Main field testing In the summer of 2012, the researcher began gathering the names of schools that were planning to go through the Title I transition

process during the 2012-2013 school year. The researcher quickly realized that although this transition had been a trend that several districts were undertaking over the past 3 years based on ODE’s recommendation, this year there were very few schools that were choosing to make this transition. The low number of schools making the move from TAP to SWP during the 2012-2013 school year directly correlated with the fact that the state

of Oregon adopted a new growth model evaluation system to measure student

achievement. This new statewide Growth Model in Oregon ensued following the hiring of a new State Superintendent of Education. The newly adopted system identified over 90 schools in the state as schools that are in Need of Improvement. Many schools that

planned to make the Title I transition were given clear directives not to make any changes this year by their superintendent or central office administration, so a large number of schools decided to postpone the transition. In the researcher’s effort to accomplish Step 6, it became increasingly difficult to find schools that were planning to take on the transition process in September 2012, let alone pilot the handbook. It was through conversations with administrators during ODE’s Title I Coordinator’s August meeting that a connection was made with a principal entering the transition process, whose school was not in a “needs improvement” status. The principal agreed to participate in the study by piloting the handbook, Moving to a Schoolwide Title I Program: The Path Principals Should Take

to Maintain a Healthy School Culture. This agreement was made after a face-to-face

meeting was held between the principal and the researcher. During the meeting all documents approved by the Human Subject Board were reviewed, as the piloting

principal did not participate in any of the evaluation Focus groups. The principal seemed very concerned with keeping all records, documents, and names anonymous. The

researcher assured the principal that the school’s identity and all participants involved in the piloting would be kept anonymous. For the purpose of this dissertation, the piloting school is referred to as Garden Acres (pseudonym) Elementary (GAE).

Mr. Johnson (pseudonym) the building principal agreed to pilot the handbook by using it as a guide to assist GAE in making a successful transition from TAP to SWP. Data were collected through field notes, principal/researcher discussions, reflections and debriefs held after the use of tools, activities and figures within the handbook, as well as notes, comments, and suggestions made by the school. The researcher also made himself available to Mr. Johnson by phone and in person to answer questions and provide the principal with additional guidance.

The main field testing pilot was conducted over a 6-month period. The overall results clearly indicated that the handbook was a valuable tool that Mr. Johnson referred to on a regular basis for support and guidance throughout the yearlong process. Through the principal’s experience testing the handbook (product) and the communication of the SWP Planning Team at GAE, the handbook was determined to be a product that is ready for use in schools after making some minor adjustments. Mr. Johnson stated,

The principal’s handbook gave me everything I needed to know to lead my meetings and be in compliance with the state’s expectations. I utilized the activities and school culture components with my staff and they were well received. The handbook provided excellent ways to keep parents, students, staff and community members involved in the process. Through this transition people feel they have a voice, they appreciate that we value their opinion, and in turn they are supportive of the changes that we are making to meet the needs of all students. As an administrator I would recommend the handbook to any principal going through the process. It is easy to use and was right on target!

Detailed results of the main field test and the researcher’s findings are located later in the Findings section of this chapter.

GAE Public Information

Garden Acres is an elementary school located in a rural Oregon school district with a population of approximately 300 students. They are currently 69.7% free and reduced lunch; however, even with the large percentage of students in the free and reduced category the school has always functioned under a TAP. The staff and

administration at GAE made the decision to transition to a SWP model after discussion arose with staff during the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Johnson (pseudonym) the building principal states that the discussions were focused around struggling students not receiving the support they need to make adequate yearly progress.

Table 5 provides public information on GAE: Grades: PK, K. 1, 2, 3. Total enrollment 290 as of September 11, 2012.

As Table 5 demonstrates, GAE is a small primary school with only one grade level participating in statewide OAKS assessments. Their class sizes are low and the student-to-teacher ratio is low. GAE did not make AYP, which could be a reason they made the transition to a SWP. We can infer that the principal of GAE, a school where only one grade takes the OAKS assessments, may face less resistance than at a traditional K-5 elementary school where half of the students are participating in OAKS testing, including the difficult writing test. GAE would be served to examine formative Reading and Math assessments throughout the year to guide their instruction and interventions.

The following section addresses the findings of the operational field testing conducted at GAE.

Table 5

GAE Information

1. RACIAL/ETHNIC BACKGROUND AND OTHER INFORMATION

White Hispanic Asian Black

Native/ Pacific Island American Indian Bi Racial 54.1 34.8 9 0.3 0 0 1.7

2. RACIAL/ETHNIC BACKGROUND AND OTHER INFORMATION % low- income % limited English- Proficient % IEP Chronic Truancy Rate Mobility Rate Attenda nce Rate High School Dropout Rate 69.7 7.3 22.8 9.6 19.2 91.5 N/A 3. STUDENT-TO-STAFF RATIOS Pupil to Teacher Pupil to Certified Staff Pupil to Classified Staff Pupil to Administrator Pupil to Specialist 17.2 12.9 4.3 1.0 1.5

4. AVERAGE CLASS SIZE (as of first day of school, 2012)

PK K 1 2 3

10.4 20.3 21.2 20.8 23.1

5. ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) STATUS REPORT

Is this school making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? NO

Is this school making AYP in Reading? YES

Is this school making AYP in Mathematics? NO

Is this school currently in Improvement Status

NO IEP = Individualized Education Program