THE EFFECTS OF STATE INTERVENTION FUNDS ON COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS OUTCOMES FOR LARGE CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS
Daryl Franklin Camp
B.A, Morehouse College, 1991
M.S., California State University, Hayward, 2001
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
Copyright © 2011
Daryl Franklin Camp
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE EFFECTS OF STATE INTERVENTION FUNDS ON COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS OUTCOMES FOR LARGE CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS
A Dissertation
by
Daryl Franklin Camp
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
Robert Pritchard, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Edmund W. Lee, Ed.D.
Ramona Bishop, Ed.D.
SPRING 2011
iii
THE EFFECTS OF STATE INTERVENTION FUNDS ON COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS OUTCOMES FOR LARGE CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS
Student: Daryl Franklin Camp
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this dissertation is suitable for shelving in the library and credit is
to be awarded for the dissertation.
, Graduate Coordinator
Carlos Nevarez, Ph.D.
Date
iv
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my parents Ernestine Watson Camp and Billy Reid Camp,
who spent countless hours working to improve public education for all students.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation is part of a lifelong journey to improve education for students in
need of additional supports. In order to have a more humane nation and world, students
who are underserved must be provided assistance beyond that which may be provided by
their families. Several individuals have helped me on this journey.
I will be forever grateful to my immediate family. My wife Janée and sons
Kendall and Myles have shared me with the dissertation process and my day job over the
last three years. They have been patient as I read material, participated in study groups,
worked on assignments, and completed the dissertation. This process has been a
tremendous strain on my family, and I am appreciative of their support.
My mother, Ernestine Watson Camp, is the person who motivates me to strive for
excellence. I may not have pursued a doctoral degree if it were not for my mother.
While I was a child, she aborted her pursuit of a doctoral degree to provide social,
emotional, and educational support for her family. I am forever grateful to her for the
sacrifices she made to support my family and me. This degree should have both of our
names on the certificate.
Thanks to the many members of my family who have encouraged me during this
process. They include my sister Tracy Camp, brother Billy Camp, my wife’s parents
Vernon and Bonnie Cornelison, her sisters Natalie Cornelison and Leah Fuller, as well as
my extended family in Puebla, Mexico. Thanks also to my aunt Sarah Finney who
provided the vision of me earning a doctorate as I was growing up.
vi
Thanks to the Saint Andrews African Methodist Episcopal Church for supporting
me before and during my journey. A special thank you to the Sons of Allen Brotherhood
for the constant words of encouragement.
The California State University, Sacramento’s second cohort of doctoral students
made this process a rewarding experience. Their breadth of experience and support
helped motivate me in the classes and while writing the dissertation. A special thanks to
Rinny Hang, Gabe Simon, and Francine Stevens for helping me with the courses,
qualifying exam, and dissertation.
The California State University, Sacramento community has done an excellent job
of supporting doctoral students. I have shared with others that all professors
communicated a “we believe in you” type of message. The professorial range of
experience and intellect provided an enriching educational environment. A special thank
you to Dr. JoLynn Britt for her assistance with data analyses and for her encouragement.
Also, Dr. Odie Douglas provided support before I began the program and throughout the
experience.
I do not think I could have selected a better group of educators for my dissertation
committee. Dr. Robert Pritchard provided guidance and support throughout the process.
His timeliness in responding to questions and/or drafts should be the model for all
advisers. He is one of the most professional individuals I have worked with in education.
My other committee members, Drs. Edmund Lee and Ramona Bishop, brought
vii
experience and advice to me from a practitioner perspective. I am very appreciative they
accepted the invitation to serve on my committee.
The staff and community at Bear Creek High School supported me over the last
few years. When I was not able to be on campus or at athletic events, there was never
any doubt whether the high school was being managed properly. A special thanks goes
to my administrative team. My vice principal Jana Durham demonstrated the leadership
skills that allowed me to pursue this degree. Assistant principals Sera Baysinger, Donna
Thayer, Marlon Gayle, and Richard Thomas were always professional and supportive
members of my administrative team at various stages of the doctoral process. My
secretary Pat Soulsby was also part of my support team.
Thanks to Morehouse College for establishing a standard of excellence and for
setting the expectation of earning a terminal degree. Morehouse also clearly
communicated that this degree in inconsequential unless it benefits the community.
viii
CURRICULUM VITAE
Education
M.S. in Educational Leadership, California State University, Hayward (2001)
B.A. in Health and Physical Education, Morehouse College (1991)
Professional Employment
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services: Riverbank Unified School District
(2011-Present)
Principal, Bear Creek High School: Lodi Unified School District (2005- 2011)
Vice Principal, San Juan High School: San Juan Unified School District (204-2005)
Vice Principal, Samuel Jackman Middle School: Elk Grove Unified School District
(2002-2004)
House Principal, James Logan High School: New Haven Unified School District (20002002)
Assistant Principal, James Logan High School: New Haven Unified School District
(1998-2000)
Mathematics Teacher, James Logan High School: New Haven Unified School District
(1992-1998)
Publications
Talking About Racism in our Schools, Leadership, March/April, 2009; Association of
California School Administrators.
Professional Affiliations
Association of California School Administrators
National Association of Secondary School Principals
California Association for African American Educators
National Association of Black School Educators
Educational Affiliation
Phi Beta Kappa
ix
Abstract
of
THE EFFECTS OF STATE INTERVENTION FUNDS ON COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS OUTCOMES FOR LARGE CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS
by
Daryl Franklin Camp
Like many states in the nation, California has struggled with preparing more high
school graduates to be college- or career-ready for post-secondary opportunities in the
21st-century. David Conley (2005) indicated that students are college-ready when they
are able to successfully meet the requirements of entry-level college courses. ACT
(2006) describes career-ready as being able to enter a job or training program likely to
offer both a wage that can support a small family and has the potential for career
advancement. While historically high school students have chosen a course of study that
either prepares them for college eligibility or a vocation, educators and political and
business leaders are now claiming that the skills and knowledge needed for college or a
21st-century career are virtually the same. This study explored how large, lowperforming, California high schools that received Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming School Program funds in the early 2000s prepared high
school graduates to be college- or career-ready.
This study analyzed the A-G completion rates of 32 schools that received
California intervention funds in the early 2000s and compared the results to 32 similar
schools that did not receive intervention funds. The results demonstrated a pattern of
x
increased A-G completion rates for the intervention schools when compared to the 2001
base year and a decrease in A-G completion rates for the comparison schools when
compared to the 2001 base year. The intervention schools had a significant increase in
the A-G completion rates when comparing 2005 to 2001. The significant increase was
also true for Latino American students in intervention schools in 2005. There were no
significant changes for African American students in intervention schools. There were
no significant differences in the A-G completion rates between the intervention and
comparison schools.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................vi
Curriculum Vitae
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
National Reform Movement ............................................................................ 2
School Accountability in California ................................................................ 4
California’s Focus on Minimum Competencies .............................................. 7
Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 8
College/Career-Ready in California? .............................................................. 10
A-G Requirements .......................................................................................... 10
Nature of Study ............................................................................................... 11
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 13
Operational Definitions ................................................................................... 15
Assumptions, Limitations and Scope .............................................................. 17
The Significance of the Study ......................................................................... 20
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 21
xii
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................... 23
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 23
College and Career Readiness ........................................................................ 24
Funding Interventions for California High Schools........................................ 31
Achievement Gap............................................................................................ 36
High School Reform ....................................................................................... 43
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 52
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 54
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 54
Research Design.............................................................................................. 55
Population ....................................................................................................... 59
Data Collection ............................................................................................... 60
Analysis of Data .............................................................................................. 61
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ....................................................................................... 63
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 63
Descriptive Characteristics ............................................................................. 64
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 70
Research Question Findings ........................................................................... 81
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 97
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 99
Overview ......................................................................................................... 99
xiii
Summary of Research ..................................................................................... 99
Summary of Findings .....................................................................................100
Discussion ......................................................................................................101
Policy Implications ........................................................................................103
Areas for Future Research .............................................................................107
Conclusion .....................................................................................................110
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................112
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Total K-12 Enrollment for 2008-2009 = 6,252,031 ..................................... 20
2.
Table 2 Components of Professional Learning Communities................................... 50
3.
Table 3 Graduating Classes for Cohorts One, Two, and Three of II/USP ................ 57
4.
Table 4 School Enrollment Size ................................................................................ 65
5.
Table 5 State-wide Rankings (Academic Performance Index) ................................. 66
6.
Table 6 Latino and African American Percentages (Intervention Schools) .............. 68
7.
Table 7 Latino and African American Percentages (Comparison Schools) .............. 69
8.
Table 8 Latino and African American Percentage Enrollments ................................ 70
9.
Table 9 Mean Value of All Students in Intervention and Comparison Schools ....... 72
10. Table 10 Paired Samples Test ................................................................................... 73
11. Table 11 Independent-samples t-test Comparing Intervention and
Comparison Schools .................................................................................................. 74
12. Table 12 A-G Completion Rate for Latino American Students ................................ 75
13. Table 13 Paired Samples Test ................................................................................... 77
14. Table 14 A-G Completion Rate for African American Students .............................. 78
15. Table 15 Paired Samples Test ................................................................................... 79
16. Table 16 Independent-Samples t-test Comparing Latino American Students
from Intervention and Comparison Schools .............................................................. 80
17. Table 17 Independent-Samples t-test Comparing African American students in
Intervention and Comparison Schools ...................................................................... 81
xv
18. Table 18 A-G Completion Rate for Latino Americans and All Students
(Intervention Schools) ............................................................................................... 85
19. Table 19 A-G Completion Rate for African Americans and All Students
(Intervention Schools) ............................................................................................... 86
20. Table 20 2001 Positive Deviant School Characteristics ........................................... 89
21. Table 21 Obtaining Information for Positive Deviant Schools ................................. 91
xvi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Like many states in the nation, California is engaged in a struggle to improve
public schools so students are prepared for higher education or the work world upon
completion of high school. Throughout much of the last decade, the focus of national
school improvement efforts has largely been on elementary schools (Achieve, 2010;
America Diploma Project, 2004; Education Trust, 2003; National Association of
Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 1996; Quint, 2006). Now, many states, including
California, are beginning to increase the focus on the effectiveness of high schools.
Recognizing that too few California high school students are graduating high school
prepared for either higher education or a viable career, this study explored to what extent
large, low-performing, California high schools that received state intervention funds have
prepared students for college and/or 21st-century careers.
This study specifically focused on schools that received state Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming School (II/USP) grants in the early 2000s. The study also
explored the extent to which selected, low-performing, large high schools have improved
in preparing Latino and African American students for higher education and/or the
current workforce. This study uses the ACT (2006) definition to describe what it means
to be career-ready. ACT described being career-ready for high school graduates as being
able to enter a job or training program that is likely to offer both a wage sufficient to
2
support a small family and the potential for career advancement. The introduction
includes a review of national and state educational reform movements and emphasizes
efforts to reform high schools.
National Reform Movement
A Nation at Risk
A major report that fueled the current national education movement was A Nation
at Risk published in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education
(NCEE). The report questioned the educational system and challenged leaders to make a
commitment to public education (NCEE, 1983). In the report, particular attention was
given to comparing the United States to other advanced nations; the barriers to pursuing
excellence in public education; the effects social and educational changes have had on
student achievement, teaching, and learning; and the relationship between achievement in
high school and college admission requirements. A Nation at Risk increased the national
attention given to the educational system (NCEE, 1983). Almost 30 years later,
educational reform remains at the forefront of the national agenda
No Child Left Behind
A significant development that affected educational institutions over the last 10
years is No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2002). The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind, has greatly influenced the way schools
and districts look at data. NCLB set a goal that all students will be at least proficient in
3
math and English language arts by 2013-14. NCLB set annual expectations for schools
and districts that received Title I funds. These expectations are termed Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). A school or district not meeting AYP is placed in program
improvement and receives various interventions and sanctions as determined by federal
and state guidelines (NCLB, 2002). Information about California’s Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) is introduced later in this chapter. From a national
perspective, NCLB legislation brought greater public awareness to school effectiveness
and forced schools and school districts to analyze gaps in achievement of various groups
of students within a school or district.
Under NCLB, schools and school districts were held responsible for ensuring that
all students in a school were performing at a proficient level on standardized tests.
Schools were required to report the achievement of various student groups, such as
special education, socio-economically disadvantaged, English language learners, and
students of various ethnic groups. Since schools now had to report student test scores
disaggregated by ethnicity, the national conversation about the achievement gap has
increased. Although NCLB provided nationally recognized accountability measures, it is
unknown to what extent schools have prepared more students to be college- or careerready upon graduating high school.
Public Opinion
Over the last 10 years, state and federal governments have increased the emphasis
on school accountability and turning around low-performing schools. Political, business,
4
and educational leaders have been concerned about how schools are preparing students
for post-secondary education and careers. These leaders have supported efforts by state
and federal governments to improve public education (Achieve, 2010; America Diploma
Project, 2004; Education Trust, 2003; NASSP, 1996; National Education Summit, 2005;
Quint, 2006). The call for school reform also seems to have support from the public.
Consider a 2005 Educational Testing Service (ETS) survey in which 11% of respondents
said schools are working well enough today. In this same survey, 39% of respondents
indicated that minor changes should be made to public schools, but schools should
maintain the basic current structure. Thirty percent (30%) of respondents indicated the
schools needed major changes and 18% indicated that a complete overhaul was needed
(ETS, 2005). The ETS survey demonstrates that a large segment of the United States
population is ready to reform public schools. Like many states in the country,
California’s educators, legislators, and various stakeholders have been involved in
educational improvement efforts.
School Accountability in California
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the state of California provided intervention
funds to assist schools where student achievement was a challenge. There have been
previous studies where researchers have analyzed the effects of intervention funds on
selected underperforming schools. This study expands upon previous studies and focuses
on the effects state intervention funds have had on student achievement at large
5
California high schools. The researcher recognizes that like at many schools in the
nation, at large, low-performing, California high schools, too few students are prepared
for either higher education or a 21st-century career upon finishing high school. For the
purpose of this study, career readiness was defined as when a high school graduate enters
a job or training program likely to offer both a wage sufficient to support a small family
and the potential for career advancement (ACT, 2006). A few years before NCLB,
California policymakers began to implement an accountability system for its public
schools.
California’s Accountability Movement
In 1999, California developed the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA). The
intent of the PSAA was to create a comprehensive accountability system to hold students,
schools, and districts accountable for student achievement. The Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) system is one of the primary components of the PSAA. The STAR
system is a set of assessments usually administered to students in the spring of each
school year. Based on the results of the STAR assessments, schools receive an Academic
Performance Index (API) score near the beginning of the following school year. A
school’s API can range from 200-1000 and the state has set 800 as the target API for all
schools (California Department of Education [CDE], 2010d). Depending on the grade
level, students are tested in mathematics, English language arts, science, and social
science (CDE, 2011).
6
The early years of the Public School Accountability Act (1999) included various
rewards and sanctions for schools, students, and districts. Schools and districts meeting
their Academic Performance Index targets were eligible to receive monetary rewards.
Some districts allowed sites to use these funds to contribute to school programs and other
districts provided bonuses to school employees. High school students who did well on
tests earned grants that could later be used for post-secondary opportunities. As the
economy struggled, this monetary reward system was discontinued. Schools that did not
do as well were allowed to voluntarily participate in the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). Schools in the II/USP had to
develop a plan for student achievement and received funds to support that plan. These
schools also worked with external support providers who assisted schools with plan
development. The state of California has reviewed to what extent II/USP schools have
improved as measured by the Academic Performance Index. However, it is unknown to
what extent the high schools utilized the state intervention funds to prepare students for
higher education or 21st-century careers upon finishing high schools as measured by the
A-G completion rate.
There are several factors that contribute to the accountability of California public
schools through the PSAA. A central component of the Public Schools Accountability
Act is the Academic Performance Index (API). Schools and districts receive this singlenumber index annually based on the results of the STAR assessments. Every public
7
school and district has an API score. Student performance on the California Standards
Test (CSTs) is the primary factor in determining a school’s or district’s API.
Schools and districts have placed great emphasis on how well students perform on
the CSTs. Students are categorized as either advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, or
far below basic depending on the number of problems answered correctly on the
California Standards Tests in English-Language Arts, mathematics, science and social
science. A student scoring at the proficient or advanced level is considered to be at grade
level. Although the CSTs are used to evaluate student progress, there has been little
research assessing whether the emphasis on standardized testing has adequately prepared
students for post-secondary opportunities. In addition to focusing on the CSTs, many
high schools have focused on the state’s minimum competency exam that must be passed
for most students to receive a high school diploma. At various times, special education
students have been exempt from passing the minimum competency exam in California.
California’s Focus on Minimum Competencies
As in many states, California has instituted an exam students must pass to obtain a
high school diploma. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) was developed
in 2001 and was intended to validate that high school graduates had a base level of
knowledge and skills in mathematics and English language arts. The math portion of the
CAHSEE covers standards up to the eighth grade. The English language arts portion of
the CAHSEE covers standards up to the 10th grade level. Students are first allowed to
8
take the CAHSEE during their 10th grade year of high school. Students who pass both
portions of the exam do not have to take the exam again. If a student fails either portion
of the exam they need to retake the portion of the exam that was not passed. Students are
provided multiple opportunities to pass either portion of the CAHSEE.
An analysis of data from the California Department of Education indicates that
about 75% of California’s 10th graders are likely to pass the CAHSEE on their first
attempt (CDE, 2011). The class of 2006 was the first class of students who had to pass
the CAHSEE to earn a high school diploma (CDE, 2008a). While high schools have
focused attention on ensuring that students pass the CAHSEE, educators, business
leaders, legislators, and the public are questioning the value of passing the CAHSEE. A
report by the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) commented
that the CAHSEE did not meet its original intent of ensuring that high school graduates
had the necessary minimum level of skills and knowledge needed for the 21st-century
(Darling-Hammond & Adamson, 2010).
Problem Statement
While reform efforts have increased the national emphasis on student
achievement and underperforming schools, the nation is beginning to look more closely
at how high schools are preparing students for post-secondary education or the 21stcentury workforce. According to the American Diploma Project (ADP, 2004), about half
of the states in the United States currently have instituted exit exams or end-of-course
9
exams designed to ensure that high school graduates have a minimum level of skills and
knowledge needed for the current marketplace. In many states, the exit exams are
aligned to standards at the 8th, 9th, or 10th grade levels. Hence, there is concern that the
standards and exit exams in most states do not reflect the real-world demands of postsecondary education and 21st-century careers (ADP, 2004). While educators have
focused on preparing students to pass exit exams, there now appears to be a concern that
too few students are prepared for higher education or the workforce upon graduating high
school.
Additionally, the educational community is focusing on the underperformance of
many of the nation’s students of color. The primary focus regarding students of color has
been the lack of academic achievement for Latino and African American students. The
achievement gap has been the phrase used by educational analysts to describe the
difference in academic achievement primarily between European and Asian American
students and the achievement of Latino and African American students (Haycock, 2001;
Singleton & Linton, 2006). While there is growing concern that too few high school
graduates are prepared for higher education or 21st-century careers, there is even greater
concern over how schools are preparing Latino and African American students for viable
opportunities beyond high school.
10
College/Career-Ready in California?
In California, educators, business leaders, and legislators are beginning to
consider what it means to graduate from high school prepared for college or ready for a
21st-century career. It has long been accepted that a student must adequately complete a
prescribed sequence of courses in order to meet the requirement to enter the state
universities immediately after high school. There is less agreement about what students
must do to be career ready upon graduating high school. Although there is not agreement
about what it takes to prepare students for a career after high school, there seems to be
growing support for those who argue that there is little difference in course work in
preparing students for higher education or a 21st-century career (Achieve, 2010;
Education Trust, 2003; Martinez, 2005; United States Department of Labor, 1991). In
California, the sequence of courses needed to enter the state university system
immediately after high school is referred to as the A-G requirements.
A-G Requirements
High schools need to consider how students are taking rigorous courses to prepare
for college or the workforce. Completion of the A-G requirements is an assessment
benchmark for California high schools that measures how students are taking rigorous
courses. The A-G requirements are a set of 15 classes high school students must take and
earn a grade of C or better in to enter the University of California (UC) or California
State University (CSU) system the year after graduating high schools. The A-G subject
11
requirements include: two years of history/social science; four years of English; three
years of mathematics; two years of laboratory science; two years of a language other than
English; one year of a visual/performing art; and one year of a college prep elective
(California State University, 2011). According to the CDE (2009), almost 34% of
graduating seniors from the class of 2008 completed the A-G requirements.
Some California high schools have greater challenges in preparing students for
the 21st-century economy. Along with elementary and middle schools, several California
high schools received state intervention funds to improve student achievement. This
research study acknowledges that in many high schools, too few high school students
complete the course requirements needed to enter the University of California or
California State University system upon graduating high school.
Nature of Study
This mixed methods study was designed to analyze the effects that state
interventions funds have had on large California high schools. Using a quantitative
research design, the study compared the data from 32 large, low-performing, California
high schools receiving state intervention funds in the early 2000s to 32 large, lowperforming, California high schools eligible but not receiving intervention funds. The
study analyzed the A-G completion rates for the selected high schools. The study also
analyzed A-G completion rates for Latino and African American students in the selected
high schools. If selected low-performing large high schools had an above-average
12
increase in number of students completing the A-G completion rate, then the researcher
utilized a qualitative data analysis approach to analyze accreditation reports and other
publicly accessible documents to identify characteristics of high schools that have had an
above-average positive change in the A-G completion rate.
This study addressed the following research questions:
Research Question 1: Of the selected large California high schools that received
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/USP) state
intervention funds in the early 2000s, to what extent was there a
significant difference in the A-G completion rate from 2001 to 2004,
2005, and 2008?
Research Question 2: To what extent was there a significant difference in A-G
completion rates between large California high schools that received
II/USP state intervention funds and a similar group of large California
high schools that did not receive II/USP state intervention funds in 2001,
2004, 2005, and 2008?
Research Question 3: When compared to overall school data, were there significant
differences in A-G course completion rates for Latino and African
American students?
Research Question 4: If any of the selected large California high schools that received
II/USP intervention funds had an above-average increase in the rate of
13
students completing the A-G requirements, what components may have
led to the change?
Conceptual Framework
This study focused on the extent to which California’s large, low-performing,
high schools have prepared students for college or career opportunities upon completing
high schools after receiving either II/USP funds. In California, completing the A-G
courses is required for high school students to be able to attend the public university
system immediately after completing high school. The theoretical framework used for
the study is the general systems theory described by Bess and Dee (2008). The aspects of
general systems theory that are applicable to this study include concepts of systems,
boundaries, inputs, and outputs.
Systems
Hall and Fagen (as cited by Bess & Dee, 2008) described a system as a set of
components or elements that are interrelated, interactive, and interdependent. Like
colleges and universities, large high schools are regarded as systems since many
components of a high school are interrelated, interactive, and interdependent. The
structures of most large high schools have several departments and programs. Within
large high schools, various structures are interrelated to create the learning experience for
students and working environment for staff. The high school departments and programs
are considered subsystems within the larger systems, and the multiple subsystems
14
interrelate, interact, and are interdependent with other subsystems within the school. The
school system and the subsystems also interrelate with elements beyond the school’s
boundaries.
Boundaries
Bess and Dee (2008) recognized there are aspects of schools that have both open
and closed exchanges with the environment beyond the school gates. The open
exchanges with schools to the larger environment include exchanges with student
experience and knowledge, teacher experience and preparation, society information, and
the effects of state and district policies. For school safety purposes, schools try to create
a closed physical environment where the public may only interact with students if certain
procedures are followed. To create a more closed physical system, many schools use
doors, gates, and walls to separate the school from the community. Additionally, school
visitors must check-in at the office before entering the campus. School volunteers must
be fingerprinted before they regularly interact with students. Regarding use of the
internet, schools often have firewalls that limit access to certain websites. For many
aspects of school operations, the system is more open than closed. As it pertains to
student achievement outcomes, the open system nature of schools makes it difficult to
fully understand why some students achieve and others do not; nonetheless, the
researcher explored to what extent state intervention funds had an effect on student
achievement at low-performing, large high schools.
15
Inputs and Outputs
In systems theory, inputs are described as elements from the environment that
enter through the boundary of the system (Bess & Dee, 2008). In schools, one input
element that affects school operations comes in the form of increased funding. Schools
are largely financed based on general funds allocated from a district office. At times,
schools may receive additional revenues indirectly from business, state, or federal
sources to improve student achievement outcomes. In several mission statements of
schools and districts, there is language that suggests that the primary goal of schools is to
prepare students to be productive citizens who contribute to the larger society. In
systems theory, student achievement is the output created by the schools. In other words,
the schools’ outputs are students who enter into either higher education or the workforce
upon completing high schools. This study measured to what extent did a change in inputs
(state intervention funds) have on the outputs (student completion of A-G requirements)
in large low-performing high schools.
Operational Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used:
A-G courses
The courses needed to enter the University of California or California State
University system immediately after completing high school.
16
African American
Students identified as African American through information reported to the
California Department of Education.
Academic Performance Index (API)
A single score earned by California public schools based on student performance
on standardized tests and the graduation rate for high schools.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
As of 2006, non-special education students had to pass the CAHSEE to earn a
high school diploma. Students are provided their first opportunity to take both
portions of the exit exam during their 10th grade year. The CAHSEE consists of
an English language arts and a mathematics component.
Career Ready
When a high school graduate enters a job or training program likely to offer both
a wage sufficient to support a small family and the potential for career
advancement (ACT, 2006).
High school
Schools that enroll students in grades 9th or 10th through 12th grade.
Latinos
Students identified as Latino through the information reported to the California
Department of Education.
17
Large
Schools with an enrollment over 1200 students.
Low-performing High Schools
High schools that were in the bottom 30% of high schools as measured by the
2001 Academic Performance Index. There may be a few schools in the study that
were in the bottom 50% of high schools since it may be difficult to identify large,
low-performing, California high schools that did not receive either II/USP or
HPSG state intervention funds in the early 2000s.
Positive Deviants
Described by Schmoker (2006) as groups or individuals whose accomplishments
are routinely overlooked. Kati Haycock (2005) indicates that almost every highpoverty school has some spectacularly wonderful teachers. This study used the
term positive deviants to label schools that had an above-average A-G completion
rate of the selected group of low-performing schools.
Assumptions, Limitations and Scope
The complexities involved in analyzing student achievement outcome data for
large high schools led to particular limitations. This study identified large California high
schools that received state intervention funds in the early 2000s and compared their A-G
completion rate with like high schools in California. It also compared the A-G
completion rate of the general population with the A-G completion rate of Latino and
18
African American students at the same school. There were several assumptions and
limitations about the study.
The researcher assumed the information collected through the California
Department of Education website was correct. Another assumption was that the state
intervention funds received were utilized to improve student achievement. It was
assumed that a high rate of completion of the A-G requirements is a spillover effect of
focusing on improvement in student achievement.
A limitation of the study was that the selected schools were chosen due to their
overall scores from the Academic Performance Index. In California, schools in the
bottom 30% of API scores were allowed to voluntarily accept state intervention funds.
When selecting a comparison set of schools that did not voluntarily accept the state
intervention funds, the researchers had difficulty identifying schools. Thus, the
researcher identified schools in the bottom 40% of schools as determined by the API.
Another limitation for this study was the numerous factors that could contribute to
change efforts at a large high school. The possibility exists that several changes may
have occurred at the selected high schools. For example, some high schools may have
had dramatic shifts in staffing or student demographics during the studied time period.
Another possibility is that a school may have been completely restructured or
reconstituted during the time period of the study. The possibility existed that a
restructured school may have used the state intervention funds to assist with the
restructuring efforts. In this case the researcher analyzed components of the restructuring
19
efforts. If a school was reconstituted during the time period of the study, then the school
was not to be included in this study since it is unlikely the school would have data for all
three school years selected for this study. Given the complexities of factors contributing
to student achievement in large high schools, readers should be cautious in making any
definitive conclusions about the effect II/UPS state intervention funds had on large high
schools. However, this research has the possibility of providing insight as to the
components that may have contributed to preparing a greater percentage of students for
either college or a 21st-century career.
The scope of this study involved large high schools in California. It is intended to
provide information on student achievement data at large high schools. Many high
schools have fewer than 1200 students and have similar challenges as large high schools;
however, these schools were not within the scope of this study.
The researcher reviewed the A-G completion data of Latino and African
American students due to their large representation in large high schools. The California
Department of Education data indicates that 49% of California students are Latino
American and just over 8% are African American (CDE, 2010a). Additionally, the CDE
website shows that Latino and African American students are on the lower end of the
achievement gap.
20
Table 1
Total K-12 Enrollment for 2008-2009 = 6,252,031
Ethnicity
Number Enrolled
Percentage of Enrollment
Hispanic or Latino
3,064,614
49.02
White-not Hispanic
1,741,664
27.86
Asian
526,403
8.42
African American not Hispanic
454,781
7.27
Multiple or no response
210,501
3.37
Filipino
168,112
2.69
American Indian or Alaska Native
45,446
0.74
Pacific Islander
39,510
0.63
(California Department of Education, 2010a)
The Significance of the Study
This study contributes to the body of knowledge regarding high school reform
efforts. While national reform efforts have primarily focused human and financial
resources on improvements of elementary and, to a lesser degree, middle schools, there
now seems to an increased focus on high schools (Achieve, 2010; America Diploma
Project, 2004; Education Trust, 2003; NASSP, 1996; Quint, 2006). In California, high
schools have focused on improving student achievement by focusing on factors that
affect the Academic Performance Index (API). One factor that affects the API is the 10th-
21
grade passing rate for the CAHSEE. While the API is an important indicator of student
success, there continues to be skepticism about the extent to which California high school
graduates are prepared to enter higher education or a career. Hence, further research is
needed to determine the extent to which low-achieving large high schools are preparing
students for college or 21st-century careers. This study has the potential to inform state
policies and district funding priorities with respect to supplemental funding for
underperforming schools.
This study primarily used quantitative data to analyze pre-existing data for the
selected large high schools and the comparison schools. The pre-existing data sets were
collected from the California Department of Education. Following analyses of the
quantitative data, the researcher obtained school accreditation and accountability reports
and reviewed school websites and interviewed school principals. The researcher then
used qualitative research designs to conduct a document review and interview school
principals of schools that had an above-average increase in the A-G completion rate
during the time period of the research study.
Conclusion
Recognizing that too few high school graduates are completing high school
prepared for higher education or a 21st-century career, those interested in high schools
have recently taken a closer look at the nature of high schools in California and
throughout the nation. The issue of high school reform has even been an agenda item by
22
the National Governors Association in recent years. The national movement toward
graduating students from high school better equipped to enter a career or college, there is
now a need to provide greater support for high school reform efforts. A critical step in
high school reform efforts will be researching current patterns in high school
achievement. This is especially important for high schools that have historically been
identified as low performing.
This study provides additional information about high school reform efforts for
California’s large high schools. The second chapter of this study is a review of the
literature related to federal and state high school reform efforts. Particular attention
focused on high school improvement over the last 30 years. Chapter 3 describes the
methodology used to conduct the study. Within Chapter 3, there is a description of how
schools were selected for the study and descriptive information about the schools. The
data is presented and analyzed in Chapter 4. The analysis provides detailed information
about the A-G completion rate for the selected high schools and also compares the A-G
completion rate of the general population with the A-G completion rate for Latino and
African American students. Upon finding schools that have demonstrated above-average
A-G completion rates, the researcher conducted a review of schools by using the
school(s) accreditation report and other publicly accessible documents. The researcher
also interviewed school principals of these schools. Chapter 5 includes an interpretation
of the findings and recommendations for future research and actions. The
recommendations are specific to large low-performing high schools.
23
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
This study focused on a challenge experienced by large California high schools
that received state intervention funds in the early 2000s. The common challenge of these
high schools was how to prepare more students for college/career opportunities upon
graduation from high school. While there has been research related to how student
achievement has improved during the intervention period, the research has only focused
on overall school improvement as measured by student performance on the California
Standards Tests (CSTs) and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The
previous research does not demonstrate how high schools that received state intervention
funds have improved in preparing students for either college or the 21st-century
workplace. This study analyzed to what extent low-performing, large, California high
schools have prepared students for either college or the 21st-century workplace during
and after the period of time that intervention funds were provided. This study also
explored what strategies, if any, were utilized by low-performing high schools to
effectively increase the percentage of graduates to complete the A-G requirements.
The review of the literature includes research on national and state efforts to
prepare students for the current marketplace. The first section is dedicated to college and
career readiness efforts. The second section explores how intervention funds have been
24
allocated to California schools to improve student learning. The issue of the ethnic
achievement gap in California public schools as it relates to African and Latino American
students is the focus of section three. The fourth section highlights efforts to reform
national and California high schools.
College and Career Readiness
Dual Purpose of High Schools
The challenges facing today’s high schools are strikingly similar to the challenges
faced by high schools over a century ago. Entering the 20th century, national and
government leaders debated the role of high schools in preparing youth for life after high
school. There were some who believed that high schools should prepare an elite number
of students for college and the curriculum should focus on the “mental disciplines” that
would prepare students to think and reason. Others believed high schools should prepare
students for a vocation that could serve the local or national economy (Boyer, 1983).
Today, government, business, and educational leaders continue to discuss the purpose of
high schools and what courses students need to take during their high school years to
prepare for college or a career (Achieve, 2010; America Diploma Project, 2004;
Martinez, 2005). While the discussion about college and career readiness is similar to the
debate that occurred over 100 years ago, there are some critical differences.
The discussion in the early 1900s and throughout much of the 20th century largely
framed the high school purpose discussion as an “either or” question. High schools
25
assisted students in preparation for either college or a career. During the late 1800s and
early 1900s, there were very few youth who actually attended high school and even fewer
who went on to college. Consider there were about 500 high schools in 1870, and in
1890, less than 6% of high school-aged students were enrolled in a high school (Boyer,
1983; Synder & Dillow, 2010). Since students enrolled in high schools were primarily
the children of the elite, the emphasis was placed on preparing students for college. The
discussion began to change as more high schools developed throughout the nation and
more youth began attending high school.
Vocational Focus
While preparing students for college has been a consistent focus of high schools,
the focus on vocational education increased as more students began to attend high school.
A review of statistics from the Digest of Education Statistics illustrates the tremendous
growth in the percentage of high school-aged students who enroll in high school.
While just under 6% of high school-aged students were enrolled in a high school
in 1890, the percentage grew to about 14% by 1910 and reached over 50% by 1930. By
1963, the percentage of high school-aged students enrolled in a high school reached 90%,
and today the number is over 95% (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). With more students
attending high school and a national economy based on agriculture, service, and
manufacturing, many high schools responded by providing vocational education for
students (Boyer, 1983). Then, and even today, many high schools are referred to as
comprehensive high schools to highlight the foci on both college and a vocation. The
26
tendency to lean toward either college or career preparation has remained in place until
recently.
The Merging of College and Career Readiness
Currently, many educational stakeholders are concerned that too many high
school students are graduating unprepared for higher education or a 21st-century career.
There is also a growing movement suggesting that the skills and knowledge needed for
success in college are similar to the skills and knowledge needed for 21st-century careers
(Achieve, 2010; Education Trust, 2003; Martinez, 2005; NASSP, 1996; United States
Department of Labor, 1991). To help prepare high school students for college, university
scholars from around the nation developed the Knowledge and Skills for University
Success (KSUS) (as cited in Conley, 2005), and in April 2003 mailed a copy of the
KSUS to every public high school, state education departments, major universities, and
educational policy organizations. The KSUS were developed after three years of
research and represented the first comprehensive statement of what knowledge and skills
are needed to succeed in entry-level college courses (Conley, 2005).
Concerned with the high percentage of entry-level college students who required
remedial support, university scholars sought to more clearly define the knowledge and
skills necessary to succeed in entry-level college courses. The KSUS outlined the
knowledge and skills needed in English, mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences,
world language, and the arts. The KSUS document also provided educators, parents, and
students with sample college-level syllabi, student work samples, and teacher comments
27
on the work samples (Conley, 2005). It is interesting to note the similarities between the
KSUS and the recommendations from the SCANS report published in 1991.
Under President George H. Bush’s education plan, the Secretary’s Commission
on the Achievement of Necessary Skills (SCANS) was asked to clearly define what skills
were needed for employment and to develop a strategy of dissemination for the nation’s
schools, businesses, and homes (United States Department of Labor, 1991). The SCANS
report claimed that five competencies and a three-part foundation would be needed by
post-secondary education students and students in the 21st century. The five
competencies areas are resources, interpersonal, information, systems, and technology.
The three-part foundation includes basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities.
There are elements of the KSUS and SCANS that overlap.
Both the SCANS report and the KSUS sought to clarify expectations for students
exiting high schools. The SCANS report was significant because of its emphasis on
linking the high school program to the skills and knowledge needed for employment.
The SCANS report also argued that all students, regardless of their intentions to go to
college or the workplace, needed to be proficient in certain areas (United States
Department of Labor, 1991). The KSUS also aimed to clarify what skills and knowledge
would be needed for students to be able to enter college and not require remedial classes.
There are several common knowledge and skill sets noted in both the KSUS and SCANS
reports.
28
Several similarities can be found when comparing the KSUS and the SCANS
reports. In College Knowledge, Conley (2005) noted that learners must not only have
content knowledge, but must develop the habits of mind that will allow learners to do
something with the knowledge. Conley emphasized that learners must be able to solve a
problem, reach a conclusion, and clearly present a point of view. The thinking skills
section of the SCANS three-part foundation indicates that students must be able to think
creatively, make decisions, solve problems, visualize, know how to learn, and reason.
Besides emphasizing problem solving, both documents also emphasized that students
must be able to generate and analyze alternatives and select the best alternative.
From reviewing the KSUS and SCANS documents, it can be argued that greater
clarity is needed in describing what students need to know and be able to do to be
prepared for either entry-level college courses or a 21st-century career. This study was
not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of what high school graduates need to
know or be able to do. However, the review of the literature does indicate that more
educational stakeholders are beginning to argue that preparation for college or a 21stcentury career is similar. A later section of this literature review demonstrates that
students who take a rigorous high school course load are more likely to have a desirable
job in the future.
The movement toward the merging of college and career education continued in
1996 when the nation’s governors and corporate leaders developed the American
Diploma Project (ADP). The ADP network includes participation from 35 states and
29
encompasses 85% of all United States public school students. Concerned about the
diminishing value of a high school diploma, the network focuses on raising academic
standards and graduation requirements, improving assessments, and strengthening
accountability (Achieve, 2010). It is clear that political, business, and educational leaders
are focusing on what high schools must do to prepare more students for college or careers
in the 21st century.
An ADP study commissioned by Educational Testing Service researchers
Carnevale and Desrochers (2002) demonstrated that the indicators for success in college
or a 21st-century career are very similar. By conducting the National Educational
Longitudinal Survey (NELS), Carnevale and Desrochers sought to find the relationship
between education, employment, and earnings. The NELS tracked the educational and
employment progress of students who were eighth graders in 1988 and graduated high
school in 1992. The findings of the study indicated a strong relationship between taking
rigorous high school courses and being prepared for the 21st-century economy.
Those students who challenge themselves in high schools appeared to be better
prepared for the work world after graduating high school. The NELS findings indicated
that 84% of the students who held a highly paid professional job had taken Algebra II (or
higher) in high school. The study also found that 61% of students who held a well-paid
job, white-collar, skilled job had taken Algebra II or higher and 78% had taken Geometry
or higher. The study also noted that only 30% of students who currently held a low-paid
or low-skilled job had taken Algebra II or higher.
30
The A-G course completion requirements are a measure of rigorous coursework
used in California. The completion of the A-G requirements includes the completion of
courses such as Algebra II, Chemistry, and two years of a foreign language in addition to
four years of English and three years of social science. Students who complete the A-G
coursework successfully are able to enter the University of California or California State
University system upon graduating high school. Linking the A-G requirements to the
study conducted by Carnevale and Desrochers (2002) suggests that California students
who complete the A-G requirements in high school are better prepared for college or a
21st-century career.
The efforts to improve the preparation of high school graduates was and is largely
the result of national efforts to be competitive with other nations. Well paying jobs in the
United States are becoming increasingly dependent upon having a strong high school
foundational education (United States Department of Labor, 1991). For this reason the
educators, business leaders, and policy makers continue to explore ways to strengthen the
educational system.
The nation took notice when the National Commission on Excellence in
Education (NCEE) published A Nation at Risk in 1983. This report compared the United
States to other advanced nations. It also explored barriers to pursuing excellence in
public education; the effects social and educational changes have had on student
achievement, teaching, and learning; and the relationship between achievement in high
school and college admission requirements. A Nation at Risk challenged leaders to make
31
a commitment to public education. The national commitment to education can be further
understood by analyzing funding trends over the last 50-60 years.
Since the late 1950s, the United States federal government has substantially
increased its level of commitment to public education. The level of commitment
increased after A Nation at Risk was published in 1983. Despite the increased levels of
funding, California and the nation continue to explore how funds can be utilized to
increase student achievement. Due to changing demographics, technology, and a global
economy, schools are once again being asked to meet the needs of the nation. The next
section of the review of the literature focuses on how federal and state funds have been
used to support public schools in improving student achievement.
Funding Interventions for California High Schools
State and local governments largely fund public schools in the United States. In
many states, including California, federal funds account for less than 10% of the revenues
for public schools. During the 2004-2005 school year, California public schools received
9% of its funds from the federal government. Federal funds, also known as categorical
funds, were used to support specific kinds of students or programs (Timer, 2006). While
California schools are largely dependent on state and local revenues, both state and
federal dollars have been allocated to fund intervention programs for students most in
need of special assistance.
32
Federal Assistance to Public Schools
The federal assistance to public schools did not begin until the there was a
national interest in improving public schools. In 1958, the influence of Sputnik placed
school improvement on top of the national agenda (Boyer, 1983). The 1957 Soviet
Union’s successful launch of the satellite Sputnik into space highlighted the need for the
United States to improve in mathematics and science. The federal government responded
by introducing the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Later, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 and included support for socioeconomically disadvantaged youth. After 1965, federal funding to schools expanded to
several categories of students including special education, gifted and talented students,
and English learners (ESEA, 1965).
Title I
The purpose of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 was to improve the academic achievement of disadvantaged students. Recognizing
the lack of achievement for several students, Title I was created to ensure that all students
have a fair, equal and significant opportunity to earn a high-quality education. Title I
aimed to ensure that disadvantaged students achieved a minimum level of academic
proficiency on state academic assessments (ESEA, 1965). Through Title I, the federal
government provided over $25 billion to states throughout the nation in the 2007 fiscal
year (United States Department of Education, 2010a). The NASSP (2005) reported that
annually approximately 85% of Title I funds go to elementary and middle schools. The
33
NASSP also reported that high schools received approximately 5% of Title I dollars and
educate 28% of the nation’s student population. While ESEA provided states and local
schools districts additional financial resources to support student learning, it did not
explicitly address the need to improve academic achievement for Latino and African
American students.
The language in the Title I regulation specifies student groups that should benefit
directly from Title I funding. The regulation states that the funds should meet the
educational needs of low-achieving students in the nation’s highest poverty schools,
limited English proficient students, migratory students, children with disabilities,
“Indian” children, neglected or delinquent students, and young children in need of
reading assistance (ESEA, 1965). It is interesting to note that Title I language mentions
Native American students, but does not mention Latino and African American students.
Given the low achievement and education data of Latino and African American students,
it may be wise to include within Title I the need to explicitly address the educational
needs of Latino and African American students. The decision to not mention Latino or
African American students is likely related to national difficulties with discussing the
intersection of race, ethnicity, and educational outcomes (Camp, 2009; Singleton &
Linton, 2006).
Comprehensive School Reform
In addition to Title I, federal categorical funding support for public schools
continued into the late 1990s and 2000s. In 1998, the federal government initiated the
34
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program through the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. The CSR program was signed into law in 2002 and provided $308
million to public schools (United States Department of Education, 2010b). The intent of
the CSR program was to provide funds to schools so the schools could make wholeschool reform so all students, and particularly low-performing students, could be
proficient in a state’s academic standards. To receive CSR funds, school districts had to
apply to the state on behalf of schools in the district.
Supporting Low Performing California Schools
Prior to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, California passed the
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) in 1999. The PSAA established a resultsbased accountability system for California schools. Some critical components of the
PSAA were: a) the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR), b) the California
Standards Test (CST), and c) the Academic Performance Index (API). The STAR
consisted of a series of common assessments given to students in grades 2 through 11 and
common standards-based assessments for selected special education students. The CSTs
include common standards-based assessments in English Language Arts, mathematics,
science, and social science at the high school level. In elementary school, students are
tested only in English language arts and mathematics. Results of the CSTs are the
number one factor in determining a school’s and district’s API. Every public school and
district receives an API based on how well students do on standards-based assessments.
The original PSAA included various sanctions and rewards for schools and districts.
35
In 2001, the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP)
was established as part of PSAA to provide funding assistance to the state’s lowestperforming schools. Later in the mid-2000s, the High Priority Schools Grant Program
(HPSGP) replaced the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program
(II/USP) and continued to provide funding support for low-performing schools (Harr,
Parrish, Socias, & Gubbins, 2007). As a part of the HPSGP, the state’s lowest ranked
schools, as determined by the API, were provided $400 per student per year over a threeyear period to implement improvement strategies. The schools were provided $50,000
for a planning year to develop an action plan for the school’s improvement efforts.
Schools that did not make expected progress after three years were subject to sanctions.
It is likely that many schools affected by the state’s accountability system were
also affected by the federal accountability. Schools were challenged to meet goals
established by both the state and federal accountability systems. For high schools, the
dual accountability systems may have led to focusing more attention on improving the
achievement of the lowest performing students and less on preparing all students to
graduate ready to enter college or a 21st-century career.
While the accountability systems affected all schools, high schools may have
focused more resources on the lowest performing students. California students are placed
in one of five performance bands in tested subjects based on the CST results. The levels
are: a) Advanced, b) Proficient, c) Basic, d) Below Basic, and e) Far Below Basic. The
state accountability system awarded schools more points for improving students who
36
scored at a far below basic level than by improving a student who scored at the basic
level. The improved scores of the most challenged students would be a significant
benefit to a school’s API. Also, the federal accountability system required schools to
make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). For the high schools, AYP was determined by
the percentage of 10th grade students who passed the California High Schools Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) on the first attempt. Since over 75% of 10th-grade students throughout the
state are likely to pass the CAHSEE on the first attempt, high schools likely focused more
on the lowest performing students (CDE, 2008a).
Achievement Gap
The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent state intervention
funding has impacted the college and career preparation for students at low-performing,
large, public high schools in California. Given the state and national attention regarding
the issue of the ethnic gap in achievement among student groups, this study further
analyzed the extent to which state intervention funds have impacted African and Latino
American students in preparing for college or a career. This section first reviews state
and national achievement gap data as it pertains to African and Latino American students.
Next, it provides an overview of federal and state efforts to reduce the achievement gap.
National Achievement Gap Data
The gap in student performance on common assessments has been widely
discussed over the last 15 years. When comparing student achievement on national and
37
state assessments, it is obvious that African and Latino American students are performing
lower than certain Asian and European American students. The National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) is a common assessment taken by students throughout the
nation. The results of a NAEP mathematics assessment given to 13-year-old students in
2004 illustrate the gap in achievement between African American and European
American students. With a scale score between 0 and 500, European American 13-yearold students scored 282 and African American 13-year-old students scored 250. The gap
in achievement, 32 points, was the achievement gap between these two ethnic groups on
the 2004 NAEP mathematics assessment for 13-year-olds (Vanneman, Hamilton,
Baldwin Anderson, & Rahman, 2009).
The results of the 2004 NAEP assessment in reading scores for 13-year-old
students were similar to the mathematics gap. With a scale score between 0 and 500,
European Americans scored 20 points higher than African American students. On this
assessment, European Americans scored 264 while African Americans scored 244
(Vanneman et al., 2009). As was the case for the mathematics scores, the gap in
achievement is evident when the scores are disaggregated by gender. The gap in student
achievement as displayed by the NAEP data is also evident in data from California’s
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system.
California Achievement Data
A number of assessments as part of California’s Public Schools Accountability
Act (PSAA) demonstrate the gap in achievement between students from various ethnic
38
groups. The gaps in achievement are similar to the gaps displayed on the NAEP. In
comparing data on two of California’s assessments for Latino and African American
students to that of Asian and European American students, the scores of the latter group
of students are consistently much higher than the scores of the former group of students.
On the 2006 California Standards Test (CST), Asian and European American
students scored significantly better than Latino and African American students. In
English language arts, 64% of Asian students and 60% of European American students
scored at least at the proficient level while only 27% of Latino students and 29% of
African American students were proficient. In mathematics, the results were similar. At
least 67% of Asian American students were at least proficient and 53% of European
American students were proficient on the 2006 CST compared to 30% of Latino
American students and 24% of African American students (CDE, 2006). The pattern of
achievement disparity is also evident when analyzing the results on the 2006 California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
As mentioned earlier, the CAHSEE is a component of the Public Schools
Accountability Act and became a graduation requirement for most students in 2006. The
CAHSEE is viewed as a high-stakes test since all but some special education students
must pass the CAHSEE to graduate. The CAHSEE results are another measure of
academic achievement that illustrates the gap in achievement between various groups of
students.
39
In 2006, the 10th-grade Asian and European American students passed the
CAHSEE at a much higher rate than both Latino and African American students. In
English language arts, 87% of Asian American students and 90% of European American
students passed the exam on the first attempt compared to 66% of both Latino and
African American students. In mathematics, the results were similar. European
Americans 10th-grade students had a 88% first-time passing rate and 92% of Asian
American students passed on the first attempt. For Latino American students, the passing
rate was 66%, and 57% of African American students passed on the first attempt (CDE,
2010b). This gap in achievement has caught the attention of educators and policymakers
throughout the state.
California’s response to the achievement gap. In November 2007, the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) Jack O’Connell issued a call to action to
address the achievement gap. He convened the California P-16 (Pre-kindergarten
through High Education) Council to “develop, implement, and sustain a specific,
ambitious plan that holds the State of California accountable for creating the conditions
necessary for closing the achievement gap” (CDE, 2008b, p. 1). The P-16 council’s
report argued that making schools work for all students, regardless of their background or
condition is essential for the economic and social well-being of the state. The SSPI and
the Council also presumed that the barriers to student achievement could be grouped into
four main areas: a) access, b) culture and climate, c) expectations, and d) strategies. The
council issued recommendation in the four areas.
40
The council had a total of 14 recommendations in the four areas. In the access
area, the council recommended providing high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, better
alignment of the educational system from pre-kindergarten to college, and the
development of partnerships to close the achievement gap. In the culture and climate
area, the council recommended providing culturally relevant professional development
for all school personnel and conducting climate surveys. The four recommendations in
the expectations area were to augment the accountability system, model rigor, focus on
academic rigor, and improve the awards system. The last area, strategies, had five
recommendations. They were to create robust information systems, provide professional
development on the use of data, share successful practices, fully implement the California
K-12 High-Speed Network, and create opportunities for school district flexibility.
There is a direct link between SSPI’s P-16 Council and this study. This study
focused on the effects state intervention funds have had on preparing students in lowperforming high schools for college or a 21st-century career. This study especially
focused on post-secondary preparation of Latino and African American students. The
Council’s report emphasizes that the school community must establish a culture of high
expectations for all students. Similar to the Committee of Ten’s report over 110 years
ago, the Council’s recommendation argued that the best preparation for life is to prepare
students for higher education. The Committee of Ten argued that there was to be no
significant difference between preparation for college and preparation for work (Boyer,
1983). Similarly, the Council’s report acknowledges that there are current legitimate
41
debates about whether sequences of courses needed to enter the University of California
or the California State University system are appropriate for only college-bound students
or if the courses will equally serve students aiming toward a career after high school
(CDE, 2008b). In this study, the researcher takes the position that the A-G requirements
are the best measure of whether or not students are prepared for college or a 21st-century
career.
Both national and California leaders are calling for an increase in rigor for high
school students (Achieve, 2010; American Diploma Project, 2004; CDE, 2008b;
Education Trust, 2003; Martinez, 2005; National Education Summit, 2005). The
California Department of Education recognizes that the state must be able to educate
more students at an increased level of rigor if the state is to remain economically
competitive and maintain an enjoyable standard of living. State educators, business, and
political leaders are particularly concerned about the disparity in the percentage of
students who earn a college degree. A study by Brady, Hout, and Stiles (2005)
highlighted the disparity in youth earning a high school degree by ethnic group. The
study, Return on Investment, found that nationwide 17% of African American youth and
only 11% of Latino youth had earned a college degree in 2005. This is significantly less
than the national rate of 34% of youth who had earned a college degree in 2005.
California’s A-G Completion Rate. In California, the gap in achievement is also
evident in the percentage of high school graduates who complete the A-G requirements.
In 2008, 59.2% of Asian American graduates and 39.8% of European American
42
graduates completed the A-G requirements (CDE, 2010a). The wide gap between Asian
American and European American students exemplifies the need to improve the level of
rigor for all students in the state. The need is further amplified when looking at the
percentage of Latino and African American graduates who completed A-G requirements.
In 2008, only 22.5% of Latino American students and 23.3% of African American
students completed the A-G requirements (CDE, 2010a). The data noted above illustrates
the challenges faced by California’s public schools in preparing students for college and
21st-century careers.
The SSPI’s Council recognizes that educating all students is extremely important
for California given the changing demographics in the state and the economically
competitive marketplace. The Council’s report stated, “We strongly believe all children
can learn; thus, it is critical that the state confront and reform those practices that are
holding subgroups of students back” (CDE, 2008b, p.18). The report emphasizes that
educators must have courageous discussions about the impact of race and racism if the
state is to make progress in educating the state’s ethnically diverse student population.
Educational consultant Glenn Singleton (Singleton & Linton, 2006) calls for educators to
have courageous conversations about race, racism and student learning.
Coinciding with increased national and state conversations about the achievement
gap has been a renewed effort to reform high schools to meet the needs of all students.
Because of an increasingly diverse student population, educating all students is
particularly important for the nation and several states. The next section of this literature
43
review is an exploration of the nation’s and California’s effort to reform high schools so
more students are prepared for either college or a career upon graduating high school.
High School Reform
Thus far, this review of the literature has addressed the evolution of the purpose
of high schools in the United States, how special funding has been allocated to support
public schools in California and the nation, and the issue of the achievement gap. Over
time, high schools have been designed to prepare some students for college and others for
a vocational career. In the 1950s, the federal government took an interest in public
schools for national defense reasons. This led to the federal government providing
funding for specific programs in public high schools and universities. The state of
California also allocated additional funds to support programs for particular students.
Growing student ethnic diversity and the rise of common national and state assessments
have highlighted the gap in achievement between students from various ethnic groups.
This review now focuses on the nation’s and California’s efforts to reform high schools.
The current efforts to reform public high schools is a response to the recognition that too
few high school students are graduating prepared for college or a 21st-century career.
National High School Reform Efforts
According to a Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) article
entitled, Meeting Five Critical Challenges of High School Reform: Lessons from
Research on Three Reform Models, high school reform has moved to the top of the
44
education policy agenda (as cited in Quint, 2006). Until recently, much of the efforts to
improve the nation’s public schools primarily focused on elementary schools. There was
very little focus on improving high schools. Now, political, business, community, and
educational leaders are beginning to question the structural design of high schools and are
asking how high schools can better prepare more students for college or a 21st-century
career (Achieve, 2010; America Diploma Project, 2004; Education Trust, 2003; NASSP,
1996; National Education Summit, 2005; Quint, 2006). In 1996, the nation’s governors
and corporate leaders created Achieve to focus on restoring the value of a high school
diploma; however, the push for an increase in rigor began in the 1980s.
The trend toward increasing the rigor in high schools began in the 1980s when
many states modified their graduation requirements to mirror the New Basics curriculum
recommended by the Nation Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). The New
Basics called for all high school students to complete four years of English, three years of
mathematics, science, and social science, and a half-year of computer science. For
college-bound students, the New Basics recommended the completion of two year of a
foreign language (NCEE, 1983). A study by Planty, Provasnik, and Daniel (2007) found
that from 1982 to 2005, high school students were taking and earning more credits in the
academic subjects noted above. The study found there was a decrease in vocational
education coursework of high schools during the same period of time. Since the NCEE
issued A Nation at Risk in 1983 there have been several efforts to reform the nation’s
high schools.
45
Redefining high school. In the 1980s and 1990s, the momentum to restructure
public high schools has led to the current focus of educational stakeholders. In High
School: A Report on Secondary Education in America, Ernest Boyer (1983) detailed the
foundational roots of the American high school and issued a number of recommendations
for change. In 1991, the United States Department of Labor sponsored the Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). The SCANS report outlined the
skills and knowledge necessary for high school students to earn a good job after finishing
high school. According to SCANS, students who left high schools without the skills
noted in the SCANS report would have limited low-wage employment opportunities that
would be interrupted by periods of unemployment. The employment opportunities would
have little chance to climb the career ladder that would lead to better wages (United
States Department of Labor, 1991). The SCANS report was supported by another
significant document published in the 1990s.
Breaking ranks. In 1996, the NASSP published Breaking Ranks: Changing an
American Institution. This document was not a research document, but a set of principles
for practitioners to consider redesign efforts. In Breaking Ranks the NASSP issued 80
recommendations as a roadmap for high school reform. As noted in the title, this
document was the first national effort to challenge the foundational structure of the high
school institution. The recommendations from the NASSP encouraged educational
leaders to challenge the status quo and to aim for equity of outcomes instead of equity of
participation. The NASSP called for the creation of continuous improvement high school
46
cultures where all students have the opportunity to achieve at high levels. The NASSP’s
effort to reform high schools continued into the 2000s.
As a follow-up to Breaking Ranks, The NASSP published Breaking Ranks II:
Strategies for Leading High School Reform in 2004 and Breaking Ranks: A Field Guide
for Leading Change in 2009. Breaking Ranks II focused on three core areas for
improvement: a) collaboration, b) personalization, and c) curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. Breaking Ranks II outlined seven cornerstone strategies and 31
recommendations for high school leaders ready to engage in reform. The intent of the
Breaking Ranks Field Guide was to develop the capacity of leaders and members of high
school educators to engage in reform efforts. In response to the call to reform, the
nation’s high schools, districts, and various public schools seem to have focused on a few
restructuring efforts aimed to improve overall student achievement.
National reform models. Three popular high school reform models have been
attempted in various high schools. The three models are career academies, First Things
First, and Talent Development. The career academy model uses a school-within-a-school
approach that attempts to integrate academic and occupational curriculum. The First
Things First model favors the development of four-year theme-based small learning
communities that emphasize relationship development through advisory and advocacy
structures. This model also focuses on instructional improvement efforts. Finally, the
Talent Development model includes ninth grade success programs and career academies
for 10th- to 12th-grade students. The Talent Development model may also include block
47
scheduling and recovery courses for ninth-grade students behind in English language arts
or math (Quint, 2006). The three reform models include various components of
recommendations from the NAASP. Some of those recommendations closely linked to
the reform models are developing individualized learning plans for students, increasing
rigor to prepare students for both the workforce and post-secondary education, and
improving the reading and writing skills of students (Martinez, 2005). Along with the
various high school reform efforts noted above, educators have recently begun to
encourage schools to develop professional learning communities where school personnel
focus more extensively on student learning.
Professional Learning Communities
Stemming from the effective school research of educator Ron Edmonds
(Association for Effective Schools, 2010), various educators have recently called for
school personnel to develop high functioning professional learning communities (PLCs)
where student learning is the essential focus of school business. In Learning by Doing,
the authors indicated that a PLC is composed of collaborative teams whose members
work interdependently to achieve common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all
(Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). For a number of years, teachers have worked
independently in work environments that do not promote interaction with other teachers
in the school. This was true even when teachers taught the same course within a school
(Hord & Sommers, 2008). A central belief of advocates of PLCs is that educators must
work together to maximize student learning (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004;
48
Dufour et al., 2006; Schmoker, 2006). In high-functioning PLCs, educators focus on
responding to three central questions.
Promoters of PLCs stress the importance of keeping student learning, not
teaching, at the center of education professionals’ conversations and actions (Blankstein,
2004; Dufour et al., 2004, Dufour et al., 2006; Schmoker, 2006). In high-functioning
PLCs, educators focus on addressing three critical questions: a) What is it we want all
students to learn – by grade level, by course, and by unit of instruction?, b) How will we
know when each student has acquired the intended knowledge and skills?, and c) How
will we respond when students experience initial difficulty so we can improve upon
current levels of learning? Through the laser-like focus on student learning, educators set
specific and measurable goals that focus on student achievement. The recent focus on
PLCs has a link to previous national movements to improve education at the secondary
level.
Unlike other reform efforts, professional learning communities are more of
process than a program. However, many program-centered reform efforts may benefit
from the PLC process. Boyer (1983) recommended that large high schools with over
2000 students should develop a smaller more supportive structure for students.
Additionally, Lee (2001) recommended that schools are likely to benefit from creating
smaller school-within-a-school models after researching the effectiveness of high schools
with respect to school size. Lee (2001) did caution educators about the possibilities that
school-within-a-school structures may create specialty programs that differentiate
49
students by ability, interest, behavior, or background. Later, many high schools
developed school-within-a-school models, such as houses and academies.
Educators’ attempts to develop the small learning communities hoped teachers
would be able to focus more on student learning outcomes if students were a part of a
smaller structure. Advocates of PLCs indicate that PLCs are likely to function better if
educators are working with a small group of other educators (Dufour et al., 2006). Lee
(2001) also indicated that smaller school structures are most likely to better function as a
community. Any group of educators who are part of a program, department, grade level,
or course-alike may operate as a professional learning community as long as the focus is
on student learning and the conversations and actions are guided by the three essential
questions. Educators Hord and Sommers (2008, p. 9) outline the components of
professional learning communities in Table 2.
50
Table 2
Components of Professional Learning Communities
Shared Beliefs,
Shared and
Values, and
Supportive
Vision
Leadership
The staff
Administrators
consistently
and faculty
focuses on
hold shared
students’
power and
learning,
authority for
which is
making
strengthened
decisions.
by the staff’s
own
continuous
learning –
hence,
professional
learning
community.
Collective
Learning and
Its Application
What the
community
determines to
learn and how
they will learn
it in order to
address
students’
learning needs
is the bottom
line.
Supportive
Conditions
Shared Personal
Practice
Structural
factors
provide the
physical
requirements:
time, place to
meet for
community
work,
resources and
policies, etc.
to support
collaboration.
Relational
factors
support the
community’s
human and
interpersonal
development,
openness,
truth telling,
and focusing
on attitudes of
respect and
caring among
the members.
Community
members give
and receive
feedback that
supports their
individual
improvement
and that of the
organization
From a national perspective, there has been discussion about high school reform over the
last 25 years. The reform efforts have captured the attention of political, business, and
51
educational leaders throughout the nation. This review of the literature now focuses on
California’s efforts to reform its high schools.
California High School Reform
Like other states in the nation, California is grappling with how to prepare more
students for college and 21st-century careers. Through the Public Schools Accountability
Act (PSAA), state legislators increased the support given to the state’s lowest performing
schools. As noted earlier, schools receiving intervention funds were expected to develop
an action plan to increase student achievement and were required to select an external
support provider for the school. The measurement of success for the intervention schools
was based on how the school met its Academic Performance Index (API) or Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. The state and accountability measure that focused solely
on improvement in student performance on standardized tests may have detracted from
focusing on preparing more students for college or 21st-century careers. This study
explored whether or not efforts to improve student performance in low-performing high
schools had a spillover benefit of preparing a greater percentage of students for college or
21st-century careers.
State political and education leaders in California have called for the
improvement in public schools; however, there has been little concentrated effort to
improve the state’s high schools. Recently, the state has focused more on high school
improvement by encouraging a multiple pathway approach for students in grades 9
through 12.
52
California’s recent emphasis on supporting multiple pathways has evolved from
the cornerstones of Breaking Ranks’s principles of rigor, relevance, and relationships
(NASSP, 1996). Encouraging high schools to develop multiple pathways involves
linking students’ courses to postsecondary opportunities. Ideally, students choosing a
pathway would experience a rigorous curriculum of core and practical classes that would
prepare students for either college or a 21st-century career upon graduating high school.
The learning experience would be relevant due to the connection to an area of interest
selected by the student. In a multiple pathways approach, students build relationships
with staff and students who share a common interest. In the report, Multiple Pathways to
Student Success: Envisioning the New California High School, the California Department
of Education (2010c) called for an expansion of the multiple pathways approach to
provide a more cohesive and rigorous learning experience for high school students that
would prepare students for more opportunities upon graduating high school.
Conclusion
Schools today are being asked to prepare students for college and 21st-century
careers. During most of the 20th century, many educators developed high school course
pathways that prepared students for either college or a vocational career. Now, many
educators, business leaders, and politicians are beginning to take the position that all
students must take a rigorous high school pathway that prepares students for either
53
college or a 21st-century career. There is a growing belief that the skills and knowledge
needed for college are similar to the skills and knowledge needed for 21st-century careers.
Recognizing that high schools must better prepare more students for a more
competitive and global economy, both the federal government and the state of California
have begun to provide additional resources to high schools (ADP, 2004). Through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and grants, the federal government has
provided additional support to high schools. In California, high schools have received
intervention funds and grants to increase the academic achievement of students (Harr et
al., 2007). Both federal and state educational stakeholders are now focusing on strategies
to prepare more students for college or 21st-century careers.
54
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The intent of this research was to analyze the effects state intervention funds have
had on preparing students in large, low-performing, California high schools for college or
careers. The researcher assumed the A-G course completion rate is the most appropriate
measure of whether students are prepared for both college and a 21st-century career.
Many education, business, and political leaders have taken the position that the skills and
knowledge needed for college are very similar to the skills and knowledge needed for a
21st-century career. This study addresses the following research questions:
Research Question 1: Of the selected large California high schools that received
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/USP) state intervention
funds in the early 2000s, to what extent was there a significant difference in the
A-G completion rate from 2001 to 2004, 2005, and 2008?
Research Question 2: To what extent was there a significant difference in A-G
completion rates between large California high schools that received II/USP state
intervention funds and a similar group of large California high schools that did
not receive II/USP state intervention funds in 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008?
55
Research Question 3: When compared to overall school data, were there significant
differences in A-G course completion rates for Latino and African American
students?
Research Question 4: If any of the selected large California high schools that received
II/USP intervention funds had an above-average increase in the rate of students
completing the A-G requirements, what components may have led to the change?
Research Design
This study used a mixed methods design with both quantitative and qualitative
research techniques. Quantitative analyses methods were used for the first phase of the
study, and a qualitative research approach was used during the second phase of the study.
In phase one, a quantitative research design was used to answer research
questions 1, 2, and 3. The first phase of the study consisted of an analysis of the A-G
completion rate for 32 large California low-performing high schools that received state
intervention funds between 2001 and 2005. The first phase of the study compared the AG completion rate of the 32 large California low-performing high schools to the A-G
completion rate of 32 similar large California high schools that did not receive state
intervention funds. The study analyzed the A-G completion rate of selected schools for
the 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years. The reason for selecting these particular
graduating classes is explained later in this chapter. Included were analyses of the A-G
completion rate of African and Latino American students.
56
Three cohorts of schools received II/USP funding in the early 2000s. The first
cohort began receiving funds in 2000-01 while the second and third cohorts began
receiving II/USP funding in 2001-02 and 2002-03, respectively. For this study, the
baseline year for comparison will be the graduating class of 2001 since, with the
exception of cohort one, the class of 2001 did not benefit from II/USP funds. Even with
the graduating class of 2001 within schools in cohort one, it is unlikely that graduating
seniors benefited from II/USP funding because the schools would have received funding
at some point during these students’ senior year. It would be very difficult for schools to
implement new programs or add staffing during the 2001 school year that would have
benefited the class of 2001.
Since II/USP funds were provided to the cohort of schools at varying times,
different graduating classes may have directly benefited from II/USP funds from one to
three years. Three cohorts of schools received II/USP funds between 2002 and 2005.
For cohort one, the graduating classes of 2003 and 2004 may have benefited from three
years of II/USP funding. In cohort two, the graduating classes of 2004 and 2005 may
have benefited from three years of II/USP funding, and in cohort three, the graduating
classes of 2005 and 2006 may have benefited from three years of II/USP funding. The
researcher focused on graduating classes that may have directly benefited from two to
three years of II/USP funding (see Table 3). In each cohort of schools, the graduating
classes of 2004 and 2005 would have benefited from at least two years of II/USP funding.
57
Table 3
Graduating Classes for Cohorts One, Two, and Three of II/USP
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
Class of:
Funded 2001-2003
Funded 2002-2004
Funded 2003-2005
2001
1 year
0
0
2002
2 years
1 year
0
2003
3 years
2 years
0
2004
3 years
3 years
2 years
2005
2 years
3 years
3 years
2006
1 year
2 years
3 years
2007
0
1 year
2 years
2008
0
0
1 year
The researcher also analyzed the A-G completion rate for the sample of high
schools for the graduating class of 2008 to determine if there were any lasting effects of
II/USP funds on the A-G completion rates. Schools able to sustain increased levels of AG completion rates beyond the funding period may have been able to implement
programs or systems not dependent upon II/USP funds. They may also have allocated
existing resources or added additional funding to support programs or systems funded by
II/USP funds. Depending on the results of the analyses, in phase two of the study, the
researcher explored further what may have occurred during and after the funding period.
58
The challenges faced by large high schools are unique given the number of
students and staff. For the purpose of this study, the researcher defined large as high
schools with enrollments over 1200 students. In Restructuring High Schools for Equity
and Excellence: What Works, Lee (2001) highlighted some of the challenges of being a
large high school. Studying over 9000 students in 800 schools, Lee found that schools
with fewer than 1000 students are both more effective and more equitable in terms of
student achievement in math and reading. Lee acknowledged that many high schools are
designed to have more than 1000 students for economic and program opportunity
reasons. The purpose of this study was not to debate the pros and cons of large and small
high schools, but to explore components that may lead to greater student achievement for
large high schools identified as low-performing.
The rationale for using a quantitative research design in phase one lies within the
foundational origins of a positivist perspective. “The positivist perspective reasons that
theory can be used to explain, predict, and control organizational activity” (Bess & Dee,
2008, p. 2). In this study, 32 selected schools received an input in the form of state
intervention funds with the intent of improving student-learning outcomes as measured
by student performance on standardized tests. The researcher analyzed whether the input
(II/USP funds) had a spillover effect on the A-G completion rate.
The second phase of the study utilized a qualitative research design to answer
research question 4. The researcher analyzed the results of phase one of the study and
59
identified which large low-performing California high schools, if any, had an aboveaverage increase in the A-G completion rate.
Population
The population of schools was large California high schools that received state
II/USP intervention funds in the early 2000s and a comparison group of large California
high schools that did not receive state intervention funds. For the purpose of this study,
the researcher randomly selected a sample of 32 low-performing, large high schools that
received state intervention funds between 2001 and 2005. The 32 low-performing, large
high schools were schools that qualified for the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program (II/USP). The schools that received II/USP intervention funds were
schools in deciles 1-5 based on their scores on the Academic Performance Index. A
group of 32 comparison schools were selected from large high schools that did not
receive II/USP funds between 2001 and 2005. Attempts were made to select a sample of
comparison schools that had similar Academic Performance Index characteristics as the
sample of intervention schools. For this study, a large high school was defined as public
schools having an enrollment of at least 1200 students in grades 9-12.
The 32 intervention schools included in the study had API rankings ranging from
1 to 5. The 32 comparison schools were schools selected to match the API rankings of
the intervention schools. The comparison schools were selected by using the list of
similar school listings through the California Department of Education (2010a) website.
60
A study by the American Institute for Research indicated that most eligible schools took
advantage of the opportunity to receive state intervention funds (Harr et al., 2007). Thus,
it was difficult locating a comparison set of large, low-performing, California high
schools that did not receive state intervention funds.
Data Collection
The first phase of the study involved an analysis of the A-G completion rate of 32
large, low-performing, California high schools and 32 comparison high schools. The
data was collected from a public information database through the California Department
of Education (2010a). The CDE database provides A-G completion rates for California’s
high schools and the results are also disaggregated by ethnicity. To maintain the
anonymity of the selected schools, the researcher assigned an alphabetical code to each
school.
The second phase of the study utilized a qualitative research design to identify
what components, if any, were in place that may have led to an above-average increase in
the A-G completion rate for the large, low-performing California high schools. The
researcher contacted the large, low-performing, California high schools that had an
increase in the A-G completion rate that was near or above the mean average increase in
the A-G completion rate to obtain the schools’ latest WASC reports and/or the schools’
accountability report cards. Some of these schools had their WASC report or School
Accountability Report Card available on their website. The researcher attempted to
61
contact the principal or a site leader of the school to further investigate what components
may have led to the increase in the A-G completion rate of students. Through an
interview, the researcher asked principals or site leaders to list the components that may
have led to an increase in students completing the A-G course requirements between
2001 and 2005.
Analysis of Data
The first phase of the study analyzed A-G completion rate data using both pairedsamples t-tests to evaluate within group significance and independent-sample t-tests to
evaluate significance for between group comparisons. Within group analyses involved
evaluating significance of the set of intervention schools during multiple school years.
The paired-samples t-test was used to answer the first and third research question. The
independent-samples t-test was used to evaluate the significance between the mean
averages of the intervention and comparison set of schools. The researcher used the
independent-samples t-test to answer the second research question. Included in the first
phase of the study is a comparison of the A-G completion rate of Latino and African
American students for selected high schools.
A qualitative research design was used for phase 2 of the study. The reason the
researcher used a qualitative research design was to gain a better understanding of why
some schools may have had an above-average increase in the A-G completion rate for
students. According to Merriam (1998), qualitative research helps to understand and
62
explain the meaning of social phenomena. By using a qualitative research design for the
second phase of the study, the researcher hoped to identify program components that may
have led to an above-average increase in the A-G completion rate for the selected large
low-performing California high schools.
For each school included in phase two of the study, the researcher attempted to
analyze data from one or two sources for each school. A document review was
conducted to analyze the most recent accreditation report and/or accountability report
card for selected schools if these reports were available. The other source of data
included information obtained from a phone interview with the principal or designated
site leader.
63
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
This research focused on the extent to which large, California, low-performing
high schools have prepared students for college or 21st-century careers after receiving
state intervention funds in the early 2000s. The schools selected for the study were
chosen from a population of schools that received Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools funds over a three-year period of time. The
findings in this study were intended to address the following research questions:
Research Question 1: Of the selected large California high schools that received
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/USP) state intervention
funds in the early 2000s, to what extent was there a significant difference in the
A-G completion rate from 2001 to 2004, 2005, and 2008?
Research Question 2: To what extent was there a significant difference in A-G
completion rates between large California high schools that received II/USP state
intervention funds and a similar group of large California high schools that did
not receive II/USP state intervention funds in 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008?
Research Question 3: When compared to overall school data, were there significant
differences in A-G course completion rates for Latino and African American
students?
64
Research Question 4: If any of the selected large California high schools that received
II/USP intervention funds had an above-average increase in the rate of students
completing the A-G requirements, what components may have led to the change?
This chapter shares the results of the study. The first section provides an
overview of descriptive characteristics of both the intervention and comparison schools
included in the study. The second section presents and analyzes the quantitative data
collected in the study. The next section addresses the findings in relation to the first three
research questions, and the last section shares results of the qualitative aspect of the study
and answers the fourth research question.
Descriptive Characteristics
Enrollment Size
This research focused on large California high schools that received immediate
intervention/underperforming schools funds in the early 2000s. For the purposes of this
study, the researcher defined large as having at least 1200 students in grades 9-12.
Recognizing that school enrollment is fluid, the researcher selected school enrollment for
the 2001 school year to determine which schools met the criteria for the study. The 2001
school year was selected since the first cohort of II/USP schools began receiving funds in
the 2001-2002 school year. Although 1200 was used to determine the minimum
enrollment size for schools to be included in the study, a number of schools had student
populations that far exceeded 1200 students.
65
The enrollment size for schools included in the study varied greatly; however, the
majority of schools had enrollments between 2000 and 2999 students. From the
intervention schools, enrollment ranged from 1259 to 4622 students. The range of
enrollment for the comparison schools was from 1477 to 4611 students. Table 4
illustrates the span of enrollment sizes of schools in the study.
Table 4
School Enrollment Size
Enrollment Size
Intervention Schools (N=32)
Comparison Schools (N=32)
1200 to 1999 students
11
6
2000 to 2999 students
16
17
3000 to 3999 students
3
7
4000 or more
2
2
Table 4 shows that of the 32 included intervention schools, 27 had school
enrollments between 1200 and 2999 students, whereas 23 of the 32 comparison schools
had school enrollment in the same enrollment range. The table further illustrates that
both the intervention and comparison schools had two schools with enrollment over 4000
students. The overall enrollment average for intervention schools was 2328 and 2616 for
comparison schools.
This research focused on college and career preparation for large, low-performing
California high schools and did not make any correlations between school size and
student academic improvement efforts. The schools selected for this study had to be
66
considered in the lower half of high schools in the state as measured by the Academic
Performance Index (API). While all of the schools met the API criteria, a range of API
rankings existed for both the intervention and comparison schools.
Academic Performance Index Characteristics
The Academic Performance Index (API) of schools in the study were in the
bottom 50% of high schools and, consequently, had state ranking that ranged from 1 to 5
on a 10-point scale. The schools with an API of 1 were considered in the lowest 10% of
high schools in California. Schools with an API of 5 were considered in the bottom 50%
of schools in the state. All II/USP schools had to have an API of 5 or lower to be
considered for this study. To increase the validity of the study, the researcher purposely
selected comparison schools so the API of the comparison schools matched the API of
intervention schools. Table 5 demonstrates the statewide API rankings of both
intervention and comparison schools.
Table 5
State-wide Rankings (Academic Performance Index)
Academic Performance Index
5
Intervention Schools
(N=32)
8
Comparison Schools
(N=32)
8
4
5
5
3
1
1
2
8
8
1
10
10
67
Table 5 shows that 10 of the 32 schools (31%) of both intervention and
comparison schools had an API of 1. The table further shows that slightly more than half
of the researched schools (18) in each category were in the bottom 20% of high schools
according to their 2001 API. The average API ranking for schools included in this study
was 2.78. Although the API, enrollment size, and II/USP were considered when
identifying schools for the study, there were no criteria established for ethnic
demographics of the schools. The next section describes the ethnic demographics for
Latino and African American students of the intervention and comparison schools
included in the study. The third research question compares the A-G completion rate of
Latino and African American students to the overall student population.
Ethnicity Demographics for Latino and African American Students
The ethnicity percentages of Latino and African American students for schools
included in this study are interesting when compared to the overall ethnic representation
of students in California. Recall from the introduction that 49% of California students
are Latino American and just over 8% are African American (CDE, 2010a). In a number
of cases, schools in this study had ethnic representation of Latino and/or African
American students that exceeded the overall state ethnicity enrollment percentages.
Tables 6-8 illustrate the Latino and African American enrollment percentages of
schools in both the intervention and comparison schools. Table 6 addresses the
percentage of Latino and African American students enrolled in the intervention schools.
68
Table 6
Latino and African American Percentages (Intervention Schools)
Percentage of
Students
80-100
70-79
60-69
50-59
40-49
30-39
20-29
10-19
Less than 10
Schools with Latino
American Students (N=32)
6
4
1
4
7
3
3
4
0
Schools with African
American Students (N=32)
0
0
1
0
2
3
4
6
16
Table 6 shows that 15 of the 32 intervention schools had Latino American
populations that exceeded the state percentage of 49%. Furthermore, 22 of the 32 schools
(69%) were schools at which the percentage of Latino American students was at or above
40%. The average percentage of Latino American students in the intervention schools
was 52% and the percentage range was from 12-98%. While only one of the intervention
schools had a percentage of African American students over 50%, slightly more than half
of the 32 intervention schools had a percentage of African American students that
exceeded the state average of 8%. The average percentage of African American students
in the intervention schools was 16% and the percentages ranged from less than 1% to
62%.
Table 7 shows the percentage of Latino and African American students for the
comparison schools. The percentage of Latino and African American students in the
comparison schools was similar to the percentages in the intervention schools.
69
Table 7
Latino and African American Percentages (Comparison Schools)
Percentage of Students
80-100
70-79
60-69
50-59
40-49
30-39
20-29
10-19
Less than 10
Schools with Latino
American Students
5
6
4
2
2
8
3
2
0
Schools with African
American Students
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
6
16
Like the intervention schools, most (17 of 32 schools) of the comparison schools
had percentages of Latino American students above the state average of 49%. Likewise,
among the comparison schools, half the schools had African American enrollments above
10%. The comparison schools included schools at which the average percentage of
Latino American students was 55% and the percentage of African American students was
12%. The percentage range of Latino American students for comparison schools was 1599% and the range of African American students was from less than 1% to 33%.
When combining the percentage of Latino and African American students in both
intervention and comparison schools, the data shows that several schools had a
percentage of enrolled students above 50%. Table 8 shows the percentage of Latino and
African American students in the intervention and comparison schools. The range of
Latino and African American student percentages for the intervention schools was 22100% and the range for comparison schools was 16-100%. The mean average percentage
70
for Latino and African American students in the intervention schools was 68% and the
mean average for the comparison schools was 67%.
Table 8
Latino and African American Percentage Enrollments
Percentage
90-100
80-89
70-79
60-69
50-59
40-49
Less than 40
Number of Intervention
Schools (N=32)
9
4
2
2
8
3
4
Number of Comparison
Schools (N=32)
6
6
5
2
5
2
6
It is interesting to note that only 7 of the 32 intervention schools had an enrollment in
which the combined percentage of Latino and African American students was less than
50%.
Data Analysis
The A-G completion rate for both the intervention and comparison schools was
collected from the California Department of Education website and then analyzed using
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). To address the first research
question, the researcher used paired-samples t-tests to evaluate the difference in the A-G
completion rates for the intervention schools from 2001 to 2004, 2005, and 2008. The
paired-samples t-test was selected because it evaluates whether the mean of the difference
between two variables within the same group is significantly different from zero. An
71
independent-samples t-test was then used to address the second research question. The
independent samples t-test was used to compare the means for the A-G completion rates
between the intervention and comparison schools. The independent sample t-test was
selected because it evaluates whether the mean value of the test variable for one group
differs significantly from the mean value of the test variable for a second group.
For this study, one group of schools consisted of schools that received an
intervention and a comparison set of schools that did not receive the same intervention.
Also, paired samples t-tests were used to compare the means for the A-G completion
rates for Latino and African American students in intervention and comparison schools.
For the purpose of this study, the A-G completion rates for the school years 2001, 2004,
2005, and 2008 were reviewed. The findings of these analyses are presented in this
section. First, the results of all students are presented. Then, the researcher shares the
results of the analyses related to Latino and African American students.
All Students
The first analysis determined whether the mean value of the test variable for all
students in the intervention schools differed significantly from the mean value of the test
variable of all students in the comparison schools in the selected school years. Table 9
demonstrates the results of this analysis.
72
Table 9
Mean Value of All Students in Intervention and Comparison Schools
2001
2004
2005
2008
Intervention
28.41
30.57
37.58
33.68
Comparison
34.35
31.52
32.31
27.52
Difference
-5.94
-.95
+5.27
+6.16
Table 9 shows an increase in the A-G completion rate for students in the
intervention schools in both the 2004 and 2005 school years. The A-G completion rate in
the 2008 school year was greater than 2001 and 2004, but less than 2005. In general, the
A-G completion rate for students in the comparison schools decreased during the 2004,
2005, and 2008 school years when compared to 2001. Comparing the results between the
intervention and comparison schools revealed some interesting findings.
During the base year of the study, there was a wide gap in the A-G completion
rate between the intervention and comparison schools; however, the gap narrowed in
2004 and was eliminated during the 2005 and 2008 school years. In 2001, a greater
percentage of students completed the A-G course requirements in comparison schools
than those in intervention schools. In 2001, there was a 5.94% gap between the two sets
of schools. By 2004, the gap narrowed to 0.95%. During the 2005 and 2008 school
years, the intervention schools had a greater percentage of students complete the A-G
requirements than the comparison schools. It is interesting to note that both the
73
intervention and comparison schools had a decrease in the A-G completion rate in the
2008 school year when compared to the 2005 school year.
When focusing exclusively on the change in A-G completion rate for all students
in the intervention schools from 2001 to 2004, 2005, and 2008, there were some notable
results. To see if there were significant differences in the A-G completion rates in
various years, the researcher used a paired samples t-test to evaluate within group
comparisons. Table 10 shows the results of this analysis:
Table 10
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Pair 1
allcomprate2001 allcomprate2004 -2.15625 19.26484
3.40558
-9.10197
4.78947 -.633 31
.531
Pair 2
allcomprate2001 allcomprate2005 -9.16875 25.00524
4.42034
-18.18410 -.15340 -2.074 31
.046
Pair 3
allcomprate2001 -5.26875 24.90749
allcomprate2008
4.40306 -14.24886 3.71136 -1.197 31
.241
The results indicate that there were no significant differences between the A-G
completion rates from 2001 to 2004 (M=2.16, SD = 19.26), t (31) = -.63, p = .531 and
from 2001 to 2008 (M=5.27, SD = 23.91), t (31) = -1.20, p = .241. There was a
significant difference in the A-G completion rate for the intervention schools between
2001 and 2005 (M=9.17, SD = 25), t (31) = 2.07, p = .046. The effect size of 0.22
74
(mean/standard deviation) indicates a significant, yet small, relationship between the two
school years.
There were no significant differences between the mean averages of the
intervention and comparison schools. When using an independent samples t-test to
analyze the mean averages for the A-G completion rates for all students of the
intervention and comparison schools using SPSS, there were no significant differences in
the results in 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008. Consider the following independent-samples
t-test results:
Table 11
Independent-samples t-test Comparing Intervention and Comparison Schools
School Year
Significance
2001
t (62) = 1.159
p = .134
2004
t (62) = .222
p = .825
2005
t (62) = 1.187
p = .241
2008
t (62) = 1.371
p = .177
The results of the independent-samples t-tests show no statistically significant
differences in the A-G completion rates for all student comparisons between the
intervention and comparison schools. The analyses of the mean value for Latino and
African American students demonstrated similar patterns.
75
Latino American and African American Students
The analysis of A-G completion rates for Latino American students shows
patterns similar to the general student population. Table 11 shows the A-G completion
rate of Latino American students for both intervention and comparison schools during the
2001, 2004, 2005 and 2008 school years.
Table 12
A-G Completion Rate for Latino American Students
2001
2004
2005
2008
Intervention
22.20
26.12
32.22
29.96
Comparison
26.79
25.90
26.66
22.35
Difference
- 4.59
+ .22
+ 5.56
+ 7.61
Similar to the all-student data, there was an increase in the A-G completion rate
during the 2004 and 2005 school years for the intervention schools. During the 2008
school year, the A-G completion rate decreased when compared to the 2005 school year,
but remained above the 2001 rate. The A-G completion rate for the comparison schools
remained relatively stable during the 2004 and 2005 school years before decreasing in
2008.
When comparing the results between the intervention and comparison schools, the
data show a pattern similar to that found in the analyses for all students. A 4.59% gap
existed between the A-G completion rate for Latino American students in intervention
76
and comparison schools for the graduating class of 2001. During the 2001 school year,
Latino American students in the comparison schools completed the A-G requirements at
a greater rate than Latino American students in intervention schools. By the 2004 school
year, the gap was narrowed and Latino American students in intervention schools
completed the A-G requirements at a greater rate than Latino American students in the
comparison schools. For the subsequent school years of 2005 and 2008, the gap widened
and Latino American students continued to complete the A-G requirements at a greater
rate than Latino American students in comparison schools. In 2005, the gap between the
two sets of schools was 5.56% and in 2008 the gap was 7.61%.
The researcher used a paired-samples t-test to evaluate the significance of the
changes in the A-G completion rates for Latino American students from 2001 to 2004,
2005, and 2006. The results are shown in Table 13.
77
Table 13
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation Mean
Pair 1 latinocomprate2
001 -3.91875 19.82246
latinocomprate2
004
Pair 2 latinocomprate2
001 -10.01250 26.39780
latinocomprate2
005
Pair 3 latinocomprate2
001 -7.75313 25.90200
latinocomprate2
008
Lower
Upper
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
3.50415
-11.06551 3.22801 -1.118
31
.272
4.66652
-19.52992 -.49508 -2.146
31
.040
4.57887
-17.09179 1.58554 -1.693
31
.100
The results from the paired samples t-test for Latino American students mirrored
the all students results. There were no significant differences in the A-G completion rates
from 2001 to 2004 (M = 3.92, SD = 19.82), t (31) = 1.12, p = .27 and from 2001 to 2008
(M = 7.75, SD = 25.9), t (31) = 1.69, p = .1; however, there was a significant difference
in A-G completion rates of Latino American students in intervention schools from 2001
to 2005 (M = 10.01, SD = 26.40), t (31) = 2.15, p = .04. The effect size of 0.38 indicates
a relationship that is small but approaching medium.
Similar to the mean value for the A-G completion rate for all students and Latino
American students, the mean value for the A-G completion rate for African American
students showed some improvement when compared to the 2001 school year. Table 14
78
shows the A-G completion rate of African American students during the 2001, 2004,
2005, and 2008 school years.
Table 14
A-G Completion Rate for African American Students
2001
2004
2005
2008
Intervention
29.25
23.93
34.08
27.83
Comparison
30.18
26.11
22.63
19.35
Difference
- .93
- 2.18
+ 11.45
+ 8.48
Table 14 demonstrates that the A-G completion rate for African American
students in the intervention schools decreased by 5.32% in the 2004 school year and in
2005 increased by 4.83% when compared to the 2001 school year. Unlike the 2008
results for all students and Latino American students in the intervention schools, African
American students in the intervention schools had a 2008 A-G completion rate below the
2001 rate.
A paired-samples t-test was used to analyze if there were significant changes in
the A-G completion rate for African American students in intervention schools. This
SPSS analysis yielded the results in Table 15.
79
Table 15
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
Lower
5.32187 29.67863
5.24649
-5.37841
16.02216 1.014 31
.318
-4.83125 38.03483
6.72367
-18.54427
8.88177 -.719 31
.478
1.41562 31.37235
5.54590
-9.89531
12.72656 .255
.800
Mean
Pair 1
aacomprate2001 aacomprate2004
Pair 2
aacomprate2001 aacomprate2005
Pair 3
aacomprate2001 aacomprate2008
Difference
Std.
Upper
Sig. (2t
df
tailed)
31
Table 14 illustrates no significant differences in the A-G completion rates when
comparing the rates of the 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years to 2001. For the 2004
school year, there was no significant difference (M = 5.32, SD = 29.68), t (31) = 1.01, p =
.32. For the 2005 school year, there was no significant difference (M = 4.84, SD =
38.03), t (31) = .72, p = .48. For the 2008 school year, there was no significant difference
(M = 1.41, SD = 31.37), t (31) = .26, p = .80. The next section compares A-G completion
rates for African American students between intervention and comparison schools.
When comparing the A-G completion rate for African American students between
the intervention schools and comparison schools there were some interesting occurrences.
Similar to the results for all students, African American students in comparison schools
had a greater A-G completion rate in both 2001 and 2004, but the intervention schools
80
had a greater A-G completion rate in both 2005 and 2008. The gap for African American
students in intervention and comparison schools was most pronounced in the 2005 school
year when there was an 11.45% gap. The gap reduced to 8.48% by 2008. The statistical
significance of the A-G completion rates for Latino and African American students
proved to be similar to the results for all students.
As was the case with the independent-samples t-test calculated for all students,
there was no statistical significance when comparing the mean averages of the A-G
completion rates for Latino and African American students between intervention and
comparison schools in the study. For Latino American students, the results are in Table
16.
Table 16
Independent-Samples t-test Comparing Latino American Students from Intervention and
Comparison Schools
School Year
Significance
2001
t (62) = 1.090
p = .280
2004
t (62) = 1.048
p = .962
2005
t (62) = 1.137
p = .261
2008
t (62) = 1.673
p = .101
For the 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years there were no significant
differences between the A-G completion rates for Latino American students at the
intervention and comparison schools.
81
For African American students, there were no statistically significant results
found between the A-G completion rates for students at the intervention schools
compared to students at the comparison schools. The SPSS analysis yielded the results in
Table 17.
Table 17
Independent-Samples t-test Comparing African American students in Intervention and
Comparison Schools
School Year
Significance
2001
t (62) = 1.156
p = .876
2004
t (62) = .431
p = .668
2005
t (62) = 1.868
p = .068
2008
t (62) = 1.655
p = .104
For the 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years, there were no significant
differences in the A-G completion rates for African American students at the intervention
and comparison schools.
Research Question Findings
Research Question One
This section addresses the findings of this research as they relate to the first three
research questions. The first research question was:
82
Research Question 1: Of the selected large California high schools that received
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/USP) state intervention
funds in the early 2000s, to what extent was there a significant difference in the
A-G completion rate from 2001 to 2004, 2005, and 2008?
Table 9 demonstrates that the A-G completion rate for the large low-performing
California high schools that received II/USP funds increased in 2004 and 2005 when
compared to 2001. In 2001, the A-G completion rate for these intervention schools was
28.41%. That rate increased to 30.57% in 2004 and 37.58% in 2005. The 2005 school
year had the highest A-G completion rate for the selected school years. The rate dropped
to 33.68% for the graduating class of 2008.
A paired-samples test was used to determine the statistical significance of the
change in A-G completion rates for the mean averages in intervention schools for the
2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years. The 2001 school year was considered the base
school year and the other years were compared to the base year.
There was a significant difference in the A-G completion rate for the intervention
schools between 2001 and 2005 (M=9.17, SD = 25), t (31) = 2.07, p = .046. The effect
size of 0.22 (mean/standard deviation) indicates a significant, yet small, relationship
between the two school years. There were no significant differences in the A-G
completion rate for the intervention schools from 2001 to 2004 and 2008.
83
Research Question Two
The second research question compares the A-G completion rate of intervention
schools to comparison schools. The 32 intervention schools in the study received II/USP
funds in the early 2000s. To answer the second research question, the researcher
compared the A-G completion rate of the intervention schools to a similar set of 32
comparison schools that did not receive II/USP funds. The second research question was:
Research Question 2: To what extent was there a significant difference in A-G
completion rates between large California high schools that received II/USP state
intervention funds and a similar group of large California high schools that did
not receive II/USP state intervention funds in 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008?
Table 9 demonstrates the different A-G completion rate patterns for the
intervention and comparison schools during the 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years.
In 2001, the A-G completion rate for the comparison schools was almost 6% higher than
the rate for the intervention schools. In 2004 and 2005, the intervention schools showed
an increase in the completion rate whereas the comparison schools showed a decrease in
2004 and 2005 when compared to 2001. By 2008, the A-G completion rate for the
intervention schools dropped almost 4% when compared to 2005, but it remained above
the 2001 completion rate. For the comparison schools, the A-G completion rate in 2008
dropped to 27.52%, which was about 7% below the 2001 rate. When comparing the A-G
completion rates for all students in intervention and comparison schools, an independent-
84
samples t-test indicated no statistical differences in the A-G completion rates between the
intervention and comparison schools for the 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years.
Research Question Three
The researcher focused more closely on Latino and African American students
since Latino American students comprise almost 50% of the state public school
enrollment and since Latino and African American students are on the lower end of the
ethnic achievement gap. The third research question analyzed the A-G completion rate
trend of both Latino and African American students. The third research question was as
follows:
Research Question 3: When compared to overall school data, were there significant
differences in A-G course completion rates for Latino and African American
students?
Latino American. For the intervention schools, the A-G completion rate for Latino
American students was below the rate of all students during the base year of 2001 and
during the other years included in the study. Table 18 illustrates the A-G completion rate
for Latino Americans and all students in intervention schools for the 2001, 2004, 2005,
and 2008 school years.
85
Table 18
A-G Completion Rate for Latino Americans and All Students (Intervention Schools)
Latino American
All Students
Difference
2001
22.20
28.41
6.21
2004
26.12
30.57
4.45
2005
32.22
37.58
5.36
2008
29.96
33.68
3.72
For Latino American students, there were no significant differences in the A-G
completion rates from 2001 to 2004 (M = 3.92, SD = 19.82), t (31) = 1.12, p = .27 and
from 2001 to 2008 (M = 7.75, SD = 25.9), t (31) = 1.69, p = .1; however, there was a
significant difference in A-G completion rates for Latino American students in
intervention schools from 2001 to 2005 (M = 10.01, SD = 26.40), t (31) = 2.15, p = .04.
There was also a significant difference in the A-G completion rate change for all students
in intervention schools from 2001 to 2005.
African American. Table 19 shows the difference in A-G completion rates for
African American students and all students in the intervention schools included in the
study.
86
Table 19
A-G Completion Rate for African Americans and All Students (Intervention Schools)
African American
All Students
Difference
2001
29.25
28.41
-.84
2004
23.93
30.57
6.64
2005
34.08
37.58
3.50
2008
27.83
33.68
5.85
As illustrated in Table 19, the A-G completion rate for all students in the
intervention schools was greater than the A-G completion rate for African American
students in every year except for the baseline year of 2001. The paired-samples t-test
demonstrated no significant differences in the A-G completion rates for African
American students when comparing rates for the 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years to
2001.
Research Question Four
The researcher used a qualitative research approach to address the fourth research
question. While the first three research questions used a quantitative research design to
evaluate statistical data with respect to the intervention and comparison schools, a
qualitative research approach was selected to answer the fourth research question because
the researcher was trying to gain more insight into a phenomenon. The fourth research
question tried to identify components of high school design that may have led to above-
87
average increases in A-G completion rates of the sample of large California high schools
that received II/USP intervention funds in the early 2000s.
School Selection
The schools selected for the qualitative portion of the study were chosen because
they met the criteria established by the researcher. Schools selected for the qualitative
portion of the study were intervention schools that had an increase in the A-G completion
rate that was above or near the mean average of the intervention school included in the
study. When comparing the mean averages of the A-G completion rates for intervention
schools, the research data demonstrated an increase in the A-G completion rate in the
2004 and 2005 school years when compared to 2001. The mean average increase in the
2004 school year was 2.16% and the increase in the 2005 school year was 9.17%. In
reviewing the A-G completion rate of the intervention schools, six schools emerged as
having an A-G completion rate above or near the mean average during both the 2004 and
2005 school years.
Five schools were selected for the qualitative portion of the study. For tracking
purposes, the schools have been labeled school J, O, Q, V, and Y. The schools are
referred to as positive deviant schools. The positive deviant schools selected for the
qualitative portion of the study were identified because they demonstrated increases in
the A-G completion rates in the 2004 and 2005 school years above or near the mean
average of the intervention schools. Of the 32 intervention schools, 13 (41%) showed
improvements in the A-G completion rate in 2004. The improvement percentages ranged
88
from 0.4-34.1%. Eighteen intervention schools had a decrease in the 2004 A-G
completion and the decrease percentages ranged from 0.3-23%. Of the 13 intervention
schools that had an increase in the 2004 A-G completion rate, seven also had an increase
in the 2005 school year. Of the seven schools that had an increase in the A-G completion
rate in both the 2004 and 2005 school year, six schools had an increase above or near the
mean average for the intervention schools.
One of the six schools that had an increase in the A-G completion rate above or
near the mean average of the intervention schools was not included in the qualitative
portion of the study. This school reported that zero students completed the A-G
requirements in 2001 and 88.6% of graduates completed the A-G requirements in 2004.
The school also reported that 90.3% of students completed the A-G requirements in 2005.
This school was not selected for the qualitative portion of the study since it is unlikely
that zero students would have completed the A-G requirements in one year yet three
years later 88.6% of students completed the A-G requirements.
Positive Deviant Descriptive Data
The positive deviant schools had varied ranges with respect to enrollment size,
Academic Performance Index ratings, and percentage of Latino and African American
students. Table 20 illustrates the descriptive characteristics of the positive deviant
schools.
89
Table 20
2001 Positive Deviant School Characteristics
School
Enrollment
Latino
African
Combined Latino and
API
American
American
African American
Ranking
J
2102
54
45
99
1
O
2310
51
2
53
4
Q
1303
42
9
51
5
V
3057
46
43
89
1
Y
2920
88
3
91
1
School enrollment in 2001 ranged from 1303 to 3057 students. One school had
an enrollment of 1303 and three schools had enrollments between 2000 and 3000
students. Only one of the five schools had an enrollment over 3000 students. Even
though 15 of the 32 intervention schools had enrollment in which over 50% of students
were either Latino or African American students, each of the positive deviant schools had
an enrollment in which at least 50% of students were Latino or African American
students. Three of the five positive deviant schools had a 2001 API ranking of 1.
Qualitative Data Collection
As described in Chapter 3, the researcher reviewed and analyzed documents
associated with the positive deviant schools to identify components that may have
contributed to the increases in the A-G completion rates of these schools. The document
90
review analyses consisted of school self-studies for the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC), School Accountability Report Card (SARC), and information
available on the schools’ websites. Furthermore, the researcher interviewed the principal
or his/her designee and asked the principal or his/her designee to provide a list of
components that may have led to increases in A-G completion rates from 2001 and 2005.
The interviewee was asked the following questions:
1) How long have you been or were you the principal at the studied high school?
2) Between 2001 and 2005, were you connected to the high school? If you were
connected to the high school, then what was your connection?
3) Between 2001 and 2005, your school received II/USP funds and had an aboveaverage increase in the percentage of graduates who completed the A-G
requirements. List any changes that happened during this time period that may
have led to the increase in A-G completion rates.
The researcher was able to contact the principals of some of the positive deviant
schools and was able to obtain a copy of some of the schools’ WASC and SARC reports.
Several attempts were made to contact school principals via phone calls and e-mails.
Table 21 summarizes how information was collected from the positive deviant schools.
91
Table 21
Obtaining Information for Positive Deviant Schools
School
Information
J
School Accountability Report Card
O
School Accountability Report Card
Current Principal Contact
Former Principal Contact
Q
Principal Contact
V
WASC Report
Y
WASC Report
Principal Contact
Outreach Counselor Contact
The researcher was able to obtain the WASC report of two schools and was able
to speak with administrators from three schools. One school principal provided
information and assisted the researcher with contacting an administrator who was an
outreach counselor at the positive deviant school during the researched time period. This
administrator, who is now at another site in the district, noted several factors that may
have contributed to the school’s success in improving the A-G completion rate and also
provided the researcher with a copy of the school’s WASC report. The current principal
of one school shared his perspective and assisted the researcher with contacting the
92
recently retired principal who was at the site during the II/USP time period. Through
analyses of documents and interviews with school personnel, the researcher was able to
obtain a list of components that may have led to an above-average increase in the A-G
completion rate between 2001 and 2005.
Findings
As noted earlier, the fourth research question tried to identify components of high
school design that may have led to above-average increases in A-G completion rates of
the sample of large California high schools that received II/USP intervention funds in the
early 2000s. Through analyses of school documents and interviews with school
administrators, the researcher answered the fourth research question.
The interviews with school administrators yielded several components that may
have contributed to above-average A-G completion rates of the positive deviant schools.
One school principal, an assistant principal at the positive deviant school in 2002, noted
the school began to focus more on math and English language arts during that time
period. The principal indicated the school used intervention funds to provide the site
with instructional coaches in math and English language arts. In another school an
administrator shared that several of the high-achieving students left the school in 2004
and 2007 when a “fundamental” school was opened and students were provided an
opportunity to enroll in the fundamental school. This administrator also mentioned that a
greater number of students were placed in college preparatory classes during this time
period. It was mentioned that the school had Upward Bound and Advancement Via
93
Individual Determination (AVID) classes. The researcher noted some interesting
similarities between this school administrator and the administrator who was the outreach
counselor at the school site during the researched time period.
The outreach counselor listed several components that may have led to an aboveaverage increase in the A-G completion rate from 2001 to 2005. Similar to what the
other administrator said, it was mentioned that the school had indirect tracking that led to
a greater number of students being placed in non-college preparatory classes. This
interviewee elaborated to say that students were tracked in English, science, and
mathematics classes. In addition to listing that more students were placed in college
preparatory classes as a component that may have led to an above-average A-G
completion rate, it was also mentioned that the site used intervention funds to have a
teacher on special assignment focus on coordinating an academy program designed to
help students navigate the pathway to higher education. The interviewee noted several
additional components that may have improved the A-G completion rate.
The administrator, who is now at another school and was an outreach counselor at
a positive deviant school, shared that the school had several structural changes during the
research period. A new building was built and housed programs such as UOPS, Upward
Bound, and the Puente Project for students in 11th and 12th grades. The district lowered
the counselor to student ratio and there was an increase in the number of students
enrolled in AVID classes. The interviewee noted that the AVID elective class became a
94
class for all students. The interviewee summarized his statements by saying students who
were on track for graduation were better served during that time period.
In an interview, a recently retired principal who was a principal at the site of a
positive deviant school during the II/USP process shared some components that may have
contributed to the increases in A-G completion rates at his site. He shared that the site
focused on aligning their curriculum, especially in math and English language arts, to the
Advanced Placement (AP) test. He also noted there was greater articulation with the
feeder middle school and junior college. The high school worked with the middle school
to develop AP-like assessments that middle school students could take. Successfully
passing the AP-like assessments would earn the student elective credits at the high
school. This principal indicated that more students were enrolling in upper-level math
courses during this time period.
The retired principal also mentioned a change in program offerings for his school
during the II/USP time period. He said he made the decision to discontinue offering the
Puente Project since it excluded some of his student population. Instead, the school
began to enroll students in an AVID program.
The researcher was able to review the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) documents of two schools and the School Accountability Report Card
(SARC) of another school to identify components that may have led to an increase in the
A-G completion rate. Through a 2010 WASC report, one school indicated several factors
that focused on preparing students for college. Those factors were increased
95
informational awareness for parents, the addition of college nights, A-G course analysis
when reviewing individualized graduation plans, staffing a college advisor, the
development of small learning communities and academies, professional development
focused on standards-based instruction, and a greater percentage of students enrolled in
AVID. The researcher could not determine when these initiatives began at the high
school. Also between 2001 and 2010, the school had several changes in administration
and had several accreditation visits from the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges.
In a review of the WASC report for one of the positive deviant schools, the
researcher was able to validate information provided during interviews. As mentioned by
personnel in school Y, college preparations became more of a focus for this school during
the early 2000s. School Y’s 2004 WASC report noted an increase in students enrolled in
AVID, the development of an academy program where several students received college
admission planning support from two counselors, the staffing of a higher education
coordinator, the advent of the Puente Project, a partnership with a California State
University, and the beginning of Professional Learning Communities with Dr. Rick
DuFour.
An analysis of the SARC document for School O identified similar components
that may have led to an increase in students completing the A-G requirements. Similar to
other positive deviant schools, School O used professional learning communities to focus
on modifying instruction based on student achievement results, had counselors hold
96
evening workshops focused on college admissions, and had an active career center. In
addition, School O had extended-day learning opportunities for students, within-theschool-day support for struggling students, Scholastic Aptitude Test courses and
assistance with college applications and essays.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Four
The intent of the fourth research question was to identify components that may
have led to above-average increases in the A-G completion rates in intervention schools.
Five positive deviant schools were selected for the qualitative portion of the study. Data
was collected through document reviews and interviews with site leaders. Following is a
list of components that may have led to increases in the percentage of students
completing the A-G course requirements:
Components Leading to an Increase in A-G Completion Rates
1. Increased focused on math and English language arts: instructional coaches
2. Increase in students placed in college preparatory classes
3. Development of college-preparatory programs (AVID, Puente Project, Upward
Bound)
4. Higher Education Coordinator
5. College preparatory building
6. Increase parent and student awareness through college workshops at night
7. Small Learning Communities and Academies
8. Professional development focused on standards-based instruction
97
9. Developing Individualized Graduation Plans for all students
10. Professional Learning Communities
11. Forming partnerships with California State Universities
12. Extended-day learning opportunities
13. Offering during-the-school-day support for struggling students
14. Offering Scholastic Aptitude support and assistance
15. Offering college application and essay assistance
16. Aligning curriculum to the Advanced Placement curriculum
Conclusion
There were many interesting findings in the Chapter 4 results. The data
demonstrated a pattern of changes in the A-G completion rates for the set of intervention
and comparison schools during the 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2008 school years. In 2001,
the comparison schools that did not receive II/USP funding had a higher A-G completion
rate than the intervention schools that did receive intervention funds. That pattern began
to change in 2004, and during the 2005 and 2008 school years, the intervention schools
had a higher A-G completion rate than the comparison schools. The same general pattern
existed with both Latino and African American students. Although the findings were
interesting, the most significant difference in the A-G completion rates existed for the
intervention schools from 2001 to 2005.
98
The A-G completion rates within the intervention group comparing the 2001,
2004, 2005, and 2008 demonstrated a significant difference only during the 2005 school
year. This was also the case with Latino American students, but not African American
students. When analyzing the differences in A-G completion rates between intervention
and comparison schools, there were no significant differences. Although in many cases
the increases in A-G completion rates for intervention schools were not significant, any
increase is substantial when considering that every percentage point represents several
students. Consider there were 74,508 students who comprised the graduation classes
from the 32 intervention schools in 2001. If the number of students in subsequent
graduation classes were to have remained stagnant, then each percentage point represents
about 745 students who would have completed the A-G course requirements. To provide
greater insight as to what may have led to A-G completion rates that were near or above
the average, five schools emerged as positive deviants and were further studied.
The qualitative portion of the study provided some insight as to what components
may have led to increases in the A-G completion rates. A review of school documents
and interviews with school administrators showed that the positive deviant schools
seemed to place greater emphasis on curriculum standards, invested in programs that
promoted college preparation such as AVID and Upward Bound, and provided students
with more guidance and support.
99
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
Overview
This study focused on the effects that Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
School Program funds had on preparing students in California’s large public schools for
college or 21st-century careers. For the purpose of the study, the state university system’s
course requirements for admission eligibility were used as a measure to determine
whether students were prepared for college or a 21st-century career. In California, the
course requirements needed for admission eligibility are referred to as the A-G
requirements. This chapter provides a summary of the study and its findings, a
discussion of the research findings as they relate to information presented in the review of
the literature, policy implications, areas for future research and a conclusion.
Summary of Research
This study analyzed the effects state intervention funding had on preparing
students for college or 21st-century careers in large, California high schools. In the early
2000s, three cohorts of schools received Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
School Program funds. These schools, all required to be in the bottom 50% of schools
according to their Academic Performance Index for the study, developed an action plan
to improve student achievement. Researchers from the American Institute for Research
100
used the Academic Performance Index (API) to measure student achievement for the
II/USP schools, but did not analyze whether more students were prepared for college or a
21st-century career. For the purpose of this study, the II/USP schools were referred to as
intervention schools.
The researcher compared the A-G completion rates of 32 intervention schools to
the A-G completion rates of 32 comparison schools. The graduating class of 2001 was
selected as the baseline year for the study since the intervention schools began receiving
II/USP funds during the 2001-2002 school year. The researcher compared the A-G
completion rate for the 2001 school year to that of the school years 2004, 2005, and 2008
for both intervention and comparison schools. The researcher also focused more
exclusively on the A-G completion rates for Latino and African American students. The
findings of the study demonstrated a noticeable pattern, but there were no statistically
significant differences between the A-G completion rates for intervention and comparison
schools. There were significant increases in the A-G completion rates for the
intervention schools when comparing the 2001 completion rate to 2005. A summary of
the findings is presented in the next section of this chapter.
Summary of Findings
While there were no significant differences between the A-G completion rate of
the intervention and comparison schools, some interesting patterns did emerge. In
general, the A-G completion rates for the comparison group of schools was greater than
101
the rate for the intervention group of schools in 2001. The difference narrowed by 2004,
and in 2005, the intervention schools had higher A-G completion rates than the
comparison schools. The intervention schools continued to have greater A-G completion
rates in 2008; however, the difference was not as great as it was in 2005. There were
similarities and differences when analyzing the A-G completion rates for Latino and
African American students in the intervention and comparison schools.
For both Latino and African American student groups in the intervention and
comparison schools, there were noticeable changes in the A-G completion rates from
2001 to 2008. For both groups, students in the comparison schools had greater A-G
completion rates in 2001. By 2005, both groups saw greater A-G rates for the
intervention schools and the intervention schools continued to perform better in 2008.
Discussion
Although there were few statistically significant differences in the A-G
completion rates between the intervention and comparison schools, there were some
interesting findings related to the literature. There was a pattern of increased A-G
completion rates for the sample of intervention schools during the intervention years of
2004 and 2005 when compared to 2001. For the comparison schools there was a
decrease in the A-G completion rates during the same period of time. The patterns
suggest the state intervention funding may have met policy expectations and contributed
to increased student achievement as measured by the A-G completion rate.
102
National, state, and local political and educational leaders may consider investing
more in high school reform efforts focused on preparing more students for college and
21st-century careers. Recall from Chapter 2 that federal Title I funds are
disproportionably allocated to elementary schools (NAASP, 2005). Although it is
important to invest in students while they are in elementary school, it is also important to
support students as they matriculate through high school. Either Title I funds should be
redistributed to secondary schools or additional state or federal funding should be
allocated to support high school reform. Ongoing federal funding, such as the
Comprehensive School Reform Program (United States Department of Education, 2010b)
should be used to support secondary reform efforts and the research and evaluation of
these efforts.
The education community must be clearer about what skills and knowledge is
necessary to prepare students for college and 21st-century careers. Several scholars have
indicated that the skills and knowledge needed for success in college are similar to the
skills and knowledge needed to obtain a 21st-century career (Achieve, 2010; Education
Trust, 2003; Martinez, 2005; NAASP, 2005; United States Department of Labor, 1991).
This research suggest that some of the components that may have contributed to more
students meeting the A-G requirements were in the areas of providing additional
guidance to students and parents. Also, some schools tried to engage students and
provide guidance through themed-based academies. This is not a surprise given that
reform efforts in California have focused primarily on standards-based instruction and
103
multiple pathways (CDE, 2006; CDE, 2010c). Greater articulation is needed between
schools and industry experts so schools can more successfully guide students toward
either college or a 21st-century career.
Policy Implications
This study, combined with other research on this subject, has implications for
policy change at the local, state, and national levels. National and state leaders are
adjusting to the realization of a more global economy. The global economy has changed
the configuration of the workforce expectations and, once again, schools are being asked
to respond to the needs of the nation. To respond to this challenge, political, business,
and educational leaders must make informed decisions based on research. Additionally,
policies must be reviewed, amended, and developed to influence local, state, and national
efforts to prepare more students for college or a 21st-century career.
Tracking Student Progress (Transformational Leadership)
More emphasis is needed in the areas of college and career readiness. In
California, the A-G course requirements is accepted as the necessary courses students
must take to be eligible to attend a state public four-year university after completing high
school. Despite having the A-G requirements, university administrators and faculty
argue that many students enter public colleges unprepared for first-year college courses.
To more effectively analyze such a claim, California must develop a student data
management system in which students and schools can be tracked from kindergarten
104
through at least college. With this data, university personnel, educational professionals,
and policymakers can identify patterns with respect to how well students are being
prepared for college. The analyses may identify how well various schools or programs
are preparing students for college.
Currently, educators, politicians, and business leaders are trying to clarify what it
is to be career-ready. The ACT (2006) definition of being able to enter a job or training
program likely to offer both a wage sufficient to support a small family and the potential
for career advancement does not give details regarding what skills and knowledge are
needed to be career-ready. Furthermore, the states and nation must determine what tool
will be used to measure whether a student is “career-ready.” After determining a tool to
measure career readiness, educators may more effectively analyze which schools and
programs are preparing students for 21st-century careers.
Purposeful Assessments (Critical Policy Analysis and Action)
California should place more effort in using the results of assessments to inform
decision making for both students and school staff. The California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) became a graduation requirement for the class of 2006 and was
intended to show that a high school graduate had a minimum level of skills and
knowledge in mathematics and English language arts so as to be successful beyond high
school (CDE, 2011). Now, some are questioning whether the CAHSEE has met its
original intent (Darling-Hammond & Adamson, 2010). Students and school personnel
must be able to identify skills and knowledge needed to be college- or career-ready.
105
Student progress toward obtaining these skills and knowledge must be explicitly
evaluated as students move through the educational system. When students and schools
have more accurate information that evaluates student readiness for college or 21stcentury careers, then program supports may be implemented to further support students.
To more efficiently support students to be prepared for college or a 21st-century
career, the state must develop a more informed decision-making process. The CAHSEE
must be revamped or eliminated to more effectively support students to be ready for
college or the workforce. The state must consider the extent to which the CAHSEE
measures whether students who pass it are ready for college or a 21st-century career. If
the CAHSEE does not effectively measure college or career readiness, then the CAHSEE
should be revamped or eliminated. Another alternative would be to accept that the intent
of the CAHSEE is to determine a minimum level of skills and knowledge needed to earn
a high school diploma and then to create another assessment to determine college or
career readiness.
Earlier assessments and intervention are needed to support students not making
sufficient progress toward being ready for college or a 21st-century career. Given that
students first take the CAHSEE during their 10th-grade year, school systems must become
more active in assessing students in danger of not passing the CAHSEE or another
college/career readiness assessment in the earlier grades. With earlier assessments of
college or career readiness, schools can intervene earlier when students begin to stray
from the college or career readiness paths. While schools may be able to identify
106
students not making sufficient progress toward being college- or career-ready, limited
finances have made it difficult to provide students with needed interventions.
Restructuring School Programs (Transformational Leadership)
State and local educators and politicians today must continuously analyze how
resources are being used to support student learning and preparedness for college or 21stcentury careers. Frequently, schools are unable to provide during-the-school-day
supports for students due to limited staffing. Oftentimes decisions to have intervention
classes result in higher class numbers in other classes. Given the current financial
climate, schools find it difficult to provide during-the-school-day supports for the
students most in need of intervention. School systems may consider a more flexible
approach to preparing all students. More flexibility may benefit both students who are at
grade level and students in need of additional support.
Reporting A-G Completion Rates (Informed Decision Making)
There are some data collection, reporting, and monitoring changes that should be
considered at the local level. In reviewing the A-G completion rate data, a wide range of
A-G completion rates was reported to the California Department of Education by school
sites. In one instance, a school reported that zero students met the A-G requirements in
one year then four years later, over 90% of students met the requirements. It is highly
unlikely to have such a dramatic difference in the A-G completion rate in one school. To
ensure the A-G completion rates are more accurate, local school sites and districts should
107
consider developing methods to more accurately track students who have completed the
A-G course requirements.
Schools must report their A-G completion rate to the California Department of
Education annually; however, some schools rely on individual accounting to determine
which students met the A-G course requirements. Schools need to be able to rely on a
student data management system to determine whether a student met the A-G course
requirement. Using a student management system to determine the A-G completion rate
for a school will allow for more efficient and accurate reporting.
Areas for Future Research
This study contributes to the body of research regarding the use and effectiveness
of intervention funding. This research is timely considering the recent educational
funding crisis as well as national efforts to influence school improvement efforts by
making federal funds available to states and local school districts. There are several areas
for future study related to this topic.
Gender Analysis
This study analyzed the extent to which large, low-performing, California high
schools prepared students for college or a 21st-century career. The study further explored
the extent to which Latino and African American students were being prepared for
college or a 21st-century career in the low-performing high schools. The study could be
108
replicated to explore to what extent male or female graduates in the intervention schools
are being prepared for college or 21st-century careers.
European and Asian Americans Preparing for College or 21st-Century Careers
Most schools in this study had a higher percentage of Latino and African
American students than the state average. However, there were some schools that had
fewer percentages of Latino and African American students than the state average. These
schools likely had higher percentages of European and Asian American students than the
sample of intervention schools in this study. Further research could be conducted on the
extent to which these schools are preparing European and Asian American students for
college or 21st-century careers.
Interstate Research
This study could be replicated in various districts in other states that have
accepted state and federal funds to improve student achievement. States with large
populations of Latino and African American students may be more interested in
replicating this study than states with fewer percentages of Latino and African American
student populations.
Qualitative Research
Information to evaluate schools that accept intervention funds must be accessible
to the public, and further qualitative studies are needed to gain insight as to the benefits
and challenges associated with intervention funding. The schools and districts accepting
II/USP intervention funding were required to submit an action plan to the California
109
Department of Education (Harr et al., 2007). The action plans should be available for
public review. Additionally, further qualitative studies are needed to better understand
the benefits and challenges for schools accepting intervention funding.
Future qualitative research of schools that receive intervention funding should
include interviews with all stakeholders. A document review of the school’s action plans
is needed to further understand actions and programs implemented to reach the desired
goal. The qualitative research should include interviews with school and district
administrators, program administrators, teachers, counselors, parents, and students. It is
through qualitative research that educators may more fully understand the complexities
involved in using additional funding to increase student achievement.
These qualitative studies must occur closer to the time period in which
intervention funds are utilized. Qualitative research involving schools that accept
intervention funds will contribute to the body of research involving effectiveness of
intervention funding. Such a body of research is needed so educators and politicians may
make informed decisions to benefit student preparedness for college or 21st-century
careers.
Research and Evaluation
In an effort to make informed decisions, educators and politicians must place
greater emphasis on research and evaluation of intervention funding effectiveness.
Schools and districts accepting intervention dollars must agree to an evaluation process
by an outside entity. Through research and evaluation, educators will benefit from
110
learning what is working and will also learn from knowing what did not work.
Documenting what works will provide educators with those best practices likely to
benefit students.
Conclusion
Today’s high schools must prepare more students to be ready for college or 21stcentury careers. Recognizing the need, both state and federal funds have been allocated
to high schools to raise student achievement. In California, high schools receiving
intervention funds have been evaluated primarily by how schools have improved in
measures associated with the Public Schools Accountability Act. Even though these
measures are important, they fall short of what will be needed for graduates to be
successful in today’s job market.
This research focused on how well large California high schools receiving state
intervention funds in the early 2000s prepared students for college and 21st-century
careers. Since there is no agreed upon measure to determine if high school graduates are
ready for college or a 21st-century career, the A-G course requirements were used as a
measure to determine readiness. When the A-G completion rates for a set of 32 schools
that received state intervention funding was compared to a similar group of 32 schools,
the researcher found few statistically significant differences between the intervention and
comparison schools. However, the research findings did demonstrate a pattern of
111
increased A-G completion rates within the intervention schools when compared to the
comparison schools.
Further efforts are needed to improve high schools so more students are prepared
for college or 21st-century careers. If California, and the nation, is going to prosper, then
more students must be prepared for the job market of today. More resources need to be
invested in intervention, research, and development to improve high schools. This can
only happen when education, political, and business leaders place a greater priority on
improving high schools in California and throughout the nation.
112
REFERENCES
Achieve. (2010). American diploma project network. Retrieved from http://achieve.org
ACT. (2006). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different? Iowa City, IA:
Author.
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that
counts. Achieve, Inc.
Association for Effective Schools, Inc. (2010). What is effective school research?
Retrieved from http://www.mes.org/esr.html
Bess, B. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization:
Theories for effective policy and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option. Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. The
Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching. New York: Harper & Row.
Brady, M., Hout, M., & Stiles, J. (2005). Return on investment: Educational choices and
demographic change in California’s future. Berkeley: University of California
Berkeley.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2006). California STAR program. Retrieved
from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2006/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2008a). Dataquest: California High School
Exit Exam. Retrieved from http://cahsee.cde.ca.gov/reports.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2008b). Closing the achievement gap:
Report of Superintendent Jack O’Connell’s California P-16 council. Sacramento,
CA: Author.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2010a). DataQuest. Retrieved from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest
California Department of Education (CDE). (2010b). Dataquest: California High School
Exit Exam. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cahsee
113
California Department of Education (CDE). (2010c). Multiple pathways to student
success: Envisioning the new California high school. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2010d). Overview of California’s 2009–10
accountability progress reporting system. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/overview10.pdf
California Department of Education (CDE). (2011). The public schools accountability act
of 1999. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/cefpsaa.asp
California State University. (2011). CSU Mentor. Retrieved from
http://www.csumentor.edu/planning/high_school/subjects.asp
Camp, D. (2009, March/April). Talking about racism in our schools. Leadership.
Association of California School Administrators.
Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2002). Connecting education standards and
employment: Course-taking patterns of young workers. The American Diploma
Project.
Conley, D. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students and what we can
do to get them ready. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010, April). Beyond basic skills: The role of
performance assessment in achieving 21st-century standards of learning.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, R. (2006). Learning by doing. A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Education Trust. (2003). Program for international student assessment and trends in
international mathematics and science study. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
Educational Testing Service. (2005). Ready for the real world? Americans speak on high
school reform. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/aboutets/americaspeaks/survey2005.html
Elementary and Secondary Act [ESEA]. 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1965)
114
Harr, J. J., Parrish, T., Socias, M., & Gubbins, P. (2007). Evaluation study of California’s
high priority schools grant program: Final report. American Institutes for
Research.
Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6) 6-11.
Haycock, K. (2005, June 8). Improving academic achievement and closing gaps between
Groups in the middle grades. Presentation given at CASE Middle Level Summit.
Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org
Hord, S. M., & Sommers, W. A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities:
Voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lee, V. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What works. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Martinez, M. (2005). Advancing high school reform in the states: Policies and programs.
Reston, V. A.. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (1996). Breaking ranks:
Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2004). Breaking ranks
II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
National Education Summit on High Schools. (2005). An action agenda for improving
America’s high schools. Achieve, Inc. and National Governors Association.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110, (2002).
Planty, M., Provasnik, S., & Daniel, B. (2007). High school course taking: Findings from
The condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007-065). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Quint, J. (2006). Meeting five critical challenges of high school reform: Lessons from
research on three reform models. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
115
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in
teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Singleton, E. G., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race: A field
guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Snyder, T., & Dillow, S. (2010). Digest of education statistics, 2009. NCES 2010-013.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
The American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma
that counts. Achieve, Inc.
Timer, T. (2006). How California funds k-12 education. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice.
United States Department of Education. (2010a). Elementary and secondary education.
Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Retrieved
from http://2ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
United States Department of Education. (2010b). Comprehensive school reform program.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/compreform/
United States Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A scan report
for America 2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., & Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement
gaps: How black and white students in public schools perform in mathematics
and reading on the national assessment of educational progress. (NCES 2009455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences.