Evaluation Study of California's High Priority Schools Grant Program: Final Report

Harr, Jenifer J.; Parrish, Tom; Socias, Miguel; Gubbins, Paul O.

doi:10.1037/e538322012-001

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HPSGP is similar to II/USP but targets money more narrowly to the lowest-performing schools and allows for a longer school-improvement implementation period. HPSGP was still in effect as of the 2005-2006 school year (Harr et al, 2007).…”

Section: Implementation Of Sba In Californiamentioning

confidence: 93%

Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in Three States, 2004-2006

Stecher¹,

Epstein²,

Hamilton³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Implementation Of Sba In Californiamentioning

confidence: 93%

Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in Three States, 2004-2006

Stecher¹,

Epstein²,

Hamilton³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State Strategies to Improve Low-Performing Schools: California's High Priority Schools Grant Program

Timar

Chyu

2010

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background School accountability policies and high-stakes testing have created new demands on state policy makers to provide assistance to low-performing schools. California's response was the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and the High Priority School Grants Program (HPSGP). Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This study explores the effects of the HPSGP on improving academic performance of the lowest performing schools in California. The study focuses on the organizational factors that influenced resource allocation decisions. The discussion addresses what might be done to ameliorate some of the key problems implicated in nonperforming schools. Participants Data for this study came from site visits to 15 schools that received HPSGP funding. Of the 15 schools we studied, 10 were high schools, and the remainder elementary schools. Eleven of the schools were urban, and four were rural. Program Description Schools in the bottom 10th percentile are eligible to apply for HPSGP funds. The State of California provided 655 schools with $400 per pupil each year for three years, with an optional fourth year. Participating schools also could apply for an optional planning grant of $50,000 in the initial year. Research Design Using qualitative case studies of 15 schools in California, the study compares HPSGP recipient schools that made significant academic improvement with HPSGP schools that remained stagnant. The site visits, which took place between February and May 2006, comprised structured interviews with principals, teachers, HPSGP and special program coordinators, and school site council members, as well as classroom observations and focus groups. During a two-day visit, at least five people at each school were interviewed. Conclusion This study found that organizational characteristics, such as leadership of principals, member participation in decision-making, and existence of coherent goals and plans, have a significant influence on the ability of schools to make effective use of grant funding and to achieve higher student performance. The study's main finding was that improving schools were deliberative and purposive in their use of program funds. Nonimproving schools, on the other hand, were opportunistic, lacking a plan or vision for using funding to build effective regimes of teaching and learning.

show abstract

Evaluation Study of California's High Priority Schools Grant Program: Final Report

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of the methodology for the study, including the conceptual framework that guided our instrument development and qualitative data analysis. The methodology for the student achievement analyses is presented in greater detail in Chapter 3.

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in Three States, 2004-2006

Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in Three States, 2004-2006

State Strategies to Improve Low-Performing Schools: California's High Priority Schools Grant Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About