This study examined the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act federal mandate of the Transformation Intervention Model (TIM) outlined by the School Improvement Grant, which was designed to turn around persistently lowest achieving schools. The study was conducted in four high schools in a large Southern California urban district that selected the TIM. The purpose behind this investigation was to examine the extent to which instructional components pertaining to the TIM were associated with student math achievement for four high schools in District X. Two research questions guided the study, one addressed the association between TIM and student mathematics learning outcomes, and the second addressed what aspects of the TIM yielded an impact on student mathematics learning outcomes. The conceptual framework for this study was drawn from five school reform concepts that have been shown to impact student learning outcomes: (a) leadership effectiveness focused on two areas: understanding change theory and leadership characteristics; (b) teacher effectiveness on student learning outcomes; (c) comprehensive instructional reform strategies on student outcomes, which in District X centers on student engagement; (d) instructional time related to student outcomes; and (e) barriers to reform. This study utilized an embedded mixed-methods approach in which both quantitative and qualitative methods were incorporated. The quantitative data set included students' CST scores in mathematics for two years (pre- and post-implementation of the TIM), as well as classroom observations utilizing the district adopted Student Engagement Rubric. In order to address the nested nature of students within classrooms, the quantitative data set was analyzed using HLM. Four high school principals and a district staff person responsible for the School Improvement Grant were interviewed. The qualitative interview data component provide insights regarding leadership effectiveness, extended instructional time, and the impact on student learning outcomes, all of which complements the quantitative student mathematics outcomes data. Overall, the findings suggest that these schools have a great deal of work to do to improve mathematic student learning outcomes, both at the student and classroom level. There are three key results from this study: (a) classrooms in which students know what they are learning have improved student outcomes; (b) change takes time, and after year one of implementation there are few significant results (expect for the association between "what is to be learned" and student outcomes); and (c) District X must address the capacity of the leader to select the right priorities and remain focused on student achievement. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]