University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ALLOCATION OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT: CASE STUDIES OF NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS

by

Cynthia Patron Guerrero

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Cynthia Patron Guerrero
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Leif, and my children, Lauren
and Connor, whose ongoing love, support and understanding have made this
process possible. Thank you for taking on so many responsibilities at home, for
your patience, and for your constant love and support. Thank you to my parents,
Andres and Feliciana, for raising me to value education. Thank you to my
friends for allowing me the time to disappear and pursue my dreams. Thank you
to my confidant, Shari, for your support and belief in me. I couldn’t have done
this without everyone’s support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Lawrence Picus: committee chair, encouraging advocate & energetic mentor!
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Dr. John Nelson
Members of this Parallel Dissertation Group and Cohort:
Emma and Mark (a special thanks for the gift of their friendship),
Ramona, Hiacynth, Andrew, Jim, Steve, Brian, Nate, Martha, who have always
been supportive and encouraging
The amazing Chris, who is so masterful in creating systems and supports for our
group
Administration and staff of the districts studied
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Chapter 3: Methodology 58
Chapter 4: Findings 69
Chapter 5: Discussion 132
References 151
Appendices
Appendix A: Email Invitation to Participate 159
Appendix B: List of Documents Requested From Schools 161
Appendix C: School Visit/Interview Dates 163
Appendix D: List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by
Participating Schools 164
Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook 165
Appendix F: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol School Sites 177
Appendix G: Data Collection Protocol 180
Appendix H: Case Studies: Hibiscus Elementary School 190
Appendix I: Case Studies: Marigold Elementary School 209
Appendix J: Case Studies: Mum Elementary School 226
Appendix K: Case Studies: Rose Elementary School 244

v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: California Compared to Other Populous States, 2005-06 17
Table 2.2: School Resource Indicators and School Expenditure Structure 40

Table 2.3: Resource Allocation for a Prototypical Elementary School with
432 Students in Evidence Based Model 49

Table 2.4: Comparison of Effective School Practices Improving Student
Achievement Across Research Studies 56

Table 3.1: School Sample Demographics 62

Table 3.2: Resource Allocation for a Prototypical Elementary School with
432 Students in Evidence Based Model 67

Table 4.1: Enrollment and Type of Sample Schools 71

Table 4.2: Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings of Sample Schools,
2009 77

Table 4.3: Implementation of Odden & Archibald’s 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance at Sample Schools 121

Table 4.4: Resource Allocation Suggested by EBM Compared to Actual
Resource Allocation at Sample Schools 122

Table 4.5: Class Sizes Suggested by EBM Compared to Actual Class Size
in Sample Schools 123

Table 4.6: Instructional Days Suggested by EBM Compared to Actual
Instructional Days in Sample Schools 124

Table H1: Hibiscus and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 204

Table H2: Hibiscus and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison 205

Table I1: Marigold and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 221

Table I2: Marigold and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison 222

Table J1: Mum and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 238
vi

Table J2: Mum and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison 239

Table K1: Rose and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 256

Table K2: Rose and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison 258

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: California 2009 CST Results for English Language Arts-Percent
At or Above Proficient 18

Figure 2.2: California 2009 CST Results for Mathematics-Percent At
or Above Proficient 19

Figure 2.3: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education Based on the Enacted
Budget 30

Figure 2.4: California’s School Finance System 33

Figure 2.5: Changes in the Share of Restricted to Unrestricted Funding:
1980-2000 36

Figure 2.6: Number of Local Education Agencies with Qualified or Negative
Certification in the Second Interim Reporting Period 38

Figure 2.7: The Evidence Model 48

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Breakdowns of Sample Schools 72

Figure 4.2: Number of English Learners and Socio-economically
Disadvantaged Students in the Sample Schools 74

Figure 4.3: 2006-2010 API Growth for Sample Schools 76

Figure 4.4: School-wide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Above
on the English Language Arts California Standards Test from
2006-2010 79

Figure 4.5: School-wide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Above
on the Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-2010 80

Figure 4.6: Percentage of Students Proficient & Above on 2010 AYP
Language Arts Targets 82

Figure 4.7: English Language Arts AYP for English Learners from
2006-2010 83

Figure 4.8: English Language Arts AYP for Hispanic Students from
2006-2010 84
viii

Figure 4.9: English Language Arts AYP for Socio-economically
Disadvantaged Students from 2006-2010 85

Figure 4.10: Percentage of Students Proficient and Above on 2010 AYP
Mathematics Targets 87

Figure 4.11: Mathematics AYP for English Learners from 2006-2010 88

Figure 4.12: Mathematics AYP for Hispanic Students from 2006-2010 89

Figure 4.13: Mathematics AYP for Socio-economically Disadvantaged
Students from 2006-2010 90

Figure H1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Hibiscus Elementary 191

Figure H2: Hibiscus Elementary School’s API 192

Figure H3: Language Arts AYP, Hibiscus Elementary 193

Figure H4: Math AYP, Hibiscus Elementary 194

Figure I1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Marigold Elementary 210

Figure I2: Marigold Elementary School’s API 211

Figure I3: Language Arts AYP, Marigold Elementary 212

Figure I4: Math AYP, Marigold Elementary 212

Figure J1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Mum Elementary 227

Figure J2: Mum Elementary School’s API 228

Figure J3: Language Arts AYP, Mum Elementary 229

Figure J4: Math AYP, Mum Elementary 229

Figure K1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Rose Elementary 245

Figure K2: Rose Elementary School’s API 246

ix

Figure K3: Language Arts AYP, Rose Elementary 247

Figure K4: Math AYP, Rose Elementary 247
x

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to investigate, through analysis of
school-level data, how California schools allocate resources in which standardized
assessments, such as California Standards Tests, measure student achievement as
well as educational adequacy. Four research questions were developed to guide the
study: (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?; and (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?
The study was a mixed approach utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
data using a purposeful sample of four elementary schools in Southern California
that met predetermined criterion, or criterion sampling, which included schools that
were public elementary schools; met AYP for subgroups on CSTs in
English/Language Arts; had subgroups of less than 35% of English Learners (EL),
Hispanic, and Socio-economically disadvantaged (SED); were Non- Title I school;
and met or exceeded API growth targets.
Data analysis revealed that all schools included in the study have continued
to demonstrate increases in student achievement and continue to demonstrate growth
for their underrepresented subgroups that represent small percentages of the total
xi

student population, despite dwindling resources and increased state expectations.
Additionally, each of the four sample schools had significant deficits when compared
to the prototypical elementary school in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008).
Three major findings emerged from the study: (1) the depth of
implementation of the ten strategies described by Odden and Archibald (2009)
positively impacts the student achievement outcomes for ethnically, linguistically,
and socio-economically disadvantaged students by narrowing the achievement gap;
(2) leadership and support from the district level can help to mitigate strategies that
are weaker at the site level; and (3) schools in which data were greatly used to guide
instruction, monitor student achievement and hold staff accountable have narrowed
the achievement gap between ethnically, linguistically, and socio-economically
disadvantaged students and their White peers. Recommendations for narrowing the
achievement gap included having specific goals to monitor the achievement of
students who do not constitute significant subgroups, providing extended learning
time and support for struggling students, and increasing professional development
and collaboration. Suggestions for future research include determining the effect
size and percentile gain of each of the ten strategies and resources and examining
district resource allocation to develop prototypical elementary, high school, and
unified districts.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In February 2009, as part of a comprehensive budget package to close
California’s $42 billion budget shortfall, the Legislature provided that 40 of the
state’s 65 categorical grant programs would be “combined” into one large block
grant for enhanced flexibility on the part of school districts (EdSource, 2010b). This
resulted in flexibility over the use of some $4.5 billion in categorical grant funds, or
inducements and mandates that local governments use the appropriated funds for
specific purposes (EdSource, 2010b). California has become a leader in the use of
categorical funding with at least 65 separate programs that allocate approximately
one-third of the state’s general fund allocations to K-12 education. Although the total
funding represented a 20% reduction in total funding for the 40 programs included in
the flexibility, educational practitioners had long sought the deregulation of program
requirements. In addition to program flexibility, California received more than $7
billion in federal categorical funding in 2009-2010 and another $6 billion for K-12
education through the federal stimulus package to backfill the state’s shortfall
(EdSource, 2010b). Over half of California’s budget is spent on educating
California’s 6.2 million K-12 students.
While California educates over 6.2 million K-12 students in 2008-09
(Education Data Partnership, 2010) and spends over half of its budget on education,
according to the National Education Association’s Rankings and Estimates 209-
2010, California ranked 41
st
in 2007-2008 per-pupil expenditures (EdSource, 2010e).
2
Furthermore, California serves the largest and most challenging student populations
in the United States (EdSource, 2008) and, under the federal No Child Left Behind
legislation and state Public Schools Accountability Act, is required to have all
students, including educationally disadvantaged students, reach 100% proficiency by
2014 (California Department of Education, 2009a). As resources become more
limited, it will be important for practitioners, policy makers at both the federal and
state levels, and the research community to seek best practices in the use of resources
so that California may remain competitive in educating a future workforce.
Federal Role in Education
Congress’s ability to attach its spending prowess under the Spending Clause,
which allows Congress to tax and spend for the “general welfare” (Ryan, 2004), has
permitted the federal government almost unfettered discretion to direct education
policies of the states. This is important especially at a time when most states,
especially those that are finding themselves in budget shortfalls due to the economy,
may be at a poor position to turn down federal funds. At the most generic level,
major federal education policies, such as Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) enacted in 1965 to its most recent version embodied in No Child Left
Behind (2001), strive to hold states and local school districts accountable for large
subgroups of underrepresented groups, such as Latinos, African Americans, students
with disabilities, and English Learners, and to increase the types and levels of
services provided to them so that they may attain the same levels of performance as
their White counterparts. ESEA Title I operates as an inducement through which the
3
federal government shapes the behavior and operations of state and local educational
agencies by providing financial assistance on the condition that they implement
certain mandates. In 2009, President Obama released another inducement, Race to
the Top, which provided $4.3 billion to states who implemented four major reforms.
California applied for Phase 1 of the Race to the Top competitive grant and was not
one of the two states that received an award. California applied for Phase 2 of Race
to the Top monies and was not awarded the funding.
The role of the federal government has increasingly grown as a result of court
rulings and legislative actions aimed at addressing equity, or similar outcomes for
underrepresented students as their White counterparts. In the current system, the
federal government continues to aim at closing the achievement gap through federal
mandates such as No Child Left Behind, and inducements for education reform such
as Race to the Top.
State of California Role in Education
Dramatic changes in state and local governance have occurred in the past
forty years. Until the late 1970s, local property tax revenues comprised the major
share of school funding, thus limiting the state’s role in directly funding schools. On
average, local property taxes provided 60% of K-12 funding, 34% from state, and
approximately 6% from federal monies (Timar, 2005). Nearly 90% were general
purpose or unrestricted monies, thus allowing local school districts the power to
decide how to allocate resources.
4
As a result of the passage of several ballot initiatives in particular,
Proposition 13 and Proposition 98, today, schools receive on average 60% of their
funding from the state, 28% from local sources, 10% from the federal government,
and 2% from the state lottery (Timar, 2005). The state ultimately decides how much
money school districts are allocated based on the districts’ characteristics and
program participation. Of the 60% that comes from the state, 40% is restricted
dollars, which means money must be used for state-specified purposes. In California,
voters, legislators, and interest groups are the new actors who determine educational
funding priorities. One of the major changes in the state’s finance system has been
the dramatic increase in categorical (restricted) funding. In 1980, there were 19 state
and federal categorically funded education programs in California compared to 2002
with 124 state and federal categorically funded programs.
Equity versus Adequacy
During the latter half of the 20
th
century, the focus of legislation and legal
decisions were grounded on the issue of equity. Do underrepresented students have
equal access to educational opportunities? In California, Serrano v. Priest (1971),
addressed issues of equity by attempting to equalize spending among the state’s
1,043 school districts within $100 of one another (Timar, 1994; EdSource, 2009b;
EdSource, 2010c). Since the 1990s, the issue of adequacy emerged from the
standards-based movement and shifted discussions about school finance to an
outcome oriented model; thus shifting the conversation from equity to adequacy.
The test for adequacy is whether or not states provide sufficient revenues per pupil
5
for districts and schools to invest educational resources that are effective in
producing high levels of student performance. Four models describe approaches to
education financing in order to meet educational outcomes in student achievement.
Each of the models- cost function, professional/expert judgment, successful schools,
and evidence based- identify the ingredients necessary to increase student
achievement and the costs associated with them to ensure all students reach high
levels of performance. A brief discussion of each of the models follows to assist in
distinguishing each as well as identify the strengths and weaknesses of each model.
The Cost Function Model “employs regression analysis with expenditure per
pupil as the dependent variable, and student and district characteristics as well as
performance levels desired, as the independent variables” (Odden, 2003, p.122).
Once an average expenditure level for an average district is set, then adjustments are
made for various factors based on student needs and characteristics. The strength of
the cost function model is that it utilizes complex econometric formulas that are
often used in private industry and applies them to resource allocation model in
education (Rebell, 2007). However, the weakness of the model is the inability to
identify which educational strategies produced the desired levels of performance.
More recently, Texas used the cost function approach in an adequacy case, West-
Cove School District v. Neeley (2004).
Successful Schools/District Model, a second type of cost analysis model, has
been implemented in at least ten states, including Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and
Ohio. The model identifies schools or districts with high levels of student
6
performance and sets the costs as an estimate of adequacy (Odden, 2003). The
strength of the successful schools/district model is that ingredients are identified to
ensure that students perform at high levels. A weakness of the model is that the
adequacy expenditure level is difficult to generalize to the challenges and needs of
large urban and small rural districts because atypical districts are often eliminated
from such analysis.
Odden (2003) identifies a third adequacy model, the Professional Judgment
Model, which employs the professional judgment of a group of educational experts
to identify effective educational strategies for elementary, middle, high schools and
special needs students. The experts identify each ingredient needed and assign a cost
to it, which can be adjusted based on geographical region, district size, and
differences in student needs. The model has been implemented in several states,
including Wyoming, Oregon, and Kansas. The strength of the model is the
identification of educational strategies that is required to produce educational
outcomes in student performance. Weaknesses of the model include the varying
approaches of the expert judgments within the regions of the state as well as across
states and that the strategies are not linked to actual performance levels.
The final adequacy model identified by Odden (2003) is the Evidence Based
Model (EBM), which identifies research based educational strategies that are
required to deliver high levels of student performance. Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich, and Gross (2003) classified expenditures across instructional and non-
instructional expenditure categories which Odden and Picus (2008) furthered by
7
developing resource-based expenditure design for prototypical elementary, middle,
and high schools predicated on student characteristics and needs. The strength of the
EBM is its use of strategies that are grounded in research of comprehensive school
design models. A challenge of the model is that it may never be fully implemented,
thus the viability of it as an effective model remains to be seen. The alignment of
this model with research based strategies and proven best practices render reliability
and substantiates exploration of its potential to dramatically improve student
performance. As such, the Evidence Based Model forms the conceptual framework
for this study.
Statement of Problem
In California, resources for education are dwindling while accountability for
student achievement is rapidly increasing. Schools and districts are experiencing
mounting pressure from the public and from state and federal government to close
the achievement gap. Determining the level of adequate educational funding
continues to be a topic of discussion, but there is little agreement about what is
adequate funding. Researchers have not determined an agreed upon approach to
determine adequate funding levels. Furthermore, there is limited research on school
level reform practices to improve student achievement. In July 2009, the California
state Legislature provided that 40 of the state’s 65 categorical grant programs would
be “combined” into one large block grant for enhanced flexibility on the part of
schools districts; thus returning local control of limited educational dollars back into
the hands of district governance and school site officials to determine the most
8
effective use of money with the goal of continuing to meet student performance
measures. Therefore, analysis of school site allocation and resource use would better
inform other practitioners, policy makers, and the public as the effectiveness of the
evidence based approach. Currently, Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden et al., 2007)
have adopted this model to assist them in determining funding for schools.
Purpose of Study
This study investigates, through analysis of school-level data, how California
schools allocate resources in which standardized assessments, such as California
Standards Tests, measure student achievement as well as educational adequacy. In
light of the fiscal crisis in California which began in 2009/2010 school year, how
have the resource allocations changed over time? Do the resource allocation mirror
the priorities of the school and district? How have these decisions impacted student
achievement? Answers to the following research questions will contribute to the
foundation of a California database, which may influence future research endeavors
as well as inform educators, policymakers, and voters about resource and funding
allocation decisions:
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?
9
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?
Questions are derived from a review of literature associated with educational
adequacy: resource use and allocation, the effects of school finance reform,
improving student performance, the educational change process, instructional
leadership for sustaining school improvement, and professional development for
school improvement. The first two questions address the vision and philosophy of
site and district personnel by identifying the instructional improvement strategies and
linking them to resource allocation. The next two questions address how schools and
districts have and will continue to implement their instructional strategies with the
goal of improving student achievement with limited resources. How do their
decisions and priorities change as resources become scarcer? To what extent are the
decisions about resource allocation aligned to the Evidence Based Model? Finally,
how are these decisions impacting student achievement?
In Chapter Two, the literature review provides the framework from which the
research questions were developed. Chapter Three describes the methodology of the
study, more specifically, research design, population, sample, instruments,
procedures, data analysis, approaches, and ethical issues. The findings of the study
10
are discussed in Chapter Four. Chapter Five summarizes the study and presents
considerations for future studies.
Summary of Methodology
This study consists of case studies of four elementary schools in Southern
California who do not receive Title I funds. Selection of schools was based upon
similar schools ranking of non-title I schools with subgroups of EL, Hispanic,
Free/Reduced Lunch (socio-economically disadvantaged) who each constitute less
than 35% of the student population. Principals were asked a series of open- and
close-ended interview questions using an interview protocol. They also provided
documents available to public access for data analysis. An Evidence Based Code
Book, previously used in finance adequacy studies in California, Arkansas and
Wyoming, was used to reflect the context in California. The Code Book outlined
pre-visit documents required for the study, data collection protocol, including
interview questions that pertained directly to the four research questions stated
earlier.
Data retrieved from documents and interview protocols were inputted into an
on-line, password protected Excel database containing data from this and other
studies using the California Evidence Based Code Book and interview protocols.
The examiner analyzed the data from this study to the current instructional
improvement strategies, their associated resource allocation, and changes in resource
allocation as a result of California’s fiscal shortfall. These were compared with the
Evidence Based model. To conclude, the researcher identified trends, patterns, and
11
generalizations regarding availability of resources and decisions about instructional
improvement strategies.
Importance of Study
With resources for education decreasing, the question is no longer how much
money is being spent on education, but rather how is money being spent to improve
student achievement (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). No Child Left Behind’s goal of
100% proficiency by 2014 is fast approaching, thus identifying adequate resource
allocation and effective school level strategies is imperative in meeting that goal to
ensure that schools and districts are utilizing the resources to their fullest. This study
aims to educate policymakers to design policy that ameliorates the disparities caused
by unequal distribution of taxes; to create a school finance formula to offset those
disparities via state equalization aid; and to integrate research with state policy
initiatives. This study serves to inform practitioners in aligning budget expenditures
with resources that link educational programs and resources to student achievement;
thus guiding practitioners in the most effective use of limited dollars. Finally, this
study may provide the research community with an empirical basis for redesigning
the state’s K-12 school finance systems to support student performance. California’s
school finance system is incredibly complex, filled with excessive regulations, and
unintended consequences for its 6.2 million students.
Odden and Picus’s (2008) Evidence Based Model along with Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance will be used as
a framework for comparison to create case students of four schools. The results will
12
have important policy implications at the school and district levels to improve
student performance in the midst of decreasing educational resources. By focusing
on schools who do not receive Title I monies, one can compare the effects of the
increased categorical flexibility and how schools with limited state and federal
resources are continuing to focus on closing the achievement gap.
Limitations
The investigator of this study limited the sample to four elementary schools
in Southern California who did not receive Title I funding and have English
Learners, Hispanic, and socio-economically disadvantaged students who each
account for less than 35% of the student population, therefore are not significant
subgroups within the school. Data were collected between September 2010 and
November 2010. Hence, it is difficult to generalize to other schools. The choice of
schools studied was also limited by the willingness of principals of the schools to
participate in the study. However, the instructional and non-instructional strategies
identified in the study can be generalized to other schools.
The research instruments used in the study include analysis of documents and
open and closed-ended interviews. The limitation of the first instrument is that only
those documents that schools were willing to provide were available for analysis.
The limitation of the second instrument was based on interviews of the principal and
how thoroughly he/she revealed all the pertinent information. Regardless of the
limitations, the study will reveal aspects of effective resource allocation strategies
that are implemented at these schools and can be replicated in other school sites.
13
Delimitations
There were several delimitations to this study due to constraints on ability to
mount the research, find sample schools, cost concerns and permissions required to
observe the school. The study was conducted in public elementary schools that do
not serve significant subgroups of underrepresented students. The interviews were
conducted with principals only.
Assumptions
This study establishes the Evidence Based model designed by Odden and
Picus (2008) and Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies to Doubling Student
Performance as the conceptual framework in which the researcher assumes that these
are grounded in research and will provide a comparison of how the schools use
resources with the research based model. Additionally, the researcher assumes that
participants responded honestly and accurately to the best of their abilities. The
investigator assumes that AYP and API are accurate measures of student
performance.
Definitions
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by California
Department of Education (2009a) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is
calculated from student results on statewide assessments. California has set a
target score of 800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a
score of 800 are required to meet annual growth targets set forth by the state.

2. Achievement Gap: The disparity in educational performance among different
groups of students.

14
3. Add-ons: A funding source that is typically considered as adding to the
LEA’s general purpose revenue outside of local property taxes and state aid
(Timar, 2006).

4. Adequacy: Framed and interpreted within each individual state constitution,
adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that would
allow each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational
programs so that each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve the
state’s education performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden
& Picus, 2008).

5. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and is used to measure how well individual
schools and districts are doing in meeting the following requirements: (a)
student participation rates on statewide tests; (b) percentage of students
scoring at the proficient level or above in English-language arts and
mathematics on statewide tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d)
graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2009a).

6. Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The number of students present on each
school day throughout the year, divided by the total number of school days in
a year (EdSource, 2010a).

7. Base Revenue Limits: The amount of general purpose funding per ADA that
a LEA receives in state aid and local property taxes to pay for the basic cost
of educating a student regardless of special classifications or categories
(EdSource, 2009a). In California the base revenue limit equals the state aid to
the LEA + local property tax collected by the LEA (Timar, 2006).

8. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS): An annual collection of
basic student and staff data; includes student enrollment, graduates, dropouts,
course enrollment, enrollment in alternative education, gifted and talented
education, and more (California Department of Education, 2010).

9. California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure student’s
achievement of California’s content standards in the areas of English-
language arts, mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California
Department of Education, 2009a).

10. Categorical Funding: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups
and/or class of students, such as students with special needs, low-income, or
English learners. There are four types of categorically funded programs:
15
entitlement, incentive, discretionary grants, and mandated cost
reimbursement (Timar, 2006).

11. Economic Impact Aid (EIA) Funds: California state categorical funds made
available to school districts to support the education of low-income students
and those learning English (EdSource, 2010b).

12. English Learner (EL): Student whose primary language is not English.

13. Equity: Within education, the term is used to measure (1) horizontal equity,
or the equal access of education from individual to individual; and (2)
vertical equity, or the appropriate treatment of each individual based on their
unique needs (Bhatt & Wraight, 2009).

14. Evidence Based Model (EBM): An educational funding approach based on
identifying individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that
research has shown to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).

15. Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep
any excess taxes that they generate beyond their revenue limits and is
calculated by determining the difference between a LEAs revenue limit and
property tax revenues (Timar, 2006).

16. Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred,
both paid and unpaid and debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2010a). Expenditure types include current
expenditures, instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.

17. Fulltime Equivalent (FTE): The ratio derived by dividing the number of work
hours required in a part-time position by the number of work hours required
in a corresponding full-time position.
18. General Purpose Funding: General Purpose Funding = Base revenue limits +
revenue limit add-ons + excess local property taxes. (Base revenue limits and
revenue limit add-ons come from state funds plus local property taxes)
(Timar, 2006). In California, general purpose funding equals the base revenue
limits + revenue limit add-ons + excess local property taxes.

19. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family's relative
economic and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics,
2010a)

16
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Financing education is one of largest expenditures in federal and state
budgets with approximately 10% of federal monies going towards K-12 education at
a tune of almost $536 billion in 2004-2005 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
In California, K-12 and higher education constitutes approximately 50% of its state’s
general fund budget (California Department of Finance, 2010). California will
continue to play a greater role in educating America’s future citizens due to the sheer
number of K-12 students when compared to other states. In a 2008 report comparing
California to other states, California enrolled over 6 million students in K-12 in
2005-06 with Texas trailing behind with a little over 4 million students, followed by
New York with 2.6 million students (EdSource, 2008). National estimates project
California’s enrollment to increase by 10-14% by 2016 (EdSource, 2008). Of those
K-12 students enrolled in California schools in 2005-06, 48% were Latino and
represented the largest ethnic group compared to 45% in Texas (EdSource, 2008).
Of the 6 million students enrolled in California public schools in 2005-06, 49%
qualified for federal free and reduced-price meals, which is one measure of poverty
compared to 43% nationwide. Finally, 24% of California’s K-12 public school
students were classified as English Learners (ELs) compared to the next highest
state, New Mexico, at 19% ELs. Table 2.1 highlights the demographic comparisons
between California and four other large states.
17
Table 2.1: California Compared to Other Populous States, 2005-06
Source: EdSource (2008); NCES (2009)
California Texas New York Florida Illinois
K-12
Enrollment

6,259,972

4,137,427

2,668,050

2,627,784

2,039,114
Ethnicity
African Am
Latino
Asian/Pac
Islander
Native Am
White

8%
49%
12%

1%
31%

15%
45%
3%

<1%
37%

20%
20%
7%

<1%
53%

24%
24%
2%

<1%
50%

21%
19%
4%

<1%
56%
English
Learners
24% 16% 7% 8% No Data
Socio
Economically
Disadvantaged
(Free/Reduced
Lunch)

48.5%

48.2%

44.8%

45.8%

39.8%
Furthermore, in the 1970s and 1980s, the achievement gap between
underrepresented groups and Whites had begun to narrow, but began to reverse in
the 1990s and continues to persist today (Haycock, 2001; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010b). Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the achievement gap in
California between Hispanics, English Learners, and socio-economically
disadvantaged students as compared to their White and Asian peers on the California
Standards Test in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. As of spring 2009,
Hispanic/Latino students lagged by 31% when compared to their White counterparts
in English Language Arts (California Department of Education, 2009c). Similar
results were found in mathematics with a 23.6% gap in Hispanics/Latinos scoring
proficient and above compared to White students. Results are even more alarming
18
for English Learners who lag by 36.6% in English Language Arts and 24.6% in
Mathematics when compared to their White peers (California Department of
Education, 2009c). Students who are socio-economically disadvantaged fare no
better with a 31.5% gap in English Language Arts and 23.8% in Mathematics when
compared to their White counterparts.
Figure 2.1: California 2009 CST Results for English Language Arts- Percent At or
Above Proficient
Source: California Department of Education (2009c)

19
Figure 2.2: California 2009 CST Results for Mathematics- Percent At or Above
Proficient
Source: California Department of Education (2009c)
These are staggering statistics which illuminate the daunting task California’s
public schools face in meeting student achievement goals that apply to all students of
whom a large percentage are academically challenged students. And yet California
schools are required to meet that challenge with substantially fewer resources than
other states.
As government funding becomes more limited, taxpayers and politicians
have grown concerned by how much is spent for education and how well
policymakers and practitioners are using those funds to meet the goal of increasing
student achievement. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly more important for
researchers and practitioners to link funding to students’ learning outcomes. The
issue today continues to be about equity and adequacy with the expectation of equal
outcomes and equal opportunities in the future, yet doing so with fewer resources
and funding. As the state of California faces a fiscal crisis, issues of equity and
20
adequacy will become increasingly more scrutinized by examining how to improve
student performance for all students, identifying the resources needed to improve
student performance, and how to use those resources most effectively. The
remainder of this chapter further describes the role of the federal government in
education as it relates to equity, the state’s role in education as it relates to adequacy,
effective school practices that close the achievement gap, and finally, how resources
are allocated to improving student performance.
Federal Role in Education: Equity and Financing
Education was not directly listed as a federal responsibility during the
adoption of the U.S. Constitution, but rather was implied that education would fall
under the state’s jurisdiction as declared in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
which states “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respective, or to the people”
(Ryan, 2004). However, since the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public
schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14
th
Amendment, the federal
government has become a prominent catalyst in influencing educational policy and
reform (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009) through its spending prowess which allows the
federal government to attach regulatory purse strings to spending programs as seen
in such reform policies such as Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) in 1965, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, No Child Left Behind
legislation in 2001, and more recently, in 2009, the American Reinvestment and
21
Recovery Act (AARA) and Race to the Top. The federal court system played a
prominent role in opening the door for the federal government to bring education to
its forefront, first through lawsuits to enforce equal rights under the federal
constitution, and as we will see in later sections, in state courts to ensure equitable
and adequate distribution of resources under state constitutions.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)
Prior to the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965, Congress passed and President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which shifted the federal government’s focus from education aid to
desegregation assistance (Cross, 2004). This, along with the notion of “child benefit
theory” (Cross, 2004), the idea that money would aid the child not a particular public
or parochial school, would prove to be a turning point for Johnson to pass ESEA.
Johnson believed that education was the “key to winning the War on Poverty”
(Cross, 2004) and that the bill would ensure equal access to educational opportunities
for impoverished children by providing grants to school districts for specific
purposes through state education agencies.
Provisions of ESEA were outlined in Title 1 which allocated $1 billion in
new funding (Jennings, 2000) to states and school districts. Unfortunately, the initial
bill was plagued by ambiguity and did not fulfill its intended promise to educate
educationally disadvantaged children. Throughout its 40 year history, ESEA has
gone through many revisions while simultaneously increasing education funding to a
tune of over $150 billion between 1965 and 2000 (Cross, 2004).
22
In the years proceeding 1965, additional legislation related to education was
passed that built on the idea of providing categorical aid for children with
disadvantages, i.e. migrant education, English as a Second Language, and children
with disabilities. Consequently, the federal government took on a larger role in
setting educational policy through inducements and mandates.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was initially passed as Public
Law 94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) (Smith, 2005) which
assured students with disabilities with access to a free appropriate public education
while also providing assistance to states by funding up to 40% of the excess costs of
educating students with disabilities. In its 30 year history, the federal government
has never fully funded IDEA and at most has reached funding for up to 20% of the
excess costs of educating students with disabilities (Library of Congress, 2005). In
the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, there were provisions of fully funding IDEA by
authorizing Congress to fund IDEA for “$12.36 billion for fiscal year 2005 and an
additional $2.3 billion each year through 2011, when full funding” would be
achieved (Smith, 2005). Thus, illustrating the federal government’s role in education
as well as its role in providing equity to disadvantaged students through the use of
mandates tied to funding.
No Child Left Behind (2001).
Since ESEA in 1965, the role of the federal government in education has
continually increased either through inducements or mandates. During the 1980s, “A
23
Nation at Risk” report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education
(1983), education once again became a focus of federal government who now called
for excellence, standards based reform, and achievement for all students. This
became the foundation for No Child Left Behind (2001) legislation which increased
state’s accountability for outcomes in student achievement, focused on research-
based practices, providing better quality instruction, and empowering parents with
options for their child’s education, thus, expanding the federal government’s
involvement in education. The new policy directly linked federal funding to student
performance outcomes and imposed sanctions for low student performance to states
accepting federal monies through Title I.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (2009)
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (AARA) included
two unprecedented and significant initiatives for education. First, $100 billion in
additional federal dollars were allocated to states to mitigate the effects of the
recession on public schools, additional funding for economically disadvantaged
children under Title I and additional funding for students with disabilities under
IDEA (Rebell, Wolff, & Yaverbaum, 2010). The second aim of AARA funds was to
promote equity by addressing teacher quality, especially in high-poverty schools,
establish a longitudinal data system to track student progress over time, improve the
quality of assessments, and finally to provide intensive support and intervention in
low performing schools.

24
Race to the Top (2009)
As part of the AARA legislation, $4.35 billion was set aside for the Race to
the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to reward states who
implemented innovative educational reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
The grant process involved reforms around four specific areas:
• Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in
college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;

• Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform
teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;

• Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and
principals, especially where they are needed most; and

• Turning around our lowest-achieving schools (U.S. Department of Education,
2009).

For most of the 20
th
century, education and school finance had primarily been
focused on the issue of equity and providing additional funding to mitigate the
effects of educationally disadvantaged children with the goal of improving
educational outcomes. Over the last half the 20
th
century, the federal government’s
role in education expanded through use of inducements and mandates aimed to
change the behavior of states and local agencies by offering them categorical aid on
the condition that certain activities are implemented (McDonnell, 2005). This has
resulted in changing the landscape of education, as we currently know it.
State Role in Education: Adequacy and California School Finance
Beginning in the 1960s, lawsuits in the federal court system required
Congress to enact legislation to enforce equal rights under the federal Constitution,
25
therefore, establishing the federal government’s role in ensuring equitable access to
education for all students in the United States. Congress attached financial aid to
states that implemented the legislative edicts to ensure that the additional funding
was spent on targeted children or special purpose for which the categorical aid was
designated in order to mitigate the inherent disadvantages of students who are socio-
economically disadvantaged, language minority students, and students with
disabilities to name a few.
In California, lawsuits were filed addressing the need for “equitable
distribution and adequacy of educational resources” (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009) as
seen in Serrano v. Priest (1971) and Williams v. California (2004). While the federal
government brought equity to the forefront of education, the adequacy of
California’s fiscal and political commitment to education has linked equity as an
issue (EdSource, 2000) as the standards based movement forced states to examine
the link between educational dollars and student achievement (Odden, 2003). Since
the 1970s, the government of California expanded its authority over how schools are
funded and how school districts may spend their money (EdSource, 2010f) as a
result of court rulings ordering the legislature to enact policies and regulations
regarding educational funding and voter initiatives. Consequently, decisions about
resource allocation, curriculum, assessment, promotion and graduation requirements
were now relegated to the state (Timar, 2006) rather than local school districts.

26
Serrano v. Priest (1971)
Before 1971 California’s school finance system was based solely on property
taxes (EdSource, 2010f; Timar, 1994) in which local decisions about resource
allocation, curriculum, assessment and instruction were made based on the revenue
from property taxes. A school district with a great deal of commercial and industrial
property had higher property wealth per pupil, also referred to as a high wealth
district, than a neighboring district with fewer such properties, or low wealth district.
To mitigate the effects of low wealth districts, higher property tax rates were
assigned to obtain a given amount of revenue for the district (EdSource, 2010f; Kirst,
2006). Consequently, inequities between districts stemmed from disparities in
property values and district tax rates across the state, which formed the basis for the
Serrano lawsuit.
In 1968, John Serrano, a parent of students in Los Angeles public schools,
claimed that the disparities between districts caused by the state’s school financing
system failed to provide equal protection under the 14
th
Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and California constitution because they are required to pay a “higher
tax rate than [taxpayers] in many other school districts in order to obtain for their
children the same or lesser educational opportunities afforded children in those other
districts." (Serrano v. Priest, 1971). The California State Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs requiring the state to equalize spending among the 1,043
school districts within $100 of one another (Timar, 1994; EdSource, 2009b; Ed
Source, 2010c) later referred to as the Serrano band (Serrano II, 1976; EdSource,
27
2000). However, the court only focused on general purpose spending and made no
mention of categorical aid and construction monies (Kirst, 2006). The state
legislature enacted Senate Bill 90 (SB90), which set each district’s revenue limits, a
ceiling on the amount of general purpose money a district can receive per pupil
(EdSource, 2010c), based on state aid and local property taxes received in 1972 with
annual adjustments due to inflation (Timar, 2006), thus districts would eventually
equalize over time. In 1977, Assembly Bill 65 (AB65) was enacted to determine
sliding scale inflation adjustment to equalize revenue limits.
As a result of the Serrano ruling paired with the voter initiative of
Proposition 13 in 1979, California’s state financing of public education diminished
local control for California’s public school districts and began the evolution of a
centralized, state school finance system with the intent to develop a more equitable
education.
Proposition 13 (1978)
While the Serrano case was continuing to be heard in the courts, voters
approved the ballot initiative referred to as Proposition 13, which mandated a
statewide system of assessing property value and setting property tax at 1% of
assessed value, with increases capped at 2% or the percentage of growth of the
state’s Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less (EdSource, 2010c; EdSource,
2000, Timar, 2006, Kirst, 2006). As a result, property taxes were reduced drastically
across the state, severed the link between property taxes and local school district
revenue source, detached the investment of local voters and their local schools, and
28
forced funding for school districts to become at the mercy of the health of the state’s
economy. In addition, the state now contributed to almost two-thirds of a district’s
revenues, and more importantly, took the responsibility of allocating resources from
property taxes and sales taxes to cities, counties, special districts, and schools.
Subsequently, in 1980, Proposition 4 (Gann Limit) was approved by voters which
limited the amount of tax revenues that school districts, and state and local
governments, could spend (EdSource, 2010c; Timar, 2006) as well as required the
state to reimburse local governments, including school districts, for all mandated
costs (Timar, 2006). In summary, Proposition 13 proved to be a major turning point
in California school finance in which the state assumed the responsibility for
education both in its funding and its need to regulate it.
Proposition 98 (1988)
Another voter initiative, Proposition 98, was passed in response to voters’
concern that public school financing was at the mercy of unstable sales- and income
tax- revenue streams (Kirst, 2006), and was amended in1990 with Proposition 111.
Timar (2004) asserts that Proposition 98’s intent was to provide stability and
predictability for K-14 school funding each year by setting a guaranteed minimum of
the state’s general-fund revenues, which is approximately 40% of the state’s budget.
Consequently, the state set a maximum ceiling for public school funding with
Proposition 13, and a minimum floor with Proposition 98. In addition, Timar (2004)
asserts that Proposition 98 has become a policy tool for legislators to target funds

29
through categorical programs both when there is budget surplus and to support
specific programs that will flaunt their names.
The provisions in Proposition 98 and its amendment Proposition 111 set the
minimum funding levels using three tests, which depends on “changes in enrollment,
per capital personal income, and projections of state revenues” (EdSource, 2000).
During times of surplus, K-14 education would receive 50% of the state excess when
the state tax revenues exceeded the Gann spending limit for two consecutive years,
while the other 50% would be returned to taxpayers (EdSource 2010c). The state
required schools to be held accountable for dollars spent by requiring school districts
and their local boards to submit annual School Accountability Report Cards that
covered at least 13 required information such as test scores, dropout rates, and staff
qualifications (EdSource, 2000; EdSource 2010c). In addition, the state was required
to maintain a state budget reserve. Another feature of Proposition 98 includes a
“maintenance factor” which accelerates funding in future years to compensate for
funding gaps because of suspension of Proposition 98 (Timar, 2006). Any budget
actions, including suspension of Proposition 98, require a two-thirds majority vote in
the Legislature and approval of the governor (EdSource, 2009a). Figure 2.3
illustrates the funding sources enacted by the Legislature in September 2008.

30
Figure 2.3: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education Based on the Enacted Budget

Source: EdSource, 2009a
Note: Not all K–12 Proposition 98 funds support K–12 education. For example,
$791 million will support adult education programs and $1.8 billion will finance
child care programs. The percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

As a result of Proposition 98, funding for public education continues to be at
the mercy of the state’s economy, while school districts are held hostage by
decisions by the Legislature about how much funding and how funding can be spent
while at the same time requiring school districts to continue to increase student
achievement.
Williams v. California (2004).
Williams v. State of California (2004) was a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of public school children in California. The suit wanted to address conditions
31
such as overcrowding, inadequate instruction and materials, and poor facilities
(Grubb, Goe, Huerta, 2004). Several researchers (Timar, 2005; Oakes, 2004; Powers,
2004) explain that the difference between Williams and previous lawsuits pertaining
to equity as defined by the 14
th
Amendment of the Constitution and the state’s
constitution was that Williams was “not about equity or adequacy of resources per
se, but about the state’s system of oversight for education- whether the state has a
system of oversight that assures students adequate resources to benefit from the
education provided them” (Timar, 2005).
In the settlement agreement between California and the plaintiffs, five bills
that resulted in the settlement, now known as the Williams Act, calls for the creation
of a state regulatory system that would ensure adequate resources to all students,
monitor implementation, and apply interventions and sanctions for schools and
districts that do not comply (Timar, 2005). The importance of this case is significant
and far-reaching because it has greatly impacted all California schools in deciles 1-3
and the students they serve. Along with the accountability and monitoring that the
legislative bills provide, they also give nearly one billion dollars in resources to
implement the legislation (California Department of Education, 2009b). According
to Hatami (2006), the case raised questions about how the state could hold schools
accountable to high expectations of student achievement without providing adequate
resources to support schools, and had served to frame the current context of the
debate about what resources are needed to provide an adequate education for
California students (Chambers & Levin, 2006; Hatami, 2006; Timar, 2002).
32
Current Structure of School Financing in California
As stated earlier, the state of California guarantees a minimum funding level
for education; however, the Legislature and the governor decide how much school
districts receive based on the state’s general fund revenue and how the money is to
be spent either in general purpose (unrestricted) funding or targeted categorical
(restricted) funding. To better understand the funding allocations to individual school
districts, one must understand the sources of California’s funding for education.
As discussed earlier, California receives revenues from sales- and income
tax- revenue streams (Kirst, 2006) as well as federal categorical aid funding. Figure
2.4 illustrates the distribution of federal, state, property tax, local miscellaneous and
lottery funds to schools.

33
Figure 2.4: California’s School Finance System

Note: Adapted from The basics of California’s school finance system by EdSource
(2009a), p.1. Copyright 2008 by EdSource. Adapted with permission.
In the 2008-09 school year budget, revenues from all sources totaled about
$71.9 billion including $42.2 billion from state funds, $16.5 billion in property taxes,
$5.4 billion from local miscellaneous revenues such as developer fees and
community contributions, $6.8 billion in federal categorical aid such as NCLB and
special education, $0.9 billion from lottery and almost 6 million in K-12 average
daily attendance (EdSource, 2009c).
General Purpose Funding
General purpose funding is considered unrestricted dollars in which a district
may decide how to allocate those funds to schools (Timar, 2006). According to the
Office of the Secretary of Education (2010), general purpose funding is used for
operating expenditures such as employee salaries, instructional and non-instructional
34
supplies, textbooks, and maintenance. Timar (2006) reports that in California
general purpose funding is formulated on the base revenue limits plus any revenue
limit add-ons and excess local property taxes. The base revenue limit, the principal
component of the school funding formula, is approximately 70 % of a district’s
revenue and is based on average daily attendance (ADA) of a district (Timar, 2004;
Timar, 2006; Office of the Secretary of Education, 2010). However, Timar (2006)
notes that there is variation in revenue limits per ADA when comparing unified
districts, high school districts, and elementary districts. In 2006, high schools
districts received approximately $1000 per ADA more than elementary districts and
$943 per ADA more than unified districts (Timar, 2006).
Categorical Aid Funding
Of the 60% from the state revenues, 40% is restricted, or may only be used
for specific purposes or targeted students (Timar, 2006). Timar (2006) has identified
four types of categorical aid: entitlement, incentive, discretionary grants, and
mandated costs. Entitlement aid is allocated based on a formula for the district’s
demographic enrollment and characteristics of a district’s students, i.e. English
learners, students with disabilities, socio-economically disadvantaged students
(Timar, 2006). This type of aid addresses the issue of equity and has been
established through court rulings and enacted by legislative action, as discussed
earlier. Discretionary categorical aid is usually in the form of specified competitive
grants, or inducements, for which a district or school must apply and is funded for a
definite period of time (Timar, 2006). An example of a recent discretionary grant
35
was the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) both of
which provide funding to low-performing schools (Timar, 2006). Incentive grants
are often driven by state policy objectives (Timar, 2006), which provide additional
resources to schools, such as Class Size Reduction, which provides additional
teachers to bring down class sizes. Finally, mandated costs reimbursement was
added to the California constitution through Proposition 4 (EdSource, 2010c), which
required the state to reimburse districts for the cost of implementing mandated
programs or services. However, in recent years, the Legislature has deferred
reimbursements to school districts (Timar, 2006) due to limited state revenues.
The Legislature determines how much categorical aid is allocated to school
districts based on the needs of the students in the district and the special programs for
which the district qualifies (EdSource, 2009a). For some districts, this categorical
aid may be considerable while others it may be nominal on the basis of racial
composition, poverty, number of immigrants, and number who have limited skills in
English (Timar, 1994; Timar, 2006). In 1980, there were 17 state funded categorical
programs (Timar, 2004); by 2001-02, there were 124 categorically funded state
programs with some programs overlapping others, totaling just under $13 billion
(Timar, 2004). The most significant categorical (restricted) funding is Special
Education, which provides additional funds to provide support and services to
students with disabilities. The state’s assessment and accountability system, also
known as The Public School Accountability Act, with its associated programs
accounts for $1.85 billion in 2001-2002 (Timar, 2004).
36
The challenge with increased categorical funding has been the rise in
lobbying by constituents who support the programs, therefore, increasing the
Legislature’s responsibility to special interest groups. Timar (2004) has described the
formation of a categorical program as “virtually impossible to eliminate” (Timar,
2004).
As discussed earlier, the Serrano ruling only focused on equalizing general
purpose spending among the districts in California, and ignored categorical aid and
construction (Kirst, 2006). Timar (2004) argues that from 1980 to 2000, there has
been a 165 percent increase in categorical funding, while unrestricted dollars have
decreased by almost 8% as illustrated in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Changes in the Share of Restricted to Unrestricted Funding: 1980-2000

Source: Timar (2004)
As stated earlier, categorical funding addresses the issue of equity by mitigating
the effects of educationally disadvantaged students rather than adequacy issues.
37
However, the disparities between restricted and unrestricted funding means that
schools have fewer discretionary dollars to make local decisions based on district or
site needs (Timar, 2004).
Current Financial Situation.
In July 2009, the California Legislature enacted budget and spending plans that
required reductions, borrowing from internal and external sources, and using federal
stimulus dollars to backfill an over $20 billion shortfall for the 2008/2009 and
2009/2010 fiscal years (EdSource, 2010d). One-third of the $18 billion in spending
reductions were taken from funding for K-12 education (EdSource, 2010d).
Although the state met its constitutional requirement to provide K-12 and its
community colleges the guaranteed minimum funding for both fiscal years, due to
the maintenance factor requirement discussed earlier, the state will be required to pay
$11.2 billion for K-12 and community colleges for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010
school years in the near future.
As a result of California’s fiscal crisis and the national economic downturn,
California schools faced unprecedented reductions in revenue limit and categorical
funding. In addition, the state deferred $3.7 billion in funding of several school
programs, such as apportionments (EdSource, 2010d). Furthermore, the state did not
provide cost-of-living adjustments in order to close the budget deficit.
Consequently, local education agencies faced potential cash flow problems as well as
potential for qualified or negative budget certification, which causes a district to lose
some of its financial autonomy (EdSource, 2009d) and increases the county and
38
state’s monitoring. Figure 2.6 illustrates the number of local education agencies in
qualified or negative certification.
Figure 2.6: Number of Local Education Agencies with Qualified or Negative
Certification in the Second Interim Reporting Period

Source: EdSource (2010d)
In February 2009, the state granted school districts flexibility in how it chose
to spend its money from about 40 categorical programs, often referred to as Tier 3
programs, between 2008/09 through 2012/2013 school years (EdSource, 2010d);
thus shifting 38 percent of categorical (restricted) funding to unrestricted monies
(Legislative Analyst Office, 2010b). Although these categorical programs were
allowed flexibility, may of the mandates were still required. For some programs,
some restrictions were relaxed, such as the penalties for Class Size Reduction
(EdSource, 2010d). Additional flexibility was granted for length of school year,
exemptions for purchase of instructional materials, reducing school districts’
39
required reserves, and allowing school districts to shift money from ending fund
balances from about 50 categorical programs to any other educational purpose in
2008/09 and 2009/2010 (EdSource, 2010d). Kirst (2006) and Timar (2004) argue
that California’s finance system is incompatible with its accountability model and is
jeopardizing further increases in academic attainment. Timar (2004) further argues
that if schools are to be held accountable for results in student achievement, they
should be given the autonomy and flexibility to achieve those results and, at
minimum, should have authority over resource allocation.
Resource Allocation and Use
Since the Brown ruling, the federal and state government have played larger
roles in educating all students, and since the 1990s, have held schools accountable
for student achievement using standardized assessments. Policy makers have
increased spending for K-12 education to address problems of low student
achievement (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009) as described in previous sections.
Several researchers (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009) have documented dramatic
increases in per pupil spending on K-12 education from $2,606 in 1960 to $9,910 in
2005 (adjusted to 2007 dollars) and yet student achievement for educationally
disadvantaged students continues to lag (National Center for Education Statistics,
2010b). Additionally, other studies (Adams, 1994; Firestone, Goertz, Nagle, &
Smelkinson, 1994; Hannaway, McKay, & Nakib, 2002; Hanushek, 1997) document
that additional funding did not necessarily improve student achievement, but rather
40
argue that it is the resource use of the given allocations that make a difference in
improving student outcomes.
In their seminal study, Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) designed
a school level expenditure structure to provide practitioners more information to link
resource use to effective strategies for improving student performance, which is
problematic for both practitioners and policy makers in the current system of
reporting. The items in their expenditure structure stem from research on high
performing schools that is related to organizational structures, curriculum and
instruction, and professional development. Odden et al. (2003) outline nine elements
that are categorized as either instructional or non-instructional: (1) core academic
teachers, (2) specialist and elective teachers, (3) extra help, (4) professional
development, (5) other non-classroom instructional staff, (6) instructional materials
and equipment, (7) student support, (8) administration, and (9) operations and
maintenance. Table 2.2 illustrates the expenditure structure and resource indicators
developed by Odden et al. (2003).
Table 2.2: School Resource Indicators and School Expenditure Structure
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)
Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers

*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies

41
Table 2.2, Continued
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: Odden et al. (2003)
42
Odden et al. (2003) further describes each of the nine elements which become
the core components of almost all school-wide strategies:
1) Core academic teachers: These are certificated (licensed) classroom teachers
whose main responsibility is to instruct in the core academic program of
reading/English Language Arts, mathematics, science, history/social studies.
These teachers are in self-contained classrooms at the elementary level, and
at the secondary level, these teachers instruct in the listed subjects plus
special education and ESL or bilingual teachers who provide instruction in
those subjects. Each teacher is counted as full-time equivalent (FTE) staff if
they teach the whole day.
2) Specialist and elective teachers: These are certificated (licensed) teachers
who instruct in non-academic subjects, such as art, music, physical education,
foreign language, vocational education, drivers education, and licensed
librarians or media specialists. They often times provide planning and
preparation time for the core academic teachers.
3) Extra help: These are licensed teachers who provide strategies to assist
struggling students or students with special needs to learn the core
curriculum. These teachers supplement the instruction of the core curriculum.
These may include licensed tutors for one-on-one help in the elementary
level, or extra help lab teachers in the secondary level; resource rooms for
remedial support in mathematics or reading; inclusion teachers for special
education students who are fully included in a regular education class;
43
teachers who work with English learners, self-contained special education
teachers; and extended day or summer school teachers.
4) Professional development: This expenditure includes costs of teacher time
for professional development; trainers and coaches; professional development
administration; materials, equipment and facilities; travel and transportation;
and tuition and conference registration fees specifically for the professional
development of a school’s staff.
5) Other non-classroom instructional staff: These include licensed and non-
licensed instructional staff who support the instructional program, such as
coordinators, substitutes, and instructional aids other than those working in
self-contained special education classrooms.
6) Instructional materials and equipment: This expenditure includes books,
instructional supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and
software for the core and support (extra help) instructional programs.
7) Student support: These include support staff such as counselors, nurses,
social workers, school psychologists, attendance monitors, parent liaisons,
and school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletic programs.
8) Administration: This expenditure includes both staff and equipment that deals
with administration of a school, such as site administrators (principal and
assistant principals), clerical staff, administrative office supplies, non-
instructional equipment and technology, and school reserve funds.
44
9) Operations and maintenance: This expenditure encompasses expenses related
to custodial services, food services, security, utilities and building and ground
maintenance charged to a school including staff, supplies, and equipment.
The framework provides a compelling systematic tool for comparing resource
use and deployment across schools as well as provides detail about a school’s
instructional strategies for improving student achievement. Odden & Picus’s (2008)
Evidence Based Model takes the School Expenditure Structure and Resource
Indicators developed by Odden et al. (2003) a step further by identifying essential
school level components for delivery of high quality education programs by placing
a price on each component and aggregating those into a total cost, which will be
discussed in greater detail in this chapter.
Equity v. Adequacy
Since the 1990s, the issue of adequacy emerged from the standards-based
movement and shifted discussions about school finance to an outcome oriented
model (Odden, 2003); thus shifting the conversation from equity to adequacy.
Several researchers (Augenblick, Myers & Anderson, 1997; Gutherie, 2001;
Hanushek, 2006) define the test for adequacy is whether or not states provide
sufficient revenues per pupil for districts and schools to invest educational resources
that are effective in producing high levels of student performance. Odden (2003)
identifies four models to describe approaches to education financing in order to meet
educational outcomes in student achievement. Each of the models- cost function,
professional/expert judgment, successful schools, and evidence based- identify the
45
ingredients necessary to increase student achievement and the costs associated with
them to ensure all students reach high levels of performance. A brief discussion of
each of the models follows to assist in distinguishing each as well as identify the
strengths and weaknesses of each model.
The Cost Function Model “employs regression analysis with expenditure per
pupil as the dependent variable, and student and district characteristics as well as
performance levels desired, as the independent variables” (Odden, 2003, p.122).
Once an average expenditure level for an average district is set, then adjustments are
made for various factors based on student needs and characteristics. The strength of
the cost function model is that it utilizes complex econometric formulas that are
often used in private industry and applies them to resource allocation model in
education (Rebell, 2007). However, the weakness of the model is the inability to
identify which educational strategies produced the desired levels of performance.
Imazeki (2008) conducted a study for California school districts using a cost function
approach, which assumes that districts spend their resources in order to maximize
student outcomes, and found that due to the variation in district revenue caused by
categorical aid programs, districts have extra money that do not necessarily increase
test scores. Consequently, using a cost function analysis produces a low estimate of
base and marginal costs, therefore, is insufficient in determining an adequate level of
funding in California.
Successful Schools/District Model, a second type of cost analysis model, has
been implemented in at least ten states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Maryland,
46
Mississippi, and Ohio. The model identifies schools or districts with high levels of
student performance and sets the costs as an estimate of adequacy (Odden, 2003).
The strength of the successful schools/district model is that ingredients are identified
to ensure that students perform at high levels; therefore, one can provide a direct link
between education costs and student performance outcomes (Rebell, 2007). A
weakness of the model is that the adequacy expenditure level is difficult to
generalize to the challenges and needs of large urban and small rural districts
because atypical districts are often eliminated from such analysis. Rebell (2007)
states that use of the successful schools model is limited due to the availability of
data as well as its difficulty in determining how to calculate the additional resources
needed to educate special populations, such as students with disabilities, socio-
economically disadvantaged students, and English learners. With the diverse,
challenging demographics found in California, it is imprudent to utilize the
successful schools approach in determining adequacy.
Odden (2003) identifies a third adequacy model, the Professional Judgment
Model, which employs the professional judgment of a group of educational experts
to identify effective educational strategies for elementary, middle, high schools and
special needs students. The experts identify each ingredient needed and assign a cost
to it, which can be adjusted based on geographical region, district size, and
differences in student needs. The model has been implemented in several states,
including Wyoming, Oregon, and Kansas. The strength of the model is the
identification of educational strategies that is required to produce educational
47
outcomes in student performance. Weaknesses of the model include the varying
approaches of the expert judgments within the regions of the state as well as across
states and that the strategies are not linked to actual performance levels. Sonstelie
(2007) utilized a professional judgment approach to determine adequate level of
resources and found that the panel’s recommendations, based on hypothetical
schools, suggested more resources than is feasible in California’s current economic
situation. In addition, the panel identified factors that impact student achievement,
beyond the control of schools and districts, which additional resources could not
ameliorate. In another study, Chambers, Levin, and Delancey (2007) argue
California would need to increase current expenditures by 50% in order to provide an
adequate education.
The final adequacy model identified by Odden (2003) is the Evidence Based
Model which identifies research based educational strategies that are required to
deliver high levels of student performance. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross
(2003) classified expenditures across instructional and non-instructional expenditure
categories which Odden and Picus (2008) furthered by developing resource-based
expenditure design for prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools predicated
on student characteristics and needs. The strength of the EBM is its use of strategies
that are grounded in research of comprehensive school design models. A challenge
of the model is that it may never be fully implemented, thus the viability of it as an
effective model remains to be seen. The alignment of this model with research based
strategies and proven best practices render reliability and substantiates exploration of
48
its potential to dramatically improve student performance. As such, the Evidence
Based Model forms the conceptual framework for this study.
As discussed earlier, Odden and Picus (2008) further developed Odden et
al.’s (2003) School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators by placing a cost
to each element and aggregating them into a total cost. Figure 2.7 demonstrates an
example of the resources needed by the Evidence Based Model suggested by Odden
and Picus (2008).
Figure 2.7: The Evidence Based Model

Source: Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, and Goetz (2008)

49
Figure 2.7 demonstrates that Odden and Picus’s (2008) Evidence Based
Model would require smaller sizes in core academic subjects, increased numbers of
specialists, and increased levels of support for struggling students including tutors
and extended learning support. Instructional improvement is focused on improving
the professionals who work directly with students through professional development
days, access to instructional coaches and trainers. Table 2.3 describes the resource
allocation for a prototypical elementary school with 432 students.
Table 2.3: Resource Allocation for a Prototypical Elementary School with 432
Students in Evidence Based Model
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5
Enrollment 432
Class size K-3 15
4-5 25
Full Day Kindergarten Yes
Number of Teacher Work Days 190+
10 days of PD
Disabled students 12%
Students in poverty 50%
EL students 10%
Minority students 30%
Resource Allocation
Core Teachers 24
Specialist teachers 4.8
Instructional Facilitators/mentors 2.2
Tutors (certificated) 2.16 (1 for every 100 poverty students)
Teachers for EL 0.43 (1 for every 100 EL students)
Extended Day 1.8
Summer School 1.8
Learning disabled student 3
GATE student $25/student
Substitutes 5% of all of the above
Pupil support 2.16 (1 for every 100 poverty students)
Non-instructional aides 2

50
Table 2.3, Continued
Resource Allocation
Librarian/Media specialists 1
Principal 1
School secretary 2
Professional development Instructional facilitators, planning &
prep time, 10 summer days, $100/pupil
for other PD expenses- trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
Technology $250/pupil
Instructional materials $140/pupil
Student activities $200/pupil
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)
Effective School Practices that Close the Achievement Gap
Under NCLB, states determine the standards, assessment tools, and
proficiency levels. Although NCLB is up for re-authorization, many speculate that
the requirement to increase and hold schools accountable for the growth of all
students will remain. In these challenging economic times, it is no longer a question
of how much money is being spent on educating students, but rather closely
evaluating how schools are utilizing those limited resources (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Duke (2006) suggests that improving student achievement involves a systematic
approach of implementing research-based strategies. In their study of schools and
districts throughout the United States that doubled student performance, Odden and
Archibald (2009) identify ten steps that emerged as common themes amongst all the
schools and districts in their sample. Other researchers (Marzano, 2003; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003; EdTrust, 2005) have identified similar strategies to improving
student achievement. Following is an analysis of some successful school studies.
51
Odden and Archibald (2009) outlines the ten steps to doubling student
performance:
1) Understanding the problem and the challenge
2) Setting ambitious goals
3) Changing the curriculum program and creating a new instructional vision
4) Using 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) Creating a collaborative, professional culture
9) Facilitating widespread and distributed instructional leadership
10) Encouraging professional and best practices
Marzano (2003) synthesized a variety of studies on school effectiveness and
identified five school-level factors that impact student achievement. The school-level
factors are ranked in order of their impact on student achievement: guaranteed and
viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parental and community
involvement, safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and professionalism.
An essential component of a guaranteed and viable curriculum ensures that
students are provided the opportunity to learn, which has the strongest relationship to
student achievement. He argues that the discrepancy between the intended
curriculum specified by the state’s standards and the implemented curriculum taught
by classroom teachers is a central factor in student achievement. Marzano (2003)
52
suggests that professionals will need to identify and instruct the essential content that
all students must learn in the amount of time available for instruction. Professionals
must also sequence and organize content to provide students sufficient opportunity to
learn it, which requires the school to protect the instructional time. Once the essential
content is established, schools should establish school level and individual student
goals and assessments to monitor and provide feedback on progress towards goals.
Parent and community involvement was evident in Marzano’s (2003)
analysis of studies on effective school practices. He identifies three specific areas in
which to increase parent and community involvement: communication, participation,
and governance. Providing a variety of avenues of one-way and two-way
communication is the school’s responsibility to initiate. Other features of effective
parent and community involvement is participation in the day-to-day running of the
school and establishing structures that allow parents and community members a
voice in the decisions impacting the school. The fourth school level factor is the
establishment of school wide rules and procedures, including appropriate
consequences, programs that develop self-discipline and responsibility, to create a
safe and orderly learning environment (Marzano, 2003).
Finally, Marzano (2003) identifies collegiality and professionalism as the
fifth school level factor to improve student achievement. In successful schools, not
only are there norms of conduct for the adults in the school, but also teachers engage
in meaningful staff development activities and share leadership responsibilities in
decisions and policies for the school. As part of staff development, teachers
53
collaborate with a focus on content knowledge, able to apply the pedagogical
knowledge they learn, and is integrated with the overall school reform.
Marzano’s (2003) five school level factors that improve student achievement
suggests the addition of resources with regard to staff development, also referred to
as professional development in other studies in this chapter. Additional funding is
needed to provide time for teachers to collaborate and coaches who may need to
provide teachers with on-the-job staff development opportunities.
While Marzano (2003) analyzed research on effective school practices,
Togneri and Anderson (2003) studied five school districts, from five different states,
that demonstrated improvement in student achievement across multiple grades and
across all races and ethnicities in both reading/language arts and mathematics. They
observed that the five districts employed the following strategies:
• Acknowledged poor performance and sought solutions
• Established a system-wide approach to improve instruction
• Established an instructional vision that focused on student learning
• Used data to drive decision making
• Adopted a systematic approach to professional development
• Redefined leadership roles
• Committed to sustaining the reform over time
The researchers (Togneri & Anderson, 2003) identified new strategies for
professional development that the five districts implemented. They began with a
framework for professional development which included connecting professional
54
development to the instructional vision, distributed leadership, strategic allocation of
financial and human resources, and system-wide use of data to drive decisions. The
five districts used data to determine professional development needs at the school
and district levels and used internal and external resources to improve instructional
practices. Stronge (2006) argues that improving teacher quality is the most
important school-related factor influencing student achievement so it behooves us to
expect and develop high quality teachers by providing them the knowledge, skills,
and resources to develop academic rigor in curriculum that requires high demand of
thinking of its students.
Absent in the Togneri and Anderson (2003) study is the mention of teacher
assignments. Best practices outlined in EdTrust’s (2005) study on high impact high
schools describe five spheres that influence school practices, which improve
outcomes for struggling students. These spheres address school culture, academic
core that establishes high expectations for all, systematic support and time to learn,
support for teachers, and allocation of time and resources for students to succeed.
High-impact schools were identified based on a set criteria, one of which was having
a greater-than-expected growth over three years for previously underperforming
students. EdTrust’s (2005) findings identify five spheres that influence school
practice:
1) Collaborative culture that focused on student learning, established
high expectations and goals for the school and students.
55
2) Consistent academic core curriculum for all students with the use of
assessment data to improve curriculum and instruction as well as to
make teacher assignments. Additionally, consistent pacing was
implemented to cover the core curriculum.
3) Additional support for struggling students, providing additional time
for core academic subjects, particularly in English and math,
establishing early warning systems to identify students who need
additional support, and partnerships with businesses and colleges.
4) Teacher assignments were based on student needs rather than teacher
preferences. Additionally, additional support was provided for
professional development, especially for new teachers.
5) Use of time and other resources efficiently and effectively.
Instructional time is protected for all students and extended time is
provided for struggling students.
Table 2.4 summarizes the four different studies discussed in this section.
Analysis of the four successful school studies demonstrate that all successful schools
set ambitious goals which communicates high expectations, provide an instructional
vision which is focused on student learning, protect the use of instructional time to
maximize the opportunity to learn, use data to drive decisions, provide coherent,
intensive, ongoing professional development, distribute leadership amongst the
stakeholders, and created a collaborative culture to sustain the reform movement.
56
Table 2.4: Comparison of Effective School Practices for Improving Student
Achievement Across Research Studies
Topic Marzano (2003) Togneri &
Anderson (2003)
EdTrust (2005) Odden &
Archibald (2009)
Identifying
the Problem
Acknowledge poor
performance &
seek solutions
Understanding the
performance
problem and
challenge
Goal Setting

Challenging
goals &
Effective
feedback
High expectations Set ambitious
goals
Curriculum
&
Instruction
Guaranteed and
viable
curriculum
Instructional
strategies
Opportunity to
learn
Time
Instructional vision
System-wide
approach to
improve
instruction
Consistent
academic core
curriculum
Protect
instructional time
Consistent pace
Change the
curriculum &
Create a new
instructional vision
Use time
efficiently and
effectively
Use of Data Data driven
decision making
Use assessment
data for planning
(Data drives
decisions)
Use formative
assessments &
data-based
decision making
Professional
Development
Staff
development
Professional
development
Support for
teachers/teacher
development
Provide ongoing,
intensive
professional
development
Professional and
best practices
Leadership Shared
leadership
Redefined
leadership roles
Widespread and
distributed
leadership
Parent &
Community
Parental and
community
involvement

Other

Safe & orderly
environment
Collegiality &
professionalism
Sustain reform
over time
Collaborative
culture
Additional support
Teacher
assignments
Extend learning
time for struggling
students
Create a
collaborative
culture

57
Summary
The literature review regarding school finance and resource allocation is a
relevant discussion in light of California’s dwindling educational dollars. Despite
the limited resources, California’s educators continue to be required to educate the
most challenging and diverse student populations with the goal of reaching 100%
proficiency by 2014. For the purposes of this study, this literature review focused on
the federal and state’s role in funding education, the school finance in the California
context, identified patterns of resource use, defined the meaning of adequacy, and
analyzed effective strategies for improving schools and closing the achievement gap.
The purpose of this study is to identify how six schools who do not have
additional Title I funding are allocating their resources to close the achievement gap
between Hispanics, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
and their White counterparts. In addition, this study aims to determine if the four
schools are aligned with research-based best practices. Odden and Picus’s (2008)
Evidence Based Model along with Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance was used as a framework to analyze the four schools
and draw these conclusions. The Evidence Based Model employs the ten strategies
to present a school level expenditure structure to report school resource allocations
and their alignment with instructional strategies contained in their school
improvement plan. The following chapter will discuss the methodology used in this
study.
58
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Review of Purpose and Research Question
This applied research study was intended to provide an analysis of resource
use and allocations within a purposeful sample of four Southern California
elementary schools with the intent of providing knowledge to voters, policymakers,
and practitioners of how limited, scarce resources may be allocated consistently and
effectively to underrepresented students to attain educational outcomes. As stated
previously, California faces unprecedented budget shortfalls, while No Child Left
Behind mandates continue to be implemented. In no other time in history has it been
more important to align resources with the instructional improvement process so that
we may close the achievement gap that exists between English Learners, Hispanics,
and Socio-economically disadvantaged students and their White peers.
Beginning July 1, 2009, the Legislature provided that 40 of the state’s 65
categorical grant programs would be “combined” into one large block grant for
enhanced flexibility on the part of schools districts; thus returning local control of
limited educational dollars back into the hands of district governance and school site
officials to determine the most effective use of money with the goal of continuing to
meet student performance measures. This increased flexibility is allowable under the
new legislation through the 2012/2013 school year (EdSource, 2010d), thus
providing policymakers and researchers an opportunity to investigate whether or not
59
local control over budget and resource allocations will continue to improve student
achievement.
This study was designed to answer four research questions about resource
and funding allocation decisions:
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?
Upon completion of the study, with the knowledge gained from
understanding the resource allocation practices at the school site level, the researcher
will (a) identify the actual resources available at the site-level, (b) compare how
those resource allocations compare with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008), (c) identify strategies used to improve student performance for
underrepresented groups to close the achievement gap, and (d) discuss how those
strategies and resources are impacted by the cutbacks.

60
Overview of Methodology
The study was a mixed approach utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
data from four elementary schools in Southern California. Using a variety of data
types contribute to methodological rigor as well as allows for comparative analysis
to illuminate a single, well-integrated picture of effective practices (Patton, 2002).
The different types of data allow the researcher to validate and cross check findings.
Whereas, studies using only one data source become more vulnerable to errors linked
to that particular methodology.
The author conducted this study under the direction of Professor Lawrence O.
Picus in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ed.D. at the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education (RSOE). It was conducted
concurrently with eleven other parallel studies with the same research questions,
each with purposeful samples reflecting various populations of schools (i.e.
elementary, middle, high schools, Title I, non-Title I).
All researchers, including the author, participated in a one-day training to
ensure consistency and inter-rater reliability in structured interview and document
review protocols. In late spring 2010, the author contacted superintendents and
principals of sample schools to obtain consent for their participation in the study.
Upon IRB approval, pre-visit documents were gathered as well as interview dates
finalized. Data gathered from interviews and documents between September and
November 2010 were entered into a web-based system to allow for comparison to
the Evidence Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) and to the Ten
61
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance outlined by Odden and Archibald
(2009). Once data were compiled, the data were analyzed to determine how schools
were utilizing their resources, to identify strategies used to improve student
performance to close the achievement gap for underrepresented groups, and to
describe how those strategies and resources are impacted by the cutbacks. Findings
from the research study can be helpful to voters, policymakers, and practitioners in
identifying strategies and resource allocation use that can be applied to other schools.
The remainder of this chapter will describe in detail how sample schools were
selected, how the study was conducted, and how data were collected and analyzed.
Sample and Population
This study used a purposeful sample of six elementary schools in Southern
California that met predetermined criterion, or criterion sampling, which provided
quality assurance (Patton, 2002). Although six schools were initially identified as
meeting the criterion sampling, only four schools participated in the study. All
schools selected and who participated in the study met the following criteria and are
illustrated in Table 3.1.
• Public elementary school
• Met AYP for subgroups on CSTs in English/Language Arts
• Had subgroups of less than 35% of English Learners (EL),
Hispanic, and Socio-economically disadvantaged (SED)
• Non- Title I school
• Met or exceeded API growth targets
62
Table 3.1:School Sample Demographics
School Total Students &
Subgroups
Number of
Students (% of
population)
AYP
(% proficient)
on CST ELA
Hibiscus ES All 361 81.4
EL 14 (3.9%) 92.9
Hispanic 31 (8.6%) 71.0
SED 17 (4.7%) 64.7
White* 277 (76.7%) 81.6
Asian 29 (8.03%) 93.1
Marigold ES All 372 82.7
EL 17 (4.6%) 62.5
Hispanic 32 (8.6%) 79.3
SED 28 (7.5%) 66.7
White* 293 (78.8%) 83.1
Asian 30 (8.06%) 86.7
Mum ES All 494 75.4
EL 15 (3.03%) 71.4
Hispanic 63 (12.8%) 56.1
SED 42 (8.5%) 52.6
White* 325 (65.8%) 83.2
Asian 36 (7.3%) 74.3
Rose ES All 436 83.4
EL 25 (5.7%) 84
Hispanic 63 (14.4%) 73.8
SED 52 (11.9%) 61.7
White* 284 (65.1%) 85.9
Asian 37 (8.5%) 89.2
Note: * indicates a numerically significant subgroup for percent proficient if it has
100 or more students with valid scores or 50 or more students with valid scores who
make up at least 15 percent of the total valid scores.

One of the goals of the study was to provide information to practitioners on
how scarce resources may be allocated consistently and effectively to
underrepresented students to attain educational outcomes and close the achievement
gap. Since most schools in California are public schools, the findings of the study
will be meaningful to educators. Elementary schools are the focus of this study
because the parameters of the study limit the scope and numbers of schools that
63
would fit the criteria. In addition, elementary schools serve as the foundation for
future educational success as evidenced by research on students’ reading proficiency
by grade 3.
Closing the achievement gap between English Learners, Hispanic, and socio-
economically disadvantaged and their White counterparts, as discussed earlier in the
literature review, is the focus of key legislation such as No Child Left Behind (2001),
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and more recently, Race to the Top
(2010). Students with disabilities were not included in the study due to the variability
and severity of students at each school site. Most of the research on closing the
achievement gap focuses on schools and districts identified as Title I or have student
populations of EL, Hispanic, and SED greater than 50% of the total school
population. However, underrepresented students are found in all schools, including
non-Title I schools. Title I schools receive higher level of categorical funding than
non-Title I schools and have been aided by additional funding sources such as
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; thus, schools that do not receive
Title I funds have an even greater imperative to close the achievement gap with
fewer resources. Schools with subgroups of 35% or less of ELs, Hispanic, and SED
were chosen for the study. How these schools effectively allocate their resources
and implement instructional improvement strategies for underrepresented groups can
be useful to other schools because they demonstrate that they can continue to meet
student performance measures with less.
64
The Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) were used to determine a school’s effectiveness. A school’s API and AYP
are based on performance of students tested on the California Standards Test (CST),
which is administered each spring to students in second through eleventh grades.
Although districts and schools may utilize other measures for evaluating student
performance, California has determined the API and AYP to measure a school’s
effectiveness based on the mandates of No Child Left Behind legislation. Although
the schools studied may or may not have significant subgroups of ELs, Hispanic, and
SED, their percentages proficient are reported annually and can be used to compare
their achievement to their White peers.
The study included schools from a variety of school districts in Southern
California that allows identification of similarities and differences in resource use in
a broad range of schools, but also a range of school districts as well. Schools
participating in the study were identified using pseudonyms to ensure privacy and
confidentiality of staff. Although six schools were initially identified as meeting the
criterion sampling, only four schools actually participated in the study. The two
other schools did not give consent to participate.
Instrumentation & Data Collection
A one- day, 8-hour training was conducted by Dr. Picus on March 13, 2010
to ensure consistency and inter-rater reliability in structured interview and document
review protocols. A Codebook Manual was provided to all researchers participating
in the parallel studies. Schools meeting the criterion sampling were identified using
65
document analysis of API and AYP for 2008/09 school year of all elementary
schools in southern California. Six elementary schools were identified and selected
as having subgroups of less than 35% for ELs, Hispanic, and SED populations and
met API and AYP for the 2008/09 school year. Only four schools opted to participate
in the study. Time and resource constraints limited the study to schools in Southern
California. Data were collected from September through November 2010. Follow
up questions and contact were made when there was any missing data.
Quantitative Data
As stated earlier, document analysis of API and AYP was used in selecting
schools. Prior to each school visit, pre-visit documents were requested which
include staff lists for both the school site and district, bell schedules, budget
expenditures, professional development budget, class enrollment information, budget
reductions, and staffing ratios (Appendix B). All information collected is outlined in
a data collection codebook (Appendix E). Two potential limitations of using
quantitative data are the variability in the quality and completeness of the data
provided to the researcher as well as the availability of documents provided and
available on-line that can be used for analysis.
Qualitative Data
In addition to the quantitative data, open-ended interviews were conducted in
3-4 hours with the site principal to provide additional information as to how
decisions were made with regard to resource allocation for each case study.
Qualitative data are used to provide depth, detail and nuance to help make sense of
66
the quantitative data. Principals were selected as the interviewees because they have
the insight to how resources are allocated at the school site and how they are aligned
to the instructional vision and student achievement. The interview protocols
(Appendix F) utilized for the qualitative data collection was adapted from other
adequacy studies conducted by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates (Odden, et al,
2007; Odden, et al, 2005; Picus, et al, 2008). Qualitative data are subject to several
limitations, which include recall error, politics, and anxiety on the part of the
responder.
Data Analysis
Collecting quantitative and qualitative data allowed the author to perform
content analysis to identify the resources available at the site-level, compare how
those resource allocations compare with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008), identify strategies used to improve student performance for underrepresented
groups to close the achievement gap using Odden’s 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (2009), and how those strategies and resources were impacted
by the cutbacks. Data triangulation provided “diverse ways of looking at the same
phenomenon but adding credibility by strengthening confidence in whatever
conclusions are drawn” (Patton, 2002, p. 556).
Data were gathered following protocols outlined in the CodeBook Manual,
then were analyzed and compared to the resource allocation described in the
Evidence Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) shown in Table 3.2.
67
Table 3.2: Resource Allocation for a Prototypical Elementary School with 432
Students in Evidence Based Model
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5
Enrollment 432
Class size K-3 15
4-5 25
Full Day Kindergarten Yes
Number of Teacher Work Days 190+
10 days of PD
Disabled students 12%
Students in poverty 50%
EL students 10%
Minority students 30%
Resource Allocation
Core Teachers 24
Specialist teachers 4.8
Instructional Facilitators/mentors 2.2
Tutors (certificated) 2.16 (1 for every 100 poverty
students)
Teachers for EL 0.43 (1 for every 100 EL students)
Extended Day 1.8
Summer School 1.8
Learning disabled student 3
GATE student $25/student
Substitutes 5% of all of the above
Pupil support 2.16 (1 for every 100 poverty
students)
Non-instructional aides 2
Librarian/Media specialists 1
Principal 1
School secretary 2
Professional development Instructional facilitators, planning &
prep time, 10 summer days,
$100/pupil for other PD expenses-
trainers, conferences, travel, etc.
Technology $250/pupil
Instructional materials $140/pupil
Student activities $200/pupil
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)
68
In addition, the instructional strategies described by principals were analyzed
against the steps identified by Odden (2009) to make dramatic improvements in
student achievement. The following are the ten steps recommended by Odden
(2009):
1) Analyze student achievement data
2) Set ambitious goals
3) Implement effective curriculum and instructional program
4) Use benchmark and formative assessments in decision-making
5) Provide ongoing, intensive professional development
6) Use instructional time more efficiently and effectively
7) Extend learning time for struggling students
8) Creative collaborative school cultures and distribute leadership
9) Use research-based, evidence-based best practices and
10) Investing in human capital management
For each school, a case study was prepared and evaluated to determine how
closely aligned resources were allocated to the Evidence Based Model (EBM), how
the instructional vision and strategies closely aligned to the ten strategies described
above to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap, and how these
strategies and resources were being impacted by the current fiscal shortfalls. The
findings exemplified the trends, similarities and differences among the four schools,
and how resource allocations compared with the EBM that will be discussed in the
next chapter.
69
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine, through analysis of school-level
data, how California schools allocate resources in which standardized assessments
such as California Standards Tests measure student achievement as well as
educational adequacy. This chapter discusses the findings obtained by case studies
of four elementary schools (Appendix H-K) 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 resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based
or other Model?
All schools in the study are public elementary schools located in Southern
California and have demonstrated continuous improvement school-wide and their
subgroups were above AYP targets. The schools in the study were selected because
70
they met criterion-sampling indicators. All schools in the study met the following
criteria:
• Public elementary school
• Met AYP for subgroups on CSTs in English Language Arts and Math
• Had subgroups of less than 35% of English learners, Hispanics, and
socio-economically disadvantaged students who did not constitute
significant subgroups
• Do not receive additional Title I funding
• Met or exceeded API growth targets
School Profile
The following sections illustrate a comparison of the schools’ profile and
their achievement data. All schools included in this study were located in Southern
California and were part of two different districts, Annual School District (K-8) and
Perennial School District (K-12). Both districts have student enrollment of less than
10,000 students with Annual School District (ASD) serving 6,759 students and
Perennial School District (PSD) serving 9,582 students. Both districts are identified
as suburban school districts, and receive Title I federal money as a district.
However, the schools in the sample do not receive any Title I allocations from the
district. Both ASD and PSD are high performing districts with numerous district and
school recognitions and an API of 889 and 904, respectively. The smallest school
size was Marigold Elementary, in ASD, with 519 students and the largest school size
was Mum Elementary, in PSD, with 722 students. Thus, the difference in school size
71
when compared to the prototypical school, which suggests an enrollment of 432
students in the Odden and Picus’s (2008) Evidence Base Model, was 20% to 67%
larger. Table 4.1 represents the enrollment of these schools and the type of school:
Table 4.1: Enrollment and Type of Sample Schools
Marigold Hibiscus Mum Rose
School
Enrollment

519

674

722

635
School Type Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban
District
Enrollment

6,759

6,759

9,582

9,582
Compared to
Prototypical
School

20% larger

64% larger

67% larger

47% larger
Source: California Department of Education (2010b)
The student demographic data of these sample schools are made up of largely
a homogenous population of White students, but with small populations of Hispanic,
Asian, Pacific Islander, Filipino, and two or more races. The percentage of White
students who attend the sample schools range from 60-74%, thus constitute a
significant subgroup in the school. Additionally, in each sample school, Hispanic
students comprise the largest minority group ranging from 13-22%. Rose
Elementary has the highest percentage of Hispanics with 22% and is the most diverse
with 40% of students from ethnically diverse backgrounds when compared to the
other schools in the sample. Although the Hispanic students at Rose Elementary are
22% of the student population, they do not constitute a significant subgroup as
determined by California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (California
Department of Education, 2010b).
72
In contrast, Marigold Elementary has the smallest percentage of ethnically
diverse students with only 26% of the total student population making up students
from other ethnicities, with 13% of them identified as Hispanic students. Hibiscus
Elementary is comprised of 13% Hispanic, 8% Asian, and 7% as two or more races.
Mum Elementary is comprised of 15% Hispanic, 7% two or more races, and 6%
Asian. It is important to note that other subgroups, such as African American,
Filipino, Pacific Islander, and American Indian, collectively constitute an additional
2-5% of the total school population in each of the sample schools. Based on AYP
and API data from 2009/2010, the only significant subgroups in all the schools are
White students; therefore, AYP data are used to compare achievement of various
subgroups that will be discussed later. Figure 4.1 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of
the sample schools.
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Breakdowns of Sample Schools

Source: California Department of Education (2010b)

73
In each school of the four schools in the study, there are subgroups of English
learners and socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) students. English learners are
defined as a student whose primary language is not English and have been counted
using CBEDS data collection. The number of students who are identified as English
learners range from 17-28 students which is less than 5% of the student population at
each of the schools. Marigold Elementary has the fewest number of students
identified as English learners with only 17 students, while Hibiscus and Rose
Elementary Schools have the highest with 28 students each identified as English
learners. At each of the schools, there are small populations of socio-economically
disadvantaged students. Socio-economically disadvantaged students are identified
based on a measure of an individual or family's relative economic and social ranking
which is usually determined by free and reduced lunch status and parent education
level. The number of socio-economically disadvantaged students range from 33-59
students which is anywhere from 4-9% of the student population at each of the
schools. Hibiscus Elementary has the highest number of socio-economically
disadvantaged students with 59 students, which constitutes 9% of its student
population. Mum Elementary has the smallest number of socio-economically
disadvantaged students with 33 identified students, which constitutes only 5% of its
student population. Figure 4.2 illustrates the number of English learners and socio-
economically disadvantaged students in the sample schools.

74
Figure 4.2: Number of English Learners and Socio-economically Disadvantaged
Students in the Sample Schools

Source: California Department of Education (2010b)

In summary, each of the four schools in the study have relatively
homogenous populations with small populations of ethnically, linguistically, and
socio-economically diverse students. These factors may pose a challenge to the
schools in the study in light of reduced resources as the state’s economic crisis
reduces its funding to all schools throughout the state. Although the state has
reduced its funding to schools, it has not reduced its expectations for student
achievement as measured by API and AYP. The next section analyzes student
performance as measured by API and AYP.
Achievement Data
California serves the largest and most challenging student populations in the
United States (EdSource, 2008) and, under the federal No Child Left Behind
legislation and state Public Schools Accountability Act, is required to have all
students, including educationally disadvantaged students, reach 100% proficiency by
2014 (California Department of Education, 2009a). California’s accountability
75
system uses two indicators, Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) to monitor student achievement and the progress of
subgroups of students. API is a number designated by California Department of
Education (2009a) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated from student
results on statewide assessments. California has set a target score of 800 for all
schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of 800 are required to meet
annual growth targets set forth by the state. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a
report required by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and is used
to measure how well individual schools and districts are doing in meeting the
following requirements: (a) student participation rates on statewide tests; (b)
percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or above in English-language
arts and mathematics on statewide tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d)
graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2009a). Due to the small
populations of subgroups in the sample schools, the achievement gap is measured by
comparing the percent proficient between white students and other ethnic groups,
English learners, socio-economically disadvantaged students, and students with
disabilities. For the purpose of this study, students with disabilities will not be
discussed due to the range of disabilities at each school.
API and Similar Schools Rankings.
All schools in the study demonstrate high performance, including percent
proficient for English learner, Hispanic and socio-economically disadvantaged
subgroups, as evidenced by the continued growth on API and AYP indicators. The
76
growth demonstrated on API between 2006 to 2010 range from 17 to 44 points with
Mum Elementary with the smallest growth of 17 points and Marigold Elementary
with the highest growth of 44 points. According to STAR results, Marigold
Elementary had the lowest API at 876 points in 2006, and had the greatest growth of
44 points with an API of 920 in 2010. Comparatively, Rose Elementary had the
highest API at 908 in 2006, and grew 19 points with an API of 927 in 2010. Figure
4.3 illustrates the API growth for each school in the sample between 2006 and 2010.
Figure 4.3: 2006-2010 API Growth for Sample Schools

Source: California Department of Education

In addition to measuring a school’s performance on API growth, schools are
ranked in ten categories of equal size, called deciles, from 10 (highest) to 1 (lowest).
A school’s statewide rank compares its API to the APIs of all other schools statewide
of the same type (elementary, middle, or high school). A school’s Similar Schools
Rank (SSR) compares its API to the APIs of 100 other schools of the same type that
77
have similar opportunities and challenges, which take into account student mobility,
ethnic composition, percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged students,
English learners, gifted and talented, students with disabilities, migrant, percentage
of teachers who are fully credentialed and on emergency credential, average class
size and multi-track year round schedule.
According to Similar Schools Rankings calculated by the California
Department of Education, all four schools in the sample study ranked in the 9
th
decile
or above in the statewide rankings in 2009. However, the sample schools on Similar
Schools Ranking range from 4
th
to 9
th
decile. Marigold Elementary had the highest
growth in four years from 1
st
to 9
th
decile on similar schools ranking, along with the
greatest API growth of 44 points. In addition, Marigold Elementary grew from 9
th
to
10
th
decile on the statewide rankings. Conversely, Mum Elementary decreased from
9
th
to 4
th
decile on Similar Schools Ranking, decreased from 10
th
to 9
th
decile on
statewide ranking, and had the least growth on API with only 17 points. Table 4.2
shows the comparison of the sample schools on statewide and similar school
rankings.
Table 4.2: Statewide and Similar Schools Rankings of Sample Schools, 2009
Hibiscus (ASD) Rose (PSD) Mum (PSD) Marigold
(ASD)
2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
Statewide
Ranking
10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10
Similar
Schools
Ranking
3 4 6 8 9 4 1 9
Source: California Department of Education (2010b)
78
Both Hibiscus and Marigold Elementary have similar demographics and are
in the same district, thus have a similar instructional plan, yet there are significant
differences in performance in student achievement as measured by similar schools
ranking. Hibiscus Elementary has only recently experienced the steady growth on
API within the last three years, whereas Marigold Elementary has experienced
steady growth and more significant gains in the last three years. Both Rose and
Mum Elementary are in the same district and also demonstrate differences in student
achievement. Based on the data presented, Rose Elementary continues to make
steady gains, but Mum Elementary is losing ground.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
As discussed earlier, AYP is used to measure how well individual schools
and districts are doing in meeting the following requirements: (a) student
participation rates on statewide tests; (b) percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in English-language arts and mathematics on statewide
tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d) graduation rate (California
Department of Education, 2009b). Statewide tests are comprised on the California
Standards Test (CSTs) in grades 2-11 in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Some grades have additional tests such as Science (5th & 8th), History Social
Science (6
th
& 8
th
) and other grade level and course specific tests. For the purpose of
this discussion, graduation rate will not be discussed because elementary schools are
used in the sample. It is important to note that all schools met the 95% participation
rate for all students tested.
79
After reviewing AYP data, we find that all four schools in the study were
well above AYP targets set by the state in both language arts and mathematics
between 2006-2010. This means that each school fulfilled its AYP requirement by
having the minimum percent of students tested that scored proficient or advanced
between 2006 and 2010. Recall that all schools in the study have a relatively
homogenous population of White students which range from 60-74% of the total
school population. Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 display school-wide AYP for all four
schools in the study between 2006-2010 in English Language Arts CSTs and
Mathematics CSTs in comparison to the state AYP target.
Figure 4.4: School-wide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Above on the
English Language Arts California Standards Test from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

80
Figure 4.5: School-wide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Above on the
Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

Because Hispanics, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged
subgroups are not considered significant subgroups in each of the schools, AYP data
for each subgroup will be compared to the performance of White students in order to
determine the school’s ability to provide equal outcomes for all its students.
English Language Arts Performance
Overall, the sample schools and the subgroups in the study are above the
2010 statewide AYP targets of 56.8% in Language Arts with the exception of
English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students at Mum
Elementary. Based on 2010 assessment data, we find that English learners and
socio-economically disadvantaged students at Hibiscus Elementary are well above
AYP targets and are within 4.5% and 11% of their White counterparts, respectively.
Additionally, English learners are outperforming White students at Hibiscus
81
Elementary in ELA CSTs by 6.9%. The achievement gap is also closing at Rose
Elementary with Hispanic and English learners within 5% of White students as
measured by performance on ELA CSTs. However, socio-economically
disadvantaged students do not fair as well lagging 23.4% behind White students at
Rose Elementary.
Greater achievement gaps exist at Marigold and Mum Elementary with
Hispanic, English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students
significantly trailing behind White students. At Marigold Elementary, only 58.3% of
English learners score proficient or above on CSTs, yet White students outperform
them with 84.8% scoring proficient and above; thus, English learners have a 26.5%
gap behind White students. Socio-economically disadvantaged students also have a
23.1% discrepancy between their proficiency compared to White students. Greater
gaps exist at Mum Elementary where English learners lag behind White students by
32% and socio-economically disadvantaged students lag behind by 28.6%. Figure
4.6 summarizes the percentage of students proficient and above in language arts and
depicts the achievement gap that exists in the sample schools.

82
Figure 4.6: Percentage of Students Proficient & Above on 2010 AYP Language Arts
Targets

Source: California Department of Education

When compared to AYP language arts targets, English learners at Hibiscus
and Rose Elementary Schools tend to exceed AYP targets as illustrated in Figure 4.7.
English learners at Marigold and Mum Elementary have been exceeding AYP
targets, but as the AYP targets begin its steep ascension towards 100% proficient,
English learners begin to plateau or decline. This trend should become a concern as
AYP increases to 67.6% in spring 2011. Although English learners are not
significant subgroups in these schools, lack of attention to these students could
potentially place a district in Program Improvement status by not meeting all of their
AYP targets.

83
Figure 4.7: English Language Arts AYP for English Learners from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

Hispanic students at all four schools in the study perform above AYP targets
in language arts as shown in Figure 4.8. Students at Hibiscus and Rose Elementary
School continue to demonstrate increased student achievement beginning in 2008;
where as Hispanic students at Marigold and Mum demonstrate inconsistent growth
between 2006-2010. As AYP targets increase to 67.6% in spring 2011, Mum
Elementary may be faced with the potential of placing Perennial School District in
Program Improvement status by not meeting all of their AYP targets.

84
Figure 4.8: English Language Arts AYP for Hispanic Students from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

AYP data for socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) subgroups at each of
the four schools indicate inconsistent growth in language arts as represented in
Figure 4.9. At three of the four schools (Rose, Marigold, and Hibiscus), SED
students are above AYP targets but there are years with sharp decline followed by
subsequent years with minimal growth. Hibiscus School demonstrates the most
increase and steady growth beginning in 2007. SED students at Mum Elementary
barely met the language arts AYP target and could place the district in Program
Improvement status should they continue to remain stagnant. In fact, Mum,
Marigold, and Rose Elementary Schools will need to increase student achievement
for its socio-economically disadvantaged students in the 2010/2011 school year to
meet the AYP target of 67.6% by spring 2011.

85
Figure 4.9: English Language Arts AYP for Socio-economically Disadvantaged
Students from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

In summary, English Language Arts AYP data indicate that Hibiscus and
Rose Elementary School are meeting and exceeding AYP targets for Hispanics,
English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students. Marigold
Elementary is barely meeting AYP targets and could potentially place ASD into PI
status if they do not address its English learners and socio-economically
disadvantaged students. Of the four schools in the study, Mum Elementary did not
meet AYP targets for socio-economically disadvantaged students and English
learners and is barely meeting AYP targets for Hispanic, thus creating a greater
achievement gap.
Mathematics Performance
In all four schools, English learners and Hispanic students score above AYP
targets in mathematics as illustrated in Figure 4.10. Socio-economically
86
disadvantaged students have the greatest achievement gap when compared to White
students at all four schools in the sample. In addition, socio-economically
disadvantaged students at three of the four schools did not meet AYP target of 58%
proficient on CSTs in mathematics. The gap in performance between White students
and socio-economically disadvantaged students range from 20.5% to 34.5%. At
Hibiscus Elementary, English learners outperform their White counterparts with
85.7% scoring proficient and above in mathematics while only 83% of White
students scored at proficient and above. English learners at Rose Elementary School
are within 4% scoring proficient and above when compared to their White
counterparts. Additionally, Hispanic students at Rose Elementary are within 5.3% of
their White peers in percent proficient and above. The greatest achievement gap
exists at Mum Elementary between Hispanic, English learners, and socio-
economically disadvantaged students and their White peers. Hispanic students at
Mum Elementary lag behind their White peers by 23.7% while English learners lag
by 24.4% and SED students by 32.8%.

87
Figure 4.10: Percentage of Students Proficient and Above on 2010 AYP
Mathematics Targets

Source: California Department of Education

In mathematics, English learners in three of the four schools continue to
exceed AYP targets as represented in Figure 4.11; however, student achievement in
all four schools demonstrated inconsistent growth trends. Rose Elementary was
showing steady increases between 2007 to 2009, but had a sudden decrease in 2010.
English learners at Mum Elementary School barely exceeded the 58% proficient
target in 2010 and had historically demonstrated patterns with year of growth
followed by year of decline. With the 2011 target at 68.5%, English learners at Mum
Elementary could cause the district to become a Program Improvement district
should the progress not improve.

88
Figure 4.11: Mathematics AYP for English Learners from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

A closer look at math performance of each school’s Hispanic students reveal
that all four schools are above AYP targets but their growth appears stagnant at
Hibiscus, Marigold, and Rose since 2006. Between 2008 and 2010, student
achievement in mathematics declined steadily at Mum Elementary. Currently, only
60% of Hispanic students at Mum Elementary are proficient and above on the
Mathematics CSTs, while spring 2011 AYP target is looming and increases to
68.5%. Failing to pay attention to the declining performance of Hispanic students
could place Perennial School District in PI status. Figure 4.12 illustrates the AYP
trends for Hispanic students in mathematics from 2006 to 2010.

89
Figure 4.12: Mathematics AYP for Hispanic Students from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

A look at the performance of each school’s SED subgroup in mathematics
shows inconsistent growth trends as illustrated in Figure 4.13. Rose, Mum and
Marigold SED students did not meet AYP targets in 2010. In fact, Mum and Rose
demonstrate a steady decline in mathematics achievement for SED students
beginning in 2007. Hibiscus and Marigold Elementary Schools demonstrate
inconsistent growth patterns with periods of sharp improvements followed by
periods of sharp decline. As the AYP target increases to 68.5% in 2011in
mathematics, all four schools will be in danger of not having their SED students
meet AYP targets, thus potentially placing the district in PI status.

90
Figure 4.13: Mathematics AYP for Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students from
2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

In summary, all four schools in the study tend to demonstrate school-wide
high performance on API and AYP. Upon closer analysis, three of the four schools
continue to demonstrate increased student achievement for Hispanic and English
learners in both language arts and math and are closing the achievement gap between
these subgroups and their White counterparts. Mum Elementary School does not fair
well for Hispanic, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students.
All four schools demonstrate inconsistent and, at times, stagnant student
achievement for socio-economically disadvantaged students. As AYP targets
dramatically increase in the next four years, the lack of monitoring and progress of
students in these subgroups could potentially impact a district by placing them on PI
status even though they are not significant subgroups in any of the schools sampled.
The remaining sections of this chapter will discuss the findings as they relate to the
91
four research questions used to guide this study. The next section will discuss the
first two research questions regarding school improvement and resource allocation
strategies. The remaining sections will discuss how the use of resources at the four
sample schools compares to the suggestions stated in Odden and Picus’s (2008)
Evidence Based Model and how the state’s recent fiscal crisis have altered resource
use allocations.
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies
Closing the achievement gap between English Learners, Hispanic, and socio-
economically disadvantaged and their White counterparts, as discussed earlier in the
literature review, is the focus of key legislation such as No Child Left Behind (2001),
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and more recently, Race to the Top
(2010). However, actually improving student achievement for all students including
underrepresented groups can be a daunting task, especially with fewer resources.
Several researchers (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; Marzano, 2003;
Odden & Archibald, 2009) argue that schools today have much more control over
their performance issues than many believe. In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
contend that implementing ten very specific strategies can increase, even double,
student achievement regardless of demographics or challenges. All four sample
schools implemented an instructional vision and a variety of strategies to improve
student achievement. Utilizing Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Steps for
Doubling Student Achievement, these schools were analyzed for their fidelity in
implementing each strategy. In addition to the framework and strategies described
92
by Odden and Archibald (2009), Odden and Picus’s (2008) Evidence Based Model
of resource allocation will be utilized to examine the alignment between school
goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve performance at four
elementary schools in Southern California.
Understanding the Performance and Challenge
According to Odden and Archibald (2009) one of the first steps in the change
process is to engage staff in a variety of activities to understand and confront the
performance problem of the school in order to comprehend the gap between the
current reality and the desired outcomes. Activities such as curriculum mapping,
analyzing test scores, aligning state standards with state assessments engage staff in
the process of understanding the performance challenge. Togneri and Anderson
(2003) assert that a school must acknowledge poor performance and begin the
process of seeking solutions in order to initiate change and continuously improve its
outcomes for all students.
All four schools in the study use the English Language Arts (ELA) and
Mathematics California Standards Test data to drive school reform efforts. At all
sites, the principal engaged the staff in a variety of activities to help staff understand
the student performance trends of past students as well as current students. At the
beginning of each school year, the principal at each site met with teachers
individually to share data from their past students and the performance of their
current students. Three of the four schools continued these data discussions
throughout various points in the school year to continue to monitor student progress.
93
For example, the principal at Hibiscus Elementary meets with teachers in the fall to
discuss disaggregated data by subgroup, by teacher, by grade level, share
longitudinal data by teacher and cohort of students, and identify subgroups and at-
risk students. She again meets with each teacher by second trimester to discuss
student progress on district-wide assessment data. Students who are not making
progress are then referred to Student Study Team meetings to provide additional
interventions. Both Mum and Rose Elementary in Perennial School District were
part of the district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) implementation, thus had
additional support from a consultant to analyze CST results and to increase use of
assessments to understand the performance challenge. As part of the RTI
implementation, Mum and Rose Elementary Schools assessed students every 4-6
weeks on skills and standards taught and regrouped students into intensive,
benchmark, and advanced groups based on the assessments. Of the four schools in
the study, Marigold Elementary was the weakest in understanding the performance
challenge. Annually the principal meets with the school site council team to analyze
CST results and reviews CST data with staff, but there is no monitoring or further
data discussions held throughout the year. All principals indicated that improving
student achievement on CSTs is critical to the school’s mission.
The two schools in Perennial School District have utilized their RTI
consultant to better understand trends with subtest data to determine areas of strength
and weakness. As a result of identified weakness, an area of school-wide focus for
RTI implementation is selected and students are grouped based on assessments to
94
provide increased learning time for students. For example, at Mum Elementary
School, the consultant advised the staff to change the improvement focus from
mathematics to reading due to dips in fourth and fifth grade language arts scores.
Additionally, fourth and fifth graders who were not proficient on ELA CSTs did not
have school success in the middle school. As a result of the ongoing assessments,
staff at Mum Elementary has engaged in curriculum mapping to better align content
taught by all teachers with content assessed on state exams. Rose Elementary School
had evidence of curriculum mapping prior to its RTI implementation.
At Annual School District, the principal is the main driving force for
instructional improvement, thus her understanding and use of data are critical in
leading staff to truly understand and confront the performance challenges of all their
students. The principal at Hibiscus Elementary confronted staff with CST, API, and
AYP data and continually monitored student progress. The principal at Marigold
shared CST, API, and AYP data annually but only focused on significant subgroups,
which consisted of White students due to their demographics. Therefore, there were
achievement gaps between underrepresented groups at Marigold than at Hibiscus.
In summary, the schools in the study engaged in a variety of activities to
guide staff in understanding the performance challenges at the school, but to varying
degrees of fidelity. The schools that confronted staff and addressed all students and
subtests were more successful in closing the achievement gap between
underrepresented groups and White students. Hibiscus Elementary had the greatest
understanding of the performance challenge, thus have Hispanic and socio-
95
economically disadvantaged students performing within 10% of their White peers in
language arts. English learners at Hibiscus are outperforming White peers in
language arts with 85.7% scoring proficient and above on the ELA CSTs. A similar
pattern emerges at Rose Elementary where staff has both understood the
performance challenge and have curriculum maps to ensure all students have access
to the curriculum that is assessed on the CSTs, thus have English learners and
Hispanic students within 5% of their White peers.
Set Ambitious Goals
Researchers (Marzano, 2003; EdTrust, 2005; Odden & Archibald, 2009)
agree that setting high, ambitious goals and expectations for all students, including
low income and minority students, to achieve is a key factor in improving student
performance. All stakeholders should have a core belief that every student can learn
and be held accountable to high levels of achievement. Marzano (2003) adds that
effective school leaders and effective schools are able to set clear and concrete goals.
All four schools in the study have taken the data from their CST results, API and
AYP to develop school-wide goals on the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement. Although all schools utilize CST results to develop goals, the level of
data analysis varies as discussed earlier. Each school has a number of goals to
address performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics as well as other key
areas specific to the school. For example, Hibiscus Elementary includes goals to
address English Language Development and technology. They set very ambitious
goals in mathematics with the expectation that 100% of students will meet or exceed
96
mathematics standards. However, their goal in language arts is set below the level
their students are currently performing. Marigold Elementary set the highest goals
with 100% of students meeting or exceeding ELA, Math, and Science standards on
the CSTs. In addition, both Hibiscus and Marigold address English learner
performance on CELDT testing and advancement on CELDT levels. Marigold
Elementary has eleven goals on their Single School Plan. DuFour and Eaker (1998)
argue that schools should only focus on 3-5 goals to truly be effective in monitoring
progress.
Schools in Perennial School District also utilize CST data to develop school-
wide goals for the Single School Plan. Data are disaggregated by grade level and
subtest. At Rose Elementary, the goal is for all students who are performing at 90%
and above on the CSTs to maintain that performance and all others to get closer to
80%. At Mum Elementary, the goal is to move 90% of students who are scoring
below proficiency towards proficiency. Additionally, another goal at Mum
Elementary is for students who are proficient and above to maintain their
performance level. Based on the goals written on the Single School Plans, Mum
Elementary has low expectations and a convoluted goal to measure student
performance; hence the discrepancies in student performance of minority students.
An area of concern that was discovered at all four schools is that there are no
goals addressing the performance or monitoring of subgroups of students, such as
Hispanic, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students.
Marigold Elementary has a goal addressing the performance of students with
97
disabilities, but no other goals or expectations for other subgroups. The lack of goals
to monitor student performance of subgroups of students does not take into account
the needs of these students nor does it allow the school to provide resources to
address their learning needs.
In summary, each of the schools utilizes CST, AYP, and API data to
determine school improvement efforts and goals for the Single School Plan.
However, the degree that each of the schools expect all students to perform at high
levels is not clear when examining the goals. Either the goals are set to maintain at
the current level or to get closer to proficiency does not establish high expectations
for all students, especially for underrepresented groups.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Several researchers (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; Marzano,
2003; Odden & Archibald, 2009) argue that schools today have much more control
over their performance issues than many believe. The core curriculum program and
instructional vision are two areas that schools have control over and directly impacts
student achievement. The curriculum program refers to the content that is being
taught for all children, instructional strategies implemented in every classroom,
pacing of instruction, and increasing time to learn skills and concepts by using time
efficiently and effectively. Marzano (2003), Togneri and Anderson (2003), EdTrust
(2005), and Odden and Archibald (2009) claim that schools have control over
everything that happens in schools from teacher assignment to organization of the
curriculum to academic expectations to effective use of time in order to increase
98
student learning opportunities. The collective strategies described become the
instructional vision of the school, which is shared by all stakeholders.
All schools in the study have curriculum adoptions that are aligned to the
state standards. However, with the recent budget crisis and flexibility of categorical
monies, both Annual School District (ASD) and Perennial School District (PSD)
applied for waivers to maintain the current adoptions. In Annual School District,
mathematics was adopted in 2008, but materials and books were never purchased.
Thus the newly adopted math curriculum has not been implemented and schools are
using textbooks and curriculum from the previous adoption. Additionally, ASD
requested and was approved for a state waiver to maintain the current language arts
adoption. Rather than purchase new curriculum, upgraded materials were purchased
to supplement the current language arts adoption to address the gaps in vocabulary
development, needs of English learners, writing, and support for struggling students.
PSD’s last language arts adoption occurred in 2003 and, due to budget cuts, also
have not had a current adoption.
Over the last five years, each of the schools in the study has enhanced their
instructional strategies, which focus on reading, writing, and math. The expectation
of the principals at each of the schools is that the strategies are implemented in every
classroom. For example, at Marigold Elementary, the school has implemented
Thinking Maps and Write from the Beginning in every classroom. Additionally, the
staff has all been trained in Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI), which provides
students the opportunity to develop problem-solving skills using a variety of tools
99
and strategies. Staff has also agreed to implement guided reading strategies in K-2
and reciprocal teaching strategies in 3-5 to improve reading instruction. At Mum
and Rose Elementary Schools, Thinking Maps, CGI, and Writer’s Workshop are
instructional strategies that are implemented in every classroom K-5. At Hibiscus
Elementary, Thinking Maps, Write from the Beginning, and Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports are implemented school-wide. The principals at each
school stated that the benefit of having all teachers trained and implementing these
strategies in every classroom is that a common language is developed amongst the
staff, students, and parent community. By doing so, they also argue that teachers are
able to collaborate on effective strategies as well as build on what students were
taught in previous years. As a result, all schools in the study developed common
practices and common language to better meet the needs of its students.
Of the four schools in the study, only one school (Rose Elementary) had
organized the curriculum and instructional sequence with curriculum maps. Along
with RTI implementation, Rose not only sequenced instruction but also assessed
every 4-6 weeks to monitor student progress. The principal at Rose Elementary
provides release time for teachers to go and observe other teachers in the school to
make teaching public and to increase teacher collaboration. Thus, she is able to
monitor and hold teachers accountable for implementing the curriculum and
instructional vision. As a result, Rose Elementary School’s success has been
recognized as being in the 10
th
decile on statewide rankings and in the 8
th
decile on
similar schools ranking.
100
All four schools in the study used time efficiently and effectively by
protecting instructional time and providing students with time to learn the material
presented. At Marigold Elementary, the principal had engaged the staff and
community in identifying its mission and vision. Through that process, the staff and
community became empowered to get rid of the fluff and were given permission to
say no to outside intrusions, communicated the responsibilities of the home and
school, and took stock of how students were spending their time by using a protocol
to guide staff in examining quality student work. In Perennial School District, the
district published “Factors that Influence Student Achievement” which requires
school action plans to include one or more of the factors: attitudes by staff and
students that all students can attain proficient or above, explicitly teaching test taking
skills and study skills, ensuring that curriculum maps are aligned to CST blueprints,
standards-based materials, explicit direct instruction with gradual release of
responsibility as the definition of good instructional practice, bell-to-bell instruction,
non-fiction writing in all content areas, rigorous vocabulary development, frequent
and timely feedback, use of formative and summative assessments, ongoing analysis
of assessment results, providing intervention and enrichment opportunities, and
continuing to develop professional learning communities. These success factors are
incorporated into the district’s priorities, site plans, and the goals of the curriculum,
instruction and assessment division. As a result, the district’s accountability of these
success factors and its leadership in providing staff development have mitigated the
101
areas of weakness at Mum Elementary, such as understanding the performance
challenge and setting ambitious goals.
Another factor that is within the control of the school and the school leader is
teacher assignment. Each of the principals in the study employed their knowledge of
each teacher’s strengths and weaknesses to assign staff to grade level and to teams.
At Hibiscus Elementary, the principal challenged the norm by changing teacher
assignments to develop stronger teams and assigning the strongest teachers with the
most challenging students and groups. Prior to this change in practice, teachers
remained in their grade level and parents had come to expect that when their child
reached that grade level, they would have particular teachers. With the increase in
student enrollment in the last three years, the principal has been able to hire new staff
that share her instructional vision. At Rose Elementary, the principal has agreed to
keep a teacher at his or her grade level as along as they continue to work as a
member of the team and grow professionally. Once the staff member becomes
stagnant, she will change the teacher’s assignment. Thus, she uses teacher
assignment as leverage to get staff to work as a team and grow professionally. A
challenge for Mum Elementary School is in correctly assigning fully credentialed
teachers, especially in the area of English learner authorization.
In summary, all four schools have strengthened their curriculum and
instruction by developing an instructional vision, which is comprised of using district
adopted textbooks along with a school-wide implementation of key instructional
strategies, to provide students with what Marzano (2003) has termed “a guaranteed,
102
viable curriculum.” Each school varied in the degree in which they organized and
sequenced curriculum, assigned teachers, and had expectations for students and staff.
Strengthening the instructional strategies and vision have improved student learning
at all four schools as evidenced by increases in API over the last five years.
Formative Assessments and Data-based Decision Making
In addition to the testing required by states and No Child Left Behind (2001),
researchers argue that creating, implementing, and monitoring summative and
formative assessments are valuable tools in improving student outcomes by
providing schools with data for planning and decision-making. Togneri and
Anderson (2003) and other researchers (DuFour, 2003; EdTrust, 2005; Odden &
Archibald, 2009) argue that data from assessments are used to determine
professional development needs at the school and district levels, used to determine
internal and external resources to improve instructional practices, and to monitor
student progress. Summative assessments, administered every nine to twelve weeks,
are less frequent and contain more content than formative assessments (Odden,
2009). Formative assessments, administered every 4-6 weeks, are more frequent and
are designed to provide detailed information on what students know and do not know
at the end of each unit of instruction (Odden & Archibald, 2009). When teachers
have this type of information, they are able to design lessons and activities that are
tailored to students needs, thus using data to guide their instructional decisions.
As discussed earlier, all schools utilize data from ELA and Math CSTs to
drive school reform efforts. At each of the sample schools, benchmark assessments
103
are administered three times a year to monitor what students know and do not know.
However, the degree to which this information is analyzed and shared with staff to
guide their instructional decisions varies at each school. Hibiscus and Marigold
follow the district’s assessment matrix, which includes trimester assessments in
language arts, mathematics, and writing. Hibiscus and Marigold Elementary Schools
administer the district assessments in reading, language arts, writing, and
mathematics three times a year as summative assessments, but has also required
diagnostic assessments. The beginning of the year assessment, administered in
November, provides information on how a student progressed with the standards in
the first trimester. Mid-year assessments administered in March provide teachers a
measure of students’ progress towards grade level standards and proficiency after the
second trimester. End-of year assessments in May/June assist staff in identifying
which students have and have not mastered grade level standards. At Hibiscus,
students’ scores are collected after each assessment period, analyzed, and shared
with staff in grade level teams and with individual teacher discussions to monitor
student growth. At Marigold, there is no evidence of whether teachers actually
administer the trimester assessments and how they are used to guide instructional
decisions.
In addition to the analysis of statewide summative assessments, Mum and
Rose Elementary Schools administer the district benchmark assessments in reading,
language arts, writing, and mathematics three times a year. The beginning of the
year assessment provides information on what students already know and help
104
inform instructional plans for the semester. Mid-year assessments administered in
December provide teachers a measure of students’ progress towards grade level
standards and proficiency. End-of year assessments in April assist staff in
identifying which students have and have not mastered grade level standards and are
used to correlate and predict CST proficiency.
With the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI), both Rose and
Mum Elementary incorporates the use of common assessments across grade levels
and assesses students every four to six weeks to develop intervention groups. These
common, formative assessments have been developed using the publisher anthology.
Common assessments are administered pre-and post-leveled grouping and progress
monitoring is administered during the six weeks to ensure that students are obtaining
the skills and knowledge presented. The results of assessments are shared in grade
level meetings. By using DataDirector, teachers are able to analyze students’
mastery of skills strand by strand. During grade level discussions, teachers ask
themselves why students are performing the way they are, who did not master the
skills, how are they being instructed, and then invite one another in to observe
classroom instruction. The principal at Rose states that all teachers are within 1-2%
of one another on district-wide assessment tools. The principal at Mum stated that
she believes in value-added philosophy and meets with individual teachers to discuss
his or her individual results.
In summary, all four schools in the study utilize both summative and
formative assessments to inform staff and guide instructional decisions, but to
105
varying degrees. Marigold was the weakest of the four schools because there is no
evidence how students are monitored and how the assessments are shared with staff
to guide instruction. Mum and Rose were the strongest by not only utilizing state
assessments, trimester summative assessments, but have also developed common
assessments that are administered every four to six weeks, shared with staff, and
used to develop instructional groups.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Researchers (Marzano, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; EdTrust, 2005;
Odden & Archibald, 2009) agree that ongoing, intensive professional development
for its principals and teachers is critical to improving student outcomes. Odden and
Archibald (2009) argue that three primary resources are needed to deploy a
widespread, systemic, and ongoing professional development: pupil free days, cost
for trainers, and cost for instructional coaches. In addition to these resources,
professional development included supporting teachers in developing expertise in
new curriculum and instructional approaches, understanding their data from
formative assessments to designing instructional programs to meet the needs of
students, and time during the school day to collaborate for teachers and instructional
coaches to meet about the instructional program (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Finally, systemic professional development included resources for new and
experienced teacher mentoring to guide new teachers and to broaden the instructional
expertise of experienced teachers.
106
All principals interviewed in the study described professional development
(PD) as a key factor in improving student achievement and allocated most of their
resources towards staff development. However, the findings of the study reveal that
each school’s PD plan is largely dependent upon their district’s PD philosophy and
degree in which they support the school’s PD. For example, Mum and Rose have
more centralized PD opportunities and support in contrast to Hibiscus and Marigold
which have very decentralized PD plan and support. Perennial SD support Mum and
Rose Elementary by providing district funds for an outside consultant to assist
schools in implementing Response to Intervention and Cognitively Guided
Instruction coaching. The district has created a list of comprehensive staff
development initiatives from which sites are to select. Some of these PD
opportunities include trainings on: using benchmark assessments, RTI training with a
consultant, PLC training with a consultant, new teacher training with specific topics,
CGI, Thinking Maps and Writers’ Workshop. Site funds provide substitutes to allow
teachers to plan together and to release them to observe other school sites. Two
professional development days are allocated with an additional day reserved for
teacher planning. As part of the district’s bargaining agreement, sites are required to
provide teachers 2.5 hours per week of planning and collaboration time. The
principal at Rose Elementary reports that teachers used to have five days of
professional development, but due to budget reductions these days have been
reduced to two staff development days.
107
Conversely, Hibiscus and Marigold Elementary Schools have individual PD
plans and little support from the district. The district supports the school’s
professional development by providing staff development for new adoptions, but this
is done with publisher’s trainers rather than district staff or other curriculum experts.
As a result staff development for newly adopted materials is fragmented and lacks
shared expectation for what good instruction looks like. Professional development
and accountability to implement the strategies and programs were contingent on the
principals at both Hibiscus and Marigold. Each used site funds to provide school-
wide training and to provide substitutes to allow teachers to attend trainings.
Hibiscus utilized consultants and trainers to provide training, whereas Marigold
utilized a trainer of trainer model to provide staff development. Due to budget
reductions, eight furlough days were implemented in 2010-2011, which reduced staff
development days from three to one day.
All schools have early release days each week to provide teachers time to
collaborate. However, principals also utilize this time for staff meetings and staff
development. The contract language in Annual School District allows the principal
to use two of the four early release days for her discretion while the other two days
are up to the teachers’ discretion. At Hibiscus, the principal uses one day for staff
meetings and the other for staff development. At Marigold, the principal uses staff
meetings as staff development opportunities and the other day as grade level
collaboration time. The contract language in Perennial SD require principals to
provide teachers 2.5 hours per week of collaboration and planning time. Principals
108
additionally may use early release days for staff meetings. In addition, the district
allocates $3,000 per school to use for staff development. The principals at Mum and
Rose use this allocation to release teachers several times during the school year to
collaborate and plan instructional units. Additionally, the principal at Rose provides
an additional 40 minutes per week for all teachers to be released for data analysis so
that teachers may plan and tweak instruction for the coming week. She is able to do
this by leading all 635 students during Friday morning lessons.
Although there are no formal instructional coaches at either Marigold or
Hibiscus, teacher leaders are emerging as instructional leaders because they have
undergone trainer of trainers training in the instructional strategies that have been
implemented school-wide. These trainers are released during the school day using
site funds to provide support to new and experienced teachers. The principal at
Marigold support new staff by having new staff meetings in which they examine
student work samples using a protocol and assists new staff to understand the
school’s expectations and common language. At Rose and Mum, a partnership has
developed with the Kotsen Foundation in which the foundation provides stipends to
teachers to attend professional development and train teachers on-site. The
principals at Rose and Mum ES both regularly teach classes to allow the teacher to
observe another teacher on campus. Mum ES is the only school in the study with a
part-time instructional coach.
In summary, the district’s level of leadership and direction at each of the
school’s in the study directly impacted the focus and implementation of the school’s
109
PD plan. In Perennial SD, the direction and support was more centralized versus the
decentralized approach in Annual SD. The support and direction from the district
can mitigate other strategies that may be weaker.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Several researchers (Marzano, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; EdTrust,
2005; Odden & Archibald, 2009) have documented that opportunities for students to
learn are determined in part by the amount of time allocated for instruction; however,
in schools, time is a fixed resource. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that using
time more efficiently and effectively can help to raise student achievement by setting
larger blocks of time for language arts and math, protecting instructional time from
interruptions, changing the amount of time give to certain subjects, and grouping
students according to their instructional level based on frequent assessments. All
four schools in the study protected instructional blocks for language arts and math.
One school, Hibiscus ES, readjusted their bell schedule to allot for larger chunks of
time for language arts instruction after the staff audited their instructional minutes.
Each of the principals in the study stressed the importance of bell-to-bell instruction
implying that no instructional time is wasted. The principal at Rose ES taught all
635 students for 40 minutes every Friday morning. During this time, she presented
student awards and taught character development lessons. This time provided staff
with an additional 40 minutes of collaboration time.
All four schools allocated 120-150 minutes per day for language arts
instruction. The California Department of Education (2007) recommends a
110
minimum of two and one-half hours of instructional time allocated to language arts
instruction daily at the primary level. In grades four through eight, the California
Department of Education (2007) recommends a minimum of two hours of
instructional time allocated to language arts daily. Hibiscus and Marigold ES both
allocated 120 minutes to language arts instruction, which included reading, phonics,
and writing. In both Mum and Rose ES, fifty minutes of the 150 minutes language
arts block were used to provide ability-grouping instruction. Students were assessed
every 4-6 weeks, grouped into three to four different levels (intensive, strategic,
benchmark, advanced) and provided 50 minutes of instruction at their level three
times per week. Students were assigned to the teacher teaching that level with
intensive and strategic groups with smaller student to teacher ratios. The purpose of
instructional grouping in reading was to tailor instruction to students’ performance
levels in order to maximize their opportunity to learn.
All four schools spent a minimum of 60 minutes per day on mathematics
instruction. Rose Elementary spent the most instructional time on math with an
average of 75 minutes for primary grades (K-3) and 105 minutes for upper grades (4-
5). As a result, Rose ES has 84.2% of its students scoring proficient and above on
Mathematics CSTs.
The greatest variance of instructional time was spent on science and social
studies instruction. Hibiscus and Marigold would alternate science and social studies
instruction each day, thus only teaching one content area two times a week for 45
minutes, or 90 minutes each week per content area. Mum also spent 90 minutes per
111
week on science or social studies, but alternated instruction weekly. Students then
received science instruction for three times a week for one unit, then switched to
social studies instruction for three days a week for one unit. Rose ES spent the most
instructional time on science and social studies instruction with 60 minutes daily
instruction in each content area, or 300 minutes per week for each. An added layer
to the instructional focus on using time effectively was Perennial SD’s support for
school sites in their publication “Factors that Influence Student Achievement” which
includes direction for providing opportunities for students to learn by increasing
rigor, checking for understanding, bell-to-bell instruction, and gradual release of
responsibility model of instruction.
Odden and Archibald (2009) include lowering class size to 15 in kindergarten
through third grade as a means to using time more effectively and efficiently. They
argue that reducing the number of students in the primary grades could provide more
individualized instruction. In California, the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program
was established in 1996 to improve education for students in kindergarten through
grade 3 with a 20:1 student to teacher ratio, but has been financially challenging for
districts to maintain. In February 2009, California granted school districts flexibility
in how they chose to spend their money from about 40 categorical programs,
including CSR. In 2009/2010, Annual SD was unable to maintain the Class Size
Reduction program by raising class size to 24:1 and in 2010/2011, raised class sizes
to 32:1. Although Perennial SD was unable to maintain the Class Size Reduction
112
program at 20:1, it is able to maintain a 24:1 student to teacher ratio in 2010/2011,
but is currently negotiating class size for 2011/2012.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
DuFour et al. (2006) and Togneri and Anderson (2003) argue that students
with special learning needs require different amounts of time and support to be
successful in school. Additional time allocated within the school day, before school,
after school, and during vacation periods as necessary are opportunities to provide
and extend learning time for struggling students to attain grade level proficiency.
Odden and Archibald (2009) add that individual and small group tutoring is one of
the most effective strategies to provide additional support to intervene quickly when
a student is identified as struggling to learn a concept rather than wait to provide
remediation.
All the principals in the sample schools stated that providing extra support for
struggling learners was a priority but they have had to find creative ways to provide
support as a result of shrinking resources. At Hibiscus ES, struggling students are
provided small group instruction in their classroom and some grade levels re-group
students based on their instructional level in reading and math as needed. Struggling
students in kindergarten through 2
nd
grade are provided support with computer
software programs such as Signs for Sounds and Earobics for an additional 60
minutes each week to develop phonics and phonemic awareness. Marigold ES has
the fewest resources and supports for struggling students. As a result of budget
reduction, the resource teacher was reduced to .5 FTE in 2010/2011. In prior years, a
113
full-time FTE was allocated to Marigold ES and was able to provide instructional
support to struggling students through a push-in model for special education
services. By doing so, she was able to instruct students who were receiving special
education services while also pulling additional students in the class who were
struggling. In addition, Annual SD eliminated summer school for at-risk (struggling)
students beginning in summer 2010 due to budget reductions.
Perennial SD has provided its schools, including Mum and Rose, with
financial support to address the needs of struggling students. Struggling students are
provided opportunities during the school day, before school, after school, and
extended learning time during summer vacation to receive support and time to learn
essential concepts. Perennial SD hired a consultant to lead Mum ES, Rose ES and
another school in the district with guidance and support in implementing Response to
Intervention (RTI) model to address the needs of not only struggling students, but
also to provide opportunities for extension for advanced learners. Students at Mum
ES are leveled and grouped homogenously into intensive, strategic, benchmark, and
extension groups for 50 minutes sessions, four times a week. Intensive and strategic
groups have lower class sizes with a 7:1 ratio and 20:1 ratio, respectively.
Benchmark and extension groups have larger class sizes ranging from 24-38
depending on the needs at each grade level. The resource teacher, resource
instructional aide, and special day class aides teach the intensive students. The site
has also allocated additional funds to pay for two retired teachers to teach benchmark
and extension groups. In addition, parents are utilized in benchmark and extension
114
groups to assist with small groups and to assist with classroom management due to
the larger class sizes. Rose ES has a similar model of RTI implementation, but have
designed three levels of student grouping: extra support, benchmark, and advanced.
Extra support classes have a 10:1 ratio while benchmark and advanced groups have
25:1 and 40:1 class sizes, respectively. Parent volunteers are also utilized in
benchmark and advanced groups to assist in small groups and classroom
management, which allows class ratios to be reduced for the extra support groups.
Perennial SD also allocates $33 per hour from categorical dollars to pay
intervention teachers who teach before or after school intervention classes. Both
Mum and Rose ES have utilized their available resources to identify instructors for
before school and after school intervention classes. Mum Elementary utilizes laid
off teachers and substitutes who have received training in district programs to teach
after school classes. The principal at Mum stated that lack of afterschool
transportation posed as a barrier for some struggling students who are unable to
attend due to the need to take the bus. Student teachers are employed to teach after
school “Clinics” at Rose ES. “Clinics” are held three times a week for 30-minute
sessions for intensive students and focus on skills instruction. Students are assessed
weekly and may exit out once they reach 80% accuracy on the identified skill. A
computer lab aide opens the computer lab fifteen minutes prior to the start of the
school day, which allows students to log into the ST Math curriculum for additional
time to learn math. In addition, Perennial SD provides summer school for all “at
risk” and retained students for four weeks.
115
Collaborative, Professional Culture
Improving student achievement involves a collective effort in which a
culture of shared leadership and collaboration is the norm. Odden and Archibald
(2009) and many other researchers (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999;
DuFour et al., 2006; Fullan, 2003; Reeves, 2005) refer to this culture of shared
leadership and collaboration as professional learning communities (PLC). The
literature describes a professional learning community as one where teachers have
high expectations for all students and have a continuous pursuit of high levels of
achievement for all students, instruction is de-privatized by observing one another,
and, finally, one in which teachers take responsibility for the results. All four
sample schools have implemented professional learning communities, but with
varying degrees of implementation over the last five years. Additionally, all schools
have allocated time during the workday to allow teachers to collaborate, discuss
student data results, and plan instruction with a minimum of two times a month.
This has been done by extending the learning day for students by an additional
fifteen minutes on four of the school days, which allows one day a week to be “early
release” day.
At Hibiscus and Marigold ES, several teachers have attended PLC
conferences to become introduced and to understand the collaborative process in
order to lead their grade level teams. In both Hibiscus and Marigold ES, the
district’s bargaining agreement designates two meetings per month as principal’s
meetings in which the principal determines how to utilize the time. The principal at
116
Hibiscus designates one as a staff meeting and the other as PLC time. It is at the
discretion of the grade level teams to meet additional times during their other “early
release” days or find other times to meet. The principal at Hibiscus ES stated that
the dynamics of the grade level team members drives the degree to which PLCs are
implemented. With eight furlough days, she found it more challenging to be able to
allocate professional development time at the expense of PLC time. At Marigold ES,
the principal disagreed with the process of developing PLCs as a series of sequential
steps or checklists, but rather stated that “collaboration is a messy process in which
the leader of the school builds a school-wide capacity for change by identifying
teacher leaders, breaking down barriers, and focusing on change as the norm.” The
staff at Marigold has agreed to instructional practices that are required to be
implemented in each classroom. In addition, the staff at Marigold has found an
additional block during the school day, which allows for more collaboration time.
One time a week, teachers from one grade level supervise all students in their grade
level and buddy grade level for reading buddies to allow their buddy grade level with
time to meet.
The district bargaining agreement in Mum and Rose ES designates two and a
half hours of weekly collaboration time to plan instruction, discuss data, and share
effective practices. Mum was the only school in the study that had a part-time
Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) to provide on-site coaching, modeling of
lessons, and release time to allow teachers to observe other teachers. In addition,
two teachers at Mum ES received Kotsen Foundation Grants, which provides a
117
stipend for attending professional development and returning to the school site to
train other staff. The principal at Rose ES provides her teachers with release time to
observe other teachers by taking over their class and by instructing all 635 students
during a Friday morning assembly, which provides an additional 40 minutes of
collaboration time each week. The principal at Rose ES claims that the ongoing
analyses of data and instructional practices during PLC time has moved each teacher
within 1-2% of one another on district-wide assessments. It appears that Hibiscus
ES has the lowest degree of PLC implementation while Rose ES has the highest
degree of implementation.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
Strong instructional leadership provided by principals, teachers, and central
office staff is the hallmark of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) ninth strategy to double
student performance. All four schools in the study have some form of leadership
team that guides and monitors the educational reform process that is implemented in
each of the schools. In each of the four schools, there were leadership teams made
up of the principal and staff representing each grade level, and school site council
teams made up of the principal, parents/community members, teachers and classified
staff members. The leadership team at Hibiscus ES meets two to three times per
year to discuss data, strategies for improvement, professional development needs,
data from assessments and data from PLC teams. The leadership team at Marigold,
Mum, and Rose met more frequently and had other structures such as curriculum
118
cadre and RTI teams which focus more on the instructional strategies and initiatives
at the school.
An interesting observation by this researcher was each of the principal’s
perspective about the level and quality of support and direction provided by central
office staff. Both principals at Hibiscus and Marigold ES stated that their central
office did not guide the improvement process and was disconnected to the site’s
needs. Both site principals guided their own instructional decisions with little or no
expectation from the central office. Consequently, the principals felt unsupported
and isolated. However, because of hiring of new principals to the district, similar
practices began to emerge out of necessity to have a common language and
instruction for students and teachers. The principals at Mum and Rose both viewed
the support from central office as positive. The principal at Mum ES reported that
improvement efforts were generated from both the site and district, where as the
principal at Rose ES reported that instructional improvements were generated from
the site with district support in the form of coordination of professional development
activities, development of benchmark assessments, and increasing access and
understanding of data.
Despite each principal’s perception of the level and quality of support, when
practices were compared to what research says about widespread and distributed
leadership, Mum and Rose ES certainly had evidence of central office coordination
and facilitation to support the school’s improvement process such as funding for
release days, professional development plan for principals and teachers, and
119
coordination of benchmark assessments and use of data to drive instruction. This is
in contrast to Hibiscus and Marigold ES who had little evidence of central office
coordination and facilitation to support the school’s improvement process and were
expected to coordinate and facilitate the improvement process through all stages and
fund them.
Professional and Best Practices
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that the final strategy employed by
schools and districts who doubled student performance, though not explicitly
mentioned in other research, is the development of highly professional organizations
who seek research about how to improve schools, seek the best practices from other
schools and districts who were improving the outcomes for students, and seek the top
experts in reading, mathematics, professional development, and continuous
improvement. In essence, these were learning organizations that sought to improve
their professional practice in order to improve student outcomes. All the schools
believed they were employing research based best practices such as Thinking Maps,
Write from the Beginning, PLCs, Cognitively Guided Instruction to name a few.
However, what were evident and set Mum and Rose ES apart from Hibiscus and
Marigold ES were the support, direction, and facilitation by the central office in
providing the instructional leaders with professional development and consultation
from experts in the field. For example, Austin Buffum is listed as an expert for
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) as well as other speakers on topics such
as brain-based learning, gifted and talented education, and Response to Intervention.
120
In addition, documents provide evidence of utilization of research-based practices
from renowned authors Fisher and Frey, Marzano, Reeves, Stronge, and Johnson to
name a few.
One other factor that was mentioned in Marzano’s (2003) research on
improving student achievement, but was not included in Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) ten strategies, was the impact of parent and community involvement. All four
schools in the study had high parent involvement from supporting students with
homework, volunteering in classrooms, and providing financial support in an attempt
to narrow the gap of what is provided to schools by the state and what is needed to
continue to improve student outcomes. Each of the principals in the study
maximized this resource.
Each school in the study has increased student achievement over the last five
years, however, there are variances in AYP gains made by subgroups in each school.
While each of the schools in the study implemented each of Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, the degree to which each of the ten
strategies were implemented relate to the degree of success of subgroups of students.
Table 4.3 summarizes Odden’s (2009) strategies and the degree of implementation at
each of the four sample schools. The following section compares the Evidence
Based Model with the resource allocation of the four schools.

121
Table 4.3: Implementation of Odden & Archibald’s 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance at Sample Schools
Sample Schools
Odden & Archibald’s
10 Strategies

Hibiscus

Marigold

Mum

Rose
1. Understanding the
performance problem &
challenge

2

3

1

1
2. Set ambitious goals
3 2 3 3
3. Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

1

2

1

1
4. Formative
assessments/data-based
decisions

2

3

1

2
5. Ongoing professional
development

2

3

1

1
6. Using time efficiently
& effectively

2

1

1

1
7. Extended learning
time for struggling
students

3

3

2

2
8. Collaborative,
professional culture
3 1 2 2
9. Widespread and
distributed instructional
leadership
3 3 1 1
10. Professional best
practices

3

3

1

1
Other

Parent & community
support
1 1 1 1
Note: 1= Strong Implementation; 2= Average Implementation; and 3= Weak
Implementation

Resource Allocation
Although all four schools in the sample employed each of the ten strategies in
varying degrees of implementation, another critical factor in any school
improvement process is to allocate and align school resources to the reform goals
and strategies. The resource allocation model presented through Odden and Picus’s
122
(2008) Evidence Based Model was used to analyze the levels of support with regard
to resource allocation at each of the sample schools. Table 4.4 provides a summary
of each school’s resource allocation strategies and will be referenced throughout this
section.
Table 4.4: Resource Allocation Suggested by EBM Compared to Actual Resource
Allocation at Sample Schools
Hibiscus Marigold Mum Rose
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Core Teachers 38.4 22 28.8 18 40 26 35.28 24
Specialist
Teachers
7.68 0.4 5.76 0 8.0 1.08 7.0 0.5
Instructional
Facilitators/
Mentors
3.52 0 2.64 0 3.67 .49 3.23 0
Tutors for
struggling
students
0.59 0 .38 0 .3 .4 .44 .3
Teachers for
EL
0.28 0 .17 0 .25 0 .28 0
Non-
Instructional
Support for EL
0 0.7 0 .7 0 .042 0 .042
Extended Day
FTE
.59 0 .38 0 .25 .1 .44 .1
Summer School
FTE
.59 0 .38 0 .25 0 .44 0
Learning
Disabled
Students FTE
4.8 3.0 3.6 1.7 5.0 4.0 4.41 2.4
Substitutes 5% of
all of
the
above
0 5% of all
of the
above
0 5% of
all of
the
above
0 5% of all
of the
above
0
Pupil Support
FTE
.28 .775 .38 .775 .33 .375 .44 .375
Non-
Instructional
Aides
3.2 0 2.4 0 3.34 0 2.94 0
Instructional
Aides
0 5.5
(SpEd)
0 4.5
(SpEd)
0 3.8
(SpEd)
0 .375
(SpEd)
Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1.6 .4
(non
cert)
1.2 .4
(non
cert)
1.67 .5
(non
cert)
1.47 0.94
(non
cert)
Site
Administrator
1.6 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.67 2.0 1.47 1.0
School Site
Secretary
3.2 1.5 2.4 1.5 3.2 1.97 2.94 1.0

123
Table 4.4, Continued
Hibiscus Marigold Mum Rose
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Resources for
GATE students
$88 $0 $88 $0 $88 $0 $88 $0
Technology
(per pupil)
$250 $11.87 $250 $32.75 $250 $4.16 $250 $15.75
(PTA
funded)
Instructional
Materials (per
pupil)
$140 $28.81 $140 $28.81 $140 $44 $140 $12.59
Student
Activities (per
pupil)
$200

$42.22
(PTA
funded)
$200

$140.23
(PTA
funded)
$200

$0 $200

$17.32
(PTA
funded)
Professional
Development
(per pupil)
$100 $19.29 $100 $35.78 $100 $35.40 $100 $8.03
Note: Cells highlighted in yellow indicate resources that are more than the EBM suggests.

Class size and loss of instructional days were the most noticeable differences
between the sample schools and the EBM prototypical school. Class sizes at
Hibiscus and Marigold ES were double that suggested by the EBM. Mum and Rose
ES currently have 60% larger classes than the EBM suggests, and will continue to
increase as a result of the reduction of revenues that the school district is facing for
the 2011/2012 school year. Table 4.5 illustrates class size ratio comparison of EBM
and sample schools.
Table 4.5: Class Sizes Suggested by EBM Compared to Actual Class Size in Sample
Schools
EBM Hibiscus Marigold Mum Rose
K-3 15 30 31 24 24
4-5 25 32 31 36 38

In addition, each of the schools provide 14-15 fewer days than the EBM
suggests which directly impacts the instructional time and opportunities for students
to learn. More importantly, each school lacked 8-9 professional development days
when compared to the EBM, thus impacting time for professional learning and
124
collaboration. Table 4.6 illustrates instructional and professional development days
suggested by EBM when compared to actual instructional days at each of the four
schools.
Table 4.6: Instructional Days Suggested by EBM Compared to Actual Instructional
Days in Sample Schools
EBM Hibiscus Marigold Mum Rose
Instructional
Days

190

175

175

176

176
PD Days 10 1 1 2 2

According to the EBM prototype, each of the schools lacked the suggested
resources with the exception of non-instructional support for English learners and
instructional assistants for special education services. Three of the four schools
(Hibiscus, Marigold, and Mum) exceeded the resource allocation of Pupil Support
personnel than the EBM suggested. These were identified as health clerks at all
three schools and counselors at Hibiscus and Marigold. However, the counselors at
Hibiscus and Marigold were funded from a grant which will conclude at the end of
the 2010/2011 school year, thus will no longer be available in future years. In
addition, Mum ES has .33 FTE more in site administration support than the EBM
suggests.
Based on the EBM prototype, the resources that were severely lacking at each
of the schools were personnel, more specifically number of core teachers, and
funding. The number of core teachers at each school was determined by number of
students enrolled at the school in that specific grade level and the ratios negotiated
by the district’s bargaining agreement and/or education code. When compared to the
125
EBM, Hibiscus had the greatest deficit of core teachers with 16.4 FTEs while
Marigold ES had the smallest deficit with only 10.8 FTEs. Should each school have
the resource allocation of core teachers, the total number of core teachers for all four
schools would be 142.48 FTEs. Instead, there are only 90 FTEs allocated as core
teachers. More staggering numbers are evident when it comes to resource allocation
for specialist teachers, instructional facilitators/mentors, tutors for struggling
students, teachers for ELs, extended day, summer school teachers, and
librarians/media specialists. Each of these was practically non-existent in each of the
schools. Based on the EBM model, there should be 53.45 FTEs to fill these
positions, but in reality there are only 4.09 FTEs total for all four schools. Marigold
ES has absolutely none of the additional support FTEs while Mum has the most with
2.79 FTEs of extra support. These are staggering deficits when schools in California
have one of the most challenging populations to teach. In addition to the lack of
teachers to support students, the number of site administrators to lead the
instructional improvement process is also a deficit at three of the four schools.
Although the staffing resources are severely lacking when compared to the
EBM, the lack of funding have greater deficits. The funding used to provide
resources for gifted students, technology, instructional materials, student activities,
and professional development were significantly underfunded compared to the EB
model. The amount underfunded for each school ranged between $276,154 at
Marigold ES and $439,227 at Mum ES. Parent donations and financial support
narrowed the gap in funding at Marigold ES. In all four schools, Parent Teacher
126
Association (PTA) donations narrowed the gap in funding in the areas of technology,
student activities, and professional development. Without the parent financial
support, the schools in the study would have lost an additional $124,950 to school
programs and resources.
Impact of Current Funding Crisis
The current budget crisis facing California has had a direct impact on each of
the schools in the study and has limited the amount of control principals at each of
the sites have over their resources. Each school in the study has implemented
furlough days in 2010/2011 with as few as four to a maximum of eight days, with
additional days being negotiated for the 2011/2012 school year. Furlough days are
negotiated days in which employees do not work and are not paid, which has allowed
districts to balance their budgets. Hibiscus and Marigold ES have eight furlough
days, with five of them being instructional days. Mum and Rose ES have four
furlough days for the current school year, all of which are instructional days.
In February 2009, the state granted school districts flexibility in their use of
about 40 categorical programs to allow school districts choice in how they were to
use the funding provided. Both Perennial and Annual SD delayed textbook
adoptions as a cost savings and to allocate some textbook allocations to the general
fund. This may have proven a wise decision in light of the adoption of Common
Core Standards in August 2010. In addition, Annual SD swept half of each school’s
School Improvement Program (SIP) funds in April 2009 and has continued to
provide half the funding of previous SIP allocation formulas.
127
All four schools included in this study have raised class size for the
2010/2011 school year, which has resulted in an overall reduction in certificated
staffing. Hibiscus and Marigold ES experienced increases in class sizes beginning in
2009/2010 with grades 1 and 2 at 24:1 ratio, but continued to increase to 32:1 K-5 in
2010/2011. They plan to continue with 32:1 class sizes in 2011/2012. Mum and
Rose ES implemented 24:1 class size ratio in 2010/2011 in grades K-3, and is
currently in negotiations to discuss budget reductions for 2011/2012.
Extra supports for struggling students have also been impacted by the current
financial crisis. Instructional assistants and other classified staff, such as library
media technicians, have been reduced at Marigold and Hibiscus ES. District-wide
classified staff at all schools in Annual SD has been reduced in order to balance
district budgets. In addition, summer school for at-risk/struggling students was
eliminated in Annual SD beginning in summer 2010 and continues to be eliminated
for summer 2011. Perennial SD is currently in negotiations to reduce classified staff
and continues to plan for summer school for struggling students for summer 2011.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data to
discuss similarities and differences of each school’s strategies to improving student
achievement for subgroups and to determine the connection between allocation of
resources and increased student achievement. All schools in the study are public
elementary schools located in Southern California and have demonstrated continuous
improvement school-wide and their subgroups were above AYP targets. The schools
128
in the study were selected because they met criterion-sampling indicators. All
schools in the study met the following criteria:
• Public elementary school
• Met AYP for subgroups on CSTs in English Language Arts and Math
• Had subgroups of less than 35% of English learners, Hispanics, and
socio-economically disadvantaged students who did not constitute
significant subgroups
• Do not receive additional Title I funding
• Met or exceeded API growth targets
All schools included in the study have continued to demonstrate increases in
student achievement, and continue to demonstrate growth for their underrepresented
subgroups that represent small percentages of the total student population, despite
dwindling resources and increased state expectations. Additionally, each of the four
sample schools had significant deficits when compared to the prototypical
elementary school in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). API
growth between 2006 to 2010 for the sample schools range from 17 to 44 points with
Mum Elementary with the smallest growth of 17 points and Marigold Elementary
with the highest growth of 44 points. According to STAR results, Marigold
Elementary had the lowest API at 876 points in 2006, and had the greatest growth of
44 points with an API of 920 in 2010.
Each of the schools included in this study implemented all ten of Odden’s
(2009) strategies for improving student achievement. However, the degree of
129
implementation varied at each school. Mum and Rose ES had overall strong
implementation in seven of the ten strategies with average implementation in two
strategies (extending learning time and collaborative professional culture) and weak
implementation of setting ambitious goals. The depth of implementation has
positively impacted the student achievement outcomes for ethnically, linguistically,
and socio-economically disadvantaged students at Rose ES by narrowing the
achievement gap. Although Mum ES has strong implementation of most of the
strategies, there continues to be an achievement gap between ethnically,
linguistically, and socio-economically disadvantaged students which may be due to
the lack of ambitious goals for all students, including these underrepresented
subgroups, and the need for additional time for the current instructional improvement
initiative (RTI) to impact student achievement. Hibiscus ES and Marigold ES had
strong implementation of 1-2 strategies, while most were average or weak
implementation. However, these schools continued to demonstrate growth,
specifically Hibiscus ES who has narrowed the achievement gap. This may be due
to a different type of English learner who has literacy and numeracy skills in both
their native language and in English.
Although the resource allocation at each of the sample schools were
substantially below the suggestion of the prototypical elementary school in the EBM,
all schools maximized the use of their resources to raise student achievement. Each
of the principals used time creatively to meet the needs of struggling students by
protecting time, providing additional support during the school day either through re-
130
grouping of students at their instructional level or providing access to additional
computer software to provide opportunities to practice and learn skills that were
lacking. Data were greatly used to guide instruction and monitor student
achievement in three of the four schools. Hibiscus ES in ASD and Rose ES in PSD
used both formative and summative data more regularly. In addition, the principals
at Hibiscus and Rose ES conferenced with teachers regarding their data and made the
data public to increase accountability and expectations for all students. As a result,
the two schools have narrowed the achievement gap between ethnically,
linguistically, and socio-economically disadvantaged students and their White peers.
The number of personnel, more specifically with the number of core teachers,
was significantly deficit in each of the schools sampled. As a result of budget
reductions, class sizes increased in each of the schools, thus further reduced the
number of core teachers. Average class sizes at the four sample schools ranged from
24 to 32 in the primary grades and 32 to 38 students in the upper grades. These class
sizes are 60% to double the class size suggested by the EBM. Additional staffing in
the areas of tutors, specialists, instructional facilitators, and teachers to support
struggling students were significantly reduced and even non-existent when compared
to the EBM. In fact, Marigold ES had no additional support personnel when the
EBM suggested 10.91 additional support personnel. Mum ES had the most support
personnel with 2.79 FTEs, but was still significantly reduced when compared to the
14.39 FTEs suggested by the EBM. The principals at each school site maximized
parent volunteers to address the gaps in personnel staffing.
131
Analysis of each school site’s budget reveals that all four schools are
significantly underfunded when compared to Odden and Picus’s (2008) EBM. In
fact, funding deficits range between $276,154 at Marigold ES and $439,227 at Mum
ES. Parent donations and financial support narrowed the gap in funding at Marigold
ES. In all four schools, Parent Teacher Association (PTA) donations narrowed the
gap in funding in the areas of technology, student activities, and professional
development. Without the parent financial support, the schools in the study would
have lost an additional $124,950 to school programs and resources.
California’s current financial crisis has impacted each of the schools included
in this study. The most significant cuts have been made to instructional days for
students, certificated and classified staffing, and funding for professional
development, technology, and student activities. As these schools continue to
experience funding shortfalls, it will be interesting to see if they will continue to
improve student achievement. The financial crisis in California will eventually
improve, but it is highly unlikely that California will allocate the funding to support
and meet the suggestions set forth by the Evidence Based Model. Chapter 5 will
provide further discussion on lessons learned, conclusions, and suggestions for future
research.
132
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
In 2008/2009, California educated over 6.2 million K-12 students (Education
Data Partnership, 2010) and spent over half of its budget on education, according to
the National Education Association’s Rankings and Estimates 2009-2010. Despite
this effort, California ranked 41
st
in 2007/2008 per-pupil expenditures (EdSource,
2010e). Furthermore, California serves the largest and most challenging student
populations in the United States (EdSource, 2008) and, under the federal No Child
Left Behind legislation and state Public Schools Accountability Act, is required to
have all students, including educationally disadvantaged students, reach 100%
proficiency by 2014 (California Department of Education, 2009a). As resources
become more limited, it is important for practitioners, policy makers in both the
federal and state levels, and the research community to seek best practices in the use
of resources so that California may remain competitive in educating a future
workforce.
California schools are experiencing a financial crisis like no other in recent
history, while No Child Left Behind mandates continue to be implemented. As
government funding for education becomes more scarce, taxpayers and politicians
have become more concerned by how much is spent for education and how well
policymakers and practitioners are using those funds to meet the goal of increasing
student achievement. Therefore, it is increasingly more important for researchers
and practitioners to link funding to students learning outcomes. The issue today
133
continues to be about equity and adequacy with the expectation of equal outcomes
and equal opportunities in the future, yet doing so with fewer resources and funding.
As the state of California faces the current fiscal crisis, issues of equity and adequacy
become increasingly more scrutinized by examining how to improve student
performance for all students, identifying the resources needed to improve student
performance, and how to use those resources most effectively. Several researchers
(Baker, 2005; Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009) argue
that simply adding more funding to education will not help every student reach
proficiency by 2014, but rather proper allocation of money and resources can
improve student achievement.
Summary of Findings
This study applies Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance and Odden and Picus’s (2008) Evidence Based Model as frameworks
for analyzing school improvement strategies and resource allocations at four
elementary schools in Southern California that met criterion sampling. All schools
selected in the study met the following criteria:
• Public elementary school
• Met AYP for subgroups on CSTs in English/Language Arts
• Had subgroups of less than 35% of English learners (ELs), Hispanic,
and Socio-economically disadvantaged (SED)
• Non-Title I school
• Met or exceeded API growth targets
134
All schools included in the study have continued to demonstrate increases in
student achievement, and continue to demonstrate growth for their underrepresented
subgroups, despite dwindling resources and increased state expectations. Each of the
schools varies in the size of their underrepresented subgroups, yet these
underrepresented students do not constitute significant subgroups on both the API
and AYP. Each of the schools, from two different districts, are funded at different
levels due to the populations they serve, but can be analyzed using the EBM (Odden
& Picus, 2008) for resource use and allocation. In addition, achievement of the
underrepresented subgroups varies greatly when analyzed closely. Although there
exists an abundance of research on how to improve student achievement, there
continues to be a need to investigate how resources can be better utilized to improve
student achievement, especially as the existing resources become more scarce.
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies
All of the schools included in the study have improved student achievement
school-wide over the last five years, and have demonstrated high achievement for
their underrepresented subgroups that represent small percentages of the total student
population as evidenced on AYP results. Additionally, each of the schools is in the
ninth or tenth deciles on Statewide Ranking and fourth through ninth deciles on
Similar Schools Ranking.
Analysis of principal interviews reveals that all schools understand the
performance challenge by using CST data to drive the improvement process, which
includes setting goals, developing professional development plans, and developing
135
the Single School Plan for Student Achievement. At the beginning of the school
year, the principal at each site met with teachers individually to share data from their
past students and the performance of their current students. However, three of the
four schools continued these data discussions throughout the school year to monitor
student progress. At two of the schools, the district provided additional support with
a RTI consultant who assisted the staffs to better understand trends with subtest data
to determine areas of strength and weakness. At the other two schools, there was
little district support, thus the principal was the main driving force for instructional
improvement. Consequently, the principal’s understanding and use of data are
critical in leading staff to truly understand and confront the performance challenges
of all their students. Based upon the principal interviews, two of the principals
believed that their students can achieve at high levels; one understood this on her
own, the other understood this with the help of a consultant. These were evident in
the progress of closing the achievement gap between underrepresented groups and
White peers. The other two principals who did not have a full grasp of the
performance problem have larger achievement gaps between underrepresented
groups and their White counterparts. However, one principal is being assisted by a
consultant who will hopefully lead staff in closing the achievement gap. Whereas
the other principal who does not understand the performance challenge and does not
have assistance in doing so will continue to have students who are lagging behind
their White counterparts.
136
Although all four schools included in the study demonstrate high
performance school-wide, including their underrepresented groups, ambitious goals
are established school-wide. An area of concern discovered during the interview
process is the lack of goals and monitoring of subgroups of students, such as
Hispanic, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students. Without
specific goals to monitor their progress and to allocate resources, it is difficult to
ensure that they continue to make the same progress and gains as their White peers.
All four principals reported that changing the curriculum program and
creating a new instructional vision in which school-wide implementation of research
based strategies, developing a common language amongst teachers, pacing
instruction, and using time efficiently and effectively were critical in improving
student achievement. All four schools have curriculum adoptions aligned to the state
standards, but due to budget cuts math and language arts adoptions have been
delayed. However, site and some district funds have provided teachers with
professional development and materials in enhancing their instructional strategies in
reading, writing and math. Brain-based, research programs such as Thinking Maps,
Write from the Beginning, and Cognitively Guided Instruction (to name a few) have
been implemented school-wide. These programs engage staff in examining their
philosophy about teaching and learning, provide opportunities for teachers to
differentiate curriculum, and enable staff to collaborate and develop common
language and expectations about student work by analyzing student work samples.
In addition, all four schools in the study used time efficiently and effectively by
137
protecting instructional time and providing students with time to learn material
presented. Another factor that principals have control over and was found to be
utilized in this study was teacher assignment. Three of the four principals assigned
teachers based on the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses and dynamics of the team,
while another used teacher assignment as leverage for continued teamwork and
professional growth. However, one of the schools is challenged by correctly
assigning fully credentialed teachers in the area of English learner authorization, and
also has an achievement gap of 32% in language arts when comparing English
learners to White students. This finding suggests that factors within the control of
schools (instructional strategies, teacher assignment, instructional pacing and
curriculum) are effective in closing the achievement gap by developing common
language and common expectations of quality student work, mastery of learning, and
common definition of good instruction and can be done with limited resources.
In three of the four schools, formative assessments and data-based decision
making were integral to the improvement process. All schools have benchmark
assessments in reading, writing, and math. However, three of the four schools
administer, collect the data, and discuss the data school-wide and in grade level
PLCs. The fourth school did not have evidence of administering, collecting, or using
the data to drive instruction. Two of the three schools that administer, collect and
use the data to drive instruction have narrowed the achievement gap. In fact, English
learners outperform their White counterparts at Hibiscus ES. Of the three schools
that use formative assessments to drive instruction, one of the principals has not fully
138
understood the performance challenge, thus may not know how to use data to drive
instruction. However, this principal has the assistance of a RTI consultant to help
with the knowledge gap. In addition, two schools used a RTI consultant to help
guide the staff in developing common assessments that are administered every four
to six weeks to ensure that students are learning the skills and knowledge presented.
The results of the assessments are shared in grade level meetings and used to guide
instruction for the following week and unit. Interestingly, the school that did not use
data to drive instruction has had the highest growth in API over the last five years,
but upon closer analysis, has an achievement gap between English learners,
Hispanics, and socio-economically disadvantaged students. Thus, this finding
suggests that using formative data to drive instructional decisions is an effective
practice in closing the achievement gap.
Both research (Marzano, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; EdTrust, 2005;
Odden & Archibald, 2009) and the practitioners that were interviewed agree that on-
going, intensive professional development (PD) for principals and teachers is critical
to improving student outcomes. Odden and Archibald (2009) add that teachers need
to also understand their data from formative assessments to design instructional
programs to meet the needs of students and time during the school day to collaborate
for teachers and instructional coaches to meet about the instructional program. All
four principals stated that any available resources were used for staff development
and, if there were any resources that could be sustained in the fiscal crisis, staff
development would be their choice. The findings of the study reveal that each
139
school’s PD plan is largely dependent upon their district’s PD philosophy and degree
in which they support the school’s PD. In two of the schools, PD was decentralized
and contingent on the principal’s vision and resources available. The district in
which these two schools were located did not provide professional development for
their principals. In the other two schools, PD was somewhat centralized with support
and coordination between the sites and central office. The principals at these two
schools were also offered professional development, which was coordinated by the
central office. Despite the district’s support or lack of support for PD, each of the
principals believed that providing professional development in implementing
research based strategies and expecting the strategies to be implemented in every
classroom was essential to improving student achievement. With regard to time to
collaborate during the school day, each school had early release days for teachers to
analyze data and collaborate about instructional practices and to design curriculum.
However, district bargaining agreements provided parameters and limitations to
number of early release days to be used by the principal for this purpose. Therefore,
principals found it necessary to find creative ways to provide additional collaboration
time. These ranged from teacher discretion to find the time, creating school
programs such as school-wide reading buddies or Friday assemblies, principals
instructing classes, or substitute release days. Three of the four schools did not have
instructional coaches. However, one did have a part-time instructional coach and
two of the four schools in the study had a partnership with the Kotsen Foundation to
140
provide staff development stipends. This finding supports the literature that
improving teacher quality does improve student achievement for all students.
Three of the four schools used time efficiently and effectively by allocating
large blocks of time for reading and math instruction. In addition, two of the four
schools implemented RTI and provided 50 minutes of targeted reading instruction
and the students’ instructional level by grouping students into intensive, strategic,
benchmark, or advanced. An area of weakness for all four schools in the study was
the class size in kindergarten through third grade. Each of the schools was unable to
maintain 20:1 class size due to budget reductions and was 60% to 2x larger than the
prototypical class size for those grades. It will be interesting to analyze spring 2011
and future CSTs to determine the impact of larger class sizes on student
achievement. Certainly, time is a fixed resource and one that is completely under the
control of school sites. Thus, further examination of how else to allocate time and
maximize time for student learning should be an area of focus.
A common area of weakness among the four schools in the study was
providing extra support for struggling learners. Although each of the principals
reported that this was an identified need, it was difficult to provide with shrinking
resources. Two of the schools still provided a district-wide summer school program.
The other two schools eliminated summer school for at-risk/struggling students in
summer 2009 and did not plan to reinstate summer school. In two of the schools,
small group instruction in self-contained classes was the extent of support for
struggling students. Additional supports such as grade level re-grouping and
141
availability of computer software program were also available, but limited to the
extent grade level teams implemented each of the supports. Two of the schools
implemented RTI in which students are leveled and grouped homogenously into
intensive, strategic, benchmark and extension/advanced groups for 50-minute
sessions, four times a week. Class sizes were lowered in the intensive and strategic
groups (though not at the allocations suggested by the research), and done so by
increasing class sizes for benchmark and extension/advanced groups. Parents, an
available resource at each of the schools, were utilized to assist the benchmark and
advanced classes with small group instruction and classroom management. One
school district continued to provide teachers with stipends to teach before school or
after school intervention classes. As student achievement expectations continue to
rise and resources continue to diminish, it will be interesting how underrepresented
groups will perform without the additional supports to provide extra time and
support to learn. Schools will need to examine the untapped resources available in
their schools, i.e. parents, community groups, volunteers, interns, student teachers,
etc. to seek creative ways to lower class sizes, provide before school and after school
interventions, counseling, and tutoring for students who are struggling.
The literature (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; DuFour et al., 2006;
Fullan, 2003; Reeves, 2005) describes professional learning communities as a factor
in improving student outcomes. All four schools have implemented professional
learning communities, but with varying degrees of implementation over the last five
years. Additionally, all schools have allocated time during the workday to allow
142
teachers to collaborate, discuss student data results, and plan instruction with a
minimum of two times a month. One school (Rose ES) not only provides weekly
collaboration time, but also has also coordinated increased collaboration by
providing release time, teachers observing one another, and using teacher
assignments as leverage for collaboration which has resulted in her teachers scoring
within 1-2% of one another on district-wide assessments. Thus, the finding suggests
that not only is collaboration a factor in improving student achievement, but also the
frequency (how often) and depth of collaboration conversations (using data, sharing
and observing instructional practices, and analyzing student work) are crucial to
improving instructional practices and student outcomes.
Finally, widespread and distributed instructional leadership and
implementing best research practices from every level (classified, certificated,
administrators, and central office staff) tie all the improvement efforts implemented
at the school level together. All four schools in the study have some form of
leadership team that guided and monitored the educational reform process that was
implemented in each of the schools. The leadership teams included the principal,
certificated staff, classified staff, parents, and community members and met
frequently to discuss data from assessments and from PLC teams, strategies for
improvement, professional development needs, and progress towards goals. In two
of the schools (Mum and Rose), central office coordinated and facilitated support of
the school’s improvement process by providing funding for release days,
professional development plans for principals and teachers, and coordination of
143
benchmark assessments and use of data to drive instruction. This was in contrast to
Hibiscus and Marigold ES who did not have central office support and coordination
and were expected to facilitate and fund the improvement process through all stages.
With regard to implementing best practices, two schools (Mum and Rose) were in a
district that had indicators of a highly professional organization, which includes
seeking research about how to improve schools, seeking best practices from other
schools and districts that were improving the outcomes for students, and seeking the
top experts in reading, mathematics, professional development and continuous
improvement. Some examples include professional development and expertise from
Austin Buffum, a leader in PLCs, and speakers on topics such as brain-based
learning, gifted and talented education, and Response to Intervention. This finding
suggests further research is needed on the role of the central office in support student
achievement and how they can help to link resources to student achievement.
Resource Allocation Compared to EBM
Based upon California’s current fiscal crisis, it is not surprising that the
schools sampled in this study have large discrepancies in resource allocations when
compared to the Odden and Picus (2008) Evidence Based Model. In each of the
schools, non-instructional support for English learners and instructional assistants for
special education services was more than suggested in the EBM. In fact, the EBM
does not allocate non-instructional support for ELs nor does it mention instructional
assistants for special education services. These allocations are district-wide
decisions. Resource allocation at the district level and examining how central office
144
staff makes decisions about site and district level allocations is an area needed for
further study. However, every resource examined in the EBM is severely
underfunded in the sample schools.
All of the schools included in this study had larger populations, and
significantly fewer core teachers, specialists, instructional facilitators/mentors, tutors
for struggling students, teachers for ELs, extended day, summer school teachers, and
librarians/media specialists. Should each school have the resource allocation of core
teachers, the total number of core teachers for all four schools would be 142.48
FTEs; instead, there are only 90 FTEs allocated as core teachers. When analyzing
the resource allocation of all other personnel who support students, these were
practically non-existent in each of the schools. Although the staff resources are
severely lacking when compared to the EBM, the lack of funding at each of the
schools are even more alarming. The funding used to provide resources for gifted
students, technology, instructional materials, student activities, and professional
development were significantly underfunded. The amount underfunded for each
school ranged between $276,154 to $439,227. However, parent donations and
financial support narrowed the gap in funding in each of the schools, particularly in
the areas of technology, student activities, and professional development. During
each of the principal interviews, each one commented on having more resources for
professional development as the number one need.
Based upon the data collected and the principal interviews, schools can
employ a variety of research-based strategies that cost relatively little. However, if
145
education is truly going to maintain its promise of providing a rigorous education for
all and expect high levels of achievement for all students, policymakers and
practitioners will need to work together to identify additional resources and programs
needed to ensure each student receives an adequate education. While each of the
schools has implemented strategies that have proven to improve student
achievement, each has done so to varying degrees. Thus, there continues to be an
achievement gap between underrepresented groups and White students.
Impact of Fiscal Crisis
In February 2009, as part of a comprehensive budget package to close
California’s $42 billion budget shortfall, the Legislature provided that 40 of the
state’s 65 categorical grant programs would be “combined” into one large block
grant for enhanced flexibility on the part of schools districts (EdSource, 2010b). As
a result, school districts have had to make difficult decisions to remain in qualified or
positive budget status. These decisions include reducing the number of instructional
days for students in the form of furlough days, reducing staff by laying off both
classified and certificated personnel in the form of increased class sizes, salary
decreases, and reducing the funding allocations to school sites. Additional budget
cuts include cuts to programs such as supports for struggling students, summer
school, curriculum adoptions and professional development. Each of the principals
reported that the budget crisis have limited their control over budget decisions,
resource use and allocations, and have made it challenging to provide an adequate
146
education for their students. The 2010/2011 school year will be a telling sign of how
these budget reductions have impacted student achievement.
Limitations
The investigator of this study limited the sample to four elementary schools
in Southern California who did not receive Title I funding and have English
Learners, Hispanic, and socio-economically disadvantaged students who each
account for less than 35% of the student population, therefore are not significant
subgroups within the school. Data were collected between September 2010 and
November 2010. Hence, it is difficult to generalize to other schools. The choice of
schools studied is also limited by the willingness of principals of the schools to
participate in the study. Originally six schools met the criterion sampling, but two
principals opted not to participate. However, the instructional and non-instructional
strategies identified in the study can be generalized to other schools.
The research instruments used in the study included analysis of documents
and open and closed-ended interviews. The limitation of the first instrument is that
only those documents that schools are willing to provide will be available for
analysis. The limitation of the second instrument was based on interviews of the
principal and how thoroughly he/she revealed all the pertinent information.
Regardless of the limitations, the study will reveal aspects of effective resource
allocation strategies that are implemented at these schools and can be replicated in
other school sites.

147
Recommendations for Future Research
As the measure of adequate yearly progress for underrepresented groups in
NCLB legislation begins its steep ascension towards 100% proficiency by 2014,
schools and districts will begin finding themselves in PI status even though some
schools do not have significant populations of ELs, socio-economically
disadvantaged and ethnically diverse students. As the NCLB proficiency targets
increase each year, it is important that policymakers, practitioners, and researchers
have a common vision and strategies to improve student achievement. Part of this
conversation includes discussion about resource allocation at the site, district, and
state levels to meet the increasing demands of educating one of the most challenging
student populations.
This study adds to the research by Odden and Picus (2008) on how schools
allocate resources to improve student performance. The sample population included
four elementary schools that have demonstrated increases in API over the last five
years, have API over 900, and have subgroups of students performing above the
AYP targets. While all four schools have implemented the ten strategies to improve
student achievement, more research is needed to determine the effect size and
percentile gain of each of the ten strategies and each of the resources described in the
EBM. By doing so, practitioners are better informed on which strategies to
implement with fidelity, which strategies to implement first, and which strategies to
allocate limited resources towards to produce greater gains in student achievement.
Picus (Lecture, 2009) argues that school leaders must decide how to allocate
148
resources and that cost analysis is rare and difficult to do in education, but in these
difficult financial times, is necessary. With dwindling resources, it is necessary for
researchers and practitioners to compare costs and given outcomes and to share these
results with policymakers to inform them about how to fund education. Marzano’s
(2003) research on instructional strategies that affect student achievement provides a
model that illustrates an average effect size of each strategy and student’s percentile
gain on achievement tests.
Additionally, most of the research on educational adequacy and resource use
and allocation has been at the site level. However, as resources become more scarce,
site level administrators have fewer decision-making over the resources allocated
with the exception of time. Therefore, expanding this body of knowledge to examine
how districts allocate limited resources to schools and use resources is necessary to
determine where the greatest needs are in the district, inform district staff on how to
allocate resources to areas of needs, and to expand research about the role of the
central office in linking resources to student achievement. What resources would a
prototypical district have? This can be a challenge since the state funding allocations
differ for elementary districts, high school districts, and unified districts. Therefore,
research may include what a prototypical elementary, high school, and unified
district would be and would include. This can serve to inform district and union
leaders and community members in examining its past practices, which include
language in bargaining agreements, practices that impact equity and adequacy at the
district level, and ultimately, student achievement. For example, is it necessary for
149
each of the schools in the study to have non-instructional support for ELs and
instructional assistants for special education services instead of certificated tutors for
ELs and struggling learners? In addition, this information may inform policymakers
to examine its education codes and legislation that may avert resources from what
research says is best practice.
Conclusion
California is in the midst of one of the most challenging times in education
marked by increasing demands to improve student achievement with fewer resources
and with one of the most challenging student populations. Recent budget cuts to
education have reduced spending to 2004/2005 levels (EdSource, 2009b) and
additional cuts are planned within the next few years. Yet the proficiency targets set
forth by NCLB continue to be mandated at the school and district level. Although
some argue that schools are overfunded or fail to utilize its resources to produce
different outcomes for students, the need to provide a rigorous, adequate educate
remains (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Hanushek, 2006; Lindseth, 2006; Odden &
Archibald, 2009).
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance and Odden
and Picus’s (2008) Evidence Based Model are frameworks that provide school
leaders with an approach to increase student achievement. The schools in the study
have implemented all ten strategies to a degree and with various levels of success in
improving student outcomes for ELs, Hispanics, and socio-economic disadvantaged
students. However, the current fiscal crisis in California have prohibited the schools
150
in fully implementing all the strategies and in allocating resources suggested by the
EBM. School leaders have had to make arduous decisions about where to place
time, energy, and resources with regard to implementing, sustaining or eliminating
strategies, resources, programs or personnel.
The findings of this study suggest that high performing schools implement
research-based strategies to increase student outcomes for ELs, Hispanic, and socio-
economically disadvantaged students. Furthermore, strategies that may be weaker at
the school level may be mitigated with increased support and direction from the
central office. Increased monitoring of underrepresented populations, ambitious
goals for subgroups of students, frequent use of data and depth of collaborative
conversations about student outcomes and instructional practices are among the
initiatives that can be implemented with little to no cost and can improve student
outcomes. Furthermore, professional development for both administrators and
teachers in implementation of research-based practices and the expectation that these
practices are implemented in every classroom in every school increases student
achievement for all students. As school revenues and resources diminish,
researchers and practitioners will need to examine the effect size and percentile gains
of each of the strategies and resources described in the EBM to better inform
policymakers and practitioners about how to fund education and allocate resources.

151
REFERENCES
Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns
and new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 16(4), 375-390.
Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in
school funding. The Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3),
259-287.
Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related
to state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational
Laboratory Midwest at Learning Point Associates.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). (Brown I)
California Department of Education. (2007). Reading/language arts framework for
California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento,
CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2009). 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.
California Department of Education. (2009). The Williams case- An explanation.
Retrieved November 1, 2009 at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp.
California Department of Education. (2009). 2008-09 Accountability progress
reporting (APR): State chart 2009 Adequate Yearly Reporting (AYP) Report.
Retrieved March 6, 2010 at
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2009/2009APRStAYPChart.aspx.
California Department of Education. (2010). Glossary of Terms. Retrieved March 1,
2010 at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp#cbeds.
California Department of Education. (2010). Enrollment data 2009-10. Retrieved
November 12, 2010 at
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SearchName.asp?rbTimeFrame=oneyear&rYe
ar=2009-
10&cName=lee&Topic=Enrollment&Level=School&submit1=Submit
152
California Department of Finance. (2010). Governor’s Budget 2010-2011. Retrieved
March 1, 2010 at
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/6010/agency.html.
Chambers, J., & Levin, J. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part II: Resource
adequacy and efficiency. In PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California
education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 27-50). Berkeley, CA: Policy
Analysis for California Education.
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007). Efficiency and adequacy in
California school finance: A professional judgment approach. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Cross, C.T. (2004). The Kennedy and Johnson years. In Political Education (pp. 15-
40). New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1999). Investing in teaching
as a learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. School
Administrator, 60(5), 13-18.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., and Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, ID:
Solution Tree.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Education Data Partnership. (2010). State of California Profile. Retrieved from
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile.asp%3Flevel
%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16.
EdSource, (2000). Understanding school finance: California’s complex K-12 system.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.

153
EdSource. (2009). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009). Revenues for K-12 education come from multiple sources.
Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/data_revenues-k12-multple-sources.html.
EdSource. (2009). School finance 2008-2009: Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010). Glossary of Terms. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010). Categorical funding for 2007-08 and 2009-10. Mountain View,
CA: Author. Retrieved on April 7, 2010 from
http://www.edsource.org/data_09-10_categoricals.html.
EdSource. (2010). Resource cards on California education. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
EdSource. (2010). School finance 2009-10: Budget cataclysm and its aftermath.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010). How does California’s education spending compare with that of
other states? Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_FAQ_cacompares.html.
EdSource. (2010). History. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_history.html
EdTrust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools
accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: The Education
Trust. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/6226B581-83C3-4447-9CE7-
31C5694B9EF6/0/GainingTractionGainingGround.pdf.
Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State of California, et al. (2004)
Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did
the $800 million go? The first year of New Jersey's Quality Education Act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-374.

154
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Grubb, W.N., Goe, L., Huerta, L.A. (2004). The unending search for equity:
California policy, the improved school finance, and the Williams case.
Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2081-2101.
Guthrie, J. W. (2001). Constructing new finance models that balance equity,
adequacy and efficiency with responsiveness. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.
Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation:
National trends and state policies. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student
performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2),
141-164.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit
judges’ good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: 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.
Hatami, H. (2006). Rules and resources: The evolving context for school reform. In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform
(pp. 1-14). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6),
6-11.
Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the costs of adequacy in California public schools: A
cost function approach. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 90-108.
Jennings, J.F. (2000). Title I: Its legislative history and its promise. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(7), 516-522.
Johnson, R. S. (2002) Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Kirst, M. (2006). Evolution of California state school finance with implications from
other states. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and
Practice, Stanford University.
155
Legislative Analyst Office. (2010). Proposition 98 and K-12 Education. Sacramento,
CA: Author. Retrieved on April 3, 2010 from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/analysis.aspx?year=2010&chap=0&toc=4.
Legislative Analyst Office. (2010). Year-one survey: Update on school district
finance and flexibility. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved on May 16, 2010
from http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2266.
Library of Congress. (2005). Special education law overview: Structure, funding,
controversial issues. Congressional Digest, 84(1), 6-8, 32-34.
Lindseth, A. A. (2006). The legal backdrop to adequacy. In E. Hanushek (Ed.),
Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions
and harm our children (pp. 33-78). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McDonnell, L.M. (2005). No child left behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card: Reading
2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). 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. (2010). 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 Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
Oakes, J. (2004). Investigating the claims in Williams v. State of California: An
unconstitutional denial of education’s basic tools? Teachers College Record,
106(10), 1889-1906.
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(2), 120-125.

156
Odden, A. R. (2009). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al.
(2005). An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming's block grant
school funding formula. Prepared for the Wyoming Legislative Select
Committee on Recalibration. Lawrence O. Picus & Associates. North
Hollywood, CA.
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. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Office of the Secretary of Education. (2010). 2009-2010 Budget highlights: K-12.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ose.ca.gov/budget/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Picus, L.O. “Education as a Production Process: The costs and benefits of
alternatives.” University of Southern California, Lecture. Irvine, CA. 13
October 2009.
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.
Powers, J.M. (2004). High-stakes accountability and equity: Using evidence from
California’s public schools accountability act to address the issues in
Williams v. State of California. American Educational Research Journal,
80(3), 126-153.

157
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.
Rebell, M.A., Wolff, J.R., & Yaverbaum, D.A. (2010). Stimulating equity? A
preliminary analysis of the impact of the federal stimulus act on educational
opportunity. New York: Teachers College.
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning
Organizations. Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn Press.
Ryan, J.E. (2004). The tenth amendment and other paper tigers: The legal
boundaries of education governance. In N. Epstein (Ed.), Who’s In Charge
Here? (pp. 42-74). Education Commission of the States.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3
rd
584 (1971).
Serrano II 18 Cal 3
rd
728 (1976).
Sonstelie, J. (2007). Aligning school finance with academic standards: A weighted
student formula based on a survey of practitioners. Stanford, CA: Institute
for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Smith, T.E.C. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process.
Remedial and Special Education 26(6), 314-319.
Stronge, J. H. (ed.) (2006). Evaluating teaching: a guide to current thinking and
best practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Timar, T. B. (1994). Politics, policy, and categorical aid: New inequities in
California school finance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(2), 143-160.
Timar, T. B. (2002). You can't always get what you want: School governance in
California. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education,
and Access.
Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley,
CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California-
Berkeley.
Timar, T. (2005). Exploring the limits of entitlement: Williams v. State of
California. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 126-153.

158
Timar, T. B. (2006). How California Funds K-12 Education. Davis, CA: Institute for
Research on education Policy and Practice, University of California, Davis.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S.E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington,
DC: The First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). 10 facts about K-12 education funding.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary.
Washington, DC: Author.
West Orange Cove Consolidated Independent School District et al. v. Shirley
Neeley, Commissioner of Education, et al., No. GV-100528 in the 250th
District Court of Travis County, Texas.
159
APPENDIX A
EMAIL INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
Initial Email:
Dear Ms. Principal,
Thank you for responding back. Allow me to further introduce myself and provide
some very brief background on the topic of my dissertation. I am a student in the
USC doctoral program. Thanks for allowing me to contact you about the possibility
of studying your school.

I am involved in a thematic study on allocating educational resources to double
student performance. We are conducting a mixed methods study, using both
qualitative and quantitative data. We will be using Odden and Picus' Adequacy
Model as well as Odden's 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance as my
framework. Both the state of Wyoming and Washington use Picus and Odden’s
Evidence-based Adequacy model as the framework for funding their state
educational system. Your school is one of six local schools that have similar
demographics. I am looking at elementary schools in OC that have relatively small
Hispanic populations (less than 35%), small Free and Reduced lunch (less than 35%)
and small EL (less than 35%). I would very much appreciate being able to use
Hibiscus Elementary School as a school to study. Every school used will be kept
completely confidential and pseudo-names will be used to adhere to strict
confidential rules stipulated by USC. Only I will know the actual names of the
schools used. The only thing I'd need from you to be able to make this work is an
interview (and possible questionnaire filled out) with you at some point near the start
of next school year (probably early fall). Right now, I'm starting chapters 1 -3 of my
dissertation and I'm going to have my qualifying exams on those chapters in the
middle of August. Once the qualifying exams are approved, I will be allowed to
collect my data. It would be sometime after that date that I would need to interview
you and request documents that is readily available (i.e. staffing, class
size/enrollment, etc). The interview may be a couple of hours but we can divide it
up over a couple of days, whatever is your preference. I will not need to interview
other staff members, observe lessons, etc.

Please let me know if you would be comfortable with me studying Hibiscus. I look
forward to hearing from you.

Cynthia Guerrero

160
Follow-Up Email:
Dear Ms. Principal,

I hope your school year has been successful thus far. Congratulations on your STAR
testing growth for spring 2010. I had contacted you towards the end of last school
year to request your support in my doctoral dissertation. I am contacting you now to
set up a brief meeting to discuss the project and collect data from a sample of schools
on resource allocation and the school improvement process.

Please let me know your availability this month to meet with you for about an hour
and a half. In addition I would like to request the following documents to help me
prepare for our meeting:

• staff list/roster
• school bell schedule & calendar
• school budget print out (budgeted dollar amount for all consultants other than
for professional development)
• class size/enrollment for each class
• professional development budget: substitutes, stipends, consultants/trainers,
travel, materials, equipment, facilities, tuition/conference registration fees,
and any other professional development costs
• Single School Plan
• budget reduction cuts
I look forward to speaking with you. In advance, I thank you for your time in
helping me finish this journey.

Cynthia Guerrero

161
APPENDIX B
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED FROM SCHOOLS
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.

162
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.
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.

163
APPENDIX C
SCHOOL VISIT/INTERVIEW DATES
School 1 Hibiscus Elementary School October 27, 2010
School 2 Marigold Elementary School November 4, 2010
School 3 Mum Elementary School November 15, 2010
School 4 Rose Elementary School November 5, 2010

164
APPENDIX D
LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS PROVIDED BY PARTICIPATING
SCHOOLS
1. SARC (School Accountability Report Card)
2. SSPSA (Single 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

165
APPENDIX E
DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

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

166
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.
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.

167
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.
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)
168
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.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
169
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.

170
VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs),
which may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide
instruction in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education
teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director,
which would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.

VIII. Library Staff

Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the
FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member
is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians
or media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

171
IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special
needs, to learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that
these teachers deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the
regular classroom. Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents
(FTEs), which may include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE
counts. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered
in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0
FTE in that category.
A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-
5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-
5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title
I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language
(ESL) classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach
them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students
in the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program
for the 2008-09 school year
172
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.
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.
173
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.

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.)

174
XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development
of a school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it.
Professional development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents
(FTEs), and cost figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which
may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to
the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff
member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract:
Number of days the teacher contract specifies for professional
development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional
development. For time outside the regular contract day when students are
not present before or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half
days or early release days, the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying
the teachers’ hourly salary times the number of student-free hours used
for professional development. For planning time within the regular
contract, the dollar amount is calculated as the cost of the portion of the
salary of the person used to cover the teachers’ class during planning time
used for professional development. For other time during the regular
school day, including release time provided by substitutes, cost is
calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school day,
including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on
the hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their
time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional
facilitators and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district
coaches (though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded).
Outside consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an
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).
175
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.
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.)
176
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.
177
APPENDIX F
OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL SCHOOL SITES
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on
this protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on
getting the key elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis
on the process aspect.
I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has 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?

178
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part
of your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction,
differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading
instruction)
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
• How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?

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

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

2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?

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
179

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?

180
APPENDIX G
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number
Address
City State CA
Zip
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:

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

181
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 Superintendent
Honorific First Name
Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

182
District Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

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:

183
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:

184
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:

185
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds $
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal
Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

186
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:
187
Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs $
NOTES:

Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time) $
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants $
Administration
Travel $
Materials, Equipment and Facilities $
Tuition & Conference Fees $
Other Professional Development $
Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

188
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:

189
Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

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

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6

190
APPENDIX H
CASE STUDIES: HIBISCUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Hibiscus Elementary is a preschool through 5
th
grade school that does not
receive any Title I funding. There are six preschool special day classes on campus in
addition to two K-2 special day classes for moderate to severe and mild to moderate
students. Hibiscus Elementary serves a population of 674 general education students
and 32 special day class students. Built in 1974 and modernized in 2005, Hibiscus
Elementary is located in a neighborhood community of mostly single-family homes.
Within the past four years, the enrollment has grown as a result of an increase in
inter-district transfers from a neighboring school district. With a large population of
special day classes, Hibiscus Elementary has a large staff that provides Discrete Trial
Training/Applied Behavior Analysis to many of the preschool students. These
services operate under the district’s pupil services division and are not necessarily
part of the school-staffing ratio.
The district, with an API of 889, is an elementary district comprised of seven
elementary schools and two middle schools, which then feed to the local high school
district. The district has been serving its students for over one hundred years, thus
has a long history within the city and with its residents. Many parents in the
community also attended the school and district as children; some former students
now work for the district as a teacher or in some other capacity. As a result, the
culture of the district is steeped in traditions and “this is the way we have always
done things” mentality making change very slow.
191
Hibiscus Elementary School serves a relatively homogenous population.
However, upon closer examination, there exist small populations of subgroups. The
primary ethnic subgroups are White (70%), Hispanic (13%), two or more races (7%),
Asian (8%), Pacific Islander (1%) and Filipino (1%). There are 28 (4.2%) students
identified as English Learners (EL) based on the No Child Left Behind definition and
33 (5%) are identified as socio-economically disadvantaged (SED). Of the 674
students enrolled at Hibiscus Elementary, thirty-three (5%) are classified as special
education students in K-5. Preschool special education students are not included for
this case study. Figure H1 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of all students at
Hibiscus Elementary.
Figure H1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Hibiscus Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Hibiscus Elementary School. As shown in Figure H2,
since 2006, Hibiscus has experienced a 36-point increase on the state’s
192
accountability system, or Academic Performance Index. The 2008/2009 and
2009/2010 school years demonstrated breakthrough performance. The principal
attributes the growth to the implementation of a common language and common
focus in curriculum and instructional strategies that was implemented school-wide.
More specifically, she attributes the breakthrough growth to three-year
implementation of Thinking Maps and Write from the Beginning that has positively
impacted students’ writing and reading comprehension as well as providing
increased access to technology to produce innovation in instructional practices, and
implementing common assessments to monitor student progress.
Figure H2: Hibiscus Elementary School’s API

Hibiscus Elementary experiences high performance in student achievement
and has narrowed the achievement gap between English Learners, Hispanic students,
and socio-economically disadvantaged students when compared to their White
counterparts. When compared to White peers, 92.9% of English Learners are
proficient and above, while only 86% of White students are scoring proficient and
above on the English Language Arts (ELA) CSTs. They also outperform White
193
students by 2.7% on Mathematics CSTs. Hispanic students are within 5% of White
peers on ELA CSTs and within 11% on Mathematics CSTs. The greatest gap exists
for socio-economically disadvantaged students who lag behind their White peers by
11% in ELA and 20.5% in Mathematics. Although the subgroups of students are
relatively small, the school addresses the needs of the subgroups and is experiencing
positive results as shown in Figure H3 and Figure H4.
Figure H3: Language Arts AYP, Hibiscus Elementary

194
Figure H4: Math AYP, Hibiscus Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Hibiscus Elementary was built in 1974 and has recently undergone
modernization in 2005. The school has had three principals within the last eight
years. The two prior principals had only been there for two years. One was disliked
by the staff, while the other principal had done nothing to implement and monitor
instruction due to a pending retirement. The current principal has been there for four
years.
Prior to the current principal’s arrival, the staff at Hibiscus Elementary had
been completely autonomous with regard to curriculum and instruction, and still
maintained community support. The experienced staff had the district’s adopted
curriculum but more often than not followed their own curriculum using Frank
Schaffer theme related worksheets. There was no school-wide implementation of
any instructional program, thus, the school was not maximizing instruction to
195
increase expectations for students. Assessments were given only to report to the
district, which included the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS) given three times a year, the end of year writing prompt, and end
of year math assessment.
During her first year, the principal’s instructional vision was not to purchase
any new program or implement a new initiative, but rather to use the adopted
curriculum and implement it with fidelity. During the second year, the staff was
pleading to implement other programs that the surrounding schools had been raving
about, such as Thinking Maps. She brought the program in and had 100% buy in
from the staff because it had been so long since they had any professional
development. As a result, the staff began to have a common language about
instruction, common expectations, and common instructional practices. The
principal states that the instructional vision can be summarized as an ongoing
combination of strategy and re-evaluation of data to let the staff know where to go
next. By looking at the big picture of learning behaviors of students and the climate
in the school and classrooms, there has been a huge shift in higher expectations for
all students.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
Annually, the principal and the school site council team analyze CST test
results. Data are disaggregated by subgroup, by teacher, and by grade level.
Additionally, data are analyzed longitudinally and disaggregated by teacher and
cohort of students. At the beginning of the year, the principal meets with each
196
teacher to review scores from the previous students as well as how the current year’s
students performed. She also identifies subgroups and students at-risk in the current
class. By second trimester, the principal has a discussion with each teacher
regarding individual students who are not making sufficient progress towards end of
year standards to discuss potentials for Student Study Team meetings. The principal
and teacher discuss trends by subtests, trends in the grade level, and school-wide
trends.
District trimester assessments are administered in reading, writing and
mathematics. These serve as a general curriculum-pacing guide in that teachers must
teach the units to be assessed each trimester. However, there is no evidence of site
or district curriculum pacing and mapping to ensure that all students are receiving the
stated curriculum.
Set Ambitious Goals
Four goals are included in Hibiscus’s Single School Plan. They include goals
to address English Language Arts, Mathematics, English Language Development,
and Technology. It is stated that at least 83% of students will meet or exceed
English Language Arts grade level standards and 100% of students will meet or
exceed Mathematics standards as evidenced on CSTs and criterion-based
assessments. Annually, English Learners will increase one proficiency level as
measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). In
addition, staff will be trained in implementing technology to enhance instructional
197
strategies. Currently, 85.7% of students are meeting and exceeding the ELA CSTs;
thus, a goal exists that has already been surpassed.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The district adoptions for mathematics and language arts have been delayed
due to the budget crisis. Houghton Mifflin Mathematics was adopted in 2008, but
was never purchased or implemented as allowed by the state’s categorical flexibility.
Furthermore, Houghton Mifflin language arts adoption had sunset in 2009. In order
to address the lag in adoption cycles, the district submitted a state waiver and
upgraded its materials with the publishers Medallion series to address the gaps in
vocabulary development, English Learners, writing, and support for struggling
students. History/Social Science and Science adoptions are current.
In addition to the adopted curriculum, Hibiscus Elementary School has
enhanced instructional strategies in writing by implementing Thinking Maps and
Write from the Beginning for the last three years and Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to develop a common language for behavior
expectations. When the principal arrived, there was no evidence of differentiation in
the classroom. Teachers taught to the middle. Additional training and support were
provided to the GATE cluster teachers. As a result, the school has increased its
GATE students and increased its accountability for their performance to the students
and parents.
The principal also challenged the norm by changing teacher assignments to
develop stronger teams and assigning the strongest teachers with the most
198
challenging students and groups. Prior to this change in practice, teachers remained
in their grade level and parents had come to expect that when their child reached that
grade level, they would have particular teachers. With the increase in student
enrollment in the last three years, the principal has been able to hire new staff that
share her instructional vision.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The school follows the district’s assessment matrix, which includes trimester
assessments in language arts, mathematics, and writing. Hibiscus Elementary School
administers the district assessments in reading, language arts, writing, and
mathematics three times a year as summative assessments, but has also required
diagnostic assessments. The beginning of the year assessment, administered in
November, provides information on how a student progressed with the standards in
the first trimester. Mid-year assessments administered in March provide teachers a
measure of students’ progress towards grade level standards and proficiency after the
second trimester. End-of year assessments in May/June assist staff in identifying
which students have and have not mastered grade level standards.
Prior to the principal’s arrival, teachers only administered assessments to
report to the district, which were comprised of end of year assessments.
Assessments were not used to inform instructional practice. Under the direction of
the current principal, all trimester assessments are administered and data collected
and analyzed to monitor student progress. Initially, staff had been resistant to this
change due to the copying costs of the assessments. To overcome the resistance, the
199
principal provided each grade level with copies for each student. She states that it is
difficult for teachers not to implement Thinking Maps, Write from the Beginning,
and common assessments when they are getting good results. The principal
regularly takes a pulse of teacher conversations and expectations of students and
finds that teachers still assume that because a student is a struggling learner or is not
GATE, they lower their expectations. She is intentional about monitoring students
and that they are moving up and out of their performance band and has individual
conferences with teachers to discuss her assessment scores.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
The district supports the school’s professional development by providing
staff development for new adoptions, but this is done with publisher’s trainers rather
than district staff or other curriculum experts. As a result staff development for
newly adopted materials has been fragmented and lacks shared expectation for what
good instruction looks like. Due to budget reductions, eight furlough days were
implemented in 2010-2011, which reduced staff development days from three to one
day.
During the previous three years, a large investment of time and money were
spent on Thinking Maps and Write from the Beginning Training by using consultants
rather than a trainer of trainers model. This was intentional considering the type of
staff culture present at the school. The principal understood that the staff needed a
trainer with credibility and comprehensive knowledge of the program. The training
followed the implementation model suggested by the researchers for Thinking Maps
200
and Write from the Beginning, which included three years of staff training, follow-
up and walk-throughs. As a result, this instructional practice has been determined as
a non-negotiable. It is expected that each teacher demonstrate evidence of
implementation in the classroom and across curriculum areas. The principal stated
that this has shifted how grade level teachers plan and instruct in the classroom.
During the 2010/2011 school year, the school has focused on English
Learners by training all staff on Thinking Maps: Pathway to Proficiency which
builds upon the current training, but has now focused on vocabulary development for
all students. Thursdays are early release days that have been designated as training
days for Pathway to Proficiency for 2-hour time blocks. During staff meetings, a
portion of each meeting is allocated for professional development, discussion about
instructional practices related to Pathway to Proficiency training, and sharing sample
work.
Although there are no formal instructional coaches, the principal is beginning
to invest in a Trainer of Trainer model for Thinking Maps and Write from the
Beginning to continue to support the initiative. A new staff member or teacher who
has changed grade level assignment is sent to training through the company. Two
teachers attended the Mickelson Academy over the summer to improve science
instruction. Additionally, SMART Board training is offered through the county and
teachers attend on their own initiative. A next step is for all teachers to be trained in
using the Depth and Complexity icons and having teachers observe one another to
share instructional practices.
201
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Instructional time spent on reading instruction averaged 120 minutes per day,
math instruction averaged 60 minutes per day, and science and social studies
instruction averaged 4 times at 45 minutes each, or 180 minutes per week for each
content area.
Five years ago the staff audited their instructional time and re-adjusted the
bell schedule to allot for larger chunks of time for language arts instruction.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
There has been no additional support for struggling students. The principal
stated that students who are struggling are addressed by their grade levels and are re-
grouped for reading and math as needed. In the classroom, teachers pull students in
small groups to address the struggling learners. In K-2, Signs for Sounds program is
used for struggling students to develop phonics and phonemic awareness. For
students who are designated as being at-risk on district assessments, they receive
Earobics software curriculum four times a week for 20 minutes each and any
additional time when they visit the computer lab. There are no other supports for
struggling students. Due to budget reductions, summer school was eliminated for at-
risk students.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
Some teachers at Hibiscus Elementary have attended Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) conference to become introduced to and understand the
collaborative process. Based on the principal’s assessment, each grade level has
202
implemented the PLC concepts to varying degrees depending on the dynamics of the
grade level team members. This is an area that she continues to develop.
Additionally, Hibiscus ES has allocated time during the work day to alow
teachers to collaborate, discuss students data results, and plan instruction with a
minimum of two times a month. This has been done by extending the learning day
for students by an additional fifteen minutes on four of the school days, which allows
one day a week to be “early release” day. The district contract designates two
meetings per month that are designated as principal’s meetings, which can be used as
staff meetings, staff development, PLC time, etc. With the furlough days and lack of
time for professional development, these meetings have been restructured as training
days for Pathway to Proficiency rather than time for collaboration.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
Staff participates in formal leadership roles. Formal structures include grade
level team leaders who represent their respective grade level on the site’s leadership
team and school site council members who are made up of certificated staff,
classified staff, and parents. The leadership team meets 2-3x per year and is released
from their class by a substitute to analyze data, develop the Single School Plan, and
make instructional decisions.
Based on the principal’s comments, the improvement process is indirectly
guided by the central office. The central office invites principals to lead instructional
initiatives, but it is at the sole discretion of the principal whether or not to implement.
Site principals have guided their own instructional decisions with no expectation or
203
consistency from other principals in the district or from the central office.
Consequently, each site had become its own island and practices were isolated to the
site.
However, with recent hiring of four of seven new principals within the last
six years, principals have agreed to implement several initiatives to develop common
language and instruction for students and for teachers. An example has been the
implementation of Thinking Maps, Write from the Beginning, and PBIS at all seven
schools within the last four years.
Professional and Best Practices
At Hibiscus School, research based practices are brought about because of
the principal’s experience and knowledge from her previous district. There is little
direction from the central office in examining best practices or sharing best practices
from the schools within its district. As a result, best practices are isolated to
individual schools and classrooms.
Table H1 illustrates Odden & Archibald’s (2009) 10 strategies for doubling
student performance as they apply to Hibiscus school.

204
Table H1: Hibiscus and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

√
Data are analyzed and disaggregated by
subgroup. Principal conferences with each
teacher at the beginning of the year and
mid-year to discuss student progress. There
is no evidence of curriculum pacing guide
or mapping to ensure sequence of
instruction.
Set ambitious
goals

√
Goals address performance in language
arts, math, and English development.
However, the LA goal is less than where
students are currently performing.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

√

Curriculum and instruction has been
improved with the implementation of
common practices, common language, and
grade level reassignment of teachers to
better meet student needs.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

√
Diagnostic and summative assessments are
administered and collected each trimester.
Principal meets with each staff member to
discuss student progress twice a year. More
frequent assessments to target gaps in skills.
Ongoing PD

√
Staff development impacted by furlough
days and funding for staff development.
Early release Thursdays and staff meetings
are used for staff development. Prior to
2010/2011, all staff trained and supported
in Thinking Maps and Write from the
Beginning.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

√ Class instructional time is protected. Math
and reading instruction meets or exceeds
recommended time.
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

√
Support for struggling students is in small
group instruction during the school day.
No evidence of size of group and targeted
skill instruction to narrow gap. No other
supports exist for struggling students.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

√
No time allocated for developing
professional, collaborative culture. This
time is now used for staff development.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

√
Site leadership exists, but there is a
disconnect between the central office
direction and the school site.
Professional and
best practices

√

This was guided by the principal from
experience in former district.

205
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Hibiscus Elementary School employs some of Odden’s (2009) strategies to
double student performance and is beginning to address some of the areas of
weakness. However, the amount of resources allocated for the students is
significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model suggests. As a result of the
state’s fiscal crisis, the instructional days and resources for staff development have
been drastically reduced, especially when compared to the EBM, and has impacted
how the school has been restructured so that staff development may be provided in
some form or another. Table H2 demonstrates a comparison of the prototypical
school suggested by the EBM and HIbiscus Elementary School.
Table H2: Hibiscus and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Hibiscus School
Current Resource
Status
Hibiscus Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students Preschool-5
th
; 690
Without preschool,
K-5: 674
Preschool is not part
of EBM; 64% larger
than prototypical
school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 30
4-5: 32

K-3: 2x larger than
prototypical school
4-5: 28% larger
Instructional Days 190+ 10 days for
intensive PD training
175 instructional
days + 1 PD
24 less days- 9 less
PD, 15 less
instructional days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full day kindergarten
at 30:1
School has full day
kindergarten as
suggested by EBM;
although not at same
Class Size as
suggested

206
Table H2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Hibiscus School
Current Resource
Status
Hibiscus Based on
Prototypical Model
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1.6 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Office Mgr.
.5 FTE
Clerical/Office Tech
3.2 FTE suggested by
EBM; 1.7 less office
support
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 22 FTE core teachers 38.4 FTE suggested
by EBM; 16.4 less
FTEs
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers;
4.8 FTE
0.4 FTE specialist
teachers
7.68 FTE suggested
by EBM; less 7.28
FTE specialists
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
3.52 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.16
FTE
0 FTE TOSA -
Instruction
.59 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students; .43 FTE
0 FTE 0.28 FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE .07 FTE clerical
support at District
Office
.7 FTE more than
prototypical school
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 FTE .59 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE .59 FTE

207
Table H2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Hibiscus School
Current Resource
Status
Hibiscus Based on
Prototypical Model
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
3.0 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
1.0 FTE
Psychologist;
1.0 FTE Speech
Therapist
4.8 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
5.0 FTE -----
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$115/day

Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students; 2.16 FTE
.4 FTE Counselor
.375 FTE Health
Clerk
.28 FTE
recommended; school
has 0.50 FTE greater
than prototypical
school
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.2 FTE suggested by
EBM
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 5.5 FTE- special ed
aides
0.0 FTE; site has
more than
prototypical school
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .4 FTE Library
Media Technician
(non certificated)
1.6 FTE suggested by
EBM
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $2,200
Technology $250 per pupil $8,000 $168,500; lacking
$160,500 in resources
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $19,419 $94,360; lacking
$74,941 in resources
Student Activities $200 per pupil $31,150 (provided by
PTA)
$134, 800
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$13,000 $67,400

208
Summary and Lessons Learned
Hibiscus Elementary School continues to improve based on statewide
assessments, which demonstrates growth in overall student performance despite the
lack of resources in both personnel and resource allocation. When asked what
additional resources would be needed to continue and expand the improvement
process, the principal stated that additional money for staff development and
substitutes to release teachers to observe each other were key elements to improving
student achievement. Lessons learned from Hibiscus Elementary include:
• Prioritizing and providing staff development as a result of furlough
days
• Implementing common assessments and using data from them to hold
teachers accountable for all students
• Implementing common curriculum and instructional practices school-
wide
Future Considerations
Additional resources are needed to provide support for struggling students
during the school day, in extended day, and in summer school. These do not exist
currently. Nurturing a collaborative, professional culture is needed to further
enhance the learning experiences for students. This may be an opportunity for the
school to provide support for its struggling learners. Finally, stronger central office
direction and leadership on staff development and instructional practices is needed to
support the school site.
209
APPENDIX I
CASE STUDIES: MARIGOLD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Marigold Elementary School is a K-5 school nestled within a quiet,
residential neighborhood comprised of single-family homes in Southern California.
Built in 1975 and modernized in 2005, the school operates on a traditional school
calendar and serves 519 students as well as the phonological preschool program.
The district, with an API of 889, is an elementary district comprised of seven
elementary schools and two middle schools, which then feed to the local high school
district. The district has been serving its students for over one hundred years, thus
has a long history within the city and with its residents. Many parents in the
community also attended the school and district as children; some former students
now work for the district as a teacher or in some other capacity. As a result, the
culture of the district is steeped in traditions and “this is the way we have always
done things” mentality making change very slow. In 2005, a school closure changed
boundaries, which added students to Marigold Elementary and forced its staff and
community to re-examine its culture.
Marigold Elementary School serves a relatively homogenous population.
However, upon closer examination, there exist small populations of subgroups. The
primary ethnic subgroups are White (75%), Hispanic (13%), two or more races (6%),
and Asian (5%). There are 17 (3%) students identified as English Learners (EL)
based on the No Child Left Behind definition and 38 (7%) are identified as socio-
economically disadvantaged (SED). Of the 519 students enrolled at Marigold
210
Elementary, 4% are classified as special education students. Figure I1 illustrates the
ethnic breakdown of all students at Marigold Elementary.
Figure I1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Marigold Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Marigold Elementary School. As shown in Figure I2, since
2006, Marigold has experienced a 44-point increase on the state’s accountability
system, or Academic Performance Index. The 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 school
years demonstrated breakthrough performance. The principal attributes the growth
to change in staff due to retirements. More specifically, she attributes the
breakthrough growth to three-year implementation of Thinking Maps and Write from
the Beginning that has positively impacted students’ writing and reading
comprehension.

211
Figure I2: Marigold Elementary School’s API

Although Marigold Elementary experiences high performance in student
achievement, there are subgroups that are lagging behind the White subgroup and
school-wide performance. In 2010 only 58.3% of EL students were proficient and
advanced in mathematics, which is a 26% lag when compared to their White peers.
In language arts, only 58% to 63% of EL students score proficient and advanced on
the CSTs, which is 26-point gap when compared to their White counterparts. The
gap is less staggering for Hispanics who are 72.3% proficient and advanced while
their White peers are 84.8% proficient and advanced in language arts. In math, there
is less of a gap between Hispanics and their White peers of 11%. The greatest gap
exists for students who are identified as socio-economically disadvantaged (SED)
with a 23% gap in language arts and a 34% gap in mathematics. Although the
subgroups of students are relatively small, an achievement gap continues to exist
when compared to the performance of White peers as shown in Figure I3 and Figure
I4.
212
Figure I3: Language Arts AYP, Marigold Elementary

Figure I4: Math AYP, Marigold Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Marigold Elementary was built in 1975 and has recently undergone
modernization in 2005. The current principal has been there less than a year due to
the retirement of the previous principal who had been there for eight years. The
213
interview for the case study was conducted with the previous principal who had more
knowledge of the improvement process. Throughout the case study the former
principal will be referred to as “the principal.”
Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization (2006) served as the foundation of the principal’s instructional vision
and leadership style. She believed that changing a person’s mental model and belief
system as well as being a systems thinker were key to the instructional improvement
process. She also engaged the staff and community in developing a shared vision,
which is now called “The Marigold Way.” Evidence of “The Marigold Way”
continues despite the change in leadership.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
Annually, the principal and the school site council team analyze CST test
results. Data are disaggregated by subgroup, including by gender. At the beginning
of the year, the principal meets with each teacher to review scores from the previous
students as well as how the current year’s students performed. Other than analyzing
CST results annually, data are not reviewed regularly. There is no evidence of
curriculum mapping and sequencing curriculum other than what is suggested by the
district assessment matrix.
Set Ambitious Goals
The current principal at Marigold Elementary has set very ambitious goals
with 100% of students meeting and exceeding English Language Arts, Mathematics
and Science. Annually, English Learners are expected to grow one CELDT level
214
each year; however, there is no mention of expectations for English Learners or their
growth on the California Standards Test. Furthermore, there is no mention of
subgroup goals except for students with disabilities. In addition, there are a total of
eleven goals on the annual school plan addressing areas such as increasing reading
comprehension, written expression, physical fitness; exposing students to the visual
and performing arts; increasing use of technology, and decreasing discipline
referrals.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The principal at Marigold Elementary developed a shared vision with the
community and staff. Based on the shared vision, the staff was empowered to stay
focused, in her words, “Know your business and stick to it!” and was able to “get rid
of the fluff.” Practices that were implemented as a result included saying no to
outside intrusions, knowing and communicating boundaries and responsibilities of
the school and home, protecting classroom time from interruptions, taking stock of
how students are spending their time, examining student work as a staff while using
a protocol to guide the discussion of what quality work, and requiring bell-to-bell
instruction.
Within the last five years, grade level teams developed common routines that
are expected. One such example is the agreement that all K-2 teachers would
implement guided reading and 3rd-5
th
grade teachers would implement reciprocal
teaching strategies during reading. Other instructional strategies that have been
implemented and continue to be sustained even with the change in leadership are
215
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI), Write from the Beginning, and Thinking
Maps. When the current principal arrived, he asked his staff what they were most
proud of and wanted to keep and what they would like changed; overwhelmingly, the
staff advocated to sustain CGI, Write from the Beginning, Thinking Maps,
Reciprocal Teaching and Guided Reading. Although these instructional strategies
have been agreed upon, the school has not yet developed a common language on
what good instruction looks like.
The district adoptions for mathematics and language arts have been delayed
due to the budget crisis. Houghton Mifflin Mathematics was adopted in 2008, but
was never purchased or implemented as allowed by the state’s categorical flexibility.
Furthermore, Houghton Mifflin language arts adoption had sunset in 2009. In order
to address the lag in adoption cycles, the district submitted a state waiver and
upgraded its materials with the publishers Medallion series to address the gaps in
vocabulary development, English Learners, writing, and support for struggling
students. History/Social Science and Science adoptions are current.
Formative Assessments and Data-based Decision Making
The school follows the district’s assessment matrix, which includes trimester
assessments in language arts, mathematics, and writing. The beginning of the year
assessment, administered in November, provides information on how a student
progressed with the standards in the first trimester. Mid-year assessments
administered in March provide teachers a measure of students’ progress towards
grade level standards and proficiency after the second trimester. End-of year
216
assessments in May/June assist staff in identifying which students have and have not
mastered grade level standards. However, the principal’s interview and the
documentation provided does not demonstrate evidence of how data are used to
guide instructional practice.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
The principal at Marigold stated that she spent all available resources on staff
development. In her words, “it is people, not things that get students to learn.
Technology is useless unless you have a teacher who is using it effectively.”
Expenditures were allocated for trainer of trainers model of staff development in
order to cultivate in-house experts. Long-term substitutes were also trained in
school-wide practices such as Write from the Beginning and Thinking Maps. If a
staff member was absent on the day of staff development training, a substitute was
provided to have the expert teacher teach the staff member. Once staff development
on a particular practice was completed, she checked-in to ensure that the practices
were implemented in the classroom to hold everyone accountable. She provided
staff development to parents during Parent Teacher Association meetings in order to
educate them about the instructional program and expectations set by the school.
New teachers to the profession and to the staff met twice a month with the
principal to examine students work samples together using a protocol. This helped
new teachers understand the expectations and the common language developed at the
school. Additionally, teachers who were new to the profession were supported for
two years under the Beginning Teacher and Support Assessment (BTSA) Program.
217
Although there are no formal instructional coaches who are released from her
classroom, the principal and instructional leaders, or teacher experts, coached others
on staff through conversations at staff meetings, principal walk-through, and release
time for expert teachers.
The district supports the school’s professional development by providing
staff development for new adoptions, but this is done with publisher’s trainers rather
than district staff or other curriculum experts. As a result staff development for
newly adopted materials has been fragmented and lacks shared expectation for what
good instruction looks like. The principal stated that this staff development model
was ineffective and was a review of what materials were contained in the new
adoption rather than how to use and implement the materials within an instructional
model.
Due to budget reductions, eight furlough days were implemented in 2010-
2011, which reduced staff development days from three to one day. Therefore, the
site principal utilized School Improvement Program monies to allocate 52.5 days for
substitutes to release teachers for professional development, which averages to 2.9
professional development days per teacher.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
When the previous principal engaged the staff and community on developing
a shared vision, one of the tenets of the vision was to examine the work of the school
with laser-like focus. As a result, the principal used it as leverage to be able to say
no to outside intrusions and to protect classroom instructional time with bell-to-bell
218
instruction. As part of the previous principal’s classroom walk-through, she took
stock of what students were doing and how students were spending their time.
Instructional time spent on reading instruction averaged 120 minutes per day, math
instruction averaged 60 minutes per day, and science and social studies instruction
averaged 4 times at 45 minutes each, or 180 minutes per week for each content area.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
Due to budget reductions, there has been no additional support for struggling
students. The principal stated that students who are struggling are addressed in grade
level PLC discussions. In the classroom, teachers pull students in groups of no more
than 3 to address the struggling learner. There was no evidence of frequency,
duration, or monitoring of struggling students.
As a result of budget reductions, the resource teacher was reduced to .5 FTE
in 2010-2011. In prior years, a 1.0 FTE resource teacher was allocated to the school
with part of her responsibilities to provide instructional support to struggling students
through a push-in model for special education services. By doing so, she was able to
instruct students who were receiving special education services while also pulling
additional students in the class who were struggling.
In addition, the district eliminated summer school for at-risk/struggling
students in summer 2010 due to budget reductions. Summer school for at-
risk/struggling students continues to be eliminated, thus Marigold ES is unable to
provide additional learning time during vacation breaks.

219
Collaborative, Professional Culture
Most teachers at Marigold Elementary have attended a Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) conference to become introduced to and understand the
collaborative process. However, the principal of Marigold Elementary disagrees
with the viewpoint of PLCs in that collaboration is not a series of sequential steps or
checklists, but rather “collaboration is a messy process in which the leader of the
school builds school-wide capacity for change by identifying teacher leaders,
breaking down barriers, and focusing on change as the norm.”
Although the staff has yet to develop a common language of what good
instruction looks like, they have agreements on instructional practices that should be
implemented in each classroom. The school staff meets twice a month on planning
days for staff meetings and grade level meetings. In addition, school-wide reading
buddies in which teachers from a primary grade level are paired up with an upper
grade level. One time a week, teachers from one grade level supervise all the
students in both grades to allow an additional hour of additional for grade levels to
meet.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
Staff participate in leadership roles both formally and informally. Formal
structures include committee membership, grade level team leaders, curriculum
cadre leaders, and school site council members who are made up of certificated staff,
classified staff, and parents. Curriculum cadre leaders serve as instructional coaches
but are not released from the classroom to provide support. Instead, curriculum
220
cadre leaders provide support before school or after school and present information
at staff meetings. The principal stated that she only “hires the best” and recommends
that if you cannot find an excellent candidate, it is better to get a long-term substitute
until you do.
Based on the principal’s comments, there is a disconnect between the district
and site leadership. From her perspective, there was little support from the district’s
educational services to guide the instructional improvement process and staff
development. Site principals guided their own instructional decisions with no
expectation or consistency from other principals in the district or from the central
office. The culture of the district has written policies and procedures, but is often not
followed. Instead, leadership follows unwritten rules and norms. Consequently,
each site is its own island and practices are isolated to the site.
Professional and Best Practices
Identifying few practices that make the greatest impact and ignoring the
“flavors of the month” was the philosophy of the principal. During staff meetings,
staff was required to read and discuss articles together, talk about the research,
identify strengths and weaknesses in the current instructional model by comparing
their practices to research. Use of appreciative inquiry and the World Café format
guided staff conversations as they read research.
Table I1 illustrates Odden & Archibald’s (2009) 10 strategies for doubling
student performance as they apply to Marigold school.

221
Table I1: Marigold and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

√ CST data are reviewed annually and is
disaggregated by subgroup and gender.
Formative data are not reviewed regularly.
No evidence of curriculum mapping or
sequencing.
Set ambitious
goals

√
100% of students are expected to
meet/exceed CSTs. No evidence of
addressing subgroups other than students
with disabilities. 11 goals total- too many.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

√
Instructional strategies are common
throughout the school such as CGI, Write
from the Beginning, Thinking Maps,
Reciprocal Teaching, Guided Reading
strategies. District adoptions in language
arts and mathematics are outdated.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

√
District assessment matrix which includes
trimester assessments are administered in
language arts, math, and writing. No
evidence of how the data are used to guide
instructional practice.
Ongoing PD

√ Staff development provided by site. Lack
of direction or support for staff
development from district. Site staff reads
articles and discusses research.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

√

Class instructional time is protected. Math
and reading instruction meets or exceeds
recommended time.
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

√
Due to budget reductions, there is no
support for struggling students.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

√

Staff meet weekly for a minimum of 1 hour
per week in grade level teams. This is
done through planning days (early out) on
Thursdays and reading buddies.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

√
Site leadership exists, but there is a
disconnect between the central office
direction and the school site. This was
noted as an area of frustration.
Professional and
best practices

√

Site staff read articles and discussed
research best practices. This was guided
by the principal.

222
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Marigold Elementary School employs most of Odden’s (2009) strategies to
double student performance, however, the amount of resources allocated for the
students is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model suggests. As a result
of the state’s fiscal crisis, the instructional days, staff development days, and
instructional personnel have been severely reduced, especially when compared to the
EBM. Table I2 demonstrates a comparison of the prototypical school suggested by
the EBM and Mum Elementary School.
Table I2: Marigold and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Marigold School
Current Resource
Status
Marigold Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 519 students ~ 20% larger than
prototypical school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 31
4-5: 31
K-3: 2x larger than
prototypical school
4-5: 0.24% larger
Instructional Days 190+ 10 days for
intensive PD training
175 instructional
days + 1 PD
24 less days- 9 less
PD, 15 less
instructional days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full day
kindergarten at 30:1
School has full day
kindergarten as
suggested by EBM;
although not at
same Class Size as
suggested
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.2 FTE suggested
by EBM; 0.2 fewer
FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Office
Mgr.
.5 FTE
Clerical/Office
Tech
2.4 FTE suggested
by EBM; 0.4 less
secretarial support
.5 less clerical
support

223
Table I2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Marigold School
Current Resource
Status
Marigold Based
on Prototypical
Model
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 18 FTE core
teachers
28.8 FTE suggested
by EBM; school
has 4.8 fewer FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers;
4.8 FTE
0 FTE specialist
teachers
5.76 FTE suggested
by EBM
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
2.64 FTE suggested
by EBM
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.16
FTE
0 FTE .38 FTE suggested
and is lacking at
school
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students; 0.43 FTE
0 FTE .17 FTE suggested
and is lacking at
school
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE .07 FTE clerical
support at District
Office
.7 FTE more than
prototypical school
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 FTE .38 FTE suggested
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE .38 FTE suggested
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.7 FTE TOTAL
.5 FTE RSP
teacher;
.20 FTE
Psychologist;
1.0 FTE Speech
Therapist
3.6 FTE suggested
by EBM; school is
lacking 1.9 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE SDC

----

224
Table I2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Marigold School
Current Resource
Status
Marigold Based
on Prototypical
Model
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$115/day

Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students; 2.16 FTE
.4 FTE Counselor
.375 FTE Health
Clerk
.38 FTE
recommended;
school has 0.39
FTE greater than
prototypical school
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0 FTE 2.4 FTE suggested
by EBM
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 4.5 FTE- SpEd 4.5 FTE greater
than prototypical
school
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE .4 FTE Library
Media Technician
(non certificated)

1.2 FTE suggested
by EBM
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $ 0 $ 675
Technology $250 per pupil $ 17,000 $ 129,750; school is
lacking $112,750
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $ 14,953 $ 72,660; school is
lacking $57,707 in
instructional
materials
Student Activities $200 per pupil $ 72,800 * funded
by PTA donations
$ 103,800; school is
lacking $31,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$ 18,569 $ 51,900
$40,691 less
resources for PD

Summary and Lessons Learned
Marigold Elementary School continues to improve based on statewide
assessments, which demonstrates growth in overall student performance despite the
225
lack of resources in both personnel and resource allocation. When asked what
additional resources would be needed to continue and expand the improvement
process, the principal stated that additional money for staff development,
instructional coaches, and substitutes to release teachers to observe each other were
key elements to improving student achievement. Lessons learned from Marigold
Elementary include:
• The school maximizes its uses of in-house experts and collaboration
on instructional strategies while also protecting instructional time.
• Site administrator employs research best practices by providing
training and support as well as engaging staff in reading and
discussing best practices from research articles.
• Having a common language and vision of instruction further develops
collaboration amongst staff and community.
Future Considerations
Additional resources are needed to provide support for struggling students
during the school day, in extended day, and in summer school. These do not exist
currently. It would be more effective to set goals for subgroups as well as monitor
progress on formative assessments more frequently for all students, especially for
subgroups. Finally, stronger central office direction and leadership on staff
development and instructional practices is needed to support the school site.
226
APPENDIX J
CASE STUDIES: MUM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Mum Elementary School is a non-Title I, kindergarten through fifth grade
school in the suburban area in Southern California. There is also a state preschool
on-site that is not affiliated with the school, but is operated by the district. The
school serves 722 students in a traditional school calendar and houses the district’s
special day classes on its campus. The district, comprised of six elementary schools,
two middle schools, one comprehensive high school, and one continuation high
school, boasts a culture of high student achievement, numerous school recognitions,
and a district-wide API of 904. The school was built in 1954 and in November 2008,
the district passed a bond measure to modernize schools, including Mum
Elementary, which was completed in February 2010. The district’s students is
comprised of 60% on inter-district transfers in which parents opt for their students to
attend the district due to its reputation as well as convenience close to their
workplace.
Mum Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic, linguistic,
and socio-economic backgrounds, although they are not significant subgroups. The
primary ethnic subgroups are White (66%), Hispanic (15%), two or more races (7%),
Asian (6%), African American (3%), Filipino (2%) and Pacific Islander (1%). There
are 25 (3.5%) students identified as English Learners (EL) based on the No Child
Left Behind definition and thirty-three (4.5%) are identified as Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged (SED). Of the 722 students enrolled at Mum Elementary, 13.5% are
227
classified as special education students. Figure J1 shows the ethnic breakdown of all
students at Mum Elementary.
Figure J1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Mum Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Mum Elementary School. As shown in Figure J2, since
2006, Mum Elementary has experienced a 17 point increase on the state’s
accountability system, or Academic Performance Index. The principal attributes the
steady growth to a focus on technology, professional development, and having
teachers observe other teachers implement new strategies. The 21-point growth in
2009/2010 is attributed to implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) that
focused staff on common assessments, pacing, and teaching students at their
instructional skill level to narrow the gap.

228
Figure J2: Mum Elementary School’s API

Although Mum Elementary experiences high performance, there are
subgroups that do not fair as well, such as English Learners and socio-economically
disadvantaged students (SED). However, upon closer analysis, socio-economically
disadvantaged students are demonstrating steady growth in Language Arts as
indicated in Figure MU.3. In addition, Hispanic subgroup is also increasing student
achievement in Language Arts. Only 53% of EL students are scoring proficient and
advanced on the English Language Arts CSTs, where as 85% of Whites are scoring
proficient and advanced, constituting a 32% gap. A 22% gap exists for Hispanic
students and 29% gap for SED students when compared to their White counterparts.
The Annual Yearly Progress for students at Mum Elementary School shows a
steady decline in math for EL, Hispanic and socio-economically disadvantaged
students. Sixty percent of English Learners are proficient and advanced in math,
while 84% of White students are scoring proficient and advanced. A similar 24%
gap exists for Hispanic students and a 33% gap exists for SED students when
compared to their White counterparts in mathematics. Although subgroups are
229
relatively small at Mum Elementary School, an achievement gap continues to exist
when compared to the performance of White peers as shown in Figures J3 and J4.
Figure J3: Language Arts AYP, Mum Elementary

Figure J4: Math AYP, Mum Elementary

230
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Mum Elementary was built in 1954 and has recently undergone
modernization project which began in November 2008 and concluded in February
2010. The current principal has been there for nine years. The district provides
centralized support and focus, while allowing school sites to enhance the curriculum
and instructional practices. The principal’s instructional focus has been on
professional development, the opportunity for staff to observe new strategies and
increasing access to technology, which was enhanced by the modernization project.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
In September 2009, the school staff and committees analyzed CSTs scores
using DataDirector and identified the greatest need in mathematics. However, the
site along with two other schools contracted with a consultant to provide the three
schools support in implementing Response to Intervention. Under the advisement of
the consultant the school changed the focus of the improvement process from
mathematics to reading due to dips in fourth and fifth grade reading/language arts
scores. These students who did not reach proficiency in the upper grades would
ultimately not fair well in middle and high school. Thus, in the 2009-2010 school
year, the school focused on implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) to
address the needs of struggling students, including underperforming subgroups. In
2010-2011 school year, the school continued its plan to implement its RTI model in
reading and planned on incorporating math intro RTI. The actual RTI model will be
discussed in a later section.
231
Set Ambitious Goals
The goals stated in the Single School Plan are based on results from the state
exams. One such goal is to move 90% of students who are scoring below
proficiency toward Proficiency. For example, if there were 100 students who score
in Basic, Below Basic, and Basic, 90 students would move toward the proficient
band. The staff also wrote a goal to have students who are proficient and above
maintain at their performance level.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The school utilizes the district-adopted curriculum in Language Arts,
Mathematics, Science, History-Social Science. In 2003, the district adopted
Houghton Mifflin Reading; however, with current budget reductions, a new adoption
has not been selected. The state has allowed for waivers to allow districts to
continue utilizing its current adoption. In 2008 and 2009, Scott Foresman Science
and Houghton Mifflin Mathematics California Math were adopted, respectively.
Harcourt School Publisher’s Reflections series is currently adopted for History-
Social Science.
In addition to the adopted curriculum, Mum Elementary School has enhanced
instructional strategies in mathematics by incorporating Cognitively Guided
Instruction for all students in kindergarten through fifth grade to improve skill
acquisition through concrete experiences and problem-solving strategies.
Additionally, Kathy Fosnot Mathematical Thinking Units are incorporated in third,
fourth, and fifth grades to improve numeracy and increase understanding of
232
mathematical algorithms and logic. All teachers have been trained and use Thinking
Maps and Writer’s Workshop instructional strategies in all grade levels to support
student writing and comprehension skills.
The district has set direction for school sites by publishing “Factors that
Influence Student Achievement” and requiring school action plans designed to
improve student achievement which include one or more of the factors: attitudes by
staff and students that all students can attain proficient or above, explicitly teaching
test taking skills and study skills, ensuring that curriculum maps are aligned to CST
blueprints, standards-based materials, explicit direct instruction with gradual release
of responsibility as the definition of good instructional practice, bell-to-bell
instruction, non-fiction writing in all content areas, rigorous vocabulary
development, frequent and timely feedback, use of formative and summative
assessments, ongoing analysis of assessment results, providing intervention and
enrichment opportunities, and continuing to develop professional learning
communities. These success factors are incorporated into the district’s priorities, site
plans, and the goals of the curriculum, instruction and assessment division.
A challenge both the school and district have is in correctly assigning fully
credentialed teachers, especially in the area of English Learner authorization.
Formative Assessments and Data-based Decision Making
In addition to the analysis of statewide summative assessments, Mum
Elementary School administers the district benchmark assessments in reading,
language arts, writing, and mathematics three times a year. The beginning of the
233
year assessment provides information on what students already know and help
inform instructional plans for the semester. Mid-year assessments administered in
December provide teachers a measure of students’ progress towards grade level
standards and proficiency. End-of year assessments in April assist staff in
identifying which students have and have not mastered grade level standards and are
used to correlate and predict CST proficiency.
With the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI), Mum
Elementary incorporates the use of common assessments across grade levels and
assesses students every six weeks to develop intervention groups. These common,
formative assessments have been developed using the publisher anthology, teacher-
made, and access from a neighboring district’s assessment samples. Common
assessments are administered pre-and post-leveled grouping and progress monitoring
is administered during the six weeks to ensure that students are obtaining the skills
and knowledge presented. The results of assessments are shared in grade level
meetings. The principal stated that she believes in value-added philosophy and
meets with individual teachers to discuss his or her individual results.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Two professional days are allocated to Mum Elementary School with an
additional day reserved for teacher planning. As part of the district’s bargaining
agreement, sites are required to provide teachers 2.5 hours per week of planning and
collaboration time. Combination teachers who teach two different grade levels are
also allotted four planning days due to the caseload. The principal reports that
234
teachers used to have five days of professional development, but due to budget
reductions these days have been reduced to two staff development days.
Mum Elementary School have a collaboration with Teachers College
Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University’s Teacher College to be able to
provide ongoing professional development in Writer’s Workshop. Additionally, two
teachers who have been Kotsen Foundation recipients were paid stipends to attend
professional development and trained teachers on-site. Currently, a part-time
Teacher on Special Assignment serves as an instructional coach. The principal states
that she often teaches a class to release teachers to observe other teachers teaching,
thus providing onsite professional development and collaboration.
Site and district funds have paid for outside professional development for
Response to Intervention and Cognitively Guided Instruction coaching. The district
has also provided school sites with a list of comprehensive staff development
initiatives from which sites are to select. These include benchmark assessments, RTI
training with a consultant, PLC training with a consultant, new teacher training with
topics such as “Elements of Instruction” and “Brain Based Classroom Design”, CGI,
Thinking Maps, and Writers’ Workshop. Site funds provide substitutes to allow
teachers to plan together and to release them to observe other school sites.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
One of the district’s stated goals and “Factors that Influence Student
Achievement” is bell-to-bell instruction, thus implying that no instructional time is
wasted. Additionally, two and a half hours of reading instruction is required. An
235
average of 60 minutes per day is spent on mathematics instruction. Time spent on
social studies instruction and science is one and a half hours for three days a week.
These two subjects are often alternated by unit so that students will receive science
instruction three times a week for one unit, then switch to social studies instruction
for three days a week for unit.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
Extended learning time is provided for struggling students during the school
day and after-school three times a week. In 2009-2010, RTI was implemented in
which students are leveled and grouped homogenously into intensive, strategic,
benchmark, and extension groups for 50 minute sessions, four times a week; thus
providing 200 minutes per week at students’ instructional level in reading. Intensive
and strategic groups have lower class sizes with a 7:1 ratio and 20:1 ratio,
respectively. Benchmark and extension groups have larger class sizes ranging from
24-38 depending on the needs at each grade level. Resource teacher, resource
instructional aide, and special day class aides teach the intensive students. Two
retired teachers have been hired for two hours on the days that students are re-
grouped to provide enough instructors to teach benchmark and extension groups. In
addition, parents are utilized in the benchmark and extension groups to assist with
small groups and assist with classroom management due to the larger class sizes.
The focus of the fifty-minute sessions is to strengthen weak skills in vocabulary,
comprehension, and reading/decoding. In 2010-2011, mathematics has been added
to the RTI model.
236
Teachers who have been laid-off due to budget reductions are utilized as
after-school intervention teachers. The principal stated that these teachers are
currently in the substitute pool and have all received training in the district-wide
initiatives. They are paid $33/hour from federal funds and teach three times a week
for an hour. The principal stated that students who take the bus find after-school
intervention a barrier because there are no busses available after the intervention
class.
The district provides summer school for all “at risk” and retained students for
four weeks. The purpose of summer school is remediation or maintenance of skills
for students enrolled in extended year services on their IEPs.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
The principal stated that both the district and the site coordinate improvement
efforts. More specifically, the district has supported the RTI model by coordinating
the efforts of the consultant while the site has chosen a specific focus in
mathematics. Each week, grade level teams are allotted two and a half hours of
collaboration time to plan instruction, discuss data, and share effective practices.
The site’s Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) provides on-site coaching and
modeling of lessons. Two teachers who have received Kotsen Foundation Grants
have also been given additional stipends for training and coaching.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
The site’s leadership team is comprised of grade level representatives. In
addition, the school site has developed a RTI leadership team comprised of one
237
member per grade level with a focus on instructional levels, homogenous groupings,
and instructional design. The RTI leadership publicly reports on assessment results
every six weeks. The school site council, comprised of the principal, classified and
certificated staff, and parents and community members, evaluate the program and
outcomes for students. The principal leads the instructional improvement process
with the support of central office staff that have coordinated professional
development activities, the development of benchmark assessments, and provided
data analysis to increase access for sites. In addition, site and district funds are
allocated to support improvement strategies.
Professional and Best Practices
The central office supports Mum Elementary by providing their instructional
leaders with professional development and support. Documents provided indicate
that experts in the field are brought in to provide consultation and education to site
and district leaders. For example, Austin Buffum is listed as an expert for
Professional Learning Communities as well as other speakers on topics such as
brain-based learning, gifted and talented education, and Response to Intervention. In
addition, documents provide evidence of utilization of research-based practices from
renowned authors Fisher and Frey, Marzano, Reeves, Stronge, and Johnson to name
a few.
Table J1 illustrates Odden & Archibald’s (2009) 10 strategies for doubling
student performance as they apply to Marigold school.

238
Table J1: Mum and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

√
Data from benchmark and common
assessments (formative) and state-
wide/CSTs (summative) are analyzed every
six weeks, trimesterly, and annually. A
consultant assists staff in understanding the
performance challenge.
Set ambitious
goals

√ The goals stated are low and do not specify
any specific goals addressing the
achievement gap.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

√

Curriculum maps are aligned with standards
and CST blueprints. In 2009-2010, RTI
implemented to address reading. In 2010-
2011, RTI expanded to address math.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

√

Data from six week common assessments
and benchmark assessments are analyzed
by RTI leadership team, shared with staff,
and groupings and instructional focus
determined.
Ongoing PD

√

Consultants, instructional coaches, and site
and district staff provided ongoing
professional development
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

√

Time allotted for reading/language arts at 2
½ hours per day and math at 60
minutes/day
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

√
RTI model provides extended time for
struggling students at 50 min. 4x/week, as
well as afterschool instruction. Ratio is 7:1
two students larger than the recommended
5:1. No one-on-one tutoring is available.
Site funds pay for retired teachers to allow
staff to group students.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

√

Teachers are provided 2 ½ hours of
collaboration time per week. Depth of
discussion and instructional practice is
improving with implementation of RTI.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

√

Site and district leadership present and
provides continuity of vision and definition
of good instruction
Professional and
best practices
√

Consultants/experts brought in to share best
practices with district leadership team. Site
principal shares with staff. Authors are
cited as references and for leverage for
initiatives.

239
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Mum Elementary School employs most of Odden’s (2009) strategies to
double student performance, however, the amount of resources allocated for the
students is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model suggests. When
compared the EBM, Mum Elementary School is significantly lacking resources with
regard to instructional time, i.e. 14 less instructional days, personnel, and money.
There a few resources at Mum Elementary that is greater than the EBM would
suggest such as more administrative support, tutors for struggling students during the
school day, and instructional aides because the school houses the district’s special
day classes. These instructional aides are being utilized to bring down class sizes for
Response to Intervention. Table J2 demonstrates a comparison of the prototypical
school suggested by the EBM and Mum Elementary School.
Table J2: Mum and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Mum School
Current Resource
Status
Mum Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 722 students Preschool on campus,
but not part of
enrollment. Preschool
not part of EBM
67% larger than
prototypical school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 24
4-5: 36
K-3: ~ 60% greater
than EBM
4-5: ~ 44% greater than
EBM
Instructional Days 190+ 10 days for
intensive PD training
176, +2 day for PD, +
2 planning/prep day
14 less instructional
days than EBM; 8 less
PD days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full day kindergarten 5 hours 20 min at Mum
compared to 6 hours in
EBM
240
Table J2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Mum School
Current Resource
Status
Mum Based on
Prototypical Model
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
1.0 FTE assistant
principal
EBM would be a total
of 1 principal and .67
SP, so the school seems
to have more than the
model would provide
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary;
0.97 FTE Clerical
3.2 FTE suggested by
EBM; 1.23 FTE lacking
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 26 FTE core teachers 40 FTE suggested by
EBM; school has 14
fewer FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers;
4.8 FTE
.6 Art; .48 Music
FTE specialist
teachers
8.0 FTE is suggested by
EBM; school has 6.92
fewer FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE .49 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
EBM suggests 3.67
FTE; school has 3.18
fewer FTE than EBM
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.16
FTE
.4 EBM suggests 0.3 FTE;
school has 0.1 more
FTE than EBM
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students; .43 FTE
0 FTE EBM suggests 0.25
FTE
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE .042 FTE clerical
support at District
Office
0.0 FTE suggested by
EBM; school has 0.042
FTE more than EBM
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.1FTE 0.25 FTE; school has
0.15 FTE less than
EBM
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 0.25 FTE suggested by
EBM

241
Table J2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Mum School
Current Resource
Status
Mum Based on
Prototypical Model
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
4.0 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
1.0 FTE
Psychologist;
2.0 FTE Speech
Therapist
5.0 FTE suggested by
EBM; school has 1.0
FTE fewer FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
6.0 FTE TOTAL
2.0 FTE Full
Inclusion;
4.0 FTE SDC
school houses the
district’s special
education population
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
0 FTE ----
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students; 2.16 FTE
0.375 FTE Health
Clerk
.33 FTE recommended
by EBM
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.34 FTE suggested by
EBM
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 3.8 FTE 0.0 FTE; school has
more than EBM would
suggest
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .5 FTE Library
Media
1.67 fewer FTE than
EBM
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $1,375 recommended
by EBM
Technology $250 per pupil $ 3,000 $180,500
recommended by EBM;
lacking $177,500
Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil $ 31,768 $101,080
recommended by EMB;
lacking $69,312

242
Table J2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Mum School
Current Resource
Status
Mum Based on
Prototypical Model
Student Activities $200 per pupil $ 0 (money provided
by PTA)
$144,400 recommended
by EBM
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$25,560 $72,200 recommended
by EBM; $46,640
fewer resources

Summary and Lessons Learned
The school is doing well academically with the support and direction
provided by the district. As a result of the parent population, additional monies are
raised by the Parent Teacher Association to support student activities. The amounts
vary year to year based on fundraising efforts.
• Consultant assists in helping staff understand the performance
problem and develops a plan to address the performance problem.
• Time used efficiently and effectively to address struggling students as
well as accelerate students who are already meeting the benchmarks.
• Ongoing, frequent assessments assists the staff in monitoring student
progress every six weeks.
• Staff and district leaders are provided access to experts in the field for
ongoing staff development.

243
Future Considerations
It would be more effective for the school to re-examine its goals to set more
ambitious goals that addresses increasing expectations to advanced, not just
proficient as well as set goals for subgroups to monitor their progress specifically.
Additional resources are needed for extending learning outside of the school day.
244
APPENDIX K
CASE STUDIES: ROSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Rose Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school in the
suburban area in Southern California. The school serves 635 students in a traditional
school calendar and does not receive Title I funding. The district, comprised of six
elementary schools, two middle schools, one comprehensive high school, and one
continuation high school, boasts a culture of high student achievement, numerous
school recognitions, and a district-wide API of 904. Sixty percent of the district’s
students are on inter-district transfers in which parents opt for their students to attend
the district due to its reputation or because it is convenient to their workplace. Of the
six elementary schools, Rose is the last to be filled and often has late enrollments. It
has a somewhat transient population and largely pulls students from larger
surrounding districts.
Rose Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic, linguistic, and
socio-economic backgrounds, although they are not significant subgroups. The
primary ethnic subgroups are White (59%), Hispanic (22%), two or more races (8%),
Asian (7%), African American (2%), and Filipino (2%). There are 28 (4.4%)
students identified as English Learners (EL) based on the No Child Left Behind
definition and forty-three (6.8%) are identified as Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged (SED). Of the 635 students enrolled at Rose Elementary, thirty-nine
(6.14%) are classified as special education students. Figure K1 shows the ethnic
breakdown of all students at Rose Elementary.
245
Figure K1: Ethnic Breakdown of Students, Rose Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Rose Elementary School. As shown in Figure K2, with an
API of over 900, Rose Elementary has experienced a 19-point increase on the state’s
accountability system, or Academic Performance Index since 2006. The principal
attributes the steady growth to hiring the right people, building relationships with the
staff and community, and high parental participation. The principal’s philosophy is
that the school helps all children. This is reflected in the school’s mission that is to
“ensure the success of every learner.” The principal understands that the parents at
her school are educated, thus, she capitalizes on that by training them to provide
lessons and support in the classroom. If your child attends Rose Elementary, it is
expected that you volunteer in some capacity and it is only a matter of how you will
volunteer.

246
Figure K2: Rose Elementary School’s API

Although Rose Elementary experiences high performance, socio-
economically disadvantaged students (SED) do not fair as well. English learners,
Hispanic students, and students with disabilities are narrowing the achievement gap.
The Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for English Learners is within 4% of their White
counterparts in both English Language Arts and Mathematics. Similar results are
evident for Hispanic students and students with disabilities. The achievement gap is
present for socio-economically disadvantaged students who are lagging behind their
White peers by 23.4% in Language Arts and 26.9% in Mathematics. Figures K3 and
K4 illustrate the comparison between subgroups and their White counterparts.

247
Figure K3: Language Arts AYP, Rose Elementary

Figure K4: Math AYP, Rose Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Rose Elementary was built in 1959 and is considered to be in fairly good
condition, but is in line for modernization projects after voters passed a bond
measure in November 2008. The current principal has been there for five years. The
248
district provides centralized support and focus, while allowing school sites to
enhance the curriculum and instructional practices. The principal’s instructional
vision has been five instructional practices that are implemented school-wide:
Writer’s Workshop, Reader’s Workshop, Cognitively Guided Instruction, Thinking
Maps, and MIND Institute/ST Math program. All teachers are expected to
implement these five strategies, which build a common vocabulary and expectations
for students as they progress through their elementary years.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
In September 2009, the school staff and committees analyzed CSTs scores using
DataDirector and identified the greatest need in reading. Rose Elementary along
with two other schools contracted with a consultant to provide the three schools
support in implementing Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI was implemented in
reading beginning in the 2009/2010 school year. Students are assessed every 4-6
weeks and regrouped based on their assessments.
Set Ambitious Goals
Through the analysis of CST data and disaggregating them by grade level, the
school determined its school-wide goals for student achievement. The goals are for
all students who are performing at 90% and above on CSTs to maintain that
performance level and everyone else to get closer to 80%. The goals are not specific
to identifying subgroups of students and monitoring their progress individually.
The principal states that a key to meeting high expectations is to hire the right
people and create synergy within the team by having team members honest with
249
themselves and their grade level colleagues. She ensures each staff member that she
may stay at her grade level as long as she continues to operate as a member of the
team, continues to grow professionally. Once the staff member becomes stagnant,
she moves her out of the grade level.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The school utilizes the district-adopted curriculum in Language Arts,
Mathematics, Science, and History-Social Science. In 2003, the district adopted
Houghton Mifflin Reading; however, with current budget reductions, a new state
adoption has not been adopted by the district. The state has allowed for waivers to
allow districts to continue utilizing its current adoption. In 2008 and 2009, Scott
Foresman Science and Houghton Mifflin Mathematics California Math were
adopted, respectively. Harcourt School Publisher’s Reflections series is currently
adopted for History-Social Science.
In addition to the adopted curriculum, Rose Elementary has enhanced their
instructional strategies by incorporating Writer’s Workshop; Cognitively Guided
Instruction for all students in kindergarten through fifth grade to improve skill
acquisition through concrete experiences and problem-solving strategies; Thinking
Maps to assist students in developing a common visual language for learning within
and across disciplines; and implementing the MIND Institute/ST Math Program,
which is a research-proven tool for teaching and learning mathematics through non-
language based, visual instructional software.
250
The district has set direction for school sites by publishing “Factors that
Influence Student Achievement” and requiring school action plans designed to
improve student achievement which include one or more of the factors: attitudes by
staff and students that all students can attain proficient or above, explicitly teaching
test taking skills and study skills, ensuring that curriculum maps are aligned to CST
blueprints, standards-based materials, explicit direct instruction with gradual release
of responsibility as the definition of good instructional practice, bell-to-bell
instruction, non-fiction writing in all content areas, rigorous vocabulary
development, frequent and timely feedback, use of formative and summative
assessments, ongoing analysis of assessment results, providing intervention and
enrichment opportunities, and continuing to develop professional learning
communities. These success factors are incorporated into the district’s priorities, site
plans, and the goals of the curriculum, instruction and assessment division.
Formative Assessments and Data-based Decision Making
In addition to the analysis of statewide summative assessments, Rose
Elementary School administers the district benchmark assessments in reading,
language arts, writing, and mathematics three times a year. The beginning of the
year assessment provides information on what students already know and help
inform instructional plans for the semester. Mid-year assessments administered in
December provide teachers a measure of students’ progress towards grade level
standards and proficiency. End-of year assessments in April assist staff in
251
identifying which students have and have not mastered grade level standards and are
used to correlate and predict CST proficiency.
With the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI), Rose
Elementary incorporates the use of common assessments across grade levels and
assesses students every four to six weeks to develop intervention groups. These
common, formative assessments have been developed using the publisher anthology.
Common assessments are administered pre-and post-leveled grouping and progress
monitoring is administered during the six weeks to ensure that students are obtaining
the skills and knowledge presented. The results of assessments are shared in grade
level meetings. By using DataDirector, teachers are able to analyze students’
mastery of skills strand by strand. During grade level discussions, teachers ask
themselves why students are performing the way they are, who did not master the
skills, how are they being instructed, and then invite one another in to observe
classroom instruction. The principal states that all teachers are within 1-2% of one
another on district-wide assessment tools.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Two professional days are allocated to Rose Elementary School with an
additional day reserved for teacher planning. As part of the district’s bargaining
agreement, sites are required to provide teachers 2.5 hours per week of planning and
collaboration time. Combination teachers who teach two different grade levels are
also allotted four planning days due to the caseload. The principal reports that
252
teachers used to have five days of professional development, but due to budget
reductions these days have been reduced to two staff development days.
The principal provides an additional 40 minutes per week for all teachers to
be released for data analysis so that teachers may plan and tweak instruction for the
coming week. She states the time is very short and focused. The principal will lead
all 635 students during a Friday morning assembly that includes celebrations of
student achievement and character development lessons so that teachers have the
additional time to collaborate. The principal states that at Rose Elementary
professional development is ongoing by opening the doors to allow teachers to
observe one another teaching. Teachers release one another and take one another’s
classes for an hour at a time. Student teachers, parents, laid-off teachers are all
trained in the common instructional practices to better provide support for students.
In-house coaches rise as leaders in the school and are respected for sharing their
expertise.
Site and district funds have paid for outside professional development for
Response to Intervention and Cognitively Guided Instruction coaching. The district
has also provided school sites with a list of comprehensive staff development
initiatives from which sites are to select. These include benchmark assessments, RTI
training with a consultant, PLC training with a consultant, new teacher training with
topics such as “Elements of Instruction” and “Brain Based Classroom Design”, CGI,
Thinking Maps, and Writers’ Workshop. Site funds provide substitutes to allow
teachers to plan together and to release them to observe other school sites. In
253
addition, Parent Teacher Association funds $10,000 for consultants to train the staff
in Lucy Caulkin’s Writers Workshop.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
One of the district’s stated goals and “Factors that Influence Student Achievement”
is bell-to-bell instruction, thus implying that no instructional time is wasted.
Additionally, two and a half hours of reading instruction is required. An average of
75 minutes per day in the primary grades and 105 minutes per day in the upper
grades is spent on mathematics instruction. Time spent on social studies instruction
and science is 60 minutes each day, respectively. The principal does not make
announcements on the intercom and is firm on having no class interruptions except
for the 40-minute Friday assembly to allow for teachers to collaborate and analyze
data each week.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
Extended learning time is provided for struggling students during the school
day and after-school three times a week. In 2009-2010, RTI was implemented in
which students are leveled and grouped homogenously into extra support,
benchmark, and advanced groups for 50 minute sessions, four times a week; thus
providing 200 minutes per week at students’ instructional level in reading. Extra
support groups have lower class sizes with a 10:1 ratio. Benchmark and advanced
groups have larger class sizes with 25:1 ratio and 40:1 ratio, respectively. Three
parent volunteers are enlisted per grade level during the language arts block to allow
class ratios to be reduced for the extra support groups. Parent volunteers are
254
dispersed among the benchmark and advanced groups to assist the classroom teacher
with small groups and classroom management.
Student teachers provide after school intervention called “Clinics” three times
a week for 30 minutes each session. During the intervention class, one skill is
addressed every four to six weeks for students who need intensive support. Class
ratio for afterschool intervention is 10:1 and is paid by state categorical money for
intervention. As of the interview, these classes focused on fast facts in
addition/subtraction or multiplication/division. Students are assessed weekly and
can exit out once they reach 80% on their weekly fast facts test. In addition, the
computer lab is open early for fifteen minutes each morning to allow students to log
into ST Math curriculum.
The district provides summer school for all “at risk” and retained students for
four weeks. The purpose of summer school is remediation or maintenance of skills
for students enrolled in extended year services on their IEPs.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
The principal stated that the site coordinates its improvement efforts, which
allows teachers to be empowered and allows the principal to utilize her resources,
which target her site’s needs. The district has supported the RTI model by
coordinating the efforts of the consultant while the site has chosen a specific focus in
reading. Each week, grade level teams are allotted two and a half hours of
collaboration time to plan instruction, discuss data, and share effective practices. By
having teachers open their doors to allow other teachers to observe, the staff has
255
begun to develop a common approach to effective instruction. Of the 2 ½ hours of
collaboration time, 1.5 hours are allocated as release time during the school day.
Teachers use the 1.5 “in-school hours” to observe colleagues teaching lessons. The
ongoing analyses of data and instructional practices have moved each teacher within
1-2% of one another on district-wide assessments as reported by the principal.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
The site’s leadership team is comprised of grade level representatives. Grade
level teams meet weekly in Professional Learning Communities (PLC) teams to
discuss instructional practices and analyze data. Email is used to communicate
announcements so that staff meetings may be utilized as a workshop for staff
conversations on school-wide expectations, defining mastery, and monitoring norms
of the school. The school site council, comprised of the principal, classified and
certificated staff, and parents and community members, evaluate the program and
outcomes for students. The principal leads the instructional improvement process
with the support of central office staff that have coordinated professional
development activities, the development of benchmark assessments, and provided
data analysis to increase access for sites. In addition, site and district funds are
allocated to support improvement strategies.
Professional and Best Practices
The central office supports Rose Elementary by providing their instructional
leaders with professional development and support. Documents provided indicate
that experts in the field are brought in to provide consultation and education to site
256
and district leaders. For example, Austin Buffum is listed as an expert for
Professional Learning Communities as well as other speakers on topics such as
brain-based learning, gifted and talented education, and Response to Intervention. In
addition, documents provide evidence of utilization of research-based practices from
renowned authors Fisher and Frey, Marzano, Reeves, Stronge, and Johnson to name
a few.
Table K1 illustrates Odden & Archibald’s (2009) 10 strategies for doubling
student performance as they apply to Marigold school.
Table K1: Rose and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

√

Data from benchmark and common
assessments (formative) and state-
wide/CSTs (summative) are analyzed every
4-6 weeks, trimesterly, and annually. A
consultant assists staff in understanding the
performance challenge.
Set ambitious
goals

√ Although the percent proficient is
ambitious, the goals do not reflect
addressing the small subgroup populations
present at the school.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

√

Curriculum maps are aligned with standards
and CST blueprints. In 2009-2010, RTI
implemented to address reading.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

√

Leadership team analyzes data from 4-6
week common assessments and benchmark
assessments. It is unclear how they are
shared. Students are re-grouped based on
assessments.
Ongoing PD

√

Consultants, site and district staff provided
ongoing professional development.
Classroom instructional practices become
public as teachers observe one another.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

√

Time allotted for reading/language arts at 2
½ hours per day and math at 75-105
minutes/day. Classroom instruction
minimized and protected.

257
Table K1, Continued
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

√
RTI model provides extended time for
struggling students at 50 min. 4x/week, as
well as afterschool instruction. Ratio is 10:1
twice as large than the suggested 5:1. No
one-on-one tutoring is available.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

√

Teachers are provided almost 3.2 hours of
collaboration time per week. Depth of
discussion and instructional practice is
improving with implementation of RTI.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

√

Site and district leadership present and
provides continuity of vision and definition
of good instruction.
Professional and
best practices
√

Consultants/experts brought in to share best
practices with district leadership team. Site
principal shares with staff. Authors are
cited as references and for leverage for
initiatives.

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Rose Elementary School employs most of Odden’s (2009) strategies to
double student performance, however, the amount of resources allocated for the
students are significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model suggests. When
compared to the EBM, Rose Elementary School is significantly lacking resources
with regard to instructional time, i.e. 14 less instructional days, personnel, and
money. The principal’s vision of hiring the right people and providing staff
development are challenged by the lack of resources to provide enough staff
development as suggested by the Evidence Based Model. The Parent Teacher
Association often provides resources and funds for staff development. Table K2
demonstrates a comparison of the prototypical school suggested by the EBM and
Rose Elementary School.
258
Table K2: Rose and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Rose School
Current Resource
Status
Rose Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 635 students ~ 47% larger
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 24
4-5: 38
K-3: 60% larger
4-5: 52% larger
Instructional Days 190+ 10 days for
intensive PD training
176, +2 day for PD, +
2 planning/prep day
14 less instructional
days than EBM; 8
less PD days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full day kindergarten 5 hours 20 min at
Rose compared to 6
hours in EBM
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1.47 FTE suggested
by EBM; school is
lacking .47 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary 2.94 FTE suggested
by EBM; 1.94 FTE
lacking
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 24 FTE core teachers 35.28 FTE suggested
by EBM; 11.28 FTE
lacking
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers;
4.8 FTE
0.5 FTE specialist
teachers
7.0 FTE suggested by
EBM; 6.5 FTE
lacking
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
3.23 FTE suggested
by EBM

259
Table K2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Rose School
Current Resource
Status
Rose Based on
Prototypical Model
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.16
FTE
0.3 FTE .44 FTE suggested by
EBM
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students
0 FTE .28 FTE suggested by
EBM
Non-Instructional
Support for EL
Students
0.0 FTE .042 FTE clerical
support at District
Office
0.0 FTE suggested by
EBM; school has
.042 FTE more
support than EBM
suggests
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.1 FTE .44 FTE suggested by
EBM; lacking 0.34
FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE .44 FTE suggested by
EBM
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.4 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher;
.4 FTE Psychologist;
1.0 FTE Speech
Therapist
4.41 FTE suggested
by EBM; lacking
2.01 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
---- -----

260
Table K2, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Rose School
Current Resource
Status
Rose Based on
Prototypical Model
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$105/day substitute
rate of pay

Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students; 2.16 FTE
.375 FTE- Health
Clerk
.44 FTE suggested by
EBM; 0.065 FTE
lacking
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.94 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 0.375 FTE- RSP
Aide
0.0 FTE; school has
more than EBM
suggests
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE .47 FTE Media
Center Aide (non-
credentialed)
.47 FTE Computer
Lab Aide (non-
credentialed)
1.47 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $3,000 suggested by
EBM
Technology $250 per pupil $ 10,000 (provided
by PTA)
$158,750 suggested
by EBM
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $ 8,000 $88,900 suggested by
EBM; lacking
$60,960
Student Activities $200 per pupil $ 11,000 (provided
by PTA)
$127,000 suggested
by EBM
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$ 5,100 (does not
include funds
provided by PTA)
$63,500 suggested by
EBM; school is
lacking $58,400

Summary and Lessons Learned
When asked what other resources and supports would be needed to continue
to support the improvement process, the principal stated that additional health clerk
hours and a learning specialist or assistant principal would be helpful to allow her
261
more time to be an instructional leader. Additionally, parent association and
foundation supplements the lack of funding provided by the state and district, which
pays for the annual license for the MIND Institute/ST Math program. As a result of
the state’s financial crisis, the principal has decided to funnel the money that she
does receive to sustain her five core instructional strategies, which are MIND/ST
Math, Writer’s Workshop, Reader’s Workshop, Thinking Maps, and Response to
Intervention. She states that these are instructional philosophies and good
instructional strategies that only need time for collaboration to sustain. Previous
years have invested in the materials and resources to develop the programs, so all
available monies are allocated for release days to allow for dedicated collaboration
time.
• Use of data is used weekly to plan instruction and re-group students at
their instructional level
• Use of contracted in-school release time is allocated for teacher
observation of instructional practices
• Each student is monitored regularly to meet and exceed benchmarks
Future Considerations
Rose Elementary School has many of the strategies described by Odden and
Archibald (2009) but could benefit by writing specific goals to address the small
population of subgroups within the school to monitor students individually.
Additionally, the school has a credentialed teacher who provides afterschool
262
intervention. This would better serve students in the area of reading skills for
students who are in the intensive range so as to accelerate their reading progress.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the present study was to investigate, through analysis of school-level data, how California schools allocate resources in which standardized assessments, such as California Standards Tests, measure student achievement as well as educational adequacy. Four research questions were developed to guide the study: (1) What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school level?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

Asset Metadata

Creator Guerrero, Cynthia Patron (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/13/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag allocation of resources,effective strategies to improve student achievement,evidence based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,school finance reform

Place Name California (states), 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 cpguerre@usc.edu,cynguerrero@cox.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3745

Unique identifier UC1209899

Identifier etd-Guerrero-4466 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-452082 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3745 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Guerrero-4466.pdf

Dmrecord 452082

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Guerrero, Cynthia Patron

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