University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

(USC Thesis Other)

Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 1
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES TO MAXIMIZE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT: A CRITICAL CASE STUDY OF A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

Adrianna Kathleen Glazener

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Adrianna Kathleen Glazener

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, with whom I share this
accomplishment. First, to my husband, Ethan, who lifts my spirits and encourages me to
pursue excellence—thank you for your unwavering belief in me. To my parents, Tom
and Jeanne, to whom I owe my love of education—thank you for your endless generosity
of both time and spirit that allows me the freedom to be myself and pursue my dreams.
To my brother T.J.—you sharpen my wit and share my competitive drive, and I thank
you for never letting me get away with mediocrity. Finally, to my children Henrik and
Claire—you color my world, and have made this entire journey worth taking.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend sincere gratitude to my committee members—Dr. Larry
Picus, Dr. Michael Escalante, and Dr. Frank Donavan. Thank you for the time and
energy it took to read drafts, provide feedback, and support my academic pursuits.
To Dr. Picus, my chairperson and mentor through this process—thank you for
championing my efforts to join your thematic dissertation group; you have fought for me
since the beginning of this process. If I’ve done anything right this year, it was choosing
to work with you. Thank you for allowing me to be myself, all the while gently coaxing
me away from fearing the enormity of this exercise. To the rest of the supportive and
inspiring faculty of the USC Rossier School of Education, namely Dr. Rudy Crew, Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, Dr. Lauren Anderson, and Dr. Jamy Stillman—thank you for arming me
with a greater capacity to be myself and think for myself. I’d also like to acknowledge
the hard work and support of my Tuesday II cohort, my TEMS colleagues, and my
thematic dissertation group. It was a pleasure to spend my evenings with such talented,
likeminded, and goodhearted individuals.
I would also like to acknowledge the three assistant superintendents of the studied
district for their openness and sincerity. It was a pleasure to engage in this research that
will hopefully help your precious students in some small way.
Finally, I would not be writing these acknowledgements if it weren’t for the
support of Dr. Hiacynth Martinez—my former boss, current cheerleader, and forever
friend. Thank you for believing in me, and convincing me to see myself as a teacher
leader. Though you’ll never take the credit you deserve, my pursuit of this degree is
entirely thanks to the seed you planted.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 6

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8

Statement of the Problem 11

Purpose of the Study 12

Research Questions 13

Importance of the Study 13

Summary of Methodology 14

Limitations 14

Delimitations 15

Assumptions 16

Definition of Terms 16

Organization of the Study 20

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 21

History of Human Resource Allocation and Expenditures 21

History of expenditures 21

Adequacy 24

Evidence-Based Model 26

Figure 1. The Evidence-Based Model 28

Limited Resources and Fiscal Constraints 28

Current fiscal situation 28

District and local constraints 29

School Improvement Strategies 30

90/90/90 Schools 33

Effective leadership 35

Investing in teaching quality 44

Creating individual attention and personal learning environments 55

Maximizing academic time and linking it to learning needs 60

Conclusion 62

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 5
Chapter Three: Methodology 64

Qualitative Research Methodology 64

Research Questions 65

Sample and Population 65

Instrumentation and Data Collection 67

Document analysis 68

Interview 68

Observation 69

Data Analysis 69

Conclusion 70

Chapter Four: Results 71

District A Resource Allocation Strategies 71

Central office leadership in District A 72

Investing in teaching quality 79

Creating individual attention and personal learning environments 93

Maximizing academic time and linking it to learning needs 100

The Gaps: A Comparison of Current Practices to the Evidence-Based Model 101

Core academic teachers and specialist/elective teachers 101

Library staff 102

Extra help staff 103

Instructional coaches 106

Non-academic pupil support staff 107

Administration 108

Strategic Reallocation of Human Resources 108

Chapter Five: Conclusion 115

Summary of Findings 116

Implications 121

Future Research 122

Conclusion 123

References 125

Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol: Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services 130

Appendix B: Interview Protocol: Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services 132

Appendix C: Interview Protocol: Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources 133

Appendix D: Expected English Learner Progression 135

Appendix E: Student Achievement Goals 2012-2013 136

Appendix F: Visitation Protocol 141

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Connecting Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance to
Four Categories of Literature on School Improvement 34

Table 2: 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities that are Significantly Correlated
with Higher Student Achievement as identified by McREL 37

Table 3: Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) 83

Table 4: Comparison of District A and EBM Allocations of Core Teachers (FTEs) 103

Table 5: FTEs Allocated to Professional Development by School Site 107

Table 6: Comparison between District A Allocations and Evidence-Based Model 109

Table 7: Summary of Suggestions for Reallocation of Human Resources 114

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 7
Abstract
This study applied the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a
framework for determining how district leadership could potentially reallocate human
resources to maximize the opportunity for student achievement, relying heavily on the ten
strategies for doubling student performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009)
and the “Big Three” guiding resource strategies (Miles & Frank, 2008) to determine
which strategies effective districts use to improve student achievement. The purpose of
the study was to provide research-based suggestions for how District A can reallocate
human resources to increase student achievement without spending additional money.
This study was conducted using qualitative formative evaluation research methods,
including the triangulation of multiple data sources—observation, interviews, and
document analysis. Findings from this study indicate that while most of District A’s
human resource allocations were far below those suggested by the EBM, the district had
high implementation of many of Odden’s (2009) strategies for doubling student
performance, particularly those tied to effective leadership and teacher quality. It was
suggested that the district reallocate resources from special education aides and school
psychologists to fund additional TOSAs in professional development, as well as specialist
teachers to provide release time for core teachers to engage in collaborative planning and
professional development. This study provides information to help administrators
prioritize their human resources and remain committed to implementing the strategies
that give students the best chance of succeeding.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The financial history of America’s school system is one of mixed messages—we
live in a country whose schools manage to appear simultaneously rich and poor,
underfunded and over financed, and capable of both overspending resources and yet not
spending enough to help our nation’s students. Still the question remains, is our school
system in desperate need of increased resources, or simply misusing the resources they
have?
A common rationale for increasing school funding is that it is necessary in order
for our schools and students to be globally competitive. Historically, the United States
has done just that. Between 1890 and 1990, school spending in the United States steadily
increased, with per student expenditures rising 3
!
!
percent per year during that time
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). While conventional wisdom insists that this type of increase
in expenditures is necessary to increase student achievement, actual data suggest only
modest improvements in student achievement despite substantial increases in dollars per
pupil spent over the past few decades (Odden et al., 2008). Beginning in the early 1990s,
the growth rate of per pupil spending fell to almost zero, due in part to a growing student
population (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Currently, budget stress nationwide has led to
substantial reductions in funding available for K-12 schools—a trend expected to
continue for the 2012-2013 school year and beyond. In 2011, 37 of the 46 states that
publish education budget data provided less funding per pupil in the current school year
than in the previous year. California was one of four states that reduced per student
funding in K-12 schools by more than 20 percent between the 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
school years (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). Because of the extent to which this immense
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 9
reduction in the resources available to schools has threatened the historical expansion of
school spending in the United States, policymakers, practitioners, and the American
public will soon be compelled to pay closer attention to how schools operate within these
budgetary constraints (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997).
Between 1970 and 1990, a substantial portion of rising per student educational
expenditures was attributable to an increase in the cost of school personnel, due to both
increased salaries and lower student-teacher ratios (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Since
most LEAs continue to dedicate a large portion of their budget to hiring personnel,
districts will likely continue to turn to cutbacks and layoffs during times of fiscal stress.
Federal employment data show that school districts began reducing the overall number of
teachers and other school personnel in September 2008, with the job losses accelerating
in the past year as the cuts have worsened. By September 2011, LEAs had cut 278,000
more jobs nationally as compared to 2008 (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). In a recent survey
of 692 school administrators from 44 states, nearly half (48 percent) laid off personnel for
the 2010-2011 school year, and two-thirds (66 percent) anticipated doing so in 2011-2012
(Ellerson, 2010).
Despite this reduction in funding and personnel, the push for student achievement
remains the same, if not higher than in the past—a situation that calls for districts to make
choices and prioritize how to spend their money. Beginning in the 1990s, a striking shift
in United States educational policy known as the accountability movement began placing
substantial emphasis on educational outcomes by measuring student performance and
rewarding or penalizing schools based on level of achievement (Hannaway, McKay, &
Nakib, 2002). This type of standards-based educational reform, along with the federal
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 10
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 called for radically improved student
performance, stemming from the basic belief that schools, like most other organizations
in society, should be able to account for their contribution to the learning of students by
engaging in steady improvements over time (Elmore, 2002). To meet the criteria
established by NCLB, many states and LEAs have initiated important school reforms to
increase student achievement, although cuts to school resources inhibit their ability to
implement these reforms, particularly in areas like teacher training and early childhood
education (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). Confronted with NCLB and higher expectations
for achievement, schools that don’t improve student achievement will lose enrollment,
sovereignty, and potentially their existence (Lashway, 2003)—a sobering fact which
undoubtedly requires a renewed sense of urgency, and subtly demands an increase in how
efficiently educational dollars are spent.
Consequently, school finance policy and research have become increasingly
focused on how resources are being spent, rather than the overall amount of educational
funding (Odden et al., 2008), with the conclusion being that most schools and districts do
not, in fact, use newly acquired resources for strategies that will have the largest impact
on student achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2009). According to Odden (2011),
schools and districts must determine a new set of strategies that align their resources to
activities that raise student learning in an era of reduced budgets. This will require
educators to reconsider all aspects of the education system—teacher recruitment,
compensation and retention, the organization of curriculum and instructional services,
and especially how, regardless of the size of the budget, it uses limited resources more
efficiently and effectively (Odden, 2011).
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 11
In today’s environment, when money is limited and student achievement is
expected, many districts are indeed looking to restructure programs and reallocate
resources, spending money only on programs and strategies shown to increase student
achievement. After conducting and reviewing numerous case studies, Odden and
Archibald (2009) identified ten core elements that constituted the changes implemented
by schools that had radically increased, or doubled, student performance. While several
of the elements require broad organizational change and visionary leadership, yet a
relatively small investment of resources, others such as ongoing, intensive professional
development, class sizes of 15 in grades K-3, extended learning time for struggling
students, teacher collaboration time, and the distribution of instructional leadership
responsibilities require a more significant level of resources to implement (Odden &
Archibald, 2009, p. 70). In fact, several researchers have developed models for
prioritizing the allocation of resources in ways to continue improving student
achievement despite limited funds.
Statement of the Problem
In spite of the existing research on how districts can best allocate resources to
positively impact student achievement, the actions of state and district policymakers do
not consistently align with the findings. Although research suggests that the quality of
teaching outweighs any other factor in determining increased student performance (Miles
& Frank, 2008), many states have cut funding for the professional development of
teachers (Oliff & Leachman, 2011), and most schools do not make resource decisions
that reflect this fact. Miles and Frank (2008) suggest that the strategic school, even in the
face of budget cuts and financial hardship, will continue to provide well-designed
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 12
professional development, as well as continued expert support to help teachers implement
the school’s instructional plan (p. 28).
Class-size reduction—though shown to increase student achievement in the lower
grades—has also taken a hit during this time of fiscal stress. A recent survey of school
administrators found that 57 percent increased class sizes for the 2010-2011 school year,
and 65 percent anticipated having to do so for the 2011-2012 school year (Ellerson,
2010), despite the fact that student achievement increases predictably when class sizes
are reduced in the early grades to between 13 and 17 students, and teachers adjust their
teaching strategies to make use of these lowered numbers (Miles & Frank, 2008, p. 52).
Though extending the amount of time students are learning via high-quality
instruction, whether by extending the school day or school year, is shown to raise student
achievement (Miles & Frank, 2008), many schools will not spend the resources to pay
teachers for the additional hours to either a) provide more instructional minutes to all
students or b) target struggling students for extra instruction. What’s more, before
considering the addition of instructional minutes to enhance student learning, Miles and
Frank (2008) suggest that LEAs consider how to reallocate and use more wisely the time
they already have (p. 74).
Some will argue that schools simply need more resources; yet, studies have
shown that even when resources increase markedly, schools often do not use their new
money strategically to improve student achievement (Odden et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on the current human
resource allocation strategies of a midsize urban elementary school district in Orange
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 13
County, California. The district’s current practices were compared to resource allocation
strategies shown to improve student performance, in order to determine if a gap exists.
Using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), I offer suggestions for how
district leadership might reallocate human resources to maximize the opportunity for
student achievement given the current budget constraints in California.
Research Questions
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Importance of the Study
This study compared a school district’s human resource allocation strategies to
those presented in the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). The results from
this study reinforced the previous studies conducted using the Evidence-Based Model.
The intent of this research was to understand the district’s resource allocation strategies
and how they align with the Evidence-Based Model. Further, the study identified ways
that the district’s resource allocation could be adjusted to more closely reflect research-
based strategies that are likely to improve student performance, as well as offered
recommendations for how to reallocate resources to double student achievement, taking
into consideration the current reduction in resources. This study also added to a growing
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 14
body of research on models for educational resource allocation proven to increase student
achievement.
Summary of Methodology
In order to determine how human resources are allocated across District A and its
schools, I conducted a series of interviews with the Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources, the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services, and the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services, in addition to collecting and analyzing selected
human resource documents. Additionally, I conducted an observation of a school board
budget meeting. Further, I compared how human resources are allocated across the
district, to the resource allocations suggested by the Evidence-Based Model, in order to
determine whether a gap exists. Turning Research into Results: a Guide to Selecting the
Right Performance Solutions by Richard E. Clark and Fred Estes (2008) provided the
basic framework for the application of the gap analysis process in this study. Finally,
solutions were offered to help bridge the gap between current and expected performance.
Limitations
As is the case with any educational research, there are limitations to this particular
study. The studied school district was not chosen at random, and was instead targeted
due to its size and demographics, including the fact that it is an exclusively elementary
district. Additionally, data were collected between September and December 2012,
thereby providing a brief and limited view of the district’s human resource allocation
strategies in a specific context and moment in time.
There are also limitations associated with the data collection instruments. First, in
terms of document collection and analysis, the only documents analyzed were those that
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 15
school district personnel were willing to provide. Further, because much of this study
relied upon interviews with district personnel, the content of the data collected was
limited to the perspective of those individuals, as well as the scope and type of
information they were willing to share. Finally, since it was unrealistic in the scope of
this study to observe all school board budget meetings and decision-making processes in
a given school year, observations were limited to a select board meeting.
Due to the current budget crisis in California, there were limitations associated
with the use of the Evidence-Based Model for adequate resource allocation, which allows
for significantly more resources than are currently available to California schools;
though, values and resources were adjusted and manipulated to better reflect the current
fiscal situation.
Delimitations
Delimitations in this study include purposeful sampling of the studied district.
Also, because the study was limited to one school district, results are mainly
generalizable only to districts of similar size and demographics. Patterns and practices
that emerged from the study will, however, add to the existing body of research about
resource allocation and student achievement.
Although this study revealed information on the human resource allocation
strategies and practices across the sampled district, program implementation was not
evaluated in terms of effectiveness or district-wide fidelity. Finally, the Evidence-Based
Model was used as a comparative analysis tool between the district’s programs and
strategies shown to improve student achievement; though heavily reliant on existing
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 16
empirical evidence on school improvement strategies, the EBM is just one of several
adequacy approaches.
Assumptions
Finally, this study made the assumption that growth in a school or district’s API
and AYP scores represent true student achievement. Discussions of student achievement
in this study are limited to a singular measure, and do not account for increases in student
performance not measured by the CSTs. Another implicit assumption in this study is that
all interviewees provided accurate and honest responses to the interview protocol.
Definition of Terms
To clarify key terms used throughout the study, the following definitions have
been provided:
Academic Performance Index (API): a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of
200 to a high of 1,000. A school’s score or placement on the API is an indicator of the
school’s performance level. The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800.
A school’s growth is measured by how well the school is moving toward or past that goal
(California Department of Education, 2012)
Adequacy: the cost of providing educational programs and services so that all, or almost
all, children have an equal opportunity to achieve academic success (Odden & Picus et
al., 2005)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): a statewide accountability system mandated by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which requires each state to ensure that all schools and
districts make Adequate Yearly Progress (California Department of Education, 2012)
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 17
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): the total number of days of student attendance divided
by the total number of days in the regular school year. A student attending every day
would equal one ADA. ADA is not the same as enrollment, which is the number of
students enrolled in each school and district (EdSource, 2013)
California English Language Development Test (CELDT): a test for students in grades
kindergarten through grade twelve intended to help schools identify students who need to
improve their skills in listening, speaking, reading and writing in English (California
Department of Education, 2012)
California Standards Tests (CSTs): criterion-referenced tests that assess the California
content standards in ELA, mathematics, science, and history-social science (California
Department of Education, 2012)
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): the Common Core State Standards were
developed through a state-led initiative to establish consistent and clear education
standards for English language arts and mathematics that would better prepare students
for success in college, career, and the competitive global economy. The California State
Board of Education (SBE) adopted the standards on August 2, 2010 (California
Department of Education, 2012)
Doubling student performance: a description of schools that increase performance from a
point just above average, such as 55 percent to 60 percent of students at or above
proficiency, to a position at the top level, such as 90 or 95 percent. Such change, while
not literally double, represents significant and quantum improvements (Odden &
Archibald, 2009)
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 18
Evidence-Based Model (EBM): an approach to educational funding, created by Alan
Odden and Lawrence Picus, that is based on school and district-level strategies shown to
increase student achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2009)
First-order change: incremental change that fine-tunes the current educational system
through a series of small steps that do not radically differ from past practice (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005)
Individualized Education Program (IEP): a document designed to meet the unique
educational needs of one child who may have a disability, as defined by federal
regulations, and mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (California
Department of Education, 2012)
Local Education Agency (LEA): an educational agency that consists of school districts,
county offices of education, or possibly charter schools, that operates schools or provides
educational services (California Department of Education, 2012)
Long-Term English Learners (LTELs): students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools
for more than six years, are no longer progressing towards English proficiency, and are
struggling academically (Olsen, 2010)
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): a federal law that contains the most
sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was
enacted in 1965. In sum, NCLB requires schools to demonstrate their success in terms of
the academic achievement of every student; NCLB emphasizes stronger accountability
for results, expanded options for parents, and improvement in teacher quality (California
Department of Education, 2012)
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 19
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): teams of teachers, governed by a common
set of professional standards, who focus on learning rather than on teaching, work
collaboratively, and hold themselves accountable for results (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, &
Many, 2006; Odden, 2009)
Program Improvement: a series of improvement and corrective action measures to which
LEAs and schools are subjected when they fail to make Annual Yearly Progress toward
statewide proficiency goals (California Department of Education, 2012)
Proposition 30: a California state ballot initiative that passed on November 6, 2012.
Prop 30 increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼
cent for four years, to fund schools. As a result, in 2012–2013, planned spending
reductions, primarily to education programs, will not occur (California Secretary of State,
2012)
Quantitative Meta-Analytic Approach: a methodological approach that allows researchers
to form statistically based generalizations regarding the research within a given field by
combing correlations from different studies and examining the significance of the
combined correlation from the perspective of the combined sample sizes (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005)
Second-order change: change that involves dramatic departures from what’s expected;
deep change that alters the system in fundamental ways, offering a dramatic shift in
direction and requiring new ways of thinking and acting (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005)
Supplemental Educational Services (SES): additional academic instruction provided
outside of the regular school day and designed to increase the academic achievement of
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 20
students attending schools in Program Improvement Years 2 through 5. SES, or free
tutoring, must be high quality, research based, and specifically designed to increase
student academic achievement. Eligible students are all low-income students who attend
Title I PI Years 2 through 5 schools (California Department of Education, 2012)
Organization of the Study
Chapter One provides an orientation to the background of resource allocation in
the public school system, as well as a clear statement of the current problem that will be
explored in this study, the importance of the study, a list of research questions, a
discussion of the limitations, delimitations, and assumptions of the study, and a glossary
of important terms. Chapter Two synthesizes the body of literature surrounding relevant
topics, including school finance, current patterns of resource allocation, adequacy
models, and resource-based strategies for school improvement. Chapter Three outlines
the methodology of the study, including the sample population, research design,
instrumentation, data collection, and an analysis of the data. Chapter Four discusses the
findings of the study, including a discussion of the outcomes of the four research
questions. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, provides a discussion of the
implications of the study, and offers recommendations for future actions that will
contribute to the field.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter synthesizes the literature surrounding school spending and resource
allocation, and provides background on the current financial state of California schools.
Additionally, this literature review places great emphasis on identifying research-based
strategies shown to drastically increase student achievement, and looks at models for
resource allocation that support the implementation of these strategies. This chapter will
be organized into three major sections: a brief history of human resource allocation and
expenditures, the current state of limited resources and fiscal constraint in California
schools, and an in-depth analysis of the strategies shown to have the greatest impact on
student achievement.
History of Human Resource Allocation and Expenditures
History of expenditures. School finance decisions about how to most effectively
use the hundreds of billions of dollars the United States spends annually on public
primary and secondary school education are a critical element of teachers’,
administrators’, and policymakers’ continuous journey to better educate our nation’s
children (Ladd & Hansen, 1999). Between 1890 and 1990, primary and secondary school
spending in the United States consistently increased, both because of increasing
enrollment and rising per pupil expenditures (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Even after a
decline in the school-age population from 1970 to 1990, total U.S. educational
expenditures continued to rise as a result of increased per pupil spending. Much of this
increase, note Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) is attributable to rising salaries for
instructional staff and lower pupil-staff ratios, especially in the 1990s. Between 1991 and
1997, educational spending grew considerably each year, averaging about 7 percent
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 22
growth, though a significant portion of the growth was in non-instructional areas
(Hannaway et al., 2002).
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) caution that a lower student-teacher ratio isn’t
necessarily due to value placed on lower class sizes, noting that some might even
consider such an emphasis a misuse of resources due to conflicting data on the impact of
smaller class sizes. More telling is the link between special education and lower pupil-
staff ratios. Changing legislation in the 1970s, specifically 1975’s Education for All
Handicapped Children’s Act, placed greater emphasis on educational services for
students with disabilities. Once students were classified as disabled, school districts
began to devote any and all necessary resources to provide support services as designated
in each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) (Rothstein & Miles, 1995).
Further, Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) argue that the availability of categorical funding
and incentive structures increased the identification of special education students, and
subsequently increased the number of special education staff. Thus, although educational
spending has increased over the past 50 years, money has been diverted from the general
education classroom, and is instead used to pay for specialists who provide non-core
academic or special needs services (Odden & Picus, 2008). This allocation of new
education resources has created a situation in which the overall pupil-staff ratio has
appeared to go down more drastically than is the reality in most general education
classrooms.
Over the past century, the percentage of educational dollars spent on instructional
staff has continued to decrease from 80% of total educational expenditures in 1890, to
67% in 1940, down to 46% in 1990, even as the relative cost of instructional staff
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 23
increased (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Even though teacher salaries have consistently
risen, the proportion of educational dollars spent on instructional staff has decreased as
the cost of educational materials and special education spending have increased.
Hannaway et al. (2002) found that in the 1990s, the largest relative spending increases
were in pupil support services, fueled by mandates associated with special education.
Rothstein and Miles (1995) concluded that the share of all money received by regular
education declined from 80% in 1967 to 59% in 1991. The authors caution, however, that
just because the share of educational expenses devoted to regular education declined does
not mean that per pupil spending for regular education fell; rather, per pupil expenditures
grew 28% over the period. In their study of school district spending in New York,
Lankford and Wyckoff (1995) confirm that the increase in school spending from 1979-
1980 and 1991-1992 was attributable mainly to spending money on disabled students as
well as teachers’ salaries, both in terms of higher salaries and hiring more teachers.
Although teachers’ salaries increased partly in response to a political movement
to attract higher quality teachers, Lankford and Wyckoff (1995) question whether these
salary increases, which are partially explained by inflation and higher teacher education
level (Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995), were allocated in ways that allow for the
highest impact on student achievement. After analyzing spending patterns across all 50
states for more than five years, Odden et al. (1995) concur that regardless of the amount
of educational dollars allocated, those dollars have been unfairly distributed and unwisely
used on programs and practices that don’t necessarily increase student achievement.
Rothstein and Miles (1995) argue, on the other hand, that because of inflation, the
increase of per pupil spending is largely exaggerated, growing by 61% between 1967 and
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 24
1991—far less than the doubling traditionally reported. Additionally, they challenge the
notion that school outcomes have not improved to justify these rising expenditures,
noting that the academic achievement of ‘regular’ students is not, nor should it be, the
singular goal of all public schools.
Of the educational dollars spent on instructional services, Odden et al. (1995)
found that a shockingly small percentage—significantly less than 50% of the entire
budget—is spent on staffing teachers in core academic subjects areas. A significant
portion of instructional money, argue the authors, is used to hire staff outside the core
subjects, to pay the salaries of teacher aides, and to finance pullout programs for certain
groups of students. The results suggest a weak connection between educational
expenditures and core academic achievement for all students (Odden et al., 1995).
Adequacy. The issue of educational adequacy—or the sufficiency of funding for
desired educational outcomes (Ladd & Hansen, 1999)—is the chief issue facing school
finance today, argues Odden (2003). This hasn’t always been the case. After the
historical Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, education policymakers began
to address problems of unequal educational opportunities, and beginning in the 1970s,
began working to make the distribution of school dollars more equitable (Ladd &
Hansen, 1999). Fiscal equity, or diminishing the gap in educational funding for poor and
minority students, has long been the focus of education funding (Odden, 2003). Many of
these inequities, asserts Odden (2003) are caused by disparities in the distribution of the
local property tax base. State and federal governments, explain Ladd and Hansen (1999)
worked to increase fiscal equity by creating categorical programs aimed at providing
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 25
resources to students with special needs, somewhat compensating for funding inequities
at the local level.
Over the past 20 years, courts in over 25 states have ruled that state systems for
financing public education deny many students the resources necessary for an adequate
education (Rebell, 2007). In fact, Rebell (2007) continues, a closer look at most state
education finance systems would reveal a lack of investigation into the level of funding
required to meet children’s learning needs. Thus, the shift towards adequacy began in the
1990s, as policymakers demanded evidence that increased per pupil funding actually
made a difference in student learning. Further, since the onset of standards-based
education reform, school finance policy began to be judged on whether it can provide
adequate levels of funding per student in order that schools and districts can implement
strategies that have shown to be successful in increasing student performance (Odden,
2003). The concept of adequacy is important, argue Ladd and Hansen (1999), because it
changes the focus of finance policy from sources of revenue to how the allocation and
use of educational dollars affect outcomes. The concept of adequacy also encourages
LEA productivity by emphasizing the relationship between resources and student
achievement outcomes (Ladd & Hansen, 1999).
With an adequacy finance system comes pressure for each state to define an
adequate per pupil expenditure level, as well as to allocate resources to meet state-
required performance standards (Odden, 2003). There are four major methods for
determining an adequate level of funding: the Successful District approach, the Cost
Function approach, the Professional Judgment approach, and the Evidence-Based
approach (Odden, 2003). The Successful District approach studies districts that have met
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 26
state proficiency requirements, and sets a weighted average of the expenditures per
student of each of those districts. This model is typically criticized for its inability to
relate to the needs of various districts’ sizes and demographics. The Cost Function
approach uses statistical regression analysis with per pupil expenditures as the dependent
variable and district characteristics as the independent variable; the amounts in this model
are then adjusted to account for size and pupil needs in various districts. No state
currently uses this model. Unlike the previous two approaches, which do not account for
how districts are to achieve these high performance levels, the Professional Judgment
approach utilizes experts to identify strategies for successful academic performance, and
totals the price to successfully implement each strategy. Odden (2003) notes that this
model is often criticized for a lack of evidence linking the educational strategies to
student performance outputs. Finally, the Evidence-Based approach for determining an
adequate expenditure level determines the strategies and components of a successful
instructional program that allows all students to reach proficiency, assigns a value to each
component, and aggregates a total cost.
Evidence-Based Model. The Evidence-Based Model for determining school
finance adequacy (Figure 1) relies on empirical evidence related to the level of resources
adequate to meet specified performance outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008). This model,
developed by Alan Odden and Lawrence Picus, is based on evidence gathered from true
experimental studies; it synthesizes numerous studies on the impact of best practices at
the school or district level. Over the past decade, states such as Arkansas, Arizona,
Oregon, Kentucky, California, Washington, and Wyoming have all been part of studies
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 27
conducted using the Evidence-Based approach to educational adequacy (Odden & Picus,
2008).
One helpful way to view a school’s budget, explain Odden and Picus (2008), is to
focus on the areas most likely to impact student achievement. Thus, according to the
authors, about 30-40% should be spent on regular classroom teachers and their
subsequent professional learning, as well as a principal; about 30-40% should be spent on
specialist teachers; and 20-30% is spent on business services, food services, overhead,
operations, maintenance, etc. Perhaps the most significant advantage of the Evidence-
Based Model is that it identifies strategies proven to have an impact on student
achievement, thus allowing schools and districts to allocate their resources more
effectively (Odden, 2003). Ultimately, notes Rebell (2007), the most basic purpose
behind a cost analysis model is to use the best mix of current practices to determine what
level of fiscal resources will meet student and school achievement goals. Regardless of
which approach is used to determine adequate per pupil expenditures, full
implementation of a educational program based on adequacy requires schools and
districts to restructure current programs, and reallocate resources to match the desired
outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 28

Figure 1. The Evidence-Based Model. Note: Adapted with permission from a PowerPoint
(January 20, 2012) by Lawrence O. Picus
Limited Resources and Fiscal Constraints
Current fiscal situation. Education spending in recent years has not risen as
sharply as in the past (Hannaway et al., 2002), and California’s economic woes suggest
that new resources are unlikely for the foreseeable future. Yet, at the same time, student
achievement is expected to increase. It is unclear how schools and districts will respond
to the pressure to ensure all students meet the standards even in a time of budget crisis
(Hannaway et al., 2002).
According to a three-year survey distributed to all California public school districts
by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, with results published in 2012, despite an influx of
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 29
short-term federal aid and state interventions to minimize cuts to K-12 education, such as
a one-time $7.3 billion provision from the federal government and the state’s practice of
relying on payment deferrals (which allows school districts to engage in short-term
borrowing rather than making reductions), school district expenditures dropped by almost
five percent between the 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 school years. Total expenditures
dropped by $3.3 billion between 2007-2008 and 2010-2011, which averages out to a 4.7
percent decrease in per pupil spending. Given that certificated staff represent the largest
operational expense in school budgets, it is not surprising that this is where most
reductions have been focused. In addition to budget constraints, districts had to budget
for the 2012-2013 school year without knowing whether Proposition 30—a revenue-
generating ballot measure—would pass in November 2012 (Taylor, 2012).
According to an EdSource report, the situation for California schools is indeed the
worst in the nation, for a school system that already has one of the worst pupil to staff
ratios in the country (Edwards & Leichty, 2010). California’s K–12 LEAs—districts,
county offices of education, and charter schools—receive about $60 billion per year from
several sources. The two biggest sources—the state general fund and local property
taxes—provide about 90% of the total budget to schools. These sources have provided
less funding in recent years, with large portions of funding further delayed (Edwards &
Leichty, 2010). Although the state’s education finance system requires the general fund
to make up for any decrease in their property tax revenues, this adds further strain to the
already hard-pressed general fund.
District and local constraints. Despite delays and decline in school revenues,
many LEAs face pressure to spend more on their employees and students (Edwards,
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 30
2010). Collective bargaining agreements often require certificated salary increases based
on staff experience and education. During times of fiscal stress, it is customary for
districts to lay off the most recently hired and lowest-paid teachers, per union and
contractual agreement. Edwards (2010) also notes that districts are facing higher health
insurance rates for their employees and retirees, with spending rising at a rate of 24%
from 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, while overall spending only rose 15% during that same
time.
State policymakers have provided districts with some accommodations and
flexibility during this time of fiscal stress. First, lawmakers have allowed LEAs
flexibility in how they spend about $4.5 billion from approximately 40 categorical
programs (Edwards & Leichty, 2010)—areas of the budget that are normally set aside for
particular purposes, and thus restricted. Additionally, the state has lessened the financial
penalties for exceeding the student-teacher ratio demanded in the K–3 Class Size
Reduction program. School districts have also been allowed to shorten their school year
from 180 to 175 days without penalty, use money made from sales of surplus property on
one-time general purposes other than facilities, and put off textbook adoptions past
what’s normally allowable (Edwards & Leichty, 2010). Despite increased short-term
spending flexibility, LEAs are still constrained to cut spending in areas not protected by
contracts and unions.
School Improvement Strategies
Despite the current reduction in funding facing California schools, expectations
for success are higher than ever—a situation that calls for LEAs to spend their
resources—human capital and otherwise—in ways that will maximize student
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 31
achievement while minimizing dollars spent. Because the accountability movement of
the 1990s and other standards-based educational reforms such as the federal
government’s NCLB reward or penalize schools based on level of achievement
(Hannaway et al., 2002), schools are essentially being asked to subject themselves to the
discipline of measuring their success by students’ academic performance (Elmore, 2002),
with those that don’t improve student achievement potentially losing enrollment,
sovereignty, and even the ability to continue operating (Lashway, 2003). Standards-
based reform, says Elmore (2000), explicitly forces the school and its stakeholders to
accept responsibility for student learning.
This is simple logic, continues Elmore (2000)—schools should be held
accountable for their effect on student learning, and evidence taken from teacher
evaluations and student performance should be used to improve teaching and learning, as
well as to reward or punish, depending on results. In many other high-skill, knowledge-
based occupations, some system of evaluation and accountability has helped define
professionalism for more than two decades, thus delegitimizing some educators’ claims
that they are being unfairly targeted by an unreasonable accountability system (Elmore,
2002). This is no different than in the private sector, where businesses and organizations
are often required to demonstrate dramatically improved performance results without the
use of new resources, or possibly with reduced resources. As a result, policymakers are
beginning to expect the same of the education system (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald,
2009).
Complicating matters, says Elmore (2002), is the fact that accountability systems
themselves don’t cause schools to improve. Though they set up the prerequisite
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 32
conditions in which it is advantageous for schools to make inroads on particular
educational problems, and to develop new skills and knowledge in their students and
staff, the current school system was not designed to respond to the pressure for increased
student achievement that the accountability movement brings—a failure that is dangerous
to the future of public education (Elmore, 2002).
The message is now clear: students learn largely as a result of what goes on inside
schools (Elmore, 2000). Consequently, school and district decision-makers would be
wise to implement strategies that use current resources more effectively to produce large
improvements in student academic achievement. Odden (2009) refers to this type of
large, significant and measureable improvement in student achievement as “doubling”
student performance—a feat that many believe immediately possible, even when large
scale reforms such as reducing poverty or early preschool are not reasonable goals for the
near future. Large-scale improvements like doubling student performance will soon
become the advantage held by competitive schools in this increasingly results-driven,
standards-based educational market (Elmore, 2000).
To facilitate the review of literature on strategies to improve student achievement,
I will focus on four major categories of research-based school improvement: leadership,
teacher quality, individual attention and personal learning environments, and maximizing
learning time. Miles and Frank (2008) have created a framework for understanding
school improvement in which they use the latter three categories to organize and guide
their understanding of school improvement strategies. Dubbed the “Big Three” by the
authors, these three guiding resource strategies are consistently used by high–performing
schools. Similarly, Odden and Archibald (2009) have identified 10 major strategies
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 33
districts and schools have used to make significant improvements to student performance,
each of which falls into one of the categories listed above (see Table 1). Although they
may differ in detail or implementation, high-performing districts have shown to
consistently implement these strategies, regardless of size, geographic location, or
demographics.
90/90/90 Schools. To be clear, researchers have proven that this kind of
significant, transformative school improvement can occur at high-poverty and high-
minority schools. Reeves (2003) has conducted extensive research on what he calls
90/90/90—schools in which 90% or more of the students are eligible for free and reduced
lunch, 90% or more of the students are members of ethnic minority groups, and 90% or
more of the students meet the district or state academic standards in reading or other
areas. This and other studies illustrate the point that although economic conditions
certainly have the potential to affect student achievement, a school’s demographics do
not determine the performance of its students.
In their large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income
students, Williams, Kirst, and Haertel et al. (2005) found a large and consistent gap in
academic performance among schools that serve the same demographic of students in
California. The researchers’ ultimate goal was to determine which current instructional
practices and policies were most strongly associated with higher levels of student
achievement. In both the study of 90/90/90 schools (Reeves, 2003) and the similar
schools study (Williams et al., 2005), researchers determined a set of characteristics
common to higher performing schools. In both studies, high achieving schools serving
low income students consistently focus on and prioritize student achievement, implement
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 34
a coherent, standards-based instructional program with clear curriculum choices, and
administer, discuss, and use assessment data to improve student achievement and
instruction. These characteristics and more are woven throughout both the “Big Three”
guiding resource strategies (Miles & Frank, 2008) and the ten strategies to double student
performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009), demonstrating that any school
can potentially increase student achievement, assuming they allocate resources efficiently
by targeting only the strategies shown to improve schools.
Table 1
Connecting Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance to Four Categories of
Literature on School Improvement
Effective Leadership
Investing in Teaching Quality
(Miles & Frank, 2008)
Creating Individual Attention and
Personal Learning Environments
(Miles & Frank, 2008)
Maximizing Learning Time
(Miles & Frank, 2008)
10 strategies for doubling student performance
(Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009)

Strategy #1: Understanding the performance
problem and challenge
x
Strategy #2: Set ambitious goals x
Strategy #3: Change the curriculum program and
create a new instructional vision

x
Strategy #4: Formative assessments and data-
based decision making
x
Strategy #5: Ongoing, intensive professional
development
x

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 35
Table 1, continued
Strategy #6: Using time efficiently and
effectively
x
Strategy #7: Extending learning time for
struggling students
x
Strategy #8: Collaborative, professional culture x
Strategy #9 Widespread and distributed
instructional leadership
x
Strategy #10 Professional and best practices

x
Effective leadership. While the qualities of true leadership might be more
elusive than to be considered strategies for school reform, research supports the
traditional belief that leadership is critical to a school’s effectiveness. Marzano, Waters,
and McNulty (2005) suggest that there is a set of leadership behaviors that have a well-
documented impact on student achievement, and are thus a requisite condition for a
highly effective school. After synthesizing the literature on leadership using a
quantitative meta-analytic approach, Marzano et al. (2005) conclude that 21 categories of
behavior—called ‘responsibilities’—have the highest correlation to student academic
achievement (see Table 2). While the authors found it useful for a school principal to
fulfill each of these responsibilities, they also used a factor analysis to identify the
underlying factors that are common to these 21 responsibilities. They determined that
each of the 21 responsibilities of a school leader was closely correlated with either first-
order change—the handling of incremental next-steps—or second-order change,
considered a dramatic departure from the status quo or normal routine. Many experts
have begun to conceptualize educational leadership as embodying these types of second-
order changes, as it is aimed primarily at changing the organization’s regularizing
structure (Hallinger, 2003).
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 36
Doubling student performance in a time of fiscal stress requires leaders who are
willing to identify and implement the unexpected—leaders who are wise to
understanding and articulating the need for dramatic, potentially widespread
organizational, or second-order change (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Northouse (2010) explains that transformational leadership may be necessary in order for
organizations to realize second-order changes. This occurs when leaders exact such an
exceptional form of influence as to move stakeholders to accomplish more than what is
usually expected. The transformational leadership approach is one of several leadership
models that focus exclusively on the manner in which the educational leadership
exercised by teachers and administrators improves educational outcomes (Hallinger,
2003). Elmore (2002) explains this connection between school improvement and
leadership, noting that responding effectively to the call for school improvement is
contingent on the capacity of the stakeholders, not just school and district leaders, to
understand the call to action, to translate it into a concrete and effective plan for
improvement, and to communicate and realize those changes.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 37
Table 2
21 Key Leadership Responsibilities that are Significantly Correlated with Higher Student
Achievement as identified by McREL
Responsibility The extent to which
the principal…
Average
r
Number
of
Studies
Number of
Schools
Situational Awareness Is aware of the details
and undercurrents in
the running of the
school and uses this
information to address
current and potential
problems
.33 5 91
Flexibility Adapts his or her
leadership behavior to
the needs of the
current situation and is
comfortable with
descent
.28 6 277
Discipline Protects teachers from
issues and influences
that would detract
from their teaching
time or focus
.27 12 437
Monitoring/Evaluation Monitors the
effectiveness of school
practices and their
impact on student
learning
.27 31 1129
Outreach Is an advocate and
spokesperson for the
school to all
stakeholders
.27 14 478
Change Agent Is willing to and
actively challenges the
status quo
.25 6 466
Culture Fosters shared beliefs
and a sense of
community and
cooperation
.25 15 809

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 38
Table 2, continued
Input Involves teachers in
the design and
implementation of
important decisions
and policies
.25 16 669
Knowledge or
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is knowledgeable
about current
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices
.25 10 368
Order Establishes a set of
standard operating
procedures and
routines
.25 17 456
Resources Provides teachers with
materials and
professional
development
necessary for the
successful execution
of their jobs
.25 17 571
Contingent Rewards Recognizes and
rewards individual
accomplishments
.24 9 465
Focus Establishes clear goals
and keeps those goals
in the forefront of the
school's attention
.24 44 1619
Intellectual
Stimulation
Ensures that faculty
and staff are aware of
the most current
theories and practices
and makes the
discussion of these a
regular aspect of the
school's culture
.24 4 302
Communication Establishes strong
lines of
communication with
teachers and among
students
.23 11 299

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 39
Table 2, continued
Ideal Beliefs Communicates and
operates from strong
ideals and beliefs
about schooling
.22 7 513
Involvement in
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is directly involved in
the design and
implementation of
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices
.20 23 826
Visibility Has quality contact
and interactions with
teachers and students
.20 13 477
Optimizer Inspires and leads new
challenging
innovations
.20 17 724
Affirmation Recognizes and
celebrates school
accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
.19 6 332
Relationships Demonstrates an
awareness of the
personal aspects of
teachers and staff
.18 11 505
Source: School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005)

The implementation of widespread, transformational program improvements,
however, is not reliant on a school leader who is naturally gifted with a particular set of
traits, cautions Elmore (2000). A successful school leader practices situational leadership
(Marzano et al., 2005), responding and adapting his or her behaviors to reflect the current
situation and the willingness and ability of followers to perform a specific task. In fact,
demonstrated effects of successful leadership are considerably greater in schools that are
in more difficult circumstances (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004). Successful leaders, agrees Elmore (2000), are a product of what happens to and
around them during their careers, and should be expected to gain additional
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 40
organizational leadership abilities over the course of their careers through a systematic
investment in those competencies. Marzano et al. (2005) found that schools with a leader
determined to make drastic second-order changes to increase student achievement are
more likely to respond—that is, take action—in effective and coherent ways.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. Before taking any
widespread action to reform schools, an effective school leader must prioritize his or her
responsibilities, the greatest of which—in terms of correlation to second-order change—
is the responsibility to maintain a high level of knowledge of effective curriculum,
instructional, and assessment strategies (Marzano et al., 2005). This is a responsibility
that is imperative if a school leader is to regularly and effectively evaluate, provide
guidance, and offer feedback to teachers about whether they are teaching the standards,
and whether students can demonstrate what they are expected to learn (Elmore, 2000).
To accomplish this, says Marzano et al. (2005), principals must themselves be students of
best practice, attending conferences, exchanging knowledge with other principals, and
reading current research on comprehensive school reform. Fullan (2001) confirms the
importance of gaining knowledge through collaboration, pointing out that information
only becomes valuable in a social context where individuals are discussing and gaining
knowledge from each other. In other words, knowledge is created as people share across
their organization.
With knowledge of best practice comes an understanding of the extent to which
one’s own institution falls short of that mark. When it comes to school improvement,
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that school and district leadership must hold a firm
understanding of the present gaps between best and current practice, as well as the sense
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 41
of urgency and courage to set ambitious goals for increased performance. Much of this
urgency, argues Odden (2009), arises from pressure to improve performance. While all
California schools and districts are facing financial pressure in 2012 and beyond, others
are feeling pressured to improve after facing disappointing Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) results under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Because a key
feature of standards-based reform is school-site accountability for common measures of
student performance (Elmore, 2000), strategic schools whose leaders help double student
performance remain focused on analyzing state test results as a starting point for
understanding and articulating ambitious performance goals. Fullan (2010) asserts that
this transparency of data about results and practice is an example of powerful positive
pressure because it exposes both results and the practices that produce the results.
Though improving student achievement is more than improving test scores, and
some argue that standards-based accountability measures ignore the complexities of
teaching and learning and the wide variety of tastes and preferences at individual sites
(Elmore, 2000), high performing schools were able to quantify performance gaps and
subsequent program improvements by starting with state testing results as a baseline
(Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Facing the reality of falling short of NCLB’s
performance goals and risking loss of funding and autonomy, many districts and schools
respond by making organizational changes to improve performance. However, argues
Elmore (2002), no amount of reward or sanction derived from an external accountability
system will automatically result in the implementation of an effective improvement
process inside schools and across school systems. Other researchers contend that
effective district and school administrators must be motivated by the desire to provide our
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 42
students with the education necessary to remain globally competitive, as well as the
moral imperative to close the achievement gap for children from low-income and
minority backgrounds (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Shared goals, purpose, and vision. Having established that large scale
organizational improvement requires leaders able to facilitate sweeping second order
change, Marzano et al. (2005) note that this sort of transformational leadership is capable
of producing results beyond any set expectations. For high achieving schools and school
districts, expectations themselves are high, as school improvement tends to follow for
schools that set high and ambitious goals (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). In
studies of the schools and districts that doubled student performance, goals were set far
higher than mere marginal improvements. While modest goals such as propelling certain
students from just below to just above the proficiency mark might result in short-term
AYP gains, such practices are incompatible with the strategies required for long-term
student performance gains (Odden, 2009).
While it sounds straightforward, Odden (2009) reports on several case studies that
have shown setting and communicating high student performance goals is not a small
task. Schools who have set and subsequently exceeded high performance goals took
modest steps towards larger goals, starting with being open about past low performance,
which led to parent and community buy-in and encouragement towards higher school-
wide goals. Odden (2009) also found patterns in the types of goals set in large urban
districts. These districts tended to first ignore the low expectations for performance often
associated with poor and minority students. They also set overarching goals for basic
reading and math proficiency for all students by certain grade levels, and built on past
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 43
successes to set even more ambitious goals for what Odden (2009) calls “quantum
improvements” (p. 24) that go beyond simply attaining the least possible amount of
proficiency required by the state and federal government accountability systems.
Shannon and Bylsma (2004) conducted a review of more than 80 research articles
focused on schools that had improved over time, and developed a conceptual framework
of concrete suggestions for school improvement. They found that consistently over time,
improved schools encouraged teachers to place high expectations on student
achievement, which were fostered though shared beliefs and values, setting clear goals,
and leading with a clear vision of change. In their similar schools study, Williams et al.
(2005) found that schools with higher API scores also reported having a shared vision for
academic improvement, in which the actions of all stakeholders—teachers, principals,
and district office officials—were closely aligned and focused on student achievement.
High achievement was also strongly associated with a culture of high expectations for
performance that were clearly communicated to teachers and students. Reeves (2003)
found that among 90/90/90 schools, it was clear that improving academic performance
was highly valued. Common to each school was a shared focus on a few indicators of
academic growth, rather than a large number of unfocused and scattered goals for
improvement.
These focused goals, clear vision, and shared culture ultimately come from the
organization’s leader, argue Leithwood et al. (2004)—a leader adept at identifying and
articulating a shared vision and setting goals to achieve that vision. Indeed, argue the
authors, there are virtually no documented instances of low-performing schools doubling
student achievement without some method of intervention by an effective leader.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 44
School leaders, then, should not only have knowledge of best practices, ability to
set goals that will increase student achievement, and an awareness of the gap between
these goals and current student and teacher performance, but must have the ability to
communicate this urgency to teachers and other community stakeholders. Schools are
not generally successful in responding to external cues or pressures, argues Elmore
(2002), unless they have their own internal accountability system for collaborating to
reach consensus on best practice, and for communicating that agreement to and among
stakeholders. Though leadership tends to be romanticized in the American culture of
schooling, continues Elmore (2000), because we often believe people succeed due to their
personal characteristics, more than because of effort, skill, and knowledge, school leaders
should be expected to go beyond providing an inspirational message. Doubling student
performance requires leadership operating from a distributed perspective—leadership
practice that results from interactions among leaders, followers, and their situation
(Spillane, 2006).
Investing in teaching quality. Beyond having school leaders who understand the
performance problem and have the knowledge to implement widespread reforms, many
experts agree that the quality of teaching outweighs any other factor in predicting
improved student performance (Miles & Frank, 2008). In their study of similar schools,
Williams et al. (2005) found that API scores were higher in the schools where surveyed
principals reported a larger percentage of the teaching staff had shown the ability to raise
student achievement, possessed strong content knowledge, had training in curriculum,
were supportive of colleagues, and were skilled at using data to drive instruction. In
other words, quality teaching increased student achievement.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 45
Despite this knowledge, the work day of many teachers is still designed around
the expectation that teachers’ work should mainly consist of delivering content to
students, not of sharing and increasing knowledge and skill about how to improve their
work (Elmore, 2002) through collaboration and professional development. In strategic
schools that have dramatically raised student achievement, school and district leadership
are beginning to view increasing the quality of teacher instruction as a collaborative
endeavor, and as the central focus of daily activities, rather than something to be gained
individually from time-to-time (Miles & Frank, 2008), or ignored altogether.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Elmore (2002) defines large-scale
improvement as the process by which “external demands for accountability are translated
into concrete structures, processes, norms and instructional practices in schools and
school systems” (p. 13). He sees professional development as the link that is able to raise
the capacity of teachers and administrators to respond to these external demands, thus
enabling stakeholders to engage in the process of improving practice and performance.
Elmore (2002) insists that this link is critical—that if accountability systems are to
improve the quality of the educational experience for all students and increase the
performance of schools, it is imperative that schools invest in the knowledge and skill of
educators. Other experts have similarly concluded that focusing effort and resources on
professional development for teachers—a well-documented attribute of schools and
districts that have doubled student performance—is a critical element to reach the high
student achievement goals set by standards-based reform (Archibald & Gallagher, 2002;
Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet (2000)
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 46
assert that this is because students' academic performance will be improved only if
teachers' instructional practices reflect high standards.
Elmore (2002) cautions that simply spending more money on traditional
professional development strategies as most are currently designed, ranging from short
workshops intended to provide teachers with a rudimentary overview of a district’s latest
program to off-campus courses aimed at earning teachers additional college credits, is
unlikely to have any significant effect on either the knowledge and skill of educators or
on the performance of students. While few school districts treat professional
development as a part of an overall strategy for school improvement (Elmore, 2002),
Miles and Frank (2008) note, in their study of strategic schools, that high-performing
schools are consistently selective about the types of professional development they
choose—spending resources only on well-designed professional development that
provides teachers with both the knowledge and support to implement the district’s
instructional program. Because many teachers are not immediately or adequately
prepared to implement strategies to increase student achievement, teaching professionals
should undergo widespread, systematic, intensive, and ongoing professional development
(Odden, 2009). Effective professional development should be designed to produce
changes in teachers’ instructional practices, which can be linked to improvements in
student learning. In order to achieve this level of effectiveness, well-designed
professional development should contain six key structural features (Odden, 2009; Odden
& Archibald, 2009; Birman et al., 2000).
Form. In order to be more responsive to how teachers learn, and affect more
change on current classroom practices (Birman et al., 2000), professional development
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 47
should be curriculum-focused and classroom-embedded, rather than an isolated
experience. Professional development should also take on a consistent form, says Elmore
(2002), with continuous activities spiraling from one year to the next. In other words,
when schools achieve one set of program improvement goals, with educators
demonstrating their improvement of practice, the school should swiftly and seamlessly
move on to more ambitious goals. Whereas in most school systems, claims Elmore
(2002), formal professional development is organized around isolated days in which
teachers are relieved from their regular duties to participate in activities unrelated to
instructional practice—such as student discipline or district or state policy changes—
there is strong evidence that, in high-performing schools, nearly every lesson represents
an opportunity for professional development, collaboration, and reflection (Miles &
Frank, 2008). Birman et al. (2000) found, however, that professional development can
still be effective in its more traditional forms (a three or five day workshop, for example),
as long as the other five features—duration, participation, focus on subject-matter
content, active learning, and coherence—are appropriate.
Duration. Additionally, professional development should be continuous and
ongoing, totaling an extensive number of hours (between 100 and 200 hours annually).
The lengthy hours themselves do not yield results; rather, there is a tendency for
professional developments with an extended duration to encourage high-quality
substance, such as increased subject-area content focus, more opportunities for active
learning, and more coherence with teachers' other experiences (Birman et al., 2000).
While most teachers engage in only the minimum professional learning required by their
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 48
state or district each year (Hill, 2009), high-performing schools schedule professional
development as part of the everyday work of teaching (Miles & Frank, 2008).
Participation. Effective professional development should include the entire
faculty from a given school to encourage collective participation (Odden, 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009; Birman et al., 2000). Collective participation of an entire school staff or
department in professional development increases its effectiveness because it allows
teachers to jointly problem-solve, provides more opportunities for teachers to integrate
what they learn with current site-specific practices and materials, and contributes to a
shared professional culture and common set of goals—all essentially contributing to the
creation of a learning community (Birman et al., 2000). This type of professional
development supports the consensus view of effective adult learning, derived from the
assumption that all learning is a collaborative rather than an individual activity, and that
all people, educators included, learn more powerfully when wrestling through problems
with likeminded colleagues (Elmore, 2002).
Focus. An emphasis on content is important, including curriculum content,
analysis of common student errors in a particular content area, and content-specific
pedagogy (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). In their decades-long study of
reform efforts in California schools, Cohen and Hill (2001) found that content-focused
professional development based on classroom practice is most likely to affect teacher
knowledge and performance, and subsequently student outcomes—a finding consistent
with the findings of Birman et al. (2000), who concluded that the degree to which
professional development focuses on content knowledge is directly correlated to an
increase in teachers’ knowledge and skills. They assert that if teachers are expected to
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 49
teach rigorous content standards and thinking skills, then it is important that they
maintain an advanced understanding of both the content and how students can best learn
that content (p. 31).
Active learning. Teachers should be given ample opportunities to actively
incorporate learning in to their instructional practices (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald,
2009); this includes opportunities to observe and be observed teaching, practice in
simulated conditions, develop lesson plans, and review student work (Birman et al.,
2000). The consensus among professional development experts, notes Elmore (2002), is
that, if professional development is to be ultimately driven by the desire to improve
student-learning outcomes, it must at some point be designed to address the difficulties
encountered by actual students and their teachers in authentic classroom settings.
Successful professional development also depends on proximity, is more likely to occur
in schools and classroom settings, rather than off-campus, and is likely to involve
working with individuals or small groups around the practice of authentic classroom
teaching and learning; it must involve professional developers or instructional coaches
who are expertly able to model what they expect of their colleagues (Elmore, 2002).
Coherence. Professional development should be linked to other key components
of the education system, such as standards and evaluations, in order to provide teachers
with coherence and continuity. While ineffective professional development programs
offer a series of disconnected, unrelated activities, high-performing schools tend to offer
professional developments that are consistent with teacher, school, and district goals; are
sequenced appropriately between precursor and follow-up activities; and involve teachers
in discussing their experiences with colleagues at their school (Birman et al., 2000).
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 50
Professional development should be connected to the questions of content and pedagogy
that educators are, or should be, asking (Elmore, 2002), rather than a series of unrelated
central office-driven workshops.
Collaborative cultures and distributed leadership. Another strategy for doubling
student performance is the development of a culture of collaboration—a culture built in
part by the implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), as well as the
distribution of instructional leadership between teachers and administrators (Odden,
2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Odden’s conclusion on the effectiveness of teacher
collaboration is based on both the concept of a professional school culture, as described
by the Newmann and associates (1996), and the DuFour et al. (2006) description of the
PLC—a community of teachers analyzing formative assessments, and using their results
to drive instruction.
Professional and best practices. According to Odden (2009), schools that
doubled student performance were consistently professional in their interactions and
practices. Newmann and associates (1996) also found that effective schools that have
dramatically increased student achievement are almost always marked by a common set
of high values and expectations for all students, open discussion of instructional
practices, and teachers who take responsibility for the performance of their students.
Professionals, notes Odden (2009), actively seek research and evidence on best practice
for how to improve schools—reaching out to the education community for information
on curriculum, instruction, professional development, and change strategies. Teachers,
principals, and other stakeholders in the schools with doubled student performance
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 51
eagerly sought research pertaining to their performance problems, and referred to those
sources when discussing best practice (Odden, 2009).
Leana (2011) warns, however, that seeking outside expertise is not requisite for
professional learning. She argues that rather than focusing on developing teachers’
human capital—that is, a teacher’s abilities, knowledge, and skills developed through
education and experience—true professional learning occurs when districts and schools
are more concerned with developing a teacher’s social capital—capabilities that develop
through relationships between practitioners. Social capital, she argues, is strong when a
teacher seeks the advice and expertise of other teachers when she needs information or
advice about how to do her job more effectively. When the relationships among teachers
in a school are characterized by high trust and frequent interaction, a teacher turns far less
frequently to the experts and is even less likely to talk to her principal. A social capital
perspective on professional learning, then, would study not just what a teacher knows, but
also where she gets that knowledge (Leana, 2011). More importantly, Leana (2011)
found social capital to be a more significant predictor of increased student performance
than teacher experience or ability in the classroom. In fact, even teachers with low
human capital can perform as well as teachers of average ability if they have strong
collaborative connections with their teacher peers. In other words, strong social capital
can offset the damaging effects of teachers with fewer skills and abilities (Leana, 2011).
Professional learning communities. In many high-performing schools, PLCs
have provided the necessary vehicle for increased teacher collaboration (Odden, 2009;
Odden & Archibald, 2009). These collaborative sessions, in which teachers analyze
formative student data and create common instructional units with the goal to increase
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 52
student achievement, work best when teachers share ideas, thoughts, and scrutiny of
student and teacher performance. PLCs embody the openness suggested by the
Newmann and associates’ (1996) description of a professional school culture.
Because research has proven that common planning time for teachers is one of the
most important predictors of student success (Miles & Frank, 2008), strategic schools
create structures and practices to facilitate the operation of PLCs and other means of
collaboration. Miles and Frank (2008) found that effective collaboration time has several
key characteristics: weekly collaboration sessions are embedded during the school day,
are 90 minutes or longer, are marked by clear expectations, and involve peer or expert
support on instructional practice. Odden (2009) calls for these collaboration sessions to
take place during a grade-level or content team’s common free time during each week,
and to be led by well-trained individuals, whether administrators, teachers, or central-
office leadership.
Because principals and central-office support staff are unable to provide all of the
necessary instructional leadership to affect dramatic changes in student achievement,
schools who double student performance often place teachers in various instructional
leadership roles such as instructional coach or curriculum facilitator (Odden, 2009;
Odden & Archibald, 2009). As a result, teachers are not only given an opportunity for
career advancement, but are able to remain in pivotal roles in leading the curricular and
instructional changes necessary to drastically improve student achievement outcomes.
Miles and Frank (2008) assert that schools can increase student achievement when more
teachers develop the skills required to create and manage teams, and work with adults to
change behaviors, while Odden (2009) and Odden and Archibald (2009) note that in
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 53
districts and schools working diligently to double student performance, many teachers are
engaged in instructional leadership activities to help deepen and intensify the
instructional practices of the school. From this sort of distributed leadership, the
collaborative culture can truly emerge, as instructional improvements are not dependent
upon formal leadership and central-office decision-making (Odden, 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009).
Distributed leadership. While most researchers do not challenge the positive
impact that school leadership can have on student achievement, a growing body of
research is focusing on the impact of a distributed leadership model of instructional
leadership. In other words, meaningful school leadership requires more than the
leadership of a single formal leader (Sheppard, Hurley, & Dibbon, 2010), and leadership
should be shared between key stakeholders. A school leader’s influence on student
achievement is often indirect, says Spillane (2006), as formal leaders transform the
school's culture by motivating stakeholders, providing resources for teachers’
professional learning, and engaging them in shared decision-making (Sheppard et al.,
2010), thereby impacting teacher quality and student achievement. To date, although
most research about school leadership has focused on the collaboration between teachers
and school administrators, it is possible to consider distributed leadership as consisting of
people in other roles—parents, students, interested members of the community—who
have the ability to influence student achievement (Louis et al., 2010).
To be clear, warns Spillane (2006), distributed leadership is not a model of
leadership in which more individuals simply share the work. Rather, distributed
leadership is defined by the interactions between and among leaders and followers, rather
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 54
than as a function of one, or even a group of leaders’ actions. Interdependency is the
primary characteristic of the distributed leadership framework (Spillane, 2006), with the
various pieces of the organization held symbiotically in a productive relationship with
each other (Elmore, 2000). This approach to collaboration and leadership supports
Elmore’s (2002) assertion that large-scale school improvement, of which collaboration is
a major factor, is not the property of any one individual within a school, but results from
a common set of practices shared across all stakeholders within the profession.
Distributed leadership implies “multiple sources of guidance and direction… made
coherent through a common culture” (Elmore, 2000).
In their survey of teachers, however, Louis et al. (2010) found that teachers in
schools practicing a distributed leadership model perceived few actual changes in their
school’s daily operations. It is possible, conclude the authors, that this represents a
familiar criticism of schools: that when it comes to school improvement, ineffective
leaders are more concerned with seeming to do what it takes to raise student achievement
than with demonstrating evidence of improved results. On the other hand, the effects of
distributed leadership are not invalid just because they are not immediately detectable by
teachers in the day-to-day functions of the school. Louis et al. (2010) continue that the
true effect of distributed leadership on student achievement occurs largely because
effective leadership strengthens professional community, which in turn is a strong
predictor of instructional practices that are highly correlated with student achievement.
What is clear from studies of districts and schools that have doubled student performance,
says Odden (2009), is that leaders emerge at every level in the school system— positively
affecting instructional practice, and subsequently student achievement.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 55
Even when instructional leadership is distributed, argues Jacques (2003), some
degree of hierarchy is a necessary, unavoidable aspect of any organization, even when
stakeholders attempt to add structures and procedures to encourage horizontal influence
within the hierarchy. To be clear, notes Odden (2009), collaborative culture does not
develop spontaneously. “Systems, structures, training, and other supports need to be
provided,” rather, to allow culture to shift and the work to take place (p. 106), and
administrators should be responsible for taking the initiative to provide the time, tools,
and motivation necessary to allow for teacher collaboration and shared responsibility for
increased student performance.
Creating individual attention and personal learning environments. High-
performing schools don’t just create structures and design practices to facilitate teacher
development, but also adjust their instruction to provide additional attention, time, and
resources to the students who need it most. Schools who have doubled student
performance know that in order for all students to achieve at a high level of proficiency,
certain students need more help (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2009). Strategic
schools, note Miles and Frank (2008), strategically direct their energy and resources to
target specific students for individual learning experiences.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. To provide instruction
uniquely designed to meet the needs of each student, teachers must have an
understanding of both the skills and gaps in student performance (Miles & Frank, 2008).
Continual, formative assessments—assessments that are given often and intended to be
diagnostic in nature (Odden, 2009)—are the link that provide teachers with the data
necessary to make informed, instructional decisions to support students and impact their
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 56
learning. In their recent study of the inner workings of 35 New York City charter
schools, Dobbie and Fryer (2011) found that highly effective schools use data more
intensely, test more frequently, are more likely to track students using data, and more
often use differentiation strategies to address differences in data as compared to low
achieving schools. These characteristics were more closely correlated to student
achievement than were traditional factors such as per-pupil expenditure, class size, or the
percentage of teachers with no teaching certification (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011).
In their study of schools that doubled student performance, Odden and Archibald
(2009) found that data from standardized testing are used strategically to improve teacher
instruction to be more targeted, and thus more efficient. These schools understand, says
Odden (2009), that end-of-year state tests do not provide an accurate enough account of
student learning to serve as a tool to improve instructional practice. Likewise,
benchmark tests—tests given at the end of a marking period to provide a summary of
student learning (Odden, 2009)—inform curriculum decision-making by providing
teachers with the data necessary to make decisions about whether to reteach content or
proceed to the next topic or unit. In strategic schools that have doubled student
performance, these sorts of decisions based on formative assessment data, argue Miles
and Frank (2008), are not made in isolation, but serve as the basic for teacher
collaboration in Professional Learning Communities.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Schools and teachers cannot
expect that setting ambitious goals and focusing on teacher quality will ensure all
students meet proficiency. In any classroom, there are struggling students who need
additional assistance to meet challenging performance standards (Odden, 2009). Once
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 57
high-needs students are identified using formative and benchmark assessment data,
highly effective schools provide multiple opportunities for extra help to struggling
students in a variety of forms. Odden (2009) asserts that when designing a continuum of
response to intervention strategies, the first step is to provide high-quality instruction to
all students, addressing mild struggles with in-class attention and assistance. Much of
this high-quality instruction depends on the size and structure of the classroom in which it
is being delivered. Regardless of whether individualized instruction takes place through
strategic grouping, overall reduction of class sizes, high-dosage tutoring, or extended
school day or school year programs, high performing schools systematically prioritize the
need for individual attention and extra-time opportunities based on student need (Miles &
Frank, 2008).
Smaller class sizes. The impact of class size on student achievement, contend
Miles and Frank (2008), is by far the most researched and popularized strategy for
providing students with more individualized attention in a classroom setting. Yet, small
reductions in class size make little difference in student performance, with achievement
increasing notably only when class sizes are between 13 and 17 students (Miles & Frank,
2008). The reasons for the effect of class size reduction on student achievement are still
debated. Odden (2009) discusses several possible reasons for the impact of smaller class
sizes, including the suggestion that teachers alter their instructional practices to include
more small group instruction, that fewer students means higher engagement and fewer
discipline problems, or perhaps greater ease in interpreting and responding to the
formative-assessment data of 15 students compared to 25 or more. In their study of the
Mary Lyon school in Boston, Miles and Frank (2008) found a combination of these
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 58
factors at play—that reduced class size does not impact student achievement unless
teachers are able to skillfully make use of the smaller numbers to group and target
students’ needs.
Small-group instruction. Strategic schools understand that class-size reduction is
not the only option to consider when providing individual attention for struggling
students (Miles & Frank, 2008). These schools have uncovered a variety of ways to
create smaller learning groups that match both the needs of their students and the
expertise of their practitioners. In their study of strategic schools, Miles and Frank
(2008) found examples of schools who drastically raised reading scores by hiring expert
reading specialists to rotate through classrooms during reading periods throughout the
day, effectively doubling the number of teachers available to work with students in small
groups on targeted, core instruction. Other schools targeted struggling students using
existing human resources by requiring all teachers to teach reading during the same 90-
minute instructional time block, and drastically reducing the class sizes for the most
severely struggling students (Odden, 2009). In all cases, the most highly skilled and
trained teachers were assigned to work with the lowest-level students.
In another example of creative, flexible grouping strategies, Miles and Frank
(2008) studied The Children’s School of Rochester (CSR)—a school in which 68% of the
students qualify for free and reduced lunch and 45% are English language learners. 90%
of the CSR students met state literacy standards in 2004 in a district where 60% of all
students do not. At this school, students are organized into family groups of 45 students
assigned to 3 teachers, thus maintaining a 15 to 1 student to teacher ratio close to the
district average, but allowing for a flexible grouping schedule that targets the most high
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 59
needs students. While one of the certificated teacher teaches a large-group lesson to most
students, the other two teachers carry out small-group instruction, as carefully determined
by two other strategies of schools that double performance: teacher collaboration and
data-based decision making (Miles & Frank, 2008).
High-dosage tutoring during the school day. Though time and resource intensive,
Odden (2009) concludes that individual and small group tutoring—no more than five
students in a group—is an effective extra-help strategy for struggling students because it
is immediate, relevant, precise, and flexible. As Odden (2009) notes, when a struggling
student is identified, tutoring provides a fast, impermanent, highly specific means of
targeting instruction for that individual or small group. In most high performing schools
studied by Odden and Archibald (2009), certificated teachers trained in the specific
subject matter acted as tutors, and were the most effective when the tutoring content was
most closely aligned with the overall instructional program. In secondary schools, Odden
(2009) found that tutoring most often replaced an elective course, with the rationale that
high performance in the core subjects was the top priority of an instructional program.
Dobbie and Fryer (2011) also concluded that the high achieving charter schools in their
study were far more likely to offer high-dosage tutoring—groups typically meeting four
or more times per week in groups of six or fewer students.
Instruction outside the school day or school year. Schools can also provide
struggling students with extra help before school, after school, in Saturday school
programs, or in summer school (Odden, 2009). While the specific impact of extended-
day programs was not identified, in many high performing schools studied by Odden
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 60
(2009), struggling students were invited to attend one or two-hour after-school programs,
in which academic help was provided by certificated teachers or paraprofessionals.
Just as extended-day programs varied in their staff, structure, and configurations,
Odden (2009) found drastically varied approaches to summer school in the schools
identified as having doubled student performance. Funded with reallocated monies or
grants, summer school programs varied widely in duration and academic intensity.
Because research shows that learning differences between poor and middle-class students
worsen as they move through the grade levels (Alexander & Entwisle, 1996), summer
school not only provides an opportunity to extend learning time for struggling students,
but an opportunity for educators to lessen the achievement gap for students from low-
income and at-risk backgrounds. Much like tutoring, the effects are largest when the
programs emphasize core subjects, such as reading and mathematics (Odden, 2009),
focus on early intervention, span six to eight weeks of instruction, and allow for small
group or individualized instruction (Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, & Muhlenbruck, 2000).
Maximizing academic time and linking it to learning needs. Just as
educational leaders should be asking themselves how to effectively allocate their current
resources to maximize student achievement, research shows that they should also be
concerned with maximizing their time. Because time is expensive, argue Miles and
Frank (2008), strategic, high performing schools will look for ways to reallocate their
time to better support student achievement.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. In the
case of schools that doubled student performance, Odden and Archibald (2009) found
that in order to cast a new vision, most school and district leaders completely redesigned
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 61
current curriculum and instructional programs. Many of the studied schools essentially
started over, creating or purchasing new programs and textbooks that more accurately
aligned with the district’s point of view on effective materials and practice.
Longer blocks of uninterrupted time spent on core subjects. At the secondary
school level, Odden and Archibald (2009) studied high achieving schools that provided
struggling students additional time and resources in core academics by eliminating or
downsizing elective classes and replacing them with double periods of core curriculum
with a skilled instructor. In short, these successful schools and districts aligned their
resources and instructional time to reflect quality core curriculum and instruction.
Miles and Frank (2008) found that high performing schools not only strategically
design their instructional program to allow for more total time on academic subjects, but
they design their schedules to include long blocks of uninterrupted time. Odden (2009)
concurs that none of the schools or districts that doubled performance lengthened the
school day or year for all students; rather, they required teachers to spend an
uninterrupted, protected block of time on core subjects such as reading and mathematics.
In order to allow for this uninterrupted instructional time for core subjects, some
strategic schools instituted staggered start times, rotated bell schedules, or block
scheduling (Miles & Frank, 2008). Block scheduling—fewer, longer periods that meet
less often than once a day—enables teachers more flexibility to engage their students in
time-intensive lessons and activities, and reduces wasted time between classes. Miles
and Frank (2008) are quick to warn, however, that any change to the instructional
schedule is only impactful if teachers know how to make effective use of extended
periods, and if learning activities are aligned with the school’s instructional vision.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 62
Common prep time. In Odden and Archibald’s (2009) study of schools that
doubled student achievement, the authors found that these schools increased planning and
preparation time for teachers, and scheduled it more efficiently to allow for common prep
time. At both the elementary and secondary level, teachers on the same team were
provided the same student-free planning period, and adhered strictly to the agenda to
ensure more effective collaborative time. Other schools extended the school day four
days a week in order to provide teachers with an extended block of common planning and
professional development time on the fifth day. Other schools hired part-time specialist
teachers to provide student instruction for a 90-minute block at the end of the day, in
which the teachers could use the common time for collaboration and planning (Odden,
2009). While not all of these strategies could be implemented in a given district without
creative scheduling, staff buy-in and overcoming obstacles along the way, Odden (2009)
argues the point that time is not a “fixed resource” (p. 83), while Miles and Frank (2008)
suggest that the traditional model of schooling—six hours of instruction, nine months a
year—goes against the current research on effectively maximizing instructional time.
Conclusion
This chapter synthesized relevant historical and current information on the
changing landscape of school finance and educational adequacy, the current fiscal state of
education in California, and an examination of the strategies shown to double student
achievement.
Specifically, a link was made between student achievement and how districts
allocate their resources (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008;
Odden, 2011). It was established that California school district budgets are likely to
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 63
continue shrinking over the coming years, and school and district administrators would
be wise to allocate resources—human resources and otherwise—to only those strategies
proven to positively impact school improvement efforts in an era of standards and
accountability (Odden, 2009; Odden, 2011).
Such improvement strategies have been researched and categorized by numerous
studies of high-achieving schools (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Miles &
Frank, 2008). Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance provided
a framework for this literature review, with each of the 10 strategies synthesized within
one of four broader school categories: effective leadership, teacher quality, creating
individual attention and personalized learning environments, and maximizing learning
time—the latter three categories derived from “The Big Three” guiding resource
strategies framework used by strategic schools (Miles & Frank, 2008).
Further connecting the concepts of educational adequacy and increased student
achievement was a discussion of the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). The
Evidence-Based Model determines if schools and districts are spending adequate money
per pupil to allow for all students to achieve academic success. Further, beyond raw
dollars spent, the Evidence-Based Model provides specific resource allocation categories
that align with the aforementioned strategies for maximizing student achievement.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 64
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents an overview of how the study was conducted, including a
brief review of the purpose of the study and the research questions, explanation of how
the sample district was selected, the instruments that were used, and how data were
collected and analyzed.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the current resource allocation strategies
of a Southern California elementary school district. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008) was used to compare the district’s specific human resource allocation
patterns to research-based strategies shown to improve student achievement. The study
relied heavily on the ten strategies for doubling student performance (Odden, 2009;
Odden & Archibald, 2009) and the “Big Three” guiding resource strategies (Miles &
Frank, 2008) as the framework for understanding what strategies effective schools and
districts use at the local level to improve student achievement as measured by the CST.
Qualitative Research Methodology
The study was conducted using qualitative formative evaluation research
methods, with the purpose of providing research-based suggestions of how District A can
reallocate human resources to increase student achievement without spending additional
money. This formative evaluation process was also intended to build district personnel’s
capacity for further data-based decision making and continuous improvement (Patton,
2002) beyond the scope of this particular study. In traditional formative evaluations, no
attempt is made to generalize beyond the setting (Patton, 2002)—in this case, District A.
This study, however, went beyond providing District A with usable knowledge about
their current human resource allocation patterns, and will likely produce some amount of
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 65
generalizable knowledge about effective practices (Patton, 2002). This knowledge-
generating approach to formative evaluation research, notes Patton (2002), is becoming
more typical of qualitative studies, as the line between evaluation research and applied
research is increasingly blurred. The purpose of this study was not, then, to fault District
A’s current human resource allocation strategies, but rather to gain knowledge by
analyzing their practices in light of general principles of effective practice (Patton, 2002).
Research Questions
To be better understand the decisions and strategies used by schools, the study
will answer these four research questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Sample and Population
District A was selected for this study because of the potential that findings in this
setting will “yield the most information and have the greatest impact on the development
of knowledge” (Patton, 2002, p. 236). In this case, District A represents what Patton
(2002) calls a critical case—one that illustrates the current situation in an important or
dramatic way. It follows that not only will this formative evaluation study provide useful
feedback on human resource allocation that District A can use for program improvement,
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 66
but will also allow for logical generalizations to be made from its findings. These
generalizations are possible, notes Patton (2002), because of the quantity of evidence
generated from studying a single critical case. Additionally, the study of District A’s
human resource allocation strategies will provide insight into how the role of district
leadership influences student achievement in its schools.
District A is a medium-sized urban elementary district in Orange County,
California, serving 24 schools and approximately 19,000 students in grades K-6. Five of
the 24 schools are on a four-track, year-round schedule, while the other 19 schools are on
a single-track modified year-round schedule. The city in which the district resides is the
second largest and third poorest in Orange County, and as of 2012, more than 85% of
District A’s students qualified for free or reduced price lunches. Of the total student
population, some 86% of the students are Hispanic/Latino, 5% are Caucasian, fewer than
5% are Asian, and fewer than 2% are Filipino or African American respectively (CDE,
2012).
Several sampling limitations were expected in this study. Because purposeful
sampling involves studying a critical case in depth and detail, it was anticipated that there
would be limitations in the situations sampled for observation and the people sampled for
interviews (Patton, 2002). Because it was impractical to observe all applicable situations
and interview all potential informants within the context of District A, sampled situations
and people were selected for their potential to provide a depth and breadth of information
about the district’s human resource allocation strategies and strategic plan for
improvement.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 67
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Patton (2002) argues that studies utilizing only one method are more prone to
errors related to that particular method. Triangulation was utilized in this study to reduce
potential limitations presented by observation and interview, as well as to strengthen the
validity of the study’s results by combining research methods. Though this study’s
limited budget and time frame affected the amount of triangulation that is practical
(Patton, 2002), multiple methods were used strategically and logically. Through
triangulation, multiple data sources—a combination of observation, interviews, and
document analysis—were sought after and used to provide a more comprehensive
perspective on the human resource strategies used by District A. For example, the
situation selected for observation provided data that were limited to only the observed
activities. Interview data, while subject to personal bias, emotions, recall errors, and self-
serving responses (Patton, 2002), allowed for greater insight into why particular
behaviors and activities were observed, and whether or not those occurrences are typical
or atypical within the context (Patton, 2002). Finally, document analysis completed the
triangulation of data sources by providing an in-depth look at aspects of District A’s
human resource allocation strategies that may have been overlooked during observation
or interview protocols (Patton, 2002).
The researcher contacted the acting Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources to ask for permission to study District A. This individual provided contact
information for the support staff responsible for gathering paperwork for research
authorization. Paperwork to authorize data collection was processed, and the acting
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources agreed to be the primary contact person
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 68
until further contacts were established. Some weeks later, he put the researcher in contact
with the interim Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services and the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services, who also agreed to act as informants in this
study.
Document analysis. After receiving permission to study District A, district
office personnel were asked to provide several documents in advance of our interviews,
including mission and vision statements, the district’s 2011-2012 budget and projected
budget for 2012-2013, the district’s strategic plan for student achievement, and the
district’s human resources book detailing full and part-time certificated and classified
employees categorized by position-type and school site. Additional student demographic
and enrollment data were collected. These data, as well as an English Language Learner
Progression matrix and a visitation protocol were collected in order to answer the
research question: How are human resources allocated across the study district and its
schools?
Interview. To support the data gathered through document analysis, interviews
provided human perspectives from those in key leadership positions. Qualitative data
were collected through closed and open-ended interview questions written for several key
informants at the district level: the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, the
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, and the Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services. I interviewed the Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources and Administrative Services to find out how human resources are allocated
across District A and its schools, as well as to gain insight into the district’s current
financial situation. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services provided
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 69
additional qualitative data about the district’s strategic plan for improved student
performance, and discussed how current human resource allocation strategies support
those goals. Each interview was conducted separately after an appointment was
scheduled. Additionally, each interview followed a set protocol (see Appendices A-C),
lasted approximately one hour in length, and was digitally tape-recorded for later
transcription, no later than a week from time of interview.
Observation. To gain additional insight into how strategies for doubling student
achievement are expressed in District A’s spending, and further triangulate the findings
from the interviews and document analysis, I observed a strategically chosen school
board meeting focused on budget issues. After contacting District A for a school board
calendar and selecting several opportunities to observe budget discussions, I attended that
board meeting and took field notes as a covert observer.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred largely using a strategic budgeting tool designed to
compare District A’s personnel allocation at each school site to that recommended by the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). First, I determined whether or not a gap
exists between District A’s current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective. Assuming that District A’s human resource
allocation is different than the Evidence-Based Model, the strategic budgeting tool
adjusted the numbers to simulate a range of alternatives that better align with research-
based strategies for increasing student achievement, given the current fiscal situation,
thus answering my final research question: How can human resources be strategically
reallocated to align with strategies that improve student achievement?
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 70
Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of methodology, including sampling,
instrumentation, and data analysis. This study was conducted as a qualitative formative
evaluation to provide useful program feedback specific to District A’s context.
Additionally, through critical case sampling, the results of this study are generalizable to
similar contexts, and knowledge gained will likely impact more than just the studied
district. Through triangulation of data sources, the validity of results was strengthened.
Data were analyzed using a strategic budgeting tool in order to determine what gaps exist
between current district resource allocation strategies and the strategies for improving
student achievement suggested by Odden (2009) and the Evidence-Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008).

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 71
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on the current human
resource allocation strategies of a midsize urban elementary school district in Orange
County, California. A critical component of the study was to describe and compare
District A’s current practices to those resource allocation and instructional strategies
shown to improve student performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Additionally, using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a basis for
comparison, a gap analysis was conducted to determine differences between the district’s
current resource allocation practices and those suggested to maximize resources for
higher student achievement. Finally, I offer suggestions for how district leadership might
reallocate human resources to maximize the opportunity for student achievement given
the current budget constraints in California.
The research questions were used as a framework to identify key findings and
determine the following: 1) how human resources are allocated across the study district
and its schools; 2) the gap between current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective; and 3) how human resources can be strategically
reallocated to align with strategies that improve student achievement.
District A Resource Allocation Strategies
Due to this study’s heavy reliance upon the ten strategies for doubling student
performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009) and the “Big Three” guiding
resource strategies (Miles & Frank, 2008), District A’s resource allocation and
instructional strategies will be discussed in terms of the same four major categories of
research-based school improvement used to review the literature in Chapter Two:
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 72
leadership, teacher quality, individual attention and personal learning environments, and
maximizing learning time.
Central office leadership in District A. At the time that this study was
conducted, the central office leadership in District A was facing an unprecedentedly
nightmarish set of organizational and financial logistics. Of the three assistant
superintendents who served as key informants for this study, one was acting Assistant
Superintendent, one was an interim who had come out of retirement to serve in his
current position and was one week from his second attempt at retirement, and one had
been in her position for a year and a half. Though all three have spent a large portion, if
not all of their careers in the district—6, 15, and 17 years respectively—each stepped into
their current positions relatively recently as other long-time district leaders left or shifted
positions.
Organizational uncertainty. At the same time, the district was going through a
Superintendency search, was down to a final candidate to replace the outgoing Assistant
Superintendent of Administrative Services, did not have a permanent Assistant
Superintendent of Human Resources, and had recently lost the Public Information Officer
who had served as a cabinet member. Of the five current cabinet members, four were due
to change during the 2012-2013 school year. As the Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources noted, the district was going through something of a culture shock that
affected all levels of stakeholders.
Financial uncertainty. Additionally, the interim Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services described a dismal financial outlook for the district. Over the
past five years, the district’s revenue has been reduced more than 10%, forcing cuts both
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 73
to programs and to instructional time in the form of furlough days for the past three to
four years. Having conducted an interview with the acting Assistant Superintendent of
Human Resources on election day 2012, an already organizationally and fiscally depleted
district was waiting to find out the results of Proposition 30, in order to determine the
extent of the budget cuts for the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year and beyond. He
described a situation in which the two scenarios (the passage or failure of Proposition 30)
were like choosing between “bleak and devastating.” At the end of the 2012-2013 school
year, the district, having spent all of its one-time money, will come to the end of a 2.5%
budget reserve (depleted from approximately 14% five years ago) which is less than the
3% reserve required of California school districts. If Proposition 30 had failed, the
district would have faced an additional $18.7 million in budget cuts (or $22.6 million if
Proposition 30 had failed and the state didn’t fund the 3.2% Cost of Living Adjustment),
likely adding an additional 15 furlough days to the existing 8 furlough days in 2012-
2013, and funding a staggering 24 more furlough days for 2013-2014. With the passage
of Proposition 30, the district was facing a more manageable, but far from ideal deficit of
$6.8 million, with 8 furlough days saving the district approximately $4 million, leaving a
$2.8 million dollar problem. Both scenarios, noted the acting Assistant Superintendent of
Human Resources, were contingent on the Board of Education electing to send District
A’s students home for an additional 39 instructional days over the next two years as the
best course of action for making the necessary cuts.
Situational leadership. Given the current situation, many demands—both within
and outside of their job descriptions—have been placed on this group of central office
leaders. As Marzano et al. (2005) notes, a successful leader demonstrates situational
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 74
leadership by responding and adapting his or her behaviors to reflect the current situation
and the willingness and ability of followers to perform a specific task. Both the acting
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services consistently demonstrated concern over the central office’s ability
to support the district’s teachers in the current situation. The Assistant Superintendent of
Human Resources referred to a large portion of the district’s current teachers who have
spent their entire careers in the era of Class Size Reduction. Given that 2012-2013 was
the district’s second year raising class sizes, many of the teachers are struggling with the
higher numbers, never having known anything but class numbers in the low 20s. He
expressed concern that they continue to feel supported and able to perform their jobs well
despite the steep learning curve associated with teaching in a different set of
circumstances.
He noted that at the same time that class sizes have been rising in the district, the
number of district office administrators and instructional coaches available to provide
centralized support has diminished. He is a leader who feels strongly about providing
direct and personal support to classroom teachers and site administrators, and noted that
issues and challenges arise when that support isn’t available. As the former Director of
Human Resources, the current acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources
lamented the elimination of his former position, which creates a reduced ability to visit
school sites and invest in the district’s human resources through the coaching of
principals on budgeting and staffing issues. He noted that when budgets are cut and
resources are few, although the financial losses are quantifiable, it’s hard to truly gauge
what’s being lost in terms of an investment in the growth and development of a district’s
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 75
human resources; the most devastating long-term implications might never be studied, or
at the very least won’t be discernible for a number of years.
Though not immediately apparent, the positive effects of successful leadership,
note Leithwood et al. (2004), have the potential to be considerably greater in schools
facing more difficult circumstances. The wellbeing of the district’s stakeholders was also
a concern of the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services who, upon noting the
potential increase of furlough days, immediately acknowledged the impact of children not
being in school on their families, communities, and futures. Leaving student
achievement and programmatic cuts out of this portion of the conversation, the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services focused on how difficult it would be for parents
to secure additional childcare, and how sorry she would be to see teachers lose an entire
month’s salary. She noted colleagues who have lost their homes, and discussed the
impact of lowered morale and mental health on the teachers’ ability to survive outside the
work environment. Most tellingly, she wasn’t concerned about whether or not teachers
would complain or do their jobs well, but rather about the strain that would be placed on
them as human beings, thereby demonstrating an acute awareness of the current situation
and its impact on her followers. In a quantitative meta-analytic approach to synthesizing
the literature on school leadership, Marzano et al. (2005) concluded that situational
awareness, in fact, had the highest correlation to student academic achievement.
Understanding the performance problem. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue
that widespread school improvement is contingent upon leaders who understand and can
articulate the performance problem. High performing schools, adds Elmore (2000), are
able to quantify performance gaps, and usually begin with a sharp focus on state test
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 76
results as a baseline. This involves both transparency and an orientation towards
practices that produce the desired results.
In order to acknowledge and quantify the gap between current and desired
performance, district leadership should have a clear understanding of best practice.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), maintaining a high level of knowledge of effective
curriculum, instructional, and assessment strategies has the highest correlation to
producing second-order change—or a dramatic departure from the status quo—in one’s
organizational context. School and district leadership must pursue a strong understanding
of both best practice and the extent to which their district’s performance falls short
(Odden & Archibald, 2009).
All three assistant superintendents talked freely and candidly about their desire to
continue implementing best practices across the district. In terms of instructional design
and delivery, District A provides all teachers with professional development in research-
based lesson design that ensures English learner scaffolds are in place for every student.
Coaches consistently work with teachers to teach them how to develop a lesson with all
of the components necessary for a student to learn the standards, as well as how to be a
critical consumer of publisher’s materials. The district has also actively pursued a better
system of identifying students for interventions and monitoring their progress once an
intervention is selected. In terms of assessment strategies, the Assistant Superintendent
of Educational Services understands how current perceptions of best practice are
evolving with the Common Core State Standards initiative. She is aware that multiple-
choice assessments are no longer enough, and can articulate to teachers the impact that
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 77
performance-based assessments, 21
st
century skills, and having students write to explain
their thinking will have on student achievement.
She also articulated and embodied an understanding of her district’s performance
problem, noting that for the past four years, as the district went into Federal Program
Improvement based on data from its special education and English learner populations,
district officials began a more focused effort to analyze current practices. The district
even has its own internal programmer, and has built its own system to collect and display
data. Principals, vice principals, coaches, and teachers within District A are all being
trained on data-driven results, and many schools are starting to develop Professional
Learning Communities as a means for analyzing student results. Teachers are encouraged
to look critically at student benchmark test results, including item analyses, thereby
focusing on how their instruction led to the results, and how instruction can be adjusted in
response. As the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services noted, attitudes are
“turning more towards analyzing student knowledge versus right and wrong answers.”
Odden (2009) notes that this kind of openness about past low performance can
lead to parent and community buy-in and encouragement towards higher levels of
achievement. Realizing they had largely lost focus on whom the majority population was
and how to serve them, District A began providing more professional development to
help teachers achieve success with their special populations of students. State test results
acted as a baseline for understanding the problem without focusing on the CSTs as a
singular indicator of students’ success. Noted the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services:
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 78
It’s unique because while we acknowledge No Child Left Behind, and we know
there are proficiency expectations for all students in the United States, we also
recognize that the population of students that we work with come to us with some
unique challenges. First and foremost, many of our students start school here as
English learners and have very little English, so in addition to learning their grade
level content, they are also having to learn English alongside. Many of our
children come from poverty, so we’re overcoming a lot of those challenges.
While we want them to become proficient we kind of have come up with our own
unique goals, and what we’ve done is created a matrix of achievement for kids
(see Appendix D)—for English learners—that each year, they will show growth
in English proficiency as well as in academic proficiency on the CST, but not
100% proficient until they’ve had that time to develop that academic English.
This is an administrator who understands the federal and state expectations placed
on her schools and their students, while also recognizing their unique challenges, thereby
demonstrating the kind of moral imperative necessary to close the achievement gap for
children from low-income and minority backgrounds (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald,
2009). Elmore (2002) contends that leaders with their own internal accountability system
are generally more successful in responding to the external cues and pressures associated
with high-stakes accountability.
Shared goals, purpose, and vision. As the Expected English Learner Progression
matrix shows (see Appendix D), these students have clear growth goals in the areas of
English language fluency, overall progress towards the state standards in English
Language Arts and mathematics, and other levels of achievement on district common
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 79
assessments. Moreover, District A has created and distributed a document that clearly
states the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Service’s personal responsibility for
student achievement in her district, including specific performance targets in the areas of
teacher training, the development of an English Learner Master Plan, observation
protocols, and student achievement. This Student Achievement Goals document for
2012-2013 articulates the Educational Services office’s vision to “Create an exceptional
learning environment that engages, challenges and supports all students so that they
thrive and achieve their academic potential every year, while preparing them to pursue
college and career opportunities to be global citizens” (see Appendix E). More
specifically, the document outlines a concise set of student achievement goals and
indicators of growth, rather than a large number of unfocused and scattered goals for
improvement (Reeves, 2003). For example, that by the end of the school year, more than
70% of the district’s Long-Term English Learners (LTELs) will achieve English fluency,
as measured by the CELDT test. For exceptional schools, note Odden (2009) and Odden
and Archibald (2009), expectations themselves are high, and thus goals are set far higher
than slight marginal improvements.
Investing in teaching quality. Not only does the central office leadership in
District A possess a strong understanding of the district’s performance problem as well as
the prerequisite knowledge to implement large-scale organizational changes, but also
appears to recognize the importance of making an investment in its teachers. Miles and
Frank (2008) suggest that the quality of teaching outweighs any other factor in
determining potential student achievement gains; this investment in teacher quality is
valued and made a priority in District A, and manifests in a variety of forms, ranging
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 80
from hiring and staffing practices, professional development and the use of instructional
coaches, to the effort made by the district to avoid budget cuts that will affect how
teachers teach.
Hiring and staffing. Throughout our conversations, the acting Assistant
Superintendent of Human Resources repeatedly emphasized the commitment that his
team has made to hiring and retaining quality teachers. He feels strongly that the way in
which District A can most greatly impact student achievement through their human
resource allocation strategies is by attempting to control the quality of its teachers. The
district has remained committed to hiring only fully credentialed, highly qualified
teachers; in fact, in the past few years the district has hired exclusively from within their
pool of displaced temporary teachers. This is important, notes the acting Assistant
Superintendent of Human Resources, because “by reemploying our temps, we are
bringing folks back into our system who are trained, who know our curriculum, who
know our approaches, and who know us as a district.”
Additionally, District A has a policy of maintaining the very best teachers by
rehiring only those temporary teachers who know the curriculum and have a proven track
record, and then making every effort to keep them in the system. When school principals
identify temporary teachers they do not want to reemploy for another year, the district has
a conversation with those teachers, informing them that they will not be considered for
interviews the following year. This is one small way the district can influence teacher
quality through hiring and staffing, as the process in general remains largely outside their
control. The acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources expressed frustration
that he does not have greater influence over the hiring and assignment of quality teachers,
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 81
as some of the teacher contract language regarding transfers and reassignments gives
preference to those with greater seniority. In other words, when a position becomes
available within the district, the most senior teacher who wants that position gets it. In
terms of increasing teacher quality and impacting student achievement, the district’s
human resources team recognizes the disadvantage to this current practice in which a site
principal cannot strategically and purposefully build a strong, cohesive team. The acting
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources went so far as to say that because he feels
strongly about the priority of investing in quality teaching, in an ideal unrestricted fiscal
climate, the district would have enough money to be able to negotiate the removal of
some of this binding language from the contract.
Professional development. District A believes in increasing the quality of
instruction not only through hiring and staffing practices, but also through the type of
continual learning in which their teachers participate. The district staffs 12 Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) out of central categorical
funds. The TOSA title is a catchall for several different types of positions—some
TOSAs are hired for professional development, others are hired to work directly with
students in an instructional support capacity, and still others do both. Though the district
funds only .5 FTE TOSA specifically for professional development for each of the 24
school sites, principals are given the option to fund additional FTE for professional
development or instructional support with their site categorical funds. Site leaders are
given the flexibility to customize these TOSA contracts based on how much money they
have and what their needs are, essentially acting as entrepreneurs who hire certificated
individuals to invest in the quality of teaching at their school site. As the acting Assistant
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 82
Superintendent of Human Resources explained, two site leaders can get together and
choose a professional development TOSA—the instructional coach—they want to share,
and decide how to creatively divide that 1.0 FTE. Other school leaders, for example,
might choose to employ a full-time coach at their site by using site funds to supplement
the .5 FTE funded by the district. As a result, the number of FTE TOSAs varies greatly
from school site to school site (see Table 3).
In order to reduce wasteful spending on professional development that does not
affect teacher quality and produce meaningful changes to teachers’ instructional
practices, effective professional development should contain six key structural features:
form, duration, participation, focus, active learning, and coherence (Odden, 2009; Odden
& Archibald, 2009; Birman et al., 2000). District A’s professional development cycle is
built on what the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services calls ‘The Steps to
Success’—a four step process to increasing teacher quality. First, she explained, a clear
vision must be established. Before implementing any professional development, the
district clarifies both its purpose and its plan for conducting this particular professional
development. After the initial planning, steps two through four include the actual
delivery of professional development by an expert, followed by ongoing support, and
ending with some form of accountability. This type of well-sequenced professional
development provides teachers with coherence and continuity, and is more typical of
high-performing schools (Birman et al., 2000).
Elmore (2002) notes the importance of the form professional development takes
on, namely in its responsiveness and flexibility as goals are achieved and improvement is
demonstrated. Often, District A’s curriculum team provides an initial professional
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 83
development—a more traditional one to three day workshop, for example. In terms of
form, Birman et al. (2000) found that a more traditional form of professional
development can still be effective, as long as the other essential features—duration,
participation, focus, active learning, and coherence—are in place.
Table 3
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs)
Elementary School Total Enrollment FTE TOSAs Pupils per TOSA
A 677 .50 1354.0
B 1132 3.96 285.9
C 928 1.24 748.4
D 677 1.70 398.4
E 875 2.00 437.5
F 828 2.00 414.0
G 506 1.00 506.0
H 745 1.60 465.6
I 706 2.74 257.7
J 553 1.75 316.0
K 684 2.00 342.0
L 1221 3.00 407.0
M 731 1.94 376.8
N 793 1.70 466.5
O 719 2.00 359.5
P 813 1.65 492.1
Q 1174 3.09 379.9
R 753 1.54 489.0
S 941 2.50 376.4
T 592 1.40 422.9
U 1042 2.60 400.8
V 645 2.34 276.2
W 913 2.00 456.5
X 896 2.47 362.8

To this end, following the initial workshop, the professional development TOSAs
are trained to follow up and provide ongoing support at various levels depending on the
needs of the school site. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services explained
that the district is at a point where principals are able to differentiate the type and quantity
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 84
of support their staff, or even an individual teacher needs; the district’s goal is that those
who don’t need the same level of support either become the model and share their
practice, or alternatively work on something different. The acting Assistant
Superintendent of Human Resources noted, however, that while the specific type of
follow-up support can be tailored to the needs of a school site, and principals do have the
flexibility to hire additional FTE to meet their staff’s coaching needs, the district still
operates with a certain level of equity, currently funding .5 FTE TOSA for professional
development uniformly to each site. He desires greater differentiation in the level of
support given to various school sites, so that the form of professional development in the
district is not uniform to all schools, but more responsive to the current quality of
instruction and implementation at a given site. He named specific schools in which the
teachers are self-starters who consistently deliver cutting edge instruction, lamenting that
they receive the same TOSA allotment as schools with lower levels of implementation
that would potentially require 2.0 FTE or more to get to the level of support the staff
requires.
In terms of the focus of professional development, Odden (2009) and Odden and
Archibald (2009) note the importance of an emphasis on curriculum content, analysis of
student errors in a particular content area, and content-specific pedagogy. Tellingly,
there is a direct correlation between the degree to which professional development is
focused on content knowledge and the subsequent increase in teacher skill and
knowledge (Birman et al., 2000). Over the past few years, the focus of District A’s
professional development has been on content-specific pedagogy and instructional
delivery. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services carries the philosophy
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 85
that the delivery of instruction transcends all content, and that when teachers know all of
the necessary components that must fit together in order for students to learn, more
children are learning more of the time. She believes that a focus on instructional delivery
provides her teachers with the freedom and flexibility that regardless of the standards that
are being taught or the curriculum that is currently being used district-wide, they must
simply plan a good lesson for the type of student that is in their class. She believes this
even transcends issues of class size, as regardless of the number of students in their class,
effective teachers with solid instructional delivery can provide a value-added experience
for their students. Her claim is supported by research on class size, including the
suggestion that reduced class sizes impact student achievement because teachers alter
their instructional practices to include more small group instruction and purposeful
student engagement, as well as greater ease and responsiveness to the formal and
informal formative assessment data of fewer students (Odden, 2009).
In District A, instructional coaches are used in a variety of ways to build teacher
capacity and enhance teacher quality in individual and small group settings. Some of the
district’s professional development has focused on Research-based Lesson Design, which
is based upon Madeline Hunter’s direct instruction, as well as SIOP (Structured
Instructional Observation Protocol); district and site leadership expect teachers to
incorporate a particular set of components of an effective lesson. Though, Elmore (2002)
also notes that successful professional development depends upon proximity to authentic
classroom settings, as well as a connection to the actual problems of teaching and
learning that can serve as the basis for interactions between individuals and small groups
with professional developers or instructional coaches. Therefore, as part of the district’s
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 86
‘Steps to Success’ professional development cycle, specifically related to lesson design
and instructional delivery, instructional coaches (professional development TOSAs) work
with teachers to guide them through the process of how to create a lesson plan that
contains all of the necessary components for students to learn the standards. Rather than
simply planning lessons that follow a prescriptive set of steps, the district also expects a
certain degree of active learning from their teachers. Teachers are cognitively coached
through this process, and are expected to ask themselves questions, for example, about
the coherence of their lesson objectives, what supports students will require to access
academic vocabulary, and whether or not the independent practice matches the lesson
objective. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services noted the district’s
effort to move towards more collaborative, side-by-side coaching, in which the teacher
and the professional development TOSA work together to plan a lesson, co-teach the
lesson, and provide one another with feedback throughout.
The district’s instructional coaches are also currently utilized as part of the
district’s visitation protocol that is based upon identifying elements of effective
instruction in a given teacher’s practice (see Appendix F). This protocol is focused on
looking for evidence of student engagement and English Language Development
strategies, checking for understanding, and giving corrective feedback. Three times per
year, a team composed of three school site administration teams and their instructional
coaches, as well as several district office personnel visits each of the district’s 24 schools.
Additional coaches go in and release a classroom teacher to join the observation, thus
allowing for more classroom teacher participation. Depending on whether or not the
elements of an effective lesson are present, the school’s professional development plan is
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 87
created and adjusted. In District A, instructional coaches are utilized to provide
professional development that truly gives teachers an opportunity to observe and be
observed teaching, practice in simulated conditions, and develop lesson plans with expert
models (Birman et al., 2000; Elmore, 2002).
Keeping cuts away from the classroom. As the results of Proposition 30 loomed
near, District A’s central office leadership discussed several possible contingencies
related to future budget cuts. All three assistant superintendents are believers in keeping
as many financial cuts away from the classroom—students and teachers—as possible.
However, as the interim Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services discussed,
anything that could be easily eliminated—extra resources such as a curriculum lab,
release time for teacher preparation, and instructional days—has already been eliminated.
Over the last five years or so, the district’s revenue has been reduced more than 10%, and
over that period of time they have responded in several ways, effectively able to also
reduce the level of expenses by about 10% over a five-year period. First, although they
eliminated some programs, those losses did not produce any layoffs, which were covered
through natural attrition. Additionally, the district instituted furlough days, as well as
significant changes to the design of the employee health and welfare plan. District A also
eliminated class size reduction, and as the interim Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services acknowledged, there are no small classes remaining in the
primary grades. Therefore, although District A has traditionally made every effort to
move cuts away from the classroom, there aren’t, as he stated, “any ‘away from the
classrooms’ left.”
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 88
Adding to the sentiment that although hiring and maintaining quality teachers is
one of District A’s highest priorities and strongest values, the practices that sustain this
value are in real danger over the next few years, the interim Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services directly addressed the likelihood of instructional coaches
continuing to receive funding:
We’re currently funding a part-time—we call them a TOSA, Teacher on Special
Assignment—and they are for professional development. [If Proposition 30 fails]
those will go. I think they’ll go anyway. I don’t know if you know anybody in the
district—I shouldn’t have said that. But those kinds of things will go.
The individual most directly responsible for balancing the district’s budget and
making recommendations that would help the district remain financially solvent
acknowledged the imminent nature of making unpopular and according to the research,
unwise, personnel decisions. The acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources
also acknowledged that the potential for layoffs is realistic and probable. As he
explained, the categorically funded TOSAs are site funded; their salaries aren’t paid
through the general fund, and would thus be ineligible in the discussion for potential cuts
to the general fund. Because there is a million dollars in carry over that won’t be
available for the 2013-2014 school year, and the district is facing sequestration of federal
funds, the district needs to eliminate one million dollars or more out of the centralized
support of schools, possibly including the 12 FTE centrally funded TOSAs. The
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services echoed the financial and human
resources forecast of her colleagues, further illustrating the conflict the district currently
faces between their values and their financial reality, pointing out that when you take
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 89
away a curriculum specialist or a TOSA that is there to support classroom teachers who
are struggling or want support, that is a cut to the classroom, even if it’s not a direct cut.
Though, as the acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources noted, the
long-term implications and impact of these types of personnel decisions might not be
apparent for a number of years, in general terms the district is heading towards a model
that is less and less able to financially sustain providing support to its teachers. The
evidence of moving in this direction has been building over several years. He notes:
When you look at what we’re doing with our staff development and our
professional development TOSAs, it used to be that every school had a full-time
coach, and some schools had two, and those were centrally funded, and as a
result of the cuts, we’re down to half… next year, could be none. So as you
think about the veteran teachers who need coaching cycles and professional
development, and they need somebody to kind of keep them current, it’s harder
and harder for our administrators to find money for release time, there’s greater
pressure from us as a district not to have massive amounts of substitutes. When
you look at the natural cycle of training teachers, and teachers who are absent
due to other issues, on average a teacher was out of the classroom in Anaheim
City about 18 days. When you look at that total number of days, a good portion
of that was not within our control. It was sick, personal business, and maternity
and all that. But a huge portion of that was within our control—professional
development—there is less money for that, and more pressure to have teachers
in the classroom. So, we’re beginning to see cuts to professional development,
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 90
on-site support, and centralized support…less curriculum specialists, less
administrators.
Collaborative culture and distributed leadership. Schools and districts that
double student performance often place teachers in roles that encourage a distributed
form of leadership, such as instructional coach or curriculum facilitator (Odden, 2009;
Odden & Archibald, 2009). There is additional evidence that schools can increase
student achievement when more teachers are given the opportunity to develop the skills
necessary to manage teams of peers and work with adults to change practices. District A
has made a clear financial and human resources investment in developing teacher leaders.
The acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources noted that although the district
funds only 12 FTE TOSAs, there are currently 62.3 FTE TOSAs funded through a
combination of general and site categorical funds, for a total of 81 different people. Note
Odden (2009) and Odden and Archibald (2009), these types of positions and structures
often serve as the genesis for true collaborative culture, since instructional changes are
not dependent upon central-office decision-making.
A true model of distributed leadership, warns Spillane (2006) is more than just
employing more individuals to share the same amount of work, and is different than the
mere delegation of tasks. Distributed leadership, rather, is defined by a measure of
interdependency between stakeholders. In fact, asserts Elmore (2002), large-scale school
improvement results from a common set of practices shared across all stakeholders within
the profession, and a school or district leader’s greatest influence can be in their ability to
engage those stakeholders in shared decision-making (Sheppard et al., 2010). District
A’s Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services engages her personnel in processes
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 91
that encourage shared decision-making among stakeholders. For example, when working
to make the district’s visitation protocol seem less evaluative and more like an
instructional tool to shape professional development, she creatively used the professional
development TOSAs to provide release time for classroom teachers to participate in the
process. After making the change, she noted that when teachers weren’t part of the
process, they were just getting information instead of participating in collecting
information. She even noted that the district’s eventual goal is that school sites will
engage in these sorts of school improvement processes on their own, without the support
of the district office. This is an administrator who understands that meaningful school
leadership requires more than the leadership of a single formal leader (Sheppard, Hurley,
& Dibbon, 2010).
Additionally, although textbook adoptions are currently on hold due to a law
suspending the requirement to purchase new materials, District A will maintain its
rigorous process for adopting curriculum that involves parents, teachers, administrators,
and curriculum experts within the district—including people in roles other than teacher or
formal leader who have the ability to influence student achievement (Louis et al., 2010).
In similar fashion, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services mobilized a
committee of approximately 80 teachers, site administrators, and curriculum experts who
worked to prioritize the Common Core standards and develop units of study around them,
rather than adopting new textbooks. She reflected upon the impact of this type of
distributed leadership, noting:
It was very powerful, because a lot of times you’ll hear that the district is making
us do this, whereas we put the call out to whoever wanted to participate, so we
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 92
had lots of different type of teachers: your teacher leaders, people who just
wanted to know ‘What does this mean for me?’ We had a good representation of
people, and being a part of that committee, you then went back to start to
introduce this to your staff, so it was almost grass roots in a way.
There is evidence of distributed leadership in District A, even in how the TOSAs
are chosen. The acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources describes a
creative model, in which principals are allowed to hire teachers with contracts as little as
40% FTE, all the way up to full time, and almost every graduated percentage in between.
There are even TOSAs with a 63.8% FTE contract, for example, because the principal
has determined an exact need and usage for the position. Because the contract allows for
a one-time increase of up to 24% without having to repost the position, contracts will
often evolve over the year into greater contracts as money permits. The district values
giving site leaders the flexibility to customize contracts based on how much money they
have and their level of need.
Odden (2009) warns, however, that collaborative cultures do not develop
spontaneously, and that certain structures and systems must be in place to allow a culture
of shared leadership and collaboration to emerge. In other words, distributed
instructional leadership works when enough of a hierarchy is in place (Jacques, 2003)
that administrators take responsibility for providing the time, tools, and motivation
necessary for the system to function effectively. Although it is District A’s expectation
that schools have a structure in place for teachers to work in PLCs, the level of
implementation varies by site due to the site administrators’ various understandings of
PLCs. In general, each school has something they are calling a PLC, however the
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 93
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services estimates that approximately 40% of
sites are at a full implementation.
Creating individual attention and personal learning environments. High-
achieving schools and districts tend to strategically direct their resources to create
individual learning experiences for specific students (Miles & Frank, 2008), knowing that
in order for all students to achieve proficiency, certain students need more help (Odden &
Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2009). This strategic diversion of energy and resources
includes the use of formative assessments to drive organizational and classroom
decisions, as well as a variety of strategies for extending learning time for struggling
students (Odden, 2009).
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. District A implements
numerous types of formative assessments—assessments that are given often and intended
to be diagnostic in nature (Odden, 2009)—and other data-collecting strategies that help
drive decision-making. As the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
explained, District A is a large enough district to justify the hiring of their own internal
programmer, resulting in the capability to build their own system to collect and display
district-wide data. Further, as the district’s school sites have begun to develop
Professional Learning Communities over the past several years, principals, vice
principals and coaches have been trained on the process of data-driven results. The
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services feels that this has helped all
stakeholders to look at the data in a way that will directly impact instruction, asking and
answering key questions about which instructional practices might have led to the current
result, and what can be done differently to produce a different outcome.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 94
Dobbie and Fryer (2011) determined that highly effective schools are more likely
to track students using data. District A is currently in the 4
th
year of implementing full-
day kindergarten at one particular school site, and has plans to track the students in the
program, looking longitudinally at that particular group to see if there is a difference
between those in full-day versus half-day kindergarten. Additionally, because the district
is specifically focused on targeting English Language Learners and bettering their ELD
instruction through the implementation of research-based lesson design, there is an
increased interest on the data related to how English learners have performed on the CST
and the CELDT. According to the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, the
data shows a direct correlation between the district’s focus on English Language
Development and student results, with the English learner subgroup gaining more than
100 API points over the past five years as evidence towards her claim.
There is also evidence that data drives instruction at the classroom level. Over the
past several years, District A’s student achievement data have shown a strong correlation
between students’ performance on district benchmarks and on the CST. For example,
notes the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, if a student scored
“Strategic” on District A’s benchmarks, they were expected to score “Proficient” or
“Advanced” on the CSTs. Once that type of alignment was developed, school sites, she
explained, were more apt to use the benchmark data to drive instruction. Odden and
Archibald (2009) conclude that schools that double student performance tend to use
standardized testing data strategically to improve teacher instruction to be more targeted
and more efficient. Teachers in District A have been trained in item analysis, using the
benchmark results to more deeply understand the particular answers students gave, and
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 95
what those results indicate about instruction and test question format. Teachers in
District A also use data to create and modify intervention groups. Using a Response to
Intervention system, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services notes the
district’s focus on how they are identifying students for interventions, how they monitor
their progress once interventions are selected for particular students, and whether
particular students are more in need of literacy or language intervention. In other words,
District A is using benchmark data to move towards a more focused approach to
instruction; they know that end-of-year state tests do not provide a complete enough
picture of student learning to accurately improve instructional practice (Odden, 2009).
Additionally, as the district is in its beginning stages of implementation of the
Common Core, they have developed units of instruction that have a pre and a post-test
and more common formative assessments. They are hoping these performance
assessments that require students to articulate written explanations of their learning will
allow teachers to truly see what students know versus what they don’t know, and whether
their learning was a result of the teaching that occurred or a given student’s prior
knowledge. These benchmark data, hope District A officials, will provide teachers with a
summary of student learning to help them make decisions about whether to reteach
content or move forward to the next topic or unit (Odden, 2009).
Extending learning time for struggling students. In terms of creating
individualized learning environments for struggling students, Miles and Frank (2008)
conclude that high performing schools intentionally and systematically prioritize such
opportunities—extended school year or school day programs, high dosage tutoring,
strategic grouping, or overall reduction of class sizes—based on student need.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 96
District A does not currently fund extended learning opportunities for struggling
students through summer school, though summer school is provided anywhere from ten
to fifteen days in the summer for special education students for whom summer school is
written into their IEP. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services noted that
several of District A’s multi-track schools provide intersession, paid for out of site
categorical money, in which students attend for approximately three weeks for half a day.
She also made clear that in the past, when there was money budgeted for summer school,
because the district operated year round, they provided a Saturday school program.
Struggling students were invited to come to Saturday school for 6-8 week periods. Over
the last year, in order to recoup some of the ADA money from students who were absent,
District A held Saturday schools in which teachers would come in and teach 30 kids
enrichment-type activities. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services noted
this was a positive solution because the district was able to recoup their attendance
money, students were learning, and they were really having a great time in whatever
curriculum teachers were providing for them on that day. In schools that doubled student
performance, Odden (2009) found dramatically varied approaches to summer school both
in terms of duration and academic intensity; though the effects were largest when
programs emphasized core subjects. Though District A targeted students who were
struggling in core subjects, they intentionally provided these sort of enrichment
opportunities outside the core subjects, she noted, because they started to realize
struggling students needed more than just reading and math instruction. Teachers and
administrators noticed students were excited to come to school for science and social
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 97
studies opportunities, opening the district’s eyes to the limited curriculum the students
were receiving during their regular school day.
Summer school is just one way high performing schools potentially target
struggling students with extended learning opportunities. As Odden (2009) concludes,
individual and small-group tutoring of up to five students in a group is an effective extra-
help strategy for struggling students, because it is immediate, relevant, precise, and
flexible. In District A, after-school interventions vary school by school, and are funded
with the use of site categorical money. The state Board of Education recently approved
District A to be their own SES provider for Program Improvement. As a result, they plan
to provide afterschool reading tutoring—a structured program taught by teachers for
students in fourth through sixth grade. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services expressed how beneficial it would be to District A’s students to have their own
teachers providing intensive after-school tutoring, rather than an outside agency, both in
terms of the quality of instruction and the ability to monitor their progress.
District A also utilizes their TOSAs to provide small-group tutoring to struggling
students. School sites are allowed to customize the type of tutoring provided, as well as
the structure. The acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources explained that
some TOSAs in instruction are used at school sites to implement a type of pullout model
that involves working on discrete skills with students. They service students from a
variety of grade levels in 30 to 40 minute blocks, depending on the grade level. During
this time, they’ll do targeted intervention based upon formative assessments. As students
are working on a discrete skill, they’ll try to service all students who are in particular
need of this skill, as assessed and diagnosed by their classroom teachers. After working
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 98
on precise skills for a particular amount of time, they reassess and build new groups
based on student progress.
In other models, he explained, instructional TOSAs might provide push-in support
where they are coming into classrooms and enacting something like a class size reduction
model by targeting students based upon leveled skills or particular needs, thereby
reducing the overall student-teacher ratio of the classroom. Strategic schools and
districts, note Miles and Frank (2008), understand that traditional class-size reduction is
not the only option to consider when providing individual attention for struggling
students. Some schools, they concluded, were able to drastically raise reading scores by
hiring expert teachers to rotate through classrooms during reading periods, effectively
doubling the number of teachers available to work with students in small groups on
targeted, core instruction. Much in this way, some of District A’s sites have chosen to
customize the use of their TOSA to reduce class size. For example, explained the acting
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, if a site has two sixth grade teachers, they
might hire a TOSA to come in during the language arts block, in which the TOSA works
the entire year, all morning long, with his or her instructional group for language arts,
essentially creating three language arts teachers, thus reducing class size, and increasing
the grade level team’s ability to level and team-teach as desired.
District A’s collective bargaining agreement contains language that the district
class size average cannot go over 28 students, though there is currently a Memo of
Understanding between the teachers’ union and the school board stating that for 2012-
2013 and 2013-2014, the district class size average will not exceed 30 students, and the
school site class size average will not exceed 31. The central office administrators in
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 99
District A understand, as Odden (2009) notes, that there are more effective ways to
provided targeted instruction to struggling students. Small reductions in class size make
little difference in student performance, unless the numbers are reduced drastically
somewhere between 13 and 17 students (Miles & Frank, 2008). Further, conclude the
authors, reduced class size does not impact student achievement unless teachers are able
to skillfully make use of the reduced numbers to target students’ needs. During this time
of fiscal stress, as many school district officials feel that class sizes are necessarily
increasing, District A’s acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources noted that
it’s easy to look at class size and make the assumption that as class sizes increase,
students are not going to perform as well. However, added the Assistant Superintendent
of Educational Services, over the years she has observed many classes with student-
teacher ratios less than 20-1, in which the teachers were not delivering effective
instruction. She is of the opinion that they would not have been effective whether they
had 20 or 30 kids, because the quality of instruction and the teacher-student relationship
is more important than the number of students in the class. She added that in elementary
school, anything past 32 isn’t effective. The acting Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources acknowledged that while it would be nice to return to a district average of 28
students in a class, even as the district someday emerges from the current budget crisis,
he’s certain that District A will not be spending their resources to bring ratios back to 20-
1. “Would we rush back into lowering class sizes?” he asked. “I think there are better
ways to spend out money.” Although, he acknowledged, that even with a maximum
district average of 30 students per class, that leaves some upper grade classes with
upwards of 35 students. “35 students,” he sighed. “35 is a bit much.”
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 100
Maximizing academic time and linking it to learning needs. High performing
schools, assert Miles and Frank (2008) will always reallocate resources—including
instructional time—to better support student achievement. When it came to schools that
doubled student performance, Odden and Archibald (2009) determined that school and
district leadership often completely redesigned curriculum and instructional programs to
cast a new vision when something wasn’t working. In District A, although the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services acknowledges the importance of standardized
testing, she realized that expecting proficiency on a single test was not a large enough
goal for her student population, of which more than 85% of the students are eligible for
Free and Reduced Lunch, and more than 85% of the students are Hispanic/Latino. She
instead created the aforementioned Expected English Learner Progression Matrix to
outline District A’s vision of success for its English Language Learners, as well as
strategies to support them as they work towards these benchmarks. The idea is that each
year, they will show growth in English proficiency as well as in academic proficiency on
the CST, but are not expected to be 100% proficient until they’ve had the necessary time
to develop academic English.
There are other examples of how District A is continually willing to create a new
instructional vision and change the curriculum program to better utilize instructional
time, such as moving away from explicit direct instruction when district officials realized
it was not meeting the needs of its English Language Learners, and instead moving
towards SIOP (Structured Instructional Observation Protocol) to help ensure the proper
scaffolds and instructional routines to develop students’ language skills and academic
English. Similarly, as the Common Core State Standards have emerged over the past few
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 101
years, District A has responded by piloting online assessments, involving teachers in
designing units of study and district-wide common performance assessments,
encouraging teachers to have students use writing as a means to demonstrate attainment
of lesson objectives, and moving away from multiple choice tests as their exclusive
means of assessing student learning.
The Gaps: A Comparison of Current Practices to the Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model for school resource allocation (Odden & Picus,
2008) served as the basis for a gap analysis. The gap analysis was conducted to
determine differences between the district’s current resource allocation practices and
those suggested by the Evidence-Based Model to maximize resources for higher student
achievement. District A’s personnel allocations will be reported in actual totals and Full
Time Equivalencies (FTEs).
Core academic teachers and specialist/elective teachers. A credentialed
classroom teacher is primarily responsible for teaching a school's core academic subjects
of English Language Arts, mathematics, science, and history/social studies. At the
elementary school level, core academic teachers consist of teachers in self-contained
regular education classrooms (Odden & Picus, 2008). District A has a total of 647 FTEs
allocated to core teachers in its 24 elementary schools, servicing a total of 19,544
students. The average student-teacher ratio is 30.2:1, which is higher than the ratios of
15:1 for Preschool through 3
rd
grade and 25:1 for 4
th
through 6
th
grade suggested by the
Evidence-Based Model.
Specialist or elective teachers consist of licensed teachers who teach noncore
academic classes, such as art, music, or physical education, usually providing planning
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 102
and preparation time for core academic teachers (Odden & Picus, 2008). District A does
not currently employ any specialist teachers to provide planning or preparation time for
core academic teachers. The Evidence-Based Model suggests 220.1 FTE allocated to
specialist teachers in District A. Specialist teachers were eliminated from District A’s
budget several years ago, as self-contained core academic teachers are expected to
provide instruction in art, music, physical education, and other elective activities, thus
eliminating extra planning or preparation time.
Table 4 compares the current FTE core teachers allocated at each school site, as
well as the average student-teacher ratio, as compared to the allocations suggested by the
Evidence-Based Model. Comparing the distribution of core teachers across District A’s
elementary schools reveals that although some schools have larger gaps between current
allocation and that suggested by the Evidence-Based Model, all schools have relatively
similar average student-teacher ratios, and no school deviates from the district average by
more than 1.5 students per teacher.
Library staff. District A does not currently staff any certificated librarians,
though the Evidence-Based Model suggests allocating 1.0 FTE per elementary school
site. The district does, however, allocate .5 FTE per school site to Library Media
Assistants—a paraprofessional position that combines a library technician and a library
aide. One Library Media Assistant splits his or her time between two school sites. This
person is responsible for equipment maintenance, the checking-in and out of books,
textbook maintenance and inventory, and reading stories to classrooms of students. As a
result of budget cuts, District A only recently reduced Library Media Assistants from 1.0
FTE to .5 FTE. As the interim Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 103
explained, the district is operating at the most reduced staffing level in its history, but has
to constantly reevaluate what level of staffing it can continue to support. District office
personnel feel that they are continually forced into undesirable staffing reductions, as
there are fewer and fewer options for saving money. As he asked rhetorically, “Who
wants to cut out librarians? Nobody wants to cut out librarians.”
Table 4
Comparison of District A and EBM Allocations of Core Teachers (FTEs)

Core Teachers
FTE Allocations
Average
Student-
Teacher Ratio
Elementary School
Total
Enrollment
Current EBM Suggested Gap
A 677 22.00 36.71 -14.71 30.8
B 1132 37.00 64.48 -27.48 30.6
C 928 30.00 52.96 -22.96 30.9
D 677 23.00 37.88 -14.88 29.4
E 875 28.00 48.07 -20.07 31.3
F 828 27.00 46.99 -19.99 30.7
G 506 17.00 27.25 -10.25 29.8
H 745 25.00 41.32 -16.32 29.8
I 706 25.00 39.47 -14.47 28.2
J 553 19.00 31.16 -12.16 29.1
K 684 22.00 38.37 -16.37 31.1
L 1221 40.00 68.55 -28.55 30.5
M 731 25.00 41.05 -16.05 29.2
N 793 25.00 45.75 -20.75 31.7
O 719 24.00 39.72 -15.72 30.0
P 813 28.00 45.40 -17.40 29.0
Q 1174 38.00 65.04 -27.04 30.9
R 753 26.00 42.68 -16.68 29.0
S 941 32.00 53.40 -21.40 29.4
T 592 20.00 33.20 -13.20 29.6
U 1042 34.00 58.37 -24.37 30.6
V 645 21.00 35.08 -14.08 30.7
W 913 30.00 51.45 -21.45 30.4
X 896 29.00 49.81 -20.81 30.9
Total 19544.0 647.0 1094.16 -447.16 30.2

Extra help staff. Academic extra help staff consists primarily of credentialed
teachers whose role is to assist struggling students or students with special needs in
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 104
accessing a school’s regular curriculum (Odden & Picus, 2008). These teachers usually
provide instruction in addition to that of the regular classroom teacher. This category of
personnel includes certificated tutors, intervention specialists, reading teachers, ELL
teachers, Title I teachers, special education teachers, resource teachers, and instructional
or one-on-one aides.
The primary means by which District A provides academic extra help to its
struggling students is through TOSAs in instruction. These credentialed teachers are
used creatively depending on the needs of the school site, but many of them work with
small groups of at-risk students, targeting discrete skills for flexible periods of time based
on the results of formative assessments. Although the Evidence-Based Model does not
specifically account for how schools and districts should allocate FTE for intervention
specialists, it does allocate 1.0 FTE for certificated tutors per 100 at-risk students at a
school site. District A has 16,740 students currently enrolled in the Free and Reduced
Lunch program and thus considered to be part of the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
student subgroup—more than 85% of the district’s total student population. For this
quantity of students, the Evidence-Based Model suggests 167.6 FTE allocated for
certificated tutors—far more than the 32.1 FTE currently allocated by District A for
TOSAs in instruction.
Although one academic extra-help tutor per 522 students is far fewer than the
100:1 ratio suggested by the Evidence-Based Model, TOSAs in instruction are not the
only employees working to provide extra academic help to District A’s at-risk student
population. After-school interventions vary school by school, and are funded with the
use of site categorical money. Additionally, because the state Board of Education
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 105
recently approved District A to be its own Supplemental Education Service (SES)
provider for Program Improvement, all low-income students who attend Title I Program
Improvement Years 2 through 5 schools are eligible for free tutoring that not only must
be high quality, research based, and specifically designed to increase student academic
achievement, but will now be provided by their own teachers. The Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services noted that the $2 million the district is currently
paying out for those services can now be used to pay its teachers instead.
Although District A currently has 12,041 English Language Learners enrolled in
its schools, they allocate no FTE to English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers. ESL
teachers are defined as certificated bilingual teachers assigned to non-English-speaking
students to teach them English (Odden & Picus, 2008). The Evidence-Based Model
suggests an allocation of 1 ESL teacher for every 100 English Language Learners, which
for District A would equal 120.4 FTE. Despite the lack of ESL teachers, the district does,
however, allocate resources to improving the language skills and content knowledge of
its non-English-speaking students. Specifically, District A allocates 14.0 FTE to dual-
immersion classroom teachers at two separate school sites, with the goal of District A’s
dual-immersion program being to help students reach academic proficiency in both
English and Spanish on California content standards.
As the acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources describes, one of the
district’s current major focuses are its English learners. Traditionally, District A has had
many students get stuck at an intermediate proficiency level, effectively becoming Long-
Term English Learners (LTELs). As a result, the district is heavily emphasizing English
Language Development strategies in its professional developments. Further, some of
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 106
District A’s TOSAs in instruction work exclusively with English Language Learners,
both in intervention, and in delivering ELD instruction. There are some schools in
which, he noted, because ELD is taught at a common time within the school, or at a
different time in the primary and upper grades, there is the option to allow TOSAs to
teach at both of those levels. Some of those TOSAs are not just Title I funded, but are
also LEP (Limited English Proficiency) funded, which necessitates that the intervention
group they teach targets English Language Learners.
District A allocates 127.9 FTE to certificated special education staff, which
includes self-contained special-education classroom teachers serving students with mild
to severe disabilities, as well as resource room teachers who traditionally provide small
groups of students with extra help, not necessarily directly related to the school’s regular
curriculum (Odden & Picus, 2008). Although still fewer than the 130.3 FTE for
certificated special education teachers that the Evidence-Based Model suggests for the
district’s 606 special education students, District A comes remarkably close to matching
the EBM’s recommended allocation. Special education instructional aides are one
position in which District A far exceeds the Evidence-Based Model’s recommended
staffing allocation. The district allocates 111.7 FTE for special education instructional
aides, which is nearly double the 65.5 FTE recommended by the Evidence-Based Model.
Instructional coaches. The Evidence-Based Model allocates 1.0 FTE for
instructional coaches per 200 students enrolled, or 98.2 FTE allocated for District A.
Though District A allocates a total of 48.7 FTE to TOSAs in instruction and professional
development, only 17.0 FTE are allocated to TOSAs who focus solely on professional
development. That is fewer than 1.0 FTE per school site, with an average of 1.0 FTE per
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 107
1,149.6 pupils, and as many as 1.0 FTE per 1,856 pupils at School C (see Table 5)—far
fewer than suggested by the Evidence-Based Model. Further, district office central funds
only pay for 12.0 FTE TOSAs in professional development, with the remaining FTE paid
for by site categorical funds. Clearly, more school sites are choosing to use their site-
based categorical funds to hire TOSAs in instruction (32.1 FTE) to work directly with
students.
Table 5
FTEs Allocated to Professional Development by School Site
Elementary School Total Enrollment FTE TOSAs Pupils per TOSA
A 677 .50 1354.0
B 1132 1.00 1132.0
C 928 0.50 1856.0
D 677 0.50 1354.0
E 875 0.50 1750.0
F 828 1.00 828.0
G 506 0.50 1012.0
H 745 0.50 1490.0
I 706 1.00 706.0
J 553 0.38 1474.7
K 684 0.50 1368.0
L 1221 1.00 1221.0
M 731 0.50 1462.0
N 793 0.45 1762.2
O 719 1.00 719.0
P 813 1.00 813.0
Q 1174 1.00 1174.0
R 753 0.50 1506.0
S 941 1.50 627.3
T 592 0.50 1184.0
U 1042 1.00 1042.0
V 645 0.50 1290.0
W 913 0.50 1826.0
X 896 0.65 1378.5

Non-academic pupil support staff. This non-academic pupil support
expenditure element includes any school-based support staff, such as guidance and
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 108
attendance counselors, social workers, parent and community liaisons, and school
psychologists. The Evidence-Based Model recommends allocating 1.0 FTE per 450
students at the elementary school level, while District A currently allocates 18.5 FTE to
non-academic pupil support—all of which are school psychologists. This is far less than
the 211.0 FTE for non-academic pupil support staff recommended by the Evidence-Based
Model.
Administration. This element consists of all expenditures related to the
administration of a school, including the principal, assistant principals, and administrative
office and clerical staff (Odden & Picus, 2008). The Evidence-Based Model
recommends allocating 1.0 FTE per school site for principals, 1.0 FTE per 450 students
for assistant principals, and 2.0 FTE per school site for secretaries. District A allocates
1.0 FTE per school site for principals, 2.0 FTE for school secretaries, and 15.5 FTE for
assistant principals, which is only slightly less than the 19.4 FTE recommended by the
Evidence-Based Model.
Overall, District A allocates fewer FTE for personnel than the Evidence-Based
Model recommends, except in the case of special education aides. Table 6 synthesizes
the major differences between the average allocations of District A and those suggested
by the Evidence-Based Model.
Strategic Reallocation of Human Resources.
According to Odden (2011), in an era of reduced budgets, strategic schools and
districts will implement strategies that align their resources to practices shown to increase
student learning. This requires educational decision-makers to consider all aspects of the
education system—teacher recruitment, compensation, education, and retention, the
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 109
organization of curriculum and instructional services, and especially how, regardless of
the size of the budget, it uses limited resources more efficiently and effectively (Odden,
2011). In light of the current fiscal climate, where new money is scarce and a plan to
increase student achievement is assumed, many districts are looking to restructure
programs and reallocate resources, spending money only on strategies shown to increase
student achievement.
Table 6
Comparison between District A Allocations and Evidence-Based Model
Expenditure
Element
Type of Personnel
Total Current
Allocations in District
A (FTE)
Total Allocations for
District A Suggested
by the Evidence-
Based Model (FTE)
Core Academic and
Specialist Teachers
Core Academic
Teachers
647.0 1094.2
Specialist Teachers 0.0 220.1
Library Staff Librarians 0.0 24.0
Extra-Help Staff
Certificated Tutors
(TOSAs in Instruction)
32.1 167.6
ESL Teachers 0.0 120.4
Special Education
Teachers
127.9 130.3
Special Education Aides 111.7 65.5
Professional
Development
Instructional Coaches
(TOSAs in PD)
17.0 98.2
Student Services
Non-Academic Pupil
Support Staff
18.5 211.0
Administration
Principals 24.0 24.0
Assistant Principals 15.5 19.4
Secretaries 48.0 48.0

The current difficulty in restructuring programs and reallocating human resources
arises when districts have seemingly maximized all potential budget cuts, and are
currently operating at a level of personnel far below what’s desired or ideal. In District
A, as the interim Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services described, the total
operating budget is about 86% salary and benefits, which amounts to between $80 and
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 110
$90 million dollars in salary alone. While the district plans to examine all of its accounts
when making decisions about how to allocate resources, there are not, as he pointed out,
very many non-salary accounts left, because anything considered expendable was already
eliminated. Even if District A eliminated its entire supply budget—every dollar for
maintenance, piece of paper, and school supplies—they would only reduce costs by
roughly $4 million. Thus, he explained, employee salary is the only logical place to look
for substantial reductions, whether it comes in the form of furlough days, salary
rollbacks, step and column freezes, or class size increases; even if there should become a
vacant position, it likely would not be filled. Rather, jobs simply get redistributed or
absorbed.
When a district is in the kind of financial situation described above, it is unlikely
that central office leadership would advocate for, or be able to justify the hiring of
additional personnel—reallocation of human resources, then, is the only feasible means
by which District A could spend additional money on strategies shown to increase
student achievement. This study revealed that District A has high levels of
implementation of many of the ten strategies for doubling student performance (Odden,
2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009); it is suggested, however, that additional resources are
devoted to increasing teacher quality. Because the quality of their teachers is something
that all three assistant superintendents purport to highly value, and it is an intricate part of
District A’s instructional vision, it is suggested that the district makes every effort to
maintain and strengthen this investment. The interim Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services acknowledged the likelihood that the TOSAs in professional
development position will be eliminated. Although it would reasonably straightforward
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 111
and simple to eliminate all TOSA positions when looking to reduce extraneous costs, it is
imperative to maintain these instructional coaching positions considering the positive
impact ongoing, intensive professional development has on student achievement (Odden,
2009).
Further, teacher quality will increase as teachers work together in Professional
Learning Communities to develop a professional, collaborative culture. Because research
has proven that common planning time for teachers is one of the most important
predictors of student success (Miles & Frank, 2008), strategic schools create structures
and practices to facilitate the operation of PLCs and other means of collaboration. Miles
and Frank (2008) found that effective collaboration time has several key characteristics:
weekly collaboration sessions are embedded during the school day, are 90 minutes or
longer, are marked by clear expectations, and involve peer or expert support on
instructional practice. Additionally, these collaboration sessions should be led by well-
trained individuals, whether administrators, teachers, or central-office leadership (Odden,
2009).
This is an area of weakness for District A. As the Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services noted, it is the district expectation that schools have a structure in
place for teachers to work in PLCs, but the level of implementation varies by site due to
the understanding of PLCs by the principals. In general, she explained, each school has
something they are calling “PLC,” however no more than 40% of the sites are at a full
implementation. Currently, teachers are given approximately 4 hours per month of
release time by substitute teachers to work in collaboration with grade-level teams; this
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 112
release time, however, is increasingly likely to be eliminated in the 2013-2014 budget
and beyond.
In order to increase teacher quality by maintaining, if not increasing the number
of TOSAs in professional development and increasing the amount of common planning
time for grade-level teams, it is suggested that District A reallocate some of the human
resource funds it is currently spending on special education aides and school
psychologists. According to the Evidence-Based Model, 65.5 FTE allows for enough
special education aides to service District A’s 606 special education students, yet the
district currently allocates 111.7 FTE for special education aides. At an average salary of
$30,000 per FTE per year, if the district were to reduce the number of FTE to the 65.5
recommended by the Evidence-Based Model, it would incur a $1,386,625 savings.
Further, although District A currently staffs far fewer FTE for non-academic pupil
support (18.5 FTE—all of whom are school psychologists) than the 211.0 FTE
recommended by the Evidence-Based Model, it is recommended that the district further
reduce this number to 12.0 FTE—the equivalent of .5 FTE school psychologist per
school site. Since the 18.5 FTE currently allocated by the district is not enough to bridge
the significant gap towards the recommended allocation, a further reduction is not
anticipated to produce any negative results in student achievement. By reducing to 12.0
FTE for school psychologists, at an average salary of $65,000 per FTE per year, District
A would save an additional $422,500. Altogether, by reducing the number of special
education aides and school psychologists, District A would have $1,809,125 to reallocate
to strategies shown to increase student achievement—namely the aforementioned areas
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 113
affecting teacher quality—TOSAs in professional development and release time for
PLCs.
At an average teacher salary of $70,000, District A would need an astronomical
$5,685,750 to allocate the 98.2 FTE for instructional coaches recommended by the
Evidence-Based Model. Instead, it is recommended that the district increase from 17.0 to
24.0 FTE for TOSAs in professional development, allocating an average of 1.0 FTE per
school site. Because the district only funds 12.0 FTE centrally, the additional 7.0 FTE
would mean 19.0 FTE are allocated through central office general funds, and the
additional FTE continue to be funded with site-based categorical dollars. At an average
teacher salary of $70,000, this would cost the district an additional $491,750.
Further, it is recommended that District A reallocate additional resources to cover
the cost of hiring specialist teachers—an expenditure category to which the district
currently allocates 0.0 FTE. Though it is unlikely that additional instruction in elective or
specialists subjects such as music, art, and physical education will increase student
achievement in the core subjects (Odden & Picus, 2008), schools need to teach art, music,
and physical education, and core teachers benefit from being allotted time during the
regular school day for collaborative planning and professional development. The
Evidence-Based Model suggests that providing all teachers with one period per day for
collaborative planning and professional development requires an additional 20 percent
allocation of specialist teachers. Allocating an additional 20% specialist teachers above
the number of core teachers employed in District A, as the Evidence-Based Model
suggests, would equate to 220.1 FTE, costing an additional $15,407,840 at an average
teacher salary of $70,000. Considering the current budgetary climate of the district, this
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 114
is an unrealistic suggestion. It is suggested, however, that the district could afford to
provide each of its 647.0 FTE core teachers with an additional hour of collaborate
planning and professional development time per week, with specialist teachers providing
the students with instruction in art, music, or physical education during that time. This
would require hiring 16.2 FTE specialist teachers, which at an average teacher salary of
$70,000, would cost the district $1,134,000. Job-embedded professional development
should total 100–200 hours annually for each teacher, including extensive coaching in the
teacher’s classroom provided by site-based facilitators or coaches (Birman et al., 2000).
One hour per week of collaborate planning within grade-level teams and/or one-on-one
coaching provided by the site TOSA in professional development would total 180 hours
per school year, fulfilling both aforementioned district goals for increasing teacher
quality. The combined cost of increasing from 17.0 to 24.0 FTE for TOSAs in
professional development ($491,750) and hiring 16.2 specialist teachers ($1,134,000) is
$1,625,750. This dollar amount is less than the $1,809,125 saved from the reallocation of
school psychologist and special education aide positions (see Table 7).
Table 7
Summary of Suggestions for Reallocation of Human Resources

Current Human
Resource
Allocations
Suggested Human
Resource
Allocations
Expenditure
Difference
Special Education
Aides
111.7 65.5 $1,386,625
Non-Academic
Pupil Support
(Psychologists)
18.5 12.0 $422,500
Instructional
Coaches (TOSAs in
PD)
17.0 24.0 ($491,750)
Specialist Teachers 0.0 16.2 ($1,134,000)
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 115
Chapter Five: Conclusion
This final chapter provides an overview of the study, and discusses the human
resource allocation strategies of a medium-sized urban elementary school district in
Orange County, California. The purpose of this study was to compare the resource
allocation strategies of District A to those shown to improve student performance, in
order to determine if a gap exists. The study relied extensively on the ten strategies for
doubling student performance (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009) and the “Big
Three” guiding resource strategies (Miles & Frank, 2008) to analyze which strategies
effective schools and districts use at the local level to improve student achievement. The
Evidence-Based Model was used as a framework to examine how district leadership
could potentially reallocate human resources to maximize the opportunity for student
achievement given the current budget constraints in California.
This study was conducted using qualitative formative evaluation research
methods, with the intention of providing research-based suggestions of how District A
can reallocate human resources to increase student achievement without spending
additional money. This process was also intended to build district personnel’s capacity
for further data-based decision-making (Patton, 2002) beyond the scope of the current
study. Through triangulation, multiple data sources—observation, interviews, and
document analysis—were used to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the
human resource strategies used by District A.
The research questions guiding the study were:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 116
2. How are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Summary of Findings
The results of this study indicate that there are a number of research-based human
resource allocation strategies that improve student achievement. First, districts can
improve student achievement by making a wise investment in leaders who are able to
understand and articulate performance problems (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald,
2009). Districts can improve results by developing leaders who understand the call to
action, are able to translate it into a concrete and effective plan for improvement, and can
then communicate and realize those changes (Elmore, 2002). Effective leaders are also
able to respond flexibly to the current situation in the organization (Marzano et al., 2005),
and hold a firm understanding of the present gaps between best and current practice, as
well as the sense of urgency and courage to set ambitious goals for increased
performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
From a human resources perspective, student achievement improves when a
district makes an investment in the quality of its teachers; many experts agree that the
quality of teaching is stronger than any other factor in predicting improved student
performance (Miles & Frank, 2008). According to Odden (2009), this can be
accomplished by investing in continuous, intensive professional development, and
establishing a culture of collaboration, professionalism, and distributed instructional
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 117
leadership. Additionally, in order for a collaborative culture to flourish, the correct
structures must be in place, such as the support of district leaders and release time to
work in Professional Learning Communities,
Further, schools that have doubled student performance know that in order for all
students to achieve proficiency, certain students need more help (Odden & Archibald,
2009; Odden, 2009). To that end, energy and resources—human and otherwise—are
strategically directed to target these specific students for individual learning experiences
(Miles & Frank, 2008). This includes the use of formative assessments to identify
struggling students and make data-based decisions, as well as allocating human resources
for extended learning opportunities such as high-dosage tutoring, or extra hours of
instruction outside of the school day or year (Odden, 2009).
Finally, schools and districts that have drastically improved student achievement
are likely to establish and fund structures that maximize learning time by linking it more
effectively to student needs (Miles & Frank, 2008), either by casting a new vision and
redesigning a curricular program, or allocating human resources in a strategic way that
allows for common planning time and longer, uninterrupted blocks of instructional time
spent on core academic subjects (Odden, 2009).
This particular study sought to analyze how District A allocates human resources,
as well as to compare its practices to those proven to raise student achievement. Despite
financial and organizational uncertainty, district leadership understands and was able to
communicate both the performance problem and the current financial situation that has
made it more difficult to increase student achievement. District A leaders are aware of
their reduced ability to invest in their teachers, as well as the negative impact that
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 118
particular reductions such as furlough days have on students, families and communities.
All three assistant superintendents communicated their strong desire to continue
implementing best practices across the district, which include scaffolds for English
Language Learners, one-on-one coaching, research-based lesson design, data-driven
instruction, implementation of Professional Learning Communities, moving away from
multiple-choice assessments as a sole means of evaluating student performance, and
creating a new instructional vision for students when test scores indicate a need for
change.
Further, district leaders have created documents intended to communicate District
A’s clear performance goals and progression for its English Language Learners (see
Appendix D), as well as a document to indicate district leadership’s direct responsibilities
related to increasing student achievement for all students (see Appendix E). Student
achievement goals are succinct, measurable, and attainable within the current school year.
In terms of investment in its teachers, District A has allocated its human resources
in such a way as to make teacher quality a priority. This is noticeable in its hiring and
staffing practices, the use of instructional coaches in professional development, and a
clear effort to avoid budget cuts that could affect how teachers teach. District A
empowers its personnel through committee involvement opportunities extended to all
stakeholders, visitation protocols that include classroom teachers as observers, and
flexible staffing options that allow principals to customize TOSA usage based on their
specific site needs.
There are some weaknesses related to how much control District A has over the
quality of its teachers, including collective bargaining agreement language that benefits
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 119
only the most senior teachers, and an emphasize on equality over equity that allots the
same number of FTE TOSAs in professional development to all schools, regardless of
their teachers’ level of expertise and impact. Additionally, while distributed leadership
practices have empowered classroom teachers who are on special assignment as
instructional coaches or student extra-help specialists (TOSAs in professional
development and/or instruction), Professional Learning Communities are at a relatively
low level of implementation across the district.
When it comes to targeting struggling students, District A uses formative
assessments and subsequent data to drive decision-making and instruction. The study
showed evidence that such practices are highly implemented even at the individual
classroom teacher level. The district allocates some of its human resources to help those
that the data reveal to be struggling. Though there is no longer money allocated to pay
teachers to teach summer school, the District does offer high-dosage tutoring as part of
the mandated SES tutoring for qualifying students attending schools in Program
Improvement years 2-5. Additionally, many TOSAs in instruction are used strategically
to work with at-risk students on discrete skills, teach ELD, or teach whole classes for a
block of core instruction to effectively reduce the student-teacher ratios for an entire
grade level.
When it comes to the specific number of FTE allocated to each expenditure
element of District A’s personnel budget, the district is well below the ideal number of
FTE suggested by the Evidence-Based Model. In the areas of core academic teachers,
specialist teachers, librarians, certificated tutors, ESL teachers, instructional coaches, and
non-academic pupil support staff, District A staffs only a fraction of the FTE suggested
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 120
by the EBM. The district comes significantly closer to the EBM’s human resource
allocations in the areas of special education teachers and assistant principals, and meets
or exceeds the EBM’s suggested allocations for principals, secretaries, and special
education aides.
Finally, this study suggested that District A make an effort to reallocate resources
to support increasing the quality of its teachers, which is both a goal of the district and
one of the ten strategies shown to increase student achievement (Odden & Archibald,
2009; Odden, 2009). This can be accomplished by reducing the number of special
education aides from 111.7 FTE to 65.5 FTE as the Evidence-Based Model suggests, for
a savings of $1,386,625, as well as the number of school psychologists from 18.5 FTE to
12.0 FTE, saving $422,500. Although the Evidence-Based Model does not suggest
further reducing the number of school psychologists, allocating 1.0 FTE for school
psychologists per school site is reasonable considering both the fiscal climate and how
drastically below the EBM-recommended allocation (211.0 FTE) the district currently
staffs the non-academic pupil support expenditure category.
With the $1,809,125 saved in the above mentioned expenditure categories, I
recommend that District A invests in allocating more FTE to TOSAs in professional
development (instructional coaches), increasing from 17.0 to 24.0 FTE—the equivalent
of 1.0 FTE per school site, for a cost of $491,750. Further, the hiring of specialist
teachers would increase the amount of time District A’s core teachers can spend in
collaborative planning or one-on-one coaching during PLCs. By allocating 16.2 FTE to
specialist teachers, each of the 647.0 FTE core teachers would receive one hour of
planning time per week, effectively adding 180 hours of professional development to
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 121
each teacher’s school year. This would cost the district $1,134,000, which when added to
the $491,750 for TOSAs in professional development, totals $1,625,750—less than the
amount reallocated from the reduction of school psychologists and special education
aides.
Implications
This study’s review of the literature and critical case study of District A provide
insights to school administrators, instructional coaches, and classroom teachers. The
major implication of this study for district and school administrators, both in District A
and in other districts looking to double student performance, is first and foremost to know
the literature on school improvement. The assistant superintendents in District A have a
clear understanding of strategies that are known to increase student achievement, and
demonstrate evidence of their implementation across the district. Though its API scores
are continually rising, District A, has not drastically increased academic performance
over the past several years, and thus there remain questions about the consistent
implementation of strategies at individual school sites. This study reveals that even when
central office leaders are knowledgeable of Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance, there is likely great variability at the school level due to principal
knowledge and leadership capability. As the researcher in this study, I recommend
Odden’s (2009) strategies be shared with site administrators and all Teachers on Special
Assignment (both in professional development and instruction), as there are major
implications for their work with both struggling students and ineffective teachers.
There are further implications for district administrators related to the human
resource allocations suggested by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 122
The current financial climate in California is one that prevents full implementation of the
Evidence-Based Model. This study reveals that because district leaders cannot staff all
expenditure elements with ideal, research-based allocations, there is an even greater need
for administrators to be knowledgeable of the school improvement and educational
adequacy literature. Because tough resource allocation decisions must be made in the
context of one’s own district to service a particular population of students, administrators
must prioritize their human resources and remain committed to implementing the
strategies that give students the best chance of succeeding.
Future Research
This study focused on the human resource allocation practices of a single Orange
County, California school district. The body of literature on educational adequacy and
school resource allocation would benefit from a comparative study between school
districts. First, school administrators could learn from a comparative study between
District A and a district with similar human resource allocation strategies, yet different
demographics and/or student achievement results. A study of this nature might reveal
which of the strategies for improved student achievement have the greatest impact on
student performance.
Further, based on the qualitative data gathered through interviews, observation,
and document analysis, it was determined that District A has high levels of
implementation of most of the strategies shown to double student achievement (Odden &
Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2009). However, because District A has not itself doubled
student performance over the past few years, a true gap analysis could be done to analyze
the district’s standardized test scores over the past several years, and hopefully uncover
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 123
the causes behind the district’s performance problems to date. In other words, if the
district’s practices are aligned to research-based human resource allocation strategies
proven to affect student achievement, why is student achievement not increasing more
rapidly or drastically?
Additionally, because the study relied heavily on the interview data given by three
key informants, all of whom served as assistant superintendents in the district, most of the
conclusions about the district’s human resource allocation strategies were drawn from
this data. More classroom observations and school-level data collection would
potentially provide a more nuanced look at how the district’s strategies align to those
shown to most greatly impact student achievement.
Conclusion
All across the country, there is a popular sentiment that pouring greater resources
into education is a good idea that will benefit the nation’s students. While this study
certainly made no attempt to prove that instinct right or wrong, it challenged the notion
that a time of fiscal crisis is an adequate excuse for providing a lesser quality education to
our students. The research on school improvement is extensive and varied, but a
common theme throughout the resource reallocation literature is that school budgets
deserve a closer, more careful, and certainly more creative second look before financial
decisions are made. Typical, “go-to” cutbacks are not necessarily the best for students,
and even when district leaders feel they have “no choice” but to reduce a particular
program or group of personnel, the option for reallocation exists. When they are willing
to take risks and spend scarce district resources on the human resource allocation
strategies that truly impact student performance, district leaders have the potential to
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 124
become powerful change-agents who can witness dramatic increases in student
achievement even during a time of fiscal stress.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 125
References
Alexander, K.L., & Entwisle, D.R. (1996). Schools and children at risk. In A. Booth &
J.F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes?
(p. 67-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Archibald, S., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A case study of professional development
expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(29), 1-24.

Birman, B.F, Desimone, L.M., Garet, M.S, & Porter, A.C. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1992). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

California Department of Education (2012). Acronyms and Initialisms. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/aa/ap/index.asp#c

California Secretary of State (2012). Official Voter Information Guide. Retrieved from
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2001). Learning Policy: When State Education Reform
Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J.C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of
summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 65(1), 1-118.

Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R.G. (2011). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools:
Evidence from New York City (NBER Working Paper No. w17632). Retrieved
from http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/effective_schools.pdf

DuFour, R., DuFour, R, Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

EdSource (2013). Glossary of Terms. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/glossary.html.

Edwards, B. (2010). Challenging times: California schools cope with adversity and the
imperative to do more. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 126
Edwards, B., & Leichty, J. (2010). Budget cataclysm and its aftermath. Mountain View,
CA: EdSource.

Ellerson, N. (2010). Surviving a thousand cuts: America's public schools and the
recession. A report to the American Association of School Administrators,
December 2010.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2010). Positive pressure. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D.
Hopkins, (Eds.), The second international handbook of educational change.
Chestnut Hill, MA: Springer.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
vision, mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwood
and P. Hallinger & Colleagues (Eds.), The handbook of educational leadership
and administration (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, South Africa: Kluwer.

Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National
trends and state policies. Developments in School Finance, 1999-2000, 57-76.
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education.

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in U.S.
school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35–68.

Hill, H. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 470–
476.

Jaques, E. (2003). Ethics for management. Management Communications Quarterly,
17(1), 136-142.

Ladd, H.F., & Hansen, J.S. (1999). Making Money Matter: Financing America’s
Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 127
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
37–40.

Lankford, H. & Wyckoff, J. H. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of
school spending in New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(2), 195–218.

Lashway, L. (2003). The mandate to help low-performing schools. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL).

Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Fall 2011.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation. Retrieved
April 12, 2012, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Michlin, M., Mascall, B.,
Gordon, M., Strauss, T., Thomas, E., & Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leader-
ship: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final Report to the
Wallace Foundation. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Miles, K.H., & Frank, S. (2008). The Strategic School: Making the Most of People, Time,
and Money. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Newmann, F., & associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for
intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.

Odden, A. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. (2011). Improving Student Learning When Budgets Are Tight. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2009). Doubling Student Performance and Finding the
Resources to Do It. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 128
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.

Odden, A., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., & Mangan, M. T.
(2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools
using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Submitted to
Journal of Education Finance. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The story of the education dollar:
No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-
168.

Odden, A., Picus, L.O., et al. (2005). An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance
Adequacy in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Legislature. Report
available at
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2006/interim/schoolfinance/Recalibration/WY%20RecaFin
al.pdf

Odden, A.R., & Picus, L.O. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4
th
Edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011). New school year brings steep cuts in state funding for
schools. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational
opportunity for California’s long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA:
Californians Together.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher
College Record, 109(6).

Reeves, D.B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
Center for Performance Assessment.

Rothstein, R., & Miles, K.H. (1995). Where’s the money gone? Changes in the level and
composition of education spending. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts:
Themes from research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction.
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 129
Sheppard, B., Hurley, N., & Dibbon, D. (2010). Distributed leadership, teacher morale,
and teacher enthusiasm: Unraveling the leadership pathways to school success.
Online Submission Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.

Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, M. (2012). Year-Three Survey: Update on School District Finance in California.
Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/edu/year-three-survey/

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades:
Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 130
Appendix A
Interview Protocol: Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
1. How long have you been in this position?
2. What was your previous position?
3. What are the goals for student achievement in this district?
4. What is the district plan for raising student achievement?
5. What role does the district play in the selection of curriculum for school sites?
6. Has your district identified key standards from the state adopted standards?
7. Has your district defined what good instruction is for your students?
a. What is it?
b. How was it developed?
c. To what degree have the schools implemented it?
d. How is this measured?
e. Do you believe it has made a difference?
f. What is your role in developing school improvement goals?
8. How is student assessment data used in your district?
9. How is professional development provided to staff?
10. Does the district offer full-day kindergarten? If so, for how long has it been
implemented?
11. Does the district offer extended day services for struggling students?
a. How many sites?
b. What do the services look like?
12. Does the district offer summer school?
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 131
a. What is the purpose of summer school?
13. Do you do any sort of monitoring at the school level of curriculum
implementation? If so, please explain.
14. How does the current budget crisis impact curriculum and instruction in your
district?
15. How are decisions made on allocating resources to programs/strategies/materials
for the school sites?
16. What implementation do you see has had the greatest impact on student
achievement?
17. Is there anything else you would like to address?

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 132
Appendix B
Interview Protocol: Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services
1. How long have you been in this position?
2. What was your previous position?
3. In the current fiscal climate, what measures has your district implemented to
address budget issues?
4. Will your district be able to maintain a balanced budget for the next three years?
5. What is your budget reserve projected to be in three years?
6. What is the district plan for addressing continued declining resources?
7. What role(s) do staff play in determining proposed program cuts?
8. How much control do school sites have in determining the use of their non-
restricted funds?
9. What do you see as the greatest challenge for districts given the current fiscal
outlook?
10. How much does each school receive for general fund allocation?
11. How much does each school receive for categorical fund allocation?
12. What is the class size for each grade level?
13. Is there anything else you would like to address?

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 133
Appendix C
Interview Protocol: Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources

1. How long have you been in this position?
2. What was your previous position?
3. Describe the various full-time certificated positions in your district. (example:
full-time classroom teacher, instructional coach, etc.)
4. How are personnel allocation or reallocation decisions made? (example: How do
you determine the number of FTEs at each school site?, etc.)
5. How many FTEs are on special assignment?
6. How might your district’s human resource allocation differ creatively from
neighboring or similar districts?
7. In your opinion, how can the way you allocate your human resources impact
student achievement?
8. Describe your district’s strategic plan for improved student performance. How do
current human resource allocation strategies support your district’s goals?
9. How has the current fiscal climate impacted the way your district allocates human
resources across its schools?
10. How does your district invest in the quality of its human resources? How has the
current fiscal climate impacted this investment?
11. In an ideal and unrestricted financial climate, how would your human resource
strategies differ? (Discuss student-teacher ratios, number of support staff allocated
per site, number and use of TOSAs per site, etc.)
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 134
12. What do you see as the greatest challenge for someone in your position given the
current fiscal outlook?
13. Is there anything else you would like to address?

REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 135
Appendix D
Expected English Learner Progression

AnaheimCitySchoolDistrict
Expected English Learner Progression Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced Reclassification
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3/4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 6/7
Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Year 1/2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4
Year 1/2 Year 3
STAR ELA
Expected growth target on the California
Standards Tests in English Language Arts
based on overall fluency level on CELDT
Far Below Basic Below Basic
Below Basic /
Basic
Basic
District ELA Common Assessments At Risk At Risk / Strategic Strategic Strategic
Strategic /
Benchmark
Benchmark
STAR Math
Expected growth target on the California
Standards Tests in English Language Arts
based on overall fluency level on CELDT
Far Below Basic /
Below Basic
Below Basic
Below Basic /
Basic
Basic
District Math Common Assessments At Risk At Risk / Strategic Strategic
Strategic /
Benchmark
Strategic /
Benchmark
Benchmark
English Learner Growth Targets
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Overall Level
CELDT
Expected English language fluency growth
leading to reclassification based on CELDT
level at time of initial enrollment
High Basic / Proficient
High Basic / Proficient
Example:
A kindergarten student who enters school at
the Beginning level in Year 1 is expected to
move to the Intermediate level by Year 3/4. A kindergarten student who
enters school at the Intermediate level in Year 1 is expected to move to
the Early Advanced or Advanced level by Year 3/4.
District Math Common Assessments At Risk At Risk / Strategic Strategic
Benchmark Benchmark
Benchmark
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6/7
Language for
Learning
Language for
Learning /
Language for
Thinking
Language for
Thinking
Language for
Writing (assumes
mastery of L4T)
Language for
Writing/
Reasoning &
Writing
Reasoning & Writing
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Language for
Learning (Fast
Cycle)
Language for
Learning (Fast
Cycle) / Language
for Thinking
Language for
Thinking and (upon
mastery of L4T)
Language for
Writing
Language for
Writing /
Reasoning &
Writing
Years in school in U.S.
3 years
4 years
> 4 years
SRA Assessments
(Gr.3-6 US School Entry)
Passing level on mastery tests at
appropriate placement level.
Intermediate or Below
Definition of English Learners "At Risk" of Becoming Long-Term EL
CELDT Levels
Beginning
Beginning or Early Intermediate
SRA Assessments
(K-2 US School Entry)
Passing level on mastery tests at
appropriate placement level.
Example:
A kindergarten student who enters school at
the Beginning level in Year 1 is expected to
move to the Intermediate level by Year 3/4. A kindergarten student who
enters school at the Intermediate level in Year 1 is expected to move to
the Early Advanced or Advanced level by Year 3/4.
pe:ExpectedELProgression_Final.xlsx05062012
DISTRICT A
Expected English Learner Progression
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 136
Appendix E
Student Achievement Goals 2012-2013

ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Vision: Create an exceptional learning environment that engages, challenges, and supports all
students so that they thrive and achieve their academic potential every year, while preparing them to
pursue college and career opportunities to be global citizens.

Core Strategy: To increase the achievement of all students and close the achievement gap, all professionals will build
meaningful student relationships and collaborate in data-informed learning communities to ensure the engagement of all
students in a rigorous curriculum.

The Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services is responsible for all Student
Achievement Key Performance Targets.

2012-13 Key Performance Targets

2012-13 Key Performance Indicators
Targets That Support Student Academic
Achievement:

1. By June 2013, members of the Common Core
Committee will revise existing and develop
additional Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) units of study utilizing the Rigorous
Curriculum Design model that include the
core academic curriculum consisting of
literacy, numeracy, science, social studies,
the arts, and physical education for a total of
6 units of study.
A full day of professional development will be
provided for each teacher.
All Kindergarten through sixth-grade teachers
will conduct a full pilot of the reading and
writing unit in January and early February
(November and December for Tracks A and
B).
Subcommittees from the Common Core
Committee will meet throughout the year to
develop additional CCSS units of study.
All special education staff (including speech
language pathologists and psychologists) to
receive training at sites and/or district.
IEP goals to be written based on common
core.
2. By June 2013, the district will provide support
to the Dual Language Immersion (DLI)
Program.
The Superintendent will convene a task force
to address the feasibility of expansion:
facilities, demand, fiscal impact, design/best
practice, and staffing.
The task force will include members of the
DLI Steering Committee, district departments,
teachers, administrators, and community
members.
o Program report to Board by March 2013.

(continued next page)

7

I. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
DISTRICT A
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 137

ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

2012-13 Key Performance Targets

2012-13 Key Performance Indicators
Targets That Support Student Academic
Achievement (continued):

(Continued)
2. By June 2013, the district will provide support
to the Dual Language Immersion (DLI)
Program.

The DLI Steering Committee in an advisory
capacity will develop program goals that
ensure that all students achieve biliteracy.
o 60% of the matriculating sixth grade
students will have earned the Seal of
Biliteracy-Biliteracy Attainment Award.
o The number of students who proficiently
speak Spanish will increase by 10% at
each grade level as measured by LAS
Links.
3. By June 2013, ACSD’s English Learner
strategies and program options will be
highlighted in the English Learner Master
Plan as measured by school visit data
collection on closing the achievement gap
(K-3, increase from 70% to 80%; 4-6,
increase from 47% to 57%).
English Learner Master plan developed and
will include the following sections:
Identification, Assessment, Parent
Notification, and Program Placement;
Instructional Programs; Parental Exception
Waivers; Monitoring Student Progress;
Reclassification Process and Monitoring;
Evaluation and Accountability; Parent and
Community Engagement; Professional
Development and Staffing; and Funding.
o EL Master Plan Committee will involve
various stakeholders (DAC/DELAC, PTA,
Dual Language Immersion Steering
Committee, C&I Staff Development
Committee, Coaches, and RtI Steering
Committee) groups through the process
and obtain input as evident through
agenda’s and sign-in sheets.
Final EL Master Plan will be presented to the
Board by June 2013.

8

I. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (cont.)
DISTRICT A
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 138

ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

2012-13 Key Performance Targets

2012-13 Key Performance Indicators
Targets That Support Student Academic
Achievement (continued):

4. By June 2013, teachers and administrators at
all sites will receive training and support to
use the English Learner Progressions Matrix
which is based on years in U.S. schools to
monitor annual benchmark expectations and
progress towards acquiring proficiency in
English.
Professional development.
Monitoring of LTELs.
CELDT Results.
Reclassification Rates.
5. By June 2013, Loara School grades K-6 will
implement 10 Visual Arts lessons based on
the Visual and Performing Arts Standards.
Ten lessons throughout the year, based on
the elements and principles of design.
6. By June 2013, a minimum of one Parent
Education session (e.g., Thinking Maps, ST
Math envision math, Project Inspire, CELDT)
will be provided to all 24 school sites.
Schedule of classes and attendance records.
Evaluations, survey results, feedback from
participants.
New literacy parent education and preparing
for conference class will be developed.
7. By June 2013, there will be an expansion at
two schools of inclusion opportunities and
collaboration between preschool and
Kindergarten.
Inclusive Kindergarten classes at Olive Street
and Barton schools.
Expansion of number of pre-Kindergarten
SDC classes collaborating.
Interdepartmental collaboration between
Special Education and Early Childhood
Education, including student study team
(Heart Team) participation by Special
Education Preschool Program Specialist.
8. By June 2013, a review of IEPs of students
who require educationally-related mental
health services will show that students are
receiving a free, appropriate public education.
Development of service model, including
special day class, counseling, and ways
around services.
Hiring of staff and clarification of roles,
including the role of Western Youth Services.
Training of psychologists regarding
assessment of students with educationally-
related mental health services.
Development of parent education and
outreach.

9

I. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (cont.)
DISTRICT A
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 139

ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

2012-13 Key Performance Targets

2012-13 Key Performance Indicators
Targets That Support Student Academic
Achievement (continued):

9. By June 2013, students in grades 2-6 will
participate in pilot administrations of
performance-based, pre- and post-
assessments created by teachers as part of
the CCSS units.
Replaces midyear language arts District
Common Assessment (DCA).
Teacher Survey (feedback survey, to be
developed).
10. By June 2013, teachers in grades 2-6 will
participate in year two pilot to administer and
score online assessments measuring life
science content based on teacher-created
integrated science units.
Replaces end-of-year language arts DCA for
grades 2-6.
Pilot assessments from 2011-12 will be
revised based on item analysis and feedback
from teachers.
11. By June 2013, a plan will be developed that
addresses the needs of students performing
below grade level and improve support.
Students scoring ‘At-Risk’ on the Spring
District Common Assessment (DCA) will
decrease by 10% in English Language Arts
(ELA) and Mathematics (N=3651 to 3,286
ELA) (N=3730 to 3357).
Training on the SST process provided at
school sites.
Spring DCA data.
12. By June 2013, 85% of staff will be trained on
one or more of the following technologies:
interactive tablets, classroom response
systems, Discovery Education, Google Apps,
Android and iOS tablets, SharpSchool, and
various software programs throughout the
district used to manage data, enhance
efficiency and collaboration, and increase
technology integration.
Professional development.
Coaching support.
13. By June 2013, classroom visits will observe
implementation of interactive tablets (60%),
audio enhancement (80%), student blogging,
email, and social networking (30%) and
standardized projected image size (90%).
Data from school visits.
14. By December 2012, the Technology and
Information Services Department will
complete all five episodes of the History of
Anaheim for classroom use.
A copy of DVD.
Access to video on Video on Demand.

10

I. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (cont.)
DISTRICT A
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 140

ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

2012-13 Key Performance Targets

2012-13 Key Performance Indicators
Student Academic Achievement Targets:

1. By June 2013, a minimum of 88% (21 out of
24) of schools will meet their school-wide
Academic Performance Targets.
2012-13 API Growth Report (August 2013).
2. By June 2013, students in every grade level
will make steady progress toward meeting
grade level standards in core academic
subjects and achieve academic parity for
traditionally underperforming student groups
(Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, English
Language, and Hispanic).
2013 Accountability Report (August 2013).
Local Assessment Data.
3. By June 2013, the percent of sixth-grade
students scoring a 3 or higher on the end-of-
year informative writing prompt will increase
from 51% to 60%.
Writing prompt, developed by AUHSD for
incoming seventh graders, administered in
May-June 2013.
4. By June 2013, English learners in cohort 1*
will meet or exceed the NCLB Annual
Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO)
of 57.5% for increasing one level on the
CELDT.
[*Cohort 1=Students who scored at the Beginning
through Intermediate levels on prior year CELDT]
2012-13 Title III Accountability Report (August
2013).
5. By June 2013, English learners with less than
five years of language instruction in English
will meet or exceed the NCLB Title III Annual
Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO
2a) of 21.4% achieving fluency in English.
2012-13 Title III Accountability Report (August
2013).
6. By June 2013, English learners with five or
more years of language instruction in English
will meet or exceed the NCLB Title III Annual
Measureable Achievement Objective (AMAO
2b) of 47.0% achieving fluency in English.
2012-13 Title III Accountability Report (August
2013).
7. By June 2013, a minimum of 70 percent of
English learners (or former English learners)
who have been in school in the U.S. for more
than five years will score at the fluent level in
English as measured by the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT).
CELDT Length of Time in U.S. Report
(SMART).

11

I. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (cont.)
DISTRICT A
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 141
Appendix F
Visitation Protocol

District A
Classroom Visit
REALLOCATING HUMAN RESOURCES 142

District A
Classroom Visit

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework for determining how district leadership could potentially reallocate human resources to maximize the opportunity for student achievement, relying heavily on the ten strategies for doubling student performance (Odden, 2009

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Allocating human capital resources for high performance in schools: a case study of a large, urban school district

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts

PDF

District allocation of human resources utilizing the evidence based model: a study of one high achieving school district in southern California

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal crisis: case study of elementary schools in a California school district

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies: a case study of schools in a southern California school district

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

A gap analysis study of one southern California unified school district's allocation of resources in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress: a gap analysis of five southern California elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Glazener, Adrianna Kathleen (author)

Core Title Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/29/2013

Defense Date 02/11/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag educational adequacy,human resource allocation,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,reallocating resources,school improvement strategies,teacher quality

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Donavan, Frank (committee member), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email adrianna.glazener@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-228349

Unique identifier UC11292822

Identifier usctheses-c3-228349 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GlazenerAd-1490.pdf

Dmrecord 228349

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Glazener, Adrianna Kathleen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA