behind in the past (Linn, 2005). It mandates that, schools make minimum annual
progress in student achievement for ELA and Mathematics, and sets a long-range goal of
all students demonstrating advanced or proficient level of mastery by 2014.
Many of the state’s schools will receive disciplinary sanctions under NCLB, in
addition to being defined as failing schools for not making Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP). Schools that do not make AYP and/or do not meet their growth target on
California’s Academic Performance Index (API) are publically admonished. On an
annual basis, major newspapers across the state and online media sites publish each
school’s ranking, which typically governs public opinion of good schools vs. bad schools.
The aim of this study is to examine how Title I schools with significant
populations of minority students, EL, and SED students are able to continuously improve
student performance in ELA and mathematics. Specifically, this study will look at school
level leadership decisions in terms of hiring and firing practices, programmatic
implementation and intervention services as a means to closing the achievement gap

5
among minority students and their white counterparts, English learners and native
English speakers, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students and middle class
students. There is an extensive body of research on the connection between leadership
and student achievement in largely minority, low-income schools (Duke, 2006; Education
Week, 2010; Feldman, Lucey, Goodrich & Frazee, 2003), however more research needs
to be conducted on school level resource allocation practices to improve student
performance in ELA and mathematics.
Background of the Problem
Policy makers and legislators continue to debate how to determine the cost of an
adequate education. The legislators’ answer to declining or limited growth in student
achievement has been to increase school funding (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). With the
advent of standards-based reform and adequacy studies having been conducted across the
country, Rebell (2007) contends there is a need to determine the cost of education per
student. In light of NCLB requirements for student achievement, school administrators
are having to make decisions about their students’ greatest areas of need to determine
how to allocate scarce resources; that being time, money, personnel and effort (Brewer,
Hentschke, & Eide, 2008). However, common agreements have not been reached on the
cost of an adequate education for students in the public school system. The concepts of
adequacy and equity must be explored to ascertain how to allocate scarce resources based
on the needs of the student population.
Odden and Picus (2008) refer to adequacy as the relationship between student
performance and how funds are being expended; and equity as “issues related to widely

6
varying education expenditures per pupil across districts within a state…” (p. 1).
Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) identify four approaches that have been used by
consultants, each of which attempts to approximate adequate funding levels: 1)
professional judgment approach, 2) the evidence-based approach, 3) successful schools
approach, and 4) cost function approach. The highlights of each approach will follow, but
will be further expanded upon in Chapter Two.
The professional judgment approach is the most commonly applied method. This
approach includes convening a panel of educators of varying levels, from teachers to
superintendents, to develop a program to meet the needs of their struggling learners and
close the achievement gap. The panel is instructed to “dream big” and not to focus on the
costs of such a program, resulting in a cost figure based on a “basket of resources” which
the panel believes are necessary to achieve the identified goals (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). One of the drawbacks to this approach is that it lacks of empirical evidence.
According to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009), the professional judgment approach
produces biased and unreliable recommendations partly due to panel members lacking
expertise in designing educational programs to meet goals in areas where they are not
experienced.
The evidence base model (EBM) relies on the use of research and specific studies
closely related to the programs and services deemed necessary to accomplish the goals
designed to increase student achievement. They select a set of model school resources
and itemize the costs. Odden and Picus (2008) note that these costs are then aggregated to
estimate the statewide level of adequate school funding. This approach has its own set of

7
shortcomings including the consultant’s lack of evidence of the combined effects of the
components and flawed program evaluations, in that it deliberately avoids attempts in
calculating the minimum costs of achieving any level of success (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009).
The successful schools approach identifies schools that have been successful in a
particular focus area, usually some facet of student achievement. Those schools are
studied to determine how much they spend per student (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
The assumption is if the school conducting the study spends their site funds similarly to
the school(s) studied; the same results would be achieved. Odden (2003) contends the
high performing school typically has a student population and challenges different from
the struggling school doing the study.
The cost function approach uses current spending and achievement patterns of all
schools in the state to predict the most appropriate spending levels (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009) by using statistical analysis. The limitation to the cost function approach
is it is a district level analysis; ideally, a site level analysis is preferable. This approach is
complex and often difficult for people outside of education to comprehend (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
California is tasked with educating highly diverse student populations while state
funding for K-12 public education continues to erode. The achievement gap persists
among minority students, EL, and SED students, all of which are typical characteristics
of Title I schools. In addition, there has been a call to action from the federal level for

8
more student performance accountability. School officials are no longer solely focused on
equity and equal access to education; the expectation of high academic achievement for
all students is much more outcome-driven, with a keen focus on adequacy. Research on
how school leaders allocate resources to help improve student performance in ELA and
math and close the achievement gap is needed.
Although there is a lack of conclusive agreement on the best model to determine
adequate funding for education, more school level analysis can provide information for
policy makers and legislators regarding the merits of the EBM. Arkansas and Wyoming
have adopted this model to help fund schools (Odden, et al, 2007). The framework
selected for this study, and the one that has garnered more success in determining
adequacy, is the EBM. The EBM is instrumental in providing school administrators with
staffing ratio recommendations, data on how to improve student achievement, and how to
allocate resources to fund professional development and targeted interventions for high-
needs subgroups.
The three focal areas important to this study include the school’s instructional
vision, improvement strategies and instructional improvement plan. Each of these factors
is a road map to understanding the school’s direction for achieving high levels of student
growth. The instructional vision serves as a source of inspiration about a future goal or
level of achievement and clarifies the importance of the goal.
Purpose of the Study
Considering the current economic climate in California and impact it is having on
K-12 public school funding, site-level and district-level school leaders can benefit from

9
understanding how to connect student performance to resource allocation efficiency. This
study analyzed how five elementary schools, four located in Orange County and one in
Los Angeles County, allocated their resources compared to the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) recommendations. The EBM was used as the framework for
improving student performance in ELA and mathematics. In conjunction with the EBM
recommendations, this study also examined evidence of the Ten Strategies to Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009). The research questions used to guide this study
proposal are as follows:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
This study employed both quantitative and qualitative data collection, multiple
methods, on five elementary schools in two districts in Orange County and Los Angeles
County. Quantitative data was collected to analyze student performance over a multi-year
period and to identify site expenditures incurred at each of the five schools. In addition,

10
qualitative data was collected during interview sessions with the site administrators at all
five schools.
Importance of the Study
This study proposal is significant in that it contributes to a narrow body of
accessible research, which defines how resources can be allocated at the school-level to
actualize increased student performance. This study also intends to be an impetus to bring
to the forefront the profound effectiveness of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as a
framework to foster adequacy in resource allocation for public schools resulting in high
student performance for all students regardless of ethnicity/race, linguistic background or
socioeconomic status. The goal of this study is to inform local, state, and federal
policymakers of how to allocate adequate level of resources as a result of research-based
findings to propel students of all backgrounds into becoming 21
st
Century learners, in 21
st

Century learning institutions. Lastly, this study is important because it will guide site
administrators in making decisions on how to efficiently and effectively use their limited
resources to improve student performance.
Limitations
The schools studied were limited to five local elementary schools in Orange
County and Los Angeles County in Southern California. Additionally, it was limited to
Title I schools where the majority of the student population was comprised of minority
students in grades K- 6. Principal bias could not be controlled and the findings may only
be generalizable to schools with similar demographics.

11
Delimitations
The scope of the schools studied was confined to a set of specific, yet narrow
parameters: including small sample size, schools outside of a 15 mile radius were not
considered. The findings can only be generalized to urban elementary schools with
similar demographics in the Orange County and Los Angeles County areas.
Assumptions
This study relied on the candidness and transparency of the interviewees.
Although answers were not confirmed, it was assumed the statements and information
provided by the interviewees were accurate and current.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): A tool for measuring school performance. The
single-number index ranges from 200 to 1000. This number summarizes a
school’s performance on various indicators. A calculation is given for the school
and all significant subgroups at the school, which may include students living in
poverty, English Learners, ethnic groups, and students with disabilities.
(California Department of Education, 2009)
Achievement Gap: The U.S. Department of Education describes the achievement gap as
the difference in academic performance between different ethnic groups. In
California, the gap is defined as the disparity between white students and other
ethnic groups and between English learners and native English speakers,
socioeconomically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged, and students with
disabilities as compared to students without disabilities (California Department of
Education, 2010).

12
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): The percent of students proficient in language arts
and mathematics on the standards based test used for determining growth toward
NCLB requirements (California Department of Education, 2009).
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): “The measure by which schools, districts, and states are
held accountable for student performance under Title I of the No Child Left
Behind Act.” (Edsource, 2004).
Budget Flexibility: Due to the current fiscal emergency the state has allowed LEA’s to set
aside spending rules to meet general fund obligations. (California Department of
Education, 2009)
California English Language Development Test (CELDT): A state test required for K-12
students whose primary language is not English. There are five levels ranging
from Beginning to Advanced (California Department of Education, 2010).
California Standards Tests (CSTs): Part of the STAR program, these tests are
administered annually beginning in the third grade through eleventh grade and
address mastery of the state’s content standards in the core academic areas
(California Department of Education, 2010).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): administered the U.S. Department of
Education provides federal aid for elementary and secondary schools based on a
formula determined by enrollment and child poverty. This legislation was
reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (Joftus, S., Cowan,
K. T., Skinner, R., May, E., and Priestman, S. 2002).

13
Equalization: Funds allocated by the legislature to raise districts with lower revenue
limits toward the statewide range.
Equity: The concept of providing students with equal access to a quality education
through an even disbursement of funds per pupil.
Evidence-Based Model (EBM): Adequacy model developed by Odden and Picus (2008)
that addresses staffing and other resources necessary to make all students
successful.
Free and Reduced Meal Program: Program providing free school meals to eligible
students from economically disadvantaged households (as an example, a
household of four with an annual income of less than $27,500 qualifies for free
school meals). The percentage of students at a single school qualifying for this
program is a widely accepted indicator for determining the socio-economic status
of a school’s demographics (California Department of Education, 2010).
General Fund: Federal and state funds that is non-categorical and not restricted or
required to be spent on specific student populations or programs.
General Revenue: Most general-purpose education funding is apportioned to school
districts through a calculation called the "revenue limit". Each school district has
a revenue limit-funding amount per unit of average daily attendance (ADA). A
district's total revenue limit is funded through a combination of local property
taxes and state General Fund aid. (California Department of Education, 2009)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and increased the federal government’s focus

14
on assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It also holds schools and LEAs
accountable for increasing student achievement for all students, including
minorities, English learners, students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged,
and students with disabilities (EdSource, 2010c).
Program Improvement (PI): In California, Program Improvement (PI) is the formal
designation for Title I-funded schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two
consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2008).
Revenue Limits: Student revenue limits established by the state Legislature in an attempt
to equalize per pupil funding. The state provides the necessary amount to assure
districts are meeting this limit; districts exceeding the limit through local sources
are allowed to keep their excess funding.
Serrano v. Priest: California court case that challenged the inequities of per pupil
spending across the state. Settled in 1976 the ruling established equalization of
per pupil spending within $100, referred to as the Serrano band.
Significant Subgroups: Each significant subgroup within a school must make AYP. For
purposes of participation rate, a subgroup is considered numerically significant if
100 or more students are enrolled on the first day or testing or if 50 or more
students enrolled on the first day of testing make up at least 15 percent of the total
population. For purposes of percent proficient, a subgroup is considered
numerically significant if there are 100 or more students with valid scores or if
there are 50 or more students with valid scores who make up at least 15 percent of
the total valid scores (California Department of Education, 2009b).

15
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED): Refers to the low-income background of a
student’s parents, lower education level of parents, parent in low paying/low
skilled occupations, and lower social status in the community.
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: California’s standardized testing
system for its K-12 public schools that includes the CSTs, the CAHSEE, and the
CELDT, among other assessments (California Department of Education, 2010).
Title I: “Provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools with high numbers or high
percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children meet challenging state
academic standards” (United States Department of Education, 2009).

16
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Increased student achievement, standards based instruction and educator
accountability for student learning and performance are the major reform efforts of
NCLB. These costly reforms have been given precedence at the federal, state and local
funding levels. However, providing the financial resources necessary to implement the
education reform efforts has proven to be a challenge for California’s primary funding
contributors. The current financial crisis magnifies the flawed K-12 education finance
system in California, which is the most complex in the nation (Governor’s Committee on
Education Excellence, 2007). Moreover, the state’s current funding system is not
efficient, equitable, nor is it sufficient to meet the needs of students who face the greatest
challenges (Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, 2007), many of whom
attend Title I schools.
This chapter reviews the current literature on school finance and resource
allocation as a means of establishing a framework for research-based strategies for
education reform. Four key areas will be reviewed: 1) school funding in California, (2)
resource use, (3) educational adequacy, and 4) successful strategies that lead to increased
student performance. The chapter will conclude with a summary about the contributions
of the literature review to this study.
School Funding in California
Until the 1970’s, public schools in California were primarily funded by local
property taxes; approximately 60% of school funding came from local property taxes,
and the majority of the total school funding was unrestricted (Kirst, et al., 2007). While

17
the state provided some funding for education, the state had few restrictions on how the
money was spent; paying for schools was an issue predominantly addressed at the local
level (Timar, 2004). Today, however, the current landscape for funding California’s
schools has changed dramatically. By contrast, in 2008 only 22% of school funding came
from local property taxes with the majority, 60%, coming from state revenue and 9%
from the federal government (EdSource, 2009). The state legislature, not local school
boards, determines how much money districts receive and how the money is spent
(Timar, 2004); roughly 40% of school revenues are restricted and must be used within
parameters set by the state (Timar, 2006). California’s current funding system has
become centralized, which gives the state more control over funding education. The
catalyst for the shift in school funding resulted from three historical events in California:
(1) the Serrano v. Priest court decision, (2) Proposition 13, and (3) Proposition 98.
The next section examines the evolution of California’s school finance system.
The impact of the state’s three historical events is analyzed to provide a context for the
current centralized education funding system.
Serrano v. Priest
In 1971 the California Supreme Court ruled in the historical Serrano v. Priest
case that the state’s method of funding public education “fails to meet the requirements of
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and the California Constitution" and therefore rendered the system
unconstitutional (Timar, 2004; Serrano v. Priest, 1976). There existed wide variations of
school spending from one district to the next district (Loeb et al., 2006). Homeowners in

18
low income urban districts and districts with high percentages of African American,
Hispanic or poor students were spending more on property taxes than residents in higher
property value districts for the same or even lesser educational opportunities (Loeb et al.,
2006; Serrano v Priest, 1976). Assessed value of properties in low-income areas was
substantially less than the property values in high wealth areas resulting in grave
disparities of revenue school districts received from property taxes (Timar, 2006).
Districts with high student enrollment and low property values were considered to be
disadvantaged school districts; receiving less money to educate their students than their
more affluent counterparts. If the projected district expenditures exceeded the anticipated
funding level, districts would often turn to the voters in the local community to approve a
property tax increase, however, the burden to close the funding gap in impoverished areas
resulted in larger tax increases yielding only limited additional resources (Timar, 2004).
The California Supreme Court mandated that differences in the unrestricted funds that
schools receive be lessened (Timar, 2006).
Although the Serrano decision required the state to equalize funding among
school districts, the Court made a distinction between general revenue limit funding and
categorical funding. The Courts ruled categorical funds were not subject to the
equalization provisions since those monies were designated for a specific purpose, thus
resulting in two funding streams for schools (Timar, 2004; Timar 1994). Timar (1994)
argues that due to categorical funding, the basic idea of equalization through Serrano no
longer applies. In essence, “Serrano did not change anything…it required the legislature
to make the changes” (Picus, 2010); it did not limit the use of categorical grants to fund

19
schools (Timar, 1994). However, the Serrano case was a significant milestone in
California history in that it was the driving force for the shift of school revenue control
from the local level to the state level.
Proposition 13
The premise of Proposition 13 was it shifted school finance decision-making
control from the local districts to the state where limitations were placed on the local
district’s ability to finance education (Timar, 1994; Timar, 2004). The impact Proposition
13 had on California’s school finance system is threefold: 1) it sets a statewide property
tax rate at 1%; 2) it does not allow districts to seek additional revenue by increasing the
tax rate; and 3) it limits the growth in assessed values for properties that remain with the
original owner (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007).
With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the state legislature controlled how
much money local districts received and set restrictions on how the money could be spent
(Timar, 2004). This change in the governance system in affect transformed local property
taxes into a state tax under state control. Therefore, local governments and school boards
were no longer in control of their tax dollars, giving state lawmakers predominant
jurisdiction over how schools receive their funding (Kirst et al., 2007).
Proposition 98
Proposition 98 was passed in 1988, which altered the California Constitution by
setting a protected portion of the state budget for K-14 education. The intent of this
legislation was to provide stability and predictability in education funding from one year
to the next by guaranteeing a minimum level of funding that keeps pace with student

20
enrollment and personal income (Timar, 2004; EdSource, 2009). Timar (2006) identifies
the funding provisions of Proposition 98 determined by one of three “tests”:
• Test 1: provides K‐14 with at least the same percentage of state General Fund
revenues as in 1986‐87. At the time this was roughly 40%.
• Test 2: provides that K‐14 receives at least the same amount of combined state aid
and property tax revenues as in the previous year adjusted for state‐wide ADA
growth and an inflation factor equal to the annual change in per capita personal
income.
• Test 3: is generally the same as Test 2, but uses a different inflation factor—one
that is equal to the annual percentage change in per capita state General Fund tax
revenues plus ½% if that inflation factor is lower than the Test 2 inflation factor.
Although the “tests” are to be used in determining funding for school districts, over the
last several years, districts have received less than their Proposition 98 minimum revenue
promise in light of the economic downturn in California. The state sets funding timelines
that are routinely not adhered to; districts are in danger of not receiving the minimum
Cost of Living Adjustment and mid-year budget cuts are looming leaving many
California school districts in uncertain financial terrains (EdSource, 2009).
Figure 2.1 from Timar (2004) illustrates, over a twenty-year period from 1980-
2000, as the average per-pupil funding increased by 15%, the restricted funding also
increased 165%. Concurrently, unrestricted dollars decreased close to 8% from $4,717 to
$4,362 (Timar, 2004). Additionally, the change in funding streams limits local districts
ability to spend discretionary funds as it sees fit.

21

Figure 2.1: Restricted v. Unrestricted Funding in California

Source: Timar (2004).
Current Challenges In A Down Economy
California schools are evaluated based on two separate, yet interrelated
accountability systems, (1) the federal accountability system, Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP), measures student performance based on the percent of students scoring advanced
or proficient in ELA and math, and (2) the state accountability system, Academic
Performance Index (API), measures a school and its numerically significant subgroup’s
composite academic growth from one year to the next. Both systems should be evaluated
to determine a school’s academic achievement as each system measures school and
subgroup success differently. Consequently, it is possible for a school to have high API

22
growth and performance, yet not meet one or more requirements for AYP because the
criteria for the federal and state accountability systems are different. However, the
combined goals for the two accountability systems are to eliminate achievement gaps
between student subgroups (California Department of Education, 2010).
The API is a performance score ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000
based on the results of statewide testing for students in grades 2nd – 6th in May of each
year. It is based on a growth model used to annually measure the academic growth of a
school. A score of 800 has been established by the California Board of Education, as the
target score schools should work toward achieving. Annually, schools and each of their
numerically significant subgroups with an API less than 800 are assigned a growth target
that is 5% of the difference between the current API score and 800 to make their API
growth requirements. Schools and subgroups with an API of 800 and above must
maintain a minimum API of 800.
By contrast, the federal accountability system is based on a performance model
(as opposed to the API growth model). To meet AYP criteria, schools and their
numerically significant subgroups must meet established performance target percentages
of students testing at the proficient level or above annually. Each year the minimum
performance target percentage of students scoring proficient or above in ELA and math
increases significantly until 2014, where the expectation is 100% of all students will
score proficient or above. AYP is also based upon schools having a minimum API or at
least have one point growth and a minimum of 95% student participation rate in the
statewide testing.

23
According to the 2009 California Standards Test (CST) results, only 49.9% and
45.8% of California’s students scored advance/proficient in ELA and mathematics
respectively (DataQuest, 2010). This represents 4.2% increase in ELA and 3.1% increase
in Mathematic proficiency level from the 2008 testing period. Although California’s
students are on an upward trend in making improvements to attain minimum proficiency
levels, the sustainability of forward progress is amidst a down economy and a flawed
school financial system (Loeb, et al., 2007). “California’s school finance is unnecessarily
complex…” (Loeb et al., 2007) and funds its schools well under the national average
(EdSource, 2009). Evaluating a state’s effort toward supporting K–12 public education
can be done in several ways. One way is by determining the amount the state actually
spends on schools per $1,000 in personal income. Table 2.1 shows in 2003-2004,
California’s invested $38 per $1,000 in personal income, three dollars below the national
average, for a ranking of 33rd in the nation. Among the five largest states, California was
second to last, a position it has held in three of the last five years from 1999–2004;
California was also below the U.S. average each of those five years (Ed-Data, 2008).

24
Table 2.1: California’s Expenditure for K-12 Education

Source: Ed-Data (2008).
Many of California’s schools are located in large urban districts where the student
population is largely English Learners (EL), minority students, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged (SED) students-students living in poverty. Consequently, the number of
Title I elementary schools in California has increased from 4,005 in 2004-2005 to 4,153
in 2007-2008 representing a statewide increase of 148 newly designated Title I schools
for the 2007-2008 school year (EdSource, 2010). Title I of the ESEA was established to
provide for students of low income and minority backgrounds. Schools with low income
student populations equal to or greater than 40% of the total student population are
designated as a Title I school, and therefore qualify for federal Title I funding to operate a
“school-wide” Title I program (California Department of Education, 2010). Moreover,
schools falling short of the 40% threshold, referred as “targeted assistance” Title I

25
schools, receive federal Title I dollars to provide educational services only to individual
students whom the school has identified as failing or most at risk of failing to meet the
state’s academic content standards (California Department of Education, 2010).
Allocation for Title I monies have changed over the years. In the 1980’s school
districts saw a reduction in Title I funding. Additionally, in 1988 schools were required to
do two things; specify how students were identified as being Title I eligible and identify
how the students would reach the specified academic goals. Again in 1994 another
change was made to Title I requiring schools to detail the academic standards and
assessments that would be used to demonstrate student progress for those students
identified and Title I eligible (Jennings, 2005). With the advent of NCLB, the parameters
for Title I funding made a subsequent change in 2002. NCLB tied Title I funding to the
requirement of schools consistently making their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the
federal accountability system. Each year elementary schools must meet three sets of
requirements for all of their significant subgroups to make AYP including: (1) 95%
student participation rate on the statewide tests, (2) percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in ELA and Mathematics on statewide tests, and (3) growth on
the Academic Performance Index (API), California’s own accountability system which is
included as one indicator in the federal accountability system (California Department of
Education, 2010). Title I schools not meeting the requirements for AYP for two
consecutive years in the same content area (ELA or math) school-wide or for any
numerically significant subgroup or on the same indicator (API score) school-wide are
designated as Program Improvement (PI) and must implement additional federal

26
requirements (California Department of Education, 2010). In addition to this sanction,
students in the “failing” school attendance boundary have the right to transfer out of the
underperforming school and attend a different school that is making AYP. The 2002
changes to Title I mandates that the federal allocation follow the transferring student to
his/her new school. To illustrate the magnitude Title I funding has on school budgets, in
2000, over 90% of schools in the United States received Title I dollars.
In addition to Title I funding, California’s diverse schools and school districts
receive other state and federal categorical aid, however the amount varies greatly
(EdSource, 2010). Figure 2.2 displays the different revenue sources that funded K-12
education in 2008-2009. With more than 80 categorical programs, much of the money
schools receive come with regulations stipulating how the money must be spent and the
targeted students it must be spent on. Approximately 24 of the 80 categorical programs
comprise 88% of all categorical monies (Timar, 2004). In response to the current
financial hardship districts are enduring, the state has provided flexibility in the amount
of funding school districts can move between different categorical programs. With the
state temporarily loosening the restrictions on categorical programs, it is allowing
districts to make the best use of their funds to address their most critical local needs
without being subjected to sanctions as they may otherwise (EdSource, 2009).

27
Figure 2.2: Sources of Revenue for K-12 Education: 2008-2009 Revenues

Source: California Department of Education EdSource (2009).
Governor Schwarzenegger established the Governor’s Committee on Educational
Excellence in 2005 with the mission of evaluating current educational issues, strategizing
the best possible solutions and offering suggestions for reform (Governor’s Committee
on Educational Excellence, 2007). One of the findings from the committee’s work
revealed close to two-dozen studies concluding California lacked systematic school
funding practices that supported California’s accountability system for NCLB (Kirst, et
al., 2007; Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). The premise of NCLB was to draw attention to
educationally disadvantaged students (ELL, minority students, and SED students) and
provide federal funding to prepare, train, recruit, and retain highly qualified teachers
while supporting research-based student programs (EdSource, 2009). Due to the financial

28
crisis affecting public schools in California, many school districts are laying-off teachers
and instructional support staff while increasing class sizes, eliminating summer school
offerings and cutting school nurses, art, music libraries and sports programs; all of which
are making it more challenging to close the achievement gap, the goal of NCLB.
Over the last two years, public education in California received $17 billion less in
state funding than what was anticipated resulting in over 20,000 teachers being laid off
this year alone (EdBrief, 2010). On June 29, 2010 State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Jack O’Connell stated the number of school district that potentially will not be
able to meet future financial obligations due to the continuing state budget crisis and
inadequate funding for public education has increased by 38% since the beginning of the
year (EdBrief, 2010). Schools are now forced to make decisions about cutting desperately
needed student programs and services or succumb to bankruptcy. This trend is anticipated
to worsen if Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed cuts to pubic education are carried
forward in the 2010-2011 budget. O’Connell is urging state lawmakers to find solutions
to the state budget crisis and provide adequate funding for California schools.
Of the states 1,077 local educational agencies (LEAs) (school districts, county
offices of education, and joint powers agencies), as of the second Interim Status Report
for 2009-2010, 174 LEAs are on the state’s watch list of not being able to meet its
financial obligations for the current year or two subsequent fiscal years (EdBrief, 2010).
This represents a 38.1% increase from the first Interim Status Report for 2009-2010 and
further illustrating the dire straights California’s schools are facing (EdBrief, 2010).
Superintendent O’Connell recently pleaded, “Even the infusion of billions of federal

29
stimulus funds last year was not enough to stem the rising tied of financial woes for
school districts around the state. I am very grateful to the Obama administration for
providing California funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but it is
critical that Californians understand that our schools will face another wave of economic
woe at the end of this year when the federal stimulus funding is exhausted” (EdBrief,
2010).
Resource Use
Resource allocation for public education is no less important of an issue than
ongoing, increased levels of student achievement and the elimination of the achievement
gap. The lofty goals set by the state of California and the federal NCLB Act of educating
the vast majority of all students to learn at “world class” performance standards will
require significant education reform (Odden & Archibald, 2009). According to Odden
and Archibald (2009), additional resources, such that Superintendent O’Connell is urging
legislatures and policymakers to provide public education, ‘may’ be required, however,
their primary argument is that the education system will need to use its resources more
effectively. Odden and Picus (2008) assert that steady increases in education funding
over the last hundred years have not been used to improve the quality of instructional
programs leading to increased student achievement. In fact, the education system has
used the majority of new resources for programs outside the core instructional program
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Strategies that have the largest impact on student learning and
student achievement such as ongoing professional development with instructional
coaches, tutoring services for students, and extended learning time are not how most

30
schools and school districts are spending their resource allocations (Mangan, 2007;
Mangan, Odden, & Picus, 2007; Odden, Picus, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008).
Evaluating spending and resource allocation patterns provides insight on what is valued
in having an impact on student performance. Given that schools share closely related
functions and related inputs and outputs, the production process will likely appear to be
related as well. There are several ways in which a school’s resources can be identified,
most common categories or functions according to Odden and Picus (2008) are:
instruction, instructional support, administration, student support, operations and
maintenance, transportation, and food services.
Busch and Odden (1997) argue there needs to be a systematic data collection
process that clearly delineates the use and efficiency of school level resources. Not
having an adequate fiscal reporting system is a flaw in public education making
allocation practices unproductive (Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995). Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich and Gross (2003) offer a framework comprised of nine categories,
six of which are instructional and three are non-instructional, for collecting and analyzing
data on school-level expenditures. The nine categories are:
1. Core academic teachers- the number of licensed, full-time equivalent (FTE)
teachers who teach core academic subjects including reading/ELA, math, science,
social studies/history, special education and bilingual education courses
2. Specialists and elective teachers- licensed teachers who teach non-core content
such as vocational education, physical education, drama, art, music, or who
provide planning time for core teachers

31
3. Extra help- licensed teachers who provide additional support for struggling
learners to supplement the core instructional strategies such as tutors, math or
ELA support classes, resource rooms, inclusion teachers, extended days or
summer programs, etc.
4. Professional development- the amount of all expenses associated with
professional development for teaching staff including: teacher prep time, trainers
and coaches, administration of professional development, materials, equipment
and facilities, travel and transportation, and tuition and conferences
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff- licensed and non-licensed instructional
staff that support the school’s instructional program including: curriculum and
technology coordinators, substitutes, and instructional aides not assigned to self-
contained classrooms
6. Instructional materials and equipment- includes books, instructional supplies,
materials, equipment and computer hardware and software used in the regular
education program and all extra help programs
7. Student support- includes support staff such as counselors, nurses, social workers,
psychologists, community liaisons, attendance clerks, as well as any expenditure
for athletics and extracurricular activities
8. Administration- Includes all expenditures related to the administration of the
school, including the principal, assistant principal(s), clerical staff, administrative
office supplies, equipment and technology, and reserve funds

32
9. Operations and maintenance- the cost of staff, supplies, equipment for custodial
services, food services, and security as well as utilities and charges to the school
related to the maintenance of buildings and grounds
Table 2.2 itemizes the school expenditure structure and resource indicators (Odden et al.,
2003).

33
Table 2.2: School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
School Unit Size Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Percent Low Income Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Percent Special Education Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Percent ESL/LEP Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Expenditures Per Pupil Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Professional Development Core Class Size (Secondary)
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of School/Unit Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Length of Instructional Day Percent Core Teachers
Length of Class Periods
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies

School Expenditure Structure
Instructional
1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- History/ Social Studies
- Math
- Science

2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and
Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. Etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special
Funding
- Vocational
- Drivers Education
- Librarians

3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Extra Help Laboratories
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or
other part-day pullout programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- English as a second language classes
- Special Education self-contained classes for
severely disabled students (Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs

4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees

5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special
Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides

6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)

7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extra-Curricular and Athletics

Non-Instructional
8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service
Source: Table reprinted from Odden, et al. (2003).

34
Odden et al. (2003) conducted an analysis of expenditures in two elementary
schools and two secondary schools using the expenditure structure framework. Each of
the schools varied in size, instructional programs, per pupil spending, student
demographics and budgets. The expenditure structure the researchers used proved to be
telling by offering specific details regarding how each school was allocating their
resources. Additionally, the researchers found this model to be particularly advantageous
in monitoring appropriate use of funds that support efforts for education reform.
Analyzing a school’s resource use practices, as detailed above, is instrumental in
determining its efficiency. Furthermore, resource use analysis helps to ascertain the
impact site-level decisions have on student performance. It is important for schools to
answer the question “Is it worthwhile?” when evaluating the implementation and
effectiveness of any program (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Today, many districts have to
carefully scrutinize their expenditures while determining the cost feasibility
(affordability) of programs and if there are more cost effective alternatives available (one
that is less costly, but yields similar outcomes) (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
Educational Adequacy
K-12 finance systems in close to twenty states have been declared
unconstitutional by state courts because the states are not providing enough funding for
the “adequate” education guaranteed by their respective state constitutions (Hanushek,
2006). There is a growing reliance on adequacy studies, as shift from the twentieth
century’s focus on school finance equity, as courts and legislatures begin to ask what it
costs to educate children to world-class performance standards (Odden & Archibald,

35
2009; Taylor et al., 2005; Baker et al., 2008). Adequate funding is defined as the amount
of funding needed to ensure all students are meeting high academic standards to achieve
the proficiency targets of the state and federal accountability systems (Baker, 2005;
Clune, 1994; Odden, 2003). In 2008, Lawrence O. Picus and Associates conducted a
study of school finance adequacy for the state of North Dakota and defined adequacy as
resources sufficient to enable districts and schools to “double student academic
achievement” over a four to six year period (Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Aportela, 2008). For
the purposes of this discussion, the adequacy definition offered by Picus will be
employed.
Over the last decade, educational adequacy studies have been primary focus of
public education systems (Baker et al., 2008). These studies can be grouped into two
main categories; bottom-up analyses and top-down analyses. Totaling the costs to build a
model school to provide an adequate education is a bottom-up analyses compared to a
top-down analyses which estimates the cost of an adequate education of an existing
school, factoring in spending, performance and other characteristics (Baker et al., 2008).
In the bottom-up analyses category, there are two principal types of resource cost
studies; Professional Judgment studies and Evidence-Based studies (Baker et al., 2008).
The major difference between these two studies is professional judgment studies use
educators and policymakers to prescribe the resources to provide an adequate education
while evidence-based studies rely on consultants to prescribe the resources based on a
proven effective school reform model (Baker et al., 2008).

36
Successful schools studies and cost function studies are the two most common
examples of the top-down analyses category (Baker et al., 2008). The successful schools
approach uses student performance data to identify and benchmark high performing
schools and school districts. Researchers then estimate the required funds needed to
provide an adequate education at the successful school. Conversely, the cost function
approach uses statistical methods and data on student performance along with other
factors to predict the cost of achieving specific outcomes. The observed relationship
between educational inputs and outputs can be used to estimate cost differences based on
varying size schools/districts or student characteristics (Baker et al., 2008).
In estimating adequate funding levels required to double student academic
achievement, four different approaches have been used: (1) the Successful Schools
Approach, (2) the Cost Function Approach, (3) the Professional Judgment Approach, and
(4) the Evidence-Based Model (EMB) (Loeb, 2007; Odden, 2003; Odden, Picus, &
Goetz, 2006). The following sections will detail each methodology’s strengths and
weaknesses.
Successful Schools Approach
The successful schools (or successful districts) approach to determine adequacy
evaluates how schools have been successful in helping its students meet proficiency
standards (Odden, 2003). Several states including Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri
and Ohio have implemented this approach (Loeb, 2007). Rebell (2007) sites an advantage
of the successful schools approach is it link between costs and desired outcomes.

37
Moreover, it is relatively inexpensive to study and does not require a long period of time
to complete.
The Getting Down to Facts project in California studied how high-poverty, high
performing schools allocated their resources compared to other high-poverty, low
performing schools (Perez et al., 2007). The authors of the study found there were
virtually no differences in the number of staff employed in each of the schools, however,
the high performing schools had greater numbers of experienced teachers and
administrators compared to the low performing schools that had higher numbers of
teachers with insufficient credentials. Although the schools had similar resources
available, inefficient uses did not yield the same student outcomes as the successful
schools. Loeb et al. (2007) asserts one of the disadvantages of the successful schools
approach is there is no reason to expect that providing schools with additional funding
will materialize into substantial increases in student achievement.
Another disadvantage to the successful schools approach is it fails to include large
urban districts or small rural districts, making it challenging to relate to their financial
needs (Rebell, 2007; Odden, 2003). It can be difficult to understand how funds should be
spent to produce student achievement results because these studies are generally not
specific enough to calculate any additional resources needed for high needs students
(Odden & Picus, 2008; Rebell, 2007). Furthermore, Odden and Picus (2008) state that
this approach tend to be generalizable to average sized, suburban districts that serve
homogenous student populations making it hard to apply to large, diverse, urban schools.

38
Cost Function Approach
The cost function approach uses student achievement and district spending data to
determine costs of an adequate education (Rebell, 2007; Loeb, 2007). It also incorporates
regression analysis and other specific statistical analyses. According to Rebell (2007), the
cost function approach involves more rigorous attempts to determine current spending
levels associated with a specific set of outcomes and how those levels of spending may
vary for districts of different characteristics that serve different student populations.
There are weaknesses of the cost function approach, which make it a less
attractive adequacy model. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) criticize it for being too
technically complex and it does not identify the necessary strategies to produce the
desired outcomes. Additionally, the amount of data required is substantial and its success
is largely determined by the accuracy of that data. The cost function approach, as noted
by Odden (2003), does not provide an effective school level analysis. Hanushek and
Lindseth (2009) further criticize this approach for taking advantage of the relationship
between spending and student achievement, stating it simply reports the state spending
practices and nothing more.
Professional Judgment Approach
The professional judgment approach has become the most widely used costing-
out approach (Rebell, 2007; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). For this approach, a panel of
educational experts is asked to identify effective educational strategies that would
produce the desired student performance outcomes (Odden, 2003; Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). After the effective strategies are identified, their key components are accounted

39
for (personnel, technology, etc.), given a price and finally, a total sum per pupil is
estimated (Odden & Picus, 2008). The major strengths of the professional judgment
approach are they (1) pool the collective wisdom of a group of highly qualified,
knowledgeable educational professionals, and (2) the groups have the ability to assess the
desired outcomes of a school that are difficult to measure by test scores (Rebell, 2007).
The professional judgment approach can potentially take on a “free for all” or “shopping
spree” tone because the practitioners are encouraged to think big and not of costs
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Rebell (2007) indicates there may be a tendency of the
group to produces shopping spree lists that are impractical and unnecessary. Not having a
clear and direct link between the ingredients identified by the experts and the impact on
student outcomes, noted by Odden (2003), is a weakness of the professional judgment
approach. In a study on what it would cost to educate all California students with equal
levels of access and opportunities to achieve proficiency as determined by state
standards, Chambers et al. (2007) concluded three chief findings: (1) additional
resources, including class size reduction, ongoing high quality professional development
for teachers, and teaching specialist to work with small groups of struggling learners are
necessary to help schools meet state standards, (2) hiring additional teachers will not
necessarily increase student achievement, rather, the focus must be on how all of the
teachers and specialists are utilized, and (3) lastly, in order for California to provide an
adequate education for all of its students, a 50% increase in current expenditures is
required.

40
Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model (EBM) is the last educational adequacy approach that
will be reviewed in this chapter and is the focus of this research study. The EBM uses
research or other evidence based educational strategies, determines the appropriate price
for them, and then aggregates them to identify adequate school, district and state
expenditure levels to meet the needs of their students (Odden & Picus, 2008). One of the
main purposes of this model is to help school officials and policymakers deliver a high
quality educational program aimed at students successfully meeting state and federal
performance standards (Odden, 2003; Odden et al., 2006). The EBM addresses major
elements of school resources and provides recommendations based on empirical
evidence. Another advantage of the EBM is it supplies schools with specific details about
proven effective strategies to increase student achievement along with clear information
about the necessary resource allocations to implement them; a benefit to schools, districts
and states that is a weakness of the professional judgment approach.
The EBM has been used by many states to evaluate and develop adequate school
finance systems. Its influences can be found in Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, New
Jersey, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming (Odden & Picus, 2008). This model
identifies resources needed, including core teaching staffing, to deliver a high quality,
research based program to help students at the model school achieve at high levels.
Researchers who use the EBM to finance adequacy have constructed it by incorporating
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) research on the ten effective, research based practices that
double student performance: (1) understand the performance problems and challenges,

41
(2) set ambitious goals, (3) change the curriculum program and create a new instructional
vision, (4) utilize formative assessments and data-based decision making, (5) provide
ongoing intensive professional development, (6) use time efficiently and effectively, (7)
extend learning time for struggling students, (8) create a collaborative, professional
culture, (9) foster widespread and distributed instructional leadership, and (10) utilize
professional and best practices. The researchers to have established “prototypical”
elementary, middle and high schools using this adequacy approach that identifies staffing
and resources needed to produce a high quality program to increase student achievement
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Figure 2.3 displays the EBM and the staffing ratios necessary
foster high student achievement.
Figure 2.3 illustrates one of the critical features needed to fund a model school is
to reduce class sizes in the core content areas – 15:1 in K-3
rd
grade and 25:1 in 4
th
– 12
th

grade. Furthermore the model calls for a certain percentage of teaching specialists based
upon the school level, extended support for struggling students including tutoring by
certificated teachers, support for ELL, extended learning opportunities, resources
dedicated to specialized learning programs, access to rich instructional materials and up-
to-date technology, and high quality ongoing professional development by utilizing
instructional coaches, trainers, and ten extra days of professional development for
teachers. Table 2.3 presents recommendations for an elementary school setting. The most
useful aspect of the EBM is that it provides staffing and resource ratios to build a model
school, making it easily adaptable to any size school.

42
Figure 2.3: The Evidence Based Model
Inst ruc tional
Mat erials
Pupil Support :
Parent /Communit y
Out reac h/
Involvement
Gift ed
Tut ors and pupil support :
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High Sc hool 33%
The Evidence Based Model: The Evidence Based Model: The Evidence Based Model: The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K -3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
Dist rict Admin
Sit e-based Leadership
Teac her
Compensat ion
ELL
1 per
100
Tec hnology

Source: Modified from Picus et al. (2008).

43

Table 2.3: EBM Recommendations for a Prototypical Elementary School
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel resources
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100 poverty students
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil
Student Activities $200 per pupil
Professional Development
$100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not included above
Source: Modified from Odden & Picus (2008).
Like the aforementioned adequacy approaches, the EBM has been criticized for
its weaknesses as well. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) cite that the model does not show

44
the effect of the components proposed by the consultants while it easily calculates costs.
The authors go on to state there is not enough evidence to support this approach and that
there may be evidence to refute the claim that the EBM is easy to implement.
Additionally, not all the finding from empirical evidence is generalizable to other
populations (Rebell, 2007). Recommendations that are successful in one context are not a
guarantee for success in a different context.
Each of the adequacy approaches for funding education reviewed in this study
have implementation advantages as well as shortcomings. There is not a “one size fits
all” approach that will work in all schools across the country (Baker, 2005). Under
NCLB, individual states are responsible for setting performance standards and
proficiency levels. Schools need to consider what resources being used, but more
importantly, they need to carefully evaluate how they are utilized (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Effective Strategies for Improving Student Performance
Undoubtedly NCLB has provided the impetus for increased attention on closing
the achievement gap resulting in the need for schools and districts to implement effective
strategies to improve student performance. This legislation requires that schools use
research-based curriculum and interventions. Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, discussed earlier in this chapter, is a
research-based framework designed to offer school leaders and policymakers a blueprint
to radically improve student performance. It is also an essential component of the EBM
for school finance adequacy. Odden and Archibald’s (2009) chronologically ordered ten
steps and accompanying brief descriptions are as follows:

45
1. Understanding the performance problem and challenge- the staff needs to engage
in a variety of activities (analyzing testing data, curriculum mapping, etc.) to
fully understand the problem and determine the distance between current and
desired performance
2. Set ambitious goals- administrators and teachers set high and ambitious goals
regardless of student demographics or current performance levels; all
stakeholders should have a core belief that students can learn and be held
accountable to high levels of achievement
3. Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision- this step
provides schools the opportunity to exert control over the curriculum and
instructional program to produce high levels of student performance; it can
include the assignment of teachers, academic expectations, as well as the
organization of curriculum and instruction; schools only address those areas over
which they can control
4. Utilize formative assessments and data-based decision making- involves the
implementation of more formative assessments to provide concrete information
on what students know and don’t know; teachers can use the information
gleaned from the assessments to guide their instruction to assist students in
reaching the goals and objectives for the curricular unit
5. Provide ongoing intensive professional development- implementation of
widespread, systemic, and ongoing professional development; a majority of
districts and schools have found this to be a great need in the reform process;

46
there are three resources required for good professional development: 1) pupil-
free teacher days to receive training, 2) funds for trainers, and 3) instructional
facilitators or instructional coaches; inclusion of during-the-day collaboration
among teachers regarding the instructional program
6. Use time efficiently and effectively- the instructional time during the day is a
fixed resource, however, schools can utilize this time more efficiently and
effectively by setting aside a large amount of time for reading instruction,
limiting disruptions during reading and math instruction by “protecting” them
from interruptions, and grouping students according to instructional level by
assessing them regularly to ensure proper placement
7. Extend learning time for struggling students- school staff provides multiple
opportunities for students to accomplish goals by providing students with extra
help during the school day, outside of the regular day, and outside of the regular
school year, students are given the chance to meet their goals
8. Create a collaborative, professional culture- also referred as “professional
learning communities” and is a result of the prior steps and not something
created in isolation; the professional learning community is one in which
teachers share high expectations for students, examine assessment data, and
discuss ideas about instruction; instructional practices are not individualized, but
shared by the team
9. Foster widespread and distributed instructional leadership- belief that the
instructional leadership at a school is provided by more than the principal, but is

47
shared by teachers and central office staff at the district as well; at the school
site, principals are often unable to provide all the instructional leadership, create
and implement professional development, work with teachers on analyzing data,
and provide classroom coaching thus, this step includes many more people both
at the school site and at the district level to step up and provide leadership
10. Utilize professional and best practices- the final step is to ensure that schools are
professional organizations that actively seek out research on how to improve
schools as well as looking at best practices of other schools and districts; schools
that are successful in improving student performance do not do so in isolation,
but seek assistance in their endeavors
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) ten strategies mentioned in this section provided the
context for this research study. The authors combined the latest research with their
national study of high-minority, high-poverty schools that were able to significantly
catapult student achievement. Other researchers such Duke (2006), Grubb (2007) and
Chenoweth (2007) have done studies on improving student achievement and found that
similar strategies also produced higher levels of student performance.
Instructional Leadership
There is considerable research that supports the notion of school leadership
playing a central role in a school’s success or failure (Duke, 2006; Feldman et al., 2003;
Fullan, 2005; Hallinger & Heck, 2003). Principals can have a profound effect on student
learning and student achievement by setting high expectations of their staff and students
and supporting their needs by removing institutional barriers that stifle progress. The

48
responsibilities of principals are plenty, and no longer is it acceptable for them to
exclusively focus on the management functions of the school. The principals of the 21
st

century are summoned to be instructional leaders in addition to having sound managerial
skills. They are tasked with ensuring the school’s mission, vision and goals are aligned
with improvement of all aspects of the school (Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
The principal’s role as an instructional leader is critical in bringing about large-
scale educational reform, also called a knowledge society (Fullan, 2002). Fullan, a
premier researcher and author of articles and books about effective school leadership,
states that the leader’s job is to help change context, to introduce new elements into the
situation that will influence positive behavior (Fullan, 2003). He also states in order to
sustain change, principals must continue to develop the social environment, learning in
context, cultivate leaders, and enhance teaching. Fullan is a supporter of school learning
communities and believes them to be a key practice to propel schools in the right
direction. According to DuFour et al. (2006), one way principals can cultivate school
culture is by implementing professional learning communities which provides a context
for teachers to regularly to problem solve, share instructional strategies that work and use
data to strategically plan instruction for differentiated student needs.
Northouse (2007) has documented the importance of transformational leadership
in schools. A transformational leader has the keen ability to create useful contacts and
connections. They are talented and skillful in leading school reform, have high morals
and ethics while being able to motivate others. These leaders understand the importance
of leading by example, setting high expectations that their followers will want to achieve,

49
and encourage creativity and innovation (Northouse, 2007). Transformational leaders are
good listeners and have a pulse on the needs of their followers.
School leaders must take into consideration the needs of their students and staff
when they create their resource allocations for the school year. Site funds should
primarily be spent on resources promoting effective instructional strategies that support
student learning at all ability levels. Supporting student learning also includes the
implementation of high quality, ongoing professional development for teachers and
administrators (Odden, 2003).
Professional Development
Elmore (2002) defines professional development as “the set of knowledge and
skill-building activities that raise the capacity of teachers and administrators to respond to
external demand and to engage in the improvement of practice and performance” (p.13).
According to the principles of standards-based reform, the most effective way of raising
the academic achievement of students is through improved teaching (Birman et al.,
2000). However, much of the professional development that is offered to teachers does
not meet the challenges of the reform movement. “On the whole, most researchers agree
that local professional development programs typically have weak effects on practice
because they lack focus, intensity, follow-up, and continuity” (Corcoran, 1995, p. 4).
Teachers are also critical of trainings that do not provide time for personal exploration
and practice of the new strategies and trainings that lack follow-up sessions. Teachers’
experiences in professional development activities can be shaped in positive ways as a
result of school districts typically having a prominent role in defining, sponsoring and

50
providing professional development, therefore the success of the training is partially
dependent on district strategies (Desimone et al., 2002).
The best results of an effective professional development plan are when the new
strategies are integrated with demonstrations, teachers and administrators are given
opportunities to practice and give individual feedback (Fullan, 1992). The training needs
to be connected to their daily practice, allow for serious study of the subject matter so
that they can reflect on the outcomes once they have been applied in the classroom
(Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). Schmoker (2006)
indicates professional learning communities, where teachers use real data from their own
students based on curriculum aligned assessments are the very best kind of professional
development. Additionally, it is important to have teacher participation in the
professional development design (Desimone et al., 2002). “Reforming teacher
professional development may sound like an impossible task, but engaging all teachers in
discussions of good practice and supporting their efforts to learn and to use more
effective pedagogy may be the first real step towards higher standards for all children”
(Corcoran, 1995, p. 10).
NCLB acknowledges the merit of professional development in light of the
legislative calls for accountability and increased student performance through education
reform efforts. Elmore (2002) states that professional development must include the
mobilization of knowledge, skill, incentives and capacities. Moreover, he adds that
mastery has to happen in the following domains: student knowledge and skill, educator

51
knowledge and skill, incentives, and resources and capacity. Schools and districts must
develop capacity within their instructional staff.
Odden (2009) summarized that the key components of effective professional
development should:
1. Be school-based, job-embedded, ongoing, and focused on the curriculum
2. Total at least 100 hours – 200 hours
3. Be organized around groups of teachers and include everyone at the school
4. Focus on the curriculum including problems students might encounter and
effective instructional strategies
5. Provide opportunities for teachers to work with coaches to incorporate strategies
into practice
6. Be aligned to other parts of the system such as standards, goals, and evaluation
7. Implementation of teacher collaboration time to share ideas, analyze data, develop
lessons, and create short and long-range goals
Implementing a high quality professional development program in a school or a
district requires a significant allotment of resources, however the gains can be
exponentially rewarding (Desimone et al., 2002). As a result of NCLB, many districts
and individual schools are focusing their efforts on providing consistent, systematic, and
strategic professional development for teachers, administrators and support staff.
Educators have a moral imperative to provide all students with a world-class education,
which starts with educators implementing effective teaching strategies resulting from

52
high quality professional development. Consequently, lawmakers will need to
appropriately fund research-based professional development initiatives.
Conclusion
This chapter provides an analysis of the literature connected to many aspects of
school finance and resource allocation. Particularly this study framed school finance in
the California context, reviewing funding in California, identifying historical resource use
patterns, determining the meaning of adequacy funding in schools, and reviewing
successful strategies that lead to increased student performance.
The purpose of this study is to identify how high achieving Title I schools are
allocating their resources to improve student achievement, and determine if their plans
are aligned with research-based best practices. The EBM and Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance were used as a framework to
help make these determinations. The EBM uses the ten strategies along with providing an
expenditure structure to report school-level resource allocations and their alignment with
school improvement plans. The following chapter will outline the methodology used in
conducting this study.

53
CHAPTER 3 – METHODS
Considering the current economic climate in California and the impact it is having
on K-12 public school funding, site-level and district-level school leaders can benefit
from understanding how to connect student performance to resource allocation
efficiency. Using the Ten Strategies to Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) and
the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) as the conceptual framework,
this study compared and analyzed the site level resource allocation practices used to
improve student performance in ELA and mathematics. The five Title I elementary
schools selected for this study met 100% of their AYP requirements, and met or exceeded
their API growth targets for the 2008-2009 school year (CDE, 2010). As of 2009, three of
schools are in Program Improvement (PI); however, two of them made double-digit
growth in their respective API scores and the remaining school has an API score of 820,
which is above the statewide goal of 800. Of the non-PI schools in the study, both also
achieved double-digit growth in their API scores of 745 and 860 respectively. Chapter
Two provides a thorough explanation of how schools are designated as PI and what
schools are required to demonstrate in order to be relieved of being in PI status. All five
Title I elementary schools have significant percentages of their student population that
are minority students, socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), and English Learner
(EL). Additionally, each school’s minority population is at least 25% Hispanic. Four
schools are located in Orange County and one are in Los Angeles County.
The schools included in this study have significant Hispanic, EL, and SED
populations, which are contributing factors to each of them being classified as Title I

54
schools. Under section 1114(a)(1) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), schools with a low-income student population equal to or greater than 40%
of the total student population are designated as a Title I school, and therefore qualify for
federal Title I funding (California Department of Education [CDE], 2010). As stated
above in Chapter One, low income students, students of color and EL are over-
represented among students with the lowest scoring levels and under-represented among
students scoring in the highest percentile (EdSource, 2010). Improving student
performance in Title I schools, which typically have larger minority, SED, and EL
subgroups is very important.
The four research questions used to guide this study proposal were as follows:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model?
Overview
Title I elementary schools have large concentrations of students living in poverty
and receive federal funding to improve teaching and student learning as a means to close

55
the achievement gap of high risk students (California Department of Education [CDE],
2010). Five Title I schools were analyzed to delineate how their site-based resources were
utilized. The primary focus centered on how these urban schools prioritized their
resources to support improvements in their instructional program and the effects of the
substantial budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes in the
use of categorical funds, have on increased student performance.
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008)
provided a comprehensive resource allocation framework to determine research-based,
best practices designed to improve student learning and close the achievement gap. Each
school was evaluated based on the Ten Strategies to Doubling Student Performance
(Odden, 2009) (see Table 3.1). The strategies were used to analyze and evaluate the
resource allocations practices of the five selected Title I schools compared to the
suggested resource allocations as they pertain to increased student performance. In
addition, Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance were used to guide each principal. The ten strategies were:
• Understanding the performance problem and challenge
• Set ambitious goals
• Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
• Formative assessments and data-based decision making
• Ongoing, intensive professional development
• Using time efficiently and effectively
• Extending learning time for struggling students

56
• Collaborative, professional culture
• Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
• Professional and best practices
At the conclusion of each principal interview, the instructional strategies used to
increase student performance in ELA and mathematics, with respect to Odden’s (2009)
ten strategies, were recorded on Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Conceptual Framework Using Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategie

Interview
Topics
Discussed
Specific
Examples
Referenced
Notes/
Questions
1. Understanding That There Is A Performance Challenge
2. Set High/Ambitious Goals
3. Create a Focus for Effective Instruction Aligned with
New Curriculum
4. Data-Based Decision Making via Benchmarks &
Formative Assessments
5. Ongoing & Intensive Professional Development
6. Use Time Efficiently & Effectively
7. Provide Multiple Safety Nets for Struggling Learners
8. Collaborative Cultures & Distributed Leadership
9. Utilize Research Evidence, Benchmarked Best Practices
& Called Upon Experts
10. Recruit Top Talent & Develop Top Talent (Human
Capital)
Source: Odden (2009).
Purposeful Sample
These five schools were purposefully selected to contribute to a body of research
began by an earlier research design group to further the understanding of how to
appropriately allocate school level resources to improve student performance. More
specifically, this study analyzed how high performing Title I schools with an API score
above 800 (maximum of 1000), utilized their resources to increase student performance
compared to Title I schools with API scores between 91% and 93.125% of 800 (728 –

57
745), that are currently in PI status, but have made substantial growth by scoring at least
three times higher than their API growth target in 2008-2009. The selection criteria for
this sample was as follows:
• At least 25% of the student population must be Hispanic
• At least 70% of the student population must be minority students
• At least 40% of the student population must qualify for the federal Free and
Reduced Price Meals Program (FRPM) (an indicator of a school’s
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) student population)
• EL must constitute a minimum of 25% of the total student population
• Must be a Title I elementary school with a K-5 or K-6 grade span
Identifying Schools
Data Quest (CDE, 2010) was used to identify schools that met the criteria for this
study. Based on the sample criteria, Table 3.2 lists the five selected schools and important
demographic data pertinent to the study including county location, Hispanic population,
total minority population, percentage of population qualifying for Free and Reduced Meal
Program used as a socioeconomic indicator of the SED population, 2009 API growth and
2009 API score. These schools were an example of Title I schools in southern California
that met the state’s ambitious student performance goals, however one has accomplished
this goal by consistently meeting 100% of their AYP criteria. Understanding the
importance that each school administrator placed on allocating adequate resources to
meet the varying needs of their diverse student populations may help in closing the
achievement gap between minority students and white students, between

58
socioeconomically disadvantaged students and middle class students, and English
learners and native English speakers.
Table 3.2: Comparison of Elementary Schools to Criteria

Criteria
Elementary Schools
Appleton Everglade Smiley Smiley Sunnyvale
County
Location
Orange
County
L.A. County
Orange
County
Orange
County
Orange
County
2010 API 829
795

739

766

866

2009 API 820 745 729 732 860
2009 Growth +3 +39 +43 +15 +11
2008 Base API 817 706 686 717 849
In PI?
Year # ?
Yes: PI
Year 2
No

Yes: PI

Year 2
Yes: PI

Year 4
No
FRPM
> 40%
77.4% 91.3% 89.3% 81.8% 40.0%
Hispanic
> 25%
33.7% 97.2% 71.8% 58.0% 28.0%
Total Minority
> 70%

96.7%

99.0%

94.7%

94.8%

71.6%
EL
> 25%
76.1% 58.4% 62.7% 72.0% 27.8%
Grade Span
K-5 or K-6
K - 5 K - 5 K - 5 K - 5 K - 6
Title I School? Y Y Y Y Y
Source: California Department of Education (2010).
Instrumentation and Data Collection
This research study was conducted along with eleven similar studies as part of a
thematic dissertation group at the University of Southern California chaired by Dr.
Lawrence O. Picus. All twelve researchers who participated in this study attended an
eight-hour fieldwork training session on March 13, 2010 provided by Dr. Picus. During

59
the training session, Dr. Picus gave comprehensive instructions on data collection
protocols and codebook protocols used to input data from this research study into a
secure online database system. All researchers used the same protocols and collection
instruments in order to standardize processes and to be able to compare resource usage
patterns at different school sites sampled by others researchers in the thematic
dissertation group. In addition, the fieldwork training also covered pre-interview data
collection, contacting school principals, scheduling visits and reviewing the case study
write-up framework.
Each site visit consisted of a four-hour interview with the school principal. The
interviews employed the interview protocol, also given at the March 13, 2010 training,
which was designed to provide insight into how resources were being allocated at the
school-site level. Each principal was also asked to submit several documents prior to the
interview: 1) Site Budget, 2) Staff List, 3) Bell Schedule, and 4) Single School Plan for
Student Achievement. Collected quantitative data included resource allocation and
instructional improvement strategies based on the resource indicators crafted by Odden et
al. (2003). This framework served as the foundation for each school’s resource
allocations compared to the level of resources that would be allocated with the
implementation of the EBM.
Qualitative data was used to provide thorough descriptions of how school-level
resources were used to increase student learning by way of supporting and improving
instructional delivery. Each school’s strategic plan for student achievement was reviewed
based on Picus et al. (2008) guidelines, to retrieve the following qualitative data: (a)

60
curriculum and content focus, (b) clearly articulated construct of effective teaching, (c)
instructional focus, (d) (ongoing) assessments, (e) implementation of best instructional
practices, (f) professional development, (g) interventions, (h) community connections, (i)
use of technology, (j) instructional leadership, and (k) accountability.
After each school site visit and interview, the researcher entered the quantitative
and qualitative data into the online secure database system. In each case study write-up, a
comparison of the school’s actual resource use patterns was measured against the
recommendations based on the EBM. The aforementioned instruments have been utilized
in previous research studies facilitated by Dr. Picus and were assumed to be reliable.
Additionally, the EBM was reliable too, as it drew upon an extensive body of empirical
evidence.
Data Analysis
Using the research questions for this case study, the researcher analyzed the
collected data from interviewing each school’s principal and reviewing the school’s
Single Plan for Student Achievement, and quantitative data including itemized budget
expenditure ledgers, and staffing ratio documents. The data for each school was entered
into a secure online database system provided by Dr. Picus, which helped to keep the data
well organized and readily accessible for reporting purposes.
The data analysis process was twofold. First, resource-use tables were utilized to
compare schools within this research study to each other and to the EBM. The second
part of the data analysis compared the Ten Strategies to Doubling Student Performance to
the strategies and practices in each of the school sites. Considering the fact that all of the

61
schools have experienced some level of achievement in improving student learning in
terms of API double-digit growth and/or not being designated as PI, it was reasonably
expected that several of Odden’s strategies would be in practice at each of the schools;
qualitative data from the interviews.
The case study data from this research sample was used to make comparisons
with all of the schools sampled by researchers in the current research group and the
research thematic group from the year before. The findings from the research were used
to draw conclusions regarding how schools are actually using their resources and the
implications for education policy makers and practitioners.
Summary
The Methods chapter described the methodology that was used to conduct this
case study. The strategies implemented at each of the five elementary schools to address
the needs of struggling learners in the content area of Mathematics and ELA was
analyzed for similarities and differences. Resource allocations for each school were
identified with the goal of adding to the current literature of allotting resources to
increase student performance. Each of the school’s practices was compared to Odden and
Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance. Determining how to adequately allocate site-based resources to
improve student performance, especially in Title I schools with substantial minority, EL,
and SED populations, will help to close the achievement gap. The following chapter will
present the findings of each of the five case studies.

62
CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS
This study was conducted to examine the relationship between resource allocation
in schools and the impact those decisions had on the implementation of instructional
strategies and the potential for improving student performance. The frameworks utilized
for this study were the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008), a resource
allocation model that offers research based strategies for school improvement, as well as
Odden (2009) and Odden and Archibald’s (2009) strategies for doubling student
performance. This chapter will present the findings that were obtained through the case
studies of five Title I elementary schools (Appendices H-L) in Orange and Los Angeles
Counties in Southern California. The following research questions are addressed in this
chapter:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resources use strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model?
All five of the schools analyzed were Title I schools in urban school districts with
similar student populations. Using the Data Quest website, two schools were identified as

63
high performing Title I schools with API scores above 800, however one of the schools is
in Program Improvement (PI) for not meeting all of its AYP criteria. Three additional
schools identified and included in this study had API scores between 91% and 99.4% of
800 (728 – 795), two of which were in PI, but all three schools have made substantial
growth by scoring at least three times higher than their API growth target in 2009. Each
of the schools was at varying levels of making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with
three of the schools in Year 1, Year 3, and Year 4 PI. The following section displays a
comparison of the profile for each school.
School Demographics and Performance Data
The five schools included in this study were purposefully selected to contribute to
a body of research began by an earlier research design group to further the understanding
of how to appropriately allocate school level resources to improve student performance.
The selection criteria for this sample were as follows:
• At least 25% of the student population must be Hispanic
• At least 70% of the student population must be minority students
• At least 40% of the student population must qualify for the federal Free and
Reduced Price Meals Program (FRPM) (an indicator of a school’s
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) student population)
• EL must constitute a minimum of 25% of the total student population
• Must be a Title I elementary school with a K-5 or K-6 grade span
Four schools (Appleton, Flint, Smiley, and Sunnyvale) are a part of the Easton School
District with a district enrollment of 9,880 students. The fifth school (Everglade) is in the

64
East Whitney School District with a total student enrollment of 8,816. Listed in Table 4.1
are the five schools that fully participated in the study with their assigned pseudonyms
and corresponding enrollment and demographic data.
Table 4.1: Summary of Case Studies Demographics and Enrollment, 2009-2010
School Grades Enrollment % Hispanic % Minority % SED % EL
Appleton Easton SD K-6 734 33.7% 96.7% 77.4% 76.1%
Everglade East Whitney SD K-5 505 97.2% 99.0% 91.3% 58.4%
Flint Easton SD K-5 431 89.3% 94.7% 89.3% 62.7%
Smiley Easton SD K-5 515 58.0% 94.8% 81.8% 72.0%
Sunnyvale Easton SD K-6 460 28.0% 71.6% 40% 27.8%
Source: California Department of Education
There are commonalities in the student demographics at each of the five schools.
All schools had a minimum of 25% Hispanic students enrolled and their minority student
population made up the majority of total student enrollment. Everglade and Flint had a
larger percentage of Hispanic students at 97.2% and 89.3% respectively. Appleton had
the highest percentage of Asian students of the five schools and there were low
percentages of African American students enrolled on all five campuses. Figure 4.1
displays the ethnic makeup of the five sample schools.

65

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Makeup of the Five Sample Schools, 2009-2010

Source: California Department of Education
The percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantage (SED) and English Learners
(EL) were identified criterion for participation in this study, and as such each of the
schools in the sample had a significant number of students in each of these categories.
The number of students who qualified for the federal Free and Reduced Meals Program
was used as a socioeconomic indicator of the SED population. All of the schools had at
least 40% SED and 25% EL student populations. Everglade and Flint Elementary
Schools had the greatest percentage of SED students (91.3%, 89.3% respectively) while
at 40%, Sunnyvale had the smallest percentage of SED students. Additionally, Appleton
was the only school that had a SED population smaller than the EBM’s prototypical
elementary school level of 50%. Although Everglade had the highest percentage of SED
students, their EL population was the second lowest of the five schools at 58.4%.
Appleton had the largest EL student population (76.1%) followed by Smiley with 72%.

66
The EL population at the five schools ranged from 27.8% to 76.1%, which is
considerably higher than the 10% EL student in the EBM. Figure 4.2 shows the
percentage of SED and EL students attending each of the schools included in this case
study.
Figure 4.2: Percent of SED & EL Students Enrolled in the Sample Schools

Source: California Department of Education
Assessment data. As detailed in Figure 4.3 below, over the last five year period, student
achievement has increased at all five of the sample schools. However, not all schools
have progressed at the same levels of achievement. Using the 2010 API data obtained
from Data Quest (2010), the scores ranged from 739 to 866. The lowest performing
school in the sample was Flint Elementary School and the highest was Sunnyvale
Elementary. Smiley Elementary had the second to the lowest API score at 766.
Everglade’s API score is 795 and Appleton had the second highest API score of 829.

67
Figure 4.3: Increase in API Scores for the Sample Schools from 2006 – 2010

Source: California Department of Education
According to the California Department of Education (CDE), all of the sampled
schools in this study had a state decile ranking between 2 and 8. Flint has the lowest
decile ranking at 2, with Everglade and Smiley just ahead of it, with a decile ranking of 3.
Appleton and Sunnyvale had decile rankings of 7 and 8 respectively. As depicted in
Table 4.2 below, over the past five years from 2005 to 2009, three of the school’s state
decile rankings remain the same or increased (Appleton, Everglade, and Sunnyvale)
while two of the school’s decile ranking dropped (Flint and Smiley).
In additon to receiving a state decile ranking each year, the CDE also assigns each school
a Similar Schools Ranking (SSR). SSRs are rankings that compare each school’s
achievement data to that of 100 other elementary schools in California that serve
comprable demographics. The purpose of the ranking is to provide schools with

68
information to compare themselves to other schools that face similar challenges. All of
the schools in this study had a 2009 SSR that was less than their 2005 SSR. With a 2009
SSR of 7, Sunnyvale scored higher than the other schools. Sunnyvale’s ranking indicates
they are in the top 30% of schools serving similar demographics. Table 4.2 below
summarizes the state decile ranking and SSR for each school in 2005 and 2009.
Table 4.2: Similar School and Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools

Appleton Everglade Flint Smiley Sunnyvale
2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009
State-wide
Ranking

6

7

1

3

3

2

4

3

8

8
Similar
School
Ranking

8

5

2

5

4

1

5

1

9

7
Source: California Department of Education
Adequate yearly progress. Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is another
indicator of a school’s academic success in meeting proficiency targets for in ELA and
Math for all numerically significant subgroups. Under the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) of 2001, schools that receive federal Title I funds are required to meet the AYP
annual measurable objectives (AMO) performance targets annually. For schools that fail
to meet the AMO for two consecutive years in the same content area and the same
subgroups are subject to being designated as a Program Improvement (PI) school, which

69
is accompanied by a variety of sanctions that a school must implement. The only way a
school can exit PI is if it meets all of the AYP criteria for two consecutives years.
Based on the 2010 AYP requirements, each elementary school and their subgroups had to
reach 56.8% proficient or above on in ELA and 58% proficient or above in math. The
results from 2006 to 2010 illustrate that all of the schools’ ELA school-wide percentage
of students scoring proficient and advanced increased, except for Flint whose percent
proficient and advanced decreased in 2007 and again in 2008. However, Flint’s school-
wide percentage of student scoring proficient and above has increased the last two
consecutive years beginning in 2009. Among the five schools between 2006 and 2010,
the increase in the percent proficient and advanced ranged from 7.1% at Flint Elementary
to 24.6% at Everglade Elementary. Of the three schools in PI (Appleton, Flint and
Smiley), Smiley’s five-year increase in students scoring proficient and advanced was the
highest at 13.1%, followed by Appleton with 10.8% and Flint at 7.1%. In 2011, the AYP
target for ELA will increase to 67.6% of all students scoring proficient or above. If each
school were to maintain their 2010 performance level in 2011, Sunnyvale would be the
only school that would make the 2011 AYP target; the other four schools will need to
grow by as much as 26.1% or demonstrate significant growth in the percentage of
students scoring high enough to move up one or more performance bands on the
California Standards Testing (i.e. moving from “Far Below Basic” to “Below Basic”,
“Below Basic” to “Basic”, “Basic” to “Proficient”) to make AYP under an alternative
measure known as Safe Harbor. Figure 4.4 shows the school-wide AYP scores on the
CST from 2006 to 2010.

70
Figure 4.4: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA School-wide
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
P e rc e n t P ro fic ie n t a n d A d v a n c e d
Appleton
Everglade
Flint
Smiley
Sunnyvale

Source: California Department of Education
The 2006 to 2010 data on Hispanic student performance in ELA show only two
schools were able to make continuous growth, Sunnyvale and Smiley. Sunnyvale
Elementary increased Hispanic student performance by 16.7% and their 2010 percent
proficient or advanced score was 62.7%. Smiley Elementary increased their Hispanic
student performance by 12%, advancing their 2010 percent proficient or advanced score
to 35.2% over the five year span. The other three schools’ results showed decreases in
Hispanic student performance in ELA at some point during this period. Appleton had the
lowest growth at 6.2% and Everglade had the largest amount of growth at 24.2%
increase. In 2011, the AYP target for ELA will increase to 67.6% of all students scoring
proficient or above. At the current levels of performance at each school, none of the
schools would make the 2011 AYP target. All five schools would need to grow by as
much as 35.2% or make significant growth to make AYP under an alternative measure

71
known as Safe Harbor. Figure 4.5 shows the Hispanic AYP percent proficient or
advanced on the CST from 2006 to 2010.
Figure 4.5: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA Hispanic

Source: California Department of Education
The 2006 to 2010 data on EL student performance in ELA show only three
schools were able to make continuous growth, Appleton, Sunnyvale and Smiley.
Sunnyvale Elementary increased EL student performance by 20% and their 2010 percent
proficient or advanced score was 68.4%. Smiley Elementary increased their EL student
performance by 14.1%, advancing their 2010 percent proficient or advanced score to
49.2% over the five year span. Appleton Elementary increased EL student performance
by 12.8%, giving this subgroup 55.9% of its student scoring proficient or advanced. The
other two schools’ results showed decreases in EL student performance in ELA at some
point during this period. Flint had the lowest growth at 10.1% and Everglade had the
largest amount of growth of all five school even though their scores dropped in 2007;

72
Everglade had 21.3% increase. In 2011, the AYP target for ELA will increase to 67.6%
of all students scoring proficient or above. At the current levels of performance at each
school, only Sunnyvale would make the 2011 AYP target. The other four schools would
need to grow by as much as 27.3% or make significant growth to make AYP under an
alternative measure known as Safe Harbor. Figure 4.6 shows the EL AYP percent
proficient or advanced on the CST from 2006 to 2010.
Figure 4.6: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA EL

Source: California Department of Education
The 2006 to 2010 data on SED student performance in ELA show only two
schools were able to make continuous growth, Appleton and Smiley. Smiley Elementary
increased their SED student performance by 15.5%, advancing their 2010 percent
proficient or advanced score to 46.9% over the five year span. Appleton Elementary
increased SED student performance by 12.8%, giving this subgroup 53.3% of its student
scoring proficient or advanced. The other three schools’ results showed decreases in EL

73
student performance in ELA at some point during this period. Flint had the lowest growth
at 8% and Everglade had the largest amount of growth of all five school even though
their scores dropped in 2007; Everglade had 21.4% increase. In 2011, the AYP target for
ELA will increase to 67.6% of all students scoring proficient or above. At the current
levels of performance at each school, none of the schools would make the 2011 AYP
target. All five schools would need to grow by as much as 26.9% or make significant
growth to make AYP under an alternative measure known as Safe Harbor. Figure 4.7
shows the EL AYP percent proficient or advanced on the CST from 2006 to 2010.
Figure 4.7: Summary of Case Studies Percent Proficient & Above- ELA SED

Source: California Department of Education
The 2010 AYP target for school-wide student performance in math was 58% of
all students scoring proficient or above. Flint was the only school that did not meet the
target, however, due to significant school-wide growth, they made math AYP under Safe
Harbor. Flint’s school-wide percent proficient or advanced was 56.8%. The 2006 – 2010

74
math AYP data shows that all five schools increased school-wide in the percent of
students scoring proficient or advanced. Everglade Elementary increased the most at
19.7% giving them a 2010 proficiency level of 64.2%. Sunnyvale Elementary on the
other hand had the least amount of growth with only a 1% increase in proficiency level.
Appleton, Flint and Smiley are all schools in PI; they each grew by 4.8%, 6.2% and
13.1% respectively. The AYP math targets will increase to 68.5% proficient or advanced
for the 2011 testing administration. At the current levels of performance at each school,
only Appleton and Sunnyvale would make the 2011 AYP target. The remaining three
would need to make enough growth to meet the target or demonstrate significant growth
to make AYP under an alternative measure known as Safe Harbor. Table 4.3 shows the
school-wide AYP percent proficient or advanced on the CST from 2006 to 2010.
The 2010 AYP target for the Hispanic subgroup in math was 58% of all students
scoring proficient or above. Appleton was the only school that did not meet the target or
demonstrate significant growth in the Hispanic subgroup to make math AYP under Safe
Harbor. Appleton’s Hispanic percent proficient or advanced was 46.5%. Both Flint and
Smiley made math AYP under the Safe Harbor alternative measure. The 2006 – 2010
math AYP data shows that all five schools increased the percent proficient or advanced
with their Hispanic students. Everglade Elementary increased the most at 19.7% giving
them a 2010 proficiency level of 64.4%. Appleton Elementary on the other hand had the
least amount of growth with only a 4.8% increase. Appleton, Flint and Smiley are all
schools in PI; they each grew by 4.8%, 9.3% and 17.1% respectively. The AYP math
targets will increase to 68.5% proficient or advanced for the 2011 testing administration.

75
At the current levels of performance at each school, none of the schools would make the
2011 AYP target. They would need to make enough growth to meet the target or
demonstrate significant growth to make AYP under an alternative measure known as Safe
Harbor. Table 4.3 below shows the Hispanic AYP percent proficient or advanced on the
CST from 2006 to 2010.
The 2010 AYP target for EL in math was 58% of all students scoring proficient or
above. Flint was the only school that did not meet the math AYP target; however,
because the EL subgroup demonstrated significant growth, they made AYP under the
Safe Harbor provision. Flint’s EL percent proficient or advanced was 55.9%. The other
four schools in this study met the target. The 2006 – 2010 math AYP data shows that all
five schools increased the percent proficient or advanced with their EL students.
Everglade Elementary increased the most at 17.9% giving them a 2010 proficiency level
of 60.5%. Appleton Elementary on the other hand had the least amount of growth with a
7.1% increase. Appleton, Flint and Smiley are all schools in PI; they each grew by 7.1%,
7.5% and 13.1% respectively. The AYP math targets will increase to 68.5% proficient or
advanced for the 2011 testing administration. At the current levels of performance at each
school, only Appleton and Sunnyvale would make the 2011 AYP target. The other three
schools would need to make enough growth to meet the target or demonstrate significant
growth to make AYP under an alternative measure known as Safe Harbor. Table 4.3
below shows the EL AYP percent proficient or advanced on the CST from 2006 to 2010.
The 2010 AYP target for SED in math was 58% of all students scoring proficient
or above. Flint and Smiley were the only schools that did not meet the math AYP target;

76
however, because the SED subgroup demonstrated significant growth, they made AYP
under the Safe Harbor provision. Flint’s SED percent proficient or advanced was 55.9%
and Smiley’s was 56.5%. The other three schools in this study met the target. The 2006 –
2010 math AYP data shows that only four out of the five schools increased the percent
proficient or advanced with their SED students; Sunnyvale being the school that
decreases 3.1%. Everglade Elementary increased the most at 18.6% giving them a 2010
proficiency level of 63.7%. Appleton, Flint and Smiley are all schools in PI; they each
grew by 5.3%, 5.3% and 15% respectively. The AYP math targets will increase to 68.5%
proficient or advanced for the 2011 testing administration. At the current levels of
performance at each school, none of the schools would make the 2011 AYP target. All of
the schools would need to make enough growth to meet the target or demonstrate
significant growth to make AYP under an alternative measure known as Safe Harbor.
Table 4.3 shows the SED AYP percent proficient or advanced on the CST from 2006 to
2010.

77
Table 4.3: Summary of Case Studies MathPercent Proficient & Above by Subgroup
Appleton School Wide Hispanic EL SED
Made
AYP?
2006 65.40% 41.70% 63.40% 61.60% Y
2007 63.90% 41.30% 63.20% 60.70% Y
2008 68.90% 54.30% 69.10% 64.40% Y
2009 68.10% 42.20%* 69.50% 64.80% N*
2010 70.20% 46.50%* 70.50% 66.90% N*
Everglade School Wide Hispanic EL SED
Made
AYP?
2006 44.50% 44.70% 42.60% 45.10% Y
2007 37.10% 36.50% 31.30% 34.20% Y
2008 43.30% 43.20% 35.20%* 40.20% N*
2009 56.70% 56.60% 51.60% 57.10% Y
2010 64.20% 64.40% 60.50% 63.70% Y
Flint School Wide Hispanic EL SED
Made
AYP?
2006 50.60% 43.40% 48.40% 50.60% Y
2007 45.80% 35.80% 44.30% 45.10% Y
2008 43.80% 35.30%* 44.30% 43.90% N*
2009 51.60% 46.10%** 52.80% 51.10% Y**
2010 56.80%** 52.70%** 55.90%** 55.90%** Y**
Smiley School Wide Hispanic EL SED
Made
AYP?
2006 45.50% 29.30% 46.20% 41.50% Y
2007 51.60% 38.70% 51.60% 47.80% Y
2008 49.80% 35.20%* 50.60% 47% N*
2009 52.80% 39.60%** 53.60% 50.80% Y**
2010 58.60% 46.40%** 59.30% 56.50% Y**
Sunnyvale School Wide Hispanic EL SED
Made
AYP?
2006 73.80% 62.50% 67.00% 67.00% Y
2007 70.60% 59.20% 64.80% 57.90% Y
2008 75.80% 70.20% 75.50% 66% Y
2009 74.10% 67.40% 76.50% 65.20% Y
2010 74.80% 67.80% 76.10% 63.90% Y
“N*”: Did not make AYP “Y**”: Made AYP under Safe Harbor
Source: California Department of Education
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Stategies
The five Title I elementary schools in this study have some of the highest
percentages of minority students, EL and SED populations in Orange and Los Angeles
County. Each of the schools shared a common school-wide focus of improving student

78
achievement in ELA and Mathematics, in addition to the other core subject areas. Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement were used to
analyze each school’s level of implementation of the strategies. Although all five schools
implemented the ten strategies, the degree to which they were implemented varied from
site to site. The following section compares the implementation of the ten strategies
recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) at the five sampled schools. Additionally,
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) of resource allocaton will be
used to evaluate the alignment of the schools’ goals and strategies with the resources used
to achieve the performance targets at each of the sampled schools.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. According to Odden
and Archibald (2009), schools must create a sense of urgency to improve student
performance. The authors further contend it is important that teachers and school
administrators alike understand the performance challenges by engaging in a variety of
activities to have a comprehensive understanding of the challenges (Odden & Archibald,
2009). All five principals at each of the sampled school sites understood the performance
challenges at their school, however not all of their teachers had a firm grasp on
understanding the performance problems. For instance, at Appleton, Flint, Smiley and
Sumneyvale Elementary (all in Easton School District), the principals each understood
the unique challenges that faced their school communities and were eager to create a new
vision and pathway to change the direction their schools were headed. The principals met
with their grade level teams and the entire staff regularly analyzing data and identifying
areas of weakness, created SMART Goals, and administered benchmark tests four times a

79
year. They understood the importance of creating a sense of urgency about their
circumstances. Often times the principals were questioned by their teachers about having
to do “so much” when other teachers in more affluent areas of the district were not under
the same pressure. All four principals constantly battled the issue of providing
professional development (PD) during staff meetings, as there was a culture of resistance
toward ongoing, systematic PD in the Easton School District. This culture of resistance
was substantiated in the teachers’ collective bargaining agreement which in affect limited
a principal’s ability to offer PD throughout the school year and making it optional for
teachers to participate if offered during staff meetings. At Everglade (in East Whitney
School District) however, the issue of PD and the frequency in which it was offered and
required for teachers to participate was non-existant. The principal was able to educate
her staff, share her vision, garner support from district office administration and
implement programs to address her school’s performance challenges.
Of the five schools in this study, there were varying levels of understanding the
performance problems and challenges. Everglade Elementary School in East Whitney
School District had the strongest understanding of the problems due in part to the strong
support the principal received from the superintendent (and other district office
administrators) in dismissing two underperforming teachers and the office secretary who
had been embezzeling school funds for several years. The PI status provided leverage for
the principal to make these drastic, but necessary changes in staff and in program
implementation. Consequently, Everglade’s student performance in both ELA and
Mathematics has increased exponentially compared to the other four schools. Their API

80
increased 39 points from 2008 to 2009 and another 50 points from 2009 to 2010; a total
of 89 points over the last two years. In comparison, between 2008 and 2010, Appleton’s
API increased 12 points (3 points in 2009 and 9 points in 2010), Flint’s increased 53
points (43 points in 2009 and 10 points in 2010), Smiley’s increased 49 points (15 points
in 2009 and 34 points in 2010) and Sunnyvale’s increased by 17 points (11 points in 2009
and 6 points in 2010). Everglade’s understanding of their student performance problems
was strong, while the other four school staff’s understanding of the challenges was
average. These findings are consistent with Odden and Archibald’s (2009) research on
the critical implementation of a variety of strategies the engage the staff and school
community to understand the challenges and to benchmark where they are and where
they want to be.
Set ambitious goals. Setting ambitious goals for student performance that are
specific and measurable is one of the most significant things any school can do to
improve student performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Goals help to
communicate the discrepancy between the current levels of student achievement and the
desired levels of student achievement. Each of the five schools in this study has set
ambitious goals as a strategy to improve student achievement. While two of the schools
(Appleton and Sunnyvale) have higher levels of student performance according to their
respective API scores, the other three schools (Everglade, Flint, and Smiley) have
demonstrated greater growth in student performance between 2008 and 2010. All five
schools use the AYP percent proficient or advanced targets as a barometer to help them
set school-wide goals and subgroup goals in ELA and Mathematics.

81
The Easton School District’s Board of Trustees annually set district-wide goals
for all students in grades second through eighth. All schools in the Easton School District
are expected to increase student performance as measured on the CST by a minimum of
6% annually. EL are expected to increase by one CELDT band each year, and no more
than two years at CELDT Level 3, until they are redesignated as Fluent English
Proficient (R-FEP). Throughout the year teachers (from Appleton, Flint, Smiley, and
Sunnyvale) monitor their students’ progress toward these goals, share this information
with parents and students and work collaboratively in their grade level teams with their
principal.
In the East Whitney School District, their school board sets district-wide strategic
goals for student achievement, which are aligned to the goals at Everglade; to accelerate
student learning so that students previously scoring in the lowest performance band move
at least one band on the CST in ELA, Mathematics and on the CELDT. The principal
meets with each grade level and her leadership team on a weekly basis to monitor student
progress and instruction as well as build professional accountability amongst the
instructional staff and support staff. When she meets with her teams, the principal always
asks open-ended questions pertaining to student achievement and instruction to provoke
discussions around how to refine the schools practices and implementing successful
programs with fidelity.
While each of the five schools annually create goals aligned to their district-wide
goals for student achievement and with the annually increasing AYP percent proficient
targets under NCLB, each of the principals expressed the benefits of maintaining high

82
expectations for all learners and the challenges of keeping pace with the “hockey stick”
trajectory of the ELA and math percent proficient targets whereby 100% of all students
are expected to be proficient or advanced by the 2014 CST testing administration. There
is no question in their minds that NCLB has put a spotlight on historically disadvantaged
and underserved student populations, demanding that schools address the specific needs
of those student populations with the goal of closing the achievement gaps between
minority students and their White (and Asian) counterparts, between students of poverty
and middle class students, and between English learners and native English speakers. A
common thread that spanned across all of the principals was the strong contention that
NCLB must change from its current criterion-based model of measuring student
performance to a growth model much like what is used to measure student performance
under California’s API accountability system.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. This
next strategy is at the center of education reform efforts. The content being taught to
students is composed of the curriculum program and the tools teachers use to teach the
content are the instructional vision and corresponding strategies. Odden and Archibald
(2009) argue there must be major reconstruction of the curriculum and instructional
program when schools shift from low student performance to high student performance.
Of the five schools represented in this study, only two of the schools changed at least one
area of their core curriculum program.
During the 2009-2010 school year, Sunnyvale revamped its ELD program. The
school discontinued its use of Moving Into English as the core program and began using

83
Avenues. Their new ELD program is a standards-based language and literacy program
that links grade level content to science and social studies by using academic vocabulary
and provides multi-level writing support for Kindergarten through fifth grade students.
With the principal’s new instructional vision on increasing proficiency by at least 10%
for EL, she felt it was important to change the school’s ELD curriculum and program.
Everglade was put in PI for not making AYP for three of their subgroups:
Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English learners in ELA.
Consequently, new action steps were mandated to address the school’s challenges. The
action steps included a change in the curriculum program for ELD and writing, coupled
with targeted training and professional development for the principal and the instructional
staff. The principal and three of her strong ELD teachers realigned the core ELD
curriculum to support better instruction specific to the language needs of the students at
each performance level. The other component to the change in curriculum was the
implementation of new school wide methods and strategies for writing from acclaimed
nationally recognized curriculum expert, Nancy Fetzer. Nancy Fetzer writing strategies
provided the “how to” methods for curriculum implementation for today’s diverse
classrooms. The principal, along with grade level teams, the site Learning Specialist,
Intervention Specialist, Psychologist, and the school Counselor were all expected to
regularly use assessments to determined intervention groups, realign pacing if necessary,
and progress monitor students.
All five schools in the study adhered to providing at least the minimum number of
required instructional minutes in each core subject area as mandated by the California

84
Department of Education (CDE). All of the schools were able to provide documentation
outlining their daily schedule for subjects being taught on a daily and weekly basis. These
written documents in addition to conversations with the principals served as an indicator
of their compliance with CDE. Both East Whitney School district and Easton School
District had pacing guides with content standards and timelines for when certain
standards had to be taught. Additionally, each school did benchmark testing at least four
times a year to gage student learning and to provide a predictor of how students would
perform on the CST if it were administered at that time.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The use of common
formative assessments and summative assessments are paramount in improving student
achievement, as they are tools that can help drive instruction. Formative assessments are
indicators “for” learning; they are designed to be diagnostic, given multiple times a year
at regular intervals and provide information “for” improving and refining instruction.
Formative assessments are one of the most powerful, high-leverage strategies for
improving student learning available to schools in the creation of frequent, common,
high-quality formative assessments by teachers who are working collaboratively to help a
group of students develop agreed-upon knowledge and skills (Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves
& Fink, 2006; Reeves, 2004; Schmoker, 2003; Stiggins, 2005). By contrast, summative
assessments are the “of” learning; they typically measure many content areas infrequently
compared to formative assessments that measure a few things frequently. The primary
purposes of summative assessments are to: (1) determine if students have met intended
standards by a given deadline, (2) provide useful information pertaining to the strengths

85
and weaknesses of curricula and programs, (3) promote institutional accountability
(DuFour, et al., 2006).
Both East Whitney School District (Everglade) and Easton School District
(Appleton, Flint, Smiley, and Sunnyvale) provided an online student data system that
teachers and administrators had access to. Both districts administer benchmark
assessments four to six times a year to monitor student learning and progress in ELA and
math. Each of the school staffs and their principals were skilled in using assessment data
to help create action plans, SMART Goals, and to construct intervention groups for
students.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. The National Staff Development
Council (2000) has described professional development as a lifelong, collaborative
learning process that supports the growth of schools, teams and individuals through daily
job-embedded, learner-centered, focused approach. In order to continuously improve
student performance and learning, it is important for schools and districts to improve
instruction by investing in their teachers’ knowledge and skills and to provide curriculum
that is academically challenging and stimulating. Ongoing, systematic professional
development is a critical factor to any school reform effort focused on improving student
performance.
The implementation of this strategy looked drastically different between the two
districts and within the schools of Easton School District. The most significant difference
was the district support extended to the principal at Everglade to “do what it takes” to
improve student learning compared to the stronghold the teachers in Easton School

86
District had on the restrictive contract language which in essence states that any activities
included in staff meetings which are considered staff development (also known as
professional development) will be placed at the end of the agenda and designated as
voluntary. The language further asserts that a staff member’s continued attendance at that
point will be at the option of the individual staff members. This deeply entrenched culture
of resistance to ongoing, systematic PD is contradictory to what the research says about
PD. The Easton practice has been to negotiate the scheduling of designated district-wide
PD days as a part of their annual school calendar configuration with the teachers’ union.
Both the principals at Flint and Smiley have been about to leverage their PI status as a
means to do more PD than what the principals at Appleton and Sunnyvale have been able
to accomplish. Needless to say, all four principals received varying levels of pushback
from their respective staff about adhering to the contract with regard to PD. This subject
has been the topic of much debate between the administrators (site level and district
level) and teachers’ union membership. The difference in the frequency and the quality of
PD at Everglade compared to Appleton, Flint, Smiley, and Sunnyvale might help to
explain Everglade’s significant growth from 2008 to 2010 compared to the other four
schools growth during the same timeframe.
Using time efficiently and effectively. Schools that achieved success in doubling
student performance used their fixed resources, instructional time during the regular
school day more efficiently and effectively (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Additionally,
Odden and Picus (2008), Odden (2009) and Odden and Archibald (2009) contend that
reducing class size is another strategy to aide in teachers using time more effectively. The

87
principal at Everglade used multi-million dollar grant funds awarded from the High
Priority School Grant and the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) Grant to pay for
additional teachers and support staff to reduce class size in the 4
th
and 5
th
grades to 25:1,
maintain class size reduction in Kindergarten through 3
rd
grade at 20:1 and host
intervention classes for their struggling learners in grades Kindergarten through fifth.
Similarly, but on a smaller scale, the principals at Appleton, Flint, Smiley and Sunnyvale
used their Title I funds and a combination of other categorical funds to hire part-time
reading teachers and/or intervention teachers to work with targeted groups of students
struggling in reading, writing, math and ELD.
All five schools focused on providing a minimum of 30 minutes of daily ELD
instruction at the student’s appropriate language acquisition level. Additionally, they each
designated the first 2 ½ to 3 hours of the day for core instruction in ELA and math. That
time was protected from classrooms interruptions by preventing incoming phone calls to
the classroom, announcements made over the loud speaker, and pullout services for
students. At Sunnyvale, the intervention teacher did not begin her day until 12:00 p.m. so
that her pullout student program did not interfere with the core instruction from the
homeroom teacher. Each of the schools have adopted PLC practices to help guide they
way they do business and interact with each other, albeit at varying levels of
implementation.
Extending learning time for struggling students. The most successful way to
extend learning opportunities for students is by providing students with additional help
during the school day, beyond the regular school day (e.g. before school, after school, on

88
weekends and holidays) and beyond the regular school year (e.g. summer school, and
extended holiday breaks), which allows student more time to meet their goals (Odden and
Archibald, 2009). All five schools provided various opportunities for struggling students
to participate in school-based interventions. Everglade offered in-school interventions,
after-school intervention programs, Saturday school, and a 2 ½ hours/day, four
days/week, five week long summer school program for their struggling learners who have
not demonstrated progress over a two year period in ELA, ELD, and math.
Appleton, Flint and Smiley each ran a 2 to 2½ hours a day, five day week, two-
week summer “Jump Start” program. The program designed to afford struggling students
a two-week head start before the other students return to school in September. Jump Start
at the three schools amounted to 10 – half days of intensive instruction in the targeted
area. Appleton’s Jump Start program targeted EL who were stuck at CELDT level 3, and
level 1s and 2s who were not making progress. Flint’s Jump Start summer program
targeted EL who were their “CELDT Flatliners”, students who remained at a CELDT
level for two or more years. Their program limited class size and ranged from seven to
twelve students/class. Similarly, Smiley’s Jump Start summer program also targeted EL
who did not make one-year growth on the CELDT and scored below the 50
th
percentile in
the previous school year. The teachers primarily focused on fluency and writing; their
class sizes ranged from ten to nineteen students/class.
Sunnyvale was the only school that did not offer any type of summer program,
however they did offer intervention classes during the school day and a limited amount of
after-school interventions. The part-time intervention teacher was a fully credentialed and

89
experienced teacher who had a background in working with struggling learners. She
provided small group instruction for students in Kindergarten through sixth grade. She
primarily worked with Sunnyvale’s students who had difficulties with reading fluency
and reading comprehension as well as EL who were not making at least one year of
growth on the CELDT.
At all five schools, the intervention programs were designed to provide additional
learning opportunities for each school’s highest need population, students who were
Hispanic-EL. As with all instruction, according to Odden and Picus (2008), the level of
success achieved through extended learning times is greatly dependent upon the quality
of instruction the teacher is providing. By far, the systematic and intensive extended
learning model that Everglade implemented during the school day, beyond the school day
and beyond the school year exceeded the offerings at the other four schools. However, it
is important to note that Everglade had the financial resources to implement and fund the
additional learning opportunities and the corresponding instructional staffs due to their
multi-million dollar QEIA seven-year grant awarded in 2007.
Collaborative, professional culture. Schools that are successful in doubling
student performance typically have a well-established culture of collaboration and shared
leadership (Odden, 2009). The previous description is the premise of the professional
learning communities (PLC) concept. The goal for high functioning, true PLC is to afford
teachers the time during the instructional day to work collaboratively creating common
formative assessments, reviewing and analyzing assessment data, sharing ideas and
strategies related to student learning and instruction, while maintaining high expectations

90
for all students, rooted in the shared belief that all students can learn. All of the schools in
this study have implemented PLC for at least four years, however the level of
implementation varies at each of the schools and within each school.
Everglade and Smiley had high functioning PLC that regularly met in grade level
teams with the principal and the intervention staff members. They made data-driven
decisions that were believed to positively affect the outcomes of student learning. Both
principals were active members of each grade level team and were consistent about
focusing on student achievement, implementation of research-based teaching strategies,
routinely adjusting intervention groups to ensure the right students were receiving the
right interventions. They each empowered the members of their leadership teams to set
the example of how to engage in meaningful and continuous dialogue about effective
teaching strategies and the importance of sharing student data. Additionally, both
principals were committed to establishing a professional culture where teacher, student
and parent accountability was a non-negotiable element to the improvement process of
bettering student outcomes.
The remaining schools in this study had PLC at various stages of the
implementation process. The Appleton staff chose for their teams to meet for 45 minutes
every week, while the Flint staff opted for four-hour PLC collaborative sessions eight
times during the school year (roughly once/month). The Sunnyvale staff met in their PLC
teams four times during the year for the entire workday. The leadership team members
were helpful in motivating their teams to understand the need to meet collaboratively on a
regular basis.

91
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. All five schools in this
study have a leadership team that helps to facilitate major reform initiatives that are
practiced on each campus. The leadership team members were selected by each school’s
principal and were typically comprised of one person from each grade level represented
at the school. In Everglade’s case, the principal also included the school’s intervention
teachers on the team. The Everglade leadership team meets every week; however most of
the decisions about what is discussed at the meetings, what initiatives will be
implemented, or what action steps should be taken are all decisions made by the
principal.
Conversely, the leadership style of the principal at Sunnyvale was much more
collaborative in nature and in practice. She implemented a shared-decision making model
that encouraged staff participation and engagement, while getting their buy-in to new
ideas, programs, and implementation strategies. She believed her role was to create the
vision for the school and guide her staff to take ownership of the vision.
The other schools in the sample had varying degrees of widespread leadership. None of
the schools’ leadership practices were as extreme, rigid or exclusive as they were at
Everglade. However, the principal’s highly collaborative leadership style at Sunnyvale
was not evident at the other three schools either.
Professional and best practices. To significantly impact student achievement
and increase student performance, Odden and Archibald (2009) contend that schools
must use research-based strategies and practices, seek the advice from experts in the field
and work in high functioning collaborative teams. Schools do not create successful

92
outcomes by operating private practices, but rather they turn to professional and best
practices based on research and data based decision-making. The schools in this study
used research-based instructional strategies and best practices to improve student
performance. The principals at each of the school sites aligned their school-wide and
subgroup goals to their district’s strategic goals for student achievement. All of the
principals believed in the importance of utilizing research to create their road map for
student learning and ongoing achievement. Some of the tangible artifacts, which
substantiate their beliefs of best practices implementation include: (1) class size
reduction, (2) extending the school day and/or year, (3) use of Thinking Maps to organize
ideas to aid in the writing process, (4) differentiated instruction, (5) GLAD strategies for
EL, (6) PLC, (7) use of common formative and summative assessments and (8)
protection of core instruction by eliminating classroom disruptions.
All of the schools in this study demonstrated an increase in their API from 2006
to 2010, which is an indicator of academic growth and increased student learning.
Although there was evidence the ten strategies were being employed at each site, the
degree and fidelity of implementation of each strategy varied. The data below seems to
suggest the amount of growth each school achieved in their API score was correlated to
how closely the school’s practices were aligned to Odden and Archibald’s (2009) ten
strategies. To support the implementation of the strategies to increase student
achievement, four of the schools used their site-based categorical funds. Because
Everglade was the recipient of two multi-million dollar, multi-year grants, they had the
financial resources to implement the strategies to a greater extent than the other schools.

93
Table 4.4 identifies the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden &
Archibald, 2009) and how the five schools in the sample were rated based on the school’s
level of implementation for each strategy.
Table 4.4: 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance at Five Sample Schools
Odden & Archibald’s 10
Strategies Appleton Everglade Flint Smiley Sunnyvale
Understanding performance
problem and challenge
Average Strong Average Average Average
Set ambitious goals Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
Average Strong Weak Weak Strong
Formative assessments/data-
based decisions
Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
Ongoing PD

Weak Strong Average Average Weak
Using time efficiently &
effectively
Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
Extended learning time for
struggling students
Strong Strong Strong Strong Average
Collaborative, professional
culture
Average Strong Average Strong Average
Widespread and distributed
instructional leadership
Average Weak Average Average Strong
Professional and best
practices
Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
Note: Adapted from Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it
by Odden and Archibald (2009). Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.

94
Resource Allocation
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) was the framework used
to evaluate the resource allocation and amount of support provided for students at each of
the five schools in this study. The difference between the EBM recommended class size
and the actual class size at each grade level, at each school was noticeable. As schools
continue to grapple with budget shortfalls, it is likely that class size will be affected,
resulting in the possible elimination of state class size reduction (CSR) program in
Kindergarten through third grade and even larger classes in fourth, fifth and sixth grade.
The difference between the prototypical EBM class size and the actual class size in most
districts in California is expected to grow even larger for the 2010 – 2011 school year.
All but two of the class sizes (fourth and fifth grade at Everglade) at every school in the
study exceeded the recommended class size. Table 4.5 compares the actual class sizes of
the schools in this study to the EBM prototype.

95

Table 4.5: Class Size of Sample Schools Compared to EBM
Grade Level EBM Appleton Everglade Flint Smiley Sunnyvale
K 15 20 20 20 20 20
1 15 20 20 20 20 20
2 15 20 20 20 20 20
3 15 30 20 30 30 30
4 25 34 25 32 33 32
5 25 34 25 32 33 32
6 N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A 31

When the five schools were compared to the EBM prototype, they each fell short
of the recommended resources. Flint’s student enrollment was approximately the same as
Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM prototypical elementary school of 432 students. The five
schools included in this study had student enrollments ranging from 431 (Flint) to 734
(Appleton). Student enrollment is used to determine staffing at each school. Staffing
ratios at each grade level is a negotiated item between a district’s management
negotiating team and the local teachers’ union. At every school in this study, the number
of actual core teachers was less than the recommendations of the EBM. The core teacher
deficit ranged from 2.1 core teachers at Everglade Elementary to 11.8 core teachers at
Appleton Elementary. The core teacher deficit at Flint, Smiley and Sunnyvale were 7.0,
7.6 and 5.6 respectively. Additionally, the EBM suggests a combined total of 121.5
additional fully credentialed teachers working in various positions including specialist
teachers, instructional facilitators, tutors, and EL teachers working with students who
were below grade level in ELA, math and English language acquisition. The actual

96
number of support/intervention/specialist teachers at the five sample schools combined
was 40.32, which was far below the prototypical EBM school.
In addition to the differences in student enrollment, the number of core teachers at
each of the sample schools and the amount of instructional student support teachers, there
were significant variances between the EBM recommendations and the allocation of
resources for substitutes, administrators, GATE programs for students, technology,
professional development, instructional materials, student activities and office staffing.
The EBM recommended professional development funding ranging from $43,100 to
$73,400 however, the actual funding at the five schools in this study ranged from $1,750
at Sunnyvale to $14,162 at Everglade. Table 4.6 compares the actual resource allocation
at all five schools in this study to the EBM suggestions.

Table 4.6: Comparison of Resource Allocation to EBM

Appleton
Easton SD
Everglade
Whitney SD
Flint
Easton SD
Smiley
Easton SD
Sunnyvale
Easton SD
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Core Teachers 40.8 29 28.1 26 24 17 28.6 21 25.6 20
Specialist Teachers 8.2 .5 5.2 3.0 4.8 1.0 5.7 0.6 5.1 0.5
Instructional Facilitators 4 0 2.6 0 2.2 0 2.4 0 2.1 0
Tutors 5.7 1.4 4.3 2.5 3.8 2.5 4.2 0.6 2.0 0.52
Teachers for EL 5.9 0 3.5 0 3.0 0 4.0 0.6 1.7 0.2
Extended Day FTE 3.1 0 2.1 1 1.8 0 2.1 0 1.9 0
Summer School FTE 3.1 0 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.9 0
Learning Disabled FTE 5.4 1.4 3.5 2.3 3.0 3.3 3.6 5.2 3.6 8.4
Substitutes $36,451 $1018 $45,550 $4,300 $35,998 $1,009 $41,226 $1,100 $39,849 $2,100
Pupil Support 5.7 1.7 5.0 5.0 3.8 1.58 4.2 1.58 2.0 1.1
Non-Instructional Aides 3.6 0 2.3 0 2.0 0 2.2 0 2.2 2.0
Librarian/Media
Specialists
1.8 1.48 1.2 2.4 1.0 0.8 1.2 1 1.2 1.0
Principal 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0
School
Secretaries/Clerks
3.6 2.5 2.4 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.0
Professional
Development
$73,400 $2,066 $50,5000 $14,162 $43,100 $3,502 $51,500 $3,574 $46,000 $1750
Technology per Student $183,500 17,720 $126,250 $35,790 $107,75 $6,630 $128,75 $6,810 $115,00 $3,900
GATE Student
Resources
$18,350 $0 $12,625 0 $10,775 0 $12,875 0 $11,500 0
Instructional Materials $102,760 $15,000 $70,700 $27,800 $60,340 $14,350 $72,100 10,889 $64,400 $8,557
Student Activities $146,800 $2,100 $101,000 $8,300 $86,200 $5,220 $103,00 $3,215 $92,000 $1,775
Note: Comparison of resource allocations according to Odden and Picus (2008) EBM versus actual resource allocation of six
sample schools.
108
98

Current Budget Crisis and Its Affect In Schools
All five of the principals at the sample schools conveyed their concern about the
recent budget crisis affecting California public schools. Both East Whitney School
District and Easton School District’s restricted and unrestricted general funds have
decreased significantly, which have a direct impact on each of the five school’s site
budget. Both districts have reduced the number of workdays unilaterally, which affects
all employees, by implementing furlough days, days in which there “is no work for no
pay”. Furlough days were part of the plan to reduce district spending to make up for the
$3.4 million shortfall in Easton and the $2.1 million dollar shortfall in East Whitney.
Consequently, for the 2010 – 2011 school year, all Easton employees will take 10
furlough days, resulting in a loss of five instructional days for students. East Whitney will
implement 6 furlough days, resulting in a loss of 2 student days.
Four of the five schools have had to raise class sizes in response to the budget
crisis. Class sizes in Kindergarten through second grade increased from 20:1 in 2009 –
2010 to 24:1 for 2010 – 2011. The impact of raising the student-teachers ratio resulted in
staffing reductions for both classified and certificated employees, thus creating more of a
daunting task to increase student learning and achievement. Everglade was the only
school in the study that did not have to reduce staffing due to the QEIA seven-year grant
they received in 2007. They have been able to maintain their staffing ratios and student
services, although their discretionary budget and categorical funds have shrunk much like
the other four schools in the study.
99

Other areas that have been impacted due to the budget crisis include professional
development, reduced number of instructional days from 180 to 175, elimination of
specialized student support positions like the Student Achievement Teacher (SAT)
position in Easton School District, and significantly reduced intervention opportunities
for the current school year. Providing additional time for underperforming students was a
grave concern for all of the principals in the study. The current budget crisis is putting a
strain on each school’s ability to meet the needs of their struggling students.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to collect school site data from Title I elementary
schools within two separate districts in Orange and Los Angeles Counties to reveal the
connection between the allocation of resources and increased student performance. Each
of the schools in the sample have increased the level of student learning over the last five
years and have demonstrated growth in their API scores. All five schools had significant
numbers of EL, SED students, Hispanic students and the majority of their student
populations were comprised of minority students. Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-
Based Model (EBM) was used as a framework to ascertain how well schools aligned their
resources to affect increased levels of student achievement. Additionally, the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009) was another
framework used to evaluate which or to what extent each of the ten strategies were
implemented to increase student learning.
The increase in API scores of the schools in the study from 2009 to 2010 ranged
from 6 points at Sunnyvale to 50 points at Everglade. Two of the schools had 2010 API
100

scores over 800, Appleton at 829 and Sunnyvale at 866. Everglade achieved a 2010 API
of 795, putting them only 5 points away from the California state target. Flint and Smiley
have demonstrated significant growth in their API scores over the last two years. Flint’s
2008 API was 686 and has increased to 739. Smiley’s 2008 API was 717 and has
increased to 766.
Based on the recommendations of the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) and upon
examining each school’s budget, all five schools were drastically underfunded. The EBM
prototypical elementary school has Kindergarten – 5
th
grade classes and is used to
establish resources for a given school. The school enrollments for the schools in this
study varied from 431 at Flint to 734 at Appleton. The percentage of SED students
ranged from 40% at Sunnyvale to 91.3% at Everglade. The EL population at each school
in the study widely varied. Sunnyvale’s EL population comprised 27.8% of the total
population in comparison to Appleton’s much larger EL population at 76.1%. Moreover,
all of the schools did not have enough core teachers or specialist teachers to provide
intervention services for students.
The principals at Appleton, Everglade, Flint, Smiley and Sunnyvale expect to face
more financial challenges for the next three to five years. They are concerned about how
the current financial crisis will impact their ability to intervene early and often to
positively affect student achievement. It is highly unlikely these schools will receive
adequate funding to support the recommendations for resource allocation outlined in the
EBM.
101

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
Providing students with a high quality public education in California should be a
top priority for all California taxpayers, given the notion that a student’s success in
school (or lack thereof) is a good predictor of that person’s future earnings and their
ability to contribute to the state’s economic prosperity (Loeb et al., 2007). As Hanushek
and Lindseth (2009) plainly attest, today’s students who learn more become adults in the
future who earn more. Over the past decade, there has been much attention focused on
school improvement and student achievement, however California ranked last in the
nation with respect to the student-teacher ratios, at or near the bottom in student support
services and 46
th
in the number of administrators per student (School Services of
California, 2010). Over the last 40 years, the state’s commitment to K-12 education has
eroded. Since 2006-2007, the gap between the state’s per pupil spending on K-12
education and the national average reached its highest level and in 2008-2009, California
only spent 3.28% of its personal income on K-12 education, whereas the national average
was 4.25% (School Services of California, 2010).
California schools have suffered significant budget reductions and with the
current budget crisis hitting schools in November 2007, the cuts to education are
expected to deepen for the next few years. Continued draconian cuts to education will
have a direct impact on student services and programs to support student achievement.
Given the fact that more students attend schools in California than any other state, more
of them are disproportionately from low-income families compared to the national
average, and that 37.2% of the state’s 6 million public school students come from homes
102

where English is not spoken fluently (Kaplan, 2010); the moral imperative that educators
and policymakers have to efficiently and effectively allocate scarce resources that are
aligned to the growing needs of the state’s diverse student population is clear.
This study investigated how Title I elementary schools that have made growth in
improving student learning as demonstrated in their API scores utilized their resources to
support student programs and services. Using the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden
& Picus, 2008) and Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance as the frameworks, this study sought to analyze school resource allocation
and school improvement strategies implemented at five Title I elementary schools
serving students from diverse communities of varying ethnic/racial backgrounds, spoken
languages and socioeconomic levels.
The schools in this study demonstrated a range of success in improving student
achievement school-wide as well as for their numerically significant subgroups, which
included Hispanic students, English Learners (EL), and socioeconomically disadvantaged
(SED) students. Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM factored in diverse student enrollment
and offered a thorough resource allocation framework. The EBM was used help evaluate
and compare how the five selected schools resource usage aligned to the recommended
resource allocations for increased student performance. Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was also used to help evaluate and
compare the extent to which the schools in this study employed these research-based best
practices. The ten strategies were:

103

1. Understanding the performance problem and challenge
2. Set ambitious goals
3. Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
4. Formative assessments and data-based decision making
5. Ongoing, intensive professional development
6. Using time efficiently and effectively
7. Extending learning time for struggling students
8. Collaborative, professional culture
9. Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
10. Professional and best practices
Summary of Findings
The aim of this study was to examine how Title I schools with significant
populations of minority students, EL, and SED students were able to continuously
improve student performance in ELA and mathematics. Specifically, this study looked at
school level leadership decisions in terms of hiring and firing practices, programmatic
implementation and intervention services as a means to closing the achievement gap
among minority students and their white counterparts, English learners and native
English speakers, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students and middle class
students. There is an extensive body of research on the connection between leadership
and student achievement in largely minority, low-income schools (Duke, 2006; Education
Week, 2010; Feldman, Lucey, Goodrich & Frazee, 2003).
104

Considering the current economic climate in California and impact it is having on
K-12 public school funding, site-level and district-level school leaders can benefit from
understanding how to connect student performance to resource allocation efficiency. This
study analyzed how five elementary schools, four located in Orange County and one in
Los Angeles County, allocated their resources compared to the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) recommendations. The EBM was be used as the framework for
improving student performance in ELA and Mathematics. In conjunction with the EBM
recommendations, this study also examined evidence of the Ten Strategies to Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). The research questions
used to guide this study proposal were as follows:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
None of the schools and districts in this study was able to escape the devastating
effects of the current budget crisis, however, it was evident that all five schools remained
105

committed to finding ways to improve student learning. Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
ten strategies were used to evaluate each school’s effectiveness in increasing student
achievement. Principal interviews, evaluation of each school’s source documents (their
comprehensive strategic plan for student achievement and school accountability report
card) and reviewing California statistics, state-wide annual assessments, and federal and
state accountability education data on each school’s performance and demographics were
the primary means of conducting data gathering; however the principal interviews
provided the majority of the information needed to evaluate each school’s
implementation of the ten strategies.
The findings from the interviews revealed that all of the schools were
implementing most of the strategies, however in some cases the degree of
implementation varied depending on the strategy and in other instances they were more
similar in their level of implementation. A comparative analysis was completed on
among the five Title I sample elementary schools. Each school was rated based on the
school’s implementation of all ten evidence-based strategies. The rating classifications
were “strong”, “average”, and “weak”. The four most strongly implemented evidence-
based strategies where all five schools were rated as “strong” were set ambitious goals,
formative assessments/data-based decision-making, using time efficiently and effectively,
and professional best practices.
The principals used their categorical programs funds to release their teachers
during the school day and provide collaboration time to harness a school culture based on
these strategies. However, the current budget constraints and staffing reductions (at all
106

schools except Everglade) are making it more difficult for the principals to sustain and
build upon this cultural infrastructure they understand to be a critical piece to improving
student performance and closing the achievement gaps.
One notable area of strength for all five schools was the principals’ commitment
to limiting classroom disruptions during the first 2 ½ to 3 hours of the day. This portion
of the day was reserved for teaching the core subjects (English Language Arts and math)
and there was a widely held belief at all of the schools that that part of the day needed to
be protected. Consequently, outside phone calls were not transferred to the classrooms,
pullout student services were scheduled later in the day, public announcements over the
loud speaker were reserved for the end of the day, etc.
One of the areas where there was some noticeable variability among the sample
schools was found in the implementation of ongoing professional development (PD).
Everglade Elementary School was the only school that was rated “strong” for that
strategy. The Everglade staff participated in high quality, frequent PD that was aligned to
East Whitney School District’s goals for student achievement as well as to the specific
goals and objectives established to improve student performance at the site level. Flint
and Smiley were both rated “average” for PD which is specifically due to each principal’s
ability to leverage the school’s Program Improvement (PI) status as a means to minimize
some of the pushback about violating the Easton School District’s collective bargaining
agreement between the district and the teachers’ union. The contract language sets
stifling restrictions on when and how often teachers can be required to participate in PD,
which both principals stated discontent for having to manipulate a “broken” systemic
107

culture against PD. Appleton and Sunnyvale, also in the Easton School District, received
a “weak” rating for this strategy. Although Appleton is a PI school, it is also considered a
high performing school because of its 2010 API of 829. On the other hand Sunnyvale,
which has never been in danger of becoming a PI school, has a 2010 API of 866 and has
scored above 800 consistently over the last five years. Because Appleton and Sunnyvale
boast high API scores and have high levels of school-wide student achievement, they
were not able to create the same sense of urgency as Flint and Smiley to improve student
proficiency through the implementation of ongoing PD with their staffs.
In tandem with analyzing the effectiveness of each school’s implementation of the
ten strategies, this study also analyzed resource allocation patterns at the sample schools
to compare suggested resource allocations to their actual allocations. Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) was the framework used to evaluate the resource
allocation and amount of support provided for students at each of the five schools in this
study. The EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) requires the input of school site data to generate
the recommended resources of a prototypical school. The EBM prototypical elementary
school was used to compare the resource allocation practices of the schools in this study.
All of the schools in this study had substantially fewer resources than were recommended
by the EBM. The largest discrepancies between the five schools and the prototypical
school were class size and core teachers. In Kindergarten through second grade, the
average class size contained five students more than the prototypical school. In third
grade the class sizes were double the recommended size and in fourth through sixth
108

grades, classes contained on average nine students more than the recommended size of
the prototypical upper grade classroom.
Other areas that where drastically underfunded at each of the schools according to
the EBM are specialist teachers, tutors for struggling students, teachers for English
Learners (EL), and teachers to provide interventions outside of the school day and during
in the summer. In these areas Everglade Elementary faired slightly better than the other
four schools, largely because Everglade was awarded a seven-year multimillion-dollar
Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) grant in 2007. The QEIA grant was originally
awarded to Year 2 and higher PI schools that ranked in either decile 1 or 2 as determined
by their 2005 API score. The schools that met these criteria and applied for the grant
were randomly selected using a process that accounted for statutory requirements for
geographic and grade-level distribution. Although Everglade is no longer in PI, they will
continue to receive the QEIA funding for the life of the grant. For 2009-2010, their QEIA
allocation was $300,316, a portion of which was used to pay for two teachers’ salaries to
allow for class size reduction in fourth and fifth grade. They have also used the grant
funds to pay for two additional buildings to accommodate the additional classrooms. As a
result of the grant funding, Everglade was able to spend substantially more on hiring
teachers to provide student interventions in comparison to the other sample schools.
The aim of this study was to unveil the differences in student performance at each
of the five schools included in this study. The findings of the individual case studies
(Appendices H – L) for each school demonstrate increases in student achievement from
2006 – 2010. Some schools achieved higher levels of student performance than others
109

(Appleton and Sunnyvale) as indicated by their API score, while the other schools
demonstrated more significant growth (Everglade, Flint, and Smiley) as indicated by their
increase in API scores over the last two years. One common message espoused by all of
the principals in the study was the frustration they regularly experienced having to deal
with ineffective, underperforming tenured teachers who take comfort in being protected
by the teachers’ union rather than being intrinsically motivated to improve their own
learning and instruction.
Limitations of the Study
The schools that were studied were limited to five local elementary schools in
Orange and Los Angeles Counties in Southern California. The scope of the schools
studied was confined to a set of specific, yet narrow parameters: including small sample
size and schools outside of a 15-mile radius were not considered. Additionally, it was
limited to Title I schools where the majority of the student population was comprised of
minority students in grades K- 6. Principal bias could not be controlled and the findings
may only be generalizable to schools with similar demographics, including urban
elementary schools in Orange and Los Angeles County areas. Another limitation was the
funding options for the 2008 – 2009 school year and the 2009 – 2010 school year. Due to
the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), school districts in
California (and the other 49 states) received one-time supplemental funding in February
2009, which they were required to spend by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. The findings
from this study may be skewed as a result of the different ways districts and schools
allocate their one-time funds.
110

Recommendations for Future Research
In light of the ambitious student performance goals California has set, linking
educational spending to academic results must be a priority (Olson, 2005). This is
particularly important in Title I schools where a significant portion of the schools’
population is comprised of low-income, EL and/or ethnic minority students.
Consequently, leadership decisions made at the site-level need to be well informed and
data-driven so resources can be combined, as permitted, to improve student support
toward proficient and advanced levels of performance. Additionally, understanding the
importance of allocating adequate resources to meet the needs of diverse student
populations is very important.
The five school in this study were purposefully selected to contribute to a body of
research began by an earlier research design group to further understand how to allocate
school level resources to improve student performance. While it is apparent that
successful schools implement research-based strategies to improve student achievement,
more research is needed to determine which strategies are the most impactful on
improving achievement. Additionally, more in depth research needs to be done to
determine what role teachers’ unions play in moving schools and districts forward to
improve instruction, student achievement and education reform or if they represent an
institutional barrier to ongoing progress. Lastly, more inquiry is needed to determine how
high performing schools create a sense of urgency amongst their staff to do more to affect
increased levels of achievement for their smaller populations of underperforming
students.
111

Conclusion
Providing students with a high quality public education in California should be a
top priority for California taxpayers, given the notion that a student’s success in school
(or lack thereof) is a good predictor of that person’s future earnings and their ability to
contribute to the state’s economic prosperity (Loeb et al., 2007). Improving student
performance is the foundation of educational policy and our moral imperative. Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) ten strategies for doubling student performance and Odden and Picus’
(2008) EBM recommendations for resource allocations provides school leaders with
frameworks on strategies for improving student achievement. However, the current
budget crisis in California has greatly limited school leaders’ ability to fully implement
all of the ten strategies (Odden & Archibald, 2009) or allocate resources at even a
fraction of the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) suggestions. Rather, school administrators
are faced with the difficult decisions regarding which strategies should be implemented
versus the ones that they must hold off.
As California schools continue to become more diverse – more students come
from low-income families and over one-third are English learners - it is becoming
increasingly important for schools and districts to address the challenges of providing all
public school students with a high quality education. While education reform is a costly
venture, unprepared undereducated students are a more costly expenditure that California
cannot afford, regardless of the financial climate. Moreover, it is shameful that students
are allowed to fail because schools did not provide the services and programs needed to
support their success, which is a negative reflection of the school system. Hence, schools
112

and school districts must be strategic in how they allocate scarce resources to ensure
academic progress for all students.
113

REFERENCES
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Baker, B. D., Taylor, L. L., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Adequacy estimates and the
implications of common standards for the cost of instruction. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Brinson, V., & Mellor, L. (2005). How are high performing schools spending their
money? A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY.
California Department of Education. (2009b). Parent and guardian guide to California's
2008-2009 accountability progress reporting system. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp.
Cater, S. C. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing schools. Washington
DC: The Hertiage Foundation.
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007, March). Efficiency and adequacy in
California school finance: A professional judgment approach. Retrieved April 29,
2010 from http://irepp.stanford.ued/projects/cafinance-studies.htm
Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done. Academic success in unexpected schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Corcoran, T.B., (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional
development (RB-16). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-201.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLuaghlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning
profession: Policy problems and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.
377-408). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
114

Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-735.
Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2007, March). Understanding the incentives in California’s
education finance system. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational
Policy and Practice (IREPP).
EdBrief. (2010a). Budget crisis leads to dramatic rise in school districts on fiscal early
warning list.
EdBrief (2010b). State receipts drop again in April, erasing four months of modest
improvement, May, 2010 revision.
EdSource. (2010a). Glossary of Terms. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2008b). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010c). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010d). Dollars to Districts. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource (2009e). Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009f). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009g). The new federal education policies: California's challenge. Mountain
View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010h). Resource Cards on California Education. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: the moral
imperative for professional development in education. Washington DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Furman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (2004). Redesigning Accountability Systems for
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
115

Garet, M. S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence (2007, November). Students first:
Revnewing hope for California’s future. Retrieved March 13, 2010 from
http://www.everychildprepared.org/
Grubb, N. (2007). Dynamic inequality and intervention: Lessons from a small country.
Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 105-114.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Courting Failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford: Hoover Press.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses :
solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hanushek, E.A. & Raymond, M.E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved
student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-
327.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley.
Hartman, W. T., Bolton, D., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A synthesis of two approaches to
school-level financial data: The accounting and resource cost model approaches.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Imazeki, J. (2007, March). Assessing the costs of K-12 education in California public
schools. Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-
studies.htm
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practices (2007). Getting down to facts: A
research project examining California’s school governance and finance systems.
Retrieved April 2, 2010, from Stanford University Web Site:
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Kaplan, J. (2010). Race to the bottom? California’s support for schools lags the nation.
California Budget Project: School Finance Facts, June 2010. Retrieved from
www.cbp.org
Kirst, M., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2007). Evolution of California state school finance
with implications from other states. In Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE).
116

Loeb, S. (2007). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education standards
(Working Paper 23). Stanford: School Finance Redesign Project.
Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: A research project
examining California’s school governance and finance systems. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J., (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good,
what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Center for Education Statistics (2010a). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009.
Retrieved, March 15, 2010, from http//nces.ed.gov/pubs2010.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010b). The condition of education: Glossary.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March
6, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010c). NAEP overview. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
National Commission on Educational Excellence. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/.
National Education Association, (2009). Rankings and estimates: rankings of the states
2009 and estimates of school statistics 2010. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
http://www.nea.org/home/32073.htm.
National Staff Development Council. (2000). A staff development code of ethics. Journal
of Staff Development, 21(2). Retrieved December 2, 2008, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/ethics212.cfm
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Northouse, Peter G. (2003). Fourth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
117

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance:... and finding
the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance : A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Aportela, A.
(2007). Moving from good to great in Wisconsin: Funding schools adequately and
doubling student performance. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al. (2005).
An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming's block grant school
funding formula. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming
following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. The Teachers College
Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
Reeves, D. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can
take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Schmoker, M. (2003). First things first: Demystifying data analysis. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), 22-24.
School Services of California (SSC). (2010). Signs of economic recovery emerging. The
Fiscal Report, 30(5). Retrieved from http://www.sscal.com
School Services of California (SSC). (2010). By many measures, California’s K-12
funding lags the nation. The Fiscal Report, 30(15). Retrieved from
http://www.sscal.com
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971). (Serrano I)
Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728 (1976). (Serrano II)
118

Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977). (Serrano III)
Smith, T. M., & Desimone, L. M. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in
teachers’ professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reform?
Educational Horizons, 81(3), 119-129.
Sonstelie, J. (2007, March). Aligning school finance with academic standards: A
weighted-student formula based on a survey of practitioners. Retrieved April 21,
2010 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.
Stiggins, R. (2005). Assessment FOR learning: Building a culture of confident learners.
In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formerly
National Educational Service).
Taylor, L. L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy in
public schools. College Station, Texas: George Bush School of Government and
Public Service, Texas A&M University
Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley, CA:
Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California Berkeley.
Timar, T. B. (2006). How California Funds K-12 Education. Davis, CA: Institute for
Research on education Policy and Practice, University of California, Davis.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Improving basic programs operated by local
education agencies (Title I, Part A). Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

119

APPENDIX A – IRB EXEMPT NOTIFICATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099
Determination of NOT Human Subjects Research
Date: Wed Apr 28 13:44:40 2010
To: Lawrence Picus
From: Kristin Craun
Project Title: Allocation and Use of Education Resources in California Schools
( IIR00000701 )

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee reviewed the information you submitted
pertaining to your study and concluded that the project does not qualify as Human Subjects Research.*
This project focuses on how schools allocate and use educational resources to improve student learning.
This project is not collecting information about subjects, but rather about the key elements of the
instructional improvement effort. The research activities as described do not meet the Federal definition of
a human subject and are not subject to the requirements of 45 CFR 46 or continuing review.
This review and opinion is based on the information provided and is not valid if the proposed project is not
exactly as described, or if information has been withheld. If your project design changes in ways that may
affect this determination, please contact the IRB for guidance.

Sincerely,

Kristin Craun, MPH, CIP- UPIRB Director

*From 45 CFR 46.102, The Federal Regulations on Human Subjects Research

Human Subject: A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student)
conducting research obtains data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or identifiable
private information.

Research: A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to
develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

******************************************
120

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST
All of these documents should be for the current 2009-10 school year.

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

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

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

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

5. Class Sizes
You want a copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. Make sure to enter the
class size for every class that is taught at the school.
121

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

7. Professional Development Budget

• • • • Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
• • • • Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training
or other professional development services.
• • • • Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional development
activities, and costs of transportation within the district for professional
development.
• • • • Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment
needed for professional development activities, and rental or other costs for
facilities used for professional development.
• • • • Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement
for college-based professional development, and fees for conferences related to
professional development.
• • • • Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.
122

APPENDIX C – SCHOOL VISIT/INTERVIEW DATES
School #1 Appleton Elementary School October 28, 2010
School #2 Evergreen Elementary School September 15, 2010
School #3 Flint Elementary School September 14, 2010
School #4 Smiley Elementary School September 1, 2010
School #5 Sunnyvale Elementary School November 4, 2010
123

APPENDIX D – LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS
1. SARC (School Accountability Report Card)
2. SPSA (School Plan for Student Achievement)
3. School Budget
4. Staff List
5. School Schedule
6. School Calendar
7. Student/Parent Handbook
8. Mission and Vision statements
124

APPENDIX E – DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

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

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

II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include the
principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g. phonetic spelling of
their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what the data source is.
A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
125

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
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.
126

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
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.
127

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

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
128

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

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.
129

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.
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.
130

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).
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.
131

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
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
132

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
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.
133

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

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.
134

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

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?
1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• • • • Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• • • • If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of
your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
• • • • Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
• • • • How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?
135

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

136

APPENDIX G – DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number
Address
City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

District Profile
District Name
District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
137

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
Grade Span
Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students
Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)
Total Length of School Day
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Mathematics Class
Length of Reading or English/LA Class
Length of Science Class
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:

Core academic teachers
(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
138

Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:

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

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds $
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal
Dollars:
139

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

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

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week minutes
Extended day Teachers
Extended Day Classified Staff
Description of Extended Day Classified Staff
Minutes per Week of Summer School minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks) weeks
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:
140

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:

Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:
141

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

142

APPENDIX H – APPLETON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Appleton Elementary School is a Title I, Kindergarten through sixth grade school
in a small urban school district in Orange County. The school operates on a traditional
school year schedule with enrollment consisting of 734 students. Appleton opened in
1961 and has 29 regular education classrooms, two Special Day Classes (SDC) for
severely handicapped students and one resource specialist (RSP) teacher. The school is
one of thirteen elementary school and three middle schools in a small urban school
district, which serves 9,880 students from four neighboring cities.
Appleton Elementary School’s student population is diverse, as it is comprised of
students from varying ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and spoken languages.
Figure A.1 illustrates the student body demographics whereby the ethnicities represented
are 59% Asian, 34% Hispanic, 3% White, 2% African American and 2% other.
Figure A.1 Ethnic Breakdown of Appleton School
34%
3.00%
2.00%
2.00%
59.00%
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Other

143

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and instructional
strategies, which have been used as a means to increase student performance.
Assessments and Data
Appleton Elementary School has consistently improved upon their level of student
academic achievement beginning during the 2005/2006 school year. The growth between
05/06 to 09/10 has been steady and consistent with year-to-year gains ranging from 3 to
14 API points. During this five-year span, Appleton has demonstrated an increase of 35
API points, as captured in Figure A.2.
Figure A.2 Appleton Elementary School’s API
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
1 2 3 4 5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
A P I S c o re s

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports for Appleton Elementary shows
progress for some subgroups and declines for others. All of the subgroups displayed
academic growth in English Language Arts (ELA) from 05/06 to 08/09, however the
Hispanic subgroup declined in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced
by 3.1% in 09/10. Prior to this dip in ELA proficiency, the Hispanic subgroup climbed
144

8.9% between 05/06 to 08/09, improving from 26.2% proficient/advanced to 35.1%
proficient/advanced in ELA. School-wide, Appleton students have demonstrated 10.8%
growth over a five-year period. Additionally, their socioeconomically disadvantaged
(SED) subgroup and their English Learner (EL) subgroup has displayed steady gains in
ELA student performance.
Although Appleton Elementary School met their AYP criteria from 2005/06 to
2006/07, because of the lack of minimum ELA performance for its Hispanic subgroup in
2007/08 and 2008/09, the school was designated as a school, which needed improvement,
also known as Program Improvement (PI) under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Figure A.3 displays Appleton’s subgroups performance results for the percentage of
students who scored proficient and/or advanced in ELA from 2005/06 to 2009/10 as
measured on the annual California Standards Tests (CST).
Figure A.3 Language Arts AYP for Appleton Elementary
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year End Dates
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
EL
SED

145

In addition to being evaluated in ELA, AYP also monitors student performance
by subgroup for Mathematics on the CST. In 2005/06 65.4% of all Appleton students
scored proficient and/or advanced, while the minimum target to meet AYP was only
26.5% for that year. That minimum target remained the same in 2006/07, but increased to
37% in 2007/08, 47.5% in 2008/09 and 58% for 2009/2010. Although the student
performance in math was well above the AYP targets in 2006/07, it is important to note
all of Appleton’s subgroups displayed a decrease in the percentage of students scoring
proficient and advanced, however, all groups improved in 2007/08. In 2008/09 the
school-wide performance decreased by 0.8% and the Hispanic subgroup decreased by
12.1%, while the EL and SED subgroups both displayed slight increases. Although the
Hispanic subgroup did not make the adequate yearly progress target percentage in Math
for 2008/09, they were shown to have met the requirements due to an alternative means
of assessing the subgroup’s performance. In 2009/10 this subgroup improved by 4.3% in
addition to increased performance for all of Appleton’s subgroups. Figure A.4 shows the
Math proficient and advance student percentages for the subgroups pertaining to this case
study.
146

Figure A.4 Math AYP for Appleton Elementary
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Dates
% P ro fic ie n t / A d v a n c e d
School Wide
Hispanic
EL
SED

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Since Appleton Elementary School opened in 1961 the pressures on school
leaders have changed a great deal. With the growing demands for increased levels of
student learning and achievement, high-stakes evaluation of schools tied to student
performance, standardized testing, the implementation of content standards, and the
federal and state systems of accountability have forever changed the expectations placed
upon public schools. On one hand Appleton Elementary School is considered a high
achieving school in which it boasts an API of 829, however, on the other hand it is in its
second year of PI for failing to make AYP growth targets for its Hispanic subgroup in
ELA.
The current principal at Appleton Elementary School was appointed on July 1,
2008. She was hired from a large urban, neighboring school district and brought with her
over twenty-two years of teaching and administrative experience. During her first two
years at Appleton, she has been instrumental in helping to raise the school’s API score
147

and focused on raising the levels of student achievement for all of her school’s
subgroups. She has been successful in utilizing her leadership team to implement school-
wide instructional strategies in developing concepts based upon the identified areas of
need for her students. She regularly meets with her grade level teams to create SMART
goals for each quarter in ELA and math. She routinely works with her teachers on their
belief that all children learn by challenging them to analyze what they need to do
differently to respond to the needs of the students. The principal is a strong proponent of
teacher collaboration time within the instructional day where grade level teams create pre
and post teacher-made assessments, analyze data, and share strategies and new learning.
Because Appleton is in PI Year 2, the school is required under NCLB to restructure some
of their practices and set aside 10% of the school’s Title I funding for professional
development for the staff. Consequently, $5,066 must be spent out the Title I budget for
providing staff training. After reviewing the 2009/10 CST data and quarterly benchmarks
measuring reading fluency and comprehension, the principal and the leadership team has
determined there needs to be a school-wide focus whereby each teacher providing direct
instruction in ELA, particularly in the content areas of writing strategies, writing
applications, and reading comprehension. The principal’s targeted focus on increasing the
number of students who are proficient/advanced in ELA and math is demonstrated in her
use of the following resources: RSP teacher to provide a blended services model, instead
of simply providing support solely to students designated for resource specialist
assistance, releasing the leadership team for professional development training, progress
monitoring student performance, paying one teacher per grade level to provide after-
148

school 30 to 60 minute intervention classes for struggling learners and hiring a 0.5
reading teacher who provided interventions for 3rd – 6th grade EL.
Over the last five years Appleton Elementary has made some steady gains in
overall student achievement as indicated by the continual growth in its API scores, which
have surpassed the California state target of 800. However, these achievements have not
escaped the challenges of meeting the growth targets as measured by the federal AYP
accountability system, particularly for the school’s Hispanic subgroup. Under the current
site leadership, the principal has set new practices and protocol in place to address these
challenges. Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement
will provide the lens by which Appleton’s challenges are described in the following
section.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. When the current
principal arrived at Appleton in July 2008, she knew she was following a well-respected
principal who set high expectations for teacher instruction and student performance. In an
effort to continue on that pathway, while establishing her leadership and credibility with
her staff, the principal understood the importance of learning the school culture, including
staff perceptions about student learning. Her immediate supervisor repeatedly advised her
to act as a “visitor” during her first year principalship at Appleton. She used the 2008-
2009 year as her “observation year”, taking note to the wide spread teacher
overconfidence of being able to meet the needs of all students. She noticed a lack of
appropriate instructional attention towards the school’s subgroups that were experiencing
the most difficulties in ELA and math.
149

At the end of the school year, the principal held Student Achievement Committee
(SAC) sessions with each grade level team where she used data from common formative
and summative assessments to help drive discussions pertaining to school-wide student
performance as compared to individual subgroup performance. As a result of the grade
level SAC sessions, the staff became much more aware about their areas of weakness and
learned there were common areas of concern that spanned from Kindergarten to sixth
grade. This new knowledge served as the impetus for setting school-wide goals so their
shared belief of all students can learn would be reflected in their student performance
data.
Set ambitious goals. In remaining consistent with the Easton School District
strategic goals for student achievement, Appleton’s goals are to help students move from
one performance band on the CST in the subject areas of ELA and math until each
student reaches the proficient or advanced performance band. More specifically, the
school-wide goal for ELA is a growth of 6% so that a minimum of 60.3% of their
students demonstrates proficiency or advanced performance. Additionally, a 6% growth
in math is the target that has been set, which would bring Appleton’s proficient/advanced
achievement level to 74.7%. In tandem with performance goals for the CST, English
Learners (EL) are required to take an annual assessment to quantify their level of English
language acquisition until the student test scores reflects he/she is fluent in English.
Appleton’s goal for EL is for students to make annual progress in learning English, as
measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), with at least
50% of all EL moving one CELDT level annually while providing anywhere from one to
150

two years for students to move from CELDT level 3 to level 4. Annually, student
performance is evaluated to determine which students have met or surpassed the goals
and which students continue to struggle.
Although students in grades second through sixth are the only grades required to
take the CST, the principal regularly met with teachers at all grade levels to monitor
progress toward achieving the school-wide goals. Her goal was to provide continuous and
ongoing support to her teachers so as to strengthen their instructional practices, which she
believed would have a positive effect on student achievement. During these meetings the
principal and the teachers identified areas of success and areas of underperformance that
aided in creating focused intervention groups to provide students with an additional level
of support.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. Being
a PI Year 2 school in 2009/2010 meant one or more of the school’s subgroups failed to
make AYP in a particular content area for the second consecutive year. In Appleton’s
case, they were put in PI for not making AYP for their Hispanic subgroup in ELA.
Consequently, new action steps were mandated to address the school’s challenges. The
action steps included intensive training and professional development for the principal
and the school leadership team, routine professional development opportunities for the
staff, and working with an outside educational consultant where the focus was on
implementation proven research-based strategies. There was also an expectation for the
principal and teachers to use state and local assessments to drive instruction, pacing and
student progress towards proficiency.
151

Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The teachers and
principal use a plethora of data to inform teachers of the next steps to meet the needs of
students working below grade level, students on grade level and students working above
grade level. When the principal first came to Easton School District, the teachers at
Appleton Elementary had been exposed to using data retrieved from Edusoft, Easton’s
student data storage program, to print reports on how well their student did on a given
assessment. Each grade level team created pre and post assessments in ELA aligned with
their quarterly SMART (Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, Time-
bound) goals, in addition to administering the district benchmarks in ELA and math at the
end of each quarter.
Throughout the year, the principal and each grade level team use a variety of
assessments to track a number of components to decide what they need to do to teach the
next standard. The teams review CST scores, benchmark data, and curriculum embedded
assessments at the start of each school year. Teachers give their students an assessment
known as Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to determine who
are their students at risk of not having basic early literacy skills. The DIBELS
assessments also help teachers to form their intervention groups based on like-skill
support. If the student is an EL, the CELDT level is also another factor that is used in
deciding what strategies and lessons will be taught based on what the data tells them.
After analyzing the data at each grade level, the principal and the teachers recognized the
need for more intensive instruction in the areas of reading comprehension and writing
strategies and applications.
152

Ongoing, intensive professional development. Due to the contract language of
Easton’s collective bargaining agreement between the teacher union and the district, staff
meetings cannot be used to provide professional development, unless those items are
placed at the end of the agenda, at which time teachers are not required to remain. In light
of the current, long held contract language the principal has had to be creative in
providing professional development opportunities for her staff.
One way the principal has been able to provide professional development and still
adhere to the teacher contract is by using the three district-provided “Required
Wednesdays” in which the students are dismissed early while the staff spending the
remainder of the day learning new strategies and best practices. The training is typically
90 minutes in length three times throughout the year. Additional professional
development included one-half day the principal had with her staff the day before school
started and four full days she and her leadership team spent with a consultant. She also
used the SAC sessions where she always added a professional development component to
the agenda. The SAC sessions were used to cover data analysis, create new SMART
goals, review curriculum-pacing calendars and provide professional development that
corresponded to reading comprehension.
Several Appleton teachers were also the beneficiaries of a theater grant, which
provided them with professional development opportunities in making connections with
theater standards with ELA standards. Teachers learned how to use acting techniques to
facilitate teaching ELA concepts that provided a gateway to utilize a variety of learning
strategies including total physical response (TPR) and quick retell by acting out stories.
153

Using time efficiently and effectively. Not only was the principal able to identify
that her Hispanic subgroup needed extra support and intervention in ELA, but she also
recognized most of these students were also in her EL subgroups. It became apparent to
her that there needed to be a focused, English Language Development (ELD) program,
which all teachers are required to provide EL a minimum of 30 minutes of instruction
daily. Some of her teachers held the belief that ELD instruction was optional, and could
be skipped if they ran out of time.
Part of Appleton’s action plan was to provide instruction to meet the needs of all
of the students, which requires differentiated instruction in all core curricular areas. The
first two and one-half hours of the instructional day was for core instruction and was
therefore protected from classroom interruptions by preventing incoming phone calls to
the classroom, amplified announcements, and pullout services. ELD instruction is a
California state mandated subject in which all EL must be provided with differentiated
instruction based upon their CELDT level or most recently assessed English language
acquisition level. In addition to providing differentiated instruction during the
instructional day, the principal used her hourly reimbursement funds to pay teachers for
providing after-school reading intervention classes. The after-school programs ran for 30
to 60 minutes per day, two days per week starting in late October 2009 through mid May
2010.
Effective use of time was an important factor in utilizing the 0.5 reading teacher
who was hired to provide interventions to struggling students in grades third through
sixth. The targeted students were EL who received the High Point replacement
154

curriculum during the core ELA instructional time. Additionally, the RSP teacher was
utilized to provide a blended services model to effectively support more students within
the instructional day.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Upon evaluating the data, the
principal and her leadership team determined they were actually making good progress in
math for all of their subgroups, including Hispanic EL. Their area of greatest need in
terms of providing extended time for struggling students was in the area of reading
comprehension and their focus group was the male Hispanic EL in addition to other
students experiencing the same challenges. She noticed the Hispanic males were making
growth as a result of the High Point replacement program, the leveled intervention groups
during the day and the after-school intervention classes, however, their gains were far
less progressive compared to their female Hispanic counterparts and Asian students.
Extended learning times for struggling students happened during the day, after-school
and during the school’s “Jump Start” program which affords struggling students a two
week head start before the other students return to school in September. The program
amounted to 10 – ½ days of intensive instruction for EL where the focus was ELD.
Specific students were invited to attend the program, students who appeared to be stuck
at CELDT level 3 or the level 1’s and 2’s who were really struggling at making progress.
Collaborative, professional culture. As previously stated earlier, the first year of
her principalship at Appleton, the principal spent much time taking note of what is
working well at the school and what needs to tightening-up. The previous site
administration had gotten the staff used to meeting collaboratively; however, there was
155

little accountability of how they spent their time. The current principal knew she had to
help foster a professional culture where accountability became the norm. During their
collaborative sessions, she required the grade level SMART goals to be formally
documented; teachers were required to submit meeting agendas and minutes where they
detailed their successes and weaknesses.
Teachers began to really understand the purpose of collaboration time, that it was
not a time to plan field trips or make photocopies, but rather a time to plan interventions,
share ideas and teaching strategies including GLAD strategies to teach EL and Thinking
Maps to teach students how to organize their thoughts for writing in various genres. The
principal spent much her time teaching the teachers how to write SMART goals and how
to measure a SMART goal. Because the principal spent her first year being a “visitor”
and building relationships with her staff and established a good rapport with most of her
teachers which she feels has served her well in making their collaboration sessions
positive and meaningful.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. As with many
administrators hired from outside Easton School District, the constraints placed on
administrators regarding professional development was a point of contention between the
principal and the leadership team during her first year. She was often told by several
members who self-selected to be on the leadership team, that reading professional
development research articles and bringing in data to review was the work of the
professional development committee and could not be discussed in that venue. She found
this attitude to be very frustrating, making it difficult to move the school forward.
156

However, the principal was able to extract some useful learning from this mentality that
helped her to shape the vision and mission of the leadership team for the following year.
By setting clear guidelines and expectations of the work the leadership team aimed to
address, she was able to replace some people and their toxic attitudes with people who
wanted to focus on shared decision making centered upon ongoing student achievement.
As a result of Appleton going into PI in 2008/2009 for not making AYP for the Hispanic
subgroup in ELA, the principal and her leadership team were assigned an educational
consultant to help them create goals and school-wide learning objectives. They met with
the consultant four times throughout the year for full-day professional development in
areas such as differentiated instruction, ELD strategies, and strategic planning. Each
member on the team had a responsibility of sharing information and helping to educate
the members of their individual grade level teams.
Professional and best practices. The principal at Appleton Elementary School
felt it was important to provide instruction at in small group settings for their very most
struggling student groups. She spent much of her categorical funding allocation for
2009/2010 by hiring a half-time reading teacher and paying other teachers to provide
after-school interventions. The reading teacher, RSP teacher, after-school intervention
teachers and the classroom teachers learned that one of the best instructional practices
they needed to focus on was direct instruction.
She has also involved her counselor and counseling intern in doing case studies to
track the success stories of their Hispanic males who have achieved significant levels of
success. The principal is in the process of collecting quantitative and qualitative data in
157

an effort to uncover what factor or combination of factors made the difference from them
being struggling learners to real life success stories.
For some of the students who have moved on to middle school, she is regularly
collaborating with the middle school principal to review the boys’ progress while
identifying the services and support they are currently receiving compared to what they
received when they were enrolled at Appleton. During informal discussions, the boys are
given opportunities to share their stories, their successes and their stumbling stones. She
engages in dialog with the parents of the male students to further understand the
complexities that are a part of their success stories. Some of the student successes include
four former male Hispanic students who are now in middle school. These students’
academic placements have advanced from receiving services in a full-day special
education class, to being promoted to the least restrictive alternative, full-day regular
education classes. These case studies are filled with unanswered questions that she hopes
to discover: 1) What is the solution for addressing the needs of our most challenging
students? 2) Did they bond with a particular adult on campus, which helped make the
difference? 3) Did we build their assets appropriately? 4) Is parental involvement with
our counselors and teachers the key? 5) Is it the direct work of our counseling program,
which teaches students how to deal with bullying and developing social skills that had a
positive impact?
Table A.1 charts the findings of how Appleton Elementary School implemented
the ten strategies for doubling student performance as recommended by Odden and
Archibald (2009).
158

Table A.1: Appleton and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation
Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Principal understands performance
challenge, however not all staff did
Set ambitious goals X

Site goals are aligned with Easton
SD’s strategic goals
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
In most cases, teachers were offered
professional development (PD)
opportunities, but it was not
mandatory and there was no change in
the curriculum program. The
leadership team and the principal did
work with a consultant.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X

Edusoft was used to run data reports.
CST data, benchmark assessments and
other local assessments were used to
drive instruction
Ongoing PD

X
10% of Title I funds were set aside for
PD. Lack of district and site
instructional coaches and minimal
opportunities for PD due to contract
language
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X

They provided 30 minutes daily ELD
instruction and protected core
instructional time during the first 2 ½
hours of the day
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X
CELDT level 1-3 were invited to
attend “Jump Start” summer program,
after-school interventions at every
grade level
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Implemented the accountability piece
to teacher collaboration time
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
The role of leadership team has
become more focused on student
learning with the help of the
educational consultant
Professional and best
practices
X
Principal is continuously sharing
research-based best practices and
conducting student case studies

159

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides recommendations for allocating
resources that will impact a number of school-related factors including class sizes and
staffing ratios. Below, Table A.2 delineates what a prototypical school should look like
using the recommendations of the EBM compared to current resource allocations at
Appleton Elementary School.
160

Table A.2: Appleton and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Appleton School
Current Resource Status
Appleton Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 734
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-2: 20
3-6: 32

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
185, includes 1.5 PD days,
0.5 prep day & 1 report card
prep day

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1 principal & .8
assistant principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary & 1.5 FTE
Clerical
1.8 Secretaries
and 1.8 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 29 FTE core teachers 40.8 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers .5 FTE specialist teachers 8.2 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE 4 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
573 Students of Poverty
1@ .5 FTE Reading Teacher
1@ .5 FTE Std Achievement
Counselor
1 @ .4 FTE Intern Counselor

5.7 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
587 EL Students
0 FTE
5.9 FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 3.1 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 3.1 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.4 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
.2 FTE Psychologist;
.2 FTE Speech Therapist
5.4 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

161

Table A.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$1,018 $36,451
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
1.0 FTE Community Liaison;
.5 FTE Health Aide;
.2 Nurse
5.7 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.6 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .74 FTE Library Media
Assistant
.74 FTE Computer Tech
1.8 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $18,350
Technology $250 per pupil $17,720 $183,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $15,000 $102,760
Student Activities $200 per pupil $2,100 $146,800
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of the Title I funds are
allocated for PD = $5,066
$73,400

Summary and Lessons Learned
Appleton Elementary School has demonstrated progress over the last five year in
many areas, yet they have been challenged with the obstacle of ensuring the success and
continuous growth of all of its student groups. Although their 2009/10 API reflects steady
improvement and achieving an API of 829, their journey towards consistent and
significant growth in meeting all 21 AYP criteria presents another reality that the
principal and the staff must deal with. Some actions have been taken to address their
school-wide focus of increasing the level of progress for their most struggling students by
focusing on providing direct instruction, analyzing data to inform their next steps and
meeting regularly in professional collaboration sessions to share strategies, plan lessons,
and research best practices.
Future Considerations
162

As long as Appleton Elementary School falls short making adequate yearly
progress for each subgroup according to the mandates of NCLB, Appleton will continue
to bear the label of a school in need of improvement. Although Appleton has made some
improvement with their Hispanic student group in ELA, their growth is failing to keep up
the annually increasing performance targets for AYP, which is a contributing factor of
them remaining in PI for the second consecutive year.
The principal has acknowledged there is more work to be done, but she is also
proud of the gains they have made. She stated part of her work would be focused on
changing the mindset of some staff members regarding perceptions of how different
ethnic groups value education more or less. She also identified additional resources she
felt was necessary to accomplish the school-wide goals that included more funding to
hire several key personnel: 1) a full-time assistant principal, 2) another ½ time reading
teacher, and 3) more classroom teachers to reduce class sizes at all grade levels. In light
of the current budget deficit that Easton School District faces, the district is not in a
position to hire new staff members for Appleton, including an assistant principal, which
the principal has been asking for over the last three years.

163

APPENDIX I – EVERGLADE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Everglade Elementary School is a Title I, Kindergarten through fifth grade school
in a small urban school district in Los Angeles County. The school operates on a
traditional school year schedule with enrollment consisting of 505 students. The school is
one of ten elementary school and three middle schools in a small urban school district,
which serves 8,816 students approximately 12 miles southeast of the city of Los Angeles.
Everglade has 26 regular education classrooms, but takes a non-traditional approach to
meeting the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for mild to moderate special needs
students. As opposed to having traditional special day classes (SDC) at Everglade, they
implemented a learning center model where special needs students received supplemental
support from the learning center intervention staff while being fully included in a regular
education classroom. Consequently, all Everglade special needs students received
primary instruction and activity based learning by regular education classroom teachers.
The learning center model provided these students with maximum access to the core
curriculum, resulting in fewer referrals for special education services.
Everglade Elementary School’s student population is predominantly Hispanic and
82% of the students participate in the federal Free and Reduced Meal Program. Figure
E.1 illustrates the student body demographics, whereby the ethnicities represented are
0.4% Asian, 97.2% Hispanic, 1.0% White, 0.2% African American and 1.2% other.
164

Figure E.1 Ethnic Breakdown of Everglade School
97%
1.00%
1.20%
0.20%
0.40%
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Other

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies, which have been used as a means to increase student
performance.
Assessments and Data
Everglade Elementary School has improved the level of student academic
achievement beginning in the 2007/2008 school year. In 2006/07, Everglade experienced
a six-point decrease from their 2005/06 685 API score, but rebounded the following year
with a 27-point increase. Since 2007/08 the school has made significant gains each year
ranging from 27 to 50 API points. During this five-year span, Everglade has
demonstrated an increase of 116 API points, as captured in Figure E.2.

165

Figure E.2: Everglade Elementary School’s API
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
1 2 3 4 5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
A P I S c o re s

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports for Everglade Elementary shows
progress for all of the school’s subgroups except in the 2006/07 school year where the
Hispanic, EL, and SED subgroups failed to make adequate yearly progress. All of the
subgroups displayed academic growth in English Language Arts (ELA) for the past three
consecutive years from 07/08 to 09/10. Since 2005/06, the Hispanic subgroup has
increased the percentage of students scoring the advanced and proficient band by 24.2%.
Likewise, the SED and EL subgroups have improved by 21.3% and 21.4% respectively.
School-wide, Everglade students have demonstrated 24.6% growth over a five-year
period.
166

Although Everglade Elementary School met their AYP criteria from 2007/08 to
2009/10, because of the lack of minimum ELA performance for its Hispanic, EL, and
SED subgroups in the years prior, the school was designated PI. Everglade went into PI
in 2005/06 and at their worst levels of achievement in ELA; the school was in PI Year 3.
Figure E.3 displays Everglade’s subgroups performance results for the percentage of
students who scored proficient and/or advanced in ELA from 2005/06 to 2009/10 as
measured on the annual California Standards Tests (CST).
Figure E.3: Language Arts AYP for Everglade Elementary
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year End Dates
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
EL
SED

In addition to being evaluated in ELA, AYP also monitors student performance
by subgroup for Mathematics on the CST. In 2005/06 44.5% of all Everglade’s students
scored proficient and/or advanced, while the minimum target to meet AYP was only
26.5% for that year. That minimum target remained the same in 2006/07, but increased to
37% in 2007/08, 47.5% in 2008/09 and 58% for 2009/2010. Although the student
performance in math was well above the AYP targets in 2005/06, it is important to note
167

all of Everglade’s subgroups displayed a decrease in the percentage of students scoring
proficient and advanced in 2006/07. Interestingly, the noted decline in math scores
coincided with the current principal’s first year at Everglade Elementary School. There
was a school-wide decrease 7.4%, however all groups improved in 2007/08. In 2009/10
all of the subgroups had over 60% of their students score proficient and above. Figure E.4
shows the Math proficient and advance student percentages for the subgroups pertaining
to this case study.
Figure E.4: Math AYP for Everglade Elementary
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Dates
% Proficient / A dvanced
School Wide
Hispanic
EL
SED

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
From the onset of NCLB federal accountability and California state
accountability system tied to student achievement, Everglade has always struggled to
meet the minimum growth targets. Many years were marked with failure to demonstrate
school-wide student progress and mastery of the California content standards for students
168

in second through fifth grade. However, since the 2007-2008 school year, the school has
made a remarkable turnaround.
Everglade was once considered a failing, underperforming school in a low
socioeconomic area. Because of the school’s lack of adequate yearly progress (AYP)
school-wide and for all of its subgroups, Evergreen was put in program improvement
(PI). Being initially placed in PI indicates one or more of the school’s subgroups failed to
meet the minimum percent proficient targets in the same content area (ELA and/or Math)
for two consecutive years, at which time the school is put in PI Year 1. Once a school or
district is placed in PI, it is often a daunting feat to overcome the PI status. In order to be
taken out of PI, a school has to demonstrate two consecutive years of successfully
meeting the numerous criteria for AYP, which includes meeting the target percentage of
students scoring proficient/advanced in both ELA and math. In essence, Evergreen was in
PI Year 3 for two years; three years of failing to make AYP (PI Year 1, PI Year 2, PI
Year 3), followed by their turnaround year, 2007-2008, of successfully making AYP (PI
Year 3 hold) and the requirement of the next year, 2008-2009, of continued success of
meeting all AYP criteria. Consequently, Everglade Elementary School was taken out of
PI after demonstrating two sequential years of academic merit according to the AYP
criteria. Due to the significant increases in student performance in ELA and math over
the last three years, Evergreen is only five points away from reaching the 800 API state
target.
The current principal at Everglade Elementary School was appointed during the
Summer 2006. After her first year as a principal in a midsized urban unified school
169

district, she resigned to accept her present assignment, a principalship in a considerably
smaller K-8

school district also located in Los Angeles County. During her first year at
Everglade, she was faced with multiple personnel issues on her campus, including her
involvement in the dismissal process of a staff member and subsequent police
investigation regarding embezzlement of school funds and donations. In addition to
dealing with personnel concerns that first year, the school also failed to make the AYP
percent proficient rate of 24.4% in ELA for three of their subgroups: Hispanic/Latino,
SED, and EL.
The principal, now in her fifth year, upon accepting the position at Everglade
quickly understood the reason her school was in PI was primarily because of lack of
progress for the school’s EL subgroup, which constitutes over 70% of the student
population. Many of the EL could speak English, but often struggled with writing. For
the last four years and including this year, the school’s focus has been on English
Language Development (ELD) and writing.
Because the district did not have an approved high-quality ELD curriculum which
could be easily implemented at Everglade, the principal and three of her strongest ELD
teachers tasked themselves with creating and ELD curriculum that addressed the specific
needs of their EL who were not making at least one year’s growth on the California
English Language Development Test (CELDT). They used their core ELA curriculum
and aligned it with the CELDT questions at each of the language acquisition levels. They
evaluated what the students were being asked and looked at the differences in skill level
needed to get from one CELDT level to the next. Using this information, they created
170

lessons and assessments that mirrored the CELDT to prepare the students to increase
their level of English language acquisition and performance on the test.
Understanding that many of their EL were not advancing on the CELDT due to
minimal writing abilities was another eye-opener for the principal. Consequently, she
began looking for schools to benchmark, schools with similar demographics to Everglade
who were successful in the area of writing. Of the schools that were benchmarked, the
principal along with other district administrators learned the schools were all using Nancy
Fetzer Writing Strategies, and were performing well in writing. This was motivation
enough for the East Whitney School District to hire Nancy Fetzer to train all of the
teachers in the district, including the teachers at Everglade.
Over the last three years Everglade Elementary has made significant gains in
overall student achievement as indicated by the continual growth in its API scores, which
are only five points shy of the California state target of 800. Additionally, they have met
all of their growth targets as measured by the federal AYP accountability system. Under
the current site leadership, the principal has set new practices and protocol in place to
continue to address the school’s challenges. Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement will be used to evaluate Everglade’s challenges as
described in the following section.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. When the current
principal arrived at Everglade in the summer of 2006, she knew she was stepping into a
school that was struggling academically, which was in Year 2 PI. Because of the
mandates of NCLB, schools deemed as underperforming are required to send out annual
171

notices each fall notifying the parents of their right to transfer their child to a higher
performing school in the district. The principal spent many hours meeting with parents
who wanted to take advantage of the NCLB provision trying to convince them to keep
their children at Everglade and promising to turn the school around. She successfully
changed the minds of many of her parents, especially those who were skeptical about
transferring their children out of their neighborhood school.
While trying to minimize the number of students transferring out of Everglade,
the principal also dealt with the staff backlash of having to fire the school secretary for
several years of undetected embezzlement of school funds and donations. Additionally,
the principal paid special attention to teachers who were failing to do their job with
integrity; teachers who lacked lesson plans with rigor and teachers who were not willing
to put forth the effort needed to make the programmatic and systematic changes to
increase student learning and achievement. Fortunately, she had the support of the East
Whitney School District superintendent who supported her in removing the toxic staff
members from her campus, including the school secretary and two underperforming
teachers who lacked classroom management skills, sound pedagogy and willingness to
work collaboratively with their grade level team members and the principal. In essence,
she was given free reign to reprimand, discipline, transfer and dismiss subpar teachers
and support staff whose practices were not aligned to the school’s new mission of
applying best practices to develop academic, social, physical, and emotional growth for
all students.
172

There was no question regarding the school’s areas of weakness, and from the
principal’s first year, she has been focused on addressing the needs of the Hispanic EL
population and focusing on improving ELD and writing instruction. She consistently met
with teams of teachers to review, analyze and disaggregate student performance data to
determine their action plans. She made goal setting apart of each collaborative meeting
based on the student data.
Set ambitious goals. In remaining consistent with the East Whitney School
District Strategic Goals for Student Achievement, Everglade’s goals are to accelerate
student learning so that students previously scoring in the lowest performance band move
at least one band on the CST in ELA, particularly the writing component, and one
language proficiency band on the CELDT. More specifically, the school-wide goal for
ELA is a growth of 5% so that a minimum of 53.6% of their students demonstrates
proficiency or advanced performance. In concert with performance goals for the CST,
English Learners (EL) are required to take an annual assessment to quantify their level of
English language acquisition until the student test scores reflects he/she is fluent in
English. Everglade’s goal for EL is for students to make annual progress in learning
English, as measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT),
with 100% of all EL at the intermediate level to move one proficiency level annually by
implementing a systematic ELD program and utilizing data to ensure proper student
placement.
The principal has set a personal goal to meet with each grade level team and her
leadership team on a weekly basis to monitor student progress and instruction as well as
173

build in professional accountability amongst the instructional staff and support staff.
During her weekly meetings, she is always asking questions of her staff on what can they
do differently, either as a grade level or school wide, to continue to get better results in
the target areas. She also asks what the sticking points are in meeting student needs and
what strategies or programs should continue to be implemented with fidelity.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. Being
a Year 3 PI school in 2008/2009 meant one or more of the school’s subgroups failed to
make AYP in a particular content area for the third consecutive year. In Everglade’s case,
they were put in PI for not making AYP for three of their subgroups: Hispanic/Latino,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English learners in ELA. Consequently, new
action steps were mandated to address the school’s challenges. The action steps included
a change in the curriculum program for ELD and writing, coupled with targeted training
and professional development for the principal and the instructional staff. The principal
and three of her strong ELD teachers realigned the core ELD curriculum to support better
instruction specific to the language needs of the students at each performance level. The
other component to the change in curriculum was the implementation of new school wide
methods and strategies for writing from acclaimed nationally recognized curriculum
expert, Nancy Fetzer. Nancy Fetzer writing strategies provided the “how to” methods for
curriculum implementation for today’s diverse classrooms. The principal, along with
grade level teams, the site Learning Specialist, Intervention Specialist, Psychologist, and
the school Counselor were all expected to regularly use assessments to determined
intervention groups, realign pacing if necessary, and progress monitor students.
174

Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The 2009-2010
school year was the first year the principal and the staff did curriculum alignment.
Because Everglade increased its API by 40 points in the previous year, the principal
received push back from her staff regarding the need to do curriculum alignment; in their
minds, they were doing well and making progress, so there was no need to do something
different. The principal used student performance data to demonstrate why they needed to
do more. The data revealed that gaps in achievement still persisted between their English
only student population and their EL, largely to the fact that the curriculum was not
aligned. She also studied several similar schools and learned they too used data to do
curriculum alignment, and had done so successfully for six to seven years.
The Everglade staff used their focus standards and CST release questions to create
their own CST-like questions and quizzes. These questions were fashioned to mirror the
academic language of the CST to ensure that students were constantly being exposed to
the type of language used on standardized tests they would take in the spring. The
questions were then loaded into a databank which all staff has access to and share a
vested interest. Students are assessed every 10 weeks, which provides teachers with much
needed information regarding the students’ understanding of the skills recently taught.
The data is also used to make decisions about flexible groupings for intervention and
remediation services as well as helping to guide instruction. After analyzing the data at
each grade level and reviewing the annual staff-needs assessment, the necessity for
ongoing, systematic professional development was apparent.
175

Ongoing, intensive professional development. Professional development at
Everglade takes place during the summer and on an ongoing basis throughout the school
year. Teachers are allotted 25 hours of summer planning time to meet with their grade
level teams. A week before the school year begins, the teachers have three days of
professional development, which is district driven, but custom tailored to the unique
needs of each school and is part of the certificated contract language. Typically in
January of each year, there is another professional development, non-student day.
Additionally, once a month the principal would bring in presenters to train her staff on
different topics including technology, where representatives from Education City and
Study Island provide training to improve the Student Study Team (SST) process. After
each meeting, teachers must fill-out a professional development log where the staff can
easily monitor the number of training hours at any given time and the topics that were
covered.
During the 2009-2010 school year, teachers and paraeducators (instructional
aides) often participated in a variety of professional development focused on oral and
written language, English language acquisition, and best practices for teaching ELD. The
staff was trained in Guided Language Acquisition and Design (GLAD) strategies to help
EL increase their level of English language acquisition. Four teachers on staff serve as
GLAD support providers for other Everglade teachers. Other professional development
that took place in 2009-2010 included training in Nancy Fetzer Writing Strategies and the
continued implementation of school improvement strategies resulting from the principal’s
176

enduring professional relationship with a well-known, California based consultant,
Dennis Parker.
Using time efficiently and effectively. The instructional day at Everglade has
been purposefully designed to ensure all students receive the maximum time in the
classroom with their classmates and homeroom teacher in order to receive instruction in
the core curriculum for ELA and math. ELD instruction is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to
9:00 a.m., every day, school wide for all EL students. In the afternoon, Kinder through
second grade has a writing block of instruction. Likewise, third through fifth grade work
on writing in the afternoon as well based upon each grade level’s lunch period. Students
are also afforded opportunities to get additional support from a number of staff members
during the instructional day. This is accomplished by incorporating Everglade’s Learning
Center model, which is designed to meet the needs of both special education students and
regular education at-risk students, as opposed to the traditional special education
classroom model where students with special needs are segregated from their general
education counterparts for most, if not all, of the instructional day.
Everglade’s learning center is used to provide intensive instructional support for
students who, according to their most recent assessments, are having significant
difficulties gaining proficiency on a particular content standard. Depending on the child’s
grade level, he or she receives extra instructional support from one of two categorically
funded intervention learning specialists. Each learning specialist is assigned a grade span
of students to work with; one specialist for students in Kindergarten through second
grade and one for students in third through fifth grade. Many of the interventions are
177

provided during the instructional day, during a time when most students are receiving
small group differentiated instruction, which makes the timing of the interventions
complementary to other designated core instructional time.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Upon evaluating student
performance data, the principal, classroom teachers and the intervention learning
specialists use that information to determine students who will be targeted to participate
in one of three extended learning programs Everglade Elementary School offers: 1)
before school tutoring, 2) after school tutoring, or 3) Saturday school to provide more
remedial support. Their goal is to offer struggling students multiple opportunities for
additional learning time during the day and/or by extending the academic week as a
means to increase the number of students gaining proficiency.
Moreover, each year Everglade offers summer school for EL students who have
not made progress over a two-year window in ELA, ELD, and/or math. The summer
program in 2010 ran four days per week from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. for five weeks.
Depending on the student’s area of weakness would determine his/her placement in the
summer program. If a child was struggling in math and was determined to be a good
candidate for summer school, he would only receive instruction for math and not in the
other two focus areas.
Collaborative, professional culture. The principal and the teachers meet in
whole staff settings as well as grade level groups to identify program needs and
determine priorities. Their Program Implementation Days (PID), teacher training days,
and Teacher Collaboration Blocks (TCB) provide opportunities for continuous dialogue
178

amongst teachers to share data, and effective teaching strategies. The release time
required to implement these weekly collaboration sessions are supported using Title I
federal funds to pay for the hourly wages of instructional assistants to work with the
students. The collaboration sessions are focused on increasing the number of students at
or above the proficiency level on the CST in ELA and math school wide, in addition to
their three target subgroups: Hispanic, English Learners, and the Socioeconomically
Disadvantage.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. According to the
principal, she made the instructional leadership decisions predominantly, although she
does rely on her leadership team, school psychologist, counselors and intervention
specialists to get feedback and drive her agenda. She constantly searches for resources
that she can bring to her staff, which will positively impact teacher instruction. Her staff
is always engaged in reading articles that she brings to them that highlight the practices
of other schools that she wants to implement at Everglade.
One way she tries to keep her staff motivated is by reinforcing the things they are
doing well, she purposefully celebrates the school successes at each staff meeting and
routinely writes her staff handwritten notes on “cutesy cards”. Additionally, she saturates
her staff with student data to both confirm they are on the right track and need to stay the
course, or demonstrate the need to do things differently because they are not using their
time or resources most effectively. Many of these discussions take place during staff
meetings or other collaborative sessions where teachers are expected to participate, share
ideas.
179

Professional and best practices. The staff at Everglade, under the leadership of
their current principal, has gotten in the practice of using research to guide their
decisions, they work together in collaborative teams on a weekly basis to focus on the
needs of their high-needs subgroups, and regularly consult with experts on implementing
best practices to improve student performance, and ultimately close the achievement gap.
According to Odden and Archibald, these are all elements that exemplary schools
incorporate into their practice. Not only does Everglade rely on the expert advice of some
of the most respected and proven education reform consultants like Dennis Parker and
Nancy Fetzer, they also have learning specialists on staff that provide daily support to
classroom teachers and students alike. Moreover, they have all been GLAD trained,
which teaches them how to strategically implement strategies to build proficiency in ELD
and ELA. The staff participates in regular, ongoing professional development where
teachers, learning specialists and instructional aides are engaged in dialogue and action
research on improving instructional delivery and increasing active student engagement.
Due to the school’s previous years of low academic performance and PI status,
they qualified for a High Priority School Grant, which they were awarded. The principal
used the funds to hire a teacher on special assignment (TOSA) to provide direct
intervention services for students in third through fifth grade. When the funding for the
grant ended, she decided to fund the TOSA position using Economic Aid Impact (EIA)
funds. Additionally, in 2007 Everglade was awarded the Quality Education Investment
Act (QEIA) grant, which is a seven-year grant. It was originally awarded to schools that
were in PI for more than two years. Although Everglade is no longer in PI, they will
180

continue to receive the QEIA multimillion-dollar funding for the life of the grant. For
2009-2010, their QEIA allocation was $300,316, which they used a portion of it to pay
for two teacher salaries to allow for class size reduction in fourth and fifth grade. They
have also used the grant funds to pay for two additional buildings to accommodate the
additional classrooms.
Table E.1 charts the findings of how Everglade Elementary School implemented
the ten strategies for doubling student performance as recommended by Odden and
Archibald (2009).

181

Table E.1: Everglade and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation
Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Principal and staff understand the
performance challenge and the school
made significant growth in increasing
student achievement
Set ambitious goals
X

Site goals are aligned with East
Whitney SD’s strategic goals
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The staff has implemented Nancy
Fetzer Writing Strategies, revamped
their ELD program, and created a
learning center model for special ed.
and at risk students
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X

Formative assessments are used
frequently and the majority of school
wide decisions are based on student
data
Ongoing PD

X

School is working with expert
consultants in addition to on-site
specialists
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X

They provided 30 minutes daily ELD
instruction, grade span writing blocks
and interventions
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X
Targeted summer school program for
struggling EL, tutoring before and
after school, Saturday school
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Collaboration amongst grade levels
and across grade level teams is fully
implemented
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
The principal is guiding most of the
decisions regarding school wide focus,
instructional strategies, and next steps
Professional and best
practices
X
Principal is continuously sharing
research-based best practices and
conducting student case studies

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides recommendations for allocating
resources that will impact a number of school-related factors including class sizes and
staffing ratios. Below, Table E.2 delineates what a prototypical school should look like
182

using the recommendations of the EBM compared to current resource allocations at
Everglade Elementary School.
Table E.2: Everglade and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Appleton School
Current Resource Status
Appleton Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 505
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 20
3-5: 25

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
200, includes 15 days for
intensive PD training

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1 principal & .2
assistant principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary & .5 FTE
Clerical
1.2 Secretaries
and 1.2 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 26 FTE core teachers 28.1 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 3 FTE specialist teachers 5.2 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE 2.6 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
430 Students of Poverty
1 FTE Learning Specialist
1 FTE Intervention Specialist
.5 FTE Counselor

4.3 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
351 EL Students
0 FTE
3.5 FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 1 FTE 2.1 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2 FTE 2.1 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.3 FTE TOTAL
2.0 FTE RSP teachers
.1 FTE Psychologist;
.2 FTE Speech Therapist
3.5 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

183

Table F.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$4,300 $45,550
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
8 @ 4.0 FTE Bilingual Aides
.8 FTE Nurse Assistant
.2 Nurse
5 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.3 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 12 @ .2 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 1.2 FTE Library Clerk
1.2 FTE Computer Tech
1.2 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $12,625
Technology $250 per pupil $35,790 $126,250
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $27,800 $70,700
Student Activities $200 per pupil $8,300 $101,000
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$14,162 $50,500

Summary and Lessons Learned
Everglade Elementary School has demonstrated progress over the last three years
in many areas, including increased academic performance in writing and English
language acquisition. Their 2009-10 API reflects significant improvement as they have
achieved an API of 795, which is only 5 points away from the CA state target score of
800. Over the last three years, from 2007/2008 to 2009/2010, Everglade has me all 17
AYP criteria. Without question, the school has evidence of implementing Odden’s 10
strategies for doubling student performance.
Future Considerations
Future considerations for Everglade Elementary include the principal providing
more opportunities for shared decision-making amongst her staff. While she her students’
and teachers’ biggest cheerleader and motivator, building capacity throughout the school
184

will help to ensure that all of her school improvement efforts do not falter should she be
transferred or self-select to leave Everglade.
185

APPENDIX J – FLINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Flint Elementary School is a Title I, Kindergarten through fifth grade school in a
small urban school district in Orange County. The school operates on a traditional school
year schedule with enrollment consisting of 431 students. Flint opened in 1958 and has
17 regular education classrooms, one Special Day Class (SDC) and one resource
specialist (RSP) teacher. The school is one of thirteen elementary school and three middle
schools in a small urban school district, which serves 9,880 students from four
neighboring cities.
Flint Elementary School’s student population is diverse, as it is comprised of
students from varying ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and spoken languages.
Figure F.1 illustrates the student body demographics whereby the ethnicities represented
are 16.6% Asian, 71.8% Hispanic, 5.4% White, 0.7% African American and 5.5% other.
Figure F.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Flint School
0.70%
16.60%
72%
5.40%
5.50%
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Other

186

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies, which have been used as a means to increase student
performance.
Assessments and Data
Flint Elementary School has struggled to make consistent improvement in student
academic achievement as demonstrated in volatile API growth scores from 2006 to 2010.
During this five-year span, Flint has demonstrated a total increase of 42 API points, as
captured in Figure F.2.
Figure F.2: Flint Elementary School’s API

650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
1 2 3 4 5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
API Scores

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports for Flint Elementary shows
decreases in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above for all subgroups from
2006 to 2008. However, in 2009, all subgroups met the AYP criteria under the Safe
Harbor provision, which is an alternative method for evaluating a school’s growth and
performance if they did not meet the minimum percent proficient target. Due to Safe
187

Harbor, Flint became eligible to come out of PI if they met all of their AYP criteria for
2010 or if they qualified under the Safe Harbor provision. Although Flint student
performance increased in 2010, the amount of growth for their Hispanic and EL
subgroups was not substantial enough to meet the AYP performance targets or to qualify
under Safe Harbor; consequently, Flint will remain in PI and will have to demonstrate
two more consecutive years of meeting all AYP criteria in order to be taken out of PI.
Figure F.3 displays Flint’s subgroups performance results for the percentage of students
who scored proficient and/or advanced in ELA from 2006 to 2010 as measured on the
annual California Standards Tests (CST).
Figure F.3: Language Arts AYP for Flint Elementary
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year End Dates
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
EL
SED

In addition to being evaluated in ELA, AYP also monitors student performance
by subgroup for Mathematics on the CST. In 2006 50.6% of all Flint students scored
proficient and/or advanced, while the minimum target to meet AYP was only 26.5% for
that year. That minimum target remained the same in 2007, but increased to 37% in 2008,
188

47.5% in 2009 and 58% for 2009/2010. Although the student performance in math was
well above the AYP targets in 2007, it is important to note all of Flint’s subgroups
displayed a decrease in the percentage of students scoring proficient and advanced, and
further decreased school wide, Hispanic and SED subgroups in 2008. From 2008 to 2009,
all of the subgroups made noticeable improvement; school-wide performance increased
7.8%, Hispanic subgroup increased 10.8%, EL subgroup increased 8.5% and SED
subgroup increased 7.2%. In 2010 all of Flint’s subgroups continued to show
improvement and although each subgroup did not meet the 58% AYP target, they all met
AYP under Safe Harbor. Figure F.4 shows the Math proficient and advance student
percentages for the subgroups pertaining to this case study.
Figure F.4: Math AYP for Flint Elementary
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Dates
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
EL
SED

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Since Flint Elementary School opened in 1958 the pressures on school leaders
have changed a great deal. With the growing demands for increased levels of student
189

learning and achievement, high-stakes evaluation of schools tied to student performance,
standardized testing, the implementation of content standards, and the federal and state
systems of accountability have forever changed the expectations placed upon public
schools. While Flint Elementary School is moving student performance in the right
direction, achieving increased levels of student performance in both ELA and math for
two consecutive years, due to the lack of substantial growth necessary to keep pace with
the growth targets for AYP, Flint remains a school identified in the bottom 10% of lowest
performing schools in Easton School District and as such, they too remain in Year 3 PI.
The current principal at Flint Elementary School was appointed on July 1, 2007.
She was hired from a large urban, neighboring school district and brought with her over
thirty years of teaching and administrative experience. During her first three years at
Flint, she has been instrumental in helping to raise the school’s API score and focused on
raising the levels of student achievement for all of her school’s subgroups. She has been
successful in utilizing her leadership team to implement school-wide instructional
strategies in developing concepts based upon the identified areas of need for her students.
She regularly meets with her grade level teams to create SMART goals for each quarter
in ELA and math. She routinely works with her teachers on their belief that all children
learn by challenging them to analyze what they need to do differently to respond to the
needs of the students. The principal is a strong proponent of teacher collaboration time
within the instructional day where grade level teams create pre and post teacher-made
assessments, analyze data, and share strategies and new learning. Because Flint is in PI
Year 3, the school is required under NCLB to restructure some of their practices and set
190

aside 10% of the school’s Title I funding for professional development for the staff.
Consequently, $3,502 must be spent out the Title I budget for providing staff training.
After reviewing the 2010 CST data and quarterly benchmarks measuring reading fluency
and comprehension, the principal and the leadership team has determined there needs to
be a school-wide focus whereby each teacher providing direct instruction in ELA,
particularly in the content areas of writing strategies, writing applications, and reading
comprehension. The principal’s targeted focus on increasing the number of students who
are proficient/advanced in ELA and math is demonstrated in her use of the following
resources: RSP teacher to provide a blended services model, instead of simply providing
support solely to students designated for resource specialist assistance, releasing the
leadership team for professional development training, progress monitoring student
performance, paying one teacher per grade level to provide after-school 30 to 60 minute
intervention classes for struggling learners and hiring two 0.5 reading teacher who
provided interventions for 3rd – 5th grade EL.
Over the last two years Flint Elementary has made significant gains in overall
student achievement as indicated by the 49-point growth in its API scores. However,
these achievements have not escaped the challenges of meeting the growth targets as
measured by the federal AYP accountability system, particularly for the school’s
Hispanic and EL subgroups in ELA. Under the current site leadership, the principal has
set new practices and protocol in place to address these challenges. Odden & Archibald’s
(2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement will provide the lens by which
Flint’s challenges are described in the following section.
191

Understanding the performance problem and challenge. When the current
principal arrived at Flint in July 2007, she knew she was following a well-respected
principal who was in the process of helping the staff evaluate their practices and align
them with the needs of the students and the community. In an effort to expand that vision,
while establishing her leadership and credibility with her staff, the principal understood
the importance of learning the school culture, including staff perceptions about student
learning as well as the district culture. Her immediate supervisor repeatedly advised her
to act as a “visitor” during her first year principalship at Flint. She used the 2007-2008
year as her “observation year”, taking note to spoken and unspoken norms and seemingly
complete-disregard of providing quality ELD instruction and strategies.
At the end of the school year, the principal held Student Achievement Committee
(SAC) sessions with each grade level team where she used data from common formative
and summative assessments to help drive discussions pertaining to school-wide student
performance as compared to individual subgroup performance. As a result of the grade
level SAC sessions, the staff became much more aware about their areas of weakness and
learned there were common areas of concern that spanned from Kindergarten to fifth
grade. This new knowledge served as the impetus for setting school-wide goals so their
shared belief of all students can learn would be reflected in their student performance
data.
Set ambitious goals. In remaining consistent with the Easton School District
strategic goals for student achievement, Flint’s goals are to help students move from one
performance band on the CST in the subject areas of ELA and math until each student
192

reaches the proficient or advanced performance band. More specifically, the school-wide
goal for ELA is to achieve minimum growth of 6% so that at least 44% of their students
demonstrate proficiency or advanced performance. Additionally, a 6% growth in math is
the target that has been set, which would bring Flint’s proficient/advanced achievement
level to 56.6%. In tandem with performance goals for the CST, English Learners (EL) are
required to take an annual assessment to quantify their level of English language
acquisition until the student test scores reflects he/she is fluent in English. Flint’s goal for
EL is for students to make annual progress in learning English, as measured by the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT), with at least 50% of all EL
moving one CELDT level annually while providing anywhere from one to two years for
students to move from CELDT level 3 to level 4. Annually, student performance is
evaluated to determine which students have met or surpassed the goals and which
students continue to struggle.
Although students in grades second through fifth are the only grades required to
take the CST, the principal regularly met with teachers at all grade levels to monitor
progress toward achieving the school-wide goals. Her goal was to provide continuous and
ongoing support to her teachers so as to strengthen their instructional practices, which she
believed would have a positive effect on student achievement. During these meetings the
principal and the teachers identified areas of success and areas of underperformance that
aided in creating focused intervention groups to provide students with an additional level
of support.
193

Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. Being
a Year 3 PI school in 2010 meant one or more of the school’s subgroups failed to make
AYP in a particular content area for the third consecutive year. In Flint’s case, they were
put in PI for not making AYP for their Hispanic and EL subgroups in ELA.
Consequently, new action steps were mandated to address the school’s challenges. The
action steps included intensive training and professional development for the principal
and the school leadership team, routine professional development opportunities for the
staff, and working with an outside educational consultant where the focus was on
implementation of proven research-based strategies. There was also an expectation for
the principal and teachers to use state and local assessments to drive instruction, pacing
and student progress towards proficiency.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The teachers and
principal use a significant amount of data to inform teachers of the next steps to meet the
needs of students working below grade level, students on grade level and students
working above grade level. When the principal first came to Easton School District, the
teachers at Flint Elementary had been exposed to using data retrieved from Edusoft,
Easton’s student data storage program, to print reports on how well their student did on a
given assessment. Each grade level team created pre and post assessments in ELA
aligned with their quarterly SMART (Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results-
Oriented, Time-bound) goals, in addition to administering the district benchmarks in
ELA and math at the end of each quarter.
194

Throughout the year, the principal and each grade level team use a variety of
assessments to track a number of components to decide what they need to do to teach the
next standard. The teams review CST scores, benchmark data, common formative
assessments the teams created and did pretest posttest on their students. Additionally, the
teachers used the assessments from Six Minute Solutions, a math program designed to be
used as an intervention program, placement assessments from High Point, an ELA
replacement program for EL students who need more targeted instruction in ELD.
Teachers also gave their students an assessment known as Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to determine who are their students at risk of not having
basic early literacy skills. The DIBELS assessments also help teachers to form their
intervention groups based on like-skill support. If the student is an EL, the CELDT level
is also another factor that is used in deciding what strategies and lessons will be taught
based on what the data tells them. After analyzing the data at each grade level, the
principal and the teachers recognized the need for more intensive instruction in the areas
of reading comprehension, ELD, writing and math.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Due to the contract language of
Easton’s collective bargaining agreement between the teacher union and the district, staff
meetings cannot be used to provide professional development, unless those items are
placed at the end of the agenda, at which time teachers are not required to remain.
However, after going to a Program Improvement seminar at the Orange County
Department of Education, the principal learned that she must set aside 10% of her Title I
budget to pay for professional development (PD) for the staff. That stipulation became
195

her anchor for addressing the frequent complaints she received from the teachers’ union
about her covering topics that they felt were PD, and not informational items appropriate
for staff meetings. Her response to her site teachers’ union representatives and the union
president was simply, “I have no choice, we are a Title I school receiving federal Title I
funds that is in PI. I must abide by the guidelines.” Consequently, she must build into her
site budget 10% of Title I funds to release teachers during the instructional day so they
can attend training. Although the principal states pulling teachers out of the classroom
during the instructional day is not ideal, it is a feat to require them to attend training in
the evening, on the weekend or during the summer, plus most consultants offer their
seminars and training sessions between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
In light of the current, long held contract language that forbids PD during staff meetings,
the principal has stood her ground against many of her teachers and the union with the
reality of Flint Elementary School not having the luxury of being selective with regards
to the amount or timing of PD, especially if they ever expect to get out of PI.
The professional development plan for Flint was directly tied to the areas of focus
identified in the School Plan and based on their data, which indicated ELA was their
weakest area. The Easton School District funded PD for Flint’s fourth and fifth grade
teachers to participate in the Effective Reading Interventions Academy (ERIA). ERIA
delivers training and ongoing coaching to school site teams of teachers and
administrators, with the end goal of helping school teams to improve literacy outcomes
for their upper grade, middle and high school students. ERIA encompasses five actions
steps for implementing the fundamental elements of the Response to Instruction and
196

Intervention (RtI
2
) model to support struggling learners: 1) Identify struggling readers
early, 2) Assess the decoding, reading fluency, and comprehension skills of struggling
readers to provide intervention placement and instruction, 3) Deliver targeted
interventions with fidelity using the core curriculum, 4) Monitor progress frequently and
make adjustments as necessary, and 5) Improve content literacy instructional practices
using the core curriculum to increase student engagement and participation. Additional
professional development at Flint included ERIA training for Kindergarten and first
grade teachers, and working with a variety of nationally recognized consultants who have
helped underperforming schools find success in raising student learning. The consultants
the principal and her staff received training from include Judy Cunningham (effective
school leadership teams), Dr. Kevin Feldman (Sonoma County Office of Education’s
Reading & Early Intervention Director), Anita Archer (effective instruction, classroom
management, reading and writing instruction), and Dr. Anthony Muhammad (PLC
implementation, collaborative administration and how to transform school culture and
overcome staff division).
Using time efficiently and effectively. Not only was the principal able to identify
that her Hispanic subgroup needed extra support and intervention in ELA, but she also
recognized most of these students were also in her EL subgroups. It became apparent to
her that there needed to be a focused, English Language Development (ELD) program,
which all teachers are required to provide EL a minimum of 30 minutes of instruction
daily. Some of her teachers held the belief that ELD instruction was optional, and could
be skipped if they ran out of time.
197

Part of Flint’s action plan was to provide instruction to meet the needs of all of the
students, which requires differentiated instruction in all core curricular areas. The first
two and one-half hours of the instructional day was protected from classroom
interruptions by preventing incoming phone calls to the classroom, amplified
announcements, and pullout services during core instruction. ELD instruction is a
California state mandated subject in which all EL must be provided with differentiated
instruction based upon their CELDT level or most recently assessed English language
acquisition level. In addition to providing differentiated instruction during the
instructional day, the principal used her hourly reimbursement funds to pay a tutor to
work with struggling Kindergarten students during the instructional day. The staff felt the
funds should be used to intervene early in a child’s life. The tutor worked with students in
small groups, ranging from 5 to 10 students, using both a pullout and push-in model for
ELD and KPALS, which is a phonemic awareness and letter-naming daily program.
Effective use of time was an important factor in utilizing the two 0.5 reading
teachers who was hired to provide interventions to struggling students in grades first
through third and fourth through fifth. The targeted students were EL who where at a
CELDT level 1, 2, or 3, and students having difficulty in ELA.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Upon evaluating the data, the
principal and her staff determined they were making sufficient progress in math, but the
bigger challenge was with ELA for their Hispanic and EL subgroups. Extended learning
time for struggling students happened during the day, after-school and during the
school’s “Jump Start” program which affords struggling students a two week head start
198

before the other students return to school in September. The program amounted to a total
of 10 days, 2 hours/day of intensive instruction for EL who were their “CELDT Flat-
liners”, students who remained at a CELDT level for two or more years. Seven teachers
taught the Jump Start program with class size ranging from seven to twelve
students/class. Upon the principal’s agreement to host the summer program for her
targeted students, the district-provided funds from Title I and a combination of other
categorical programs to cover the expenses of the Jump Start program.
Collaborative, professional culture. As previously stated, during the first year of
her principalship at Flint, the principal spent much of her time taking note of what was
working well at the school and what needed to be changed or improved. The principal
knew she had to help foster a professional culture where accountability became the norm.
During their collaborative sessions, she required the grade level SMART goals to be
formally documented; teachers were required to submit meeting agendas and minutes
where they detailed their successes and weaknesses.
Teachers began to really understand the purpose of collaboration time, that it was
not a time to plan field trips or make photocopies, but rather a time to plan interventions,
share ideas and teaching strategies including GLAD strategies to teach EL, and ERIA
strategies for early intervention for struggling readers.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. As with many
administrators hired from outside Easton School District, the constraints placed on
administrators regarding professional development was a point of contention between the
principal and her staff. She was often questioned by her union reps and the union
199

president about the length and content of her staff meetings, complaining they were too
long and PD related and not informational, “nuts and bolts”, staff meeting items. She
found this attitude to be very frustrating, making it difficult to move the school forward.
However, the principal was able to extract some useful learning from this mentality that
helped her from a political perspective, to shape the vision and mission of the leadership
team for the following year. By educating her teachers and the union president about the
ramifications of being a PI school helped to set clear guidelines and expectations of the
work the leadership team and the entire staff needed to address.
As a result of Flint going into PI in 2007, the principal and her leadership team
were assigned an educational consultant to help them create goals and school-wide
learning objectives. They met with the consultant four times throughout the year for full-
day professional development in areas such as differentiated instruction, ELD strategies,
and strategic planning. Each member on the team had a responsibility for sharing
information and helping to educate the members of their individual grade level teams.
Professional and best practices. The principal at Flint Elementary School felt it
was important to provide instruction in small group settings for their most struggling
student groups. She spent much of her categorical funding allocation for 2009-2010 to
hire two half-time reading teachers and paying other teachers to provide after-school
interventions. The reading teacher, RSP teacher, after-school intervention teachers and
the classroom teachers learned that one of the best instructional practices they needed to
focus on was providing a systematic, daily ELD program.
200

Table F.1 charts the findings of how Flint Elementary School implemented the ten
strategies for doubling student performance as recommended by Odden and Archibald
(2009).
Table F.1: Flint and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation
Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Principal understands performance
challenge, however not all staff did
Set ambitious goals
X

Site goals are aligned with Easton
SD’s strategic goals
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
Very few changes in the curriculum
program
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X

Edusoft was used to run data reports.
CST data, benchmark assessments and
other local assessments were used to
drive instruction
Ongoing PD

X
10% of Title I funds were set aside for
PD. Plenty of PD was offered with
100% participation, however teacher
and union resistance to PD continued
to be an issue
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X

They provided 30 minutes daily ELD
instruction and protected core
instructional time during the first 2 ½
hours of the day
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X
CELDT level 1-3 were invited to
attend “Jump Start” summer program,
Reading teachers for primary & upper
grade students, KPALS for Kinder
students
Collaborative,
professional culture

X

Implemented the accountability piece
to teacher collaboration time
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
The role of leadership team has
become more focused on student
learning with the help of the
educational consultants and the
principal
Professional and best
practices
X
Principal is continuously sharing
research-based best practices and
attending PD trainings
201

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides recommendations for allocating
resources that will impact a number of school-related factors including class sizes and
staffing ratios. Below, Table F.2 delineates what a prototypical school should look like
using the recommendations of the EBM compared to current resource allocations at
Smiley Elementary School.
202

Table F.2: Flint and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Smiley School
Current Resource Status
Smiley Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 431
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-2: 20
3-5: 32

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
185, includes 1.5 PD days,
0.5 prep day & 1 report card
prep day

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1 principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary 1 Secretaries and
1 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 17 FTE core teachers 24 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 2 @ 0.5 FTE reading teacher 4.8 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE 2.2 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
384 Students of Poverty
Total = 2.5 FTE:
2@ .8 FTE Reading Teacher
1@ .5 FTE Std Achievement
Counselor
1 @ .4 FTE Intern Counselor

3.8 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
302 EL Students
0 FTE
3.0 FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
3.3 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
.5 FTE Psychologist;
.8 FTE Speech Therapist
1.0 FTE Spec. Ed. Teacher
3 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

203

Table F.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$1009 $35,998
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
Total = 1.58 FTE:
1.0 FTE Community Liaison;
.38 FTE Health Aide;
.2 Nurse
3.8 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.0 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .4 FTE Library Media Aide
.4 FTE Computer Tech
1.0 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $10,775
Technology $250 per pupil $6,630 $107,750
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $14350 $60,340
Student Activities $200 per pupil $5,220 $86,200
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of the Title I funds are
allocated for PD = $3,502
$43,100

Summary and Lessons Learned
Flint Elementary School has demonstrated progress over the last two year in many
areas, yet they have been challenged with the obstacle of ensuring the success and
continuous growth of all of its student groups. Although their 2010 API reflects another
jump in their API of 10 points, putting them at 739, their journey towards consistent and
significant growth in meeting all 17 AYP criteria presents another reality that the
principal and the staff must deal with. Many actions have been taken to address their
school-wide focus of increasing the level of progress for their Hispanic and EL subgroups
by focusing on providing a systematic ELD program in addition to teaching the state
required minimum number of instructional minutes in ELA, analyzing data to inform
their next steps and meeting regularly in professional collaboration sessions to share
strategies, plan lessons, and implement best practices.
204

Future Considerations
As long as Flint Elementary School falls short making adequate yearly progress
for each subgroup according to the mandates of NCLB, Flint will continue to bear the
label of a school in need of improvement. Although Flint has made some improvement
with their Hispanic and EL student groups in ELA, their growth is failing to keep up the
annually increasing performance targets for AYP, which is a contributing factor of them
remaining in PI for the third consecutive year.
With full understanding and heightened awareness of the performance sticking
points at her school, the principal is cognizant of the obstacles before her, including the
site union reps, other teachers or instructional aides whom still occasionally challenge
her. She stated part of her work would be focused on changing the deficit lens in which
some of her teachers view Hispanic and low-income children. She also wants to change
the stigma attached to Flint Elementary School being the “bad” school in the district
because of their comparatively lower API score and for being identified as a school in
need of improvement. The first year they went into PI, the school was required to notify
all of their students’ parents in writing of the school’s underperformance in meeting the
minimum targets for AYP, resulting in Flint becoming a PI school. Under NCLB (2001)
the letter must also identify the schools in the district that are non-PI schools and inform
the parents of their rights to transfer their child based on Flint’s PI status. As humiliating
as that was for her, she believes the letters are what lit the fire under her staff for changes
to occur.
205

APPENDIX K – SMILEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Smiley Elementary School is a Title I, Kindergarten through fifth grade school in a small
urban school district in Orange County. The school operates on a traditional school year
schedule with enrollment consisting of 515 students. Smiley opened in 1957 and has 21
regular education classrooms, and four special education teachers. The school is one of
thirteen elementary school and three middle schools in a small urban school district,
which serves 9,880 students from four neighboring cities.
Smiley Elementary School’s student population is diverse, as it is comprised of
students from varying ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and spoken languages.
Figure S.1 illustrates the student body demographics whereby the ethnicities represented
are 32.5% Asian, 58% Hispanic, 5.2% White, 0.6% African American and 3.7% other.
Figure S.1 Ethnic Breakdown of Smiley School
0.60%
32.50%
58%
5.20%
3.70%
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Other

206

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies, which have been used as a means to increase student
performance.
Assessments and Data
Smiley Elementary School has struggled to make consistent improvement in
student academic achievement as demonstrated in volatile API growth scores from 2006
to 2010. During this five-year span, Smiley has demonstrated a total increase of 78 API
points, as captured in Figure S.2.
Figure S.2: Smiley Elementary School’s API

640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
1 2 3 4 5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
A P I S c o re s

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports for Smiley Elementary shows
increases in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above for all subgroups from
2006 to 2010. However, in 2008, the Hispanic subgroup did not make a sufficient enough
of an increase to meet the minimum target of 35.2% of students scoring advanced or
proficient in ELA. Only 26.7% of the students in this subgroup score advanced or
207

proficient. However, in 2009 the minimum target of students scoring advanced/proficient
in ELA increased to 46%, and although none of the subgroups met the target, Smiley met
all of its AYP criteria under the Safe Harbor provision, which is an alternative method for
evaluating a school’s growth and performance if they did not meet the minimum percent
proficient target. Due to Safe Harbor, Smiley became eligible to come out of PI if they
met all of their AYP criteria for 2010 or if they qualified under the Safe Harbor
provision. Although Smiley student performance increased in 2010, the amount of
growth for their Hispanic subgroup was not substantial enough to meet the AYP
performance targets or to qualify under Safe Harbor; consequently, Smiley will remain in
PI and will have to demonstrate two more consecutive years of meeting all AYP criteria
in order to be taken out of PI. Figure S.3 displays Smiley’s subgroups performance
results for the percentage of students who scored proficient and/or advanced in ELA from
2006 to 2010 as measured on the annual California Standards Tests (CST).
Figure S.3: Language Arts AYP for Smiley Elementary
ELA
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Dates
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
SED
EL

208

In addition to being evaluated in ELA, AYP also monitors student performance
by subgroup for Mathematics on the CST. In 2006 45.5% of all Smiley students scored
proficient and/or advanced, while the minimum target to meet AYP was only 26.5% for
that year. That minimum target remained the same in 2007, but increased to 37% in 2008,
47.5% in 2009 and 58% for 2010. In 2008, all of the subgroups decreased in the
percentage of students who scored advanced/proficient. The Hispanic subgroup fell
below the minimum target, with only 35.2% of students scoring advanced/proficient, thus
missing the minimum target by 1.8%. From 2008 to 2010, all of the subgroups made
noticeable improvement; school-wide performance increased 8.8%, Hispanic subgroup
increased 11.2%, EL subgroup increased 8.7% and SED subgroup increased 9.5%. In
2010 all of Smiley’s subgroups continued to show improvement and although each
subgroup did not meet the 58% AYP target, they all met AYP under Safe Harbor. Figure
S.4 shows the Math proficient and advance student percentages for the subgroups
pertaining to this case study.
Figure S.4: Math AYP for Smiley Elementary
Math
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Date
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
SED
EL

209

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Since Smiley Elementary School opened in 1957 the pressures on school leaders
have changed a great deal. With the growing demands for increased levels of student
learning and achievement, high-stakes evaluation of schools tied to student performance,
standardized testing, the implementation of content standards, and the federal and state
systems of accountability have forever changed the expectations placed upon public
schools. While Smiley Elementary School is moving student performance in the right
direction, achieving increased levels of student performance in ELA for five consecutive
years and in math for two consecutive years, due to the lack of substantial growth
necessary to keep pace with the growth targets for AYP, Smiley remains a school
identified in the bottom 10% of lowest performing schools in Easton School District and
as such, they too remain in Year 4 PI.
The current principal at Smiley Elementary School was appointed on July 1,
2007. He previously served as a middle school assistant principal for two years with the
Easton School District and prior to that was hired from one of the largest urban school
districts in the country. During his first three years at Smiley, he has been instrumental in
helping to raise the school’s API score and focused on raising the levels of student
achievement for all of his school’s subgroups. He has been successful in utilizing his
leadership team to implement school-wide instructional strategies in developing concepts
based upon the identified areas of need for his students. He regularly meets with his grade
level teams to create SMART goals for each quarter in ELA and math. He routinely
works with his teachers on their belief that all children learn by challenging them to
210

analyze what they need to do differently to respond to the needs of the students. The
principal is a strong proponent of teacher collaboration time within the instructional day
where grade level teams create pre and post teacher-made assessments, analyze data, and
share strategies and new learning. Because Smiley is in Year 4 PI, the school is required
under NCLB to restructure some of their practices and set aside 10% of the school’s Title
I funding for professional development for the staff. Consequently, $3,574 must be spent
out of the Title I budget for providing staff training. After reviewing the 2010 CST data
and quarterly benchmarks measuring reading fluency and comprehension, the principal
determined the need for a school-wide focus on fluency in all subjects and at all grade
levels. Particularly, he understood that in order to close the achievement gap at Smiley,
he and his teachers needed to intervene early while struggling students are in the primary
grades and progress monitor often. His Kindergarten and first grade teachers focused on
helping student acquire sight word recognition by stressing letter-sound correspondence.
First and second grade teachers worked to build strong oral reading fluency skills for
their students. In grades Kindergarten to fifth grade, emergent readers and struggling
readers were DIBLES (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) tested four
times throughout the year to measure the five main components of early literacy: (1)
phonemic awareness, (2) alphabet principle, (3) accuracy and fluency, (4) vocabulary,
and (5) comprehension. Additionally, he provided Read Naturally, a reading intervention
program that incorporates teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring to
maximize reading proficiency, which was used after-school with students in first through
fifth grade. The principal also used his categorical funds to hired extra personnel to work
211

exclusively with EL at CELDT levels 1-3, a 0.4 reading teacher who worked two
hours/day with upper grade students and two hours/day with primary grade students, and
an additional 0.2 reading teacher for primary grade. Although he provided interventions
for students at each grade level, he felt strongly about investing in kids early when the
achievement gap is smaller.
Over the last two years Smiley Elementary has made significant gains in overall
student achievement as indicated by the 48-point growth in its API scores. However,
these achievements have not escaped the challenges of meeting the growth targets as
measured by the federal AYP accountability system, particularly for the school’s
Hispanic subgroup in ELA. Under the current site leadership, the principal has set new
practices and protocol in place to address these challenges. Odden & Archibald’s (2009)
Strategies for Improving Student Achievement will provide the lens by which Smiley’s
challenges are described in the following section.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. When the current
principal arrived at Smiley in July 2007, he understood the need to build a sense of
community and pride in the school. For many years, Smiley Elementary School has been
perceived to be the school most parents want to block their child from attending, citing it
was a gang school, or a school with “undesirable elements”, which often was code for
“too many poor Hispanic students”. Because he was familiar with working in high
poverty, diverse communities as a middle-school assistant principal and as a teacher prior
to accepting employment with Easton School District, the principal intuitively understood
that he needed to work with his staff to create a new and promising vision for their school
212

if they ever expected to shed those negative stereotypes. He had many ideas that he
wanted to implement, but was cautioned by his immediate supervisor to move slowly his
first year and even advised that he not make any significant changes that would upset the
mood of his staff, particularly his teachers who openly expressed their rights as union
members. Although he had been with the Easton School District for two years prior to
accepting the principalship at Smiley, he was strongly encouraged to use the 2007-2008
year as his “data gathering year”, taking note of the specific political landscape at Smiley.
During the course of his first year, the principal and his (then) Student
Achievement Teacher (SAT) held Student Achievement Committee (SAC) sessions with
each grade level team where he used data from common formative and summative
assessments to help drive discussions pertaining to school-wide student performance as
compared to individual subgroup performance. As a result of these systematic and
strategic grade level SAC sessions, the staff became much more aware about their areas
of weakness and learned there were common areas of concern that spanned from
Kindergarten to fifth grade. This new knowledge was a motivating factor for helping to
the staff to realize the work that needed to be done to change the perception of Smiley
Elementary School, and actually help to improve student learning and achievement.
Set ambitious goals. In remaining consistent with the Easton School District
strategic goals for student achievement, Smiley’s goals are to help students move from
one performance band on the CST in the subject areas of ELA and math until each
student reaches the proficient or advanced performance band. More specifically, the
school-wide goal for ELA is to achieve minimum growth of 13% so that at least 56.9% of
213

their students demonstrate proficiency or advanced performance. Additionally, a 6%
growth in math is the target that has been set, which would bring Smiley’s
proficient/advanced achievement level to 58.8%. In tandem with performance goals for
the CST, English Learners (EL) are required to take an annual assessment to quantify
their level of English language acquisition until the student test scores reflects he/she is
fluent in English. Smiley’s goal for EL is for students to make annual progress in learning
English, as measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT),
with at least 95% of all EL to qualify for re-designation as “English Proficient” prior to
their promotion to middle school. Annually, student performance is evaluated to
determine which students have met or surpassed the goals and which students continue to
struggle.
The use of technology has been instrumental in helping to improve student
performance in ELA and Math and will continue to be a critical resource to accomplish
the aforementioned three major school wide goals. Prior to the principal’s arrival in 2007,
there were not student interventions offered for primary grade students. With his focus on
intervening early, rather than waiting for a child to fall far behind before providing
interventions, he had a difficult time getting his staff to change their mindset about
interventions. Technology was purchased and put in the hands of students and teachers
provided much of the catalyst for the cultural shift in their thinking about student
interventions. Some of the resources included classroom amplification systems in all
second through fifth grade classes to help students, especially EL, clearly hear the
214

teacher’s voice from any location in the classroom, Airliner tablets, SMART Boards, and
ST Math computer based program.
Although students in grades second through fifth are the only grades required to
take the CST, the principal regularly met with teachers at all grade levels to monitor
progress toward achieving the school-wide goals. His goal was to provide continuous and
ongoing support to his teachers so as to strengthen their instructional practices, which he
believed would have a positive effect on student achievement. During these meetings the
principal and the teachers identified areas of success and areas of underperformance that
aided in creating focused intervention groups to provide students with additional levels of
support.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. At the
beginning of the 2009-2010 school year Smiley was a Year 3 PI school. Because they did
not meet all AYP criteria during the 2010 testing administration, Smiley advanced to
Year 4 PI. In Smiley’s case, they advanced to Year 4 for not making AYP with their
Hispanic subgroup in ELA. Consequently, the school must continue the corrective action
plan that was implemented in Year 3 in addition to beginning new interventions and
action steps required in Year 4. The action steps included intensive training and
professional development for the principal and the school leadership team, routine
professional development opportunities for the staff, and working with an outside
educational consultant where the focus was on implementation of proven research-based
strategies. Additionally, the school must notify the parents annually about its “failing”
status and must provide students opportunities to seek the free educational assistance with
215

supplemental educational services venders or companies. There was also an expectation
for the principal and teachers to use state and local assessments to drive instruction,
pacing and continuously monitor students’ progress towards proficiency.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The teachers and
principal use a significant amount of data to inform teachers of the next steps to meet the
needs of students working below grade level, students on grade level and students
working above grade level. When the principal first came to Easton School District, the
teachers at Smiley Elementary had been exposed to using data retrieved from Edusoft,
Easton’s student data storage program, to print reports on how well their student did on a
given assessment. Each grade level team created pre and post assessments in ELA
aligned with their quarterly SMART (Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results-
Oriented, Time-bound) goals, in addition to administering the district benchmarks in
ELA and math at the end of each quarter.
Throughout the year, the principal and each grade level team use a variety of
assessments to track a number of components to decide what they need to do to teach the
next standard. The teams review CST scores, benchmark data, common formative
assessments, created and administered pretest and posttest on their students. Teachers
also DIBELS tested their students to determine their students at risk of not having basic
early literacy skills. The DIBELS assessments also help teachers to form their
intervention groups based on like-skill support. If the student is an EL, the CELDT level
is also another factor that is used in deciding what strategies and lessons will be taught
based on what the data tells them. After analyzing the data at each grade level, the
216

principal and the teachers recognized the need for more intensive instruction in the areas
of reading fluency.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Due to the contract language of
Easton’s collective bargaining agreement between the teacher union and the district, staff
meetings cannot be used to provide professional development, unless those items are
placed at the end of the agenda, at which time teachers are not required to remain.
However, because Smiley is a Year 4 PI school, the principal helped his staff understand
they were in no position to “cherry pick” when and where professional development took
place, especially since it is a corrective action provision under NCLB. Additionally, with
Year 4 PI status, the district may exercise the option of reconstituting the staff whom is
determined to have contributed to the school’s failing status, thus the argument of
professional development being a part of staff meeting was not as big of an issue on the
Smiley campus as it is at other sites in Easton School District.
The professional development plan for Smiley was directly tied to the areas of
focus identified in the School Plan and based on their data, which indicated ELA was
their weakest area. The Easton School District funded release time for Smiley teachers to
implement a Professional Learning Community (PLC) model, where teachers regularly
meet and collaborate on best practices and research-based strategies to improve student
performance. At Smiley, the teachers met in their grade level PLC collaborative teams 45
minutes/week during the instructional day while their students received music and PE
instruction from itinerant teachers funded with district categorical funds. During their
217

grade level PLC sessions the discussions were always centered on two of their struggling
subgroups: Hispanics and EL.
The principal and his school leadership team participate in leadership coaching
delivered by consultant, Judy Cunningham, who works with schools on building effective
leadership teams to move schools forward. The principal also received AB430
Administrators’ Professional Development training, which is required to clear his
administrative credential. Lastly, three of his teachers participated in the Beginning
Teacher Support Academy (BTSA). The purpose of the BTSA program is to provide
ongoing professional development activities for first and second year teachers in addition
to pairing them with a mentor teacher who is responsible for supporting and guiding them
as they make the transition.
Using time efficiently and effectively. Not only was the principal able to identify
that his Hispanic subgroup needed extra support and intervention in ELA, but he also
recognized most of these students were also in the EL subgroups. It became apparent to
him that there needed to be a focused, English Language Development (ELD) program,
which all teachers are required to provide EL a minimum of 30 minutes of instruction
daily. Some of his teachers held the belief that ELD instruction was optional, and could
be skipped if they ran out of time.
Part of Smiley’s action plan was to provide instruction to meet the needs of all of
the students, which requires differentiated instruction in all core curricular areas. The first
two and one-half hours of the instructional day was protected from classroom
interruptions by preventing incoming phone calls to the classroom, amplified
218

announcements, and pullout services during core instruction. ELD instruction is a
California state mandated subject in which all EL must be provided with differentiated
instruction based upon their CELDT level or most recently assessed English language
acquisition level. In addition to providing differentiated instruction during the
instructional day, the principal used Title I and other categorical funds to pay for two
part-time reading teachers. The staff felt the funds should be used to intervene early in a
child’s life.
Effective use of time was an important factor in utilizing the two reading teachers
who were hired to provide interventions to struggling students in grades Kindergarten
through second and third through fifth. The targeted students were struggling readers and
EL who where at a CELDT level 1, 2, or 3.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Upon evaluating the data, the
principal and his staff determined they were making sufficient progress in math, but the
bigger challenge was with ELA for their Hispanic subgroup. Extended learning time for
struggling students happened during the day with targeted reading intervention groups,
and during the school’s “Jump Start” program, which affords struggling students a two
week head start before the other students return to school in September. The program
amounted to a total of 10 days, 2 hours/day of intensive instruction for EL who did not
make a years growth on the CELDT and scored below the 50
th
percentile in the previous
school year. The teachers who taught the Jump Start program focused on fluency and
writing with class size ranging from ten to nineteen students/class.
219

Collaborative, professional culture. The principal knew he had to help foster a
professional culture where accountability became the norm for teachers, students and
parents; that was the only way he felt they can begin to change the negative image of the
school. During their collaborative sessions, he required the grade level SMART goals to
be formally documented; teachers were required to submit meeting agendas and minutes
where they detailed their successes and weaknesses. For a great majority of those
meetings, the principal played an instrumental role in helping to define each team’s
action plan to address the specific needs of their students.
Teachers began to really understand the purpose of collaboration time, that it was
not a time to plan field trips or make photocopies, but rather a time to plan interventions,
share ideas and teaching strategies including GLAD strategies to teach EL, and Thinking
Maps to help students organize their thoughts and ideas for writing narrative and
expository paragraphs.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. The principal took a
collaborative approach with his staff on “how” to implement the changes necessary to
move Smiley forward; however the “what” factors was definitely an intentional top-down
approach that he implemented. He saw his role as one who is responsible for creating and
clearly defining the vision for the school. He strategically utilized his leadership team to
get their support and to help get the rest of the staff on board to do the work by which the
vision can be actualized.
As a result of Smiley being a PI school, the principal and his leadership team were
assigned an educational consultant to help them create goals and school-wide learning
220

objectives. They met with the consultant four times throughout the year for full-day
professional development in areas such as differentiated instruction, ELD strategies, and
strategic planning. Each member on the team had a responsibility of sharing information
and helping to educate the members of their individual grade level teams.
Professional and best practices. The principal at Smiley Elementary School felt
it was important to provide instruction in small group settings for their most struggling
student groups. He spent much of his categorical funding allocation for 2009-2010 by
hiring two half-time reading teachers and paying another part-time teacher to provide
support for EL who spoke little or no English. The reading teachers, English intervention
teacher and the classroom teachers learned that one of the best instructional practices they
needed to focus on was providing time for teachers to meet regularly and implement a
PLC model where they read articles related to instruction and student learning, and
engage with each other as active learning group members.
Table S.1 charts the findings of how Smiley Elementary School implemented the
ten strategies for doubling student performance as recommended by Odden and
Archibald (2009).
221

Table S.1: Smiley and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation
Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Principal understands performance
challenge, however not all staff did
Set ambitious goals
X

Site goals are aligned with Easton
SD’s strategic goals with technology
to support goals
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
Very few changes in the curriculum
program
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X

Edusoft was used to run data reports.
CST data, benchmark assessments and
other local assessments were used to
drive instruction
Ongoing PD

X

10% of Title I funds were set aside for
PD, however much of it was provided
in-house; little outside professional
consulting
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X

They provided 30 minutes daily ELD
instruction and protected core
instructional time during the first 2 ½
hours of the day
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X
CELDT level 1-3 were invited to
attend “Jump Start” summer program,
Reading teachers for primary & upper
grade students, teacher for student
who spoke little/no English
Collaborative,
professional culture
X

Implemented the accountability piece
to teacher collaboration time with high
participation from principal
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
The role of leadership team has
become more focused on student
learning with the help of the
educational consultant and the
principal
Professional and best
practices
X
Principal is continuously sharing
research-based best practices and
attending PD trainings

222

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides recommendations for allocating
resources that will impact a number of school-related factors including class sizes and
staffing ratios. Below, Table S.2 delineates what a prototypical school should look like
using the recommendations of the EBM compared to current resource allocations at
Smiley Elementary School.
223

Table S.2: Smiley and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Smiley School
Current Resource Status
Smiley Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 515
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-2: 20
3-5: 32

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
185, includes 1.5 PD days,
0.5 prep day & 1 report card
prep day

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1 principal
0.2 assistant
principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary 1 Secretaries and
1.2 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 21 FTE core teachers 28.6 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers Total = 0.6 reading teachers
1 @ 0.4 FTE reading teacher
1 @ 0.2 FTE reading teacher
5.7 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE 2.4 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
425 Students of Poverty
Total = 0.6 FTE:
1@ .2 FTE Psychologist
1@ .4 FTE Std Achievement
Counselor

4.2 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
403 EL Students
0.2 FTE
4.0 FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 2.1 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.1 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
5.2 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
.2 FTE Psychologist;
1.0 FTE Speech Therapist
3.0 FTE Spec. Ed. Teacher
3.6 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

224

Table S.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$1,100 $41,226
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
Total = 1.58 FTE:
1.0 FTE Community Liaison;
.38 FTE Health Aide;
.2 Nurse
4.2 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.2 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .48 FTE Library Media Aide
.48 FTE Computer Tech
1.2 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $12,875
Technology $250 per pupil $6,810 $128,750
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $10,889 $72,100
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,215 $103,000
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
10% of the Title I funds are
allocated for PD = $3,574
$51,500

Summary and Lessons Learned
Smiley Elementary School has demonstrated progress over the last five years in
many areas, yet they have been challenged with the obstacle of ensuring the success and
continuous growth of all of its student groups. Although their 2010 API reflects another
jump in their API of 34 points, putting them at 766, their journey towards consistent and
significant growth in meeting all 21 AYP criteria presents another reality that the
principal and the staff must deal with. Many actions have been taken to address their
school-wide focus of increasing the level of progress for their Hispanic subgroup by
focusing on increasing reading fluency and writing strategies, analyzing data to inform
their next steps and meeting regularly in professional collaboration sessions to share
strategies, plan lessons, and implement best practices.
Future Considerations
225

As long as Smiley Elementary School falls short making adequate yearly progress
for each subgroup according to the mandates of NCLB, Smiley will remain in PI. The
will have to continue implementing corrective actions per NCLB. Although Smiley has
made some improvement with their Hispanic student group in ELA, their growth is
failing to keep up the annually increasing performance targets for AYP, which is a
contributing factor of them advancing to Year 4 PI. With full understanding and
heightened awareness of the performance sticking points at his school, the principal is
cognoscente of the obstacles before him. He wants to change the stigma attached to
Smiley Elementary School being the “low performing” school to avoid.
226

APPENDIX L – SUNNYVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Sunnyvale Elementary School is a Title I, Kindergarten through sixth grade
school in a small urban school district in Orange County. The school operates on a
traditional school year schedule with enrollment consisting of 460 students. Sunnyvale
opened in 1962 and has 13 regular education classrooms, and seven special education
classes. The school is one of thirteen elementary school and three middle schools in a
small urban school district, which serves 9,880 students from four neighboring cities.
Sunnyvale Elementary School’s student population is diverse, as it is comprised
of students from varying ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and spoken
languages. Figure SV.1 illustrates the student body demographics whereby the ethnicities
represented are 24.4% Asian, 28% Hispanic, 28.4% White, 1.1% African American and
18.1% represent other ethnic groups including American Indian, Samoan, Filipino,
Pacific Islander, mixed ethnicity or declined to state.
Figure SV.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Sunnyvale School
1.10%
24.40%
28%
28.40%
18.10%
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Other

227

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies, which have been used as a means to increase student
performance.
Assessments and Data
Sunnyvale Elementary School is considered a high performing school according
to the California state accountability system and the federal accountability system.
During the five-year span between 2006 and 2010, Sunnyvale has consistently achieved
an API score well above 800, although their scored did decrease in 2007 by 10 points.
Since 2007 their API score has increased of 25 points, as captured in Figure SV.2.
Figure SV.2: Sunnyvale Elementary School’s API
825
830
835
840
845
850
855
860
865
870
1 2 3 4 5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
A P I S c o re s

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports for Sunnyvale Elementary shows
increases in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above in ELA for all
subgroups from 2006 to 2010 except for SED subgroup. In both 2007 and 2008 the SED
subgroup decreased in the percent of student scoring advanced/proficient by at combined
228

total of 3.5%. However, in 2009, the SED subgroup improved by 11% and 5% in 2010.
Because this subgroup’s percentage of advanced or proficient students was greater than
the state minimum targets for both years, Sunnyvale was not designate a PI school, nor
was it subject to PI sanctions and corrective actions. The minimum ELA target in 2007
was 24.4%; the SED subgroup had 50% of its students score advanced or proficient. In
2008 the minimum target increased to 35.2% with 47.9% of SED students scoring
advanced or proficient in ELA. Only 26.7% of the students in this subgroup score
advanced or proficient. In 2009 the minimum target increased to 46%, and again in 2010
at 56.8%. Figure SV.3 displays Sunnyvale’s subgroups performance results for the
percentage of students who scored proficient and/or advanced in ELA from 2006 to 2010
as measured on the annual California Standards Tests (CST).
Figure SV.3: Language Arts AYP for Sunnyvale Elementary
ELA
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Dates
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
SED
EL

In addition to being evaluated in ELA, AYP also monitors student performance
by subgroup for Mathematics on the CST. In 2006 73.8% of all Sunnyvale students
scored proficient and/or advanced, while the minimum target to meet AYP was only
229

26.5% for that year. That minimum target remained the same in 2007, but increased to
37% in 2008, 47.5% in 2009 and 58% for 2010. In 2007, all of the subgroups decreased
in the percentage of students who scored advanced/proficient, but none had an
advanced/proficient percentage below 57.9%, which was more than double the minimum
target. The school wide subgroup decreased 3.2%, the Hispanic subgroup dropped 3.3%,
SED fell 9.1% and EL decreased 2.2%. In 2008, each of the subgroups rebounded, with
increases ranging from 5.2% to 11% of students scoring advanced/proficient. The 2009
and 2010 data shows more volatility in each group’s math performance; however none of
the subgroups fell below the 2010 minimum target of 58%. Figure SV.4 shows the Math
proficient and advance student percentages for the subgroups pertaining to this case
study.
Figure SV.4: Math AYP for Sunnyvale Elementary
Math
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Year Ending Date
% Proficient / Advanced
School Wide
Hispanic
SED
EL

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Since Sunnyvale Elementary School opened in 1962 the pressures on school
leaders have changed a great deal. With the growing demands for increased levels of
230

student learning and achievement, high-stakes evaluation of schools tied to student
performance, standardized testing, the implementation of content standards, and the
federal and state systems of accountability have forever changed the expectations placed
upon public schools. While Sunnyvale Elementary School is moving student performance
in the right direction, achieving increased levels of student performance in ELA for two
consecutive years, math has proven to be more of a challenge to sustain continuous
increased performance for all of Sunnyvale’s subgroups.
The current principal at Sunnyvale Elementary School was appointed on July 1,
2007 after serving one year as principal at a different elementary school in the district.
Prior to becoming a principal in 2006, she held various positions in Easton School
District including middle school assistant principal and teacher. During her first three
years at Sunnyvale, she has been instrumental in helping to raise the school’s API score
and focused on raising the levels of student achievement for all of her school’s
subgroups. She has been successful in utilizing her leadership team to implement school-
wide instructional strategies in developing concepts based upon the identified areas of
need for her students. She regularly meets with her grade level teams to create SMART
goals for each quarter in ELA and math. She routinely works with her teachers on their
belief that all children learn by challenging them to analyze what they need to do
differently to respond to the needs of the students. The principal believes in the PLC
model of providing time for teachers to collaborate within the instructional day where
grade level teams create pre and post teacher-made assessments, analyze data, share
strategies and new learning.
231

Sunnyvale Elementary School has been identified by the state of California as a
high performing school since the 2005 CST administration. Sunnyvale reported a 53-
point growth, which propelled their API score to 828. The following year they grew
another 23 points, giving them a 2006 API score of 851. From the federal accountability
viewpoint, Sunnyvale has also faired well by making AYP target percentage growth of
students scoring advanced or proficient for each of its subgroups, meaning no subgroup
has ever scored below the minimum targets. However, Sunnyvale, like many other
schools have struggled to make continuous growth in student performance for their SED
subgroup in ELA and math, and the Hispanic subgroup in math over the last five years.
Each year the AYP growth targets for ELA and math will continue to increase by
approximately 10% each year until the school year ending in 2014, whereby 100% of all
students are expected to score proficient or advanced in both content areas. Figure SV.5
and Figure SV.6 shows the elementary school AYP targets from 2002 – 2014 for ELA
and mathematics respectively, with the values on each figure’s y-axis representing the
percent proficient and advanced, and each figure’s x-axis correlating to the school year
ending date.
232

Figure SV.5: ELA AYP Targets for 2002 – 2014

Figure SV.6: Mathematics AYP Targets for 2002 – 2014

233

With the AYP targets increasing to 67.6% in ELA and 68.5% in math for 2011, if
Sunnyvale were to remain at its 2010 levels of proficiency in 2011, the Hispanic and SED
subgroups will not make AYP in ELA and math. In 2012, should they fall short of the
78.4% ELA target and 79% math target for the second consecutive year with the same
subgroup(s) in the same content area, Sunnyvale would be designated as a Year 1 PI
school. The likelihood of their API advancing from 866 into the 900s and being identified
a PI school is probable. This scenario could very well come to fruition if Sunnyvale were
to continue to demonstrate growth in student performance on the CSTs school wide and
for its subgroups under state API accountability system, but fail to meet any of the 27
AYP criteria under the federal accountability system that includes achieving the target
percent proficient/advanced for all of its subgroups in ELA and Mathematics.
The principal understands the somewhat unique position Sunnyvale is in,
potentially having to add a “failing” school label to the prideful “high performing”
distinction she and her staff have enjoyed for years. She also understands that they cannot
sit back and rely on the higher performing students to pull up the school wide averages to
mask the lower achievement levels of some of her students. She feels strongly about
reviewing CST data, quarterly benchmarks and other local assessments to know who her
target students are and to provide the appropriate interventions to meet their needs. Under
the current site leadership, the principal has set new practices and protocol in place to
address these challenges. Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student
Achievement will provide the lens by which Sunnyvale’s challenges are described in the
following section.
234

Understanding the performance problem and challenge. During the 2008-
2009 school year the principal decided that she was going to increase the amount of ELA
interventions in the primary grades, particularly in Kindergarten through second grade. If
a Kinder student had problems with letter recognition, letter-sounds, or writing their
name for example, the child was immediately put into the corresponding intervention
group starting in September. The idea behind this strategy was to catch the struggling
student early, which would provide students with the maximum time necessary to receive
interventions and have a better chance of performing on grade level while in
Kindergarten. Once the student’s performance improves, he/she can be transitioned out of
the intervention group and receive differentiated instruction as needed in the classroom
setting.
What the principal and her teachers discovered was that many of the Kindergarten
students were quickly advancing out of the intervention groups because teachers were
able to intervene early and at the earliest detection of academic challenges. When she met
with her first grade team in September 2009 to talk about forming intervention groups,
the team realized they had fewer numbers of students requiring interventions than in the
last three years. They attributed the significant decline in the number of struggling
readers to the early and frequent interventions provided in when the first graders were in
Kindergarten. The decreased numbers of intervention students afforded the intervention
teachers extra time to work with smaller groups of children, providing more intensive
services. Additionally, they focused on reading comprehension for third grade, and
235

decoding, reading comprehension, main idea and writing for fourth through sixth grade
students.
Set ambitious goals. In remaining consistent with the Easton School District
strategic goals for student achievement, Sunnyvale’s goals are to help students move
from one performance band on the CST in the subject areas of ELA and math until each
student reaches the proficient or advanced performance band. More specifically, the
school-wide goal for ELA is to achieve minimum growth of 6% so that at least 74.7% of
their students demonstrate proficiency or advanced performance. Additionally, a 6%
growth in math is the target that has been set, which would bring Sunnyvale’s
proficient/advanced achievement level to 80.8%. In tandem with performance goals for
the CST, English Learners (EL) are required to take an annual assessment to quantify
their level of English language acquisition until the student test scores reflects he/she is
fluent in English. Sunnyvale’s goal for EL is for students to make annual progress in
learning English, as measured by the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT), with at least 5% in the school’s overall scores. Moreover, all EL students are
expected to increase by one CELDT level each year, while remaining at Level 3 no more
than two years.
Although students in grades second through fifth are the only grades required to
take the CST, the principal regularly met with teachers at all grade levels to monitor
progress toward achieving the school-wide goals. Her goal was to provide continuous and
ongoing support to her teachers so as to strengthen their instructional practices, which she
believed would have a positive effect on student achievement. During these meetings the
236

principal and the teachers backwards planned how much they needed to grow school
wide each year until the 2013-2014 school year where 100% of all students are supposed
to be proficient in ELA and math as measured on the annual CST. Once they determined
their annual school wide growth targets, they disaggregated the data according to their
numerically significant student groups. That process helped them to see which groups
they needed to concentrate on the most and where their performance gaps where.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. In an
effort to revamp the ELD program at Sunnyvale during the 2009-2010 school year, they
discontinued using Moving Into English and began using Avenues. Their new ELD
program is a standards-based language and literacy program that links grade level content
to science and social studies by using academic vocabulary and provides multi-level
writing support for Kindergarten through fifth grade students. With the principal’s new
instructional vision of increasing proficiency by at least 10% for EL, she felt it was
important to change the school’s ELD curriculum and program. Consequently, their
Level 1 and 2s are doing very well and making good progress. The Levels 3- 5 students’
gains are coming much slower, primarily due to students having difficulty with the
writing and grammar components on the CELDT.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The teachers and
principal use a significant amount of data to inform teachers of the next steps to meet the
needs of students working below grade level, students on grade level and students
working above grade level. The classroom teachers and the reading intervention teacher
regularly give students formative assessments. The intervention teacher progress
237

monitors students every two weeks and makes adjustments to student intervention
placement as determined by the data. Most of the Kindergarten through second grade
teachers progress monitor their struggling students on a weekly basis. The upper grade
teachers are not quite as structured as the K-2 teachers, however they progress monitor
their struggling students as well.
Throughout the year, the principal, the reading intervention teacher and each
grade level team review CST scores, benchmark data, common formative assessments,
created and administered pretest and posttest on their students. Teachers also used
DIBELS to determine if their students are at risk of not having basic early literacy skills.
The DIBELS assessments also help teachers form their intervention groups based on like-
skill support. If the student is an EL, the CELDT level is also another factor that is used
in deciding what strategies and lessons will be taught based on what the data tells them.
After analyzing the data at each grade level, the principal and her teachers recognized the
need for more intensive instruction for their EL in ELA. This information resulted in
several strategy sessions with the principal, the intervention teachers and the Director of
Curriculum and Instruction. They decided to adjust intervention teachers’ schedules to
accommodate an additional block of time for ELD instruction, which they believed
would help their EL reach proficiency in ELA.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Professional development at
Sunnyvale is sporadic and lacks a district wide focus, as they only had one full-day
session and three two-hour sessions after-school on dates that were negotiated in the local
bargaining agreement between the teachers’ union and the district. The Easton School
238

District’s teachers’ union has held a longstanding resistance to ongoing, intensive
professional development and resent having professional development occur during
regular staff meetings. As such, high quality, systematic professional development is not
consistent with the culture of Easton’s teachers, which includes the teachers at
Sunnyvale.
Using time efficiently and effectively. Not only was the principal able to identify
that her EL subgroup needed extra support and intervention in ELA, but he also
recognized most of these students were also in the SED subgroup. It became apparent to
her that there needed to be a focused, English Language Development (ELD) program,
which all teachers are required to provide EL a minimum of 30 minutes of instruction
daily.
Part of Sunnyvale’s action plan was to provide instruction to meet the needs of all
of the students, which requires differentiated instruction in all core curricular areas. The
first two and one-half hours of the instructional day was protected from classroom
interruptions by preventing incoming phone calls to the classroom, amplified
announcements, and pullout services during core instruction. ELD instruction is a
California state mandated subject in which all EL must be provided with differentiated
instruction based upon their CELDT level or most recently assessed English language
acquisition level. In addition to providing differentiated instruction during the
instructional day, the principal used Title I and other categorical funds to pay for a part-
time reading teacher. The staff felt the funds should be used to intervene early in a child’s
life.
239

Effective use of time was an important factor in utilizing the reading teacher who
was hired to provide interventions to struggling students in grades Kindergarten through
sixth. The targeted students were struggling readers and EL who where not making at
least one year of growth on the CELDT.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Upon evaluating the data, the
principal and her staff determined they were making sufficient progress in ELA and
math, but the bigger challenge would be to continue to improve student performance that
would keep them ahead of the AYP proficient targets over the next for years. Extended
learning time for struggling students happened during the day with targeted reading
intervention groups. They did not run a summer school program; however they do offer
limited amounts of after-school tutoring.
Collaborative, professional culture. The principal has been very conscientious
about modeling collaborative leadership that is inclusive of differing viewpoints and
levels of understanding. She regularly discusses pressing concerns with her staff at staff
meetings and attempts to reach consensus. Her teachers selected to have four full-day
collaboration sessions throughout the school year to plan intervention groups, share ideas
and teaching strategies including GLAD strategies to teach EL, and Thinking Maps to
help students organize their thoughts and ideas for writing narrative and expository
paragraphs.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. As previously stated, the
principal took a collaborative approach with her staff and practiced shared-decision
making on most issues. Her role as principal was to create the vision for the school and
240

guide her staff in making the vision one they could buy-into. She strategically utilized her
leadership team to get their support and to help perpetuate the vision school wide. Her
staff is slowly coming to understand they have to modify how they do business in order
to maintain their untarnished high achieving status in addition to meeting the needs of
their changing student demographics. With more and more EL students enrolling at
Sunnyvale, they realized they needed to approach ELA and ELD instruction differently.
They could no longer maintain a cavalier attitude about the need for targeted
interventions within the school day and have now grown accustomed to regularly
monitoring student progress.
Professional and best practices. The principal at Sunnyvale Elementary School
felt it was important to provide instruction in small group settings for their most
struggling student groups. She spent much of her categorical funding allocation for 2009-
2010 by hiring a part-time reading teacher. The reading teacher and the classroom
teachers learned that one of the best instructional practices they needed to focus on was
providing time for teachers to meet regularly and implement a PLC model where they
have extended periods of time to engage in meaningful dialogue about instruction,
student learning, providing enrichments for their proficient and advanced learners,
providing interventions for their struggling learners and planning their action steps to
accomplish their goals and objectives.
Table SV.1 charts the findings of how Sunnyvale Elementary School
implemented the ten strategies for doubling student performance as recommended by
Odden and Archibald (2009).
241

Table SV.1: Sunnyvale and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation
Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Principal understands performance
challenge, however not all staff did
Set ambitious goals
X

Site goals are aligned with Easton
SD’s strategic goals with
technology to support goals
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
Changed the ELD program and
created a new instructional vision
that all staff was aware of and
supported
Formative
assessments/data-based
decisions
X

CST data, benchmark assessments
and other local assessments were
used to drive instruction
Ongoing PD

X
PD limited to very few times
during the year, resistant culture to
regular PD
Using time efficiently
& effectively
X

They provided 30 minutes daily
ELD instruction and protected core
instructional time during the first 2
½ hours of the day
Extended learning time
for struggling students
X
Reading teacher for struggling
students, limited tutoring after-
school
Collaborative,
professional culture

X

4 full-day collaboration sessions
per year
Widespread and
distributed
instructional leadership
X
Collaborative leadership style,
teachers taking ownership of
creating student intervention
groups & progress monitoring
Professional and best
practices
X
Hired intervention teacher,
providing interventions early and
often, differentiated instruction,
progress monitoring student
performance

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides recommendations for allocating
resources that will impact a number of school-related factors including class sizes and
242

staffing ratios. Below, Table SV.2 delineates what a prototypical school should look like
using the recommendations of the EBM compared to current resource allocations at
Sunnyvale Elementary School.

243

Table SV.2: Sunnyvale and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Sunnyvale School
Current Resource Status
Sunnyvale Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 460
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-2: 20
3-5: 32

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
185, includes 1.5 PD days,
0.5 prep day & 1 report card
prep day

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1 principal
0.1 assistant
principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary 1.1 Secretaries
and 1.1 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 20 FTE core teachers 25.6 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0.5 reading teacher 5.1 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE 2.1 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
207 Students of Poverty
Total = 0.52 FTE:
1@ .08 FTE Psychologist
1@ .4 FTE Std Achievement
Counselor
2@ .04 FTE Counselor Intern

2.0 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
166 EL Students
0.2 FTE
1.7 FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 1.9 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 1.9 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
8.4 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
1.0 FTE Psychologist;
1.4 FTE Speech Therapist
5.0 FTE Spec. Ed. Teacher
3.6 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

244

Table SV.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$2,100 $39,849
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
Total = 1.1 FTE:
.38 FTE Community Liaison;
.5 FTE Health Aide;
.2 Nurse
2.0 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 2.2 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .48 FTE Library Media Aide
.48 FTE Computer Tech
1.2 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $11,500
Technology $250 per pupil $3,900 $115,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $8,557 $64,400
Student Activities $200 per pupil $1,775 $92,000
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$1,750 $46,000

Summary and Lessons Learned
Sunnyvale Elementary School has been identified as a high performing school
since 2005 when its API score surpassed 800. However, with the annually increasing
percent proficient growth targets for AYP nearing 70% in both ELA and Mathematics for
2011 and their changing student demographics, they have been challenged with the
obstacle of ensuring the success and continuous growth of all of its student groups.
Several actions have been taken to address their school-wide focus of increasing the level
of progress for their EL subgroup by focusing on intervening early and often in ELA and
ELD, analyzing data to inform their next steps and meeting regularly in professional
collaboration sessions to share strategies, plan lessons, and implement best practices.
Future Considerations
245

From 2002 to 2010 Sunnyvale Elementary School has successfully met all 27
AYP criteria, including achieving above the percent proficient for ELA and math.
However, if they were not to make any increases in student performance in 2011, two of
their subgroups will fall short of the percent proficient targets in ELA and Mathematics.
The Hispanic and SED subgroups are in danger of not making AYP if they are not able to
achieve the required percent proficient. Likewise, if any of their subgroups were to
decrease in the percent proficient in ELA and math, they too will be in danger of not
meeting AYP targets.

246

APPENDIX M – DISSERTATION DEFENSE PRESENTATION

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study selected a purposeful sample of five Title I elementary schools in Orange County and Los Angeles County in Southern California with similar demographics, yet varying levels of academic growth as determined by the California Department of Education. Using a case study approach, principal interviews, student performance data, site-level data and documentation were used to evaluate leadership decisions regarding hiring and firing practices, programmatic implementation and intervention services as a means to closing the achievement gap for minority students, English learners and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) was the framework used for improving student performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics. In conjunction with the EBM recommendations, this study also examined evidence of the Ten Strategies to Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I 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 six California schools within two school districts

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

Asset Metadata

Creator Martínez, Hiacynth Dewilla (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/04/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag achievement gap,doubling student performance,Educational Leadership,evidence-based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,school leadership,student achievement,Title I

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), Orange (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email hdmartin@usc.edu,hic296@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3903

Unique identifier UC1217047

Identifier etd-Martinez-4410 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-476263 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3903 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Martinez-4410.pdf

Dmrecord 476263

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Martínez, Hiacynth Dewilla

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