Better Is As Better Does: Resource Allocation in High Performing Schools

BETTER IS AS BETTER DOES:
RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN HIGH PERFORMING SCHOOLS
by
Victor Roy Gonzalez
A Dissertation Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2009
Copyright 2009 Victor Roy Gonzalez

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the students and families
at schools that find themselves thinking, “There’s got to
be a better way”. I know I want to do better. I want
schools to do better. Here are a few thoughts on how to do
that.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I need to thank my wife, Lisha Ann Gonzalez. I
have to thank her for her support in reading my
dissertation, providing me feedback, and putting up with
“another weekend at home” instead of going out and having
fun. This was no small task because Lisha suffered a
fractured back during the time I was writing this
dissertation. After she spent days in the hospital, and
while spending painful months recuperating, she was still
willing to read my dissertation to help me finish this
work. Who else would do that? I know I couldn’t ask or
expect a better partner in life and in completing this
work.
Second, I would like to thank my faculty dissertation
chair, Dr. Larry Picus. I have never met a person who knows
so much about school finance, not just locally but across
the country. We would play a “game” in our cohort meeting
of a dozen people: we would shout out the name of a state
and he would describe to how that state funded education.
We have yet to come across a state for which he does not
have an answer. It was my deepest honor and I was humbled

iv
to work with him on this project. Moreover, he is a great
guy. He was kind, supportive, and understanding. He was my
first choice as a dissertation chair and I never regretted
it. It is not very often you get to work with the very best
and I am thankful for the opportunity to have done so with
Dr. Picus.
Thank you to my cohort. You were a great source of
inspiration and support. I would especially like to thank
Deborah Granger who would regularly contact me with offers
of help and support. Thanks also goes to Chris Coulter,
thanks for letting me peek over your shoulder from time to
time to make sure I got it right.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABSTRACT xii
Chapter 1 1
Statement of the problem 7
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the Study 12
Methodology 15
Limitations and delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Chapter 2 18
Introduction 18
Synthesizing the literature 19
Resource Allocation 20
Improving Performance 34
Leadership 38
Professional Development 43
Data: Assessments 53
Educational Adequacy 55
Conclusion 65
Chapter 3 67
Introduction 67
Population and Sample 73
Instrumentation and Data Collection 76
Data Analysis 80
Conclusion 82
Chapter 4 83
Restatement of the Research Question 83
Summary of School Characteristics 84
Characteristics and demographics 86
Note: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SD) 87
Performance Data of Study Schools 87
vi
School Resource Use 94
Summary of Finding 108
Understanding the problem and challenge 109
Set ambitious goals 110
Change the curriculum program and create a new
instructional vision 111
Formative assessments and data based decision
making 113
Ongoing, intensive professional development 115
Using time efficiently and effectively 118
Extended learning time for struggling students 119
Collaborative, professional culture 121
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership 122
Professional and best practices 123
Connecting the impact of resource allocation and
performance 127
Chapter 5 135
Background 135
Discussion of findings 138
Question One: What were the current instructional
improvement strategies at the school level? 139
Question Two: How were resources used to implement
the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? 143
Question Three: How are the actual resource
patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies
that are used in the Evidence Based Model? 146
Question Four: How does the availability of
resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional
improvement plan? 148
Emerging Insights 151
It is your destiny. 151
My, what big goals you have! 152
Leadership matters 152
Commitment to excellence. 153
Recommendations for future research 153
Concluding remarks 155
Appendicies 172
Appendix A: Research Study Information and Site
Permission Letter 172
Appendix B: Document Request List 175
vii
Appendix C: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol -
School Sites 178
Appendix D: Data Collection Protocol 181
Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook 202
Appendix F: Case Studies 219
3038 219
Instructional Improvement Strategies 222
Lessons Learned 235
Future Implications 240
3058 242
Lessons Learned 257
Future Implication 262
3142 264
Lessons Learned 280
3578 288
Lessons Learned 304
3740 310
Lessons Learned 325
Future Implication 329
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Two High Performing schools versus

traditional schools 31
Table 2.2 Planning time: High Performing versus

traditional schools 51
Table 3.1 Recommended Resources for Middle and High

Schools 70
Table 3.2 California Schools meeting criterion 74
Table 4.1 State and similar school ranking 85
Table 4.2 Characteristics of Study Schools 87
Table 4.3 Characteristics of prototypical EBM

secondary schools 97
Table 4.4 Core and specialist teachers at schools of

study with EBM suggested adjustments 101
Table 4.5 Intervention teachers at schools of study

with EBM suggested adjustments 103
Table 4.6 Support staff, librarians and secretaries at

schools of study with EBM suggested adjustments 104
Table 4.7 Administration and Instructional

facilitators at schools of study with EBM suggested
adjustments 106
Table 4.8 Additional resources for continued

improvement as reported by principals 106
Table 4.9 Completion of ten steps to double

performance by school 127
Table F3038.1 Evidence Based Model and 3038 Comparison 230

ix

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure: 4.1. Change in State Rank from 2004-2008 in

schools of study 88
Figure: 4.2. Change in Similar School Rank from 2004-

2008 in schools of study. 89
Figure: 4.3. Change in API score from 2004-2008 in

schools of study 91
Figure: 4.4. Change in the number of student scoring

proficient or above in mathematics from 2004-2008 in
schools of study 92

schools of study 93
Figure: 4.6 Pyramid of Intervention for students of

3142 102
Figure: F3038.1. Changes in API at school 3038 220
Figure: F3038.2. Statewide Rank and Similar School

Rank for school 3038 221
Figure: F3038.3. Annual Measurable Objectives, percent

of students proficient in English/Language Arts and
Mathematics. 222


of students proficient or above in English/Language
Arts and Mathematics. 244

xi
of students proficient in English/Language Arts and
Mathematics. 266




Figure: 3740.4: Example of bubble map 314

xii
ABSTRACT
This study will examine five of the highest performing
secondary schools in California. This paper compared the
resource allocations at the school site level with the
evidenced based adequacy model to generate five case
studies. Additionally, this paper compared the
instructional improvement strategies with those indicated
by research to double student performance. Based on this
analysis, five insights emerged from this research: a) all
schools were underfunded when compared with the Evidence
Based Model b) all schools consciously worked towards
increasing student achievement, c) all schools had large
school wide goals d) all schools shared leadership and e)
all schools needed to commit to the implementation of
research based strategies to improve student achievement.
By examining the best schools in California the author
hoped to provide proven examples of success that other
California schools replicate because better is as better
does.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
A common refrain for and from schools is the need of
additional money. Numerous court cases have been fought and
solutions proffered to meet the demands of providing a
public education to all school age children (Rebell, 2008).
What is rarely discussed is what is required to provide an
adequate education for all children. Court cases,
settlements, and legislation often focus on specific
projects, such as class size or textbooks, but they rarely
provide a comprehensive examination and solution for the
needs of students to meet all the growing requirements
created by the same policy makers and public. Additionally,
education researchers, consultants, and vendors continue to
churn out studies, recommendations, and products that
herald the solution to various academic ills. When these
recommendations are placed in front of the backdrop of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB), states and school districts begin
to grasp at various programs hoping to find an expedient
solution to a Methuselian problem.
Many schools in California have improved since the
passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) as measured by a

2
variety of metrics, including the California Standards Test
in California (O'Connell, 2007.) School improvement has
taken many forms in what is measured. Since the passage of
NCLB, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) has become a standard
measure. Each state is required to report the levels of
achievement in English/Language Arts and Mathematics for
schools at large as well as for significant sub-groups of
students. However, each state may set it’s own content and
evaluation standard (Porter, Linn, & Trimble, 2005).
Consequently, while some states may appear to have higher
performance, they may also have lower standards compared to
other states. States such as California have a dual
accountability system, where schools performance is
summarized in the Academic Performance Index (API) as well
as the Federal measure of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). A
growing part of modern educational research examines what
the most successful schools are doing to improve
instruction. However, there has been a limited amount of
research that investigates how much it costs to be
successful.
3
Since 1969, schools have received more money (Odden &
Picus, 2008). How have they spent the money? To improve
student achievement, how should they spend the money? The
question of how much it costs to adequately fund a child’s
education becomes more complicated when budgets are being
cut due to a downturn in the economy (Schwarzenegger,
2008). Research provides direction in deciding what
programs are the most effective if cuts need to be made.
Almost all states have struggled with the method and
the amount to which schools are funded (Rebel, 2008).
Funding for California’s schools has been below the
national average since the late 1980’s (Carroll, Krop,
Arkes, Morrison, & Flanagan, 2005). While funding for
education may vary from state to state based on the cost of
living, access to effective research-based educational
resources should remain relatively stable across the
states. All students require an adequate amount of
resources (e.g., teachers) to reach high levels of
achievement.
While the low level of funding for schools in
California is generally placed at the feet of Proposition

4
13 passed in 1978, the California boom and bust cycle is
notorious and is the primary source for the current
emergency in school funding (Glenn & Picus, 2007).
Moreover, the passage of Proposition 13 increased the role
of the state in local school district decision making as
state level policy makers were now in control of the purse
string, even if it was a smaller purse (Glenn & Picus,
2007). Whatever manner the budget cuts take, it is
important for policy makers, school boards and school sites
to identify the core practices that should continue to lead
to further growth in student achievement.
There has been a great deal written regarding the most
effective practices and resources needed to improve student
achievement (Marzano, 2003; Blankstein 2004; Duke 2006;
Feldman, Lucey, Goodrich, and Frazee 2003). These
recommendations range from providing students with a
guaranteed and viable curriculum (Marzano, 2003) to
providing teachers professional development that is ongoing
and supportive of teachers (Birman, Desimone, Porter, &
Garet, 2000). Many communities want not only courses that
prepare students for college but they also want courses

5
that can prepare students for employment having graduated
from high school. The variety of effective practices
indicates that there is no single solution to raising
student achievement. Instead, what is needed is a
comprehensive plan that provides these resources adequately
for all students.
The concept of funding “adequacy” examines current
research and pairs it with effective practices. As
indicated by Odden and Picus (2008), adequacy expects that
all but the most disabled students will perform at or above
proficiency according to respective state standards with
sufficient funding to provide needed resources. To
accomplish the goal of providing an adequate level of
resources to schools, policy makers need to have knowledge
of the effective practices and the commensurate resources
needed to provide them. Once the most effective resources
are identified, policy makers can begin to build a system of
finance that can truly provide for an adequate education.
Absent this knowledge, money will continue to be provided
and student achievement will continue to be a patchwork of

6
success based upon individual schools’ ability to implement
effective strategies.
There are currently four methods for determining
adequacy,
1. Successful District
2. Cost Function
3. Professional Judgment
4. Evidenced based.
Each of the four approaches has aspects that advance their
respective use as well as detract from their use. Hanushek
(2006) describes the problems with each of the
aforementioned approaches. The successful district approach
often describes successful districts or schools but may
fail to explain why those districts are successful. The
cost function approach has proved very difficult for which
to gather data. Moreover, it generally is limited to
examining a very finite number of practices, it does not
address issues of efficiency, and it is difficult for
policy makers to understand in interpret. Professional
judgment models tend to lean towards areas of expertise of
the professionals in question. The evidence based model

7
lacks the ability to generalize findings as it can not
capture all available research and its’ application in a
school site. However, the evidence based model is grounded
upon currently accepted educational research practice. It
can serve as a basis to merge the theoretical aspects of
research with the normative value of recommending practical
and effective resources to schools.
Statement of the problem
The public, via taxes and other wealth re-distribution
methods, has invested more and more money over time into
school (Odden & Picus, 2008). These expenditures have been
rationalized as relevant due to the increasing complexity
of an increasingly competitive global economy (Friedman,
2005). Accordingly, the public has come to expect that
public education will be able to meet the educational needs
of a modern nation-state and has made these expectations
explicit through legislation such as No Child Left Behind.
However, while greater resources are expended to provide an
adequate education many are unsure of exactly what
strategies are needed to improve student achievement (Duke,
2006). Moreover, a clear understanding by the same

8
educators and policy makers of what is required if students
are to receive an adequate education is not commonly held.
While some policy makers, practitioners and researchers are
familiar with some research there is not, as of yet, a
common frame of reference by which to make informed
decisions about how to best allocate resources to improve
student achievement. Thus we have seen spending for
education rise but limited growth of student achievement
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Thus, increases in future spending
may not serve the goal of improving student achievement.
Research points to various instructional strategies
that are effective for increasing student achievement,
teachers and parents call for class size reduction, school
boards struggle to balance budgets, while more and more
money is spent on schools and more and more schools fail to
meet state and federal objectives. More and more is
demanded and, typically, more and more is given, the
current budget shortfall in California not withstanding.
Additionally, comprehensive research is lacking around
school-level expenditures. This is due, in part, to the
difficulty of gathering school level data. Large states,

9
such as California, do not have systems in place by which
to analyze school level expenditures. Indeed, in certain
cases the Local Educational Agency (LEA) may not have
systems in place to analyze school level expenditures
without a labor intensive, purchase by purchase analysis.
Accordingly, studies that attempt to examine the method and
manner by which school expenditures are made with any sort
of uniformity are difficult to conduct.
Yet, in the midst of all these data, demands, and
money, some schools do manage to succeed. Some schools may
embody much of the research being cited and allocate
resources to fulfill their visions of increasing student
achievement. Research, however, is lacking around the
degree to which schools practice what research indicates is
effective. Do successful schools practice research-based
strategies? Do they do so consciously or intuitively? To
what extent do successful schools allocate resources to
research based strategies? Does their allocation of
resources align with the adequacy model of spending? In
all, the focus is to have clarity about how schools can

10
allocate resources to maximize and increase student
achievement.
California does not fund schools based on an adequacy
model. California funds schools far below the amount that
would be required to fund the Odden and Picus (2008)
Evidence-Based model. Yet schools in California are held
to comparable levels of education compared to other states,
some of which do use the adequacy model.
Most money that reaches a school has a predetermined
purpose. The LEA determines the purpose for monies when it
is directed towards the individual school, if not set by
the state when provided to the LEA. Nonetheless, schools
have shown the ability to focus money in strategic manners
based on the school site priorities. Macro studies have
examined allocation of resources to LEA but micro studies
as to the implementation of these monies is wanting.
Purpose of the Study
This dissertation will compare how successful schools
spent their resources with how the evidence-based adequacy
model proposes resources should be spent to increase
performance. This dissertation will specifically examine

11
school level data. By utilizing school level data,
researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and the
community at large will have available to them the needed
insights to address the question of how best to allocate
resources as provided by the State and the LEA.
Research questions.
This study will examine successful schools and how
they have allocated their resources. This study will focus
upon school level data. This study will continue to provide
data that are currently needed in education to help
increase student achievement by answering the following
questions.
a. What are the current instructional improvement
strategies at the school level and with what resources
are the strategies supported at school.
b. How are the actual resource patterns aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are
used in the Evidence-Based Adequacy Model?
c. What is the schools’ instructional plan and how are
resources expended in support of the plan?

12
d. How does the availability of resources affect the
development and implementation of the strategic plan?
Do the schools being examined spend their money
differently depending on the amount of money available
to them? Will all schools have the same expenditures
in common?
Importance of the Study
For researchers the importance of this study is that
it will compare the adequacy model to actual resource
allocation in successful schools in California. The
adequacy model uses existing research to provide for the
effective allocation of resources for students education
(Odden & Picus, 2008). This study will compare how schools
use their resources with what the adequacy model states
will provide student with an adequate education. It will
provide researchers data around the issue of adequacy with
important information about assumptions of how schools
should spend their money. With the wide breadth of current
research showing various level of effectiveness (Marzano,
2003), it will be important to identify other areas of

13
education that should be incorporated into an adequacy
model.
For policy makers, it will validate whether successful
schools are spending money on what research says are
effective strategies. The LEA will always have infinite
demands on finite resources. This study can help provide a
clear focus on where finite resources should be spent to
increase student achievement. Most notably, it will provide
a focused study that will provide practical information on
not only how schools should spend their money but on how
successful schools actually spend their money. As was
indicated previously, there are a myriad of effective
strategies for LEAs to invest in, however, this study will
provide LEAs with comprehensive practical solutions based
upon field work and research.
For the practitioner, it will offer a description of
what spending takes place in successful schools. All
schools receive money that is earmarked for certain project
prior to arriving to the school house door. This study will
provide the school site practitioner important information
regarding how other schools, who also receive earmarked

14
money, allocate resources in service to their school site
determined vision, mission, and needs. A local school site,
similar to the LEA, must also face multiple demands on a
restricted budget. This study will provide school site
personnel with specific examples of what was done at other
successful schools and how resources were allocated.
For legislators and policy makers it can inform future
budgetary decisions. The current economic crisis in
California makes this study all the more urgent and
important. As the state government is forced to make
crucial decisions on budgetary cuts, a study such as this
can help identify what programs are needed the most to help
maintain, if not continue to increase, student achievement.
Additionally, this study will also serve as a map for
legislators and policy makers once the current crisis is
over and funding to education is renewed. Moreover, it will
examine the need to increase funding to school sites in
order to provide an adequate education to students. Lastly,
by examining the need to provide funding, it will also
serve as a guide to how those resources should be allocated

15
if the State is to dramatically increase student
achievement.
Methodology
This study will examine ten comprehensive secondary
schools that have shown significant improvement over the
last year in the state of California. It will use a mixed
methods approach. It will use a qualitative approach in
discussing with school site personnel the use of
instructional time. It will collect quantitative data on
resources and student outcomes. It will examine the
allocation of resources by conducting interviews and
reviewing budget documents, as available. Data will be
collected into a common database for analysis.
Limitations and delimitations
The following limitations applied to this study:
1. Accurately identifying expenditures and tying
them to student achievement. As an evidence based
model, this study does not attempt to tie
specific expenditures to specific outcomes, as a
cost function model might attempt. Instead, it
examines the entirety of a successful school’s

16
program to identify key features within each
schools and across schools’ program.
2. This study is not generalizable beyond California
because it is focused specifically upon student
achievement as measured by the California
standards test and by funding as provided by the
State of California.
The following delimitations applied to this study:
1. Evaluating the level of implementation of
expenditures e.g., the quality of Professional
Development, the extent of classroom monitoring,
the use of classroom strategies.
2. Limited sample size to includes only 5 schools.
3. The sample is self-selected and non-random
Definition of Terms
Adequacy: the cost of educating students to identified
standards.
Banking time: the practice of lengthening four out of
five day of the school week to shorten one day. This
practice is usually conducted to allow teachers time to

17
collaborate without having students miss instructional
minutes.
Categorical Funds: monies provided by local, state but
mostly from the Federal government with specific intent
such as serving English Learners or students at or below
the poverty line (Odden & Archibald, 2001).
Specialist Teachers: teachers of subjects outside the
core subject. These would include, but not be limited to,
subjects such as physical education, art and music.

18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter will provide an overview of educational
adequacy and relevant topics. Specifically, it will discuss
the issues of resource allocation and improving performance
because this is ostensibly the reason for education
adequacy. The desire to provide adequate resources to
schools so that all children can be successful is a common
interest. This interest has been demonstrated by
legislation such as No Child Left Behind and adjudication
of cases such as Serrano. While the measure of success may
change and the cases that determine school funding will
continue to alter how schools are funded (Glenn & Picus,
2007), the desire to provide adequately for students
remains. The adequacy model directly examines what is
required for all students to be successful in schools. In
line with Gamoran et al. (2003), the point is not to throw
additional resources at schools as has been the case but to
identify and provide resources which research shows have a
positive correlation to student achievement.

19
Accordingly one portion of this section will focus
upon resource allocation. This topic will form the main
thrust of the work to be developed in chapter four as
successful schools are studied regarding their own
allocation of resources. Furthermore, another section will
examine improving performance; the second main thrust of
this study. This information will be compared with findings
at sample schools. Finally, a review of literature
regarding educational adequacy will be provided. This
review will tie in the previous sections by discussing how
the adequacy model combines student performance and the
resources needed to improve student performance.
Synthesizing the literature
There has been a great deal written about school
funding and how to improve student achievement. This
section will present the major and most important findings
that will be used to inform this study’s examination of
successful schools and how resources are allocated.
Furthermore, this section will describe how the adequacy
model has been developed and implemented in states such as

20
Wyoming to provide further points of comparison with this
study’s sample schools.
The amount of money spent per pupil has grown steadily
every year since 1970 (Rosen, 2002). However, the demand to
continue to provide additional resources for public
education continues to climb. Part of the dichotomy is due
to the fact that public education is a private good
(Rosen). While in the abstract the public may benefit from
an educated populace, it is an individual who actually
“consumes” education and in the case of public education
the consumer is traditionally not of age to pay for it via
taxes.
Resource Allocation
Even with an increase in expenditures, Costrell,
Hanushek, and Loeb (2008) assert that there is limited
evidence that increased funding will increase student
achievement, all other things being equal. Further
complicating the matter are the findings that funding
varies state to state and district to district (Picus,
1993; Loeb, Grissom, and Strunk 2006) and that individual
students with special needs do require additional support

21
which increases the variability of cost (Baker, 2005).
Accordingly, as a whole, the study of allocation of
resources to schools becomes increasingly complicated as
some research belies connecting student achievement with
resources. Moreover the resources provided to schools are
not equally distributed which would allow for a simple
analysis of allocation and performance.
Brinson and Mellor (2005) suggest six findings around
high performing schools and how they expend time and money:
(a) team teaching makes a difference, (b) more time on
instruction increases achievement, (c) tutoring increases
achievement, (d) a teacher with four or more years of
experience make a difference.
Successful identification of how monies are spent at
the school site level is complicated without an effective
framework for analysis. Educational costs can be calculated
by either a top-down or bottom-up approach. Top-down
approaches involves estimating district costs to achieve
desired student outcomes and controlling for student
characteristics. The bottom-up approach involves

22
identifying the desired resources to achieve the desired
outcome (Baker, 2005).
Archibald and Gallagher (2002) and Miles, Odden,
Fermanich, and Archibald (2004) found that tracking the
cost of professional development difficult to accomplish
among the myriad of funding sources and classifications.
Fermanich (2002) found that schools spend more on
professional development than originally estimated with
local schools covering the bulk of the costs. Desimone,
Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002) emphasize the
importance of districts to “cofund” professional
development efforts in support of local schools. Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich, and Gallagher (2002) propose an
approach to analyzing cost for professional development by
examining (a) teacher time (b) training and coaching (c)
administration (d) materials, equipment and facilities (e)
travel and transportation, and (f) university tuition and
conference fees.
Cooper (1993) uses the School Site Allocation Model
(SSAM) to track expenditures on the school site and
classroom. The SSAM was found to be very useful by

23
superintendents as a way of analyzing and subsequently
allocating resources. Funding was separated into five
areas: administration, operations, staff support pupil
support, and instructional support. While not its primary
purpose, this model also allowed for the examination of
student achievement vis-a-vis expenditure. Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) examine school level
expenditures and categorize them as such. It is similar to
the adequacy model in the categories it develops and uses
for analysis e.g., core teachers, specialist teachers,
tutors, etc.
Gamoran et al. (2003) state that to improve
performance, teachers require (a) materials for student
engagement (b)an understanding of students’ reasoning (c)
activating prior knowledge (d) value what students bring to
a classroom instead of focusing upon what they lack (e) the
ability to create an effective instructional environment.
Each of these requirements focuses upon the individual
students needs to improve performance. However the
educational system is currently arranged to support

24
existing routines and systems with as few resources as
possible (Gamoran et al.)
Odden and Archibald (2001) found that approximately
80% of a districts’ budget goes directly to services for
students. Most of these funds are spent on personnel in
schools (Odden & Archibald). Odden & Archibald found that
this pattern of spending remained consistent even when
local school sites had independent control of their
budgets. Most school sites view non-staff and Title I
monies as discretionary (Odden & Archibald). Odden and
Archibald (p. 62-63) provide six categories into which
school staff can be separated:
1. Classroom teachers: teach core content.
2. Regular education specialists: teach subjects
other than the core.
3. Categorical program specialist: teach subjects
outside the regular education program and are
paid for from categorical funds.
4. Pupil support specialist: provide non-academic
services to students, such as guidance
counseling.
25
5. Aides: paraprofessional staff.
6. Other Staff: includes classified workers such as
clerks, custodians, and cafeteria workers.
Each of these classifications have historically played a
role in modern American education and accordingly have not
been greatly changed. There has been some recent movement
as positions such as aides have been reduced to support
research that finds limited added value from aides (Odden &
Archibald).
Gamoran et al. (2003) found that as teacher practice
improved so did demands upon materials. Teachers would need
different and/or additional materials as their knowledge
and skills deepened and they were better able to identify
the needs of their respective students (Gamoran et al.).
Odden (2000) identifies core educational costs to
include (a) ongoing costs such as professional staff and
(b) transitional costs for design and implementation of
reform. Design components represent an amalgam of all
reform models which include (a) administration, (b)
instructional facilitators (tutors),(c) teachers, (d)
regular education specialists, (e) struggling student

26
support, (f) professional development, (g) teacher aides,
(h) pupil support/family, (i)outreach, and (j) technology.
While Odden offers suggestions as to how these elements can
be allocated from existing resources, the author is also
clear that there still lacks a strong relationship between
the elements introduced above and improved student
achievement.
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) focused on how
schools used resources differently depending on their
instructional goals and strategies. The authors found six
reasons for the gap between the potential and the reality
in US schools,
1. Specialized programs conducted as add-ons
2. Isolated, instruction free-time for teachers
3. Fragmented high school schedules and curriculum
4. Formula-driven student assignment
5. Large high school sizes
6. Inflexible teacher workday and job definition
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) found that high performing
secondary schools allocated resources differently to
provide for (a) more flexible student groupings, (b)

27
structures to create personal relationships, (c) longer and
more varied blocks of instructional time, (d) more common
planning time. All schools in the study redesigned the way
they allocated teaching resources to meet student needs and
to create the time teachers need to implement a new vision
of schooling. In all cases, it was of utmost importance
that the resource reallocation and the design of an
instructional vision and strategy were intertwined.
Outside Services
There is a common misconception of a bloated
bureaucracy in Central Offices; the truth is that in most
districts, central office budgets comprise a small
percentage of district expenses (Odden & Archibald, 2001).
However, some school districts do manage to increase
funding for school sites by eliminating services that
school sites would otherwise have access to using; such as
eliminating central office bilingual services to move
monies to school sites for professional development (Odden
& Archibald). A majority of a district’s funding goes to
school sites. Some schools sites decide to eliminate non-
classroom teacher positions to garner additional classroom

28
teachers and thereby reduce class size. Other schools have
decided to increase class size to release teachers to serve
as tutors.
Gamoran et al. (2003) found that it was important for
teachers to have experts, from outside or inside the school
to confer with regarding classroom instruction. Outside
experts could include university researchers which Gamoran
et al. found would be used with increasing frequency as
time progressed.
Time
Gamoran et al. (2003) suggest that time be allocated
to improve teacher learning via professional development.
Time for teacher to collaborate can be provided through
additional days in the school year, “banking” time during
the school year, or providing substitutes. Gamoran et al.
however, found that teachers were hesitant to leave
students with substitutes due to the belief that students
would not receive the quality of instruction they would
otherwise. However, as valuable as time may be Gamoran et
al. found that it could be wasted if there was not
effective leadership to implement the changes that would

29
develop from time allotted. For substantive changes to take
place a substantive number of teachers must be part of the
process of change. In their own study of successful schools
with English learners Gandara and Rumberger (2006) found
that students needed additional time to receive a
comprehensive program that provides instruction not only in
the development of English, but in other areas of the core
curriculum as well.
Staffing
Schools have also organized themselves into smaller
units. Initiatives such as the creation of small leaning
communities (SLC) limits the number of student seen by a
teacher, engendering a more focused approach toward
individual students. The Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development (Ed), and Policy and Program Studies
Service (2008) found that schools implementing SLCs were
undertaking efforts to improve personalization. Other
schools, such as Edison schools are designed to be smaller
than many traditionally sized schools (Odden & Archibald,
2001). The number of students seen can also be limited by
the use of inter-curricular work between teachers (Odden &

30
Archibald). Other initiatives such as the 4x4 schedule
reduce the number of students a teacher sees on a given
day.
Vander Ark (2002) argues for the success of small
schools through the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. Shkolnik et al. (2007) in their evaluation of
the Bill & Melinda High School Grants Initiative found
mixed results with the type of work provided to students
and the quality of the work students produced. Generally,
however, Shkolnik et al. found that the student work at
redesigned smaller schools was comparable to, if not
better, than those of traditional schools.
Research on class size reduction has been mixed.
Research has been able to support through the Tennessee
class size study that s class size of 15 students or fewer
has a positive result (Fin, Gerber, Achilles, & Boyd-
Zaharias, 2001). For older students the research regarding
class size is inconclusive (Biddle & Berliner, 2002). For
struggling students, one on one tutoring has been shown to
be effective as has lowering class size to fifteen to one.
Additionally, at the secondary level the replacement of

31
elective classes with additional academic courses that
support core courses have been shown to increase student
achievement. While results are mixed many schools lowered
class sizes to fewer than 20 students per class and grouped
students according to ability, as opposed to age or grade
level (Odden & Archibald, 2001).
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) found that high
performing schools did have smaller groups sizes as opposed
to traditional schools as shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Two High Performing schools versus traditional

schools
Schools
Measure Central Park International Traditional
East
Students per 10.2 10.2 14.7
instructional
staff
Students per 13.3 15.8 23.6
full-time
teacher
32
Table 2.1: Continued
Average size of 18 25 33.4
regular
instructional
group
Average size 15 12 29
advisory group
Note: from “Rethinking the Allocation of Teaching
Resources: Some Lessons from High-Performing Schools,” by
K.H. Miles and L. Darling-Hammond, 1997, Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, p.22.
As can be seen in Table 2.1, traditional schools had
more students per instructional staff and full-time
teacher. Additionally, average sizes for instructional and
advisory groups were also larger in Traditional schools as
compared to high performing schools. Moreover, Fullan
(2003), Biddle and Berliner (2002), and Odden and Picus
(2008) advocate for small schools numbering no more than
600 students in high schools.

33
English Language Learners
Gandara and Rumberger (2006) found that 42% of
students could be described as “Language Minority”, where a
language other than English is spoken at home. English
learners struggle to receive the support that has been
found effective. For example, Gandara and Rumberger found
that English learners are more likely than any other group
to have unqualified teachers. Moreover, this is
exacerbated by the finding that teachers of English
learners do not receive the professional development needed
to meet the needs of their respective students (Gandara &
Rumberger). Spycher (2007) finds that English learner
students and their respective teachers need adequate access
to materials and curriculum to accelerate their learning.
Assessments that adequately assess English learners
are not readily available nor implemented (Gandara and
Rumberger, 2006). Many current assessment in
English/Language Arts summative assessments of a students’
knowledge of English as opposed to formative assessments
that would provide more meaningful data for English
learners as they develop their English skills. However, in

34
their own assessment of current literature Gandara and
Rumberger find little consensus as to what resources are
needed to meet the needs of English learners. In their own
case studies they do find that schools that are successful
with English learners devote time to professional
development and create a welcoming environment by
allocating additional personnel to work with students and
their respective families. Moreover, additional time is
given to students as they master not only English but other
core content areas as well. Gandara and Rumberger (2006)
find that many schools have resources allocated to English
learners and that what is needed is an examination of how
to allocate resources not simply what additional resources
are needed.
Improving Performance
Odden (2000) identifies comprehensive school reform as
the mechanism for school restructuring necessary for
student achievement. Many models have been developed.
Schools may use already-developed models, adapt them, or
create their own. Comprehensive school reform includes
(Odden):
35
1. Curriculum with high standards
2. Instructional strategies so all student learn
3. Effective student groupings
4. Scheduling
5. Teacher planning time
6. Student support and home outreach
7. Professional development
8. Technology
There is variation in design assistance and training for
different programs (Odden). There is also variation in the
use of technology, teachers, and other elements between
different programs.
Darling-Hammond (2002) and Duke (2006) suggest other
elements that have lead to improved performance. Duke
describes the common element in improving schools such as
assistance, collaboration, data driven decision making,
leadership, organizational structure, staff development,
alignment of test and curriculum, assessment, high
expectations, parental involvement, and scheduling. He
examines how schools begin their decline. He also discusses
the areas that need further elucidation such as the reason

36
for decline, examining teamwork, assessing interventions,
detecting the need for mid-course correction, identifying
unanticipated problems and pinpointing personnel problems.
Darling-Hammond provides examples of how personalization,
continuous relationships, high standards and performance
based assessments, authentic curriculum, adaptive pedagogy,
multicultural and anti-racist teaching, knowledgeable and
skilled teachers, collaborative planning and professional
development, family and community connection, and
democratic decision making create an effective schools.
While both focus upon ideas such as high expectations,
collaboration and curriculum there are also differences
each list as well. However, these do not need to be seen as
exclusive but inclusive of the strategies needed to meet a
wide variety of needs.
Odden and Archibald (2001) discusse the process of
resource allocation for schools to boost student
achievement. Odden and Archibald begin by discussing the
importance of examining data to identify the needs of
students as a way to develop a strategic plan using
research to best meet the needs of students. Finally, a

37
continuous circle of examination and adjustment must become
part of the practice for schools as they continue to
identify how to best use their resources.
There are various school-level factors relating to
curriculum and instruction that increase student
achievement:
1. guaranteed and viable curriculum (Marzano, 2003)
2. classroom curriculum design (Marzano)
3. aligning curriculum and assessments (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
A guaranteed and viable curriculum is composed of each
student having the “Opportunity to Learn” (Marzano, 2003).
“Opportunity to Learn” refers to the discrepancy between
the intended curriculum, the implemented curriculum, and
the attained curriculum i.e., what is supposed to be taught
by the teacher, what was actually taught by the teacher,
and what the student learned. As stated by Marzano (p. 24),
“if students do not have the opportunity to learn the
content, there is little chance that they will.” However,
Gamoran et al. (2003) found that simply providing a

38
prepackaged curriculum was not as valuable as time to
collaborate.
Leadership
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) find that
effective leaders do improve student achievement. Current
scholarship regarding school leadership could best be
described as belonging to the human resource and symbolic
frames as described by Bolman and Deal (2003). The other
frames that are present are more in support of changes to
the structural frame as opposed to their own advocacy.
Bolman and Deal describe four “perspectives” by which
people frame the work they do or that needs to be done. The
four frames are (a) structural (b) human resource (c)
political (d) symbolic (Bolman & Deal).
The symbolic frame focuses upon issues of culture and
meaning for the work to be done. The changes under NCLB
with its emphasis on standardized test scores and data has
been a substantive shift for many educators who still
question the validity of the change (Mintrop & Trujillo,
2007). The human resource frame focuses upon people’s
needs, skills and relationships (Bolman & Deal).

39
Successful leadership requires continued support
around the importance of learning and instruction, the
development of quality teaching and professional learning,
organizational development, analysis and use of data to
inform school improvement, change management, and
leadership skills (Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2007). As
will be discussed in subsequent sections, the need to
develop capacity for collective leadership as well as to
improve instruction is a key focus in this study and much
of current the educational scholarship as well.
The structural frame and political frame focus upon
rules, roles, and power and competition, respectively.
While these frames are clearly reflected in the literature
regarding school leadership, they play a supportive role to
the human resource and symbolic frame. Spillane, Halverson,
and Diamond (2001) describe leadership as the organization
of resources to facilitate learning; similar to Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) political frame. The structural focuses upon
how to align the structures of an organization to tasks and
environment. Under NCLB, schools have struggled to align

40
the work being done to achieve the goals set out by state
and federal governments.
Culture
One of the largest effects leadership can have in
improving a school is by changing the school culture
(Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Dufour & Burnette, 2002). As
a garden can be, school culture is organic and ongoing. It
is represented by norms – invisible, implicit, unexamined,
fragile, high maintenance (Dufour & Burnette). Left
untended weeds of negativity can begin to hide the positive
efforts of others. Some examples are individuals who take
no personal responsibility, who prefer to work in
isolation, or who focus on activities as opposed to results
(Dufour & Burnette). School leaders must treat negative
situations by pressing staff members, providing time for
collaboration, finding common ground and limiting the
number of initiatives that the school attempts to implement
(Dufour & Burnette). With each of these challenges, school
leaders can make an important and positive change to
increase student performance.

41
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) discuss the
difference between first order and second order change.
First order change consists of the fine tuning of existing
structures to address challenges or improve efficiency.
Second order change is change which requires a systemic
change in the way work is conceptualized and completed.
Marzano et al. find that schools today require second order
change, which is change in the school culture; change in
the way that the work of school is conceptualized and
completed. The role of the leader in this sort of change is
multi-faceted as there are numerous demands and challenges
in creating second order change. Team work is required and
the task of creating deep and lasting change must be shared
by the team.
Collective leadership
Modern school leadership relies on the importance of
developing the capacity in teachers and others in schools
to identify and meet the needs of students. Fullan (2005)
emphasizes the importance to schools to sustain changes
that have been implemented to improve the quality of
schools. “Sustainability is the capacity of a system to

42
engage in the complexities of continuous improvement
consistent with deep values of human purpose” (Fullan, p.
ix).
Fullan suggests that to create meaningful change it
must begin with the individuals implementing the change. To
lead this sustained change Fullan describes “the new
leader” as a Platonic philosopher-king that combines both
the theoretical world and the practical into one with every
action they take. However, he is clear to state that
sustained change comes about only from systemic change.
This change includes district as well as school site
personnel.
Fullan (2003) and Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond
(2001) describe the importance of collective cooperation in
school leadership. Leadership on the parts of all parties
requires a clear and consistent focus upon the mission and
vision of the school. To that end, school leaders must
decide how to focus upon their core mission to eliminate
the gaps between what they want to do and what they are
actually doing (Fullan, 2003; Collins, 2001; Clark and
Estes 2002). This collective focus of not only what to do

43
but how to do it builds to change to collective culture of
the school to focus upon increased student achievement. By
working together responsibility is shared by a variety of
people and no one single “leader”.
Professional Development
High quality professional development is one of the
key features for school improvement (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005). While some professional development may
change teacher practice, without evaluative study, the
success of the program may end without improved student
success (Cohen, 1990). Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and
Birman (2002) similarly found that while teacher practice
may change over time with professional development, such
change does not automatically translate into improved
student achievement.
Focus.
Odden and Archibald and Gamoran et al. (2003) found
that successful schools placed a great emphasis upon
professional development in their schools. Odden and Picus
(2008) found that a professional development audit is as
important as finding additional resources for professional

44
development. This is due in part to the various funders and
expectations that work to implement professional
development (Miles, Odden, Fermanich, & Archibald, 2004).
For schools to develop successful programs, a focused
effort was needed (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996). Schools needed
what Collins (2001) termed a hedge-hog concept. Schools
needed to provide a clear focus, such as improving reading,
examining student work, or using data to provide clear
direction for school wide efforts.
COHERENCE
Most schools lack a coherent professional development
plan (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). While
there may be competing interest vying for attention, it is
important that professional development be provided in a
clear and consistent manner. Similarly, it is important
that all facets of a school district support a coherent
system of professional development (Desimone, Porter,
Birman, Garet, & Yoon, 2002; Elmore and Burney, 1999;
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon, 2001).
For example, Gandara and Rumberger (2006) found that
teachers of English Learners did not receive adequate

45
professional development. Accordingly Gandara and Rumberger
recommend that schools provide teachers of English learners
with professional development to develop effective
strategies, knowledge of language, and use of assessments
to meet the needs of students. Schools with a substantial
population of English learner should focus on providing
such support, whereas other schools may have other
populations or strategies to focus upon. Focusing on
identifying effective strategies with existing resources
can serve to greatly increase student achievement,
especially as many districts may already be providing
support at the level described by an adequacy model (Odden
& Picus).
For Webb and Norton (2008), the goal of professional
development is to increase teachers’ knowledge and skill to
improve student achievement. Professional development today
is seen as largely ineffective but full of promise (Guskey
& Huberman, 1995; Joyce, 1988). Indeed, Guskey and Huberman
seek to reframe the role of professional development from a
technical increase in skills and knowledge to an experience
which connects to the moral principles of public education.

46
Guskey and Huberman state that it is this lack of
connection to the morale that has rendered professional
development as largely ineffective as it fails to connect
the individual teachers’ sense of purpose to those of the
educational system. Smylie (1996) questions the measures
proposed by NCLB and suggest that focusing upon building
teacher’s human capital usher in change. Joyce (1988)
states that the purpose and focus of staff development
should be to ensure the continuous growth of educators and
thereby increase student achievement. This sort of
rationale is mirrored by Collins (2001) in his seminal
book, Good to Great. In Good to Great Collins asserts that
great people are motivated by accomplishment rather than
personal compensation.
Successful professional development
Borko and Putnam (1995) assert that the professional
development process should follow the same procedure that
it advocates for student use and that teachers must believe
that new knowledge and skills are beneficial to students
and themselves. These assertions are further buttressed by
Smylie (1995) who finds that teachers themselves must be

47
able to see the connection between their new learning and
solution to problems in classrooms i.e., they must see
practical value in the experience. The professional
development plan as a whole should be placed into the
larger context of what is occurring within the school
(Little, 1993). To that end, teachers should play a role in
the development of professional development in their
respective schools (Corcoran, 1995; Little, 1993).
Moreover, professional development must be ongoing for
changes in practice to persist (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Joyce (1988) states that there must
also be a clear focus upon school improvement and district-
wide initiatives.
Successful professional development programs have
several characteristics in common. Joyce (1988), Little
(1993), Borko and Putnam (1995), Supovitz and Turner
(2000), Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon, (2001),
and Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002) state
that successful programs focus on subject matter and
pedagogical knowledge. That is, professional development
should focus on deepening the knowledge the teacher has of

48
their particular subject. Additionally, professional
development should focus upon how to effectively transmit
the content area of knowledge from the teacher to the
student.
Webb and Norton suggest an assessment center which,
“is not a place but a process of using multiple techniques
and multiple assessors to make judgments about an
individual’s performance” (p. 177). Assessment centers
would facilitate such endeavors as (a) learning walks, (b)
study groups, (c)clinical supervision, (d) lesson study,
(e) action research, (f) individual professional
development plans, (g) teachers centers, (h) job rotation,
and (i) peer-assisted leadership (Webb and Norton). Birman,
Desimone, Porter, and Garet (2000) also emphasize the role
of focusing upon an intensive, sustained program of
professional development that focuses on form, duration,
participation, content, active learning, and participation.
Collaborative and participatory
Working collaboratively is in line with the standards
the National Staff Development Council (2008), the first
standard “organizes adults” into groups that align with the

49
school and district. Professional learning communities have
been found to be very successful as a means to organize
teachers around instruction and improved student learning
(Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996). Louis and Marks (1998) found
PLCs to be effective for improving student achievement.
However, it was found that learning improved because of
more authentic assessment and instruction (Louis & Marks).
The use of higher order thinking skills required student to
be more interactive and required the teachers to
collaborate more (Louis & Marks).
Time
Successful programs require sustained support over
time (Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Joyce (1988) describes current
practices as three days per year of staff development with
a few meetings with their supervisor. However, to improve
student achievement teachers should receive fifteen to
twenty days of professional development and have regular
meetings with supervisors to discuss practice (Joyce).
Odden and Archibald (2001) found that higher achieving
schools provided 1-3 week summer programs for teaches in

50
addition to other professional development activities
during the year. In Edison schools, teachers are simply
paid to work longer hours and additional days during the
school year to provide time for planning and additional
activities Odden and Archibald (2001).
To help provide time to teachers Joyce suggests (a)
administrators teach classes (b) group students together in
larger groups (d) use of volunteer aides (e) use of student
teachers (f) use of substitutes. As a last measure,
teachers could video tape observations for later reflection
(Joyce). Joyce (1988) and Odden and Archibald (2001)
suggest that students be provided with independent study
and research time during which teachers could meet. Odden
and Archibald (2001) point out that specialist teachers
were hired to provide core teachers time to plan.
Accordingly, specialist teachers can be scheduled to
provide core teachers with same common planning period so
they could have time to work together. Additional minutes
can be added to four of the five school days with the fifth
day being shortened for students, allowing teachers time to
work collaboratively.
51
Anderson, Ashmann, Secada, and Williams (2003) noted
that to implement new strategies additional classroom time
would need to be used. This time would limit the amount of
content coverage that would traditionally take place. These
expectations would need to be negotiated with colleagues
and administration.
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) found that higher
performing secondary schools allotted additional time to
faculty members as compared to traditional schools.
Supovitz and Turner (2000) found that schools in lower
Socio-Economic neighborhoods tended to use more
“traditional” approaches to instruction.
Table 2.2 Planning time: High Performing versus traditional

schools
Schools
Measure Central Park International Traditional
East
Common planning 450 350 0
minutes/week
Length of 120 140 42
longest planning
period
52
Note: from “Rethinking the Allocation of Teaching
Resources: Some Lessons from High-Performing Schools,” by
K.H. Miles and L. Darling-Hammond, 1997, Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, p.22.
Moreover Supovitz and Turner (2000) found that additional
time spent in professional development could lead teachers
from simply changing practice to changing cultures in a
school.
Trainers and Coaches
Joyce (1988) describes a system of support for
professional development that is mutually supported by
teachers in small teams which belong to larger and larger
teams, up to the district level. Teachers peer coach each
other following a training and on a continuous basis using
an agreed upon protocol for observation and feedback
(Joyce). For Joyce, coaching entails teachers working
together, not to offer advice to each other, per se, but
instead to observe each other to share practices to improve
teaching and learning. Anderson (2003, p. 17) lists
“partnerships between school professionals and outside
agents” as a requirement for instructional improvement.

53
Webb and Norton (2008) differentiate between mentors, who
guide a colleague with a coach through a variety of
professional situation with a coach who works with a
colleague upon agreed upon goals and provides feedback. In
this case, mentors play a much wider role than a coach in
supporting an educator’s professional growth.
Knight (2006) identified time with teachers, knowing
research based interventions, professional development for
coaches, not making coaches an extension of administration,
having coach and principal work together, hiring effective
coaches, and the evaluation of coaches as key to a
successful coaching program.
Data: Assessments
One of the most crucial parts for improving student
achievement is the availability of reliable and valid data
(Duke, 2006). This has also been one of the biggest
criticisms of NCLB as some feel that the assessments do no
measure a students’ knowledge adequately. Case in point,
Gandara and Rumberger (2006) found that assessments for
English learners do measure a students’ knowledge of

54
English because they are assessments for English speakers,
which English learners, by definition, are not.
Feldman, Lucey, Goodrich, and Farzee (2003) calls on
schools to create a vision, collect and analyze data,
determine strength and challenge areas, create a plan of
action, and to evaluate annually. Using these steps Feldman
et al. found schools improved their practice in meeting the
needs of students.
Fullan (2005) urges the use intelligent accountability
including both honest self-assessment and external
inspection. Sustainable change will wither if not fed with
accurate feedback as participants begin to doubt their own
accomplishments or lose sight of their purpose.
Aligning assessments given to students with the
curriculum taught can provide powerful feedback to both the
teacher and students. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) provide
a revision of Blooms seminal taxonomy which provides added
clarity and utility to the teacher in creating and aligning
assessments. Their revised taxonomy expands from factual
knowledge to include conceptual, procedural, and meta-
cognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl). By expanding

55
the knowledge dimensions, teachers can be more strategic
about what and how they teach and assess students. Louis
and Marks (1998) found that professional learning
communities were effective as they supported the alignment
of instruction and assessment. Aligning instruction to
assessment provides a much more rigorous environment for
the school.
Educational Adequacy
“Adequacy is best defined as the cost of providing
educational programs and services so that all – or almost
all – children have an equal opportunity to meet high
learning goals” (Odden et al., 2005, p. i). One of the most
important distinctions possible is that adequacy is more
concerned with providing all student an adequate education
as opposed to focusing upon all students receiving an equal
amount of resources (Reich, 2006). High learning goals may
be defined as the AYP measures as set forth in NCLB, as
state defined such as the API measure in California, or it
may be deduced from the series of court cases which have
addressed the issues (Rebel, 2008).

56
This study will focus upon the Evidence-based model
for educational adequacy which uses established research
which is shown to improve instruction for determining
resources and their respective levels (Picus, 2004).
Educational adequacy is composed of state standards, the
goal to have all but the most severely disabled students
meet those standards, who meet both state and federal
accountabilities, and the funding to support those goals
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Rebel (2008, p. 433) notes that
given current legislation and court actions, the adequacy
model is “the only game in town.”
The courts have been used in an attempt to settle how
schools should be funded by government (Lukemeyer, 2004;
Picus, 2004; Reich, 2006; Rebell, 2008). Court cases from
Serrano v. Priest to current cases such as Campbell County
School District v. State in Wyoming have sought to address
the issue of funding in schools (National Access Network,
2008). Rebel (2008) describes the adequacy movement as
currently addressing the goals promoted in Brown vs. the
Board of Education of providing adequate education to all
children. In the court case Rose v. Council for Better

57
Education, Inc (Kentucky 1989), the court found that the
state must provide for an adequate education (Lukemeyer;
Reich). The costs of different “Equity Objects” (Lukemeyer)
from object to object and region to region imply that
providing the same amount of fiscal resources to all
schools will not, in and of itself, provide for an adequate
education to all students.
What is considered adequate can range from state to
state as different states have different measures of what
is an adequate education and what is needed to adequately
provide for it (Odden, 2003). For example, while the Rose
decision set a high standard for adequacy, Edgewood
Independent School District v. Kerby allowed for low
minimum standards (Lukemeyer, 2004). In the case of
Williams v. State of California, the settlement only called
for “safe and decent” school facilities while the Campaign
for Fiscal Equity v State of New York called for providing
a “sound and basic education” (Reich, 2006). In all,
however, the question that is becoming more of a focus for
legislators and the courts is what it takes to provide an
adequate education for all children. Continued study of

58
such an issue has provided greater clarity regarding how to
answer this question.
Hanushek (2006) argues that schools have sufficient
funding and that court involvement has led to poorer
services for students. Furthermore Hanushek asserts that
seeking educational adequacy from the courts or from
legislation over simplifies a complex issue that may result
in losses in student achievement. Walberg (2006) buttresses
the assertions that schools have sufficient resources by
examining successful schools with existing resources.
Schools are inefficient and accordingly, if schools could
implement greater efficiency, such as those found in
private schools, they would have greater success (Hanushek,
2006). Hanushek advocates for greater accountability with
rewards and punishments for schools that do not perform
adequately. Additionally, by providing greater transparency
and choice to families and communities schools will improve
their performance to meet demand.
Rebell (2007) also examines the roles of judicial
review and finds that while the courts may be swayed by
political considerations that there is still a role for

59
them to play if research can be provided that is
transparent regarding the adoption of particular outcome
standards, more precise means for identifying the extent to
which students with special needs require extra resources,
specific mechanisms to minimize political bias and
political manipulations, and the use of “quality education
models” to integrate efficiency and accountability
considerations within the basic cost analysis. In addition,
more extensive public engagement and continuing judicial
oversight will be necessary to ensure the credibility and
the legitimacy of the ultimate judgments that result from
these studies.
In about 75% of adequacy cases the plaintiffs have won
(Rebell, 2007). Funding has been based on political
considerations instead of real data on what resources are
actually needed (Rebell). The standards movement (NCLB) has
lead to “costing-out” studies that examine what is needed
to bring students to proficiency in different contexts.
Costing-out/adequacy studies are to some extent dependent
on professional judgment and political considerations.

60
Four approaches have developed that have attempted to
address the issue of adequacy in schools (Picus, 2004):
1. Cost functions
2. Successful school districts
3. Professional judgment
4. Evidence based
Cost functions are favored among economist but are found to
be difficult for policy makers to understand as they are
very complex and mathematically driven. Cost functions rely
heavily upon school data and statistical inferences
(Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999). While a cost functions
approach has offered some insights regarding the level of
funding at schools, Guthrie and Rothstein question the over
simplification of identifying the cost of high performing
schools without also identifying the educational components
that lead to high performance. Costrell, Hanushek, and Loeb
(2008) feel that the best the cost function approach can
offer is an average of what specific districts spend and
not a prescription for how much it cost to achieve a
desired level of achievement. Moreover, by basing minimum
funding on averages condemns a perpetual under-funding of

61
schools as increases in funding raises the average across
districts (Costrell et al.). Duncombe (2006) however,
asserts that the validity and reliability of the cost-
function approach can be improved to provide more accurate
and relevant data. Reschovsky and Imazeki (2001) using a
cost function approach compare Texas and Wyoming to develop
a basis for their assertion that cost for schools change
according to variables beyond the control of the local
school district.
The Successful district approach, while easier to
comprehend may oversimplify the matter by attempting to
provide the same resources for very different school
districts. The adjustments that are needed are subject to
political maneuvers as opposed to improved student
achievement (Picus, 2004). Guthrie and Rothstein (1999)
find that the successful district approach does not take
into account district inefficiencies and may therefore,
lead to an overfunding of schools. Dictating expenditures
based upon performance at others schools reduces initiative
at the local school level and the needed adjustments to

62
make changes relevant at different schools (Guthrie &
Rothstein).
The professional judgment approach may provide very
useful insight regarding how to meet local educational
needs, the models developed may be very expensive and
moreover, subject to the judgment panels areas of expertise
which may vary and which may create models that vary as
well (Picus, 2004). Guthrie and Rothstein (1999) suggest
that the limitations may be moderated because they are more
transparent than the cost-function or successful district
approach. Moreover, while recommendations may be made by
professionals, these judgments may not be based on
scientific research (Guthrie & Rothstein). However,
Duncombe (2006) suggests that reliability could be
increased if panels were used to evaluate other panel’s
recommendations. Costrell, Hanushek, and Loeb (2008)
describe the decline in favor of the professional judgment
approach as it creates more of a wish list for schools as
opposed to an evaluation of what students need to succeed.
The evidence based model relies on existing research
which has been shown to be effective with its

63
recommendations being validated by a panel of
professionals. This final approach is limited to the
existing research regarding the wide variety of potential
situations but which is constantly growing (Picus, 2004).
While Hanushek sees the evidenced based model as a variant
of the professional judgment approach, and therefore
subject to the same failings, Duncombe (2006) finds that
the reliability can be improved with the use of panels to
review findings. Reschovsky and Imazeki (2001) suggest that
the evidenced based model will provide more robust and
reliable finding as the base of research grows using this
approach. While early criticism of the evidence based model
was based around it’s small sample size of successful whole
school reform programs, this approach has incorporated
additional proven, research based input strategies (Baker,
2006). Of the models described, the evidenced based
approach currently offers the most coherent and
comprehensive approach which improves as additional
research supports inputs that lead schools to improve
student achievement.
64
Baker (2005) outlines six assumptions which shape
educational adequacy. Similar to the law of diminishing
returns, more money will increase student achievement to a
certain point. Baker continues the economic precept of
economies of scale. Baker finds that the size of the
district affects the cost of achieving desired outcomes.
Secondary schools of 600-900 students and elementary
schools of 300-500 maximize outcomes. Part of the problem
which makes the issue of adequacy difficult is that
individual students require various levels of support; any
model of support requires that it take into account
students with special needs. Moreover, costs vary from area
to area as costs of living vary from region to region;
accordingly, variable cost in one school district may be
lower than it is in a neighboring area. Increasing demands,
such as those required by NCLB, increase the costs of an
adequate education, especially in populations with higher
needs.
Adequate staffing is critical to providing an adequate
education. Odden and Picus (2008) suggest a class size of
fifteen to one for kindergarten through grade three. For

65
the upper grades they suggest a class size of twenty-five
to one, based on the national average and comprehensive
school reform models. Specialist teachers would provide
core classroom teachers with time to meet collaboratively.
An additional 20% allocation for elementary teachers and
33% for secondary teachers would be sufficient to maintain
the above class averages. Additionally, instructional
facilitators would provide support to classroom teachers to
improve instruction. Additional credentialed teachers would
be provided for struggling students as tutors or teachers
in specialized areas such as ESL. Adequacy would also
include resources for extended day programs, summer school,
special education, gifted, talented, able and ambitious
students. Moreover, additional support would be required
which include, substitute teachers, pupil support
personnel, librarians, aides, administrators as well as
support for professional development, technology and
equipment, and instructional materials.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this literature review has focused upon
the current issues facing resource allocation, improving

66
performance and educational adequacy. These three topics
form the crux and the context of what this study will
examine. Specifically, this literature review has provided
the background needed to accurately assess “10/10” schools
for this study. Current literature regarding resource
allocation describes the importance of support to schools
with a variety of resources. As this study examines the
resource allocation of 10/10 schools, this literature will
serve as a backdrop for comparison. Additionally, this
study will examine the use of strategies used by 10/10
schools with those found in the literature to improve
student achievement. For example, it will examine the role
of school leaders in developing a culture which sustains
student achievement as described in the literature
presented. Finally, the examination of educational adequacy
will inform the implications of findings. This literature
will be used to examine and compare what the evidence based
model shows is needed for all students to receive an
adequate education. The work done by Picus (2008) with the
evidence-based model will be used as the fulcrum by which
implications and conclusions will be generated.

67
Chapter 3
Methodology
Introduction
Better is as better does. How does one achieve success
in public education? How does one study success? This
chapter will review the purpose of this study and the study
methodology. It will describe the sample selected and the
population. Furthermore, it will discuss the
instrumentation used to gather data and the subsequent
analysis of those data. In describing the method by which
success is studied, this work will provide insight into how
the best schools were identified. The analysis of selected
schools will describe the constituent resources of success.
Once these resources have been described, they can serve as
a measure by which to examine others schools as well as
provide insight to policy makers for needed resources.
Moreover, the implementation of the resources will be
examined, thereby providing the reader with practical
information that may be duplicated in other schools. This
study will identify the characteristics of successful

68
schools and help describe what they do to become
successful.
The choice of methodology is essential to assure the
validity and reliability of any study. This chapter will
describe the design and methodology used in this study of
school and district resource allocation and use patterns.
This study will add to current knowledge by providing
information on how an evidence-based adequacy model can
help schools best leverage resources to increase student
achievement. The study compared the resource allocation
strategies identified in the evidence-based adequacy model
with the resource allocation that was observed in highly
successful schools.
The study focused on ten secondary schools in
California that are high-performing as measured by the
California Academic Performance Index (API). A mixed method
approach including naturalistic inquiry, qualitative data
and statistical analysis was used to conduct this study.
The data gathered provides valuable information to schools
seeking to double performance by understanding how high-
performing schools allocate resources.

69
The study addressed the following questions:
• What are the current instructional improvement
strategies at the school site level and with
what resources are they supported at school.
• How are the actual resource patterns aligned
with or different from the resource use
strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based
Adequacy Model?
• What is the school’s instructional plan and how
are resources expended in support of the plan?
• How does the availability of resources affect
the development and implementation of the
strategic plan? Do the schools examined spend
their money differently depending on the amount
of money available to them? Will schools have
common expenditures?
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches will be
employed to answer the research questions above. The
evidence-based model provides a description for the
allocation of resources based upon research to improve
student achievement by which to compare schools. The

70
schools will be compared with prototypical schools,
summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Recommended Resources for Middle and High Schools
School Level
School Element Middle School High School
School Characteristics
Configuration 6-8 9-12
School Size 450 600
Class size 25 25
Number of teacher 200 200
work days
% Disabled 12 12
% Poverty 50 50
% ELL 10 10
% Minority 10 10
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 18 24
Specialist teachers 3.6 (20% more) 8.0 (33% more)
Instructional 2.25 3.0
Facilitator/Mentors
71
Tutors for 2.25 (1:100 3.0 (1:100
struggling students poverty students) poverty students)
Teacher for ELL .45 (1:100 ELL) .60 (1:100 ELL)
students
Extended Day 1.875 2.5
Summer School 1.875 2.5
Teachers for 3 4
Learning and mild
disabled students
Teachers for gifted $25/student $25/student
students
Vocational education NA No extra cost
Substitutes 5% of above staff 5% of above staff
Pupil support staff 3.25 5.4
Non-instructional 2.0 3.0
Aides
Librarians/media 1.0 1.0 librarian
specialists 1.0 library tech.
Principal 1 1
72
School Site 1 secretary 1 secretary
secretary 1 clerical 3 clerical
Professional In addition to In addition to
Development above: $100/pupil above: $50/pupil
Technology $250/pupil $250/pupil
Instructional $140/pupil $175/pupil
Material
Student activities $200/pupil $250/pupil
Note: from Odden, A.R., and Picus, L.O. (2008).
School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4th Edition. New
York, NY: McGraw Hill, table 4.5. Permission pending.
Odden and Picus (2008) assert that the resources
outlined in Table 3.1 provide adequate resources will allow
most students to meet state and federal proficiency
standards. In comparing the resources in Table 3.1 with
resources actually being expended at successful school
sites this study will be able to identify the discrepancies
between what the evidence based model asserts as adequate
and what the school is provided. Moreover, by investigating
school-wide goals and objectives, instructional strategies,

73
and comparing them with the evidence based model and other
schools, this study will provide an in-depth explanation of
success. In a state such as California, where provided
resources will typically be far below what the evidenced
based model suggest, these case studies will provide
sufficient detail to determine if successful schools used
similar allocation strategies or developed alternative
strategies to compensate for their level of funding. This
work can best be accomplished using a mixed methods
approach whereby qualitative data can be analyzed using
advanced statistical methods to assess effectiveness. A
qualitative case-study approach provides the needed detail
to understand how these schools achieved success.
Population and Sample
To select the high performing schools analyzed in this
research purposeful sampling was used (Patton, 2002). Five
secondary schools were selected based on the California
state wide rank and similar school ranking of “10”. This
study also focused upon schools in which socio-economically
disadvantaged students were a significant sub-group to
address the issues of the effects of socioeconomic status

74
(SES) upon student achievement. Student achievement is
often correlated with SES. By examining schools with a
significant SES population, this study will explore how
schools can address SES (Strenze, 2007). Charter schools
were excluded. These criteria yielded a total population of
twenty three schools.
Table 3.2 California Schools meeting criterion
Criterion
Similar Significant
School State School Socioeconomic
School Name Level Rank Rank Disadvantaged
California Academy of
Mathematics and Science H 10 10 Yes
Colina Middle M 10 10 Yes
Cypress High H 10 10 Yes
Dana Hills High H 10 10 Yes
Edison Computech M 10 10 Yes
Elkhorn M 10 10 Yes
Foothill Technology High H 10 10 Yes
Harbor Teacher Preparation
Academy H 10 10 Yes
75
La Paz Intermediate M 10 10 Yes
La Quinta High H 10 10 Yes
Laguna Hills High H 10 10 Yes
Los Osos High H 10 10 Yes
Lowell High H 10 10 Yes
McGarvin (Sarah)
Intermediate M 10 10 Yes
Middle College High-WCC H 10 10 Yes
Middle College High-SA H 10 10 Yes
Middle College High-SB H 10 10 Yes
Middle College High-L H 10 10 Yes
Oxford High H 10 10 Yes
Redwood Middle M 10 10 Yes
Richardson Prep Hi M 10 10 Yes
Sutter Middle M
West Campus H 10 10 Yes
Note.From 2007 API Base Data File by the California
Department of Education.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidatafiles.asp. For column

76
2, “H” is the abbreviation for High School and “M” is the
abbreviation for Middle School.
The schools were located in districts throughout
California, from Sacramento County in the northern part of
the state to Orange County in the south. However, the
majority of the schools, fifteen out of twenty, were
located in the southern portion of California. The size of
the schools vary and range from a total enrollment of 204
students in the smallest to a high school of 2,623. This
study will describe concrete steps and strategies
implemented for marked improvement by focusing on a small
sample size that has demonstrated success. However, the
breadth of schools fitting the aforementioned criteria
should still provide valuable insight to a variety of
groups interested in improving student achievement.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
There have been a variety of methodologies proposed
for the use of collecting resource use and improvement data
from schools. Cooper (1993) uses the School Site Allocation
Model (SSAM) to track expenditures to the school site and
classroom. The SSAM was found to be very useful by

77
superintendents as a way of analyzing and subsequently
allocating resources. Funding was separated into five
areas: administration, operations, staff support pupil
support, and instructional support. While not its primary
purpose, this model also allowed for the examination of
student achievement vis a vis expenditure.
Miller, Roza, and Swartz (2004) offer a model for
categorizing school district expenditures to account for
centralized resources that are used at the school site. It
classifies spending according to district framework, shared
resources were allocated by the schools using them, and
shared costs were segmented according to student need. This
not only provides academic information about school
expenditure but allows for an analysis between schools of
who and how schools receive various benefits that may not
otherwise be apparent in a traditional study which strictly
examines expenditures or allocations to schools sites.
Ultimately, this study will use an approach reflective of
the work by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
which examines school level expenditures and categorizes
them as such. It is descriptive of the adequacy model in

78
the categories it develops and uses for analysis such as
core teachers, specialist teachers, tutors, professional
development and other elements which is supported by
research to improve student achievement.
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates designed data
collection tools to interview school site personnel,
collect and input data. Both qualitative and quantitative
data was collected. A cohort of doctoral students from the
University of Southern California (USC) along with Dr.
Lawrence Picus, advisor and chair, generated and agreed
upon common research questions and personalized samples
centered on the study of the adequacy model and school
finance, in Spring of 2008. Trainings were held to acquaint
interviewers with the instruments and tools for data
collection in early summer of 2008. In the summer of 2008
interviewers solicited schools for this study from the list
of twenty-one schools originally identified as high
performing schools. The research cohort sent a letter to
each school explaining the objective of the study and the
assurance of confidentiality, found in Appendix A.

79
Documents, such as bell schedules, mission and vision
statements, and professional development plans, were
requested from the school in advance of the interview.
Additionally public data were gathered from the internet in
the early Fall of 2008. The request for document letter can
be found in Appendix B. Researchers requested additional
data and documentation after the interview as needed to
complete a comprehensive case study.
A naturalistic inquiry approach was used in collecting
the data as researchers sought to understand the
participants own view of how they had improved instruction
in their own setting (Patton, 2002). The study sought to
study real-world schools that had shown success to discover
how resources were allocated to compare with the evidenced-
based adequacy model. Interviews were conducted with school
site principals and key personnel using
questions/guidelines found in Appendix C, in fall of 2008.
Researchers interviewed school site personnel regarding the
vision and mission of the school and the allocation of
resources. Questions focused upon the use of instructional
strategies, professional development time, assessment, the

80
use of interventions, allocation of staff for core and non-
core subjects, and the use of technology.
Data Analysis
The validity of the study will be found in the
richness of information provided by the cases selected, as
suggested by Patton (2002). In depth discussions with
school site personnel, coupled with the examination of
documents and quantitative data analysis supports the
finding and conclusion herein. The data gathered was
analyzed in winter of 2008 and final conclusions drawn in
the spring of 2009.
One of the principal issues to analyze is the
allocation of personnel because variable costs are the
largest expenditure in almost any economic enterprise.
Full-time Equivilent (FTE) positions will be calculated by
analyzing school bell schedules, teacher rosters, master
schedules and discussions with school site personnel.
Teacher may teach a variety of courses which may include
both core and specialist classes. Each position will be
analyzed and categorized accordingly as will any other
adjunct duties. Support positions such as administrators,

81
librarians, and aides will be accounted for comparison with
the evidenced based model.
NCLB has forced a new focus upon core subjects,
especially mathematics and English (Reynolds, 2007).
Accordingly, the amount of time invested by each school as
accounted by instructional time and FTE will be examined as
well. Schools have also re-tooled or introduced new
professional development plans to increase student
achievement. Allocations towards professional development
will be analyzed and compared with the evidence based
model, as well as the rationale for school’s professional
development plan.
This study will also examine the curricular and
instructional strategies invoked by the school.
Specifically it will investigate content focus, curriculum,
vision, assessments, use of data, and implementation. It
will also examine intervention strategies to support
students in need of additional support. Aspects such as
tutoring, extended day, and support for English learners
will all be evaluated.

82
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study will use a mixed methods
approach. It will provide case studies of ten high
performing “10/10” schools, as designated by the California
Department of Education. The objective will be to compare
the resource allocation at the high-performing “10/10”
schools with the evidence-based adequacy model. Creating a
detailed analysis of existing resources and using
interviews of school site leaders, this study will describe
how successful schools allocate resources.

83
Chapter 4
Results of the Study
This study sought to identify how the best secondary
public schools in California allocated resources and
compared them to the Evidence Based Model (EBM) which
identified the resources needed according to educational
research. This work was conducted by interviewing
principals of “10/10” schools and developing case studies
from these interviews. The case studies are provided in
Appendix F and in this chapter they will be compared to
identify how these schools used their resources in
comparison to the EBM. Specifically, this chapter will
include: (a) restatement of the research questions, (b)
summary of school characteristics and performance, (c)
school resource use, and (d) a summary based upon the
research question for this study.
Restatement of the Research Question
This study examined successful schools and how they
have allocated their resources. Schools were selected by
examining assessment data. This study focused upon school
level data. Accordingly, school site principals were

84
interviewed about resource allocation at their respective
schools as well as improvement strategies. This data was
then compared to the Evidence Based Model. This study
provided data that was needed in education to help increase
student achievement by answering the following questions.
1. What are the current instructional improvement
strategies at the school level and with what resources
are the strategies supported at school?
2. How are the actual resource patterns aligned with or
3. What is the schools’ instructional plan and how are
4. How does the availability of resources affect the
Summary of School Characteristics
Five secondary schools participated in this study.
These schools were all identified as “10/10” schools by the
State of California. These are schools that were ranked in
the top 10% of schools in the state and in the top ten
85
percentile when compared to similar schools, as shown in
Table 4.1:
Table 4.1 State and similar school ranking
Statewide Ranks Similar School Ranks
Calculated for each type Calculated for each type
i.e., elementary, middle, i.e., elementary, middle, and
and high school high school
API is compared with all API is compared with 100
other schools of the same other school of the same type
type and demographic
characteristics
Note. From 2008-2009 Academic Performance Index Reports:
Information Guide (p. 61) by the California Department of
Education. April 2009.
The schools represented four school districts in the
Southern California region. Each school was assigned a
number to keep its identity anonymous. Data was culled from
interviews with the principal conducted between August and
November of 2008. Additionally, API, CST and demographic
data from Education Data Partnership (2009) and the

86
California Department Of Education (2009) were used in this
study.
Characteristics and demographics
While each school was ranked as “10/10”, each school
selected also had a significant sub-group of
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SD) students, as defined
by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Table 4.2 provides a brief
overview of some of the pertinent characteristics for this
study and the Evidence Based Model (EBM). School types for
this study included middle schools and high schools.
Enrollments ranged from a 745 student middle school to a
high school with over 3,000 students.
One slight anomaly in this group was the grade span of
the middle schools. The EBM calls for middle schools that
range from 6-8 and many middle schools in California are 6-
8. However, the middle schools in this study were only 7-8.
This was not a determinant for participation in the study.
Whether there is a correlation between grade span and
academic success is well beyond the limits of this study
but is offered as on anecdotal observation of the school
participating but perhaps worth study in the future.

87
Table 4.2 Characteristics of Study Schools
Total # English # SD
School Type Grade Enrollment Learner students
3038 HS 9-12 2406 239 218
3578 HS 9-12 1975 550 1183
3058 HS 9-12 3209 40 230
3142 MS 7-8 1117 67 156
3740 MS 7-8 745 249 469
Note: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SD)
Performance Data of Study Schools
Figure 4.1 displays the change of rank from 2004-2008
for the schools included in this study. School 3038 showed
the greatest growth during this time period, moving from a
rank of 8 to 10 for the indicated time period. In
comparison, School 3142 began five years ago already as a
10 and has maintained that status for five years. Most
schools were at a 9 five years ago and increased to a 10
two years ago. 3058 was the only exception to that, not
receiving a rank of 10 until last year.

88
Figure: 4.1. Change in State Rank from 2004-2008 in schools
of study
10
9
8
7
State Rank
6 3038
5 3058
4 3740
3
3578
2
3142
1
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Figure 4.2 displays the change in Similar School
Ranking for schools included in this study. It is evident
that the schools rises were not as smooth as that in the
state ranking, which showed steady improvement over time,
as shown in Figure 4.1. School 3038 again showed the great
gain, coming from a similar school rank of 3 and achieving
a similar school rank of 10 in 2007, as seen in Figure 4.2.
However, school 3142, which had always attained a statewide
rank of 10, did not reach that same rank among similar
schools until 2008. Indeed, 3142’s ranking was uneven,
rising in 2005 and then dropping until 2007 before it
sprang up to a score of 10 in 2008.

89
Figure: 4.2. Change in Similar School Rank from 2004-2008
in schools of study.
10
9
8
Similar School Rank
7
6 3038
5 3142
4 3578
3
3058
2
3740
1
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
The apparent differences were explained by the
different manner in which each rank was determined. Again,
referring to Table 4.1, each school is ranked with other
schools with similar demographics by type. For example, in
comparing the two middle schools in our study, one can see
the differences between 3142 and 3740 in Table 4.2. 3142
had a larger enrollment that 3740; however, it also had
fewer English Language Learners and students who were
socioeconomically disadvantaged. While the School
Characteristics Index (SCI) takes into account a number of
additional demographic characteristics, the heuristic value
of comparing Table 4.2 vis a vis Figures 4-1 and 4-2 is to

90
see that 10/10 school can vary in their composition. These
variances will continue to be a theme in this study as it
will become apparent that 10/10 schools struggle with a
variety of issues as they climb to become the best schools
in the state.
Figure 4.3 graphs the change in API scores from 2004-
2008 for the schools under study. While many of the school
began under 800, all have improved to over 800, the state
target. Both 3578 and 3038 showed the greatest growth over
those five years, raising their scores by 92 points. 3740’s
steady increase led it to have the highest scores of the
five schools by 2008. Again, 3142 API followed the similar
pattern of its State Rank, while not reflecting its
oscillation when compared to similar schools. What is
evident is that 3142 had the least amount of growth over
the five years with 26 points. However it is important to
note that 3142 began over the state target of 800 and that
3142 is second only to one other school in this comparison
in 2008.
91
Figure: 4.3. Change in API score from 2004-2008 in schools
of study
950
900
850
API
800
750
700
650
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
3142 846 856 869 867 872
3740 807 826 852 870 897
3578 757 802 821 840 849
3058 753 805 825 826 827
3038 751 794 818 844 843
Year
Figure 4.4 shows the percentage of students who scored
proficient or above on the state exams in Mathematics. For
middle school students, the state uses the results from the
California Standards Test (CST). For high school the state
uses the results from the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). The biggest gainer was school 3038 with an
increase of 17 percentage points. School 3058 actually
suffered a decline in the number of student scoring
proficient or above by 3 points. As can be seen in Figure
4.4, the percentage of students scoring proficient or above

92
at 3038 has fluctuated during the last five years. Overall,
however, there was a general leveling of scores between
3038 and 3578. 3142, 3058, and 3740 all displayed
fluctuating scores in the last five years with no steady
pattern of growth nor decline.

schools of study
100
3058
95
Percent Proficient or Above
3578
90
3142
85 3038
80 3740
75
70
65
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Figure 4.5 shows the percentage of students who scored
proficient or above on the state exams in English/Language
Arts. Similar to the mathematics portion, for middle school
students, the state uses the results from the California
Standards Test (CST) for high school the state uses the
results from the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Here, 3740 clearly made the greatest improvement. While

93
starting out with the lowest percentage in 2004, it managed
to have the highest percentage of students scoring
proficient or above in 2008, a 23 point improvement over
five years. 3058 continued to have the smallest gain with
only a net gain of two percentage points over five years.
However, it is important to note that 3058 began with the
highest percentage in 2004 and was not lower that the rest
of the schools in this study.

schools of study
100
3058
95
3142
90
3578
85
80 3038
75 3740
70
65
60
55
50
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Even within “10/10” schools there were a variety of
issues that each school struggled to address. For example,
school 3142 ranked as a “10” state wide but had variances
when its rank in regards to similar school and mathematics

94
was examined. These schools were different in terms of
demographics as well as performance. There variances are
important because they imply that a school does not have to
fit a specific profile to be a “10/10” school. This study
will demonstrate how each of these schools addressed their
divergent needs instructionally as well as with their
resources.
School Resource Use
The Evidence Based Model (EBM) was developed by Odden
and Picus (2008) as a model of school funding based upon
educational research. In this section, the study will
compare the resources used by the “10/10” schools included
in this study and the EBM. Additional details and
information are available in the Appendix F.
Odden and Picus (2008) developed the EBM to “identify
research- or other evidence-based educational strategies,
price them out, and then aggregate them to identify
adequate school site, district and state expenditure
levels.” By delving into the existing research to find what
strategies were shown to be effective, they produced a
model of what it would cost to fund schools to adequacy.

95
Odden and Picus define “adequacy” broadly to include all
students being able to meet proficiency as defined by state
standards. In the case of educational funding in
California, few people would use the term “adequate”.
Indeed, in the following presentation of school resource
use, one will find that in almost every area, actual
resource allocation for these schools was far below what is
recommended by the EBM.
One might question, therefore, the validity of the
EBM, if these top schools have been able to find success
without the funding described in the EBM. This authors’
assertion however, is that these schools found success not
because of the funding provided but in spite of the lack of
funding provided. In almost all cases, each school
indicated a need for greater resources if their success was
to expand and/or maintain. Additionally, the definition of
adequacy by Picus and Odden is similar to that of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB): all children will be proficient. As was
shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5, none of these schools have
reached that level of performance. Indeed, what was
witnessed in most cases was a flattening out of

96
performance. Only the future will be able to definitively
tell whether these, or any schools, will be able to reach
the NCLB goal of all students reaching proficiency.
However, in the following section is the description of how
the best schools in California have become the best and
what they need to reach the expectations held for them.
The EBM begins with the description of the
prototypical school by type. Because this study focused
upon secondary schools it will herein describe the
prototypical middle school and high school, according to
the EBM. Again, these characteristics are based upon
research and evidence found to lead improved student
achievement and learning.
The prototypical middle school would service grades 6-
8 with 450 students. Class size would average 25 students
per class. The prototypical high school would service
grades 9-12 with 600 students and class size of 25, as
well. All secondary school teachers would work 200 days a
year in their classrooms, with 10 additional days of
training. In both middle school and high school disable,
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SD), English language

97
learners (ELL), and minority students would account for
12%, 50%, 10% and 30%, respectively.
Table 4.3 Characteristics of prototypical EBM secondary

schools
Middle Schools High Schools
Configuration 6-8 9-12
Size 450 600
Class size 25 25
# teacher of 200 plus 10 200 plus 10 training
work days training
% disabled 12% 12%
% SD 50% 50%
% ELL 10% 10%
% minority 30% 30%
Note. From Odden and Picus (2008) (p. 132)
Personnel resources for the above schools would be
largely driven by the number of students at the school. For
example, the middle school would receive 18 teachers to
teach core subjects and 3.6 to teach electives while the
high school would receive 24 teachers for the core subjects
and 8 for electives. To provide teaches additional support

98
the middle school would receive 2.25 instructional
facilitators while the high school would receive 3.
Additional specialized support would also be provided
for students. Tutors would be provided by the EBM at the
rate of one for every 100 SD students in both the middle
and high school. These tutors, however, would be fully
credentialed teachers who would work with a specifically
identified group of students on specific knowledge/skill
gaps. ELL teachers would also be provided at the same rate
per ELL. Again, these would be fully credentialed teachers
trained in specific pedagogical approaches and curriculum
for ELL. One of the critical finding in research is the
need to extend the school day and year for struggling
students. The EBM would provide for 1.875 teachers for
middle school and 2.5 teachers for high school for after
school and summer school support to students. For students
with special needs, the EBM would also provide three
additional teachers in middle school and four in high
school.
The EBM also provides for “out of classroom” support
for students and the school. For example, the EBM allots
99
one guidance counselor for every 250 students and for every
100 SD students. Additionally, two middle school and three
high school non-instructional aides are allocated to
provide support to teachers and the school for such things
as lunch supervision and related tasks. One librarian is
allotted to a middle school and one librarian and a library
technician are allotted to a high school. For
Administration, one principal and assistant principal is
allotted to each school with an additional assistant
principal for every 450 students at the middle school and
600 students at the high school. Two secretaries are
allocated to a middle school and three for a high school.
Lastly, the EBM prescribes money for professional
development, technology, instructional materials, and
student activities. Middle and high schools are allotted
$50 per student for trainers, conferences, travel, and
other expenses. While schools have may have received one-
time grants for technology, the total cost of ownership of
technology requires an ongoing commitment of funds
(McIntire, 2006). The EBM allots $250 per student in both
middle and high school for technology. Instructional

100
materials, the core items we associate to schools such as
books, require regular maintenance in the classroom as well
as in the libraries of the schools. The EBM provides for
$140 per pupil in the middle school and $175 per pupil in
the high school. Lastly, the EBM provides for $200 per
middle school pupil and $250 per high school pupil for
student activities. These are the afterschool activities
such as band and sports that provide students with
additional motivation to succeed in school.
Table 4.4 highlights one of the differences between
what research indicates is needed to adequately fund
towards the goal of all students reaching proficiency and
what schools, even 10/10 schools, have to use. For example,
school 3038 has an enrollment of 2,406 students; that was
four times the size of the prototypical school. Adjusting
for its size, the EBM suggest an additional 39.4 core
teachers and 10.6 specialist (elective) teachers. In
reviewing these data, one can see, according to the EBM,
that each school is understaffed.

101
Table 4.4 Core and specialist teachers at schools of study
with EBM suggested adjustments
Core Class Core Teacher Specialist
Size FTEs Teacher FTEs
School Enrollment Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM
School Suggest School Suggest School Suggests
3038 2406 31 25 56.8 +39.4 21.2 +10.6
3578 1975 30 25 52.2 +26.8 14.8 +11.5
3058 3209 28 25 81.6 +46.8 31.6 +11.2
3142 1117 27 25 30.6 +14.1 11 +8.9
3740 745 30 25 18.8 +11 5.9 +7.3
Table 4.5 displays the number of tutors, teachers for
English Learners, and teachers for an extended school
program. Table 4.4 includes enrollment number of students
who are socioeconomically disadvantaged (SD) and English
Language Learners (ELL) as these are the groups which
generate tutors, EL Teachers, and teachers for an extended
school program. Again, in almost every case, the EBM
recommended additional personnel to provide additional
instructional support to students. The exception to this
trend is 3142. 3142 had .7 more staff dedicated to ELL
learners and more than 3.7 teachers for their extended

102
school program. 3142 had spent significant time and
resources in developing an intervention program for their
students. Figure 4.6, taken from the case study in Appendix
F, is provided as evidence of their intervention program.
3142 provided for voluntary and mandatory extended school
time which accounts for their additional allocation of
extended school teachers. Additional information on the
intervention program is available in the case study of 3142
located in Appendix F.
Figure: 4.6 Pyramid of Intervention for students of 3142

103
Table 4.5 Intervention teachers at schools of study with

EBM suggested adjustments
Extended
Tutors EL Teachers
School
SD/ELL School Suggest School Suggest School Suggests
3038 218/239 0 +3.2 0 +1.3 0 +2.7
3578 1183/550 2.5 +9.33 0 +5.5 5 +4.86
3058 230/40 0 +2.3 0.4 0 1 +1.92
3142 156/67 0 +1.6 1 -.3 5 -3.7
3740 469/249 0 +4.7 0.6 +2.5 0.5 +3.4
Besides the direct instructional support provided by
teachers and tutors, the EBM also provides for the
additional support staff to create a productive learning
environment. Table 4.6 provides data regarding the number
of pupil support staff, library staff, and classified
needed in school to provide a productive learning
environment. SD enrollment is provided because it is these
students that would generate the additional number of pupil
support staff, such as guidance counselors, above and
beyond the norm based upon school wide enrollment.

104
Additionally, school wide enrollment is provided as these
numbers would generate the number FTEs for the other
positions shown in Table 4.6. For example, 3578 generated
9.9 more FTEs than 3038 because it has many more students
who are SD but had a lower overall enrollment figure.
Table 4.6 Support staff, librarians and secretaries at

schools of study with EBM suggested adjustments
Pupil
Librarians & Secretaries &
Support
Technicians Clerks
Staff
/SD School Suggest School Suggest School Suggests
3038 2406/218 8 +4.8 1 +7 10 -1.0
3578 1975/1183 6 +13.7 1.5 +5.1 6 +1.6
3058 3209/230 8 +7.1 4 +6.7 9 +2.7
3142 1117/67 2 +4 1 +1.5 2 +3
3740 745/249 4 +3.7 1 +.7 1.5 +1.8
The only school which does not see an increase across
the board is 3038. 3038 consciously chose to provide more
classified staff for its offices and administrators,
bringing its classified staff to ten, 1 more that suggested
by the EBM. The principal made this decision to allow his

105
administrative staff greater flexibility in monitoring
classroom instruction. Classified staff processed almost
all of the paper work and report generation at the school.
Additional information is available in the case study for
3038 located in Appendix F.
To monitor the implementation of the instructional
program and maintain a smooth working work site a school
requires administration and instructional facilitators.
Table 4.7 provides an overview of the administrative
staffing of the school as well as the number of
instructional facilitators at each school site. While all
schools had the requisite principals, all school sites
would receive additional administrative support under the
EBM. Additionally, most schools did not have instructional
facilitators to support the teachers delivery of
instruction. The EBM would provide as many as fifteen
facilitators, in the case of 3058. While schools such as
3578 provided release time or substitutes for teacher to
observe and collaborate, most schools did not provide that
level of support.
106
Table 4.7 Administration and Instructional facilitators at
schools of study with EBM suggested adjustments
Assistant Instructional
Principal
Principal Facilitator
/SD School Suggest School Suggest School Suggests
3038 2406/218 1 1 3 +1.5 0 +12
3578 1975/1183 1 1 3 +.8 0 +9.9
3058 3209/230 1 1 4 +6.7 1 +15
3142 1117/67 1 1 1 +2 0 +5
3740 745/249 1 1 1 +1.2 0 +3.3
Table 4.8 Additional resources for continued improvement as

reported by principals
Schools
3058 3038 3578 3142 3740
PD time PD time Teachers Coach
Technology Administrators
Discretionary
Account
Additionally, while the EBM made suggested
adjustments, each principal at each school also indicated
his or her own preference for additional resources needed
to improve instruction. These recommendations made by the

107
principals were made without the benefit of EBM but based
upon their own skills, knowledge, and experience.
Table 4.8 provides an overview of the additional
resources identified by each location. 3058 and 3578
desired to have additional time professional development.
The additional time would have allowed teachers greater
time to build collaborative relationships and discuss
student achievement. Additionally, 3058 indicated a desire
for additional technology in the school to improve students
technological skills. 3142 felt the need for additional
teachers; specifically to work with its English Language
Learners population. The principal at 3142 also felt the
need for additional administrators to help support the
school. 3142, lastly, felt that it needed access to
discretionary funds so that the school was not reliant on
donations for parents for classroom supplies. 3740 felt
that a coach would help provide continued support to
classroom teachers to improve instruction. Lastly, 3038
felt that it did not need any additional support. The
principal felt confident that the steps he was taking would
increase student achievement and were cost neutral.

108
Summary of Finding
All of the schools faced challenges for improving
student achievement. As part of the methodology, principals
were interviewed regarding the instructional strategies in
place at the schools, as well as resource allocation. In
the course of the interviews, connections were made about
instructional strategies and the resources needed to
implement them. What follows is a summary of the strategies
found among the school studied. Further detail can be found
in the case studies included in Appendix F.
Odden and Archibald (2009) describe the ten steps that
led to doubling student performance:
1. Understanding the problem and challenge
2. Set ambitious goals
3. Change the curriculum and vision
4. Use formative assessments and data
5. Professional development
6. Use time efficiently and effectively
7. Provide extended time for struggling students
8. Create a collaborative, professional culture

109
9. Distribute leadership
10. Find and institute professional and best
practices.
By comparing the schools in the study with the ten
steps listed above one finds the following similarities and
differences.
Understanding the problem and challenge
All schools in this study had a clear understanding of
the problem they were facing. Schools such as 3038 had a
clear understanding of statewide assessment data and how it
reflected student achievement at the school. It used
assessment data to identify areas of needed growth in the
curriculum between existing scores and desires scores for
all students and subgroups. The school did a great deal of
curriculum-mapping and continued to “tighten” it’s
curriculum based on assessment data. 3578 used state
testing as a measure of its student performance.
Additionally, 3578 also undertook to map its curriculum to
state standards. 3740 regularly used summative CST scores
to evaluate its overall performance. Additionally, the
District also used CST data to set goals for the school and
110
district, at large. The district and school use Data
Director (Achieve! Data Solutions, 2008) to further analyze
CST scores and other data. 3142 had a clear understanding
of the statewide assessment data. The principal was able to
cite a drop in scores that had taken place as well as the
need to address the issue. As part of 3142’s “Commitments
for 2008/2009” stated, staff was expected to “[r]eview the
California standards, blueprints, textbook, and other
instructional resources, as well as reflect on assessment
results, including STAR CST’s Common Unit tests and
trimester finals”. 3058 undertook many of the steps in
understanding the problem and challenge. It regularly met
to discuss data from states tests. Additionally, curricular
mapping began two years ago to align their curriculum to
state standards.
Set ambitious goals
All schools had ambitious goals or high expectations
for their students. All schools did this, as suggested by
Odden and Archibald (2009), ignoring school demographics.
That is to say, these schools did not use their respective
schools demographic issues as a reason they could or would

111
not attain their goal. The goal of 3038 was to provide a
high quality instructional program to all students, at all
times, and in all classes. All students were to receive
maximum access to the state standards. Accordingly, all
students received the same curriculum, with struggling
students receiving some additional support such as extended
time. The ambitious goals for 3740 were to make sure that
all students were proficient according to state standards
tests. 3058 had a clearly articulated goal of having all
students reach proficiency on state exams. 3142 had the
ambitious goal that all students were to be proficient in
essential outcomes. Additionally, 3578 did not focus on
moving a few students near proficiency into proficiency,
but it focused on school wide improvement so that all
students would increase performance until all students were
proficient.
instructional vision
Performance at 3038 improved when it began to focus
upon state standards. The curriculum at 3038 was completely
based upon state content standards. The school focused

112
solely upon what it had control over, such as curriculum
and instruction; as opposed to trying to address issues
such as poverty in it neighborhood or demographics. 3142
defined its instructional vision around providing academic
excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity,
and organizational structures and process to improve
student achievement. Each of these topics included clearly
measurable actions that the staff can implemented. It
developed each of these areas of focus by building on
existing research from Taking Center Stage (Fenwick et al.,
2001). This focus and set of actions based upon effective
strategies created a common set of instructional practices
that defined good instruction to improve student learning
in a significant manner. The teachers of 3058 have worked
to increase “time on task” as a means of providing greater
access to needed content. The school was clearly developing
a school wide expectation of what quality instruction
“looked like” and implementing it. All of this was within
the context of a collaborative work environment.
Two schools had begun to take steps toward improving
their curriculum and vision but had not fully completed the
113
step. 3578 focused its efforts on what it could influence.
The district goal of improving all students to proficiency,
particularly in English/Language Arts was well known within
the school and served as a school goal as well. The school
had made curricular changes such as implementing the AVID
program. However, these were all partial steps that were
just being implemented in the school. Likewise, 3740 moved
towards a new instructional vision of improved standards
based-instruction that had previously been lacking. It was
instituting new instructional strategies such as the
gradual release of responsibility (Frey & Fischer, 2009).
Thus 3740 was developing a school site view of what good
instructional practice is and looked like in the classroom.
Formative assessments and data based decision making
Many of the schools in the study had not fully
implemented a formative assessment regime. While all
schools used data to “understand the problem”, many were
just beginning to develop assessments that would provide
them with ongoing “real-time” data. 3058 regularly reviewed
its data in regards to student achievement. Additionally,
the school implemented formative assessments. These

114
assessments were submitted to the administration, which
synthesized them and returned them to their respective
departments for discussion to inform instruction.
Additionally, the development of their formative
assessments was a part of their vision and mission as a
manifestation of their definition of “what is proficiency”
in their respective classrooms, thus providing concrete and
detailed information to teachers about student learning.
Formative assessments were in use at 3578 and used to
address student needs. Particularly, assessments were used
to increase the number of students who were ready for
college by meeting the “a-g” requirements.
While assessments were not in use school wide, 3142
continued to develop them as well as using technology to
receive and provide immediate feedback to students. 3740
was just beginning to develop formative assessments by
departments. 3038 focused upon summative, end-of-course
assessments. While the beginnings of a formative assessment
program was in place, by having a built in week at the end
of the course to review, 3038 had not implemented formative
assessments that would be administered during the school

115
year that would be used to adjust instruction. Currently,
the development of these benchmarks assessments and the
capacity to create them serves as the focus of professional
development at 3038.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
All schools participated in some type of professional
development. However, much of the professional development
was not as described by Odden and Arhcibald (2009);
specifically they lacked one of the following five
elements: (a) widespread, systemic, and ongoing; (b) pupil-
free days; (c) trainers; (d) instructional facilitators or
coaches; (e) collaboration time. For example, 3578 teachers
collaborated together to review data and discuss methods to
meet student needs. While the school did not have fulltime
instructional coaches, it provided substitute time for
teachers to visit each and coach each other in their
instructional practices. While 3740 had a professional
development plan, it remained fragmented. Individual
teachers and departments were developing their own goals
and plans. For example, English/Language Arts received
training in Thinking Maps (Thinking Maps & Inc, 2009),

116
while the mathematics department received training in the
Cornell note taking procedure.
While 3740 was also beginning to implement a coaching
model, the process and goals for the coach remained ill
defined. However, this was a step towards “de-privatizing”
instruction at the school. Teachers were beginning to visit
other teachers’ classroom. Additionally, collaborative time
was also instituted into the annual schedule for teachers
to work together.
3038 was allotted one release day per semester for
professional development. These days were typically
assigned to reviewing and adjusting curriculum mapping.
Additionally, faculty and staff were accorded one late
start a quarter to create benchmark exams. Teachers
scheduled days, on their own time, to review data and
create or adjust assessments. Teachers met during staff
meetings, professional development or their own conference
periods to review data with colleagues to maximize the time
that was already scheduled into the contract and not
require extra expenditures. Professional development is
currently focused upon the creation of benchmark

117
assessments. Additionally, the principal required all
teachers to teach “bell to bell” which he regularly
reviewed as he visited classrooms.
3142 focused on Taking Center Stage (Fenwick et al.,
2001) and instituting Professional Learning Communities
(Dufour, 2004). While 3142 lacked instructional coaches and
had only two full days dedicated to professional
development, it still managed to address its professional
development needs by having teachers meet in departments to
develop periodic assessments and examine student data as
part of the school day. 3142 was very clear in its focus to
implement the tenets of Taking Center Stage (Fenwick et
al.) school wide in a systemic manner. The school’s ongoing
implementation of PLCs, curriculum planning, and common
assessments were seen as manifestations of its focus. All
teachers and administrators at 3058 staff participated in
professional development. Faculty and staff worked together
in a collaborative manner to discuss instructional
practices based on data. This effort has been on-going for
over two years. While there were only two voluntary buy-
back days in the academic year, teachers held professional

118
development during their weekly “conference” periods, which
occur during the first hour of the day on Friday mornings.
While the school had only one coach, it supplemented the
coach by providing release time for teachers to work
together during the school day to function as coaches.
Using time efficiently and effectively
Archibald and Odden (2009) describe using time
efficiently and effectively as how schools set aside time
for focusing on improving student achievement. For example,
3578 provided additional time for ELL students as part of
its intervention by providing an additional period for
English Language Development. However, this was the only
group which received additional time for mastery during the
school day. As one of its evaluation criteria of teachers,
3038 regularly examined use of teachers’ instructional
minutes to make sure that class is taught “bell to bell”
and that the time used is focused upon providing quality
standards-based instruction. While students were not
“double blocked”, students at 3058 received an additional
period of support in classes such as “study skills” or
“CAHSEE Preparation”, when needed. English Language

119
Learners at 3740 received additional periods of English to
provide them with extra time. Additionally, ELL teachers
were specially trained High Point and SDAIE strategies.
3142 used a tri-mester calendar to meet more students’
needs by providing a wider variety of classes. While a
trimester did shorten the number of weeks students would
take a class, it also allowed the school to offer a wider
variety of classes during the school year. For example,
3142 was able to provide additional elective classes, such
as jazz, that were not previously offered.
Extended learning time for struggling students
Similar in character to the efficient use of time,
Odden and Archibald describe different types of extra help
strategies that students can receive beyond the traditional
school day. While examining the quality of these programs
was beyond the scope of this study, the allocation of
resources to these programs was examined. 3142 placed a
great deal of importance upon its extended learning time
(ELT). At 3142 it was seen as an opportunity to move from
simple proficiency to mastery. Struggling students who
struggled were required to attend ELT. ELT was offered

120
before school, during lunch and after school; that was time
outside the regular school day but within the regular
school year. 3578 provided five full-time equivalent
positions for struggling students. Students had the
opportunity to receive additional support for an hour after
school three days per week. The school targeted students in
need of credit recovery. Students who complete the
requisite number of hours received credit for courses
completed after school. Students struggling with
English/Language Arts or mathematics at 3038 were provided
with an extra class period of English/Language Arts or
mathematics in lieu of an elective. They also were provided
the opportunity for credit recovery after school. Students
could also receive tutoring from teachers after school for
additional support.
The extended school day at 3058 served English
Language Learners and students with special needs who
needed additional support meeting the CAHSEE requirement.
The school also offered a summer school program that was
well attended when compared to the EBM. 750 students
participated in summer school and it was supported with 30

121
teachers (18 FTEs), which included staff students with
special needs. 3740 provided for the equivalent of a half-
time teacher to support student learning beyond school
hours, but it largely relied on the services of the local
Boys and Girls club to provide homework help for students.
Collaborative, professional culture
The development of professional learning communities
was a frequent comment from 3142 regarding its most recent
focus. 3038 continued to increase its focus upon providing
rigorous standards based instruction. Teachers were
expected to collaborate in the selection of curricular
materials for all students and the creation of assessments.
Teachers in 3058 were expected to share data and work
together to identify needed changes. Teachers met regularly
with each other, and administration was fully involved in
the development of the school wide culture. Teachers
regularly observe each other and instruction was openly
discussed in department meetings. Teachers met together in
a collaborative manner to review student data and
achievement. Additionally, some teachers coached each other
in their instructional practices. However, 3578 has not

122
formally instituted professionally learning communities and
not all teachers implemented strategies discussed. While
3740 was also beginning to implement a coaching model, the
process and goals for the coach remained ill defined.
However, this was a step towards “de-privatizing”
instruction at the school. Teachers were beginning to visit
other teachers’ classrooms. Additionally, collaborative
time was also instituted into the annual schedule for
teachers to work together.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
For Odden and Archibald (2009), for leadership to be
widespread and distributed, it needed to encompass both the
local school site and central office. All schools included
both levels of involvement, still some schools had more
direction from the central offices while other schools made
decisions from “the ground-up”. While the district provided
overall goals and some support for professional
development, 3740 also had leeway regarding the development
and implementation of various practices. This distributed
leadership provided the challenge and opportunity for the
school to develop buy-in for the various instructional

123
improvement efforts. 3578 relied on school site
administrators and department chairs to lead portions of
the school’s instructional changes.
The leadership at 3058 was described by the principal
as “bottom-up”. Department chairs and departments typically
took the lead in developing and implementing curricular and
instructional changes at the school. District 431 provided
3038 with a great deal of support and autonomy. With the
personal support of the superintendent, leadership at 3038
was able to implement many changes and has worked with
teachers to develop and implement curriculum. Department
chairs led much of the professional development as teachers
analyzed data and methods to improve instructional
delivery. 3142 indicated that District 635 allowed local
school leadership to determine its own coarse while 635
worked to minimize the effects of resource cuts to the
local school site as state budget cuts and declining
enrollment took its toll.
Professional and best practices
Schools that doubled performance sought out and
incorporated best practices (Archibald and Odden, 2009).

124
While all of the schools implemented best practices some
did not actively seek them out. This led some schools to
continue the same practices they had followed for years.
3142 was clearly well versed in identifying and
implementing research based strategies. Virtually none of
the strategies presented were without some basis in
research. The list and further details of their practices
can be found in the case study in Appendix F. The
leadership of 3038 was also well versed in what was shown
by research, such as by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock
(2001), to improve student achievement and worked with the
school to implement these practices.
While 3058 was clearly implementing many “best
practices”, it did not seem to actively search out
additional research or experts to further improve their
practices. Its emphasis upon building a collaborative
culture focused from within the school and precluded it
from seeking out outside expertise. 3058 felt that it had
all the expertise it needed within its school to accomplish
its goals. 3578 examined and implemented some professional
and best practices. They implemented programs such as AVID,

125
which has a clear record of improving student achievement
(Black, Little, McCoach, Purcell, & Siegle, 2008). However,
many of the staff of 3578 were reticent to implement
changes to their instructional approaches that they deemed
as already successful as evident by the school’s high API
scores. 3740 had begun to train and implement the gradual
release of responsibility (Frey & Fischer, 2009), Thinking
Maps (Thinking Maps & Inc, 2009), and other research based
strategies. However, it did not appear to be moving forward
in a comprehensive and coherent manner because instead of
being able to articulate a clear vision for it professional
development it simply listed a variety professional
development experiences.
While all of the schools involved in this study were
ranked high performing schools in comparison to other
schools in California, they were not all the same in their
approach to resource allocation and instruction. Table 4.9
provides an overview of the steps described by Archibald
and Odden (2009), completed by the schools under study.
However, in reviewing the data provided in Table 4.9, it is
important to remember that it is beyond the scope of this

126
study to evaluate or make judgments about the quality of
each step completed. Accordingly, a descriptor of “Yes” in
Table 4.9 simply means that the school has taken the step
as described by Archibald and Odden (2009). A descriptor of
“Partial” means that this school was beginning to take the
step but had not completed it. A descriptor of “No”
indicates that the step had not begun or was still in the
planning stages. Again, these descriptors are not meant to
judge the quality of the implementation, simply the
completion of the step. For example, looking at the
“Assessments” row, 3058, 3038, and 3578 had implemented and
were using formative assessments. 3142 was in the process
of developing and implementing formative assessments, using
technology. 3740 was just beginning to develop formative
assessments, but had yet to implement them. This table,
therefore, allows the reader a quick overview of the steps
completed at each school. Additional details are available
for each school in the case studies, included in Appendix
F.
127
Table 4.9 Completion of ten steps to double performance by
school
Schools
Improvement Steps 3058 3038 3578 3142 3740
1. Understanding Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
the problem
2. Goals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. Curriculum & Yes Yes Partial Yes Partial
Vision
4. Assessments Yes No Yes Partial No
5. PD Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial
6. Time Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes
7. Extended Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial
Learning
8. Culture Yes Yes Partial Yes Partial
9. Leadership Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10.Practices No Yes Partial Yes Partial
Connecting the impact of resource allocation and
performance
To connect the impact of resource allocation and
performance, this study will compare the performance data
of schools with the schools resource use and the ten steps
128
taken at each school. Finally it will also include what the
principals at each school indicated was needed to improve
its performance.
3058 held a consistent rank of “9” state wide until it
reached a rank to 10 in 2008, as can be seen in Figure 4.1.
However, in Figure 4.2, 3058 is generally ranked at the top
with a “10” when compared with similar schools. When
examining the API in Figure 4.3, 3058 was flat from 2006-
2008 with uneven and roughly flat performance in
mathematics and English/Language Arts as seen in Figures 4-
4 and 4-5, respectively. While it is a 10/10 school, 3058
clearly has room for improvement given its flat scores for
the last several years.
The principal of 3058 indicated a desire for
additional professional development time and funding for
technology (Table 4.8). The EBM would provide just under
$150,000 and just over $800,000 for professional
development (PD) and technology respectively (details are
available in Appendix F). In reviewing the steps the school
completed for doubling performance, the school should also
focus upon completing its work on providing extended

129
learning and seeking out best practices (Table 4.9). The
EBM would provide just under $150,000 for PD which would
not only allow for additional time for the staff to
collaborate together but also to seek out, bring back and
implement needed reforms. Additionally, the EBM would
provide almost two additional positions above what 3058
currently offers to broaden its extended time offerings
beyond ELL and students who have not passed the California
High School Exit Exam.
While 3038 began with the lowest state wide rank in
2004 of schools studied, it steadily improved until it
reached a rank of 10 in 2007, as can be seen in Figure 4.1.
3038 was also generally ranked at the top with a “10” when
compared with similar schools. When examining the API in
Figure 4.3, 3038 showed steady growth until 2007 and 2008,
when performance went flat. This pattern of increasing
scores followed by a plateau seen in Figures 4-4 and 4-5.
The principal of 3038 did not believe he needed any
additional resources for improved performance. As indicated
earlier, the principal felt that the improvement of student
learning was based upon the implementation of instruction

130
strategies and content. Accordingly, as long he had money
to “pay the teachers and keeps the light on”, he had enough
money to improve student learning. While 3038 has completed
almost all of the steps described by Archibald and Odden
(2009), 3038 should consider using time more efficiently
and effectively (Table 4.9). Specifically, while 3038 does
provide additional time for English Learners, it does not
use a specific curriculum or specially trained teachers to
meet the needs of struggling students. The EBM would
provide an additional $25,300 dollars above what the school
currently has allocated for PD which would allow teachers
to receive additional training for working with ELL.
Additionally, the EBM would provide 2.4 additional ELL
positions (Table 4.5) and $421,050 in instructional
materials (details in Appendix F) which could be used to
purchase and implement a specific curriculum for these
students.
reached a rank of 10 in 2007. However, in Figure 4.2, 3578
had scores that dropped from 2004-2005 before rising to a
rank of “10” in 2006. When examining the API, mathematics

131
and English/Language Arts scores, 3578 displayed steady
growth from 2004-2008. 3578 overall appears to have high
and continuing increasing performance.
additional professional development time. The EBM would
provide $74,750 more than was currently allocated for
professional development (PD). While 3578 has shown steady
increase in performance, there were still several steps it
could complete to further improve student performance. Many
of the steps could be addressed through professional
development, as indicated by the principal. A common vision
for instruction, a professional, collaborative culture and
best practices could all be addressed with increased time
and resources through professional development.
reached a rank of 10 in 2007. In Figure 4.2, 3740 is
generally ranked at the top with a “10” when compared with
similar schools. When examining the API in Figure 4.3, 3740
showed a steady increase from 2004-2008. 3740 has presented
with uneven and roughly flat performance in mathematics
since 2006 but steadily has increased in English/Language

132
Arts as seen in Figures 4-4 and 4-5, respectively. While
3740 has shown good growth overall, it had struggled to
keep the same pattern of improvement in mathematics.
The principal of 3740 indicated a desire for an
instructional coach (Table 4.8). The EBM would provide over
3 additional coaches to work with teachers and help
implement a unified vision for instruction of the school,
one of the needed steps needed to be completed at 3740. In
reviewing the steps the school has completed for doubling
performance, the school has several steps it could take to
improve performance (Table 4.9). The EBM would provide
$36,250 for PD which would not only allow for additional
time for the staff to collaborate together to discuss a
unified vision of instruction but also to seek out, bring
back and implement needed reforms and assessments and to
develop a collaborative and professional culture.
Additionally, the EBM would provide 3.4 additional
positions above what 3740 currently offers to increase its
extended time offerings.
3142 held a consistent rank of “10” state wide.
However when compared to similar schools, 3142 displayed

133
very uneven progress with its ranking dropping from 2005 to
2007 until it rebounded in 2008. When examining the API in
Figure 4.3, 3142 displays a modest but steady increase from
2004-2008. 3142 presented with uneven and roughly flat
performance in mathematics since 2004 but steadily
increased in English/Language Arts as seen in Figures 4-4
and 4-5, respectively.
additional teachers, administrators and an account for
instructional materials (Table 4.8). The EBM, however,
would not provide any additional teachers to work with ELL,
the group which the principal in particular wanted to focus
upon. However, the EBM would provide two additional
assistant principals and $156,380 for instructional
materials. In reviewing the steps the school had completed
for doubling performance, the school needed to complete
implementing its assessments (Table 4.9). The EBM would
provide $55,850 for PD which would not only allow for the
staff to complete their assessments but to also begin to
research methods to meet the needs of ELL. Additionally,
while the EBM would not provide any additional ELL

134
teachers, the school could use some of the instructional
material monies to research a new curriculum to use their
time with ELL students more effectively.

135
Chapter 5
Background
The purpose of this study was to examine the resource
allocation at high performing schools with a significant
population of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. By
examining these schools, this study would discuss what the
schools had used to derive their success as well as what
additional resources or strategies each school could take,
if any, to improve student performance by using the
Evidence Based Model (EBM).
Limitations and delimitation of the problem
When examining schools, it was clear that each school
had taken many of the steps and implemented many of the
strategies to improve student achievement as found in
modern educational research. As a limitation this study did
not seek to find a causal chain between specific
expenditures and specific increases in student achievement.
Instead, it relies on existing research which has been
shown to correlate with improved student achievement.
The evidence based model (EBM) relies on existing
research (evidence) to develop a model for funding schools.

136
Accordingly, using said research, it generates resources
found by existing research to boost student performance.
Therefore, this study sought to examine each schools
overall strategies and resource allocation to compare to
the EBM, but not to determine the quality of the
implementation.
Accordingly, as a delimitation, the study of the
quality of implementation is beyond the scope of this
study. The quality of implementation should be considered
for future study. School implementation can be compared
with existing research. By conducting this comparison the
quality implementation of the various programs outlined in
this study could be determined. Research into the quality
of implementation is important and should be considered for
future study.
As an additional limitation, while the EBM is
applicable to any school in the United States of America,
the data used to determine “high performance” was defined
by California. This study used the state and similar school
ranking as determined by the California Department of
Education. Other states will have different methods for

137
determining the performance level of their respective
schools. Each state has its own definition of “high
performing”, lacking any national standards as they
continue to be debated (Finn & Meier, 2009). Accordingly,
the generalizability of certain aspects of this study which
examine performance may be limited by the definition of
performance in use in California.
As a final delimitation, the sample size of this study
was limited to five schools. While twenty schools were
initially identified and invited to participate, only five
school chose to participate in the interviews and submitted
the needed data.
Research questions
This study sought not only financial or accounting
information but to also focus upon the instructional
strategies used in high performing schools. Using the EBM,
the study was able to compare the resources used in each
school with what research indicated should be provided and
the steps needed to improve instruction. These central
concepts are important to distinguish because it moves this
study from a simple accounting procedure to a rich

138
qualitative work that provides readers with the needed
insight to support school efforts to improve student
achievement and not simply garner additional resources.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What were the instructional improvement strategies at
the school level and with what resources were the
strategies supported at school?
2. How were the actual resource patterns aligned with or
3. What was the school’s instructional plan and how were
4. How did the availability of resources affect the
Did the schools examined spend their money differently
depending on the amount of money available to them?
Did all schools have the same expenditures in common?
Discussion of findings
The following discussion will seek to answer the
research questions presented at the beginning of this study

139
and restated above. By framing the discussion within the
context of the research questions, this study will clearly
fulfill its mission: to provide the needed insight of how
high performing schools with significant population of
socioeconomically disadvantaged students allocated
resources and instructional strategies in comparison to
what research indicates are best practices.
Question One: What were the current instructional
improvement strategies at the school level?
Each school included in this study had different
strategies and completed different steps for improving
student achievement. Principals at each site were
interviewed regarding specific steps taken at each school
to improve student achievement (Appendix C). Details to
their answers can be found in the case study for each
school in Appendix F, and a summary of the findings can be
found in Chapter four. In Table 4.8, this study presents
which of the ten steps found by Achibald and Odden (2009)
each school had taken.
All schools had a clear understanding of the problems
they faced in improving student achievement. Each school

140
was a high performing school, and each school had a clear
understanding of how the state data presented student
performance. Schools were acutely aware of not only their
specific scores in English and mathematics, but they were
also clear about their API scores, their rankings state
wide and in comparison to other schools. As suggested by
Archibald and Odden (2008), all schools had implemented or
undertaken the task of curricular mapping.
All schools had ambitious goals. The goals were
characterized as ambitious because they did not focus on a
small or select group of students being moved up
incrementally, but instead typically focused on all
students reaching set goals. Additionally, these schools
did not focus upon their school demographics. For example,
schools did not use English Language Learners or other sub-
groups as reasons they couldn’t attain their goals.
Instead, these schools included these subgroups in the
school goals and created additional supports to help these
students attain the school wide expected goal.
All schools also had widespread and distributed
leadership. All levels, from classroom teacher to district

141
offices were responsible for improving student performance.
There were of course varying degrees of leadership
practiced at each school. Some schools may have had more
leadership exhibited at the school site, characterizing
school leadership as being from the “ground up”, while
other schools may have had more direction or support from
the district office. However, in each case, the school
recognized the role of all parties to improving student
achievement.
Schools varied in their implementation of the other
steps to double student performance. In most cases, all
schools had taken some step towards implementing each
improvement step. For example, three of the five schools
(3142, 3038, and 3058) had implemented a new curriculum and
vision for their respective schools. However the other two,
3578 and 3740 had only completed a portion of that step by
just beginning to implement new curriculum and vision for
the school.
In two cases, some schools had not taken a step at
all. 3740 was at the very beginning of developing formative
assessments and 3142 had begun to implement its formative

142
assessment system. The remaining three schools had
implemented formative assessments and were examining data.
Moreover, 3058 had not taken any steps towards seeking out
best practices. This is not to say that 3058 did not
incorporate many best practices into its work; 3058 had
completed almost all of the other steps. Two other schools
had only taken partial steps towards finding and
implementing best practices at the school sites. Of the
five schools included in this study, only two had completed
the tenth step. Again, however, these schools still had
other earlier steps to fully implement.
As noted by Achibald and Odden (2009) the ten steps
are not necessarily sequential. Accordingly, this study did
include schools that had not completed earlier steps while
taking later steps. Additionally, it is important to note
that these schools were not given these ten steps in
advance and directed to complete them. As found by Achibald
and Odden, these schools had taken most of these steps
organically.
143
Question Two: How were resources used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement strategies?
Schools used a variety of resources to implement their
respective school instructional strategies. Many of the
resources revolved around allocated time to develop and
implement their respective strategies. Schools received
data from the state and respective districts to understand
the problem of improving student performance. All of the
schools used State Assessment Data. Schools also allocated
time for teachers to review State Assessment Data and
curricular mapping.
Additionally, schools spent time and resources in
developing their goals. Time was spent at the school site
level and district level in developing ambitious goals.
Schools used resources to advertise the goals of the school
by making copies and posting school wide expectations for
the entire community. Schools invested time changing
curriculum and instructional vision. Schools, such as 3038,
spent a majority of their time monitoring the
implementation of their standards based instruction. 3038
also included additional allocations of clerks to “free-up”

144
their administrators to monitor the instructional practices
of teachers. Indeed, most schools focused their energies
upon improved implementation of standards based instruction
and developing a common instructional vision.
Most schools committed time to on-site formative
assessments as part of their professional development.
Schools allocated resource personnel for their effort as
well. For example, the principal at 3038 was responsible
for aggregating the formative assessments for the
departments. At many schools, department chairs were
responsible for working with teachers to develop and
implement formative assessments. While there was not a
specific budgeted amount for “formative assessments” in all
schools, each school was responsible for allocating the
needed resources for producing and distributing the
assessments that were locally generated.
All schools allocated money and time for professional
development, yet these differed at each site. All schools
had some pupil free days for staff development and most
schools had some money set aside for professional
development expenses. For example, 3578 provided funding

145
for teachers to visit other teachers within the school.
Other schools, such as 3740, sent teachers to training
regarding specific instructional strategies.
Some schools allocated additional personnel for using
time efficiently and effectively. For example, 3058
allocated an additional period of support for struggling
students. However, 3142 changed the entire semester system
to a “tri-mester” system to provide students the
opportunity to take additional courses during the school
year. While this adjustment may be “cost neutral” because
it used existing resources, it does represent a significant
effort in reconfiguring the manner in which the school day
is comprised.
Schools typically offered some sort of extended
learning time for struggling students. Some schools, such
as 3142, greatly emphasized Extended Learning Time and
allocated time and money for it by providing funding for
teachers to stay in classrooms during lunch and after
school. Other schools only allocated token amounts, such as
3740, which relied on community organizations to provide
afterschool support.
146
Much of the time and resources to develop collaborate,
professional cultures were used during or in the
implementation of professional development. Teachers were
allotted time to work together during the school day. For
many schools, these meeting took place during teachers’
professional development time or conference periods, which
kept the financial cost to a minimum because teachers were
already bound contractually to stay at the school site.
However, as mentioned earlier, some schools provided money
for teachers to visit other classroom and thereby “de-
privatizing” instruction.
Question Three: How are the actual resource patterns at the
school sites aligned with or different from the resource
use strategies that are used in the Evidence Based Model?
In comparing schools with the EBM, all schools would
receive additional resources. The allocation and amounts
that would be funded differed with each school. Some
schools had sufficient number of resources allocated, when
compared to the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) in certain areas
but all schools received some additional resources in some
area.
147
All schools had an insufficient number of teachers,
both core and specialist, when compared with the Evidence
Based Model (Table 4.4). Schools, however, had chosen to
allocate resources differently when it came to
interventions. For example, 3058 and 3142 had a sufficient
number of teachers for English Learners (EL). Accordingly,
the EBM did not suggest any additional EL teachers, while
the EBM did suggest additional teachers for the other three
schools in this study, as seen in Table 4.5.
Similarly, almost all schools would have additional
pupil support staff, librarians and secretaries and clerks
allotted to them under the EBM. Only school 3038 would
actually experience a decline in the number of secretaries
and clerks. 3038 placed a focus on this particular resource
because of its focus to monitor classroom instruction and
practice using their administrative staff. The allocation
of additional secretaries and clerks allowed the
administration of 3038 to delegate many of the bureaucratic
functions.
While each school had one principal, the EBM suggested
number; all schools had an insufficient number of assistant

148
principals and instructional facilitators/coaches. Because
of the large sizes of many of the schools, the EBM
allocated additional assistant principals to focus upon the
number of students that would have been the size of a
school under the EBM. Surprisingly, most of the schools did
not have any instructional facilitators. However, many of
the identified needs of the schools could have been
addressed by instructional facilitators/coaches.
Question Four: How does the availability of resources
affect the development and implementation of the
instructional improvement plan?
While almost all schools included in this study were
able to complete most steps needed to double student
performance, all schools still needed to complete some
step. Additionally, almost all schools indicated the need
for additional resources to maintain or expand their
efforts. Almost all schools would be allotted additional
resources under the Evidence-Based Model. Taken together,
the availability of resources, or the lack thereof, becomes
evident for the development and implementation of the
instructional improvement program.

149
If schools were to receive the amount of money for
instructional material provided for in the EBM, each school
could find and implement new curriculum aligned to their
existing efforts of greater alignment with state standards.
Instead, each school is left re-tooling existing materials
to meet the need. This effort has been successful in large
part but further growth in this area requires additional
expenditures. Additionally, while educators may be known
for giving “tests” they are not necessarily
psychometricians. Additional support provided by additional
funding in instructional materials and professional
development would also help schools further implement the
step towards formative assessments.
Requests for additional resources for professional
development were a common comment from schools.
Specifically additional time, such as time at the beginning
and the end of the school year, were needed to continue the
work of implementing the instructional strategies the
schools had undertaken. The EBM provides for ten days
before school begins for teachers to meet together, plan,
and participate in professional development. Additionally,

150
the money and time for professional development could be
used to help develop a collaborative culture by having
teachers work together and share practices. The EBM would
provide the needed funds for schools to seek out
professional, best practices and bring in experts to
increase the school’s capacity for improving student
learning. Lastly, to help support the professional
development efforts of the school, the EBM would provide
for instructional coaches which were absent in most
schools. Instructional coaches would work with departments
and teams of teachers to help build the capacity of the
faculty and staff, culture, leadership and help support the
curriculum implementation and vision for the school.
While the EBM would provide additional teachers for
the school in general, it would also allocate funds for
teachers for specific programs such as the extended school
programs and tutoring. While most schools had some extended
learning program available, most schools still would
receive additional personnel to increase their programs.

151
Emerging Insights
The process of doubling student performance is
complicated. The inner-workings of schools and their
respective districts, high or low performing, are often
complicated with many variable. However, the goal of all
students reaching proficiency has been set forth by NCLB
and schools across the country are working to increase
student learning to meet this goal. Accordingly, even high
performing “10/10” schools have challenges to face and need
plans to implement to meet this goal.
Some of these challenges can be met with existing
resources, but many of these will require additional
resources. Some will argue that schools do not need
additional resources but greater fidelity to existing
reforms (Hanushek, 2006). However, part of what this study
makes clear is that even with schools with clear support
systems, additional financial support is needed to meet the
rising challenge of all students reaching proficiency.
It is your destiny.
First and foremost, none of these schools were “10/10”
schools by simple chance or simple demographic “destiny”.

152
As a “10/10” school with a significant subgroup of
socioeconomic disadvantaged students, each school faced
challenges. Each school understood their “problem”. They
all used the state data as a starting point from which to
work from and to plan around. Schools did not ignore the
information or make excuses about it. The faced it head on
and planned accordingly.
My, what big goals you have!
Secondly, each school had what Collins (2001) would
term “Big Hairy Audacious Goals”. These were goals that
from the surface would seem almost impossible to achieve.
These are not simple “stretch” goals that school might
possibly achieve at some point; they were goals that held
the highest expectations of everyone at the schools site.
Leadership matters
It is vitally important that all members of a school
community participate in improving student learning. It is
important that all parties feel accountable: to themselves,
to each other, and to students. Distributed leadership
makes that sort of accountability a reality. This sort of

153
accountability requires support in terms of personnel and
financial resources.
Commitment to excellence.
A commitment to research and using research based
methods is imperative. With the advocacy of greater
resource comes the advocacy for greater accountability. If
schools are to receive additional resources, schools must
have a clear vision in regards to resource allocation.
Without a clear understanding of the best ways to spend
additional resources, schools may begin investing in areas
that might not provide increased student performance.
Research such as that provided by Odden and Picus (2008)
and Archibald and Odden (2009) are crucial if schools are
to use additional resources effectively.
Recommendations for future research
To further enhance the understanding of how to double
student performance and the needed resource allocation and
strategies, it is important that additional studies be
conducted to build a rich database of information from
which to draw. Studies from a variety of schools would
provide the opportunity to compare and contrast schools and

154
to challenge existing assumptions and/or to validate
others. For example, this study focused particularly upon
secondary schools. It would be worthwhile to also examine
high performing elementary schools.
Additional studies can focus upon the quality of
implementation of the steps at each school site. As was
indicated in this study, the quality of implementation was
beyond its scope. Changes to the existing protocol may
allow for deeper probing around these issues. However, to
reach a deeper understanding of the work that these schools
have completed, it is important to know how the work was
done. This research could lead to a more refined
description of Table 4.9. Indeed, each step at each school
in and of itself could become the basis of a study to
identify how successful schools accomplish each step.
The strength of the Evidence-Based Model is it
reliance on research which improves student achievement.
However, each day new research is produced that may
challenge, validate or augment the EBM. The EBM needs to be
regularly updated to incorporate new research. Continued,
ongoing refinement of the EBM will serve to provide schools

155
and policy makers the needed insight to provide needed
resources to schools.
Concluding remarks
At the writing of this study, California and the rest
of the nation are in the midst of a challenging economic
situation. Education funding faces some of the toughest
challenges it has faced in many years. Expectations are
high and are continuing to rise. Schools, such as those
included in this study, have many of the basic structures
to continue to provide a quality education to students.
However, many schools in California do not have similar
structures in place.
Many schools did not rise to the challenge when they
were receiving more funding and may see today’s economic
downturn as a reason (or excuse) for not being able to meet
those expectations. However, it is important for all
schools to continue to understand the problem, set goals,
and ensure that all are accountable for reaching those
goals. If this downturn is cyclical, then schools will at
some point be eligible for increased funding.

156
The important questions will not only be how to spend
the money but why to spend the money. Schools must not be
seen as continued failures or broken organization. Schools
must approach these challenges with professional discipline
so that the public can feel that their investments in
public schools are worthwhile. Schools must use the
research to implement the best practices and research must
be available that provides schools the needed direction.
Better is as better does. It’s time to do better.

157
References
3142. (2008). 3142 Commitments for 2008/2009.
Achieve! Data Solutions. (2008). Data Director. Retrieved

May 3, 2009, from http://www.datadirector.com/
Achieve! Data Solutions. (2008). Data Director. Retrieved

May 3, 2009, from http://www.datadirector.com/
Anderson, C. W. (2003). How can schools support teaching

for understanding in mathematics and science. In A.
Pallas (Ed.), Transforming teaching in math and
science (pp. 3-21). New York: Teachers College press.
Anderson, C. W., Ashmann, S., Secada, W. G., & Williams, T.

(2003). Seeking Community. In A. Pallas (Ed.),
Transforming Teaching in Math and Science (pp. 127-
147). New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). Taxonomy for

learning, teaching and assessment. New York: Longman.
Archibald, S., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A case study of

professional development expenditures at a
restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 10(23), 1-24.
Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the Bar:

Curricular Intensity and Academic Performance.
Educaitoanl Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51-
71.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational

adequacy: From theoretical assumptions to empirical
evidence. Journal of education finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Baker, B. D. (2006). Evaluating the reliability, validity,

and usefulness of education cost studies. Journal of
Education Finance, 32(2), 170-201.
158
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). What research says
about small classes & their effects. Los Alamitos,CA:
WestEd. Retrieved from
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/small_classes.pdf
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S.

(2000). Designing professional development that works.
Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Black, A. C., Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., Purcell, J.

H., & Siegle, D. (2008). Advancement via Individual
Determination: Method Selection in Conclusions about
Program Effectiveness. Journal of Educational
Research, 102(2), 111-124. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.2.111-
124
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six

principles that guide student achievement in high-
performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives.

New York: Longmans, Green.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing

organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1995). Expanding a teacher's

knowledge base: A cognative psychological perpective
on professional development. In T. Guskey & M.
Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in
education: new paradigms and practices (pp. 35-66).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Brinson, V. R., & Mellor, L. (2005, March). How are high-

performing schools spending thier money? Paper
presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the
American Education Finance Association. Retrieved from
http://www.nc4ea.org/files/Atlantic.pdf#search=%22How%
20are$20high-
performing%20schools%20schools%20spending%20their%20mo
ney%3F%22
159
Brown, J. L. (2004). Making the most of understanding by
design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
California Department Of Education. (n.d.). Part II:

Developmental Responsiveness. Retrieved March 3, 2009,
from
http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/tableofcontents/developre
sponsive.aspx
California Department of Education. (2009, May 14).

Academic Performance Index. Retrieved May 15, 2009,
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/
Carroll, S. J., Krop, C., Arkes, J., Morrison, P. A., &

Flanagan, A. (2005). California's K-12 Public Schools:
How Are They Doing (MG-186). Retrieved March 13, 2008
from
http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG186.sum.pd
f
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into

results: A guide to selecting the right performance
solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.
Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: the case

of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make

the leap...and others don't. New York: Harper Collins.
Cooper, B. (1993, March). School-site cost allocation:

Testing a micro-financial model in 23 districts in ten
states. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual
Meeting of the American Education Finance Association.
Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content
storage 01/0000000b/80/26/57/6e.pdf
Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well (RB-

16). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
160
Costrell, R., Hanushek, E., & Loeb, S. (2008). What do cost
functions tell us about the cost of an adequate
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(2), 198-
223. doi:10.1080/01619560801996988
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Redesigning high schools: What

matters and works, 10 features of good small schools.
Retrieved July 12, 2008, from School Redesign Network
Web site:
http://srnleads.org/data/pdfs/10_features.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., & Orphanos, S. (2007, March).

Leadership Development in California (12). Retrieved
July 19, 2008, from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/12-
Darling-Hammond/12-Darling-Hammond(3-07).pdf
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S.,

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

Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do districts management and
implementation strategies relate to the quality of
professional development that districts provide to
teachers? Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
Dufour, R. (2004). What is 'professional learning

community'? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-12.
Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale Web
site:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM
Dufour, R., & Burnette, B. (2002). Pull out negativity by

its roots. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 27-30.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006).

Learning by doing: a handbook for professional
learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
161
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don't know about
improving low-performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
87(10), 728-734.
Duncombe, W. (2006). Responding to the charge of alchemy:

Strategies for evaluating the reliability and validity
of costing-out research. Journal of Education Finance,
32(2), 137-169.
Education Data Partnership. (2008, December). Understanding

the Academic Performance Index. Retrieved April 26,
2009, from Ed-Data Web site: http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fpro
file%2Easp%3Flevel%3D07%26reportNumber%3D16
The Education Data Partnership . (2008, November 19).

Glossary of terms. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/glossary.asp#populationstatus
Education Data Partnership. (2009, April 9). Ed-Data:

Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on
California's K-12 schools. Retrieved May 15, 2009,
from http://www.ed-data.org
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher

learning: Staff development and instructional
improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice (p. ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, J., Lucey, G., Goodrich, S., & Frazee, D. (2003).

Developing an inquiry-minded district. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), . Retrieved from Center for
Collaborative Education Web site:
http://www.ccebos.org/feldman.2.03.html
Fenwick, J., Worrall, R., & Levin, D. (2001). Taking Center

Stage. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Fermanich, M. L. (2002). School spending for professional

development: A cross case analysis of seven schools in
one urban district. Elementary School Journal, 103(1),
27-50.
162
Fermanich, M., Mangan, M. T., Odden, A., Picus, L. O.,
Gross, B., & Rudo, Z. (2006, September 11). Washington
Learns: Successful District Study. Retrieved February
21, 2009, from Lawrence O. Picus and Associates Web
site:
http://www.lopassociates.com/PDFs/Picus%20and%20Assoc%
20Successful%20Dist%20Report%209-11-06%20_e_.pdf
Fermanich, M., Mangan, M. T., Odden, A., Picus, L. O.,

Gross, B., & Rudo, Z. (2006, September 11). Washington
Learns: Successful District Study. Retrieved February
21, 2009, from Lawrence O. Picus and Associates Web
site:
http://www.lopassociates.com/PDFs/Picus%20and%20Assoc%
20Successful%20Dist%20Report%209-11-06%20_e_.pdf
Fin, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-

Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring effects of small
classes. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145-183.
Finn, C. E., & Meier, D. (2009). E pluribus unum. Education

Next, 9(2), 50-57. Retrieved from Hoover Institution
Stanford University Web site:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/E_Pluribus_U
num.html
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2009). The release of learning.

Principal Leadership, 9(6), 18-22.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: a brief history

of the twenty-first century.. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: system

thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G.,

Williams, T., & Ashman, S. (2003). Transforming
teaching in math and science: how schools and
districts can support change. New York: Teachers
College Press.
163
Gandara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2006, December 30). Resource
needs for California’s English learners (22).
Retrieved July 12, 2008, from the Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice Web site:
Gandara-Rumberger/22-Gandara-Rumberger(3-07).pdf
Garan, E. M., & Devoogd, G. (2008). The Benefits of

Sustained Silent Reading: Scientific Research and
Common Sense Converge. Reading Teacher, 62(4), 336-
344. http://sdoi:dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.4.6
Garet, M. S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon,
K. (2001). What makes professional development
effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Glenn, W. J., & Picus, L. O. (2007). The "Williams"

settlement and the propects for future school finance
adequacy litigation in California. Journal of
Education Finance, 32(3), 382-394.
Guskey, T. R. (1995). Training for the professional

development of teachers. In T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman
(Eds.), Professional development in education: new
paradigms and practices (pp. 135-150). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional

development in education: new paradigm and practices.
Guthrie, J. W., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling "adequacy"

to achieve reality: Translating adequacy into state
school finance distribution arrangements. In H. Ladd,
R. Clark, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy
issues in education finance: issues and perspectives
(pp. 209-259). Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered Instruction: Best

Practices for ELLs in the Mainstream. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 44(4), 165-169.
164
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting failure: How school finance
lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our
children. Retrieved from
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/4284872.html
Harmon, J. M., Wood, K. D., Hedrick, W. B., Vintinner, J.,

& Willeford, T. (2009). Interactive word walls: More
than just reading the writing on the walls. Journal of
Adolescent & Literacy, 52(5), 398-408.
doi:dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.5.4
Huss, J. A. (2007). Let's talk about talking: Accountable

talk and participatory learning. Middle Ground, 11(1),
28-29.
Hyelre, D. (2000). A field guide to using visual tools.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Hyerle, D. (1995). Thinking maps: seeing is understanding.

Educational Leadership, 53(4), 85-89.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). Learning experiences in

school renewal: An exploration of five successful
program. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.
Joyce, B. R. (1988). Student achievement through staff

development. White Plains, New York: Longman.
Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching: Eight factors

for realizing better classroom teaching through
support, feedback and intensive, individual
professional learning. The School Administrator,
63(4), 36. Retrieved from American Association of
School Administrators Web site:
http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?I
temNumber=5874&snItemNumber=950&tnItemNumber=1995
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in

a climate of educational reform. Educational Analysis
and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
165
Loeb, S., Grissom, J., & Strunk, K. (December 2006).
District dollars: Painting a picture of revenues and
expenditures in California's school districts.
Retrieved July 12, 2008, from Institute for Research
on Education Policy & Practice at Stanford Web site:
Loeb-SACS/5-Loeb-SACS(3-07).pdf
Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. D. (1996). Teachers'

professional community in restructured schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional

community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and
student experience in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
Lukemeyer, A. (2004). Financing a Constitutional Education:

Views from the Bench. In J. Yinger (Ed.), Helping
children left behind: state aid and the pursuit of
educational equity (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: translating

research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001).

Classroom instruction that works: research-based
strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School

leadership that works: From research to results.
Alexandria, CA: Association for Supervision and
McIntire, T. (2006). Enough to Go 'Round? Thinking Smart

about Total Cost of Ownership. Technology & Learning,
26(12),from http://www.techlearning.com/article/6036 .
166
Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the
allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from
high performing schools. Educational Evaluations and
Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
Miles, K. H., Odden, A. R., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S.

(2004). Inside the black bos of school district
spending on professional development: Lessons from
five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance,
30(1), 1-26.
Miller, L., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost

allocation model for shared district resources: A
means for comparing spending across schools (CRPE
Working Paper 2004-4). Seattle, WA: Center for
Reinventing Public Education.
Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance

of accountability systems for school improvement: A
descriptive analysis of California schools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4),
319-352.
National Access Network. (2008, February). Wyoming.

Retrieved May 20, 2008, from Teachers College,
Columbia University Web site:
http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/wy/lit_wy.php3
National Geographic School Publishing. (2008). High Point.

Retrieved April 17, 2009, from National Geographic
School Publishing Web site:
http://www.ngsp.com/Products/ESLELD/nbspnbspHighPoint/
tabid/88/Default.aspx
National Staff Development Council. (2008). Retrieved June

10, 2008, from http://www.nsdc.org
O'Connell, J. (2007, February 6). State of Education

Address. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from California
Department of Education Web Site:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/yr07stateofed.asp
Odden, A. (2000). The cost of sustaining education through

comprehensive school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6),
433-439.
167
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance
today. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2001). Reallocating resources:

How to boost student achievement without asking for
more.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A.

(2002). A cost framework for professional development.
Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-74.
Odden, A.R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student

performance...and finding the resources to do it.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder,

R. C., Glenn, W., et al. (2005). An evidence-based
approach to school finance adequacy in Wyoming.
Retrieved May 22, 2008, from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2006/interim/schoolfinance
/recalibration/WY%20RecaFinal.pdf
Odden, A. R., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B.

(2003). Defining school-level expenditures that
reflect edcutional strategies. Journal of Education
Finance, 28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: a

policy perspective (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Office Of Planning, Evaluation And Policy Development (Ed),

Policy And Program Studies Service (2008, December).
Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities:
Final Report. Report Highlights (). Jessup, MD : US
Department of Education.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal

Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-
Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction,
1(2), 117-175. Retrieved from University of California
at Santa Cruz Web site:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Courses_Folder/ED
%20261%20Papers/Palincsar%20Reciprocal%20Teaching.pdf
168
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Picus, L. O. (1993a). The allocation and use of educational

resources: School level evidence from the Schools and
Staffing Survey. (Working Paper No. 37). Los Angeles:
USC Center for Research in Education Finance.
Picus, L. O. (2004). School Finance Adequacy: Implications

for School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 88(640), 3-11.
doi:10.1177/019263650408864002
Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., & Trimble, C. S. (2005). The

Effects of State Decision About NCLB Adequate Yearly
Progress Targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 24(4), 32-39.
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional Rigor, Public Engagement

and Judicial Review: A Proposal for Enhancing the
Validityof Education Adequacy Studies. Teacher College
Record, 109(6), Available at
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743.
Rebell, M. A. (2008). Equal Opportunity and the Courts. Phi

Delta Kappan, 89(6), 432.
Reich, R. (2006, December). Equality and adequacy in the

state's provision of education: Mapping the conceptual
landscape (1). Retrieved July 21, 2008, from Institute
for Research on Education Policy & Practice Web site:
Reich/1-Reich(3-07).pdf
Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (2001). Achieving educational

adequacy through school finance. Journal of Education
Finance, 26(4), 373-396.
Reynolds, P. R. (2007). The "pedagogy of the oppressed":

the necessity of dealing with problems in students'
lives. Educational Horizons, 86(1), 53-60.
Riverside Publishing. (2008). Data Director. Retrieved

March 8, 2009, from Riverside Publishing Web site:
http://datadirector.com/
169
Rosen, H. S. (2002). Public Finance (6th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Schwarzenegger, A. (2008, January 10). Governor’s Budget

Summary 2008-09. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudget
Summary.pdf
Scrip Pro. (2008). How it works. Retrieved March 9, 2009,

from http://www.scrippro.com/works.html
Shkolnik, J., Song, M., Mithchell, K., Uekawa, K., Knudson,

J., & Murphy, R. (2007, April). Changes in rigor,
relevance, and student learning in redesigned high
schools (). Retrieved July 21, 2008, from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/researc
hevaluation/TASWRedesignedHS.pdf
Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building

human capital: the importance of teacher learning in
education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace:

implications for school reform. In T. Guskey & M.
Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in
education: new paradigms and practices (pp. 92-113).
Sobul, D. (1995, July). Specially Designed Academic

Instruction in English (ED391357). Retrieved April 26,
2009, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/5a/5a.p
df
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001).

Investigating school ledership practice: A distributed
perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-27.
Spycher, P. (2007). Academic writing of adolescent English

learners: Learning to use "although". Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16(4), 238-254.
doi:doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.001
170
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success:
a meta-analytic review of longitudinal research.
Intelligence, 35, 401-426.
Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of

professional development on science teaching practive
and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Technology Enhanced Learning and Research. (2004.).

Clickers: Cited Articles and Websites. Retrieved March
8, 2009, from Ohio State University Web site:
http://telr.osu.edu/clickers/resources/articles.htm
Thinking Maps, Inc. (2008). Home Page. Retrieved March 8,

2009, from http://www.thinkingmaps.com/index.htm
Tincani, M., & Crozier, S. (2007). Comparing Brief and

Extended Wait-Time during Small Group Instruction for
Children with Challenging Behavior. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 16(4), 355-367.
doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9047-9
University Of California. (n.d.). "a-g" Subject Area

Requirements. Retrieved April 17, 2009, from
University of California Office of the President Web
site: http://www.ucop.edu/a-gGuide/ag/a-g/welcome.html
Vander Ark, T. (2002). The case for small high schools.

Edcucational Leadership, 59(6), 55-59.
Vantage Learning. (n.d.). At School: MY Access. Retrieved

March 8, 2009, from
http://www.vantagelearning.com/school/products/myacces
s/
Walberg, H. J. (2006). High-poverty, high-performance

schools, districts, and states. In E. Hanusheck (Ed.),
Courting failure: how school finance lawsuits exploit
judges' good intentions and harm our children (pp. 79-
101). Retrieved from
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817947817_79.pdf
171
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2008). Human resource
administration: personnel issues and need in education
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
172
Appendix A: Research Study Information and Site Permission
Letter
September 11, 2009
To: [Potential Participant]
From: Victor Gonzalez, Researcher
RE: Research Study Information and Site Permission Letter
Thank you for your preliminary agreement to participate in my dissertation study. This
memo provides a brief description of the topic, the study, and the site permission letter (template
enclosed).
I have the privilege of working with Larry Picus, Ph.D. at the University of Southern
California, a nationally recognized expert in the area of school finance adequacy – the topic of
my dissertation. The basic premise is that we have a body of research about effective
instructional practices along with measurable academic achievement standards, definitions of
academic proficiency, and an expectation that all students will achieve those levels of
proficiency. At the same time, we have school funding systems that were not based on any of
these performance expectations. I hope to contribute to research efforts that have begun by
painting a picture of what an adequate education looks like by identifying resource use (e.g.,
FTEs teaching English, instructional minutes, FTEs serving as classroom aides, etc.) at high
173
performing “10/10” secondary schools. The ultimate hope is to figure out how much it costs to
provide every child with the resources s/he needs in order to achieve proficiency.
This fall I’d like to conduct a structured interview with you and/or appropriate staff
members (e.g., Title I coordinator, assistant principal(s), department chairs – as you see fit). The
interview follows a specific format and includes examination of a variety of documents (e.g,
master schedule, bell schedule, school improvement plan, budgets). I hope to conduct the data-
collection interviews in October and November. All schools remain anonymous. The data
collected are public record types of information.
In order to receive approval for this study, I must turn in “Site Permission Letters” for
each potential site to the Institutional Review Board. Enclosed, please find a template for the
letter. Would you be so kind as to transfer the text to your school’s letterhead, sign the letter,
and return to me?
After confirming receipt of the “Site Permission Letter,” I do not anticipate troubling you
again until end-of-summer/early fall to set an appointment. However, if you would like to
schedule earlier, please let me know your preferred date(s). As I mentioned in our conversations,
the interview is lengthy – part of the reason you may be inclined to include additional staff
members – I know and respect how busy you are!

174
Thank you again for this initial commitment to help me complete my Ed.D. while
contributing to research that turns out to be extremely timely.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any thoughts or questions! I can be reached as
follows: email: vrgonzal@usc.edu, mobile phone: xxx.xxx.xxxx, work phone (Manual Arts High
School): xxx.xxx.xxxx. It will be an honor and a privilege to work with you! Many thanks!
Victor Gonzalez
175
Appendix B: Document Request List
All of these documents should be for the current 2008-09 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 ELL 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)

176
A list of all district employees who do not appear on school staff roster, but who
provide direct services to schools (guidance counselors, psychologists, special education
diagnosticians, etc) and which schools they provide services to, expressed in FTE units.
For instance, a special education diagnostician who works with 3 schools might be listed
three times on this sheet (0.5 FTE, 0.3 FTE, 0.2 FTE) depending upon the number of
days she is allocated to the various schools. Note: You will only be recording the
proportion of FTEs that she spends providing services to the individual school you are
studying.
3. School Schedule (School)
It is helpful to have a copy of the bell schedule to talk through the amount of
instructional time for reading, math, etc.
4. Consultants (School, District, and State)
Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional
development contracted services.
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

177
• 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.

178
Appendix C: 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?

o 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)

179
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
o If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of

your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
o Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
o 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)
180
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers
or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology
C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or

bottom up?
D. What type of instructional leadership was present?
E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g. School
Board report which helped solidify focus)
F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand

your efforts?
181
Appendix D: Data Collection Protocol
School Profile
School Name
School Pseudonym
Address
City
State Zip
CA
Phone
Fax
Website
Notes
182
School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name
Last Name
Phone #
Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
School Contact (2)
Title
Phone #
Fax #
183
Email Address
NOTES:
School Contact (3)
Title
Last Name
Phone #
Fax #
Email Address
NOTES
184
District Profile
District Name
District State ID
District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Last Name
Phone #
Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
185
Title
Last Name
Phone #
Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
186
Title
Last Name
Phone #
Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

187
Grade Span
Number of ELL Students
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-
Price Lunch (FRL)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of Special Education Students (self-
contained)
Total Length of School Day
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Mathematics Class
Length of Reading or English/LA Class
Length of Science Class

188
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular FTEs
Education)
Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
189
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
190
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:
Specialist and Elective Teachers FTE
/Planning and Prep s
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
191
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:
NOTES:
Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library Media
192
Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:
FTEs or
Extra Help I Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers

193
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Classified
Staff
NOTES:
Extra Help II TEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely
disabled students)
Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

194
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

195
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:
196
FTEs and
Other Instructional Staff Dollars ($)
Consultants $
(other than pd contracted services)
Building substitutes and other
substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs $
NOTES:
Dollars ($) and
Professional Development FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher

197
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:

198
NOTES:
Student Services FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community
liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
199
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student
Services Staff:
NOTES:
Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other
Administrator:
200
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:
Elementary School Class Sizes
Secti Secti Secti Secti
on 1 on 2 on 3 on 4
Specia
l Education
Grade
201
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
8
202
Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook
This Codebook 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: Each researcher has developed his/her

own criteria to identify California schools to
include in this study.
B. School State ID: This is the CDS identification
number that the state has assigned the school.
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”
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website
II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people
at the school. This will include the principal, and

203
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: “CA”
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.
B. District State ID: This is the identification number
that the state has assigned to the district within
which the school resides.
IV. District Contacts

204
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
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: “CA”
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code
V. School Resource Indicators

205
School resource indicators should be collected
for the 2008-09 school year. Enter personal notations
pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.
A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students

enrolled at the school on the day of the site visit
minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of
students enrolled in any pre-kindergarten programs
at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous
category, Current Student Enrollment. Make sure to
also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides
instruction in. (E.g. K-5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of
the site visit, the number of students eligible for
services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of
2001
(http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Wy_ELD_ELA.pdf).
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 Plan
(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 Plan (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services and who
learn primarily (at least 60% of the school day*)
outside of a regular education classroom.
206
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 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.”
207
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

208
per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding
notes fields. Indicate in parentheses if the teacher
is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer
Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courteny Cox
Arquette (0.33), Matt LeBlanc
A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level

teachers who teach the core subjects. The FTEs
should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies,
Mathematics, Science, and Foreign Language: Number
of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who teach
the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate
those in the grade categories.
VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers
This expenditure element consists of teachers who
teach non-core academic classes, and usually provide
planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. In
the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.

209
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.
210
A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE
licensed librarians or media specialists who
instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help
instruct students
IX. Extra Help Staff
This category mainly consists of licensed
teachers from a wide variety of strategies designed to
assist struggling students, or students with special
needs, to learn a school’s regular curriculum. The
educational strategies that these teachers deploy are
generally supplemental to the instruction of the
regular classroom. Extra help staff should be entered
as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE
counts. Enter each staff member’s name that
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.
211
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who
monitor/teach In-School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special
education teachers who provide small groups of
students with extra help as a function of the Title
I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education
aides who provide small groups of students with
extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers
of English as a second language (ESL) who work with
non-English speaking students to teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a
second language (ESL) classes who work with non-
English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who
instruct students in the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who
instruct students in the gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the
gifted program for the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers
who provide supplemental instructional assistance to
students to learn the school’s curriculum. (Use this
category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what
the “Other” extra help staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE
classified staff who provide supplemental
instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description:
Indicate what the “Other” extra help classified
staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students
with severe disabilities): Number of FTE licensed
teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely”
disabled students for most or all of the school day.
These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required
by their students’ Individualized Education Programs
(IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE
licensed teachers who assist regular classroom
212
teachers with mainstreamed students who have
physical or mental disabilities, or a learning
problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE
licensed special education teachers who provide
small groups of students in special education with
extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE
aides who assist in self-contained special education
classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who
assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed
students who have physical or mental disabilities,
or some learning problem. These students generally
have “less severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE
special education aides who provide small groups of
students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students
who participate in the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of
minutes per week that the extended day program is
offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work
minutes per week in the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed
teachers who provide students with extra
instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff
who provide students with extra instructional time
to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff:
Description of classified staff’s role in the
extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of
minutes per day multiplied by the number of days per
week that students attend summer school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer
school is in session.
213
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
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.
214
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who
assist instruction, but were not included in
previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified
teacher substitutes who replace sick teachers.
(This is not for substitutes who replace teachers
who are participating in professional development.)
XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs
This expenditure element includes spending on the
professional development of a school’s staff and the
staffing resources necessary to support it.
Professional development staff should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost figures should
be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that
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
215
development. For planning time within the regular
contract, the dollar amount is calculated as the
cost of the portion of the salary of the person used
to cover the teachers’ class during planning time
used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release
time provided by substitutes, cost is calculated
with substitute wages. For time outside the regular
school day, including time after school, on
weekends, or for summer institutes, the dollar
amount is calculated from the stipends or additional
pay based on the hourly rate that the teachers
receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE
instructional facilitators and coaches. This may
include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should
be recorded). Outside consultants who provide
coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the
school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside
consultants who provide training or other
professional development services. If trainers are
from the district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-
level administrators of professional development
programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-
site professional development activities, and costs
of transportation within the district for
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
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition
payments or reimbursement for college-based
professional development, and fees for conferences
related to professional development.
216
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
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.
217
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech,
occupational (OT), and physical therapists (PT) who
provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching
aides. (E.g. Lunchroom aides, Aides who help
students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is
supervising students or not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student
services staff. (Use this category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student
services staff member does.
XIII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing
resources pertaining to the administration of a
school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
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. (12 month
employees)
218
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff
members. (10 month employees)
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
219
Appendix F: Case Studies
3038
School 3038 is a ninth through twelfth grade high
school with just under 2,500 students on the urban fringe
of a large city, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (The
Education Data Partnership , 2008). School 3038 is located
in district 431 a high school district with approximately
33,343 students in middle school, high school, alternative,
special education, continuation, community day, opportunity
and non-public schools. Almost 40% of students at school
3038 are white, over twice the percentage of whites in
district 431, which has a 16.1% total white enrollment.
School 3038 has a much smaller percentage of students
receiving free/reduced priced meals (6%) and also a smaller
percentage of students designated as English Learners (13%)
as compared to district 431’s totals of 24.1% and 51%,
respectively. While school 3038 has fewer students in
various subgroups when compared to its District, 3038 does
have sufficient number of socio-economically disadvantaged
students to be significant, as defined by NCLB. 11% of

220
students in district 431 are designated as students with
special needs as compared to 6% in school 3038.
The API for school 3038 had increased steadily for the
last several years but reached a plateau in 2008, as seen
in Figure F3038.1. Specifically, school 3038 grew 43 points
between 2004 and 2005, 14 points between 2005 and 2006 and
26 points between 2006 and 2007 for a total of 92 points
over the last five years.
Figure: F3038.1. Changes in API at school 3038

860
840
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API 751 794 818 844 843
Figure F3038.2 indicates the rise in Statewide Rank
and Similar School Rank achieved by school 3038 over the
last five years. School 3038 has been a “10/10” school for
the last two years. In the 2004 and 2005 school years, 3038
maintained an eight in statewide rank and a three in

221
similar school
s ra
ank, even
n while it’s
i API continue
ed to ris
se.
T
This is due,
d in part,
p to the impr
rovement at other
r schools
s
r
relative to 3038 own perf
formance. Accordi
ingly, wh
hile
subsequen
nt years may not have sho
own as dr
ramatic an
a
improveme
ent as ea
arlier ye
ears, 303 een able to
38 has be
increase and main

ntain its
s perform
mance rel
lative to
o other
schools.
Figure: F3038.2.
F F Statewid
de Rank and
a Simil
lar Schoo
ol Rank for
f
s
school 30
038
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2004 200
05 2006 2007 200
08
Statewide Rank 8 8 9 10 10
0
Similar
r School
Ra
ank 3 3 8 10 10
0
222
Figure: F3038.3. Annual Measurable Objectives, percent of
students proficient in English/Language Arts and
Mathematics.
Percent Proficient 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
-04 -05 -06 -07 -08
English/
Language 60.8 69.6 76.8 74.3 74
Arts
Mathematics 63.1 69.1 78 81.4 79.7
Figure 3038.3 demonstrates the percentage of students
scoring proficient or above on the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The CAHSEE is the exam of California’s
Annual Measurable Objectives for the purposes of reporting
progress in English/Language Arts and Mathematics for No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). 3038 showed progress from 2003-
2006 but it has remained relatively flat from 2006-2008.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
School 3038 has worked to “tighten” its existing
instructional practices and focus upon improving student
achievement. The efforts at 3038 are largely school site
determined and executed. While the central district office

223
does provide some support, the staff at 3038 which has
taken the lead regarding the focus of the school and
instructional improvement strategies to improve
instruction. A large emphasis is placed upon holding staff
accountable for providing standards based instruction.
Focus on Assessment
3038 focused upon the summative annual CAHSEE and
California Standards Test (CST) exams. The principal of
3038 required departments to create a pacing plan and
literature selections based solely upon the standards that
were listed for the CAHSEE and CST exams. The pacing plans
are published in students’ journals for added
accountability. Teachers are expected to adhere to the
pacing plan and to use the agreed upon materials. Two weeks
prior to summative assessments, teachers map out lessons
based upon assessment topics to provide a review for
students. Summative assessments are given near the end of
each term. A stipend is given to a teacher to process
assessments for their respective departments.
The results are returned to teachers in a timely
manner with the expectation that teachers will use the data
224
to reteach concepts in which students scored low. The built
in week and expectation for review were insufficient to be
described as a formative assessment program. However, 3038
recognizes the importance of using data to address
knowledge and skill gaps in student learning. Accordingly,
3038 was beginning to tackle the issue by having teachers
create benchmark assessments during the professional
development time.
Focus on Standards
School 3038 has a clear and consistent focus: the
California State standards. “They are the curriculum”, said
the principal of 3038. The school is focused on giving
students exposure to the needed material. The focus on
standards is most closely aligned to Marzano’s Opportunity
to Learn. A primary agent in the school’s focus is the
principal of the school as he clearly outlines the
direction of the school and regularly monitors
implementation of instructional practices.
As stated by the principal, “if the standards are not
the curriculum, you’re not going to be successful.” Carried
further, the curriculum in place at 3038 excludes material

225
that was not on the CST nor on the CAHSEE. For example,
novels are not used because “novels are not on the test.”
The principal insisted that staff “get with the plan or get
out of the way.” With the support of the superintendent, he
required teachers to break down the standards and “write
their own book” based on the standards for each department.
Each department was also required to create their own
benchmark assessments.
3038 felt that this was not simply “teaching to the
test” but was in fact providing students the opportunity to
learn the expected curriculum. It was seen as unfair to
students to test them on material that they were unfamiliar
with so the curriculum was aimed at providing students the
exposure to the standards. Accordingly, all students are
provided with the same standards based instruction. 3038
does not provide a separate curriculum for students with
special needs nor for English Language Learners. Students
in these populations are instead provided with an extra
period of English/Language Arts or Mathematics as needed.
Students may see teachers or counselors afterschool for
additional tutoring and support. 3038 does provide

226
afterschool classes for students who need to recover
credits for classes they have failed.
The school is allotted one release day per semester for
professional development. These days are typically assigned
to reviewing and adjusting curriculum mapping.
Additionally, faculty and staff are accorded one late start
a quarter to create benchmark exams. Teachers schedule
days, on their own time, to review data and create or
adjust assessments. Teachers met during staff meetings,
professional development or their own conference periods to
review data with colleagues to maximize the time that was
already scheduled into the contract and not require extra
expenditures. Professional development is currently focused
upon the creation of benchmark assessments. Additionally,
the principal required all teachers to teach “bell to bell”
which he regularly reviewed as he visited classrooms.
The principal was convinced that money was not the key
for raising test scores. When asked, he asserted that he
had no need for any additional resources. He had very
limited discretionary money. Most of the school’s money

227
went to teacher salaries and to “keep the lights on”.
Accordingly, the focus of professional development was to
“Keep it simple”. Faculty and staff focused upon data and
to continually “tighten” their own practices based upon the
data.
The key was the instructional focus in the classroom on
providing standards-based education. 3038 requires a
commitment from each teacher to have high expectation for
all students. Teachers were expected to teach bell to bell
every day. The principal believed in holding everyone
accountable for providing consistency. The principal was
constantly in classroom to evaluate and provide feedback to
teachers. The offices staff is organized to deal with any
needed task or paperwork, which left the administrators
free to visit classrooms and work with teachers.
Instructional Strategies
Teachers were expected to use Marzano, Pickering, and
Pollock (2001) nine identified research-based instructional
strategies.
• Identifying similarities and differences
• Summarizing and note taking

228
• Reinforcing effort and providing recognition
• Homework and practice
• Nonlinguistic representation
• Cooperative learning
• Setting objectives and providing feedback
• Generating and testing hypotheses
• Cues, questions, and advanced organizers
These strategies were identified by the school as part of
the larger system at 3038 that provided for quality
instruction. Teachers had been trained in these strategies
and administration regularly visited classrooms to assure
that teachers were using these strategies. Specifically,
3038 focused upon providing students sufficient “wait time”
(Tincani & Crozier, 2007) to answer questions posed by
teachers and all students are expected to participate in
classroom learning.
Parent Involvement
Parent involvement is limited at 3038. While most
parents are in agreement with the direction the school has
taken, there are some that are critical. Most parent
involvement takes the form of supporting school activities

229
such as the Academic Decathlon or sports teams. The school
has no active parent center. The support and participation
was usually conducted via the PTSA and the booster club for
the school.
Corresponding Resource Use
As described by the principal of 3038, the school has
enough money to pay the staff and keep the lights on. While
it is a high performing school, 3038 has relatively few
resources when compared to the resources suggested by
research as reflected in the Evidence Based Model (EBM).
Table F3038.1 is broken up into four columns to provide a
comparison of what resources 3038 would receive if it was
provided with the resources called for in the EBM, when
compared to a prototypical school. The first column
describes the various school elements, the second columns
describes the resources provided by the model, the third
column describes the resources that were available at 3038
and the final column provides the difference between the
EBM and 3038.

230
Table F3038.1 Evidence Based Model and 3038 Comparison
3038 High
Evidence School – HS – EBM
Based Model Current Comparison &
School Prototypical Resource Resource EBM
Element High Schools Status Changes
School
Characteristics
School 9-12 9-12 9-12
configuration
School size 600 2,406 4.0 times
larger
Class Size 25 30.8 5.8 students
more
Free and 180 320
Reduced Lunch
Count
Number of ELL 60 125
Students
Personnel
Resources
Core Teachers 24 56.8 96.2 or 39.4
additional
teachers than
currently at
3038.
Specialist / 33% of core 21.2 31.8 or 10.6
Elective teachers: 8.0 additional
Teachers teachers than
currently at
3038
Total 32 78 128 or 50
Teachers additional
teachers than
currently at
3038
Instructional 1 for every 0 12
Coaches 200 students:
3.0
Tutors 1 per 100 At 0 3.2
Risk Students
(Free and
Reduced Price
Lunch)
231
Table F3038.1: Continued
Teachers for 1 per 100 ELL 0 1.3

ELL students: 0.6
Students
Extended Day 1 per 15 0 2.7
eligible
students –
anticipated
attendance
calculation:
50% of
Economically
Disadvantaged
students
Summer 1 per 15 2.0 2.7 or 0.7
School students – additional
anticipated
enrollment
calculation:
50% of
Economically
Disadvantaged
students
Teachers for 4 7.6 11.0 or 4.4
learning- and additional
mildly teachers
disabled
Teachers for 100% state 1 teacher and State funded
severely reimbursement 4 aides
disabled for top 1%
students minus federal
funds
Services for $25/student $10,000.00 $50,150
gifted additional
students dollars than
currently
allocated at
3038
.3 weight per 2 $14,000
CTE student additional
to maintain dollars for
low class CTE
sizes
232
Career/ $7,000 per

Technical CTE teacher
Education contract
Substitutes 10 days per $15,000.00 $ 3,300.00
teacher for fewer dollars
professional than
development currently
allocated for
substitutes
Pupil Support 1 Guidance 8 12.8 or 4.8
Staff Counselor per additional
250 students support staff
plus 1 Pupil than
Support Staff currently at
Position per 3038
100
Economically
Disadvantaged
Students: 4.2
Non- 3 1 12 or 11
Instructional additional
Aides aides
Instructional 0 0 0
Aides
Librarians 1 librarian; 1 8 or 7
/Media 1 library additional
Specialists technician staff
Administration 1 principal 4 6.5 or 1.5
plus .5 additional
Assistant administrators
Principal
plus 1 AP/600
School Site 1.0 1 fewer

Secretary Secretaries; 10 clerks than
2 clerks currently
allocated
233
9. 10 days $95,000.00 $25,300.00

Professional intensive additional
Development professional dollars for
development professional
included in development
teacher
contract in
summer
Instructional
Coaches
(delineated
above)
Planning &
Prep Time: 10
summer days
Calculate:
$50/pupil for
additional
conferences,
consultants,
trainings,
etc.
Dollar/Pupil
Resources
20. Calculation: .5 FTE $601,500.00
Technology 1 computer Technology
per 3 Coordinator
students
Actual
Distribution:
1 computer
per 4
students plus
1:1 ratio for
administrator
s and
teachers
$250/pupil
234
21. $175/pupil Instructional $421,050.00

Instructional materials are
Materials largely
provided for
by the
district.
22. Student $250/pupil Student $601,500.00
Activities activities
are largely
funded
through
fundraising.
As shown in Table F3038.1, 3038 is four times larger
than the prototypical school in the Evidence based Model
and 5.8 more students per class. 3038 has significantly
fewer students receiving free or reduced priced lunches
than would be expected in the prototypical model with only
218 students. Given the size of 3038, the school would
receive just over 50 additional teachers; most in core
areas with almost eleven teachers to teach electives
classes. One of the largest differences would be the
addition of 12 instructional coaches, where 3038 currently
has zero coaches. Due to a grant, 3038 currently has
comparable monies for substitutes as compared to the EBM,
however, the future grant of these monies is uncertain. To
further support the growth in staff, 3038 would receive

235
over five additional assistant principals and nine clerks.
Lastly, the school would benefit from a substantive
addition of monies for technology and student activities
where the school currently receives very limited resources.
Lessons Learned
Understanding the problem
3038 clearly understood the problem. It demonstrated
this understanding by having a clear understanding of its
API score, CST scores and the importance of how those
scores were used. The school had already mapped its
curriculum to the identified assessed standards. The
principals’ main goal was to “tighten” instruction to
assure that the curricular map was followed, that effective
instructional strategies were being practiced, and that
every minute of instructional time was used.
Ambitious Goals
The goal of 3038 was that all schools would perform at
proficiency or higher on the CAHSEE and CST. 3038 was
unapologetic in its focus upon these scores. The principal
understood that these scores were used as the primary
method that the school was judged.

236
Curriculum Program and Vision
3038 felt that “teaching to the test” meant providing
access to students to the expected curriculum. Accordingly,
he had the school focus all of its energies and curriculum
to identifying how best to teach to the standards assessed
on the school wide assessments. 3038 was implementing the
use of classroom instructional strategies based upon
Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock (2001). These strategies were
among the elements that the principal evaluated teachers
upon.
3038 was clearly focused on providing all students a
rigorous standards based education. All students received
the same curriculum, almost regardless of needs. For
example, English Learners received the same curriculum but
were allotted an additional period of English/Language Arts
to provide additional support. All teachers were expected
to have the high expectations for all students and provide
students access to all material. This practice was the base
upon which teachers were to approach students. Access to
all the state standards was seen as providing student with

237
the opportunity to learn the material that they would be
tested upon not a goal in and of itself.
The staff at 3038 is currently focusing upon the
development of formative assessment and the implementation
of effective classroom instruction. While the school has
developed end-of-course summative assessments it had just
begun to develop formative assessments that would be used
to inform instruction as the school year progressed.
Additionally, as noted earlier, the school was also
implementing the use of a common set of instructional
strategies based upon the work of Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock (2001). It is also important to note, that the
school has very limited time set aside for professional
development. The staff has a late start every quarter and
two days per year for professional development. The staff
must meet during their conference periods to work together
on this effort.
The effort at 3038 was to more fully develop the use
of data. While 3038 is adept at examining data to identify

238
needed areas for growth, 3038 is currently developing local
formative benchmark assessments to inform instruction.
Currently, the development of these benchmarks assessments
and the capacity to create them serves as the focus of
professional development at 3038.
Using Time Effectively and extended learning time
English Learners are “double-blocked” for instruction.
English Learners receive an extra period of English
instruction. However, English Learners do not receive a
separate curriculum from mainstreamed students; they simply
are provided with additional time to master the curriculum.
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning
Opportunities
Students struggling with English/Language Arts or
mathematics are provided with an extra class period of
English/Language Arts or mathematics in lieu of an
elective. They also are provided the opportunity for credit
recovery after school. Students may also receive tutoring
from teachers after school for additional support.

239
Collaborative professional culture
3038 continued to increase its focus upon providing
rigorous standards based instruction. Teachers are expected
to collaborate in the selection of curricular materials for
all students and the creation of assessments. Teachers are
expected to share data and work together to identify needed
changes. Administrative staff monitors and supports a
smooth and orderly campus while setting out the clear
expectation for teachers that every instructional minute
will be used to improve student achievement.
Instructional Leadership
While leadership at 3038 might appear “top-down” on
the face of it, there is actually a considerable amount of
shared leadership. The principal openly admits that there
was considerable push back when he arrived with a clear
focus upon mastering state standards. The superintendent,
who had placed the principal, completely supported the
principal in his approach and focus. However, the principal
also realized he could not do the work himself and works
regularly with department chairs regarding professional
development offering and other school wide issues.

240
Moreover, he relies on teachers to develop and further
align curriculum to state standards.
3038 was implementing practices by Marzano, Pickering,
& Pollock (2001). However, as frequently commented upon by
the principal, they had only enough money to pay to “keep
the light on” and teacher salaries. Therefore, they had not
brought in outside expertise to further develop this area.
Future Implications
3038 is currently implementing many of the practices
indicated by research. The school has a clear focus to
provide a standards-based education. However, as seen
Figure F3038.1 and F3038.3, 3038 has hit a plateau. The
increased need for data to inform instruction and the
subsequent adjustments should pay dividends for 3038.
Accordingly, the principal was very clear in stating that
the school needed no additional resources to increase
performance. However, he also lamented having only two days
a year dedicated for professional development.
Using the Evidenced Based Model, as seen in Table
F3038.1, 3038 would be allotted ten dedicated days during

241
the summer for professional development as well as support
during the year, which would include the support of
instructional coaches to help support the development of
benchmark assessment and data use. The addition of twelve
instructional coaches would help support the development of
capacity and assessments across the entire school.
Additionally, the addition of tutors, teachers for
English Language Learners and Extended Day teachers could
provide additional support for struggling students while
maintaining a focus upon providing a standards-based
education in school. In conclusion, 3038 has made
substantive growth upon substantial success. To continue to
grow, it will need to continue to implement the strategies
it has begun and, if available, the additional resources to
support those strategies.

242
3058
3058 is a high school with 3,209 students in grades
nine through twelve on the urban fringe of a large city.
3058 is in Unified School District 652 which had over
25,000 students. The largest ethnic group at 3058 was white
with 1,509 students and the second largest group was
Hispanic with 787 students. There were 40 students
identified as English Language Learners (ELL) and 230
students were identified as eligible for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch.
API
840
820
800
Axis Title
780
760
740
720
700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API 753 805 825 826 827
3058’s Academic Performance Index (API) rose steadily
from 2004 to 2006 but has largely stayed flat for the last
three years, gaining only one point each year.

243
Figure: F3058.2. Statewide Rank and Similar School Rank for

school 3058
10
9
8
7
6
Statewide Rank
5
Similar School Rank
4
3
2
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure F3058.2 displays the change in State and
Similar School Rank in California. The school held a
statewide rank of nine every year until 2008 when it became
a “10/10” school. The school’s Similar school rank
fluctuated between nine and ten during the last ten years.
Accordingly, in 2008 it ranked at the highest point
possible when compared to others schools, statewide and
with similar schools.

244

students proficient or above in English/Language Arts and
Mathematics.
95
% Student Scoring Proficient
85
75
65
55
45
35
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Mathematics 71.6 66.8 69.3 73.2 68.3
English/Language Arts 69.7 67.7 69.1 68.3 72.1
Figure: F3058.3 displays relatively flat growth for
the number of students scoring as “proficient” on the
California Standards Test (CST). Since 2004 the percentage
of students scoring proficient or above in Mathematics has
fluctuated between 66.8% in 2005 to 73.2 in 2007. Similarly
in English, the percentage of students scoring proficient
or above has fluctuated from 67.7 in 2005 to a high last
year of 72.1.
Instructional leadership
Leadership was described as “bottom up”. The principal
described the campus as full of “a lot of dynamic people.”

245
Teachers and administration worked together in a
collaborative manner. Department chairs played an important
part in providing leadership at the school. Department
chairs help to organize teachers around the work that the
school is undertaking around instructional strategies.
Overall, the school was described as very
collaborative. It functioned with the support of the
district but the school was responsible for providing its
own direction. The school worked on improving inter-
departmental collaboration to address school wide issues.
Accountability was distributed among departments. Each
department developed its own goals for the academic year.
Goals were then implemented and monitored by the
department. Each assistant principal worked as “liaisons”
to departments and monitored progress as well. These goals
varied by department but each was to be “SMART”: specific,
measurable, actionable, realistic, and time specific. While
3058 was a high-performing school, a tight time frame of
annual goals helped to build a sense of urgency among the
faculty and staff. For example, one department’s goal was

246
to increase it score on the CST by 3% for the academic
year.
Vision and Goals
3058 has worked to develop and implement a “research
based philosophy” and a clear vision for the school.
Accordingly, it has worked on maintaining high expectations
for students and at methods to increase “time on task” for
students. The principal and support staff worked to provide
an orderly school environment by maintaining school
discipline and pleasant work environment. However, the
principal was careful to state that “leadership” came not
only from him but from individual teachers in departments
and stressed the theme of collaboration.
The school had a clearly stated goal that all students
would score proficient or above. Accordingly, faculty and
staff worked in a collaborative manner to define
proficiency and to answer the question, “what is needed to
show proficiency?” Having a common agreement of what
proficiency looks like gives all faculty and staff a
“starting point” from which to work. It was significant
that the teachers decided what was important and not

247
important in assessing students. One of the goals for the
2007-2008 academic year was that teachers would develop
benchmark assessments. Once completed, the school worked to
implement the assessments for the 2008-2009 school year. As
the assessments were implemented, 3058 worked towards
improving their scores by 5% each quarter. Accordingly, the
results from each assessment were used to inform the
instruction of teacher to improve instructional delivery.
Standards based instruction
Discussion of what “standards” were and how they were
implemented was ongoing. 3058 reported that the discussion
began two years ago by identifying what the “core
standards” were for each course. Teachers worked to align
their courses to state content standards. Additionally,
over the last two years, staff has worked to vertically
align their classes. Teachers working collaboratively,
align where their courses end and begin with the subsequent
teachers course.
The purpose for this curricular mapping was twofold:
first, was to eliminate redundancy in their instruction.
Teachers felt that there was a great deal of material that

248
needed to be covered. Accordingly, if a topic was covered
in some other course it could be de-emphasized or
eliminated from other courses. Secondly, by examining the
whole curriculum across the school, 3058 was able to
identify any gaps that existed in their delivery of content
to assure that students received the opportunity to learn
all the required material.
Data
Quarterly benchmarks were used to measure progress
towards goals. Each department developed assessments and
developed cut points, or specific scores, to categorize
student performance. The data, including the assessment,
student performance, and number of students participating
in the assessment was provided to the administration. The
administration then synthesized the data and developed
graphs of the data, which was then returned to the
department chairs.
Data were openly shared with staff once it has been
compiled. The data were shared and discussed during the
staff’s conference periods. The objective of the sharing is
to identify how teachers are successful in addressing the

249
standards with students. Having discussed the practices the
teachers are expected to re-teach any areas where students
scored low until the students “all get it”.
Professional development
A strong emphasis in the professional development of
3058 is teacher collaboration. While the principal
indicated that 3058 had no particular content focus, there
was a focus upon writing across the curriculum.
Teachers shared out their own practices which were
discussed, often in the light of data provided. Staff
meeting typically had a strong instructional focus as
opposed to an operational focus. Following “buy-back days”
teachers were surveyed about what was useful in improving
instructional delivery. Following the results of the
survey, further modifications were made to change
instructional practices.
Intervention
English Learners received intervention classes during
the school day. Additionally, reading classes were provided
to struggling readers, and the school offered courses to
prepare students for the California High School Exit Exam

250
(CAHSEE). Additionally, students also were placed in a
“study skills” class if they had low overall achievement or
had special needs. However, none of the classes were
“double blocked”, meaning that students as a group received
double the time in a particular subject.
Parental involvement
Parents were described as “supportive”, “demanding”,
and “responsive”. For example, parents supported the school
in a variety of booster clubs for sports and other student
groups. The school had an active Parent, Teacher, Student
Association (PTSA) which helped organize parents. Parents
were active on the School Site Council and participated in
visits conducted by the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC).
The principal of 3058 indicated that to continue
expanding or maintaining the performance, the school would
need to invest more in technology. The school has several
computer labs throughout the school. Each class has a
minimum of one computer. Additionally, there are banks of
computers in the library and career center. The principal

251
said that technology skills were important for students’
future. Accordingly, the principal would like to have had
additional computer labs for students to used computers to
improve their skills.
Additionally, the school would need additional release
time for professional development. The school had limited
time each year to discuss a variety of issues facing the
school. Additional time would allow them to fully develop
plans for their goals each year.

3058 High
Evidence School – HS – EBM
Based Model Current Comparison &
School Prototypical Resource Resource EBM
Element High Schools Status Suggestions
School
Characteristi
cs
School 9-12
configuration 9-12 Same
School size 600 3209 5.3 times
larger
more
Free and 180 230
Reduced Lunch
Count
Number of ELL 60 40
Students
Personnel
Resources
252
Core Teachers 24 81.6 The school

would
generate
128.4 or 46.8
more core
teaches under
the EBM than
it currently
has
Specialist / 33% of core 31.6 The school
Elective teachers: 8.0 would
Teacher generate 42.8
or 11.2 more
elective
teachers
under the EBM
Total 32 113.2 The school
Teachers would
generate
171.2 or 57.9
more teachers
total under
the EBM.
Instructional 1 for every 1 The school
Coaches 200 students: would
3.0 generate 16
or 15.0
additional
coaches.
Tutors 1 per 100 At 0 The school
Risk Students would
(Free and generate 2.3
Reduced Price tutors.
Lunch)
Teachers for 1 per 100 ELL 0.4 The school
ELL Students students: 0.6 would not
generate any
additoinal
tutors.
253
Extended Day 1 per 15 The school

eligible 1 would
students – generate 2.9
anticipated or 1.9
attendance additional
calculation: teachers for
50% of an extended
Economically day program.
Disadvantaged
students: 3.0
Summer 1 per 15 The school
School students – would
anticipated 18 generate 25.7
enrollment or 7.7 more
calculation: teachers for
50% of its Summer
Economically School
Disadvantaged program
students: 3.0
Learning- and 4 10.4 The school
mildly would
disabled generate 21.4
teachers or 11.0
additional
teachers.
Severely 100% state 1 State funded
disabled reimbursement
students for top 1%
minus federal
funds
Services for $25/student $ 8,000.00 The school
gifted would
students generate an
additional $
72,225
254
Career/ .3 weight per 1 FTE The school

Technical CTE student would
Education to maintain generate an
low class additional $
sizes 7,000.00
$7,000 per
CTE teacher
contract
Substitutes 10 days per $ 5,000.00 is Assuming the

teacher for currently set average cost
professional aside for for a
development substitutes substitute is
$150/day; the
EBM would
provide an
additional
$6,700.00
250 students positions
plus 1 Pupil more than the
Support Staff school
Position per currently has
100
Economically
Disadvantaged
Students: 4.2
Non- 3 3 additional
Instructional 0 positions
Aides more than the
school
currently has
Instructional 0 0 0
Aides
Librarians 1 librarian; 4 10.7 or 6.7
/Media 1 library additional
Specialists technician positions
more than the
school
currently has
255

plus .5 additional
Assistant positions
Principal more than the
Plus 1 AP/600 school
currently has
School Site 1.0 9 11.7 or 2.7
Secretary Secretaries; additional
2 clerks positions
more than the
school
currently has
Professional 10 days $ 13,000.00 $147,450.00
Development intensive more than the
professional school
development currently has
included in
teacher
contract in
summer
Instructional
Coaches
(delineated
above)
Planning &
Prep Time: 10
summer days
Calculate:
$50/pupil for
additional
conferences,
consultants,
trainings,
etc.
Dollar/Pupil
Resources
256
Technology Calculation: 1 FTE $802,250.00

1 computer more than the
per 3 school
students currently has
Actual
Distribution:
1 computer
per 4
students plus
1:1 ratio for
administrator
s and
teachers
$250/pupil
Instructional $175/pupil $561,575.00

Materials total
allocation,
per the EBM
22. Student $250/pupil $802,250.00
Activities total
allocation,
per the EBM
3058 was over five times larger than the prototypical
school in the Evidence Based Model (EBM). However, 3058 had
733 fewer students receiving free and reduced meals and 281
fewer English Language Learners (ELL) than the EBM
projected for a school its size. Adjusting for its size,
the EBM would provide almost 60 additional core and
elective teachers to 3058. While 3058 invested in one full-

257
time coach, the EBM would provide for 15 additional coaches
to work with teachers to address instructional delivery.
The pupil support staff, such as counselors, would almost
double with seven additional positions. In reference to
what the principal identified as needed for continued
growth and expansion, the EBM would provide over $147,000
for professional development, as well as ten additional
professional development days for staff to meet. Lastly,
the EBM would provide over $800,000 for technology to
expand and maintain the computers at 3058.
Lessons Learned
3058 has undertaken many of the steps in understanding
the problem and challenge. Staff regularly met to discuss
data from states tests. Additionally, curricular mapping
began two years ago to align their curriculum to state
standards.
Set ambitious goals
3058 has a clearly articulated goal of having all
students reach proficiency on state exams. The school did
not use demographics to exclude students from high

258
expectations. Additionally, the school has worked on
gaining greater clarification to actualize their goals.
Many of their collaborative sessions discuss what their
goal of “proficiency” would look like and how those
expectations could be identified through formative
assessments.
The school was clearly focused upon addressing the
variables within its control. It examined curricular,
instructional, and structural variables that might impede
or accelerate student learning. For example the
administration worked to provide an orderly working
environment for the school. The teachers have worked to
increase “time on task” as a means of providing greater
access to needed content. The school was clearly developing
a school wide expectation of what quality instruction
“looked like” and implementing it. All of this was within
the context of a collaborative work environment.
As was indicated as part of their “understanding the
problem”, 3058 regularly reviewed its data in regards to

259
student achievement. Additionally, the school has
implemented formative assessments. These assessments are
submitted to the administration which synthesizes them and
returns them to their respective departments for discussion
to inform instruction. Additionally, the development of
their formative assessments was a part of their vision and
mission as a manifestation of their definition of “what is
proficiency” in their respective classrooms, thus providing
concrete and detailed information to teachers about student
learning.
Professional development
All teachers and administrative staff participated in
professional development. Faculty and staff worked together
in a collaborative manner to discuss instructional
practices based on data. This effort began over two years
ago. While there were only two voluntary buy-back days in
the academic year, teachers have performed much of this
professional development during their weekly “conference”
periods, which occur during the first hour of the day on
Friday mornings. While the school only has one coach, it
has supplemented the coach by provided release time for

260
teachers to work together during the school day to function
as coaches.
Using time effectively and extending learning for
struggling students
3058 provided additional class periods during the
school day and additional time after school for struggling
students. While students were not “double blocked”,
students did receive an additional period of support in
classes such as “study skills” or “CAHSEE Preparation” when
needed. Moreover, students also participated in extended
school days. The extended school day served English
Language Learners and students with special needs who
needed additional support meeting the CAHSEE requirement.
Lastly, the school offered a summer school program that was
well attended when compared to the EBM. 750 students
participated in summer school and it was supported with 30
teachers (18 FTEs), which included staff for students with
special needs.
While 3058 has not specifically developed Professional
Learning Communities as defined by Dufour, Dufour, Eaker,

261
and Many (2006), 3058 has clearly developed a collaborative
and professional culture. Teachers regularly meet with each
other and administration is fully involved in the
development of the school wide culture. Teachers regularly
observe each other and instruction is openly discussed in
department meetings.
Instructional leadership
Instructional leadership is distributed throughout the
school and district. The leadership at the school was
described by the principal as “bottom-up”. Department
chairs and departments typically took the lead in
developing and implementing curricular and instructional
changes at the school. The district is largely a support
function at the school as is school site administration.
While 3058 was clearly implementing many “best
practices”, it did not seem to actively search out
additional research or experts to further improve their
practices. It appeared that the school focused upon
developing a collaborative culture to the exclusion of
outside input. 3058 has many of the structural elements

262
needed to implement best practices from research or from
working from top experts.
Future Implication
3058 API increased significantly for three year but
has reached a plateau for the last two. However, while its
API growth may have stagnated, its ranking compared to
similar schools and within state has risen to the top. In
the last two years it has set upon building a collaborative
culture that is focused upon data based decision making and
standards based education. The school has taken many of the
steps indicated to double performance, except for the last
step of seeking out best practices and professional
expertise.
The Evidence Based Model (EBM) would provide many of
the additional resources that the principal indicated would
be needed for future improvement, such as technology and
money for additional release time. However, the EBMs
additional award of $147,500 could also be used to identify
and bring in outside expertise to work with the school.
Outside research and expertise could bring the entire staff

263
to a whole new level of performance built around the
structures the school has in place already.

264
3142
School 3142 is an intermediate school serving grades
7-8 with just over eleven-hundred students on the urban
fringe of a large city. School 3142 is located in Unified
School District 635 with 33,558 student in elementary,
middle, high, alternative, special education, continuation,
community day, and opportunity schools. The largest ethnic
group at 3142 was white, making up almost 70% of the
population and Hispanic students comprised the second
largest group at almost 20%. English Learners comprise
almost 6% of the student body and students eligible for
Free and Reduced Price lunches comprise almost 14%.
API
875
870
865
860
Axis Title
855
850
845
840
835
830
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API 846 856 869 867 872
265
The API for 3142 increased from 2004 to 2006 with a
plateau since then, as seen in Figure F3142.1. While there
was a general upward trend, it is important to note that
within those five years the total increase in API is only
26 points. This may be due in part to the already high API
score that 3142 had in 2004 of 846 and the upper limit of
the API being 1000 points.

school 3142
10
9
8
7
6
5 Statewide Rank
4 Similar School Rank
3
2
1
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure F3142.2 demonstrated the Statewide Rank and
Similar School rank for 3142. According to these data,
while 3142 was always in the top ten percentile of the
state, its similar school ranking fluctuated over the past

266
five years, with its last year being its highest rank as a
“10/10” school.
Figure F3142.3 displayed the percent of student
scoring “proficient” on the California Standards Test.
While English/Language Arts showed a general upward trend,
mathematics suffered a decline in the 06-07 school year.
However, both English/Language Arts and mathematics
simultaneously improved in the last year, when the school
became a “10/10” school.

students proficient in English/Language Arts and
Mathematics.
76
74
72
70
68 English/ Language
Arts
66
Mathematics
64
62
60
58
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
A key idea stated repeatedly at 3142 by the principal
was that the school was focused upon implementing existing

267
strategies to strengthen standards aligned instruction, not
by implementing new programs. There is a clear focus on
providing standards based instruction based upon the
evaluation practices of the leadership team and time
developing and implementing standards based lessons. The
work conducted was developed by the local school site. The
school continued to develop “house” leadership which was
comprised teams of teachers with students in common.
District 635 provided for local school site decision making
to address local school needs.
Instructional Vision
Teachers at 3142 were given a binder of resources
which included information on the school’s mission using
Taking Center Stage (Fenwick, Worrall, & Levin, 2001) and
Professional Learning Communities (Dufour, 2004); all of
which was focused on instruction. The school felt that
Taking Center Stage served as a model of excellence as well
as being developmentally appropriate since it was written
to meet the needs of Middle School students. According to
the California Department Of Education (n.d.), middle
schools should focus on providing a rigorous standards-
based classroom while providing an atmosphere full of

268
support and a variety of modes for students to access and
display their knowledge.
Additionally, the Taking Center Stage also offered a
strong focus on social equity which 3142 identified as an
important focus. As part of the focus on social equity,
students are taught ethics and the importance of acting in
an ethical manner. In short, 3142 instructional vision
focused around the basic tenents of Taking Center Stage
which is to provide Academic Excellence, Developmental
Responsiveness, and Social Equity.
Professional Learning Communities
3142 has three days dedicated for professional
development; one day in August, October, and January. This
year five teachers were able to attend Thinking Maps
training for two days. As part of their professional
development 3142 used professional learning communities
(PLC) to examine their instructional practices. At the time
of the study, teachers were beginning to study articles by
Dufour (2004). Teachers are given templates for their
meetings for the implementation of PLCs. In their PLC, they
discussed the outcomes of their practices with the goal of
having and displaying high expectation. The belief held at

269
3142 is that “being good is not excellence”. They weighed
the difference between providing the opportunity to learn a
range of topics or what is required. To provide an
“excellent” program, 3142 focuses on providing a strong
core program and not additional programs. To hold high
expectations and provide an excellent program 3142 examined
how to extend time for teaching students to mastery. It was
felt that unless students were held to master standards
then the school was not providing excellence in education
and high expectations. Teachers also strive to model effort
to students by assuring students that all work is valued
and important by grading not only class work but evaluating
homework practices and making sure that homework is
collected, corrected, and returned to students.
Assessments
The school had common assessments of core
instructional programs that were reviewed during their
early release time. Data Director (Riverside Publishing,
2008) is used to track, aggregate, and analyze data from
assessments. The school developed school wide formative
assessments. The school used summative assessments
developed by the District as well as developing some of
their own.
270
3142 also used technology to facilitate formative
assessments. The school invested in classroom “clickers” to
quickly assess student knowledge (Technology Enhanced
Learning and Research, 2004). Each student is given a
clicker which they press to indicate a response to a
question posed by the teacher. A control unit records and
displays a graph of student responses. Clickers allow
students to respond to a teachers’ question and the results
are immediately and simultaneously recorded and presented
so that students and teachers have immediate feedback. The
school was also using MY Access to provide feedback for
students’ essay writing (Vantage Learning, n.d.). MY Access
was a computerized essay scoring system whereby the
students post their writing and the computer scores
students responses.
Planning
3142 used practices such as Understanding By Design
(UBD) to develop lessons (Brown, 2004). Teachers used
instructional strategies developed by Marzano, Pickering,
and Pollock (2001) as well as Bloom (1956). Instructional
strategies in use include word walls (Harmon, Wood,
Hedrick, Vintinner, & Willeford, 2009), pair share (Huss,
2007) cooperative learning activities and were beginning to

271
use Thinking Maps (Thinking Maps Inc, 2008; Hyelre, 2000).
Teachers used these approaches to increase collaboration
and to socialize intelligence among students. Teachers used
these strategies at various levels, from simple at the
comprehension levels but also at the higher levels of
thought (Bloom) by requiring students to summarize and
evaluate their learning.
Teachers began their planning with the California
state standards. Teachers then referred to the pacing plans
and assessments. Part of the work that was undertaken was
to ensure that teachers adequately addressed the standards
and used data to inform their own instruction. It was found
by teachers that using traditional methods for instruction,
such as direct instruction, was adequate for students who
scored proficient or advanced on the CST, but for student
who scored Basic or Below there was a drop in proficiency.
Accordingly, the school is moving towards creating more
interactive grouping and instructional methods.
Goals
Departments met to develop SMART goals. Subject alike
teachers meet to develop plans and decide how to measure
student success. Teachers also discuss overall student
progress.
272
Differentiation
Teachers have worked towards greater differentiation
by implementing programs such as AVID and creating various
assessments for students. 3142 used a “pyramid of
intervention” to provide additional support for students.
Students are grouped for additional support. Each group has
its own set of criteria for entrance and exit. Accordingly,
participation in some of these grouping is very fluid as
students enter and exit having mastered the material and/or
skill required.
To recognize the diversity of their student body, the
associated student body organized multicultural events.
Additionally, the school increased the number of clubs on
campus to address a greater number of student interests.
3142 uses extended learning time (ELT) to provide support
for students and the completion of homework.
Parents
Parent involvement was high at 3142. Parents supported
the school largely through fundraising activities, raising
up to $30,000 annually to help the school provide services
such as a health aide and computer support personnel. This
has helped offset recent cuts to the schools budget, due in

273
part to declining enrollment as well as other budget cuts.
The principal stated that without parent support, the
school would not be able to provide many of the services
and supplies the school provided.
Parents purchased capital equipment such as lunch
tables and musical instruments for students. Parents
purchased almost all classroom supplies for teachers. Some
parents made direct donations to classrooms, some parents
donated passively by participating in the schools scrip
program (Scrip Pro, 2008), while other parents supported
the school with volunteer activities such as the
registration, cleaning band uniforms, organizing a
Renaissance Faire, a “Leopard Run” (the school mascot is a
leopard) and other special events. Parents of English
Learners are not as involved as other parents however, they
were seen as a very close knit community, beginning to
become more involved in the school.
3142 described several needs to continue growth. The
school administrative team was described as “thin” by the
principal; alluding to the number of administrators that

274
served 3142. Additionally, there are continuing issues to
maintain facilities. Moreover, 3142 desired to provide
supplementary sections of support classes for English
Learners. Lastly, 3142 felt that a return of discretionary
budgets to supply classrooms would be helpful and allow
them to be less reliant on parent support to provide more
consistent resources. However, 3142 recognized that
district 635 has worked to minimize cuts to schools even
with declining state resources and enrollment.

Evidence 3142 Middle
Based Model School MS – EBM
Prototypical Current Comparison &
School Middle Resource Resource EBM
Element Schools Status Suggestions
School
Characteristi
cs
School
configuration 6-8 7-8 -1
School size 2.5 times
450 1117 larger
Class Size 1.9 times
25 26.9 larger
Free and
Reduced Lunch
Count 135 156
Number of
ELL Students 45 67
Personnel
Resources
275
Core Teachers 44.7 or 14.1

additional
positions
than
currently at
18 30.6 3142
Specialist / 19.9 or 8.9
Elective additional
Teachers positions
than
20% of core currently at
teachers: 3.6 11 3142
Total 64.6 or 23.0
Teachers additional
positions
than
currently at
21.6 41.6 3142
Instructional
Coaches 2.25 0 5.0
Tutors 1 per 100 At
Risk Students
(Free and
Reduced Price
Lunch) 0 1.6
Teachers for 0.3 fewer
ELL Students positions
1 per 100 ELL than
students: currently at
0.45 1 3142
Extended Day 1 per 15
eligible
students –
anticipated
attendance
calculation: 3.7 fewer
50% of positions
Economically than
Disadvantaged currently at
students 5 3142
276
Summer 1 per 15
School students –
anticipated
enrollment
calculation: 2.2 fewer
50% of teachers than
Economically currently
Disadvantaged allocated to
students 3.5 3142
Teachers for
learning- and
mildly 7.4 or 1.4
disabled additional
students 3 6 teachers
Teachers for 100% state
severely reimbursement
disabled for top 1%
students minus federal 2 teachers
funds and 3 aides State funded
Services for $ 25,925
gifted additional
students $25/student $ 2,000.00 dollars
Career/Technica .3 weight per
l Education CTE student
to maintain
low class
sizes $7,000
per CTE
teacher
contract NA NA
Substitutes Assuming
costs of
10 days per $150/day;
teacher for 4,440.00
professional additional
development $ 1,800.00 dollars
277
Pupil Support 1 Guidance

Staff Counselor per
250 students
plus 1 Pupil
Support Staff
Position per
100
Economically
Disadvantaged 6.0 or 4.0
Students: additional
3.15 2 positions
Non-
Instructional
Aides 2 0 5.0
Instructional
Aides 0 0 0
Librarians 1.5
/Media additional
Specialists 1 librarian 1 positions
Administration 1 principal
plus .5 2.0
Assistant additional
Principal administrator
Plus 1 AP/450 2 s
School Site 3.0
Secretary 1.0 Secretary additional
1.0 clerical 2 clerks
278
Professional 10 days
Development intensive
professional
development
included in
teacher
contract in
summer
Instructional
Coaches
(delineated
above) Planning
& Prep Time: 10
summer days
Calculate:
$50/pupil for
additional
conferences,
consultants,
trainings, etc. $0.00 $55,850.00
Dollar/Pupil
Resources
Technology Calculation: 1
computer per 3
students
Actual
Distribution: 1
computer per 4
students plus
1:1 ratio for
administrators .2 FTE
and teachers. Technology
$250/pupil Coordinator $279,250.00
Instructional
Materials $140/pupil $156,380.00
Student 3142
Activities provides
one period
of
leadership
for
$250/pupil students $279,250.00
279
While 3142 did not serve the entire span of students
that the Evidence Based Model (EBM) prototypical middle
school does, it was 2.5 times larger with 667 more
students. While class size in 3142 is not much larger than
that of the EBM, the school would still receive 12
additional teachers using the EBM. 3142 would receive five
non-instructional aides, and three additional clerical
positions. Additionally, the school would receive four
additional pupil support staff members. The school’s “thin”
administrative team would be augmented with two additional
administrators as well as five instructional coaches.
3142 also had fewer students who receive Free and
Reduced Lunch and fewer English Learners than those modeled
in the prototypical middle school. However, 3142 would
still receive 1.6 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) tutors but
have fewer FTEs for Extended Day and Summer School support,
according to the Evidence Based Model.
Monies for Gifted students and substitutes would be
greatly increased. In addition to ten days of professional
development and five coaches to support improved

280
instructional practices in classroom, 3142 would also
receive over $55,000 for professional development.
Technology funding would also increase with a budget just
over $279,000. Lastly, 3142 would not be dependent of
donations to supply classroom, receiving over $156,000 for
instructional materials and $279,000 for student
activities.
Lessons Learned
3142 had a clear understanding of the statewide
assessment data. The principal was able to cite a drop in
scores that had taken place as well as the need to address
the issue. As part of 3142’s “Commitments for 2008/2009”
stated, staff was expected to “[r]eview the California
standards, blueprints, textbook, and other instructional
resources, as well as reflect on assessment results,
including STAR CST’s Common unit tests and trimester
finals” (3142, 2008) As asserted by Odden and Archibald
(2009), the school had begun to undertake the project of
curriculum-mapping.
281
Set ambitious goals
3142 has the ambitious goal that all students are
proficient in essential outcomes. As suggested by Odden and
Archibald (2009), 3142 did not make exceptions for
demographics or other concerns; instead it created a
variety of interventions and strategies to work towards its
ambitious goals. Their focus is on academic excellence,
indicating that “good” is not “good enough”. The school had
a clear belief that all students can learn at high levels.
3142 was not simply seeking marginal improvements, it
wasworking towards all students becoming proficient.
instructional vision
3142 worked towards the improved implementation of
existing programs. It focused upon actions that the school
itself controlled and implemented and has chosen not to
focus on community and other issues that are beyond its
control. It has defined its instructional vision around
providing academic excellence, developmental
responsiveness, social equity, and organizational
structures and process to improve student achievement. Each

282
of these topics included clearly measurable actions that
the staff can implemented. It developed each of these areas
of focus by building on existing research from Taking
Center Stage (Fenwick et al., 2001). This focus and set of
actions based upon effective strategies created a common
set of instructional practices that defined good
instruction to improve student learning in a significant
manner.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making
The principal repeatedly indicated that it was
focusing more and more upon assessment and data based
decision making. While assessments were not in use school
wide, the school was continuing to develop them as well as
using technology to receive and provide immediate feedback
to students.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
3142 focused on Taking Center Stage (Fenwick et al.,
2001) and instituting Professional Learning Communities
(Dufour, 2004). While 3142 lacked instructional coaches and
had only two full days dedicated to professional
development, it still managed to address its professional

283
development needs by having teachers meet in departments to
develop periodic assessments and examine student data as
part of the school day. 3142 was very clear in its focus to
implement the tenets of Taking Center Stage (Fenwick et
al.) school wide in a systemic manner. The schools’ ongoing
implementation of PLCs, curriculum planning, and common
assessments were seen as manifestations of their focus.
Using time efficiently and effectively
3142 used a tri-mester calendar to meet more students’
needs by providing a wider variety of classes. While a
trimester did shorten the number of weeks students would
take a class it also allowed the school to offer a wider
variety of classes during the school year. For example,
3142 was able to provide additional elective classes, such
as jazz, that was not previously offered.
Extending learning time for struggling students
3142 placed a great deal of importance upon its
extended learning time (ELT). It was seen as an opportunity
to move from simple proficiency to mastery, at 3142.
Students who struggle were required to attend ELT. ELT is
offered before school, during lunch and after school; this

284
is time outside the regular school day but within the
regular school year. This emphasis was reflected in its
allocation of resources as seen in Table F3142.1, where
3142 had more resources allocated than would otherwise be
provided by the EBM. While size of the student groups are
larger than those described by Odden and Archibald (2009),
they do provide struggling students additional time with a
credentialed teacher to acquire needed knowledge and
skills. This time was also used to prepare struggling
students for upcoming material as well as support for the
completion of homework.
The development of professional learning communities
was a frequent comment from 3142 regarding its most recent
focus. Part of the focus was to promote the collaborative
efforts of teachers in discussing and meeting student
needs. 3142 teachers received works by Richard Dufour for
reflection and discussion. Additionally, teachers were
given templates to structure the development of their
professional learning communities. By working in small

285
learning communities, teachers developed and shared high
expectations for their students.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
Distributed leadership was evident in District 635 and
reaffirmed at 3142. 3142 indicated that 635 allowed local
school leadership to determine its own coarse while 635
works to minimize the effects resource cuts to the local
school site as state budget cuts and declining enrollment
takes its toll. Accordingly, all levels of the district,
from the District, the principal, teachers and parents, are
involved in producing the high performance levels at 3142.
3142 was clearly well versed in identifying and
implementing research based strategies. Virtually none of
the strategies presented were without some basis in
research. Taking Center Stage (Fenwick et al., 2001)
provides a strong research based vision for the school.
Developing a culture for success by implementing
professional learning communities as described by Dufour
(2004) provides best practices based upon the successful
implementation of PLCs in Chicago schools. The continued

286
implementation of strategies developed by Brown (2004),
Harmon et al. (2009), Huss (2007), Marzano et al. (2001),
Thinking Maps and Inc (2008), and Tincani and Crozier
(2007) provide strong examples of professional and best
practices.
Future Implications
3142 is a school that has implemented and continues to
develop the steps to improve student achievement. As a
“10/10” school, it appeared to have continued focus on
improving its’ students’ achievement. 3142 was focused
upon implementing its vision based upon Taking Center Stage
(Fenwick et al., 2001), PLCs(Dufour, 2004), extended
learning time, assessments, and close work with parents to
provide needed support and resources.
Using the EBM, the school would receive much more in
terms of resources such as instructional coaches,
additional teachers, and monies for instructional material
instead of having to rely on the efforts of parents to
provide the latter. However, 3142 would receive less in
regards to extended support for struggling students.
Overall, the benefit to the school would be substantial

287
under the EBM allowing the school to continue the
development of existing strategies to improve student
achievement.
288
3578
School 3578 is a high school on the urban fringe of a
large city serving 1,975 students in grades 9-12. 3578 is
in Unified School District 522 with over 48,000 students.
The largest ethnic group at 3578 is Asian, at almost 70% of
the population, with Hispanic student comprising the second
largest group of approximately 20% of students. There are
550 students who are classified as English Language
Learners and over 1,200 are eligible for free or reduced
priced meals.
API
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API 757 802 821 840 849
API
The Academic Performance Index (API) at 3578 has
steadily risen over the past five years by 92 points. Its

289
largest increase was in the years between 2004 and 2005
where its API grew almost fifty points. Since that growth
spurt, the API has grown approximately twenty points each
subsequent year to it high in 2008 of 849.

school 3578
10
9
8
7
6
Statewide Rank
5
Similar School Rank
4
3
2
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure F3578.2 demonstrated the growth of 3578 in
statewide and similar school rank. In 2004, 3578 had a
statewide rank of “9” and a similar school rank of “9”.
Following a small school decrease in 2004, 3578 increased
its ranking comparative to similar schools and statewide
and has been a “10/10” school for the last two years.
290
Figure F3578.3 showed the steady increase in the
percent of students who were proficient in English/Language
Arts and Mathematics. Mathematics increased almost ten
percent in five years with almost the same results for
English/Language Arts. However, it appeared that the school
reached a plateau with relatively flat scores the last two
years in Mathematics and the last four years in
English/Language Arts.

Mathematics.
90
80
% Student Scoring Proficient
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Mathematics 69 74 75 80 79
English/Language Arts 62 70 68 67 71
While much of the direction for improvement was
provided by the district, at the local school site level

291
the teachers provided the bulk of leadership. Department
chairs were selected by teachers and drove most of the
implementation of policies at the school. The school
administration perceived its role primarily as “planting
seeds” to make changes.
Vision and Goals
The Districts goals were to have all students score
“proficient” in all core subject areas. 3578 focused on
providing more rigorous academic courses to help prepare
students for college. English/Language Arts focused on
implementing the curriculum developed by the publisher,
Holt, and the development of writing rubrics. In science,
3578 focused upon vocabulary development as well as writing
rubrics. 3578 also used Advancement Via Individual
Determination (AVID) and was focused upon writing, the
Cornell note taking method and implementing “seminars”.
Finally, 3578 sought to increase its “A-G” course offering
by converting existing courses to meet A-G criteria.
However there was a split among staff, according to
the principal, where some teachers embraced the new vision
and goals but others, typically described as veteran

292
teachers, have not. Some teachers have viewed the changes
with resentment, seeing them as directed from the District
office in a top-down fashion. The principal attempted to
move everyone in one coherent direction. While the
principal provided direction to the school by explaining
the mission of the school, the full implementation of the
vision was not successful. This was due, in part, to the
high API the school already enjoys. The principal stated
that the resistant portion of the staff did not feel the
need to change their practices.
Standards Based Instruction
Standards are posted daily by teachers. 3578
implemented the curriculum provided by publishers,
asserting that the textbooks in California are already
standards aligned. The school did face some internal
challenges as veteran teachers have not completely given up
old units of study, which may not be standards aligned. The
principal stated that the resistant staff did not feel
ownership of any new curriculum or need to implement them
and so they have not.

293
There is no common definition for effective teaching.
Teachers use a variety of instructional strategies. Some
teachers primarily used direct instruction where a teacher
presented a lesson, modeled the knowledge or skill, then
guided the student in the use of knowledge or skill, and
then asked the student to practice the skill individually.
Other teachers use strategies such as Reciprocal Teaching
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984), whereby students worked together
in cooperative groups to attain greater understanding of a
text. When instructional practices in place were not
successful, the differences were discussed in department
meetings, as teachers identified success or failure of the
different strategies being used in their classrooms.
Data Use
Data were extensively reviewed. District 522 began
with the study of CST results and then developed placement
recommendations for the school based upon the assessment
results. Additionally, the district created the master
schedule and automatically placed students into classes
based upon CST and benchmark assessments. Students scoring
“Below Basic” or “Far Below Basic” on the CST were

294
identified by the school for further intervention. The
school sought to move each student up one “band” towards
the district goal of all students scoring at least
“proficient” in core academic courses.
Quarterly assessments were administered in the core
areas. Formative assessments were given to assure students
were prepared to go to college upon graduation. One goal
was to increase the number of student who complete the a-g
requirements (University Of California, n.d.). To
successfully meet the a-g requirements, students must
complete courses with grades of “C” or higher. The school
cited that last year, 38% of its students attended four
year colleges. Assessment results were incorporated into
grades for students. Students who scored low on assessments
or grades were matched with students who were successful
for support.
The communication of the meaning of the data to build
a sense of urgency in implementing change was characterized
as “difficult” by the school principal. Some teachers were
resistant to the focus of data use because they felt their
jobs would be affected due to the focus on core academic

295
courses. For example, elective teachers felt that their
contribution to the schools’ academic performance could not
be measured with the existing assessments and that their
class and jobs would be eliminated. The public presentation
of data by the principal to the staff and its use was
described as threatening to teachers but it was the
increased level of accountability which allowed the school
to begin to discuss and implement how to provide improved
instruction.
Professional development began by examining school
data a week before school starts. District 522 supported
the implementation of AVID by providing professional
development by funding the training fees. The school was
working towards implementing the Gradual Release of
Responsibility Model (Frey & Fischer, 2009) where
responsibility for learning is gradually transferred from
teacher modeling to the student displaying the skill or
knowledge independently. Teachers participated in
additional training for Advanced Placement courses. This
led to additional professional development on increasing

296
student engagement. Additionally, veteran teachers
participated in technology training as new technology
literate teachers have joined the school.
Interventions
English Learners (ELs) were the only group to receive
a “double block” of instruction. ELs received instructions
in English/Language Arts using the High Point curriculum
(National Geographic School Publishing, 2008). However, the
reading and writing aspect of the curriculum was
characterized as “weak” by the principal. This weakness was
of particular concern as all students must pass the
Californian High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), which tested
their reading and writing ability, as well as mathematics.
Non-sheltered core materials were also given students and
teachers as a model of expectations that the students would
have to comprehend and produce. Once EL students completed
the basic curriculum they receive sheltered instruction in
their core programs (Hansen-Thomas, 2008). The school
acknowledged a need to better bridge the transition between
students receiving instruction in High Point and regular
core curricular classes.

297
Parent Involvement
Parent involvement was described as “huge” by the
school principal. Parents participated in a variety of
projects and worked collaboratively with the school. Part
of the success of working with parents was credited to a
survey done to capture parent interest. From this survey
classes were conducted for parents to facilitate
collaboration between the school and families. Classes
ranged from discussing “10 educational commandments” to
financial aid for students attending college. Parents were
seen as working with administration and helping to set the
vision and direction of the school.
Technology
3578 has recently undergone a significant expenditure
to upgrade its technology. At a cost of over $150,000, it
replaced every computer on campus and created two large
computer labs. Additionally, it replaced overhead
projectors in rooms with LCD projectors. The schools site
leadership team urged all teachers to create web pages to
post assignments and other important information. The
expenditure was based on the belief that students were

298
visual learners and that the use of computers would
facilitate student learning.
To continue to expand its efforts, 3578 indicated that
it could use more professional development time at the
school site. Additional time would not only allow for
greater collaboration among peers, it would allow the
school time to appreciate its success in the progress it
was making. Part of the school vision was to create a more
focused approach, with fewer strategies that would support
deeper commitment to implementation by providing teachers
time to properly implement strategies.

3578 High
Evidence Based School HS – EBM
Model Current Comparison &
Prototypical Resource Resource EBM
School Element High Schools Status Changes
School
Characteristics
School 9-12 9-12 Same
configuration
600 1975 3.3 larger
than the EBM
prototypical
School size school
299
25 29.5 4.5 more

student than
the EBM
prototypical
Class Size school
Free and Reduced 180 1183
Lunch Count
Students
Personnel
Resources
24 52.2 79 or 26.8
additional
teachers than
currently at
Core Teachers 3578
33% of core 26.3 or 11.5
teachers: 8.0 14.8 additional
Specialist teachers than
/Elective currently at
Teachers 3578
Total Teachers 32 67 38.3
additional
teachers than
currently at
3578
Instructional 1 for every 200 0 9.9
Coaches students: 3.0 (teachers
provided
release
time for
coaching
from
substitute
budget and
provided
stipend)
Tutors 1 per 100 At 2.5 11.8 or 9.3
Risk Students additional
(Free and teachers than
Reduced Price currently at
Lunch) 3578
300
Teachers for 1 per 100 ELL 0 5.5

ELL Students students: 0.6
Extended Day 1 per 15 5 9.9 or 4.9
eligible additional
students – teachers than
anticipated currently at
attendance 3578
calculation:
50% of
Economically
Disadvantaged
students: 3.0
Summer 1 per 15 0 9.86
School students –
anticipated
enrollment
calculation:
50% of
Economically
Disadvantaged
students: 3.0
Learning- and 4 1 4 or 3
mildly disabled additional
teachers teachers than
currently at
3578
Severely 100% state State funded
disabled reimbursement
students for top 1%
minus federal
funds
Services for $25/student $200 $49,375
gifted students
Career/Technical .3 weight per 3 teachers $ 21,000.00
Education CTE student to
maintain low
class sizes
$7,000 per CTE
teacher
contract
301
Substitutes 10 days per $ 22,000.00 $ 11,950.00

teacher for fewer dollars
professional than currently
development allotted for
substitutes
250 students counselors
plus 1 Pupil than currently
Support Staff at 3578
Position per
100
Economically
Disadvantaged
Students: 4.2
Non- 3 2.5 0.5 additional
Instructional positions than
Aides currently at
3578
Instructional 0 0 0
Aides
Librarians 1 librarian; 1 1.5 6.6 or 5.1
/Media library additional
Specialists technician personnel at
3578
plus .5 additional
Principal Plus
1 AP/600
School Site 1.0 6 7.6 or 1.6
Secretary Secretaries; 2 additional
clerks clerks
302
Professional 10 days $ $74,750.00

Development intensive 24,000.00 additional
professional dollars than
included in allocated to
teacher 3578
contract in
summer
Instructional
Coaches
(delineated
above) Planning
& Prep Time: 10
summer days
Calculate:
$50/pupil for
additional
conferences,
consultants,
trainings, etc.
Dollar/Pupil
Resources
Technology Calculation: 1 1 FTE and $330,750.00
computer per 3 $163,000 additional
students Actual dollars than
Distribution: 1 currently
computer per 4 allocated at
students plus 3578
1:1 ratio for
administrators
and teachers
and $250/pupil
Materials
Student $250/pupil $493,750.00
Activities
3578 served the same grade span as the EBM but was
over three times the size with almost 2,000 students. Class
size at 3578 was larger by almost five students. However,

303
for its size, 3578 had fewer students receiving free and
reduces meals and fewer ELL students. Nonetheless, the EBM
still generated almost forty teachers more for 3578 than it
had at the time of this study. Additionally, the EBM
generated over five FTE to work with ELL as well as over
nine FTE tutors and almost five FTE for an extended school
day for students.
While the school would receive much less for
substitutes with the EBM, the school would gain almost ten
FTE coaches to do the work that teachers used sub-time to
do. Additionally, the school would receive almost eight
additional professional development days as well as almost
$75,000 more that they were using for professional
development.
Lastly, while 3578 made a considerate investment in
upgrading its technology, the total cost of ownership
required additional expenditures to maintain their
investment. The EBM provide an additional $330,000 for
technology as well as over $300,000 for instructional
materials and almost half a million for student activities.

304
Lessons Learned
Perhaps the biggest lesson learned with 3578 was that
high performing schools are not all the same in focus and
implementation. They exhibit a wide variety of challenges
and characteristics. The staff at 3578 did not all share a
common vision of how the school should function with groups
of teachers, either actively or passively, resisting change
at the school. However, 3578 still took many of the steps
to improve instruction displayed by other “10/10” schools.
3578 exhibited an understanding of the challenge it
faced. 3578 did use state testing as a starting point for
understanding its standing regarding student performance
and curriculum mapping had occurred. Data was used
extensively in examining how students were learning as well
as developing activities to address student needs, such as
increasing the number of students meeting the “a-g”
requirements.
Ambitious Goals
3578 exhibited some key characteristics of other
schools that have doubled performance with its ambitious

305
goals. For example, it did not base its goals on student
demographics nor did it use demographics as a reason
greater student achievement could not be attained.
Additionally, it did not focus on moving a few students
near proficiency into proficiency, but it focused on school
wide improvement so that all students would increase
performance until all students were proficient.
Curriculum and Vision
3578 did focus its efforts on what it could influence.
The district goal of improving all students to proficiency,
particularly in English/Language Arts was well known within
the school and served as a school goal as well. The school
made curricular changes such as implementing the AVID
program. Perhaps its greatest challenge was implementing a
unified vision for the school. There was no shared
understanding of what good instruction looked like from
classroom to classroom. Best practices were presented but
not uniformly implemented by classroom teachers.
Assessments and Data Use
Formative assessments were in use at 3578 and used to
address student needs. Particularly, assessments were used

306
to increase the number of students who were ready for
college by meeting the “a-g” requirements. This data was
used by teachers to determine what student understood based
upon the instruction provided. Students who scored poorly
on the assessments were provided additional support to
assure that they succeeded in these classes.
Wide spread, systemic and ongoing professional
development was provided. All teachers participated in some
form professional development. Teachers collaborated
together to review data and discuss methods to meet student
needs. While the school did not have fulltime instructional
coaches, it did provide substitute time for teachers to
visit each and coach each other in their instructional
practices.
Time
The school provided additional time for ELL students
as part of its intervention by providing an additional
period for English language development. However, this was
the only group which received additional time for mastery
during the school day. This allowed students to acquire

307
credits as they mastered academic English and prepared them
for core English classes that met the a-g requirements.
Extended Learning Time
3578 provided five full-time equivalent positions for
struggling students. Students had the opportunity to
receive additional support three days per week for an hour
after school. The school targeted students in need of
credit recovery by listing students who had failed classes
during the school year for participation. Students who
complete the requisite number of hours received credit for
courses completed after school.
Collaborative Culture
3578 does exhibit some characteristics of a
collaborative culture. Teachers do meet together in a
collaborative manner do review student data and
achievement. Additionally, some teachers do coach each
other in their instructional practices. However, 3578 has
not formally instituted professionally learning communities
and not all teachers implemented strategies discussed.

308
Widespread Leadership
3578 did exhibit widespread leadership. The district
provided clear goals and support for schools. The school
site relied on school site administrators and department
chairs to lead portions of the school’s instructional
changes. For example, departments met to decide and discuss
formative assessment and instructional strategies.
Professional and Best Practices
3578 examined and implemented some professional and
best practices. They implemented programs such as AVID,
which has a clear record of improving student achievement
(Black, Little, McCoach, Purcell, & Siegle, 2008). However,
as noted previously, this interest and implementation is
uneven.
Future Implications
Future maintenance and growth will be dependent upon
the school’s ability to implement reforms uniformly school
wide. 3578 has shown continued growth but it growth is
beginning to flatten. Its largest API growth was five years
ago. Since then its increase has been smaller and smaller.
While that may be attributable to its already high scores

309
and the ceiling for API scores, 3578’s AMO score have
remained almost flat for the last five years. For example,
there were no more students proficient student in
English/Language Arts and mathematics than there were five
years ago. This trend is indicative of the resistance some
staff had to changing practices.
However, it is important to remember that 3578 has had
success with the practices used. As a 10/10 school, 3578
has demonstrated greater than average competency in meeting
the needs of many of its students. It has also identified
future areas for growth, such as helping more students
become college ready by meeting the “a-g” requirements.
Additionally, it used data regularly to examine student
progress. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the school
recognizes the issues it faced as it stated that more
professional development time was needed to work together
in a collaborative manner. Additional time working to
together, to address the concerns of all teachers would
bring staff together towards a common vision and agreement.

310
3740
School 3740 is a middle school with 745 students in
grades 7-8, on the urban fringe of a large city. 3740 is in
Unified School District 522, with over 48,000. The largest
ethnic group at 3470 is Asian, making up 75% of the
student. The second largest group is Hispanic with almost
15%. There are 249 English Language Learners (ELL) and 469
students are eligible for free or reduced priced meals.
API
920
900
880
860
840
820
800
780
760
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API 807 826 852 870 897
3470’s Academic Performance Index (API) has steadily
risen for the last five years, from 807 to 897. Figure
F3740.1 does not demonstrate any particular peaks nor

311
plateaus. 3740 averaged a steady growth of 22.5 points for
each of the five past years.

school 3740
10
9
8
7
6
Statewide Rank
5
Similar School Rank
4
3
2
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure F3740.2 displays the changes in rank for 3740
in the last two years. While 3740 displayed steady growth,
as seen in Figure F3740.1, its rank did not show the same
consistency. In both 2004 and 2005, 3740 maintained a
similar school rank of “10” but a statewide rank or “9”. In
2006, its similar rank dropped to “9”, alongside its state
rank. It is important to note however that 3740 had a 26
point increase in its API during that same time frame
indicating that 100 other schools, similar to 3740 in
student populations and other characteristics had

312
demonstrated similar or greater growth (Education Data
Partnership, 2008). With its continued growth, 3740 was
ranked of “10/10” in both state and similar school ranking
for the last two years.

Mathematics.
95
85
% Proficient or above
75
65
55
45
35
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
English/ Language
52.7 61.1 67.6 74.4 76.1
Arts
Mathematics 62.1 69.9 72.8 68 73.2
Figure: F3740.3 displayed the steady increase in the
number of proficient students in English/Language Arts and
the increase and plateau in mathematics over the past five
years. In English/Language Arts, the number of students
scoring proficient or above has increased by almost 50%. In
Mathematics, however, 3740 has only increased by a little
over 10%, having suffered a slight decline in the 2006-2007
academic year.
313
This District’s goals were focused upon English
Language Learner and improving overall student achievement.
3740 had no particular content focus, however. Both the
school and the district worked together to address student
needs. The school site implemented programs provided by the
district, such as “the gradual release of responsibility”
(Frey & Fisher, 2009) but the school was also developing
strategies to check for understanding and formative
assessments. Following the gradual release of
responsibility instructional framework, teachers move from
providing a great deal of support in the classroom to no
support in a gradual manner so that students can apply new
skills or knowledge independently at the mastery level
(Frey & Fisher). The use of the gradual release of
responsibilities framework includes not only the
presentation of knowledge but improved student engagement
by incorporating strategies such as cooperative learning
(Frey & Fisher). The principal at 3740 indicated that there
was a general lack of focus in secondary schools.

314
Additionally, teachers are checking for understanding
and SDAIE strategies improve the delivery and reception of
instruction (Sobul, 1995). Teachers are also using Thinking
Maps. Thinking Maps are graphical representation to clarify
student thinking and structure of work. Figure F3740.4
provides an example of a “bubble map” of portions of this
case study.
Figure: 3740.4: Example of bubble map
Demographic Data
Background
Case Study Intervention
Ambitious
goals Instructional
Lessons
improvement
learned Standards
strategies
based
instruction
Understanding
the problem
Data
315
Standards-based instruction
3740’s principal indicated that instruction in
classrooms was not always based on the state standards. As
described by the principal, teachers continued to provide
instruction based on lessons that they had used earlier in
their careers. These lessons were not developed with the
standards in mind. So while the instruction may have been
aligned to some standard, this approach did not assure
students that they were being exposed to the entirety of
the state standards.
Additionally, the level of academic rigor was
characterized as uneven across classrooms by the school
principal. Student work does not always reflect the rigor
of the standard. Standards ranged not only in content area
but also in the range of cognitive demand. So while a
student may have been exposed to the content of a standard
in the course of instruction, the level of thinking about
the content may have been low. For example, in the course
of a discussion of a particular topic students may have
been required to simply identify content topics, a low
level of cognitive demand, as opposed to the higher order

316
thinking required in the application the new knowledge or
skill.
Teachers preferred to work in isolation. There was not
a great deal of collaboration between teachers or
departments. However, the school was addressing this issue
with the implementation of a coaching model. Teachers were
beginning to visit each other to observe each other’s
practices.
Data
Data is used at various times during the school year
by the school staff with limited interest. 3470 reviews
state assessment blueprints and questions. The staff uses
mostly summative data such as CST scores. However, there
was an effort to implement formative assessments by
departments. Teachers were developing these based on the
curriculum being implemented. Build consensus of what would
be included in the assessments has been a challenge in
departments.
Interventions
The principal of 3740 indicated that the school did
not have many of the barriers that face other schools. Many
317
of the students were viewed as capable readers and able to
learn. The school does focus upon students with special
needs and English language learners for intervention. 3740
trained teachers to work with identified groups of students
using the High Point curriculum developed by Hampton Brown.
Part of their focus was to implement their curriculum with
fidelity for these students. However, not all teachers have
implemented the curriculum with fidelity or use SDAIE
techniques with students. Classroom aides were used in
classrooms with ELL. The onus of not only translating but,
at times, the delivery of instruction, was placed on the
aide to assure that the lesson is transmitted to the
student.
Eight days of the year teachers had a common planning
perid during the regular school day by department. The
school worked to develop individualized learning plans for
each teacher that would guide professional development.
Teachers working with ELL were trained in the use of
Thinking Maps (Hyerle, 1995; Thinking Maps & Inc, 2009).
Additionally, each department developed its own plan for

318
addressing ELL. Teachers in mathematics were trained in
Cornell Note Taking. Lastly, as previously mentioned, the
school had also begun to implement a coaching program for
teachers to observe each other in their classrooms.
Parent involvement
Parent involvement was not strong. The school invested
in two liaisons to work with parents to improve
involvement. Parents normally participated via established
organizations such as the Parent, Teacher, and Student
Organization (PTSO) and the Girls and Boys Club. Literature
was translated into three different languages for parents
who do not speak English. The school would like to see more
involvement from parents in other areas of the school.
Every class had a “Parent Information Board” where
information such as maps, school data, and report card
information was posted.
Technology
The school invested in some new technology such as
purchasing projectors which could be connected to classroom
computers for math. Also, two new rolling carts with
computers were purchased. These computers would be reserved

319
by classroom teachers and used wheeled to the classroom for
student use in connection with a specific project.
Additionally, there is a new media center where students
can gain access to technology. All classes had at least one
computer.
The principal of 3740 stated that to continue the
schools’ climb in achievement, it could use at full-time
instructional coach. This was of particular interest
because the coach could provide continuous support in the
area of instruction. The principal identified the need for
the type of support that the faculty was in need of to
continue its growth. Additional personnel to work with
students with special needs would be needed as well to
provide teachers additional time to develop and implement
instructional plans for these students.

320

Evidence 3740 Middle
Based Model School – MS – EBM
Prototypical Current Comparison &
School Middle Resource Resource EBM
Element Schools Status Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School 6-8 7-8 One grade
configuration less than
described in
the EBM
School size 450 745 1.7 times
larger
more
Free and 135 469
Reduced Lunch
Count
Students
Personnel
Resources
Core Teachers 18 18.8 29.8 or 11.0
additional
teachers than
currently at
3740
Specialist / 20% of core 5.9 13.2 or 7.3
Elective teachers: 3.6 additional
Teachers teachers than
currently at
3740
Total 21.6 24.7 43 or 18.3
Teachers additional
teachers than
currently at
3740
Instructional 2.25 0 3.3
Coaches
321
Tutors 1 per 100 At 0 4.7

Risk Students
(Free and
Reduced Price
Lunch)
Teachers for 1 per 100 ELL 0.6 3.1 or 2.5
ELL Students students: additional
0.45 teachers than
currently at
3740
Extended Day 1 per 15 0.5 3.9 or 3.4
eligible additional
students – teachers than
anticipated currently at
attendance 3740
calculation:
50% of
Economically
Disadvantaged
students
Summer 1 per 15 0 3.4
School students –
anticipated
enrollment
calculation:
50% of
Economically
Disadvantaged
students
Teacher for 3 1 5 or 4.0
Learning- and additional
mildly teachers than
disabled currently at
3740
Teachers for 100% state 1 teacher and State funded
Severely reimbursement 2 aide
disabled for top 1%
students minus federal
funds
Services for $25/student $0 $ 18,625
gifted
students
322
Career/Techni .3 weight per NA NA

cal Education CTE student
to maintain
low class
sizes $7,000
per CTE
teacher
contract
Substitutes 10 days per $2,000.00 $1,705.00
teacher for additional
professional dollars for
development substitutes
to what is
already
allotted at
3740
Pupil Support 1 Guidance 4 3.7
250 students staff than
plus 1 Pupil currently at
Support Staff 3740
Position per
100
Economically
Disadvantaged
Students:
3.15
Non- 2 0 3
Instructional
Aides
Instructional 0 1 Elimination
Aides of one
position
Librarians 1 librarian 1 1.6 or 0.6
/Media additional
Specialists staff than is
currently at
3740
323

plus .5 additional
Principal than
Plus 1 AP/450 currently at
3740
School Site 1.0 Secretary 1.5 3.3 or 1.8
Secretary 1.0 clerical additional
clerical
support than
currently at
3740
Professional 10 days $ 1,000.00 $36,250.00
Development intensive additional
professional dollars than
included in allocated for
teacher professional
contract in development
summer at 3740
Instructional
Coaches
(delineated
above)
Planning &
Prep Time: 10
summer days
Calculate:
$50/pupil for
additional
conferences,
consultants,
trainings,
etc.
Dollar/Pupil
Resources
324
Technology Calculation: 0 $186,250.00

1 computer
per 3
students
Actual
Distribution:
1 computer
per 4
students plus
1:1 ratio for
administrator
s and
teachers.
$250/pupil
Materials
Student $250/pupil $186,250.00
Activities
While 3740 served one less grade than the prototypical
school, it is over one and a half times larger. The EBM
would allow for just over 11 more additional core teachers.
While the principal of 3740 requested a coach, the EBM
would provide just over three additional coaches for a
school the size of 3740. Additionally, due the size of its
special needs population, the school would receive four
additional teachers to work with these students.

325
Lessons Learned
3740 regularly used summative CST scores to evaluate
its overall performance. Additionally, the District also
used CST data to set goals for the school and district at
large. The district and school used Data Director (Achieve!
Data Solutions, 2008) to further analyze CST scores and
other data. This understanding led the district and school
to focus on particular groups such as ELL and students with
special needs. While there was some curricular mapping for
ELL, there was limited evidence of mapping for other areas
other than the development of periodic assessments.
Ambitious goals
The ambitious goals for 3740 were to make sure that
all students were proficient. To accomplish this goal, as
stated in the previous section, the school and district
focused on ELL and students with special needs. The school
did not use the large number of ELL or students receiving
free or reduced lunch as reasons it could not reach its
goal. Instead, it took measures to address the needs of
these students. Moreover, the school has not attempted to

326
push just a few more students over the “bubble” but has set
the high expectation that all students will achieve at high
levels.
3740 did not institute a new curricular program.
Instead it is worked to improve the implementation of its
existing program. However, the school was moving towards a
new instructional vision of improved standards based
instruction that was previously lacking. Also, it
instituted new instructional strategies such as the
“gradual release of responsibility” (Frey & Fischer, 2009).
Thus, 3740 was developing a school site view of good
instructional practices.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making
3740 was just beginning to develop formative
assessments in departments. However, the principal of the
school felt that there would be difficulty in developing
and implementing the assessments based upon the belief that
teachers needed to have consensus around the assessments.

327
Professional development and collaborative culture
While the school had a professional development plan,
it remained fragmented. Individual teachers and departments
developed their own goals and plans. For example,
English/Language Arts received training in Thinking Maps
(Thinking Maps & Inc, 2009), while the mathematics
department received training in the Cornell note taking
procedure.
While the school was also beginning to implement a
coaching model, the process and goals for the coach
remained ill defined. Still, this was a step towards “de-
privatizing” instruction at the school. Teacher were
beginning to visit other teachers’ classroom. Additionally,
collaborative time was also instituted into the annual
schedule.
Time and extended learning
English Language Learners received additional periods
of English to provide them with extra instruction.
Additionally, ELL teachers were specially trained High
Point and SDAIE strategies. This group was the only group
that received additional time during the school day.

328
While 3740 provided for the equivalent of a half-time
teacher to support student learning afterschool, it largely
relied on the services of the local Boys and Girls club to
provide homework help for students. The personnel at the
Boys and Girls club were not certificated nor did they
coordinate their support with the school.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership was clearly widespread and
distributed. While the district provided overall goals and
some support for professional development, the local school
site also had leeway regarding the development and
implementation of various practices. This distributed
leadership provided the challenge and opportunity for the
school to develop buy-in and collaboration for the various
instructional improvement efforts.
3740 had begun to implement some best practices as
found in research. The school trained teachers and
implemented the “gradual release of responsibility” (Frey &
Fischer, 2009) instructional framework, Thinking Maps
(Thinking Maps & Inc, 2009), and other research-based

329
strategies. Yet, it did not appear to be moving forward in
a comprehensive and coherent manner. Most of the strategies
to improve instruction were from the district, while the
school had control over their implementation.
Future Implication
3740 has enjoyed a steady increase in API over the
last five years. Additionally, it has been rated as a 10/10
school for the last two. However, it has not fully
committed to taking all the steps needed to double or
improve performance. There has started to be a leveling off
in English/Language Arts, and mathematics growth has been
irregular for the last three years. In support of the
principal recommendations, the EBM would provide an
instructional coach and additional support to work with
students with special needs. Moreover, it would provide
additional support in almost every area from additional
core teachers and intervention teachers to provide at-risk
students with more time to master skill and knowledge. The
school could then provide the needed extended learning
support by credentialed teachers. 3740 needs to implement a
new curriculum to attach to its vision of standards based

330
instruction. Under the EBM, the school would receive over
$100,000 to identify and purchase new instructional
materials.
While the school indicated that additional resources
are needed to continue at its high level of performance,
3740 should also take other steps to improve student
achievement. For example, the school could use additional
monies to identify and implement various professional
development seminars but the school should first dedicate
time to developing a focused, systemic, and ongoing
professional development plan. Professional development
money could be used to develop common assessments; however,
consensus and buy-in needs to be established for the
implementation of these assessments to be successful.

Better Is As Better Does: Resource Allocation in High Performing Schools

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Better Is As Better Does: Resource Allocation in High Performing Schools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BETTER IS AS BETTER DOES:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN HIGH PERFORMING SCHOOLS

Victor Roy Gonzalez

A Dissertation Presented to the

Copyright 2009 Victor Roy Gonzalez

This dissertation is dedicated to the students and families

at schools that find themselves thinking, “There’s got to

be a better way”. I know I want to do better. I want

schools to do better. Here are a few thoughts on how to do

First, I need to thank my wife, Lisha Ann Gonzalez. I

have to thank her for her support in reading my

dissertation, providing me feedback, and putting up with

“another weekend at home” instead of going out and having

fun. This was no small task because Lisha suffered a

fractured back during the time I was writing this

dissertation. After she spent days in the hospital, and

while spending painful months recuperating, she was still

willing to read my dissertation to help me finish this

work. Who else would do that? I know I couldn’t ask or

expect a better partner in life and in completing this

Second, I would like to thank my faculty dissertation

so much about school finance, not just locally but across

the country. We would play a “game” in our cohort meeting

of a dozen people: we would shout out the name of a state

and he would describe to how that state funded education.

We have yet to come across a state for which he does not

have an answer. It was my deepest honor and I was humbled

guy. He was kind, supportive, and understanding. He was my

first choice as a dissertation chair and I never regretted

and I am thankful for the opportunity to have done so with

Thank you to my cohort. You were a great source of

inspiration and support. I would especially like to thank

Deborah Granger who would regularly contact me with offers

of help and support. Thanks also goes to Chris Coulter,

thanks for letting me peek over your shoulder from time to

time to make sure I got it right.

LIST OF TABLES viii

Table 2.1 Two High Performing schools versus

Table 2.2 Planning time: High Performing versus

Table 3.1 Recommended Resources for Middle and High

Table 3.2 California Schools meeting criterion 74

Table 4.1 State and similar school ranking 85

Table 4.2 Characteristics of Study Schools 87

Table 4.3 Characteristics of prototypical EBM

Table 4.4 Core and specialist teachers at schools of

Table 4.5 Intervention teachers at schools of study

Table 4.6 Support staff, librarians and secretaries at

Table 4.7 Administration and Instructional

Table 4.8 Additional resources for continued

Table 4.9 Completion of ten steps to double

Table F3038.1 Evidence Based Model and 3038 Comparison 230

Table F3058.1 Evidence Based Model and 3038 Comparison 251

Table F3142.1 Evidence Based Model and 3142 Comparison 274

Table F3740.1 Evidence Based Model and 3038 Comparison 320

Figure: 4.1. Change in State Rank from 2004-2008 in

Figure: 4.2. Change in Similar School Rank from 2004-

Figure: 4.3. Change in API score from 2004-2008 in

Figure: 4.4. Change in the number of student scoring

Figure: 4.5. Change in the number of student scoring

Figure: 4.6 Pyramid of Intervention for students of

Figure: F3038.1. Changes in API at school 3038 220

Figure: F3038.2. Statewide Rank and Similar School

Figure: F3038.3. Annual Measurable Objectives, percent