University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 1
A GAP ANALYSIS STUDY OF ONE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT’S ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES IN A TIME OF FISCAL
CONSTRAINTS

by

Tamra Dawn Rowcliffe

________________________________________________________________________

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 Tamra Dawn Rowcliffe
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband who is my greatest supporter and my
family whose encouragement and understanding made this possible.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Lawrence Picus whose expertise in the field of
school finance has been invaluable. His dedication and support has ensured a successful
doctoral journey. Thank you to Dr. Pedro Garcia, Dr. Michael Escalante, Dr. Helen
Morgan, and Dr. Frank Donovan for giving their time to serve on the dissertation
committee. I would also like to thank Dr. Clayre Petray who generously gave her time
and support throughout this process. I also acknowledge and thank my cohort for being a
great team and Steve Behar, my writing partner and sounding board.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One Overview of the Study 10
Introduction 10
Federal Government’s Role in Accountability Reform 12
California’s Response to Accountability Reform 13
California’s Progress 14
School Finance in California: The Creation of a Flawed System 14
Adequacy Movement: Strategies to Align Education Finance and State Standards 16
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Questions 18
Importance of Study 19
Summary of Methodology 19
Limitations 21
Delimitations 21
Assumptions 22
Definition of Terms 22
Chapter Two Review of Literature 24
Introduction 24
Raising Student Achievement: A District-Wide Approach 24
Understanding the Performance Challenge 25
Setting Ambitious Goals for Improvement 26
New Curriculum and Instructional Vision 27
Data Based Decision Making 28
Professional development design 30
Professional development core 31
Collaborative Culture 32
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively 33
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students 34
Leadership 34
Leadership Styles: Situational, Transformational, and Distributed 38
Leadership from the Perspective of Superintendents 39
Professional and Best Practices 40
Human Capital Management 41
Parent and Community Involvement 45
Lessons from the 90/90/90 Schools 45
Funding Education: From Equity to Adequacy 47
Resource Allocation: Adequately Funding Education 49
Successful School District Approach 49
Professional Judgment Approach 50
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 5
Cost Function Approach 50
Evidence Based Approach 51
Reallocation of Resources: A Fiscal Necessity 56
Reallocating Resources: People, Time, and Money 58
Federal and state governments can play a vital role in resource allocation 59
Districts reallocating resources 60
Class size flexibility 61
Instructional time not money 62
Finding resources for collaboration and professional development 63
Conclusion 68
Chapter Three Methodology 69
Introduction 69
Sample and Population 71
District Overview 71
Sampling Issues 76
Instrumentation 76
Document Analysis 78
Interviews 80
Observations 81
Data Analysis 82
Summary 83
Chapter Four Presentation of the Findings 84
Overview of the District 84
Introduction of the Findings 90
The District’s Resource Allocation Strategies 90
Understanding the performance challenge 90
Setting ambitious goals for improvement 92
New curriculum and instructional vision 94
Data-based decision making 95
Ongoing, intensive professional development 96
Using time efficiently and effectively and addressing the needs of struggling students
99
Creating a collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership 100
Professional and best practices 101
Human capital side 101
The District’s Desired Allocation of Resources 103
Human resource allocation at elementary schools 104
Human resource allocation in middle schools 107
Human resource allocation in high Schools 108
Professional development and instructional coaches 109
Distributed leadership 110
Actual and Desired Resource Allocations across the District 111
A Gap Analysis between the Actual and Desired Resource Allocations of the District
and What Research Says is Most Effective 115
Class-size 116
Specialist teachers 122
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 6
Resources to Support Best Practices 125
Administrative and clerical 126
Support for struggling students 128
Non-academic pupil support 130
Instructional coaches 131
Diagnosing Performance Gaps 132
Knowledge and skills 133
Motivation 133
Organizational 135
Resources Strategically Reallocated to Align with Strategies that Improve Student
Achievement 136
Recommendation one – Increase instructional coaches 137
Recommendation two – Distributed leadership policies and procedures 139
Recommendation three – Reallocate funds to increase personnel and training 140
Recommendation four – Planning for the future 142
Conclusion 144
Chapter Five Conclusion 147
Summary of the Study 147
Overview of the District 148
Overview of the Evidence-based Model 149
Review of Methodology 149
Summary of Findings 150
Current resource allocation strategies 150
Desired resource allocation strategies 151
Summary of Gap Analysis between Current and Desired Resource Allocations and
What Research Says is Most Effective 152
Limitations 157
Implications for Practice 157
District implications 157
Implications for Policy-Makers 157
Future Research 158
Conclusion 158
References 160
Appendix A 176
Appendix B 177
Appendix C 179

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 7
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Popular Versus Targeted Professional Development Approaches 32

Table 2.2: McREL Researchers Identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities
Significantly Correlated with Higher Student Achievement 36

Table 2.3: Teacher Competencies for Human Resource Alignment 44

Table 3.1: Document Analysis 79

Table 4.1: District Schools, Populations, and Status 86

Table 4.2: District Budget Projections 87

Table 4.3: Employee Group Concessions 88

Table 4.4: District Structural Goals 93

Table 4.5: District Academic Goals 93

Table 4.6: Current and Desired District Human Resource Allocations for
Elementary Schools 105

Table 4.7: District Resource Allocations Analysis - Middle Schools 107

Table 4.8: District Resource Allocations Analysis - High Schools and
Continuation School 108

Table 4.9: Allocation of Current versus Desired Resources 113

Table 4.10: Elementary Core Teacher Allocation Count 118

Table 4.11: Class Size Reduction for Six Elementary Schools 119

Table 4.12: Middle School Core Teacher Allocation Count 120

Table 4.13: High School Core Teacher Allocation Count 121

Table 4.14: Middle School Specialist Teachers 123

Table 4.15: High School and Continuation School Specialist Teachers 124

Table 4.16: District Resources to Support Best Practices 126

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 8
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Evidence Based Model 52
Figure 3.1 Evidence Based Model 70
Figure 3.2 District Performance 73
Figure 3.3 District Improvement 74
Figure 3.4 District Achievement Gaps 75
Figure 3.5 District College Readiness 76
Figure 4.1 English-Language Arts Proficiency Percentages by LEA and Sub-groups 91
Figure 4.2 Mathematics Proficiency Percentages by LEA and Sub-groups 91

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 9
Abstract
This study applies the Evidence Based model (EBM) from education adequacy funding
literature to understand the resource allocation strategies of one southern California
unified school district. The purpose of the study was to use the EBM to examine the
current resource allocation patterns of the study district to determine whether district
goals were adequately fiscally supported. The study utilized a formative evaluation
qualitative research design in the form of document analysis, interviews, observations,
and human resource allocations to determine the extent to which the school district
allocates resources to maximize student achievement. The study determined the District
was working towards improvement strategies supported by the EBM; however, the
District was unable to allocate resources at the level the EBM recommends. Resource
allocation gaps included personnel, training for new instructional strategies, data decision
making, and policy and procedure misalignment. The fiscal situation limited district
options for reallocating current resources. Recommendations for reallocation included
increasing instructional coaches to support instructional goals, updating human resources
policies and procedures while increasing distributed leadership efficacy, and negotiated
postponement of automatic step and column increases to supply tutors for "at risk"
students. In addition, future recommendations were made to increase professional
development days as finances improve, increase instructional coaches until strategies are
implemented with full fidelity, and lastly, researching digital technology for instructional
materials. This study adds to the knowledge that education finance needs to be student-
centered and provides state-policy makers and district personnel with a framework that
focuses on adequately funding education.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10
Chapter One
Overview of the Study
Introduction
The United States implemented rigorous student achievement goals. No Child
Left Behind (2001) mandates all children will be proficient in core academic subjects by
2014. California created the Public Schools Accountability Act to establish standards and
accountability reform. The state holds districts and schools accountable by ensuring
instruction and assessments are California standards-based. The results of these mandates
and policies provide evidence that California’s students demonstrate a large achievement
gap. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students, especially African Americans and
Latinos, are over-represented among those scoring lowest on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress and California’s standards-based tests (Edsource, 2012). Nearly
60% of all California public school children qualify for free or reduced-price lunches,
and, of the 60%, 84% fall at or below the 130% federal poverty level making them
eligible for free lunches (USDA, 2011).
Reardon (2011) determined the achievement gap to be closely related to income
inequalities. Income is strongly correlated with the cognitive support children receive at
home. Low-income families are less able to provide resources for early childhood
cognitive development, whereas high to middle-income educated families can provide
resource to support early childhood intellectual and socio-emotional development.
Kornrich and Furstenburg (2010) found an increase in spending, between 1972 and 2007,
among high-income families on childcare activities and pre-school. The income divide
provides a picture as to why children begin school at different levels and progress at
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 11
different rates. Income is only a single predictor of a student’s success. Strategies schools
employ and how they use resources can make a difference (Edsource, 2005).
Financing education has been linked to equity in ensuring all students receive a
fair share of resources; however, evidence that children do not begin school at the same
cognitive development level or learn at the same pace led to finance reforms for adequate
spending. All students must meet a set proficiency target; accomplishing this requires
individualized academic plans. Adequate distribution of resources takes into account the
resources required to bring individual students up to the proficiency target.
Utilizing government allocated education funds to accomplish rigorous learning
goals insinuates resources are an instrument of student achievement (Adams, 2010).
Researchers learned that, despite differences in student demographics, certain strategies
support high-achievement: research-based instructional models, strategic use of student
time, ongoing assessment and adjustment of instruction (Miles, 2010). Districts and
schools need to allocate funds to match children’s achievement goals.
Alignment of educational strategies and resource allocation can improve student
achievement. Edsource (2005) studied 257 California low-income schools and
determined the high scoring schools, based on Academic Performance Index (API), had
similar characteristics. High scoring schools prioritized student achievement,
implemented standards-based instructional programs, used assessment to improve student
learning and instruction, and ensured the availability of both instructional resources and
strong leadership.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 12
Federal Government’s Role in Accountability Reform
The U.S. Department of Education, through the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by way of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
mandate, requires greater accountability in the form of high-stakes testing. Under NCLB,
states work to close the achievement gap and ensure all students, including those who are
disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency (USDE, 2004). Each state administers an
annual test to assess each school’s progress in meeting academic proficiency. Districts
are scored on four criteria that serve as performance measures: (1) student participation
rate on the state test; (2) percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level in
English-language arts and mathematics on statewide tests; (3) Growth API; and (4)
graduation rate (high school) (CDE, 2010). Compilation of the four requirements
determines a school’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) score. NCLB mandates that, by
the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, all schools must achieve their performance
measures.
The Federal government’s intent is that NCLB focus on low performing schools
and close the achievement gaps in the following areas: racial/ethnic groups, gender,
English proficiency, migrant status, income status, and disability status (Porter &
Polikoff, 2007). States, districts and schools have the responsibility of establishing
consistent subject and grade level standards implemented by teachers. To ensure
teachers’ compliance with state standards, high-stakes testing aligned with said standards
holds teachers, schools and districts accountable for student achievement. In addition, test
scores are broken down into subgroups based on race, ethnicity, socio-economic status
and disability to guarantee all students receive an equitable education.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 13
California’s Response to Accountability Reform
Prior to NCLB mandates, the nation recognized a need for education reform. In
1983, A Nation at Risk (USDE, 1983) reported our nation’s education system as mediocre
and our education system as failing America. The report specified the nation produced
generations of illiterate and intellectually deficient people. In 1994, the reauthorization of
ESEA signaled a commitment to standards-based reform (Rudalevige, 2003). All states
were required to create standards progress towards academic proficiency for all students.
By 1999, California instituted the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). In 2011,
California Department of Education (CDE) established a dual premise for accountability:
1) education should be aligned with the central goals of the system, and 2) schools should
be the unit of accountability. The end result was standards of learning for each subject by
grade level and the administration of an annual test beginning in grade three.
Originally, PSAA had three components: Academic Performance Index (API),
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (IIUS), and the Governor’s
Performance Award (GPA). API is the composite scale ranging from 200 to 1000 that
measures student progress on the California State Test (CST). Reports from the CST are
broken down into subgroups consistent with NCLB: ethnicity, socio-economic status,
second language learners, and the disabled. Schools have an annual target set at five
percent of the distance from the school’s previous year’s score or baseline and the
statewide interim goal of 800 (CDE, 2011). IIUS provided funds to assist
underperforming schools with improvement efforts. California issued funds in year one
of improvement for planning and training and issued a smaller percentage of funds in
years two and three for implementation. The CDE (2003) established the GPA that
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 14
provided reward funds for schools that met or exceeded API goals annually. By 2002,
GPA was eliminated because of budget cuts. Essentially, targeted resources focused on a
results-based accountability system with specific attention on goals, planning, motivation,
and capacity to improve instruction and student achievement.
California’s Progress
Since the passage of PSAA, schools have continually made progress towards the
800 API goal. In 2011, California schools achieved their highest percentage of students
achieving the 800 API goal in that 49% of schools met or exceeded 800. In the previous
nine years, California consistently improved, yet 4,913 schools were still labeled failing
according to federal AYP measurements (CDE, 2012). According to CDE API/AYP Data
(2012) between 2010 and 2011, African American students increased proficiency from
53.9% to 56.2%, Hispanic and Latino students from 41.7% to 44.7%, White students
from 70% to 72.3% and Asian students from 76.8% to 78.7%. It is evident that a
significant gap in proficiency among ethnic groups remains and needs to be addressed.
School Finance in California: The Creation of a Flawed System
Funding California schools is based on a formula known as a revenue limit, which
is additional support through federal categorical funding to supplement children in need
of additional services. More than three decades of litigation created a complex system of
funding in an attempt to finance education equitably. In 1971 and 1976, Serrano vs. Priest
I and II alleged school finance based on property taxes was inequitable because schools
located in wealthier districts, compared to low-wealth districts, maintained higher levels
of per-pupil funding; therefore, children in low-wealth districts were denied equal
educational opportunity, a direct violation of California Constitutional law (Timar, 2006).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 15
In response, the legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 65, which established a plan to
distribute state aid according to difference in property tax revenue. AB 65 was never
implemented because, in 1978, the passage of Proposition 13 limited property taxes to
one percent of the market value of a home and limited increases to two percent per year
or whichever of the two was lower (Economist, 2011). The consequence was a significant
reduction in financial support for state programs.
Proposition 98, a Constitutional amendment passed in 1988, guaranteed minimum
funding for K-12 schools (Edsource, 2011). The state’s economy determines one of three
formulas the legislature and governor use to finance education. During normal years of
economic growth, the formula includes average daily attendance (ADA) of students and
per capita personal income. In times of low economic growth, revenue is reduced by
using a “fair share” formula (Edsource, 2011). When economic times are prosperous,
California schools benefit. However, when the economy is bad, schools financially suffer
equally. After decades of litigation, California based education funding on equity.
Duncombe and Yinger (2010) found equitably financing schools placed districts
with high concentrations of low socioeconomic and English learners at a disadvantage
because they did not have the funds necessary to achieve API target goals. California’s
Legislative Analyst’s Office (2011) found the educational funding structure flawed. It
cited little evidence that categorical funding programs meet their intended purpose of
providing schools with the opportunity to meet the 800 API goal. Funding formulas are
overly complex and centralized. Districts are limited in their capacity to create tailored
programs for students because categorical funds have limitations. In 2011, the California
legislature approved the removal of spending requirements for 40 of the 60 categorical
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 16
programs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (2011) confirmed the flexibility in
categorical funds would be extended for three years. Additional restrictions and penalties
the legislature originally placed on state funding were lifted, including K-3 class size,
fewer instructional days, reducing routine maintenance, and allowing districts to postpone
adoption of instructional materials (Edsource, 2010; Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2012).
Over the next three years, districts would have the opportunity to allocate limited
resources with fewer restrictions and possibly use funding to manage human capital and
align resources with student achievement strategies.
Adequacy Movement: Strategies to Align Education Finance and State Standards
The advent of the No Child Left Behind Act led the way for the educational
adequacy movement (Chambers & Levin, 2006). Requirements for greater accountability
in the form of standards-based reform and high stakes testing provided the drive for
claims that schools and districts were not providing an adequate education to all students.
Standards and required proficiency levels established by states set the bar for what
students needed to learn. Policy makers had to acknowledge students entered school with
varied needs and required different services to meet the established proficiency levels.
In 2000, Williams et al. sued the state of California because education agencies
failed to provide the essential resources for children to learn (CDE, 2012; Chambers &
Levin, 2006). The case settled in 2004, and the state allocated funds for instructional
materials, quality teachers, and facilities’ repairs. Chambers and Levin (2006) stated the
case, ultimately, brought into question the unbalanced relationship between California’s
standards-based accountability system and the allocation of resources. Schools are
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 17
required to perform at set levels, but the state is not held accountable for supplying the
resources to achieve those levels.
The concept of adequacy emerged in the 1990s, establishing three fundamental
issues: goals of the school system, cost required to achieve goals, and the funding
formula that will support adequate educational opportunities (Chambers & Levin, 2006).
It was no longer solely about how much money, or about whether there was enough
money. Attention turned to how the money was spent. Adequacy studies emerged to
determine how much money was needed and how it was to be spent. According to Odden
(2003) and Picus (2006), there are four approaches for estimating finance adequacy:
Successful School District, Cost Functions, Professional Judgment, and Evidence-Based.
Each approach attempts to establish how much funding is needed to support an adequate
education and each approach found current spending levels inadequate for children to
meet state standards (Picus, 2006). The four approaches are not perfect; however, the
Evidence-Based model (EBM) approach identifies effective strategies that support
maximizing student achievement, supporting California standards based reform efforts.
California needs a clear funding strategy to meet the educational needs of its students.
Statement of the Problem
A majority of California schools are not meeting NCLB demands. Though
schools are making progress, California remains one of the lowest ranked states in
student achievement, per-pupil spending, and personnel allocation. Spending is based on
revenue limits that may promote equity but do not provide targeted resources with an
attention to outcomes. The state established clearly defined desired student outcomes and
school districts have large numbers of students who require additional resources. The
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 18
most difficult challenge for districts is to effectively allocate resources to maximize
student achievement. Research on the gap between models of best practice and how
resources are currently allocated can help districts find the most effective and efficient
ways to improve and maintain student performance levels.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to use the Evidence-Based model to examine the
strategic plan and current resource allocation patterns of one Southern California Unified
School District to determine whether district goals are adequately fiscally supported. The
Gap Analysis was used to determine current district resource allocation and to make
recommendations for resource reallocation to meet district goals. The district is
comprised of 22 elementary schools (two are K-8), five junior high/middle schools, four
high schools and one continuation school that, together, serve 28,340 students. Fifty-four
percent of students are Hispanic/Latino, 24% are White, 10% are Asian, and 4% are
African American. Thirty-nine percent of the total population qualifies for free or
reduced-price lunches (LEA Plan, 2012). Individual school funding is determined based
upon the school’s population.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were:
1. What are the current resource allocation strategies of the district?
2. What are the desired resource allocations of the district?
3. What are the differences between the current, desired, and the Evidence-Based
model resource allocations?
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 19
4. How can resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Importance of Study
California school finance researchers, the government, and policymakers do not
have a clear picture of financial resources districts need to adequately fund education
(PACE, 2006). This study adds to the body of research in school finance and may assist
in determining the financial resources necessary to meet proficiency targets. Additionally,
it provides information to the district about the allocation of resources within the system
and whether or not practices are aligned with strategies. Finally, the study may provide
the district insight into how to most effectively allocate existing resources to increase
student achievement.
Summary of Methodology
This study utilized a formative evaluation qualitative research design in the form
of document analysis, interviews, observations, and human resource allocation
simulations to determine the extent to which the school district can reallocate resources in
ways to maximize student achievement. The district selected for the study was in need of
reallocation of resources to improve student achievement for four particular sub groups:
African American, Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English
Language Learners.
Data on the district’s goals and strategic plan were obtained from the district’s
Human Resource and Curriculum and Instruction Departments. The researcher received
the total enrollment of each of the 32 schools in the district, the number of students per
grade level, the number of full-time equivalent teacher positions and the number of
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 20
classified employees per school. The district also provided data on the number of
employees who were allocated from the district office to schools for percentages of time.
With this data, the researcher used the Evidence-Based model (EBM) EXCEL program
provided by Picus and Associates to run various simulations to determine how school
staffing is aligned to district strategies and how staffing can be changed to align with
what the researcher established as best practices.
To run the simulations, the researcher attended a one-day in-service training on
July 19, 2012, to learn how to use the EBM. The researcher learned how to simulate
different configurations and to identify gaps between current staffing allocations and
district strategies and between current staffing and the Evidence-Based model.
In addition to Human Resource data, the researcher obtained data from the Local
Education Agency Plan prepared by the district. The researcher examined these
documents to identify strategies and goals implemented by the district. In addition, each
school’s Academic Performance Index (API) scores for the 2012 administration of the
California Standards Test were collected to analyze its success as determined by the state
of California.
The researcher conducted interviews with the Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services and Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction about the
district’s vision, strategic plan, the goals in place to support the strategies in the plan, and
how resources are allocated to support the plan.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 21
Lastly, the researcher observed three school board meetings to gain a tertiary
perspective on budget decisions. The observations allowed the researcher to obtain
information regarding how the school board handled budgetary decisions in support of
the district’s strategic plan.
Once the data were gathered, the researcher utilized the Gap Analysis model by
Clarke and Estes (2008) to determine knowledge, motivational, or organizational gaps
between current district resource allocation practices and the district’s desired practices
for resource allocation and the Evidence Based Model.
Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
 The researcher was employed at the district of study; though she does not work in
the Human Resource, Curriculum and Instruction or Business offices, this does
not discount reflexivity. The researcher made every effort to conduct the study
professionally and impartially.
 Data collection was limited to one district the findings may not be generalizable
to other school districts.
 The method of data collection was based upon structured and semi structured
interviews, and there is a possibility that results were subjective.
 Due to the process of closed session portions of School Board meetings,
observation data was limited to open session items only.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were made in this study:
 The study focused on one southern California unified school district.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 22
 The study focused on resource allocations for the 2012-2013 school year with
projections for 2014 and 2015.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
 All respondents answered interview questions honestly.
 There would be inconsistencies between the district’s strategic plan and the
implementation of resources at the school level.
 The classification and distribution of school personnel may be different in the
Evidence-Based Mmodel than at the school level.
 All documents and data would be assumed to be complete and accurate.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API) is a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a
high of 1000, which reflects a district’s, a school’s, or a group’s performance level based
on the results of statewide testing (California Department of Education, 2012).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a series of annual academic performance goals
established for each school, district, and the state as a whole (California Department of
Education, 2011).
Average Daily Attendance is the average number of students attending school during the
school year (Edsource, 2009).
California Standards Tests (CST) are criterion-referenced tests that assess California
content standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and history-social
science. Tests are administered annually to students in grades three through ten.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 23
Categorical Program Flexibility is removing the limitations of specified programs dollars
to be spent for any educational purpose until 2015 (Weston, 2011).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the principal federal law affecting
K-12 education and was created to support the poorest children (Edsource, 2011c)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA) originally passed in 1965. NCLB provisions represent a
significant change in the federal government’s influence in public schools in terms of
accountability (Edsource, 2011c).
Numerically Significant Sub-Group is 100 or more students with valid test scores.
Subgroups are defined as African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian,
Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, Two or More
Races, socioeconomically disadvantaged, English language learner and student with
disabilities (CDE, 2011).
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) a community of teachers in a school that seek
and share learning and then act upon what they learn to enhance their effectiveness in the
classroom (SEDL, 1997).
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) is a system through which the state holds
schools accountable for demonstrating academic progress of students.
Revenue Limit is the general-purpose money the district receives for each student.
(Edsource, 2009).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 24
Chapter Two Review of Literature
Introduction
In this study, the researcher conducted an analysis of one Southern California
Unified School District’s allocation of resources using the Evidence-Based model
(EBM). The review of literature relating to the area of district resource allocation is
divided into four primary areas: district strategies that maximize student learning and
performance, resource allocation methods that support student achievement with a focus
on the EBM, methods for resource reallocation that ensure district strategies and resource
allocation methods are aligned, and utilization of the Gap Analysis to determine
alignment of district strategies and resource allocation methods for maximizing student
performance.
Raising Student Achievement: A District-Wide Approach
Numerous researchers sought to identify district strategies for maximizing student
performance. Odden (2009) analyzed 23 schools and districts which doubled student
performance and identified 10 effective strategies. Odden’s strategies were used as the
framework for presenting the literature in the area of strategies to improve student
performance. Research in the following areas, based on Odden’s strategies, is presented:
understanding the performance challenge, setting ambitious goals, new curriculum and an
instructional vision, data-based decision making, ongoing intensive professional
development, collaborative cultures, using time efficiently and effectively, extended
learning time for struggling students, leadership, professional and best practices, human
capital management, and parent/community involvement.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 25
Understanding the Performance Challenge
Student performance is public knowledge; districts cannot hide behind anonymity.
Odden (2009) stated the first requirement to improve student achievement is a perceived
need for change. Organizational leaders must have a sense of urgency to engage in major
changes. Without a sense of urgency, schools within a district will continue to fail and
focus on what they have always done (Elmore, 2003). Mac Iver and Farely (2003)
evaluated literature and case studies on the district office’s role in improving instruction.
They identified six common themes of high performing districts; the first was a climate
of urgency regarding improvement of student achievement. In an effort to improve, the
district must acknowledge failures and successes. According to Odden (2009), analyzing
student test data provides urgency and the foundation for implementing changes to
improve student instruction.
Togneri and Anderson (2003) studied five high-poverty districts and found each
had the courage to acknowledge their poor performance. All five districts evaluated their
education systems as effective; however, examination of test data provided a different
picture. Once districts had a starting point, they had to create a shared belief for student
learning. Odden (2009) provided the example of Benwood School District in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, which used test data to determine schools in poorer areas
performed far below the state average. When the district further analyzed test data, it
found over 80% of low-performing students were African American and over 95%
qualified for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Once the district identified and
acknowledged the areas of failure, it was able to create a vision and target goals to
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 26
increase student performance. Test data were the catalyst for change (Hallinger & Heck,
2002; Odden, 2009).
Setting Ambitious Goals for Improvement
Once test scores are analyzed and successes and failures identified, the district
develops a system-wide vision for improvement. Hallinger and Heck (2002) defined a
vision as a source of inspiration; it is not measurable, but it serves as a catalyst for action.
The authors emphasized the capacity for new ways of thinking and practice is connected
to the ability to envision a new future. Improved districts have a shared belief and values,
clear meaningful goals, and a clear vision with a focus on instructional improvement and
learning (Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al., 2005; Shannon & Bylsma, 2004; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003).
A vision comprises ambitious goals that are challenging and achievable over time
(Odden, 2009). District-wide improvement requires the vision to filter down to all
stakeholders (Dailey et al., 2005). Long Beach Unified set goals that all third graders
would be reading at the “proficient” level by the end of year. The district eliminated
social promotion; only qualified students would graduate (Odden, 2009). The author
confirmed Long Beach Unified achieved its goals, doubled student performance and set
higher goals. To implement goals in support of a new vision, leaders acknowledged that
one person could not improve the system; therefore, it was necessary to practice shared
leadership while providing guidance, support and encouragement (Shannon & Bylsma,
2004). Long-term, multi-staged improvement efforts are successful when leadership
implements goals supporting instructional improvement vision. Shannon and Bylsma
(2004) analyzed 80 studies to identify emergent themes among successful districts and
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 27
found goals reflected the district vision and included increasing achievement for all
students, improving instruction, creating a safe environment, and involving parents and
community. The focus for this study was on goals for increasing student achievement and
instructional improvement.
Odden (2009, p. 15) studied many high poverty schools; he noted districts and
schools had succumbed to the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Elmore (1997) cites the
example of New York City District Two. In 1987, District Two ranked 10
th
in the city
and set a goal to be the best district - not the best minority or poor district, but the best
district. Central to New York District Two Superintendent Alvarado’s strategy for
improvement was to create a strong belief system based on a vision that all students can
succeed (Elmore, 1997). Elmore explained the first four years organizing District 2 were
spent identifying principals who were willing to participate in goals that supported the
overall vision. By year four, over 65% of the principals left. Nine years later, District
Two ranked second.
Odden (2009) emphasized that, if districts do not meet ambitious goals in one
year, students are not blamed. Goal setting is an ongoing, systemic process that changes
as the educators and students attain achievement levels.
New Curriculum and Instructional Vision
Using state test results, schools and districts can identify areas of student learning
in need of immediate attention. To improve student performance, districts can adopt new
curriculum and change instructional practices. Togneri and Anderson (2003) found high
performance districts focused on what they could affect: curriculum, instruction,
textbooks, and effective instructional practices. Most districts and schools focused on
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 28
improving curriculum in English Language Arts (ELA) and Math for two reasons: 1)
students who cannot read will not be successful in other domains; and 2) on state
standardized test calculations, ELA and Math count for higher percentages towards the
API and AYP scores. Improved schools and districts in Odden’s (2009) analysis all threw
out their old curricular programs and adopted new curriculum supported by new
instructional approaches, especially in ELA and Math. Shannon and Blysma (2004)
discovered most districts had a universal concern with aligning curriculum and
instruction to state standards. The authors also found that aligning curriculum, instruction
and assessments was a step for districts to attain system wide improvement.
Data Based Decision Making
Improved districts use data to support instructional and resource allocation
decisions (Shannon & Bylsma, 2004; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The authors claim
consistency in analyzing data from a variety of sources; benchmark tests, formative
assessments, and state tests led to more appropriate instruction and better educational
attainment for students. Dailey et al. (2005) found the use of data was a key strategy to
improvement. Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al. (2005, 2010) ascertained district and
principal use of student assessment data was correlated with higher California API
scores. Williams, Kirst and Haertel (2010) noted a school district that provided timely
data with a user-friendly data system and adequately trained teachers to use data to
identify students’ instructional needs met achievement goals. O’Day and Bitter (2003)
stated an added and important aspect of data was the communication and collaboration
around data. Districts and schools, with the use of data, can create focused instructional
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 29
goals to maximize student achievement. Data, like any other instructional tool, can only
be used if personnel have the capacity to utilize it in support of the district vision.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Odden (2009) defines effective professional development (PD) as learning that
produces change in instructional practice, which, then, can be linked to improved student
learning. Researchers agree there are elements to consider before implementing PD:
strategic planning aligned with school goals, utilization of needs assessments, and teacher
collaboration and involvement in the planning process (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet,
& Yoon, 2002; Elmore & Burney, 1999).
Accountability systems are intended to improve schools; however, in order to
respond to accountability demands, districts must invest in teacher knowledge (Birman,
Desimone, Porter & Garet, 2000; Archibald & Gallagher, 2002). According to Elmore
(2002), professional development (PD) is the link that enables teachers and leaders to
respond to the demands of the accountability movement. Research shows that quality
teaching outweighs any other improvement strategy and Miles and Frank (2008)
determined high quality teaching was five times more effective than reducing class size.
Developing quality teachers requires ongoing needs assessments to plan strategic
professional development (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon, 2002). Researchers
cannot definitively say what type of PD is correlated to raising student achievement;
however, researchers do agree on what qualities are mostly likely to improve
performance. Three features of PD are linked to structure or design of the activity: form,
duration, and collective participation (sub-set teacher planning). Additionally, three
features are linked to the substance or core of PD: content focus, active learning, and
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 30
coherence (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon, 2002; Odden, 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009).
Professional development design. Odden (2009) describes form as the manner
in which the activity is organized, whether it is collaborative, whole group instruction,
mentoring, coaching, or a study group. According to Odden (2009), research suggests the
form should be school-embedded, content appropriate, ongoing, and focused on
curriculum, which is definitely not the traditional workshop style or what teachers refer to
as the “sit and get.”
Duration is the number of contact hours dedicated to PD activities (Desimone,
Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon, 2002). Odden (2009) expanded the definition to include
the fact that educators should be exposed to at least 100, preferably 200, hours of PD a
year.
Collective participation refers to the groups of people involved in PD within the
same school, department or grade level as opposed to individual teachers from different
schools (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon, 2002). Research suggests that the
most effective PD includes groups of teachers within the same grade level, same domain,
and, eventually, the entire faculty (Odden, 2009). Song (2008) found that professional
learning communities were the most important facilitator of teacher professional
development; teacher collaboration promoted learning. Teachers’ and Administrators’ PD
planning is an extension of collective participation. Not only should teachers be
analytically involved in the activities, but they and their administrators should also be
involved in the design based on the needs of the students.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 31
Professional development core. Content focus is the amount of time the PD
activity spends deepening teachers’ knowledge in their content area(s). Odden (2009)
declares effective PD focuses on curriculum, including essential standards, common
problems students have learning in certain areas of the content and effective instructional
strategies.
Active Learning techniques are opportunities for teachers to be engaged in
meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon,
2002; Odden, 2009). Activities include scoring student work, creating rubrics, assessing
formative assessment data, designing instructional practices based on data, creating
instructional units aligned to standards and district goals (Odden, 2009). In addition,
many districts may include teaching techniques based on Madeline Hunter, Gradual
Release of Responsibility, Direct Instruction or Response to Intervention. All require
modeling and specific student activities; thus, PD should be structured around activities.
Coherence is alignment to all other key parts of the educational system. PD
alignment should include performance standards, teacher evaluation, school and district
goals, and the creation of personal learning communities (Odden, 2009).
Table 2.2 compares effective PD to common or popular approaches to professional
development. Commonly used approaches to training do not meet teachers or students’
needs; they are not linked to system-wide goals and may be seen as a waste of money.
The professional development strategies that doubled school performance utilize the six
definitions above and are strategic and collegial.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 32
Table 2.1
Popular Versus Targeted Professional Development Approaches
Popular Professional Development
Approaches
Professional Development Strategies in
Schools That Doubled Student
Performance
 Districts offer a menu of professional
development offering covering multiple
topics.
 Teachers select offerings to take.
 Programs are offered in locations outside
the school.
 Takes the position that most district-
provided professional development does
not meet the needs of teachers.
 Often the principal or central office has to
“sign off” on each teacher’s program.
 Focused, systemic, holistic, organic,
aligned, collegial, and ongoing practice.
 Reflective of the new principles for
professional development established by
the National Staff Development Council
(NSDC).
 Professional learning in team-based
settings involving all teachers in the
school.
 Restructuring the school day to provide
common collaboration time.
 Linking learning directly to the school’s
curriculum.
 Focusing on improved teaching practice
and increased student learning.
Source: Allen Odden (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance.
Collaborative Culture
Shannon and Bylsma (2004) stated improved districts fostered and supported
collaborative environments by creating a culture of peer support. Districts balanced
authority with school autonomy to allow the distribution of resources to meet student
needs. Allowing school autonomy can be a slippery slope if the district does not have a
clear vision, goals, or possess an aligned curriculum. Corcoran, Fuhrman and Belcher
(2001) analyzed three districts’ efforts to implement reform using evidence-based
instructional practices. The authors found that each of the three districts lacked a clear
vision, promoted school autonomy, allowed schools to choose from a menu of curriculum
options, and provided misaligned professional development. There was no collaboration
between district and schools, trainers and teachers, or teachers and teachers.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 33
Leana (2011) conducted a case study analyzing New York City school teachers’
social capital and the effects on student achievement. Leana found student achievement
scores improve when social capital is strong. The benefit of professional learning
communities as a training apparatus is teachers are not intimidated by peers. Leana
(2011) found teachers were twice as likely to seek help from each other over a district
assigned expert and four times more likely to seek advice from one another than from the
principal. The researcher found that students showed higher gains in math achievement
when teachers reported frequent conversations with their peers. Collaboration opens the
door for incorporation of others ideas to broaden the classroom approach. Researchers
found significant results that autonomy undermines a unified focus on curriculum and
pedagogy and isolation from peers has an increasingly dangerous effect on teacher
learning by creating an invisible wall (Leana, 2011; Song, 2008).
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Odden (2009) claimed researchers who studied international assessments of
student performance attribute student achievement to a more rigorous and focused
curriculum. Claims of international schools allocating more time during the school year
are not supported. The Center for Public Education (2009) found Finland, a top-rated
country on international assessments, has 777 hours of schooling a year, while Italy, an
average-rated country, has 1,000 hours. At the time of this study, California mandated
900 hours instructional time per year. According to Odden (2009), schools that were able
to double student performance demonstrated a rigorous curriculum and used instructional
time effectively. Aronson, Zimmerman and Carlos (1998) define three types of time:
allocated time, such as the 900-hours California mandate; engaged time during which
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 34
students participate in learning activities; and academic learning time during which
learning occurs. Successful schools and districts protect core subject academic learning
time to increase student performance. In addition, learning occurs because the focus of
the curriculum is properly aligned to content standards and set at the appropriate
difficulty level for different learners. Moreover, core classes like English language arts,
math, science and social studies are the focus, while electives are either reduced or
replaced by extended learning time for core academics. Finally, Aronson, Zimmerman,
and Carlos (1998) emphasized engaging students in rigorous individualized instruction
maximizes student achievement.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Odden (2009) divided extended time for struggling learners into three categories.
First, students having difficulty can be given extended time within the classroom
instructional time, tailored to their specific needs, or students can participate in a pull out
program during class time. Second is providing extra help after school and or summer
school. Plecki, Alejano, Knapp, & Lochmiller (2006) claimed the average student in
summer school programs outperforms similar students not participating up to 60%, with
the caveat that students must experience quality instruction. Third is the effective
identification of students who require services from programs specifically geared towards
students with disabilities.
Leadership
Effective leadership was found to be an important factor in improving student
achievement (Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009; Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton, 2010).
“Leadership involves the identification, acquisition, allocation, coordination, and use of
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 35
the social, material, and cultural resources necessary to establish the conditions for the
possibility of teaching and learning” (Spillane, Halverson and Diamond, 2001, p. 24).
Bolman and Deal (2008) analyzed qualitative and quantitative studies on leadership and
found there is no one attribute that characterizes a leader; however, repeatedly, effective
leaders were identified as having a strong vision with standards for performance. The
authors also generated a list of attributes found in strong leaders: risk-taking, flexibility,
self-confidence, interpersonal skills, visibility, competence, intelligence, decisiveness,
understanding, and courage. Any reform effort aimed at improving student learning
requires strong leadership. Spillane (2005) claims leadership is second only to teaching
among the factors that have an impact on student learning.
Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) conducted a meta-analysis utilizing
quantitative analysis and a review of theoretical literature and found a significant
relationship between leadership and student achievement. Twenty-one leadership
responsibilities were identified with an average affect size of .25 correlated to student
achievement (Table 2.1). Thus, if an “average” administrator improved in each of the
twenty-one areas, student performance would increase.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 36
Table 2.2
McREL Researchers Identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities Significantly
Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
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/Eval
uation
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
Input Involves teachers in the design and
implementation of important decisions and
policies
.25 16 669
Knowledge of
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
with knowledge
of resources
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

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 37
Table 2.2, continued

Communication Establishes strong lines of communication
with teachers and among students
.23 11 299
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)
Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) argue leaders creating change for school
improvement must acknowledge change has different levels of magnitude. First-order
change is consistent with current values and norms; therefore, implementation does not
disturb prevailing knowledge and resources (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). On the other
hand, second-order change requires individuals or groups to learn new approaches or
conflicts with existing values (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). People may interpret second-
order change differently; the staff at one school may accept a new curriculum program as
a positive move towards improvement while a nearby school’s staff experiencing the
same new curriculum may regard it as attacking its norms and view the change as a
problem.
According to Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003), a cultural change may
include promoting cooperation, sense of well-being, cohesion among staff, shared
understanding of purpose, and a shared vision for the school. An effective leader
implementing a first-order change could begin by promoting cooperation because the
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 38
staff feels comfortable working with each other as opposed to working in isolation. A
staff that works in isolation would feel like cooperation was attacking their norms;
therefore, the leader would have to begin with creating a shared vision in order to change
school culture. A leader who is able to determine the need for change, the type of change,
and how to make a change, possesses effective leadership attributes identified by Waters,
Marzano, and McNulty (2003).
Leadership Styles: Situational, Transformational, and Distributed.
Situational leadership is based on the theory that different situations demand different
types of leadership. A situational leader has the ability change as circumstances arise.
Northouse (2010) contended an effective leader can adapt or change style or approach to
best meet the demands of different situations. Though there is limited research
investigating situational leadership, the concept is practical, as not all situations are the
same and will require different tactical responses. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003)
emphasized the importance of flexibility and possessing situational awareness. Successful
educational leaders can adapt their approach to the needs of a specific situation.
Northouse (2010) defined a transformational leader as one who has a connection
to others that raises motivation and morality in both leader and follower. Hallinger (2003)
conceptualized transformational leadership as having seven components: individualized
support, shared goals, vision, intellectual stimulation, culture building, acknowledgments,
high expectations, and modeling. In addition, transformational leaders seek to make
second-order changes and possess Waters, Marzano, and McNulty’s 21 responsibilities.
Leithwood, Lewis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) agree the actions of a
transformational leader fall in the realm of an array of school and classroom activities
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 39
required if change in learning is going to occur. Change is symbiotic, including
instruction, environment and belief. Hallinger (2003) found several studies support a
strong characteristic of transformational leadership is being distributed in nature with the
ability to affect teacher and community perceptions of student achievement and build
capacity among stakeholders.
Distributed leadership was the most frequently identified leadership style among
successful districts and schools. Togneri and Anderson (2003) found successful districts
practiced the philosophy that everyone has a role in improvement, and both principals
and teachers are instructional leaders. In successful districts, teachers and principals felt
empowered to take on new challenges. Distributed leaders develop others in a way that is
integrated into the school, building a pipeline of leaders that can support the district
(Fullan, 2010). Elmore (2000) affirmed improvement requires people with multiple
sources of expertise to work in concert around a common problem or goal, thus leading to
shared responsibilities.
Leadership from the Perspective of Superintendents. Comprehensive district
level leadership can positively affect student achievement. Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al.
(2010), in their large-scale study of middle grades found leadership of the superintendent
and support from district office was associated with greater student achievement. The
authors reported 12 practices associated with superintendents in districts with high
performing middle grades:
 Maintained a highly skilled district staff in curriculum and instruction and
financial management
 A collaborative relationship with an effective school board
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 40
 A constructive relationship with employee unions
 Superintendent was evaluated in part on middle grades academic outcomes
 Emphasized improving student achievement and closing subgroup achievement
gaps
 Participated in district lead discussions about curriculum
 Communicated high expectations about instruction being closely aligned with
state academic standards
 Provided schools with timely state and district benchmark test data
 Provided computer-based data system and adequate training to utilize system
 Provided strategic professional development for teachers
 Emphasized early identification of struggling learners; and
 Provided resources necessary for schools to meet their goals.
The practices and strategies of leaders have a significant impact on student
achievement. The list above clearly articulates the multiple duties, situations, and
practices superintendents participate in to create successful schools; however, leadership
and success is not the job of a single person. Successful districts have a superintendent,
directors, principals, and teacher leaders, all with multiple sources of expertise, working
in concert for a common vision to solve problems or accomplish goals (Elmore, 2000).
Professional and Best Practices
Professional and best practices are activities that demonstrate a commitment to
improvement. Educators attend conferences and professional development and listen to
experts to change strategies and implement best practices. Successful districts and
schools in Odden and Archibald’s (2009) study did not work in professional isolation.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 41
The authors noted educators read research from professional journals, like Phi Delta
Kappan, Educational Leadership or Education Week. District and school staff consulted
experts and schools that had successfully implemented certain strategies. In addition,
effective districts and schools utilize effective teachers and administrators to guide
journal readings and activities, schools analyzed similar schools practices within the
district or schools performed benchmarking with other schools across the region or state
(Odden, 2011). Tucker (1996, p. 2) defines benchmarking as “the study and transfer of
specific exemplary practices, measures, and processes from another school or
organization.” The author explained benchmarking is a means to analyze another district
or schools distribution of resources in a more effective manner and can be performed in
an ongoing process to further the professional practices.
Human Capital Management
Schools and districts can influence the quality of potential employees by carefully
choosing who they hire. Webb and Norton (2008) emphasized the fastest way to improve
an organization or learning environment is a well-planned screening and selection
process for teachers and administrators. “The hiring process matters, teachers who report
that the hiring process gave them an accurate picture of their job also reported being more
satisfied in their job” (City, 2008, pg. 13). The value of quality teaching makes providing
more attention to keeping effective teachers and not keeping ineffective teachers (City,
2008). Recruitment of qualified personnel is an ongoing planning process and Pan, Rudo,
Schnieder and Smith-Hanson (2003) emphasized resource data like student projections,
assignments, instructional goals and improvement strategies should be tied to
recruitment. Knowing how many students districts will have over a five-year period
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 42
assists in identifying instructional needs and budgetary demands. District decisions about
recruitment should not be about filling positions, the focus should be to seek out and hire
the best person for meeting each specific job’s demands. Heneman and Milanowski
(2011) identified recruitment as an act of bringing people with the correct competencies
into the district; in addition, HR should have required competencies that match district
achievement goals. Plecko, Alejano, Knapp and Lochmiller (2006) identified three
factors that contribute to districts’ failure to consistently hire high-quality teachers: late
vacancy notifications requirements, teacher association transfer requirements (union
contracts), late budget timetables and inadequate forecasting.
Gephart (2009) stipulated that the key strategy to recruitment of talent, in addition
to monetary compensation, is offering outstanding professional development. The author
stated that the first question many new teachers ask is “How will I be supported?” New
teachers are now looking for relevant ongoing support to ensure they are successful in the
classroom. HR departments with identified competencies based on student achievement
have the ability to acquire and build, through professional development, a knowledgably
and highly competent educator workforce (Heneman & Milanowski, 2011).
Collins (2001), the author of Good to Great, stated, when in doubt, do not hire. To
emphasize the importance of selecting the right person for the district and the school, it is
important to involve school site personnel in the process. Site personnel have an intimate
understanding of the school’s needs and climate. Principals should have the authority to
select the right people for their school. Filling positions in education as quickly as
possible is not uncommon; however, doing so could result in preventable problems for
the district. Gephart (2009) cited the story of a highly qualified math teacher with 22
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 43
years of experience and glowing recommendations. Instead of immediately hiring a
teacher who appeared to be highly qualified, the HR department questioned the teacher’s
rationale for changing districts. The HR director continued to press the applicant’s
previous superintendent and discovered that the math teacher gave inappropriate
backrubs to female students. With due diligence, the district avoided a possible liability
nightmare. Collins (2001) interviewed Walter Bruckart, vice-president of Circuit City
about what makes a company excellent, and he stated, “One would be people. Two would
be people. Three would be people…” In business, one should never compromise on
whom is hired because the right people make a business successful. Williams, Kirst,
Haertel, et al. (2005) found a successful school staff had the ability to raise student
achievement. Collins (2001) claimed allowing the wrong people to continue “hanging
around” is unfair to effective employees. Within the education work environment, firing a
teacher can be difficult, if not impossible, due to contract regulations. The selection
process is vital.
Plecko, Alejano, Knapp, and Lochmiller (2006) studied 510 Pennsylvania school
districts, and found that one-third of the districts reported utilizing substitute teachers to
fill positions, 17% advertised solely within the district and only one-quarter of the
districts advertised outside the state. Creating instructional and district-specific
competencies not only can link improvement strategies to increased student achievement,
but can facilitate more effective recruiting and hiring, as presented in Table 2.2
(Heneman & Milanowski, 2011). Each hiring decision moves the district one step closer
or further away from educational excellence (Gephart, 2009).

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 44
Table 2.3
Teacher Competencies for Human Resource Alignment
Instructional Competencies District-Specific Competencies
 Analyze state content
standards
 Align curriculum to state
standards
 Analyze student assessment
data
 Manage classroom
procedures
 Manage student behavior
 Engage students in lessons
 Plan instruction and develop model lessons
with grade-level or subject team
 Implement district literacy framework
 Work with grade level or subject team to
develop grading standards that align with state
proficiency levels
 Implement district student behavior
management procedures in response to student
misbehavior
Source: Heneman and Milanowski (2011) Strengthening the Educator Workforce
Through Human Resource Alignment.
Teachers and administrators are not fixed commodities; they are people who need
to be developed (Plecki, Alejano, Knapp & Lochmiller, 2006). A priority for retention is
to keep teachers focused on improvement strategies by placing value on learning and
collaboration. The HR department is responsible for professional development; however,
in most urban or large school districts, Instructional Support Services are in control of
professional development. Webb and Norton (2008) avow induction is valuable and
helps establish a new teacher into the culture of the district; induction should be
collaborative and involve teacher organizations and the district. The emphasis should be
on the universality of training. Human Capital Management is focused on highly
qualified people to meet NCLB standards, but, once those initial standards are met,
teachers are still in need of development. To retain quality teachers, districts must support
required performance competencies.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 45
Parent and Community Involvement
Researchers identified links between parent and community involvement and
student achievement (Davis, 2000; Hara & Burke, 1998; Kirst, Haertel, et al., 2010).
Davis (2000) synthesized the literature in the area of family and community involvement
and found both students and schools benefit. The benefits include higher grades and test
scores, better attendance and a higher rate of homework completion, fewer placements in
special education, positive attitudes towards school, higher graduation rates, and a higher
entrance rate into post-secondary institutions (Davis, 2000; Hara & Burke, 1998). School
and district-community linkages are based on collaborative engagements of parents and
community members (Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009). With the support of the district,
schools can assist in developing home environments that support learning through
effective forms of school to home communication and evening parent group programs.
Schools can encourage parents to volunteer for School Site Council, PTSA, classroom
assistance, and school events. Researchers confirm higher performing schools and
districts had consistent communication with parents and supportive parents had positive
correlations with student achievement and behavior (Togneri & Anderson, 2003;
Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al., 2005; 2010).
Lessons from the 90/90/90 Schools
The goal for student improvement should be district wide; however, there are
cases of schools that have made achievement gains that are noteworthy and similar to the
qualities of effective districts. Reeves (2003) collected data from 130,000 students in 228
suburban, rural and inner city schools. Due to detailed district records on instructional
strategies and practices, Reeves was able to document associations between practices,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 46
strategies and achievements. The schools were classified as 90/90/90 because 90% or
more of the populations was eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, 90% came from
ethnic minority groups, and 90% met or achieved high academic standards according to
independently conducted tests of academic achievement. Reeves extrapolated nine key
practices and strategies that had a positive influence on student achievement:
 Schools had a laser-like focus on student achievement and success was highly
prized.
 Interventions were in place for struggling students.
 Schools also frequently assessed students, conducted weekly progress, followed
with poor performing students by providing additional opportunities to improve;
feedback from teachers was respected and utilized.
 Schools stressed writing skills and were consistent across all domains.
 Teachers regularly exchanged papers to remove subjectivity from grading.
 Principals assigned teachers to grade levels based on their academic strengths.
 Leadership exchanged faculty-meeting time for grade-level collaboration.
 Leadership emphasized long-term sustainable results.
Hattie (2009) synthesized 50,000 studies and over 800 meta-analyses to
understand what influences student achievement. He claimed the research on “what
works” is overwhelming and provided little evidence. He did find that teacher feedback
was an important correlate of student achievement but had to be aligned with challenging
goals. Reeves’ 90/90/90 schools employed teacher feedback that allowed additional
opportunities to improve. The schools had a laser-like focus on student achievement with
challenging goals that guided instruction and assessment. The student achievement
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 47
results at the 90/90/90 were not from a “what works” program but from effective
evidence-based strategies implemented consistently.
Funding Education: From Equity to Adequacy
Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the
1960s mandated an equitable education for all students regardless of socioeconomic
status or ethnic background. After fifty years of attempting to equitably finance
education, disparities still exist in schools and within districts. Two impediments to
equitability are funding distribution and staff-based allocation. Students arrive at school
with varying experiences and abilities (City, 2008). There are differing costs to support
the needs of English learners, low-income students and special education students. The
government created need-based aid in the form of categorical funding; however, that aid
must reach those it is intended to serve. Miles and Roza (2006) provided an example of
staff-based allocation methodology: if a school has a teacher to student ratio of twenty-
five to one, the school receives one teacher for every twenty-five students. If the school
has between ten and fifty students with special needs, the school will receive one
specialist teacher. The total numbers of full-time equivalent teachers (FTE) are totaled,
the average salary for the district is calculated and the FTE is converted to dollars
allocated to the school. From the example, it is clear that nothing in the formula takes into
account the unique needs of students and the type of instruction students require to meet
state standards. Kirst and Rhodes (2010) posited that some finance mechanisms may even
work against the alignment of state standards policies.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 48
Systemic standards-based reform required states to create challenging content and
performance standards for students and align key strategies for teaching and learning to
the standards (Kirst & Rhodes, 2010). The authors explained that, to support standards-
based reform efforts, teachers must develop high expectations for students, identify
pupils’ strengths and weaknesses and periodically conduct diagnostic assessments to
understand student needs. California’s education policies do not align to funding policies.
The state operates more than 60 categorical funding programs. Although some address
state standards, Kirst and Rhodes (2010) claimed most impede the development of
standards-based instructional programs. California, in an effort to increase funding
transparency, released the majority of categorical program restrictions, freeing money to
be used at the discretion of the district; however, that does not change the fact that
districts allocate funding based on the staffing distribution model.
Miles and Roza (2006) claimed weighted student funding (WSF) provides greater
resource equity than staff-based allocation. The authors analyzed Cincinnati Public
Schools and the Houston Independent School District. First, the general education cost is
determined, and, then, funding percentages are added based on need and the funding for
each student. General education costs are then weighted. Twenty-five percent of the
weighted formula is added to the general education cost if the student is a second
language learner, 20% if the student is low-income, and 130% if the student is identified
as having special needs (Miles & Roza, 2006). Petko (2005) asserts the positive aspects
of WSF are the funding follows the student, and the money supports the programs the
student requires. WSF, however, does not include standards-based student outcomes as
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 49
part of the formula. Additionally, WSF is part of a decentralization effort and proponents
assume decentralization automatically creates efficient schools.
Dorn and Fischman (2009) determined, in the early stages, stochastic models
utilized in Hawaii and Washington provided little to no evidence that WSF worked. In
the fall of 2007, both New York and Seattle abandoned the WSF model because, over
time, it became cumbersome for school-level personnel and decentralization made it
difficult to coordinate strategies district-wide. Equity funding models are based on ESEA
legislation from the 1960s. Federal and state policymakers must align
accountability/standards-based reform policies with finance policy; the right course of
action for funding education is adequacy.
Resource Allocation: Adequately Funding Education
Adams (2010, p. 11) defines adequacy as “the fiduciary role of balancing
revenues and expenditures, assessing school district fiscal conditions, managing accounts,
including academic results and the resource use that supports them.” Adequacy research
examines the fiscal inputs and outcomes with the purpose of determining whether the
money spent is producing the desired achievement effects. The literature includes four
models for effective district resource allocation: successful school district approach,
professional judgment approach, cost function approach, and evidence-based approach.
All approaches have merits and none are perfect; however, the focus of this study was the
Evidence-Based model.
Successful School District Approach. The successful school district model
identifies districts that have been successful in teaching students to meet proficiency
standards and then sets the adequacy level at a weighted average of expenditure per pupil.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 50
To create the weighted value, the model uses statistical analysis of resource inputs,
student test scores, and other defined measures (Rebell, 2007). The model does not
account for student characteristics and makes it difficult to statistically manipulate large
populations of high and low-wealth districts. In addition, there is not an agreed upon
definition of success. Rebell (2007) stated Standard and Poor’s district analysis in New
York defined success four different ways, which means there are four different models
for resource allocation. Few states used this model because the unavailability of
necessary data and lack of connection between input and output standards.
Professional Judgment Approach. The Professional Judgment approach utilizes
a group of education experts to identify strategies for all grade levels as well as for
special needs students. The selected experts list the components for implementing
strategies, attach a price tag to each one, and calculate the total cost (Odden, 2003).
Formulas can be adjusted for large and small schools. Educational expert panels have
access to a full range of student needs and outcomes to determine the strategies that best
fit each district; however, the strength of this model is also the weakness (Rebell, 2007).
Professional judgment is founded on pooled judgment. The efficacy of the professional
judgment approach is dependent upon the experts selected; because it is not data driven,
it is the most subjective of the approaches. This approach also lacks the statistical
analysis found in the cost function approach (Rebell, 2007).
Cost Function Approach. Cost function model employs regression analysis with
expenditure per pupil as a dependent variable and student and district characteristics,
including performance levels, as the independent variable (Odden, 2003). The regression
results determine the average expenditure per pupil. The model can be adjusted to
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 51
account for students’ individual needs. The cost function model considers only the
expenditure for each student; it does not address the strategies necessary to reach a
specified achievement goal. Rebell (2007) confirmed studies of the cost function
approach are not based on professional methodologies and there is a need to reform the
approach. Courts have upheld only five of 12 professionally conducted cost function
studies.
Evidence Based Approach. The Evidence-Based model (EBM) developed by
Dr. Allan Odden from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Dr. Lawrence Picus
from the University of Southern California (Odden & Picus, 2008) identifies a set of
inputs that are required to deliver a high quality, comprehensive, school-wide
instructional program. The funding formula is built from the bottom up, starting at the
school level. Based on combining the needs of the students with the strategies, an
adequate expenditure level is assigned, which then results in aggregation to a total cost.
Hanushek (2007) would argue Odden and Picus’s Evidence-Based model is built on the
manipulation of information, providing a misinterpretation of achievement gains. Picus
(2010) stated the EBM is a strategic budgeting tool districts can use to consider
alternative resource allocations and to identify strategies that may require additional
revenue in order to meet student achievement goals. Figure 2.1 illustrates the model’s
strategies and distribution of resources.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 52

Figure 2.1. The Evidence-Based Model. Source: PowerPoint by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus
(2010)
According to Rebell (2007), the advantages of EBM are simplicity and
transparency with the capacity to deal with a variety of educational needs. Though none
of the models are faultless and are subject to criticism (PACE, 2006), EBM’s clarity may
provide the most effective approach for allocating resources to improve student
achievement outcomes. Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) state that EBM
recommendations are based on strategies researchers agree should be part of high
performance schools and districts. The authors base their programmatic recommendation
on three types of research: randomized trails and meta-analysis, practices derived from
resource parameters of comprehensive school reforms, and reviewed research or
recommendations from professional associations when there is little research available on
the effects of guidance counselors or nurses. The resources required in the Evidence-
Based model are identified for each school in a district and then aggregated to the
resources required at the district level to estimate the total cost of funding. The following
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 53
strategies configured to a prototypical school, according to Odden, Goetz and Picus
(2010):
1. Full-day kindergarten.
2. Core class sizes of fifteen for grades K-3 and twenty-five for grades four-12. Core
is defined as a regular classroom teacher in elementary school, and teachers of
mathematics, science, reading/English/writing, history, and world languages in
secondary school.
3. Specialist teachers to provide instruction in art, music, physical education, career
and technical education and in numbers adequate to cover a six period day in
middle school, with teachers assigned to five periods.
4. At least one period of planning and preparation time each day for all teachers in
elementary, middle, and high schools.
5. Pupil support staff, including guidance counselors, equaling one full-time
equivalent (FTE) position for every 250 students in middle and high school.
Nurses, social workers, and family liaison personnel provided for every 100 at
risk students.
6. A full-time librarian and principal in every prototypical elementary (432 students)
and middle (450 students) schools, three secretaries in the prototypical high
school (600 students), and an additional library media technical person, and a vice
principal in a prototypical high school.
7. An ambitious set of professional development resources, including instructional
coaches for every 200 students, which equals three FTE positions in a high
school. At least three pupil free days for professional development, which means
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 54
extending the school year for teachers by five days; and $100 per pupil for
trainers and other expenses related to professional development.
8. Supervisory aides to cover recess, lunch, hall monitoring, and bus loading and
unloading.
9. About $180 per pupil for instructional materials, formative assessments, and
supplies; $250 per pupil for technology and equipment; $250 per pupil for student
activities (sports, clubs, and other student activities).
10. The sum of $25 per pupil to provide extra strategies for gifted and talented
students.
11. A comprehensive range of extra help targeted for struggling students.
a. Resources for one-on-one tutoring at the ratio of one FTE teacher tutor
position for every 100 at-risk students.
b. Extended day resources to provide an eight to nine week summer program
with up to six hours per day with academic help, at the ratio of one FTE
position for every 30 at-risk students, assuming that only about 50 percent of
at-risk students would participate, producing class sizes of 15.
c. Summer school resources to provide an eight to nine week summer school
program, up to six hours per day, with academic help, at the ratio of one FTE
for every 30 at-risk students, assuming 50% of at-risk students would
participate.
d. One additional FTE for every 100 English language learners, primarily to
provide instruction in English as a second language. Most of the students are
considered at-risk and would trigger the first three extra help resources.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 55
e. One FTE teacher for every 150 students to provide services for high incidence
but lower-cost students with disabilities. In addition, full state funding of
high-cost, special needs students.
12. Substitute teacher resources at ten days for each teacher and instructional
facilitator position.
13. Central office staff covering the superintendent’s office, business office,
curriculum and pupil support, technology personnel, and an operations and
maintenance director (configured on a prototypical 3,500 student-school district
and then prorated depending on the size of the district).
14. Food services in the model are assumed to be a self-supporting activity; where
such services operate at a loss, the model recommends outsourcing the function to
a private company whose core business is food services.
The evidence-based approach was proposed or used in Arkansas, Arizona,
Kentucky, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Wyoming with varying
levels of expenditures designed to meet specific needs of the districts, schools and
students (Odden, Goetz, & Picus, 2010). The transparency of the Evidence-Based model
allows districts to allocate funds per school and adjust the formula based on the needs of
students. Odden, Picus, and Goetz (2009) emphasized teams of policy makers and
educational leaders review and tailor the core Evidence-Based model recommendations
to the context of each state or district’s specific needs. In addition, Odden, Picus, and
Goetz (2009) conducted a 50-State study to determine an estimate of the cost to
adequately fund education in each state. The results revealed that the national average
expenditure per pupil is very close to providing an adequate level of resources; however,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 56
they did not investigate how states and districts use those resources to support student
achievement. California’s funding was uniquely different, with higher teacher salaries,
high levels of low-income students, and one of the highest levels of second language
learners. California is underfunded. Odden, Picus, and Goetz (2009) determined
California was under spending by about $2,814, based on 2006 expenditures. With
spending per pupil at $7,232 in 2011, California was under-spending, according to the
Evidence-Based model, by $4,068 per pupil.
The reality is the Evidence-Based model is expensive. Odden, Picus, and Goetz
(2009) suggest that states do not attempt to fund the entire model in one year and that
they create multi-year projections and fund the increase over time. To provide lower-cost
options with significant outcomes, they recommend states begin by funding professional
development components, such as instructional coaches, trainers, and professional
development days, and then focus on strategies for struggling students.
Reallocation of Resources: A Fiscal Necessity
California, at the time of this study, was in the midst of a financial crisis directly
affecting funding for education. Shambaugh et al. (2011) affirmed the national recession
provided unique resource challenges for education, especially for California. To gain
perspective on the budget crisis, the researchers interviewed a variety of stakeholders,
district superintendents, county superintendents, and state policy makers. The
stakeholders acknowledged that, while there have been fluctuations in funding in prior
times, this recession was unprecedented and the worst they had ever seen. At the time of
this study, California served about one-eighth of the country’s children and the state
consistently ranked below the national average in per-pupil spending. Funding per
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 57
student was been reduced from $8,464 in 2007 to $7,232 in 2011 (Edsource, 2011).
Losses in per-pupil expenditures have been between $900 and $1400 per student, and one
district noted a 23% cut in revenues (Shambaugh, et al., 2011). Stakeholders remarked,
while the only good thing to come out of this situation was the flexibility in categorical
funds, it, unfortunately came at a time when administrators were unable to reallocate the
money creatively to support programs (Shambaugh, et al., 2011).
State deferment of payments to districts and county education agencies
exacerbated the financial crisis. Districts receive state funding throughout the year.
Normally, districts receive the final installment in the spring; however, the government
has deferred part or the entire final installment until July. Shambaugh et al. (2011) cites
one example of a county who recounted that, instead of receiving a final installment of
$48 million, the final apportionment received was $700,000 along with a promissory note
for July. Swift (2012) clarified that, when a school district is unable to pay expenses, the
state intercedes so the schools can continue operating and the district no longer has
control over its finances.
Budget cuts have been deep. Approximately 80% to 90% of a district’s budget is
allocated to personnel; therefore, people are a large portion of the initial cuts (City,
2008). Districts noted class-size increases, suspension of new instructional materials
adoption, reduction of school days, reduction of maintenance projects, reduction or
elimination of summer school programs and afterschool programs, music, electives,
language development, transportation, athletics, and field trips (Shambaugh et al., 2011).
Districts in high poverty areas noticed a drop in Advanced Placement (A.P.) courses
because the district could no longer pay for the A.P. exam. The authors reported districts
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 58
and county education agencies made substantial cuts to professional development. In a
report by Rogers et al. (2010), 70 of 87 principals reported reductions in professional
development. Highly ranked or successful districts, in areas of student achievement,
provided detailed reasons for cuts based on data, proactive planning, and committee
input. Less successful districts, however, did not provide their rationale regarding how or
why cuts were made.
As private sector organizations have to improve without new resources, so the
education system must work with less more effectively (Odden & Archibald, 2009). As
one district superintendent noted in an interview with Shambaugh et al. (2011, p. 10),
“we are going to have to learn to work with less and do more…what took four of us to
do, we are now going to have to do with two.” The practice of reallocating resources
effectively is a valuable skill districts can utilize to maintain strategies to improve student
performance. Plecki, Alejano, Knapp, and Lochmiller (2006) state that districts need to
take seriously the charge to become more learning-focused by examining effectiveness of
existing resource allocation practices and make decisions regarding which resources can
be reallocated in more productive ways. Districts may have to negotiate valuable trade-
offs to support student achievement strategies with less money.
Reallocating Resources: People, Time, and Money
California’s financial situation mandated that districts make do with less.
Ongoing, sustainable, and continuous were the words most often associated with district
and school improvement strategies. Researchers agree reallocating resources is also an
ongoing, continuous endeavor and requires extensive data-driven analysis and planning
(Adams, 2010; City, 2008; Deich, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). The federal
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 59
government, state government, and districts can begin reallocation strategies by clearly
defining instructional goals and examining new alternatives for organizing resources.
Federal and state governments can play a vital role in resource allocation.
To change allocation or reallocation policies and practices, the process must begin at the
top. The federal government and California’s state government are responsible for
implementing financial policies that limit how resources are spent. There are successful
examples of districts and schools that reallocated resources without governmental policy
changes; however, for standards-based and accountability reforms to accomplish
increased student achievement, governments need to lead the change.
Federal policymakers could assist in the process of reallocating resources. Deich
(2009) suggested Title I funds should remain regulated; however, local officials,
especially auditors, must change the fiscal emphasis from tracking programmatic factors
to implementation of effective school wide strategies. Miles (2004) claimed Title I,
special education, and bilingual departments are concerned with regulatory compliance
and not student achievement. Deich (2009) recommends the continuation of the
flexibility of categorical programs and recommends federal and state governments lead
the charge for the monies to be spent on effective programs, enhancing accountability
programs to focus on student performance. Miles (2011) determined federal and state
lawmakers can play a vital role in leveraging resources by 1) linking funding to
restructuring efforts and providing guidelines; 2) identifying and sharing models of
successful innovative school and district designs; 3) creating more flexibility in resource
use by investing in the implementation of Common Core standards; and 4) investing in an
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 60
integrated and longitudinal data system on the use of resources that could be used across
the states and districts.
Districts reallocating resources. The majority of districts’ budgets are spent
supporting personnel. According to Miles (2001), more adults work outside of the
classroom than in it. In 1960, 70% of district staff were teachers, and by, 1997, 52% were
teachers (Miles, 2001). The shift in resources to include nonteaching personnel stems
from the increase in federal and state programs providing funding for specialized groups
and increasing specialized staff. The release of restrictions on categorical funds provides
districts and schools the opportunity to use the funding throughout the system. Odden and
Archibald (2009) state, for numerous reasons, districts and schools rarely attempt to
reallocate through the staffing category because of long-time practices and teacher
contractual agreements. Miles (1995) conducted a case study in the Boston Public School
System that went beyond the barriers of long-standing practices. She found four
strategies that reduced specialization and fragmentation of school resources, freeing 42%
of Boston’s teaching resources. The strategies were:
 Reduce use of pull-out programs
 Redesign provision of teacher planning and development time
 Modify formula-driven student assignment to create more flexibility
 Restructure daily schedule in secondary schools (Miles, 1997)
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) conducted a qualitative study based on five
high performing schools (three elementary and two secondary). The study sought to
examine alternative ways of distributing instructional resources. While each of the five
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 61
schools appeared very different from the others, all redesigned the way their allocation of
teaching resources utilizing six strategies:
 Reduction in specialized programs - 90% of teachers worked with heterogeneous
groups
 More flexible student grouping – based on student needs
 Structures to support and strengthen relationships between teachers and students
 Longer blocks of instructional time
 Creative definition of staff roles and work day
Based on the foundational studies, three clear themes emerged: reorganization of
staff to promote smaller class size, protection of instructional time, and teacher
collaboration.
Class size flexibility. Odden and Archibald (2009) found similar results to the
foundational studies in their case study of a district in rural Texas that transformed four
teachers’ working in resource rooms in pullout programs into classroom teachers and
used salaries from four instructional aide positions to add two more classroom teachers.
In effect, the district was able to reduce class sizes to 17 (Odden & Archibald, 2009). An
additional case study by Odden and Archibald (2009) was conducted in Kenosha Public
School District in Wisconsin, which was experiencing a large centralized growth in low-
income families. In an effort to meet achievement goals, the district executed several
reform initiatives: implementation of a new curriculum, reconfiguration of schools to the
K-8 model, instigating a full-day kindergarten program, and establishing smaller class
sizes in K-3. The district leaders established clear student achievement-based goals prior
to an increase in enrollment; therefore, when they received an additional $7,000 per
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 62
student from the state school finance formula, and $2000 per student for extending
kindergarten, the district was able to hire an additional fifty teachers. Through the
district’s focus on attaining achievement goals, it was able to reduce class size in all high-
need schools as well as in the majority of schools across the district.
Odden and Picus (2010) worked with four Ohio school districts to make trade-offs
to best reallocate resources. Utilizing the Evidence-Based model and the Strategic
Budgeting Tool, which calculates resource expenditures, the researchers were able to
input each school’s current resource allocations and compare them to the Evidence-Based
model. Olentangy, one of the school districts, chose to increase Advanced Placement
class sizes from 15, the recommended amount, to 25 with the understanding that student
performance would not be harmed. This adjustment saved 13 staffing positions. In
addition, the evidence-based results revealed, if Olentangy raised secondary class sizes
by one student (25 to 26), it could save 28 staff positions. Reallocation should include
flexibility about class size (Miles, 2011). Smaller classes are created where there is the
most need and class size is increased when it will not harm student achievement.
Instructional time not money. Protecting instructional time is a cost-effective
way to reallocate resources. Elementary and secondary schools maximized student
achievement by protecting instructional time for core academic subjects (Odden and
Archibald, 2009). The Center for Comprehensive School Reform (2009) suggested
blocking uninterrupted time for reading and math in the first part of the day. Secondary
schools can adopt a six-period day, instead of seven-period, by cutting one period of
electives. In a six-period day, students would participate in one elective. Students needing
additional instruction can be scheduled, during the elective period, for additional help in
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 63
the core academic subjects. Electives in secondary school are high-cost and have low
academic impact. Roza (2009) studied three districts and found some high schools had
seven or eight periods per day, usually equating to two or three electives. Having more
than one elective can increase school costs 20% to 40% because high school electives
generally have low enrollment and are taught by senior teachers. Roza stipulates that not
all districts’ expenditures reflect a 20% to 40% cost increase; however, elective costs are
worth examining for reallocation of resources.
Finding resources for collaboration and professional development. Miles
(2000) stated district spending should be a reflection of the vision and goals and
monitoring school compliance based on curriculum and standards for student
achievement and supporting schools in meeting the state standards. When districts
realigned their priorities for student achievement, districts found professional
development was necessary (Miles, 2000). Many districts Miles researched had
professional development that was fragmented and that conflicted with district goals.
Fermanich (2002), in his cross-case analysis of district expenses for professional
development, found districts underreported spending. The author suggested main causes
were unclear definitions of professional development, and the financial reporting system
used a cost accounting model that limited information on expenditures for products and
services. Odden (2009) suggested districts perform a program audit of their professional
development strategies and funding to ensure proper alignment of funding. Addressing
the problem of inadequate professional development requires redirection of dollars to
promotion of research-based strategies that improve teacher and student learning. Deich
(2009) recommended relocating resources to a “pot” of professional development that
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 64
totals up to three percent of the overall operating budget. Elmore (1997) studied District 2
in New York City and found Superintendent Alvarado implemented intensive
professional development in all his schools. Alvarado placed professional development as
a high priority, and he and his staff engaged in “multipocket budgeting.” Elmore (1997)
explained multipocket budgeting consists of bringing together multiple sources of
revenue around a single priority, utilizing local tax revenues, federal categorical
programs, and state categorical programs, with the condition the money is consistent with
program requirements.
As noted earlier, one of the first items to be cut in a fiscal crisis is professional
development; however, there are ways to reallocate time to support professional
development activities. In Alvarado’s District 2, he used effective teachers as models for
other teachers to observe (Elmore, 1997). This method required money for observers to
have substitutes because the observations occurred during the school day. Researchers
suggest a no-cost solution of aligning teachers’ schedules so they may have collaboration
time by grade or subject. The result, especially in secondary, is daily opportunities to
observe other teachers who have different collaboration times. In addition, schools can
participate in early release or late start days, allowing time for professional development.
Schools who have implemented late start or early release days required approval from the
district office to ensure mandated instructional minutes were maintained. Reeves (2003)
found in the 90/90/90 schools that principals made faculty meetings “announcement free
zones” so teachers could work together.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 65
Collaboration, if used effectively, encourages teachers to participate in
professional development (Song, 2008). City (2008) advised successful reallocation of
staff is dependent upon faculty members’ particular talents, on student needs, and on how
the faculty complements each other. School leaders should consider placing faculty
members where they would benefit students the most and whether the positions equate to
a good grade-level or subject team. Miles (2004) corroborated, in her issue brief Freeing
School Resources for Learning: The “Missing Piece” in Making Accountability
Meaningful, that schools and districts should create teacher work schedules to include
time to plan and participate in professional development together. Leana’s (2011) study
of New York City public schools resulted in social capital’s (collaboration) being integral
to a teacher’s job. Building a collaborative culture requires time and possibly additional
staff but offers more promise for student achievement gains.
When reallocating resources, costs for implementing all aspects of the Evidence-
Based model concurrently may be prohibitive for some districts. Depending upon
available resources, districts first need to establish a resource reallocation plan based on
the goal of maintaining and improving student achievement. The initial focus of resource
reallocation should be professional development, which includes instructional coaches,
resources for trainers, and additional professional development days. While the
integration of collaboration time into the school day may be the most cost-effective
solution for attaining student achievement gains, the collaborative groups may be
ineffective without proper training and facilitation. Providing interventions for struggling
students during class time requires flexible class sizes and is an optimal solution that can
be accomplished at relatively low-cost.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 66
Putting it All Together: Using the Gap Analysis to Allocate Resources
The Gap Analysis model created by Clarke and Estes (2008) was the conceptual
framework used in this study to determine school district resource reallocation needs. The
process of Gap Analysis is an ongoing, continuous process for organization
improvement. In their work, Clarke and Estes (2008) outlined seven steps for
organizations to improve performance. First, effective performance begins with clearly
understood goals. According to the authors, the goals should involve the three “Cs”:
concrete, challenging, and current. Without solid goals, it is difficult to determine where
the organization is succeeding or failing. The second step is analyzing the performance
gap to identify the causes. They list three main causes for performance gaps: knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. They define knowledge and skill gaps
as occurring when people do not know how to achieve organizational goals. Motivation is
determining whether people are choosing to work towards the goals. Organizational
barriers are ineffective or inefficient organizational work processes and material
resources. Once the cause of the gap is identified, the next step is implementing the
solution. Lastly, organizations evaluate results, make adjustments, and establish new
goals. Clarke and Estes (2008) consider evaluation essential to the success of
improvement programs. Evaluation provides leaders with reliable information about the
organization they are trying to change, the progress of change, and the impact of change
on the goals for ongoing improvement.
Gap analysis has been widely used in a variety of settings. In 2007, the Illinois
Council of Professors conducted a gap analysis study to inform the Illinois School Leader
Task Force. The researchers examined educational leadership preparation programs
utilizing the gap analysis. They identified key goals using research based on Levine’s
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 67
2005 report about principal preparation programs’ recommendations for improvement
and Waters, Marzano, and McNulty’s (2003) Balanced Leadership: 21 Responsibilities.
The Illinois Council of Professors utilized surveys given to superintendents, principals,
and teachers to determine the cause of the gap between leadership programs and the
current leadership characteristics. The researchers found the cause of the gap was both
organizational and knowledge-based. Educational leaders did not possess the knowledge
that was required of the job, and college leadership preparation programs were not
teaching the knowledge leaders needed to possess. Using the result of the Gap Analysis,
six goals were created to improve leadership preparation programs and an intern program
for principals was established.
Santa Barbara Unified School District collaborated with The International Center
for Leadership in Education (Ott, 2011) to facilitate the transition from current state
standards to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The Gap Analysis was
conducted in 13 schools, ranging from elementary to high school. The district sought to
determine the gap in three areas: the district’s relationship between CCSS and existing
curriculum and proficiency levels, the relationship between CCSS and the district’s
instructional practices, and the alignment and use of local assessment strategies on the
new assessments (Ott, 2011). The team, organized by Tim Ott, gathered data from seven
areas, including surveys, rubrics for performance and data analysis. The results revealed
knowledge and organizational gaps in each category of CCSS: Leadership, Informed
Data Decisions, Instruction and Assessment, and College and Career Readiness. Though
each had gaps, Ott (2011) acknowledged in each category the strengths as well as the
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 68
needs of the district to move toward Common Core State Standards. The Gap Analysis
provides a clear framework for effective organizational improvement.
Conclusion
Over the course of this chapter, literature was reviewed in four areas: (a) district
strategies that maximize student learning and performance, (b) resource allocation
methods that support student achievement, (c) resource reallocation methods that ensure
district strategies and resource allocation methods are aligned, and (d) utilization of the
gap analysis to determine alignment of district strategies and resource allocation methods
for maximizing student performance.
In Section 1, literature identifying effective and ineffective district strategies for
maximizing student learning and performance was discussed. Odden’s (2009) ten
strategies were used as a foundation for presenting the strategies. Section 2 presented the
literature examining resource allocation methods that support student achievement. An
in-depth explanation of the Evidence-Based model (Odden, 2009) was included. Section
3 discussed literature related to methods for resource reallocation that ensure district
strategies and resource allocation methods are aligned. Finally, in Section 4, the Gap
Analysis Model by Clarke and Estes (2008) was explained and literature related to its use
for determining district resource reallocation needs was examined.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 69
Chapter Three
Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to analyze one Southern California Unified School
District’s distribution of resources using the Evidence-Based model (EBM) (Odden &
Picus, 2010). The study used document analysis, assistant superintendent interviews and
school board observations to obtain district desired and actual resource allocation data
and compare both to the EBM. After obtaining district desired and actual resource
distribution data, a comparison was made to determine the gaps among the actual, desired
and EBM.
The distribution of resources in education is used as a means to provide students
with the opportunity to learn. The EBM (Figure 3.1) created by Odden & Picus (2010)
uses three types of research methodology, randomized assignment, control or statistical
procedures and best practices studies, to arrive at the strategies and the distribution of
human resources that benefit student learning.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 70

Figure 3.1. Evidence-Based Model. Source: PowerPoint from Dr. Lawrence O. Picus
(2010)
Historically, California limited district spending by placing regulations on 60
categorical funding programs. In 2011, however, due to the financial recession, the
government released 40 categorical restrictions into districts’ general budget. Decreasing
the spending limitations allows for more flexible use of resources.
This study employed qualitative research using formative evaluation methods
which serve to evaluate one district’s allocation of human resources. Utilizing formative
evaluation limits applications of results solely to the district; however, this qualitative
process can serve as a model for use by other districts to obtain their own research-based
allocation data. Methodological triangulation with qualitative inquiry using document
analysis, interviews and observations was used to examine consistency for resource
allocation decision-making. The three methodologies are required to answer the research
questions.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 71
The research questions for this study are:
1. What are the current resource allocation strategies of the district?
2. What are the desired resource allocations of the district?
3. What are the differences between the district’s current, desired, and the Evidence-
Based model resource allocations?
4. How can resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that improve
student achievement?
Sample and Population
The study examined allocation and use of resources from one unified school
district. First, the researcher conducted document analysis in the human resource
department, gathering data on personnel allocations and student populations for each
school site. Second, the researcher interviewed two district administrators: the Assistant
Superintendents of Business Services and of Curriculum and Instruction. Third, the
researcher observed district school board meetings to ascertain budgetary decisions on
the following three pre-determined occasions: before the school year begins, and prior to
and after the state voted on Measure 12-0009, Proposition 30 (temporary taxes to fund
education).
District Overview
The researcher selected a large southern California unified school district to
provide adequate subgroups to produce results in all resource categories of the EBM. The
district is designated Program Improvement, signifying that one or more of the state
tested subgroups do not meet academic proficiency requirements. The district is
comprised of 22 elementary schools (two are K-8), five junior high schools (7-8), four
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 72
high schools and one continuation school. The district serves 28,340 students. Fifty-four
percent of district students are Latino, 24% are White, 10% are Asian, and 4% are
African American. Thirty-nine percent of the total population qualifies for free or
reduced-price lunch, 13% are English Language Learners and 13% are Students with
Disabilities (CDE, 2011). The district ranks as one of the top 200 nationally in terms of
size and has significant subgroup populations (IES, 2001). According to the CDE (2011),
the district has exceeded the California API goal of 800. However, it has not met AYP for
the three years prior to this study because of low performing subgroups.
Stuart and Hahnel of Education Trust West (ETW) (2011) ranked all unified
school districts in California (n =146) based on performance, improvement in API
performance over a five year period, gaps and college readiness with a focus on Latino
and African American student achievement. The ranking system uses a composite of
letter grades ranging from A to F. The study district received an overall rank of “C.”
Stuart and Hahnel (2011) established a rubric/grading scale for each category located in
Figures 3.2 to 3.5. Based on the ETW grading scale, the district, at the time of this study,
had gaps with the subgroup populations.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 73

Figure 3.2. District Performance. Source: 2011 The Education Trust – West Report Card
on District Achievement
District Performance (Figure 3.2) was determined based on the California State
goal of meeting or exceeding 800 out of 1000 API score, which indicates the majority of
students achieved academic proficiency. White and Asian students in the District exceed
800 API. However, African American, Latino, and low-income students are not. Stuart
and Hahnel (2011) set the “A” grade at 800, in alignment with California’s academic
goal. Grades “B-F” have cut-offs in 50-point increments. African American students, four
percent of the population, are eight points, or “B” grade from achieving academic
proficiency. Latino students, 55% of the population, are 44 points, or “C” grade from
proficiency. The interview with the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instruction included questions about strategies intended to improve academic results.

The District
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 74

Figure 3.3. District Improvement. Source: 2011 Education Trust – West Report Card on
District Achievement
District Improvement is calculated using the API scores over a five-year period.
For districts to earn an “A” grade, students must meet or exceed 100-point growth over
the five-year period. Each letter grade thereafter is cut at equal 25-point intervals. The
district has made steady progress over the five years prior to the present study and,
according to Education Trust - West (2011), 55% of unified districts earned a “C” grade.
Three California districts with high-needs students earned an “A” grade, and the districts
reported strategies that intentionally or unintentionally aligned with the EBM: strong
leadership, standards-based instruction, teacher collaboration, strategic professional
development, and the districts’ regular evaluation of student needs to target funds (Stuart
& Hahnel, 2011).

The District
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 75

Figure 3.4. District Achievement Gaps
District Achievement Gaps (Figure 3.4) are determined by subtracting the API
score of each group from the White students’ API score. Districts receive an “A” grade if
the gap is 30 points or less, and grades issued thereafter are in 30-point increments.
African American students are close to the California goal of 800 API; however, the gap
between their White peers is 55 points, earning the District a “B” grade. The District
received a “C” grade for the Latino population because there is an 81-point difference
between the performance of White students and their Latino peers.

The District
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 76

Figure 3.5. District College Readiness. Source: 2011 The Education Trust – West Report
Card on District Achievement
College Readiness (Figure 3.5) illustrates about 15% of African American and Latino
students in the District complete A-G courses in high school. A-G courses are required
for entrance into the California State University and University of California systems.
Sampling Issues. The researcher’s study focused on one district in a multi-site study.
Application of results was limited to this district’s population because formative
evaluation methodology was not generalizable.
Instrumentation
The study examined district resource allocation patterns using methodological
triangulation of instrumentation: document analysis, interviews and observations.
Documents from the Human Resource and Business departments provided the
information for the EBM evaluation. Interviews with the Assistant Superintendents of
Business and Curriculum and Instruction offered district perspective on strategies for the
allocation of personnel and instruction. School Board meeting observations were
intended to encapsulate the relationship between budgetary decisions and district
strategies. Patton (2002) asserted triangulation within a qualitative research strategy
The District
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 77
assists in examining competing theoretical perspectives. The goal of triangulation is to
reduce systematic bias and distortion during data analysis by checking findings against
other sources and perspectives. Analyzing the district through the lens of structuralism
using document analysis assists in establishing whether the organization is edified to
promote student achievement. Interviews and observations guided by social capital
theory capture the perspectives of participants associated with resource decisions that
support the organization’s structure. The goal of the researcher was to analyze the
district’s alignment of resource allocation practices and perspectives towards student
achievement.
The researcher obtained approval to conduct the study from the district
Superintendent in February 2012. Based on the data required, the Superintendent
informed the researcher the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources would be her
principal contact. Arrangements were made with the principal contact for data collection
in August 2012. Initial contact for interviews with the Assistant Superintendents of
Business Services and Curriculum and Instruction was completed in April 2012.
Interviews occurred during the fall of 2012 after the documents from human resources
were collected.
The participants in the multi-site study attended a preliminary training on the
Strategic Budgeting Tool model and interview questions and protocols in March and
April 2012, conducted by the principal investigator. Participants were trained to gather an
accurate count of all personnel at each school site in the sample. The principal
investigator provided a copy of the budgeting tool and demonstrated the input
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 78
requirements utilizing a previous case sample, differentiating between the data required
from human resources and that required from the business office.
Document Analysis
The data required for document analysis was contained in the district’s “people
book,” as it is labeled by the human resources department. The list of information needed
from the study district is located in Table 3.1. Human resources include everyone at the
school sites who is funded through state, federal, categorical and private funds. Personal
information, like names, pay, and duration of employment, were not logged. For staff
allocated centrally, the researcher used either the district algorithm or asked human
resources personnel the best way to allocate such staff. Documentation of estimated cost
of resources was provided during the assistant superintendent interviews.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 79
Table 3.1
Document Analysis
Data from Human Resources Data from Business office
Estimated Cost of Resources
Students per grade Technology
English Language Learners Instructional materials
Students with Disabilities Assessments
Free and Reduced Lunches Student activities
Class size by grade level Professional development
Instructional Aides per grade level Gifted and Talented Education funds
Number of students per Coach Substitute teachers’ daily rate
Coaches at each school level Average teacher compensation
Tutors
Limited English Proficiency teachers
Extended-day staff
Summer school program and staff
Librarians
Library Technicians
Guidance Counselors at each school
site

Secretaries at each school site
Principals and Assistant Principal
Adapted from Using the Evidence Based Model in Strategic Budgeting: Examples from
Four Diverse Ohio Districts by A. Odden and L.O. Picus, 2010.
The Strategic Budgeting Tool, adapted by Ph.D. student David Knight, from
Picus and Associates’ EBM database program, was the instrument used to analyze
comparisons among current district resource allocations, desired resource allocations and
the EBM. Picus and Associates’ Strategic Budgeting Tool program used by the principal
investigator in the Wyoming, Washington and Arkansas state adequacy studies was
assumed to be valid and reliable (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2006; Odden, Picus, Goetz,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 80
Mangan & Fermanich, 2006; Odden, Picus, Goetz, Fermanich, et al. 2005). To identify
the structure of the district organization, necessary data included the 2012-2013 district
budget, school level allocations, categorical program dollars, the certificated staff
allocation formula and the district Strategic Plan. The information gathered from district
human resource allocation documents, along with assistant superintendents’ interview
results helped to answer research questions one, two and three : 1) “What are the current
resource allocation strategies of the district, 2) What are the desired resource allocations
of the district and 3) What are the differences between the district’s current, desired and
the Evidence-Based model resource allocations?”
Interviews
After document analysis was completed, the researcher scheduled interviews with
the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services and Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum and Instruction. Standard open-ended interviews with questions adapted from
Picus and Associates’ Wyoming study (Odden, Picus, Goetz et al., 2005) and Helen
Morgan’s dissertation (Morgan, 2009) were used to answer research question one, “How
are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?” Interview
questions for the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services (Appendix A) were
chosen to provide perspective about district strategies for resource allocation methods
used during times of declining resources, the district influence over school based
resources, and how resources support student achievement strategies. Interview questions
for the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction (Appendix B) focused on
aspects of student achievement strategies of EBM: standards-based curriculum,
instructional practices, data-driven decisions, professional development, and the role the
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 81
district’s role in monitoring achievement. The questions were open-ended and led to
impromptu questions for clarification or specificity. The interviews provided perspectives
on the similarities and differences between resource allocation and the strategies
implemented by the district to support student achievement.
Observations
Observations were conducted at three district school board meetings. The School
board is a locally elected legislative body that either approves or opposes decisions made
by the district superintendent. Pursuant to the California Education Code, the study
district’s five school board members ensured district fiscal integrity, held the board
accountable for programs and operations, and set and approved achievement goals for the
district (Legislative Counsel of California, 2011). Board meeting minutes are publicly
posted and were reviewed for budgetary topics. The budget was discussed, to varying
extent, at each meeting; however, topics about full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and
allocation of resources were the researcher’s primary focus. In 2012, 116 teachers,
counselors, nurses and assistant principals were issued layoff notices (Tasci, 2012).
During periods of fiscal instability, personnel are the first to be cut (Odden, 2003).
The researcher attended three meetings as a non-participating observer and took
detailed notes. An observation of one school board meeting prior to the start of the school
year provided information regarding whether or not any layoff notices were rescinded. A
second school board meeting, held prior to November, was observed to assess progress in
balancing the budget. Finally, the researcher observed a third meeting held following the
November election to ascertain the effects on resource allocation from the passage of
Proposition 30, Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. The tax measure increased income
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 82
taxes on household earnings over $250,000 and increased sales tax for seven years to
support K-12 education and community colleges (Harris, 2012). Based on a structuralism
perspective, the school boards’ choices provided data on allocation distribution that
supports or opposes the district’s strategic plan.
Observations allow the researcher to ascertain whether or not the budget-related
decisions made by the school board are aligned with decisions made by district officials.
The observations, combined with the interviews and document analysis, provided a
broader perspective for resource allocation data. Analyzing the perspectives of district
board members allowed the researcher to identify the alignment of district priorities
towards student achievement.
Data Analysis
To determine whether or not a resource allocation gap exists between effective
implementation as defined by the Evidence-Based model and current allocation
strategies, this study utilized the Gap Analysis Model developed by Clark and Estes
(2008). The first step in a Gap Analysis is to analyze district-wide goals and current,
desired, and Evidence-Based model resource allocation patterns to determine if a gap
exists. Once a gap has been determined, the organization identifies the reason for the gap.
Clarke and Estes (2009) organized causes of gaps into three categories: knowledge and
skills, motivational, and organizational and state there may be multiple causes to a single
problem. In this study, the goal was established by answering research question two
“What are the desired resource allocation strategies of the district?” The Evidence-Based
model (Odden & Picus 2010) distributes human resources strategically to support student
achievement and is the benchmark measurement to determine whether a gap exists. In
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 83
addition, the researcher measured a second goal established by the district’s desired
resource allocations patterns.
To establish whether gaps exist, comparisons were made among the EBM, the
districts’ desired resource allocation, and the current resource allocations in the Excel
simulation. Research questions two and three, “How are human resources allocated
across the study district and its schools” and “Is there a gap between current human
resource allocation practices of the study district and what research suggests is most
effective?” were analyzed from the “people book” data results, paying close attention to
struggling students. Once gaps were identified, the interview and observation process
informed postulation as to why the gaps exist. Lastly, the researcher used the Strategic
Budgeting Tool to simulate options to strategically reallocate resources aligned with
strategies to improve student achievement.
Summary
This chapter described the methodological procedures of the study. Using the
ontological perspectives of structuralism and social capital theory with the framework of
the Evidence-Based model, the study district was examined through document analysis,
administrative interviews and school board observations to identify gaps in resource
allocation strategies that support student achievement. The following chapter includes the
results of the Strategic Budgeting tool, interview and observation findings and an analysis
relating to the four research questions.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 84
Chapter Four
Presentation of the Findings
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze resource data from a
southern California school district to compare how the district allocated resources to the
ways in which the district would desire to allocate resources, and then compare the
alignment of both allocations with the Evidence-Based model (EBM). Finally,
recommendations as to how district resources could be reallocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement are made. The first section presents an overview of the
study district. The second section illustrates the findings as they relate to each of the four
research questions:
1. What are the current resource allocation strategies of the district?
2. What are the desired resource allocation strategies of the district?
3. What are the differences between the actual, desired, and the Evidence-Based
model resource allocations?
4. How can resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Overview of the District
Located in southern California, the District, at the time of this study, served
28,340 students in Transitional Kindergarten through grade12. There were a total of 34
schools: 22 elementary (two K-8), five middle schools, four high schools, one
continuation school, a virtual school, and a juvenile/foster facility. The virtual school and
juvenile/foster facility were not included in the calculations because data were
inconsistent. The student population was 55.2% Latino, 23.1% White, 3.8% African
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 85
American, 10.8% Asian, and 7.1% other (Local Educational Agency Plan, 2012). Thirty-
nine percent of the population qualified for the Free or Reduced Priced Lunch Program,
12.6% were English-Language Learners, 6.67% were identified Gifted and Talented and
11.9% were identified special needs.
The District was identified Program Improvement (PI) in 2010. Schools that
receive Title I, II and III funds and do not meet California chosen benchmarks for
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) are identified as Program Improvement schools. Title I
funds are monies from the federal government intended to support supplemental
programs for economically disadvantaged populations (CDE, 2012). Title II is grant
money dedicated to training administrators and teachers. Title III funds are supplemental
funding to support programs for English Learners (CDE, 2012). California has four AYP
requirements. The first is a participation rate of 95% on the state tests. The second is
comprised of Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), or annual percent of the
population expected to be proficient in English Language Arts and Math. For 2012 these
were that 78% of students should be proficient or advanced in ELA and 78.2% should be
proficient or advanced in mathematics. The third requirement is district placement on the
Academic Performance Index (API,) a scale of 200 to 1000. With a 2012 API of 740, the
district realized a one-point increase from 2011. The third requirement is a 90%
graduation rate for high schools. In 2012, 11 schools in the District were identified PI
year one to year five. The District as a whole entered into PI year three.
Table 4.1 provides an overview of the District schools. Schools labeled E are
elementary, M are middle schools, H are high schools, and C refers to the continuation
high school. Academic Performance Index (API) is the District or school’s total score
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 86
(between 200 and 1000) on the California Standardized Test (CST), including
numerically significant subgroups. Significant in California is defined as at least 100
students. AYP is labeled in Table 4.1 with an “N” or “Y” to indicate whether the District
or school met proficiency objectives. An additional column for PI Status indicates
whether a school was identified. Some schools did not met AYP requirements yet were
not in PI Status because they did not qualify for or accept Title funds. This exempted the
schools from being labeled, but did not exempt them from District mandated
improvements.
Table 4.1
District Schools, Populations, and Status
Title Grades
Served
Total
Students
English
Language
Learners
%
Special
Education
%
Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
%
API AYP PI Status
District TK-12 28,456 12.6% 11.9% 39.5% 820 N Year 3
E1 TK-6 603 53.2% 2.5% 52.9% 762 N Year 2
E2 K-8 976 10.1% 7.0% 51.1% 854 Y Not PI
E3 K-6 593 9.3% 7.4% 19.7% 924 Y Not Title I
E4 K-8 942 9.9% 1.6% 34.3% 907 Y Not Title I
E5 K-6 715 10.8% 2.0% 47.6% 860 Y Year 1
E6 TK-6 621 19.3% 9.8% 56.8% 872 Y Not PI
E7 K-6 754 26.7% 5.0% 80.5% 802 N Year 2
E8 K-6 538 11.3% 4.1% 15.1% 938 Y Not in PI
E9 K-6 583 35.7% 9.9% 92% 792 N Year 5
E10 K-6 617 36.8% 3.9% 93% 761 N Year 5
E11 K-6 565 10.1% 1.4% 40.5% 898 Y Not Title I
E12 K-6 559 22.9% 4.5% 69.2% 818 N Not Title I
E13 K-6 467 16.1% 1.5% 17.6% 915 N Not Title I
E14 K-6 663 22.9% 3.6% 70.7% 854 N Year 1
E15 K-6 492 9.8% 4.5% 33.1% 892 N Not Title I
E16 K-6 584 33.9% 5.5% 97.3% 777 N Year 1
E17 K-6 765 27.2% 3.0% 82.4% 779 N Year 2
E18 K-6 686 9.2% 1.5% 20.1% 901 Y Not Title I
E19 K-6 738 13.0% 5.6% 32.4% 946 Y Not Title I
E20 K-6 525 14.3% 1.9% 29.0% 916 Y Not Title I
E21 TK-6 772 43.5% 2.7% 93% 740 N Year 3
E22 K-6 902 6.7% 7.4% 13.9% 941 Y Not Title I
M1 7-8 1034 3.6% 1.6% 23.6% 908 Y Not Title I
M2 7-8 809 19.3% 5.4% 76.6% 763 N Year 5
M3 7-8 629 22.4% 5.7% 95% 751 Y Year 5
M4 7-8 1138 4.4% 1.6% 33.5% 891 Y Not Title I
M5 7-8 441 11.6% 3.6% 78% 805 Y Year 4

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 87
Table 4.1, continued

H1 9-12 2413 3.6% 3.4% 20.6% 845 Y Not Title I
H2 9-12 2339 10.3% 3.7% 66.9% 697 N Not Title I
H3 9-12 2900 4.6% 2.4% 29.3% 819 N Not Title I
H4 9-12 1802 14.9% 5.9% 77.0% 731 N Not Title I
C1 9-12 175 18.9% 0% 94.9% 563* N/A Not Title I

The District faced budget challenges, as did most districts in California; there
were more demands for resources than revenues available. To balance the budget, the
Assistant Superintendent of Business (CBO) recommended cuts to the Superintendent
and School Board. In an interview with the CBO, she stated the District has no control
over revenue, but can affect Average Daily Attendance to generate funds from the state.
A district-wide campaign called “Attendance Counts,” that emphasized making illness
the only excuse. The result of the campaign was 96% attendance, which was significant
for a district of this size. District revenues and expenditures are displayed in Table 4.2.
The District maintained solvency for three years because Governor Brown’s Proposition
30 Tax Initiative passed on November 6, 2012.
Table 4.2
District Budget Projections
Beginning Balance $49,519,026 $47,267,645 $43,466,035
Revenue $213,510,782 $207,024,016 $200,305,643
Expenditure $215,762,163 $210,825,626 $211,766,964
Net Increase/Decrease ($2,251,381) ($3,801,610) ($11,461,321)
Ending Balance $47,267,645 $43,466,035 $32,004,714

Revolving Cash $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Economic Uncertainty $6,504,079 $6,324,769 $6,353,009
Restricted Ending Balance $715,412
SCSEBA/REEP Equity $15,559 $15,559
Unappropriated Amount $39,932,594 $37,025,707 $25,536,146

Source: Budget Scenario from Assistant Superintendent of Business (2012)

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 88
Eighty three percent of unrestricted expenditures were dedicated to salaries and
benefits, while 17% went to books and supplies, operating expenses, capital outlay,
indirect costs, inter-fund transfers, and other. Balancing the District budget was a
challenge because of deficit spending and deferred state payments. For every dollar,
22.272% was deficit, money California could not afford to pay, and 30 cents was
deferred or paid by the state later in the year. At the time of this study, Districts balanced
their budget based on 48 cents for every dollar (Assistant Superintendent of Business
Interview, 2012). The District Assistant Superintendent of Business (2012) stated the
goal of balancing the budget was always to keep cuts away from students; however,
regardless of what items are cut, students bear the consequences. Since 2009, the District
cut positions and salaries for certificated, classified, and management staff. Table 4.3
illustrates the reductions in staffing and salaries over the four years prior to this study.
Full time equivalent (FTE) refers to an employee with salary and benefits. FTE layoffs
equal spending reductions from the general fund. Furlough days entail a reduction in
workdays and a corresponding salary reduction.
Table 4.3
Employee Group Concessions
2009/10 2010/11 2011/2012 2012/2013
Certificated  Increase K-3
class size
from 20 to
25
 Lay off 70
FTE
 Increase K-3
class size from
25 to 31
 5 Furlough
days
 Increase 4-12
class size
from 34 to 36
 5 Furlough
days
 Layoff 59 FTE
 Continue 4-12 class
size increase of 36
 5.5 Furlough days
(restored by School
Board and District,
November 13,
2012)
 Restoration of 15
Nurses, 22
Counselors, and 4
Music

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 89
Table 4.3, continued

Classified  Eliminate 17
FTE by
closing three
schools
 6, 7, or 8
Furlough
days
 Eliminate
12.625 FTE
vacancies
 Reduce work
year of 12 FTE
at one E22
 6, 7, or 8
Furlough days
 Eliminate 41
FTE
 Reduce work
year or hours
of 133
positions
 Eliminate 46.135
FTE
Management  Eliminate 15
FTE
 Reclassify 2
FTE
 Reduce work
year of 4
High School
Principals
 Reclassify
Associate
Superintendent
of Human
Resources to
Assistant
Superintendent
 7 Furlough
days
 Eliminate 7
FTE
 Reduce work
year of 47
FTE
 7 Furlough
days
 Assistant
Superintende
nts 10
Furlough days
 Eliminate 13 FTE
 7 Furlough
 Assistant
Superintendents 10
Furlough days
Source: Assistant Superintendent of Business Budget Study Session (2012)
On November 13, 2012, the District School Board held a special meeting with the
Assistant Superintendent of Business as a result of the passage of Proposition 30, the
governor’s tax initiative for education. Prior to the November, to restore nurses,
counselors and music teachers, certificated staff agreed to five and one half furlough
days, reducing the school year from 180 days to 174.5 days. The passage of Proposition
30 resulted in an estimated $2.7 million increase to unrestricted certificated salary
expenditures (Business Services, 2012). The District rescinded the furloughs and restored
the school year to 180 days without further negotiations.
The prior few years of reduction in funding and personnel created challenges in
efforts to raise student achievement; however, the Assistant Superintendent of Business
stated she used these tough fiscal times to learn a lesson on spending; the District was
learning how to spend on what was needed as opposed to what was wanted. While
student achievement continued to improve, the increase had not been enough to meet
AYP requirements.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 90
Introduction of the Findings
Analysis of research data was guided by Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance. The District’s allocation of resources was examined
through each strategy. Desired resource analyses were based on interviews, District
documents, and goals for improvement. The comparison of actual, desired, and Evidence-
Based resource allocation provided information regarding whether the District strategies
for improvement supported student achievement.
The District’s Resource Allocation Strategies
Understanding the performance challenge. The catalyst for change and
improving performance is understanding test data (Hallinger & Heck, 2002); examining
student test data allows districts to acknowledge areas of failure. For districts to improve
achievement, they must know what changes are needed to current practices (Odden,
2009). Figures 4.4 and 4.5 present the District’s data for English-Language Arts and
Mathematics. As proficiency targets increased, more subgroup populations were
identified as failing. At the time of this study, nine of the 12 subgroups did meet
California proficiency targets in both subjects: African American, American Indian or
Alaska Native, Latino, Native Hawaiian, White, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged,
English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities. The three subgroups who did
meet proficiency targets were Asian, Filipino, and Two or More Races.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 91

Figure 4.1, English-Language Arts Proficiency Percentages by LEA and Sub-groups.
Source: California Department of Education (2012) Accountability Progress Report

Figure 4.2. Mathematics Proficiency Percentages by LEA and Sub-groups. Source:
California Department of Education (2012) Accountability Progress Report
The District analyzed test data and needs assessment surveys from staff, parents
and students to determine additional areas of need. Results determined changes were
needed in four categories: English-Language Arts and Mathematics instruction,
alignment of district programs, policies and procedures, and analysis of student
achievement data from multiple sources on a regular basis. In addition, the surveys
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 92
revealed several needs: social-emotional support, more school nurses, the consumption of
school breakfasts in the classroom, intervention counseling services at the secondary
level, additional programs for gang prevention, and alcohol and drug prevention (Local
Educational Agency Plan, 2012). To address each need, the District created ambitious
performance goals.
Setting ambitious goals for improvement. The foundation for setting ambitious
goals is the development of a district-wide vision for improvement. While the vision
itself is not measurable, its purpose is to provide a source of inspiration that guides the
development of measurable goals achievable over time (Odden, 2009). The District’s
vision focused on students developing the necessary personal and academic skills to be
successful, responsible and productive citizens (Strategic Plan, 2010). Desired qualities
of District students were the abilities to problem-solve and show respect for the ideas of
others while maintaining their own identities. In addition, the District recognized
achievement was essential to competing in the global economy and desired to ensure all
students were prepared to achieve their future goals (LEA Plan, 2012). The District’s
mission, based on the belief that all students can learn, was to provide all students with a
rigorous education.
The ambitious goals required to support the vision were structural and academic.
Structural goals focused on district employees with the purpose of increasing student
achievement and supporting the academic goals. Table 4.4 lists the District’s structural
goals.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 93
Table 4.4
District Structural Goals
1 All students have access to appropriate grade level core curriculum that is aligned
with the State Board of Education standards.
2 Instructional materials, pacing guides, and assessments are aligned to K-12
standards-based curriculum and are consistently used by teachers with all students.
3 Instructional materials, equipment, and technology are equitably and readily
accessible at all school sites.
4 Instructional professional development for teachers and administrators is based on
effective instructional practices for all students, grade level core curriculum, and
analysis and use of assessment data to plan instruction.
5 Professional development for classified staff is based on instruction and school
climate and safety.
6 District communication will encourage parental involvement and provide
transparency into governance processes.
Source: Local Education Agency Plan (2012, p. 19)
District academic goals were a response to understanding the performance
challenge. In Table 4.5, the Academic goals demonstrate a focus on English Language
Arts and Mathematics, English Language Learners, and graduation rates.
Table 4.5
District Academic Goals
1 All students will increase one proficiency level in English Language Arts and
Mathematics on the California State Test.
2 All English Learners will increase by one level on the California English
Language Development Test.
3 All students will graduate from high school
Source: Local Education Agency Plan (2012, p. 19)
The academic goals of the district were implemented at the school level, as each
school was required to include the academic goals in their School Improvement Plan and
support the goals by connecting policies, practices, and procedures to the structural goals.
To support improvement plans, schools were allocated site monies to support academic
goals; however, monetary resources for School Improvement Plans were moved into the
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 94
District’s general fund. Title I schools received funding to supplement this loss. Non-
Title I schools received no additional funds and paid for structural and academic goals
through the general budget or created solutions that did not require fiduciary
compensation.
New curriculum and instructional vision. To make improvements, the District
focused on two areas it could directly affect: curriculum and instruction (Togneri and
Anderson, 2003). Prior to being identified as PI, the District initiated a curriculum
change. The previous superintendent created a mandate for the 2005 book adoption cycle
that required all schools and grade levels to adopt the same State Board Approved core
subject textbooks and create pacing guides or curriculum maps and trimester benchmark
assessments based on these uniform textbooks. Teachers volunteered to represent their
grade level and subject to create pacing guides focused on essential standards and
benchmark assessments. By 2008, the District schools and grade levels had adopted the
same core subject textbooks and developed uniform pacing guides and benchmark
assessments. Teachers who had not participated in this process received the results and
were required to implement the pacing guides and assessments. Initially, the District did
not provide professional development to facilitate this process.
After the textbook adoption process was complete, an evaluation of English
Learner test data revealed a weakness in the area of support materials for English
Learners. To remedy the weakness and ensure all students adequate access to grade level
materials, District staff developed support materials to serve as a bridge to the core
materials. The estimated cost for support material production from 2011 to 2014 was
$300,000.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 95
In 2010, the District unified its instructional approaches and hired Action
Learning Systems to implement Direct Interactive Instruction (DII) in the English
Language Arts and Mathematics classrooms (Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instruction, 2012). Action Learning Systems was one of the state approved District
Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT) providers. PI year three requires a DAIT
provider assist in aligning programs, policies, practices and procedures. Contracted
services for the DAIT provider cost $168,000 a year, which was paid through state issued
DAIT funds, but this did not include the cost of professional development or coaches. DII
is research-based, uses best instructional practices and aligns to the California Standards
for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). The DII instructional approach utilizes measurable
objectives, structured lessons utilizing gradual release of responsibility, proactive
classroom management, and continuous feedback and correctives to accomplish the state
standards. From 2010 to 2012, Title I schools received DII training with additional
coaching. English Language Arts and Mathematics departments in Non-Title I schools
received DII training during the 2012-2013 school year.
Data-based decision making. Analyzing data from a variety of sources,
including benchmark tests, formative assessments, and state tests, leads to more
appropriate instruction and better educational attainment (Shannon & Bylsma, 2004;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003). In 2010, the District purchased a license with Illuminate
Data and Assessment, an online data management system that provides cumulative
records that are accessible by district staff, administrators, and teachers. The goal was for
teachers to use their own student data to implement a process that includes making
instructional adjustments, re-teaching, and providing intervention or enrichment as
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 96
needed (LEA, 2012). Student assessment data was also utilized to determine professional
development and resource distribution. (CI Interview, 2012). Administrators provided
data analysis and shared data with their staff. In the LEA plan (2012,) the District
maintained one weakness was data analysis. The Assistant Superintendent of CI (2012)
worked with the principals to review their school data and collaboratively determine
improvement goals. The principals, along with site staff, developed the goals for their
schools. During an open meeting with the Assistant Superintendent of CI and the DAIT
provider, both were surprised to learn some schools did not analyze data, nor did they
know how to utilize the Illuminate data program. Their response was to immediately
schedule training. The District improvement plan added further training to increase
administrator and staff understanding and ability to analyze assessment data to improve
instruction and learning by June 2013. The District committed $90,000 of Title I, Part A
funds to accomplish their Data Based Decision Making goal.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Research indicated quality
teaching outweighs all other strategies to increase student performance (Miles & Frank,
2008). Two primary qualities linked to successful professional development are design
and substance (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon; 2002; Odden, 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009). Professional development design includes form, duration, and
participation. Substance involves content, engagement, and alignment to curriculum. In
addition, Odden (2009) asserted there are three resources necessary for professional
development: pupil free days for training, funds for training, and instructional coaches.
The District, at the time of this study, identified six professional development goals:
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 97
Instruction, Common Core, English Learner development training, Personal Learning
Communities, Data Analysis, and Principal as an instructional leader.
To improve instruction, the District hired Action Learning Systems to bring in
Direct Interactive Instruction (DII) and allocated $680,000 to train English Language
Arts and Mathematics teachers. DII instruction was comprised of an initial two-day
training, two-day follow-up training, in-class demonstrations by coaches, a co-plan/co-
teach period, and in-class observation with feedback. The structure of DII training
includes whole group instruction, collaboration, and coaching, all elements suggested by
research as effective training. The duration for DII is 27 hours. Odden (2009) suggested
educators should be exposed to at least 100 hours, preferably 200 hours; however, teacher
collaboration time can be calculated as a portion of the hours. Participation in DII is
limited to English and Mathematics teachers. The District goal was that all teachers
utilize DII techniques. The content focus was directed towards English and Math because
proficiency was calculated based on the two scores, and, if a child cannot read or write,
s/he will not be successful in other domains. For full implementation of DII in all
subjects, district principals were required to attend DII training with the goal that they
would instruct their teachers. In addition, Instructional Coaches were trained to provide
support to 14 Title I schools. Lack of funding was a barrier in placing Instructional
Coaches in every school.
Common Core training was provided to English and Mathematics teachers. The
informational training was intended to transition current content to the state adopted
Common Core prior to full implementation in 2014. Training was provided by District
allocated Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 98
English Learner professional development was targeted towards specific teachers.
The training included intervention strategies to assist English Learners with mastering
core content. There was no additional cost listed at the district level; however, nine
elementary schools and one high school paid an Intervention teacher with site Title funds
to assist with struggling students. Middle Schools provided English Learner intervention
electives based on comprehension level.
Leadership Academy training for principals was a two-year program focused on
implementing the District Improvement Plan and migrating to the Common Core State
Standards (LEA, 2012). In addition, principals were required to attend training on DII,
data analysis, and professional learning communities (PLCs). The outcome was for
principals to become instructional leaders, trainers, and evaluators. Principals attended
DII and Common Core training when their staff was required to attend. Each principal
meeting at the district revolved around data analysis and setting goals based on student
needs. To evaluate teachers, principals were trained in instructional strategies and subject
area content, and, finally, they were coached to conduct administrative action walk-
throughs. The District and DAIT provider established criteria for instructional indicators
that would eventually be part of educator evaluations and recommendations for
professional growth (LEA, 2012). In turn, site principals chose how to train their staff on
DII, Common Core, Data Analysis, and PLCs.
The District approved early release days for elementary schools and late start days
for secondary schools to have collaborative time for training and grade level/subject
meetings. In addition, secondary schools scheduled common planning time during
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 99
preparation periods, allowing teachers the opportunity to meet daily. The District utilized
time as the main resource for training and collaboration.
Using time efficiently and effectively and addressing the needs of struggling
students. Odden (2009) found schools that doubled student performance used
instructional time effectively. Aronson, Zimmerman, and Carlos (1998) defined three
types of instructional time: allocated time, engagement time, and academic learning time.
All three are required in a school day; however, to improve student performance,
academic learning must occur at a high rate and core subjects must be protected from
interruption. DII training emphasizes student engagement and academic learning. The
resources for DII training were limited to English Language Arts and Mathematics;
therefore, at the time of this study, Social Science, Science, and Language courses did not
have the same instructional knowledge. Core subject courses did follow district pacing
guides that focused on essential standards to limit or eliminate time spent on non-tested
standards. The District required elementary school students at the “intensive level”
receive instruction through core replacement materials with intervention teachers. At the
middle schools, identified students received either a double block of English Language
Arts or Mathematics; however, Mathematics Intervention was targeted towards eighth
graders struggling with Algebra. High school students received intervention based on
their identified needs. Intervention in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and
combination CASHEE courses were scheduled as an elective to provide a double block
of academic learning based on student needs.
After school intervention in Mathematics was provided by Title I schools. Schools
without Title funds relied on teacher volunteers to provide after school tutoring or
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 100
intervention. Finally, summer school was offered on a limited basis. Students in summer
school were in danger of being retained. Middle school students had one seventh grade
and one eighth grade session available during the 2012 summer session. The majority of
high school courses were provided online through the virtual school. On-location high
school summer school was provided for students participating in credit recovery.
Creating a collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership.
Collaboration involves teachers and administrators working together instead of in
isolation. With multi-layers of student achievement goals and training, distributed
leadership emerged as the most effective way to achieve District goals. In 2008, the
District introduced Personal Learning Communities (PLC) to principals, who, in turn,
were required to guide their staff in practice. Within each grade level/subject PLC,
teacher leaders emerged. Teacher leaders attended training or meetings and, in turn,
would train their PLC. Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many (2006) asserted that, when
PLCs are implemented with fidelity, they increase a schools ability to help all students.
Fidelity is comprised of five characteristics: shared values and norms about student
learning, a focus on student learning, reflective dialogue that includes data analysis,
continued conversations about curriculum and instruction, and consistent collaboration
(Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). The District required data meetings with principals prior
to the start of the school year. Principals presented the data to the school staff; finally, the
school staff collaborated in PLC groups to establish specific, measurable, attainable,
realistic, and timely goals to begin the school year. PLCs met on a weekly basis to plan,
analyze data, and review goals. Principals attended PLC meetings as both observers and
leaders. In 2012, the District provided an additional training session for administrators
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 101
and site lead teachers who had not had PLC training (LEA, 2012). The District supported
PLCs by continuing minimum day release for elementary and late start days for
secondary. In addition, secondary schools created master schedules to align PLC
common planning periods. As discussed previously, data analysis was a barrier for some
schools at the time of this study and findings suggest analysis training be provided to lead
grade level/subject teachers or to schools to remedy the barrier.
Professional and best practices. In Odden and Archibald’s (2009) study,
districts and schools worked in collaboration with experts and schools that had
demonstrated success. The District chose assistance from Action Learning Systems
because the company utilized research to guide professional development, which cites
best instructional practices (CI Interview, 2012). Principals and staff received
professional development guided by Standards-based instruction with measurable
objectives, gradual release of responsibility, the provision of constant feedback, data-
based decision making, and Response to Intervention (RTI). Professional development
was based on research from the School Improvement Research Series and books
produced by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and author Kathleen Cotton.
Human capital side. The fastest way to improve a school is to have a well-
planned screening process for teacher and administrator hiring, especially for high needs
schools (Odden, 2009; Webb & Norton, 2008). The budget crisis negatively affected the
District’s recruitment process. Instead of actively recruiting, the Human Resource
Department sent out Reduction in Force (RIF) notices. From 2009 to 2012, RIF notices,
or elimination of positions, were distributed to 70 certificated, 104 classified and 35
management employees. The CBO (2012) did note in the interview that, at the time, the
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 102
fiscal climate was low, but recommended the District look ahead because the economy is
cyclical. Finances would improve and the lessons learned from consolidating could be
applied to future spending with the focus remaining on student achievement. The
Superintendent, Human Resources Department and School Board revised the selection
and recruitment policies to align more closely with the District Strategic Plan. On
November 16, 2012, Board Policy 4111(a) was reviewed and passed. The District
committed to hiring highly qualified individuals as defined by NCLB policies as well as
providing high quality education to district students. Position descriptions were reviewed
to ensure accuracy of functions and duties involved in the position. The job
announcements were to be disseminated to ensure a wide range of candidates. In
addition, candidates for positions would be asked to demonstrate and describe how they
would perform (BP411(a), 2012). Finally, the school board and District supported
working relationships with local universities.
The District’s current approach to improvement included curriculum alignment, a
uniform instructional policy, data-based decision making, and professional development
targeted at mathematics, English language arts and leadership. Curriculum was aligned
district-wide by subject and grade level. In addition, the District accomplished curriculum
mapping based on the essential standards that identified topics to be taught in core
subjects. The Illuminate program, accessible district-wide, supported data decision
making; however, the instructional practice of using data to guide instruction and
collaboration was not uniform across district schools. The common approach to
instruction, DII, was a strategy in progress. Though the District targeted math and
English, the overall goal was for all subject teachers to use DII techniques. Structured
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 103
professional development was limited to math and English, compromising fidelity in
science, social science, and foreign languages. The District had begun implementation of
numerous improvement strategies; however, policies and procedures to ensure
professional development and accountability, which increase practice, were not fully in
place.
The District’s Desired Allocation of Resources
The District’s resource allocations were based on budgeting in a fiscal crisis. The
financial crisis presented unique resource challenges to California’s school districts
(Shambaugh et al., 2011). Funding per student was $8,464 in 2007 and $7,232 in 2011.
The reality for school districts was far less per student than estimated. The deficit factor
is the portion of Average Daily Attendance (ADA) that California cannot afford;
therefore, the funded base revenue per ADA, at the time of this study was $5,149, instead
of $6,485 per student. In 2008, the deficit factor was 7.884% and, by 2012, it was
22.272% of every dollar. According to the Assistant Superintendent of Business (CBO),
91% of unrestricted funds paid for salaries and benefits. Since 2009, 209 positions had
been eliminated. In addition, certificated, classified and management staff accepted a
reduction in salary in the form of furlough days.
Interviews conducted with the Assistant Superintendents of Business (CBO) and
of Curriculum and Instruction (CI), along with evaluations of the District Improvement
Plan and observations of School Board decisions all found support for the goal of
promoting student achievement. Financially, the District lacked the resources to
implement all goals. According to the CBO (2012), the Superintendent’s “what if list” for
desired resources would put the District back into deficit spending by 2015-2016. The
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 104
CBO’s (2012) suggestion was to look at each item and ensure the budget was stable,
without deficit, contained a healthy reserve, and did not require the School Board to make
cuts every year. Desired resources were the use of people and money the District
previously implemented or would like to implement in the future.
Human resource allocation at elementary schools. People make up the most
extensive use of monetary resources for districts, as salaries and benefits account for the
majority of school and district budgets (CBO, 2012; City, 2008). Maintaining the desired
amount of staff to continue district improvement became more difficult with the budget
crisis.
The District’s goals were to increase English Language Arts and Mathematics
proficiency scores, raise English Language Learner proficiency on the CELDT test, and
have 100% of students graduate from high school. To analyze resources in support of
district goals, data were examined for desired amount of core teacher staff, certified
English Learner instructors with intervention time for small groups, and high schools
core teachers in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Science, Science, and
Foreign languages. In addition, high school level data were collected on intervention for
“at risk” students in English, Mathematics, and CAHSEE. Quality teachers affect student
achievement outcomes more than any other factor (Miles & Frank, 2008). One teacher
with five courses in a day equals one FTE. When a teacher is divided between subjects,
especially in secondary schools, the FTE is divided into .2 per class.
Table 4.6 Illustrates the number of core, specialist, and special education teachers
in the District’s 22 elementary schools (E), compared to the desired number. The desired
number is based on district interviews and pre-fiscal crisis contractual agreements about
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 105
class size. The District will no longer be participating in K-3, 20:1 class-size reduction;
therefore, desired class size is 25 to one for K-3 and 32 to one for fourth through sixth
grade. The Difference columns in Table 4.6 contain the variance between the current and
desired amount of teachers and parentheses indicate a negative number.
Table 4.6
Current and Desired District Human Resource Allocations for Elementary Schools
School Current
(CA)
Core
Teachers
Desired
(DA)
Core
Teachers
Difference
between
CA-DA
Current
Specialist
Teachers
Desired
Specialist
Teachers
Difference
between
CA-DA
Current
Special
Education
Teachers
Desired
Special
Education
Teachers
Difference
between
CA-DA
E1 20.0 20.2 (0.2) 0.0 4.0 (4.0) 3.0 3.0 0
E2 30.2 31.9 (1.7) 3.0 6.4 (3.4) 1.6 1.6 0
E3 19.0 19.8 (0.8) 0.0 4.0 (4.0) 0.8 0.8 0
E4 30.8 31.2 (0.4) 2.6 6.2 (3.6) 2.9 2.9 0
E5 23.0 23.9 (0.9) 0.0 4.8 (4.8) 2.5 2.5 0
E6 20.0 21.1 (1.1) 0.0 4.2 (4.2) 1.0 1.0 0
E7 24.0 25.3 (1.3) 0.0 5.1 (5.1) 4.0 4.0 0
E8 17.0 18.0 (1.0) 0.0 3.6 (3.6) 4.0 4.0 0
E9
19.0 19.7 (0.7) 0.0 3.9 (3.9) 1.5 1.5
0
E10 20.0 20.8 (0.8) 0.0 4.2 (4.2) 3.0 3.0 0
E11 17.5 19.0 (1.5) 0.0 3.8 (3.8) 3.0 3.0 0
E12 16.5 18.5 (2.0) 0.0 3.7 (3.7) 4.0 4.0 0
E13 14.5 15.7 (1.2) 0.0 3.1 (3.1) 3.5 3.5 0
E14 21.0 22.3 (1.3) 0.0 4.5 (4.5) 3.5 3.5 0
E15 16.0 16.5 (0.5) 0.0 3.3 (3.3) 3.3 3.3 0
E16 18.0 19.4 (1.4) 0.0 3.9 (3.9) 5.0 5.0 0
E17 24.0 25.3 (1.3) 0.0 5.1 (5.1) 3.0 3.0 0
E18 23.0 23.1 (0.1) 0.0 4.6 (4.6) 3.0 3.0 0
E19 21.5 25.1 (3.6) 0.0 5.0 (5.0) 1.0 1.0 0
E20 20.0 17.7 2.3 0.0 3.5 (3.5) 3.0 3.0 0
E21
23.0 25.7 (2.7) 0.0 5.1 (5.1) 3.8 3.8
0
E22 29.0 30.1 (1.1) 0.0 6.0 (6.0) 2.0 2.0 0
Totals
464.0 490.0 (26.0) 5.6 122.5 (116.9) 62.4 62.4
0

Elementary 19 displays the largest disparity (-3.6) between actual and desired
core teachers. The school was not a Title I or at risk, limiting additional funding that
could compensate for reduced personnel. In addition, E19 was the highest performing
elementary school in the District. The second largest disparity is found for E21, which
did receive Title funding and eight positions were cut from this school: three kindergarten
teachers, one Resource Specialist, one position from first, second, fifth and sixth grades.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 106
E21 was one of the lowest performing schools in the District and chose to spend Title I
site funds on an ELD Intervention teacher and a Teacher on Special Assignment. Staffing
at E15, a non-Title school, did aligned actual numbers with those desired. The school was
able to maintain a smaller core teacher to student ratio. Class size increases in 2011
reduced teacher positions; however, the District student population fell below 30,000 for
the first time in 2012. Both circumstances could be explanations as to why there is a
small disparity between actual and desired numbers of Core teachers.
Elementary schools did not have external or on-staff specialist teachers. Core
teachers were both specialist and English Learner certified. The core teacher provided
physical education instruction during the school day. English Learners were provided
English Language Arts instruction and supported with an additional half hour of targeted
small group EL instruction per day. Special education teachers’ actual and desired
numbers aligned because the District and schools followed the federal guidelines of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and provided specialized instruction according
to student Individualized Education Plans (IEP).
In May 2010, the principal and kindergarten staff at E16 agreed to pilot a full-day
kindergarten program. Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels (2005) conducted multi-
layered research on the different achievement levels of full-day kindergarten and half-day
kindergarten and their analysis determined substantial cognitive growth for full-day
attendees. After a one-year pilot at E16, the teachers decided they were not interested in
continuing full-day kindergarten. The program was a voluntary pilot, and, therefore,
could not be forced on the school or teachers. In addition, classroom space and funds
were limited and full-day kindergarten was an added expenditure.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 107
Human resource allocation in middle schools. The District’s middle schools’
actual and desired numbers of teachers demonstrate a much larger disparity between
actual and desired core and specialist teachers than do those of the elementary schools.
Table 4.7 illustrates the actual number of core, specialist, and English Language Learner
teachers in the District’s five middle schools (M) compared to the desired number. Actual
class sizes were at 36 to one for core and electives, but do not exceed 175 students in a
five-period day and 50 to one for physical education. The parentheses in the Gap columns
indicate a negative number.
Table 4.7
District Resource Allocations Analysis - Middle Schools
Schools Current
(CA)
Core
Teachers
Desired
(DA)
Core
Teachers
Gap
between
CA-DA
Current
(CA)
Specialist
Teachers
Desired
(DA)
Specialist
Teachers
Gap
between
CA-DA
Current
ELL
Teachers
Desired
ELL
Teachers
Gap
between
CA-DA
M1
26.2 32.3 (6.1) 7.8 8.1 (0.3) 0.6 0.4 0.2
M2
20.6 25.3 (4.7) 7.6 6.3 1.3 1.2 1.6 (0.4)
M3
18.6 19.7 (1.1) 4.8 4.9 (0.1) 1.0 1.4 (0.4)
M4
28.0 35.6 (7.6) 9.2 8.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1
M5
11.8 13.8 (2.0) 2.8 3.4 (0.6) 0.4 0.5 (0.1)
Totals
105.2 126.7 (21.5) 32.2 31.6 0.6 3.8 4.4 (0.6)

District Middle schools illustrate a disparity between staffing numbers among all
five schools. M1 and M4 have the largest disparity between actual and desired numbers.
Both schools do not receive Title funds and are high performing. M2, M3, and M5 have
smaller disparities; however, the schools were Title I and chose to use site funds to
maintain smaller class size. M2 and M4 exceed the desired number of specialist teachers,
indicating an emphasis on elective courses. Advancement Via Individual Determination
(AVID), a specialist course, supports the District’s goal for students to experience a
rigorous education and be prepared for college. AVID is calculated as a specialist class;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 108
however, the course supports all core subjects and requires each AVID student to be
placed in one honors course to experience a rigorous workload. Special education teacher
ratios were excluded from this analysis because the District and schools followed IDEA
regulations for special education requirements. English Language Learner (ELL) teachers
were slightly overstaffed at the two highest performing middle schools and slightly
understaffed at the lowest performing schools. These results indicate the lower
performing middle schools had higher teacher to student ratios in ELL classes than the
higher performing schools.
Human resource allocation in high Schools. The District’s high schools focused
on increasing graduation rates. To graduate, students must meet core requirements;
however, if they are to be prepared for college, students must meet certain requirements.
The majority of these are comprised of core classes: two years of history; four years of
English; three years of Mathematics at least up to three dimensional geometry; two years
of laboratory science; two years of a language other than English; one year of visual and
performing arts; and one year of a college-preparatory elective. Table 4.8 illustrates the
four high schools’ and one continuation school’s actual teacher distribution numbers
compared to those desired.
Table 4.8
District Resource Allocations Analysis - High Schools and Continuation School
Schools Current
(CA)
Core
Teachers
Desired
(DA)
Core
Teachers
Gap
between
CA-DA
Current
Specialist
Teachers
Desired
Specialist
Teachers
Gap
between
CA-DA

Current
ELL
Teachers
Desired
ELL
Teachers
Gap
between
CA-
DA
H1 66.0 75.4 (9.4) 22.2 24.9 (2.7) 1.0 0.9 0.1
H2 70.2 73.1 (2.9) 23.2 24.1 (0.9) 2.0 2.4 (0.4)
H3 83.0 90.6 (7.6) 30.2 29.9 0.3 1.0 1.3 (0.3)
H4 56.0 56.3 (0.3) 25.0 18.6 6.4 2.0 2.7 (0.7)
C1 7.8 11.7 (3.9) 3.2 0 3.2 1 n/a n/a
Totals 283 307.1 (24.1) 103.8 97.5 6.3 7 7.3 (0.3)

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 109
The highest performing high school (H1) employs over nine core and almost three
specialist teachers fewer than the desired amount. All four high schools and the
continuation school did not achieve their desired number of core staff; however, H4’s
numbers most aligned to the desired numbers. H4 also had more specialist teachers than
was desired, but this high school offered more career-based elective options than the
other three. H1 met the desired count for ELL teachers whereas H2, H3 and H4 were
missing just a couple of periods in a day, which indicates a higher student to teacher ratio.
Professional development and instructional coaches. The District desired to
have all staff members trained in Direct Interactive Instruction (DII). As of this study,
Elementary teachers and Mathematics and English Language Arts secondary teachers
received DII training. There were 334 remaining teachers in need of DII training, which
would cost $668,000 based on the projected costs issued by the Program Improvement
Director (2012). To avoid additional training costs, the remaining 334 teachers were
trained by site principals. Effectiveness of principal training sessions were determined
during DAIT provider/District walk-throughs. According to the Assistant Superintendent
of CI and the DAIT provider, the strongest opposition for DII implementation came from
high schools. The Assistant Superintendent of CI stated that, through her observations,
schools with full implementation of DII saw measurable student achievement and fewer
disciplinary problems.
Instructional Coaches were recommended to the District by the DAIT provider to
assist in the implementation of DII strategies. Instructional coaching has an impact on
teacher quality, which is the variable that improves student achievement (Knight, 2008).
In addition, Odden (2009) asserted instructional coaches provide in-classroom coaching
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 110
to help professional development change from knowledge to implementation. At the
District, there were 14 Instructional Coaches assigned to 12 Title I schools. The desired
number of Instructional Coaches to support DII implementation was an additional one per
elementary and two per secondary school, which equates to an additional 13 for
elementary, five for middle school, and eight for high school throughout the district.
Distributed leadership. Effective leadership is second only to quality teaching as
a factor in improving student performance (Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009; Waters,
Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Elementary schools on average have one principal and
share one assistant principal, middle schools have one principal and one to one and a half
assistant principals, and high schools have one principal and three assistant principals. At
the time of this study, the Superintendent wanted to provide 10 additional assistant
principals at the elementary level as soon as possible because the position increases the
Principals ability to perform instructional leadership responsibilities. The cost for 10
Assistant Principals would be $971,497 for 2013 and $2,914,491 over three years. The
cost was analyzed over a three-year period to maintain district financial solvency and
avoid future cuts. The desired number of middle school Assistant Principals was two for
M1, M2, M3, and one at M4. That would require three additional Assistant Principals.
The distribution, at the time of this study, was four middle schools sharing a second
Assistant Principal. The estimated cost at $110,238 per Assistant Principal would be
$330,714 and, over three years, $992,142.
District leadership believed everyone had a role in improvement. Site leaders
attended all professional development and, in turn, became instructional leaders. In
addition, principals and assistant principals managed school sites, protected instruction
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 111
time, analyzed data, prepared the school for testing, and managed discipline. Elmore
(2000) confirmed improvement requires people with multiple sources of expertise work
in concert to accomplish student achievement goals.
The Superintendent recommended and received approval for the reinstatement of
Grade level/Department Chair stipends from the School Board on December 13, 2012.
According to the Superintendent, grade level/department chairs act as liaisons between
the principal and teaching staff. He believed they have a direct impact on instruction and
curriculum, influencing student achievement (Board Meeting, December 2012). In
addition, principals had requested the reinstatement because of the role distributed
leadership played in promoting Professional Learning Communities. Department chairs
attended monthly management meetings with the principal to address issues facing
student performance, the school, and staff; in turn, the minutes and issues were delivered
to the department team. The cost for reinstating stipends was $209,201.00 for the
remainder of 2012-2013 school year, and $1,104,750 over three years.
Actual and Desired Resource Allocations across the District
Districts do have to improve student achievement with fewer financial resources
and the hope that the economy will improve. As the Assistant Superintendent of Business
stated, “the financial situation is cyclical, and times will get better.” A lesson to be
learned from the crisis is how to spend strategically. Analyzing the current and desired
distribution of personnel and resources can provide a clear picture of how the District
should allocate resources and whether those decisions are best for student achievement. It
is clear the majority of funding paid for salaries and benefits, and, because the District’s
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 112
goals were centered on student achievement, the majority of funding was spent on people
and improving people.
Table 4.9 illustrates the difference between actual and desired distribution of
funds across the district. The listed positions were the focus of discussion during
interviews and data analysis. Special Education positions were not included because the
District follows IDEA protocol, and ELL positions were omitted because they
demonstrated minor differences at the secondary level and none at the elementary level.
Numbers of academic extra help staff were based on the number of “at risk” students
throughout the District and were staffed by certified teacher tutors, intervention
specialists, and reading teachers who worked with students one-on-one or in small group
settings. Parentheses indicate a negative number. All positions, with the exception of
Principals, are negative and require additional revenue to support desired resource
allocations.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 113
Table 4.9
Allocation of Current versus Desired Resources
Title Position
Count
Current
Position
Count
Desired
Difference
between C and
D
Position Cost
(Average)
Expenditure
Difference
Principal 32 32 0 $127,790 0
Assistant Principal 29 44 (15) $110,238 $1,653,570
Instructional
Coaches
14 62 (48) $80,000 $3,840,000
Core Teachers 852.2 923.7 (71.5) $80,000 $5,718,300
Specialist Teachers 141.6 242.8 (101.2) $80,000 $8,093,992
Academic extra
help staff
7.1 32 (24.9) $80,000 $1,992,000
Extended
day/summer school
staff
16 19.8 (3.8) $80,000 $304,000
DII Professional
Development
314 648 (334) $2,000 $668,000
Total $22,269,862

The District’s numbers align for principal positions; however, the remaining areas
demonstrate various disparities between actual and desired resources. In December 2012,
the Superintendent placed 10 elementary school assistant principals on his “what if” list
for the 2013-2014 school year. If funding were allocated towards assistant principals, the
difference between actual and desired would be five; however, the data in Table 4.9 show
a disparity of 15. To balance the 2012-2013 budget, elementary, middle school, and high
school principal numbers were reduced. Class size was increased in elementary and
secondary schools in both core and specialist courses. The specialist teacher desired class
size is based on 32 students per class; however, this does not calculate for the 50 student
to teacher physical education classes. For example, M1 has 1034 students and 4.4 FTE
specialist positions at 50 students per teacher, per period. Reducing physical education
classes to 32 students per teacher would require 10 additional periods of instruction or
two FTE positions. Physical education positions averaged across middle and high schools
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 114
equals 18 FTE, changing negative 101.2 to 83.2 specialist positions for a difference of
$6,656,000 instead of $8,093,992.
The numbers of academic extra help staff positions show a disparity of 24.9 FTE
positions. Extra help for “at risk” students was embedded in the school day. The Assistant
Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction claimed every school had after-school help
but could not elaborate on how many or specific programs. After-school help was
established by each school, but was not district controlled. With the fiscal situation, non-
Title I schools had voluntary after-school help programs. Teachers volunteered to tutor or
assist students after school; however, there was no requirement for “at risk” students to
participate. The District did participate in Supplemental Education Services (SES) for
schools in P.I. status, which is federal funding for SES used for external tutoring services.
At the time of this study, the District had 3,000 applicants but funding for only 750
students. The remaining students were placed on a waitlist in order of need. Summer
school actual and desired resource allocation was scheduled according to the number of
students at risk for retention or high school credit recovery. Online courses supplemented
the need for more FTE positions, but the District was short almost four (3.8) teachers
from its desired number.
Professional development costs are listed as a deficit based on the District’s goal
of training all teachers in Direct Interactive Instruction (DII). Accomplishing that goal
would require training 334 teachers at an estimated cost $668,000. To supplement this
cost, the District trained all principals to become DII instructional leaders. The disparity
between actual training numbers and desired training numbers is caused by the number of
DII instructional coaches. Knight (2009) found, in their study of Topeka, Kansas,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 115
instructional coaches and teachers, that 15% of teachers who received high quality
training implemented the new skills, whereas 85% of teachers who received the same
training with instructional coaching implemented the new skill. The defining
characteristics of instructional coaching were the techniques of modeling and feedback.
The primary cost of salaries and benefits presents a difficult challenge between
the actual and desired resource allocation. The average cost of a teacher or instructional
coach, $80,000, is the District’s highest salary level, illustrating that the majority costs
are associated with veteran teachers. California, like most states, has automatic pay
increases for teachers and administrators and a growing benefits cost. At the time of this
study, teachers were paid based on steps and columns, which means, every year, they are
given an increase for experience. Some districts participated in step and column freezes
to balance the budget, but teachers moved up in salary for years and across columns
because of educational attainment. The District’s mailing of Reduction in Force (RIF)
notices it was based on “last hired, first out.” Teachers were not laid off for performance,
but for fewer years of service. This methodology increases cost, but has no significant
impact on student performance (Odden & Picus, 2011).
A Gap Analysis between the Actual and Desired Resource Allocations of the District
and What Research Says is Most Effective
A Gap Analysis was conducted on the District’s utilization of resources for 32
schools (22 elementary, five junior high schools, four high schools, and one continuation
school). The focal points for the Gap Analysis include full-time equivalent certificated
and classified positions and discretionary funds. The researcher gathered data in the fall
of 2012 from the departments of Human Resources, Curriculum and Instruction,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 116
Business, Nutritional Services, and Program Improvement and from School Board
meetings. The data collected enabled the researcher to enter people and finances into the
Evidence-Based Excel Simulation to provide verification of gaps among actual numbers,
desired numbers, and the Evidence-Based model’s (EBM) resource allocation
methodology. Calculations provided in the EBM are based on strategies proven to
increase student achievement and align with Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance.
The Gap Analysis model created by Clarke and Estes (2008) was the conceptual
framework used to determine the District’s resource reallocation needs. The initial step
was to identify the District goals for improvement. Next, current and desired allocations
of resources were compared to the EBM to determine gaps. Then, identification of
barriers ascertained whether the gaps were based on issues related to knowledge and
skills, motivation, or organization. Clarke and Estes (2008) defined knowledge and skill
gaps as stemming from the fact that people do not know how to achieve organizational
goals. Motivation is determining whether people choose to work towards the goals.
Organizational barriers are ineffective or inefficient organizational work processes and
material resources. Once the causes of the gaps were identified, the final step was
implementation of possible resource reallocation solutions to support student
achievement strategies and District goals.
Class-size. The Evidence Based Model’s (EBM) recommendations support
smaller class-sizes. The concept of instructional improvement within the EBM promotes
initial instruction should be in small core classes at all grade levels (Odden, Picus, &
Goetz, 2009). Odden & Picus (2011) also asserted that, in times of fiscal stress, schools
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 117
and districts should resist the pressure to reduce class size because reducing by one or
two students consumes a large portion of the budget. In addition, class-size reduction
studies have only been conducted on the lower elementary grades, and the amount of
money it would take to reduce class size for a large district was not financially feasible at
the time of this study. Actual and desired class-size ratios were compared to the EBM
within core and specialist classes. Results revealed core classes in six K-3 Title I schools
could be reduced with the use of Title funds, and specialist courses were aligned closely
to the desired outcome. Human resource changes were not necessary; however, a school-
by-school examination of course offerings would be beneficial for the District.
The District’s student to teacher class ratios were negotiated by the certificated
union and the District to not exceed 31:1 in K-3 and 36:1 in 4-12. The desired district and
certificated union ratio is 25:1 in K-3 and 32:1 in 4-12. The EBM recommends a 15:1
ratio for K-3 and 25:1 for grades 4-12 (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2009). In Table 4.10, 22
District elementary schools’ core teacher data demonstrate the gaps among actual, desired
distribution of core teachers and the EBM allocation recommendation.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 118
Table 4.10
Elementary Core Teacher Allocation Count
Schools Student
Population
Current
Allocation of
Core Teachers
(CA)
Desired
Allocation of
Core Teachers
(DA)
EBM
Allocation
of Core
Teachers
EBM
Difference
Between CA
and DA
Difference
Between
CA and
EBM
E1 603 20.0 20.2 33.5 (0.2) (13.5)
E2 976 30.2 31.9 48.6 (1.7) (18.4)
E3 593 19.0 19.8 32.2 (0.8) (13.2)
E4 942 30.8 31.2 48.6 (0.4) (17.8)
E5 715 23.0 23.9 38.9 (0.9) (15.9)
E6 621 20.0 21.1 34.4 (1.1) (14.4)
E7 754 24.0 25.3 42.1 (1.3) (18.1)
E8 538 17.0 18.0 28.9 (1.0) (11.9)
E9 583 19.0 19.7 32.3 (0.7) (13.3)
E10 617 20.0 20.8 34.1 (0.8) (14.1)
E11 565 17.5 19.0 30.9 (1.5) (13.4)
E12 559 16.5 18.5 31.1 (2.0) (14.6)
E13 467 14.5 15.7 25.4 (1.2) (10.9)
E14 663 21.0 22.3 36.3 (1.3) (15.3)
E15 492 16.0 16.5 26.8 (0.5) (10.8)
E16 584 18.0 19.4 32.2 (1.4) (14.2)
E17 765 24.0 25.3 41.7 (1.3) (17.7)
E18 686 23.0 23.1 37.9 (0.1) (14.9)
E19 738 21.5 25.1 40.9 (3.6) (19.4)
E20 525 20.0 17.7 28.9 (0.7) (11.9)
E21 772 23.0 25.7 42.6 (2.7) (19.6)
E22 902 29.0 30.1 49.5 (1.1) (20.5)
Totals 14,660 464 490 798.1 (26) (334.1)

The gap between actual and desired allocation of elementary core teachers show
an average understaffing number of 1.2 teachers, totaling 26 teachers. Compared to the
EBM, the District elementary schools, on average, were understaffed by 15 teachers,
totaling 334. The cost of eliminating the gap between actual and desired staffing is
$2,078,467 and that of eliminating the gap between actual and EBM-recommended
numbers is $26,726,400. This does not include the cost of new facilities to house the
additional 26 to 334 classrooms required.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 119
Implementation of class size reduction to meet EBM requirements was not
financially feasible and there were mixed results over the effects of small class size;
however, the Tennessee STAR experiment generated the largest gains of payoff returns
for reducing class size (Whitehurst & Chingos, 2011). Reducing K-3 class size to 15
students per teacher, especially for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds
produced gains through high school. The EBM recommends early intervention to avoid
special education costs later. The caveat to reducing class size is that teachers hired
would be highly qualified and effective. Table 4.11 illustrates the human resource count
and cost of the six lowest performing elementary schools with the highest population of
students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds (E1, E9, E10, E16, E17, and E21).
Instead of reducing class size across the District, focused reduction for K-3 grades in low
performing schools would support the EBM’s recommendations and District strategies
for improvement. In addition, Table 4.11 includes returning to the agreed upon class size
and cost of reinstatement.
Table 4.11
Class Size Reduction for Six Elementary Schools
Title K-3 Student
Population
Current
Allocation
Count
15:1
Allocation
Count
Additional
Funding
Required to
Implement 15:1
Return
to 25:1
Funding
Required to
Implement
25:1
E1 332 11 22 $880,000 13.3 $184,000
E9 337 11 22.5 $920,000 13.5 $200,000
E10 354 12 23.6 $928,000 14.2 $176,000
E16 330 10 22 $960,000 13.2 $256,000
E17 418 14 27.9 $1,112,000 16.7 $216,000
E21 425 14 28.3 $1,144,000 17 $240,000
Total
s
1,896 72 146.3 $5,944,000 87.9 $1,272,000

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 120
To accomplish class-size reduction in the six schools, Title funds spent on student
to teacher ratios would become the main strategy for improvement. The cost for a ratio of
15:1 is almost six million dollars. It would be more cost effective to return struggling
schools to the 25:1 ratio; however, the Tennessee STAR study found the highest benefits
in the 15:1 to 17:1 ratios. Focused reduction in K-3 could yield long-term cost benefits
(Schanzenbach, 2010).
District middle schools demonstrate a clear distinction between Title I and non-
Title I schools. With additional funding, schools may choose to staff more positions. In
Table 4.12, District middle schools illustrate that non-Title I schools (M1 and M4) have
the largest disparities among actual, desired, and EBM distribution of core teachers. In
addition, M2, M3, and M5 were designated Program Improvement (PI), allowing parents
the option of applying for a school of choice, like M1 and M4. The student population
increase from PI school student transfers to M1 and M4 may not equal the transfer of
teachers. Instead, principals could decide it is more cost effective to add an extra period
of instruction to one or more teachers’ schedules, essentially removing a preparation or
common planning period to compensate for additional students.
Table 4.12
Middle School Core Teacher Allocation Count
Schools Student
Population
Current
Allocation
of Teachers
(CA)
Desired
Allocation of
Teachers
(DA)
EBM
Allocation
of
Teachers
Difference
Between CA
and DA
Difference
Between CA
and EBM
M1 1034 26.2 32.3 41.4 (6.1) (15.2)
M2 809 20.6 25.3 32.4 (4.7) (11.8)
M3 629 18.6 19.7 25.2 (1.1) (6.6)
M4 1138 28.0 35.6 45.5 (7.6) (17.5)
M5 441 11.8 13.8 17.6 (2.0) (5.8)
Totals
4,051 105.2 126.7 162.1 (21.5) (56.9)
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 121
Core staffing ratios comply with the EBM approach; the more “at risk” students a
school has, the more resources it receives. M2 has 76.6% of its students qualify for the
Free or Reduced Price Lunch program, M3 has 95% and M5 has 78%. M1 and M4 have
the highest population of students with the lowest “at risk” count. The student teacher
ratios are more closely aligned to desired count at the schools with more “at risk”
students and less aligned at the schools with fewer. Across the District, middle schools’
desired core teacher counts are understaffed on average 4.3 teachers per school for a total
of 21.5. According to the EBM staffing ratio, the District middle schools are understaffed
on average 11.38 teachers per school for a total of 56.9. Closing the gap between actual
and desired staffing would cost an estimated $1,711,500 and it would take $4,547,200 to
close gap between actual staffing numbers and those recommended by the EBM.
The four District high schools and the continuation school did not receive Title IA
funding, which would come with federal AYP accountability requirements. The staffing
numbers for H2 and H4 show the smallest gap for core teacher numbers. H4 is the lowest
performing high school and has the highest population of “at risk” students (Table 4.13).
Table 4.13
High School Core Teacher Allocation Count
Schools Student
Population
Core
Teachers –
Current
Allocation
(CA)
Core
Teachers –
Desired
Allocation
(DA)
Core Teachers
– Evidence
Based Model
Allocation
(EBM)
Difference
Between CA
and DA
Difference
Between CA
and EBM
H1 2413 66.0 75.4 96.5 (9.4) (30.5)
H2 2339 70.2 73.1 93.6 (2.9) (23.4)
H3 2900 83.0 90.6 116.0 (7.6) (33.0)
H4 1802 56.0 56.3 72.1 (0.3) (16.1)
C1 175 7.8 11.7 25.0 (3.9) (17.2)
Totals 9,629 283 307.1 403.2 (24.1) (120.2)

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 122
Similar to the results for the elementary and middle schools, the largest gaps are
found in the numbers for H1 and H3, the top performing high schools. High performing
schools have fewer teachers than desired. They also offer more Core Advanced
Placement (AP) courses than the lower-performing schools, indicating high student to
teacher ratios in AP courses. On average, the understaffing number of core teachers at the
high schools and the continuation school is 4.8 for a total of 24.1. To close the gap
between these numbers and the desired numbers would cost $1,928,333. The EBM
recommends increasing, on average, by 24 core teachers per school, or 120.2 core
teachers, for an estimated cost of $9,612,800.
Specialist teachers. Specialist teachers, or elective teachers, instruct students in
subjects outside the core: Physical Education, Computer Science, Leadership, and Band,
among other subjects. In the elementary setting, the EBM recommends specialist teachers
for blocks of planning time per grade level. At the time of this study, the District did not
have specialist teachers listed in elementary positions. Examinations of gaps took place
for the secondary levels. The EBM recommends five-periods, or 3.6 specialist teachers,
per prototypical middle school of 450 students, maintaining a 25:1 ratio (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, 2009). As the student population increases, numbers of specialist teachers are
increased to maintain the ratio.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 123
Table 4.14
Middle School Specialist Teachers
School Specialist
Teachers
Current
Allocation
(CA)
Specialist
Teachers
Desired
Allocation
(DA)
Specialist
Teachers
(EBM)
CA – DA
Gap
CA – EBM
Gap
M1 7.8 8.1 8.3 (0.3) (0.5)
M2 7.6 6.3 6.5 1.3 1.1
M3 4.8 4.9 5.0 (0.1) (0.2)
M4 9.2 8.9 9.1 0.3 0.1
M5 2.8 3.4 3.5 (0.6) (0.7)
Totals 32.2 31.6 32.4 0.6 (0.2)

The numbers for the middle schools do not demonstrate significant gaps in
relation to the desired or EBM columns. The allocation of teachers exceeds the desired
number by three periods (0.6) of specialist, teachers and the EBM recommendation
requires two periods of a specialist teacher. The factors not calculated include specialist
courses that are not limited to 25 or 36 students. Physical education and choir have a
maximum of 50 students, whereas band courses range from under 25 to over 40.
Specialist teacher calculations were closely aligned with EBM recommendations.
High school specialist courses offer more variety than those found in the middle
grades. High schools offer specialist courses that meet college readiness requirements and
Regional Occupational Programs or vocational specialist classes. The EBM recommends
providing specialist teachers at the rate of 33% of core teachers. In Table 4.15, negative
numbers are displayed in parentheses.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 124
Table 4.15
High School and Continuation School Specialist Teachers
School Specialist
Teachers Current
Allocation (CA)
Specialist
Teachers Desired
Allocation (DA)
Specialist
Teachers
Evidence Based
Model (EBM)
Specialist
CA – DA
Gap
Specialist
CA – EBM
Gap
H1 22.2 24.9 31.9 (2.7) (9.7)
H2 23.2 24.1 30.9 (0.9) (7.7)
H3 30.2 29.9 38.3 0.3 (8.1)
H4 25.0 18.6 23.8 6.4 1.2
C1 3.2 0.0 n/a 3.2 n/a
Totals 103.8 97.5 124.9 6.3 (24.3)

H4 offers more vocational specialist courses and exceeds both the desired and
EBM allocation of specialist teachers. ROP includes culinary arts, health sciences, and
emergency medical technician courses. Specialty courses with advancement possibilities
include carpentry, floriculture, digital video and publication, and civil engineering. The
staffing numbers for H4 indicate a preference for specialty courses. The Continuation
high school offers art and physical education options, with one offering of work
experience. H1, H2, and H3 were understaffed, according to EBM recommendations, on
average 8.5 specialist teachers. To meet EBM recommendations would cost an additional
$2,040,000. According to the EBM, specialist teachers can provide core teachers with
time during the day for collaborative planning (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2009). At the
time of this study, the District promoted two collaboration options: early release and late
start days once a week, and common subject preparation periods (CPT). As principals
control master schedules, it is an option to create a master schedule that includes CPT,
allowing for daily collaboration time. To resolve the CPT issue and not increase specialist
teachers, the District could mandate principals to include CPT into the master schedule.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 125
Resources to Support Best Practices
Multiple resources are needed to support best practices. A comparison of
resources by type of school and the EBM provided positions for reallocation to best meet
District goals. This section summarizes the data on administrative and clerical support,
multiple resources for struggling students, pupil support and instructional support. A
District overview is presented to describe the actual and desired resource allocations and
provide a comparison with the EBM. A topic breakdown analyzes the distribution of
resources in each school type: elementary, middle, and high schools.
Allocation of funds for site administrative positions and clerical staff experienced
reductions since 2008. Positions that support school management and learning include
principals, assistant principals, librarians, library technicians, library paraprofessionals,
secretaries/clerks and supervisory aides. Multiple resources for struggling students are
tutor positions, extended- day and summer school staff, funds for gifted students, and
intervention teachers. Pupil support is non-academic but supports students’ health and
well-being. These positions include guidance counselors, intervention counselors, family
liaisons, and nurses. Instructional coaches ensure professional development goals and
implementation provide instructional support. Table 4.16 presents the district overview
of each position in each category, and negative numbers are placed in parentheses.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 126
Table 4.16
District Resources to Support Best Practices
Position Current
(CA)
Desired
(DA)
EBM CA-DA CA-EBM
Administrative and Clerical
Principals 32 32 32 0 0
Assistant Principals 29 47 30.4 (18) (1.4)
Librarians 1 1 31 0 (30)
Library Technicians 9 9 0 0 9
Library Paraprofessionals 13 24 0 (11) 13
Secretaries/Clerks 105.3 131.4 130.4 (26.1) (25.1)
Supervisory Aides 30.6 57.3 130.4 (26.7) (99.8)
Support for Struggling Students
Academic extra help staff 7.1 32.1 140.4 (25) (133.3)
Extended Day/Summer School
Staff
16 107 233.3 (91) (217.3)
Pupil Support Staff
Non-Academic Pupil Support 63 98.7 226.6 (35.7) (163.6)
Nurses 15 31 37.6 (16) (22.8)
Instructional Support
Instructional Coaches 14 29 140.8 (15) (126.8)
Position Totals 335 599.5 1,132.9 (264.5) (798.1)

Administrative and clerical. District-wide, the numbers of principals and
assistant principals align with EBM recommendations; however, the desired number is
negative 18 assistant principals. At the end of the 2012 school year, assistant principals
were reduced across all school types. Elementary schools shared assistant principals and
middle and high schools were reduced by one assistant principal. The Superintendent
placed 10 additional elementary school assistant principals for the 2013-2014 school year
on his “what if” list. According to the EBM, the District was under spending by (1.4)
assistant principals. Considering the District’s goal of implementing Direct Interactive
Instruction and Data Decision making, instructional coaches would be a feasible option.
The average salary for an elementary assistant principal, at the time of this study, was
$95,000. Ten assistant principals equal $950,000, which could provide 11 instructional
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 127
coaches to bring the District closer to the desired number in that category. In addition,
instructional coaches provide professional development during early release/late start
days, meet with professional learning communities for small group instruction, and
provide in-class modeling and feedback required for implementation.
At the time of this study, the District employed one Librarian who focused her
work at the high school level. Library technicians worked at the middle and high schools.
Library paraprofessionals worked part-time at the elementary level. According to the
EBM, the District should have one librarian per school, with the exception of the
Continuation school. Close the EBM gap for librarians would require $2,400,000.
Combining the cost of technicians and paraprofessionals equals $1,076,096. Under this
second scenario, the District would have save over a million dollars and would still have
part-time help at elementary schools. Traditionally, library technicians and
paraprofessionals are the assistants to librarians; however, with a tight budget,
technicians and paraprofessionals took the place of librarians at the elementary and
middle school levels. At the time of this study, it was not feasible to increase the number
of librarians. A temporary solution to benefit teachers and students would be summer
training for technicians and paraprofessionals on how to plan with teachers, identify
materials for teachers, and in-service training for teachers and students on library literacy
conducted by the librarian.
Secretaries and clerks assist with running a school. The fiscal situation reduced
the classified work force by 116.6 positions across the District. This accounts for
classified staff at all schools and at the district office. The gaps between desired numbers
and those proposed by the EBM are 25 and 26, respectively, and, though the secretarial
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 128
staff is vital to the function of schools, an increase in numbers is not recommended. To
increase student achievement, resource use needs to be allocated to areas that directly
affect student performance.
Supervisory aides are utilized in the EBM recommendation for before- and after-
school supervision and lunch-time supervision. Based on the District student population,
the desired number of supervisory aides is understaffed by 26.7 and the EBM
recommendation requires an additional 99.8. The differences among the actual, desired
and EBM recommendations are due to district practices based on certificated union
contract agreements. At the time of this study, Administrators and Teachers were
required to perform before and after school supervision, which meant that supervisory
aides were needed at lunch only. Aides were distributed at three to five people working
one and one half hours a day at the elementary and middle school levels. High schools
had two people working one and one half hours a day and two full- time security
personnel. District teachers conducted before- and after-school voluntary tutor time, and
supervision requirements interfered with that time. Closing the gap between actual
numbers and those recommended by the EBM would require an additional $2,750,561,
which may be viewed as money better spent on hiring instructional coaches, certificated
tutors, administration, or on reducing class size.
Support for struggling students. Resources to support struggling students
include certificated tutors, summer school staff, English Language Learner (ELL)
teachers, Instructional Aides, and allocating funds for the Gifted and Talented program
(Odden & Picus, 2011). The EBM recommends certificated tutors embedded in the
school day and after school at a maximum of five students to one tutor. At the time of this
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 129
study, the District did not supply full-day certificated tutors. Tutors at the school level are
site-based decisions and each school had the option to pay on-staff teachers additional
monies for after-school tutoring. Summer school staff member numbers were reduced to
support students in danger of retention or in need of credit recovery. At the time of this
study, the District had sixteen staff members listed for summer school; none in
elementary, two in middle schools, and fourteen in high schools. The desired number was
107 based on goals for student achievement and “at risk” percentages. The EBM
recommends an additional 217 teachers. First instruction is best instruction; therefore,
additional monies should first be spent on instructional coaches, professional
development, smaller K-3 class size, and then on summer school.
The District supplied English and Mathematics intervention programs, embedded
in the school day, for struggling and ELL students. Intensive intervention programs used
for English were “Gateways” and “Read 180” and, for math, an additional fifteen minutes
in K-6 and two periods of Algebra in grade eight through successful completion. English
Language Learner programs were “Amazing English” in Kindergarten, “Into English” in
first through sixth grades, “English 3D” in middle schools, and “Edge” in high schools.
Instructional aides were intended to provide support to teachers. The District
schools had early childhood, computer, and bilingual instructional aides. According to the
EBM, the District should have almost four instructional aides, placing the alignment
count at 24.5 more than the District required. Title funds, including those for early
childhood education, utilized the aides to meet student population needs.
Gifted and Talented Education funds supplied $25 per gifted student prior to the
2012-2013 school year. At the time of this study, schools received $8 per gifted student.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 130
The EBM recommends funding at $25 per student for Gifted and Talented Education
programs. To balance the District budget, large portions of Tier Three funds were swept
into the general budget. According to the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instruction, $50,000 from Gifted and Talented Education Program and from Curriculum
and Instruction positions were reduced, and workbooks were no longer used as
consumables. In addition, CHASEE funds were reduced by $50,000 and Instructional
Materials funds lost $1,000,000. The purchase of textbooks was delayed for two reasons:
full implementation of Common Core Standards in 2014 and financial instability.
Non-academic pupil support. The EBM labels guidance counselors, nurses, and
family liaisons as non-academic pupil support with positions supplied at a rate of one
position for every 100 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. At the time of this
study, District totals for pupil support were 63 with a desired 98.7, and the EBM
recommends 226.6 based on the student population. Guidance counselors were utilized at
the high school level and counseling assistants performed clerical duties at the middle
schools such as preparation and selection of class schedules. Health technicians were
included in the District count, whereas the EBM does not mention them because nurses
are preferred. Fifteen nurses were employed, but 31 were desired. Based on the student
population, the EBM recommends 37.6. Elementary schools have one health technician
for three and one half hours, middle schools for five and one half hours, and high schools
for seven hours. Health technicians assist the nurse and, when the nurse is at another
school, the technician monitors the students with the caveat that any illness or injury
occurring to a student which requires medical attention necessitates a phone call to the
student’s parents or to emergency services.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 131
Family liaison positions were incorporated into the Assistant Principals’ extra
duty at 15 elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, and at the
continuation school. One percent of Title funds were allocated to support the 0.2 position
and fund parental activities and presentations. In addition, the District held Partnership
for Learning meetings three times a year. Based on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility
numbers, family liaisons should be added at minimum to the 11 Title I schools. The
benefits of community liaisons are school support, juvenile court services support, family
and community support, and documentation (Howard & Huff, 2001). A valid point made
by the liaisons in the Howard and Huff (2001) study was that, the earlier students are
identified as “at risk” and receive assistance, the more preventative the liaisons can be.
Human Resources categorized the position as School Community Liaison, classified. The
salary expenditure for 11 liaisons would be at minimum $292,336 to a maximum of
$355,256. Howard and Huff (2001) explained the liaisons were spread too thin, and some
liaisons felt they were not being as effective because their caseloads included too many
children. With fiscal uncertainty, elementary schools with the most “at risk” students
could be identified first for liaisons and, as finances stabilize, more positions should be
added according to need.
Instructional coaches. Instructional coaches provide in-class coaching and are
the key to changing instructional practice (Odden, 2009; Picus and Associates, 2008). At
the time of this study, the District employed 14 Instructional Coaches utilizing Title I
funds: nine are at the elementary level and five in middle schools. District-wide teachers
should implement Direct Interactive Instruction (DII), and, to support this goal, an
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 132
additional 15 coaches would be needed. The EBM recommends one instructional coach
for every 200 children, totaling 140.8.
EBM recommendations are supported by research and, initially, sound like a
district and school utopia; however, the fiscal situation in California at the time of this
study did not allow for supplying personnel or monetary resources at these levels. Odden
and Picus (2011) acknowledged the difficulty of improving schools during times of fiscal
stress and recommended resisting class size reduction, looking at strategies that increase
performance without additional costs, and identifying resources districts can afford to
meet their vision. It is evident that class-size reduction was not feasible; however,
focused class-size reduction utilizing Title funds is possible. Maintaining actual
administrative numbers is recommended by the EBM. Overall, with a tight budget,
district options are limited. The next section discusses the reasons for the resource gaps
and presents recommendations for current resource reallocation and future reallocation.
Diagnosing Performance Gaps
At the time of this study, the national goals for student achievement were rapidly
approaching the deadline for 100% proficiency in 2014. Districts were required to
accomplish proficiency goals with less monetary support. The fiscal crisis caused
reductions in force for the study District to the point that accomplishing, monitoring and
following through on goals and strategies was dependent on fewer people. Initially, the
evaluation of an organization was conducted through interviews, observations, and data
analysis, which was presented in prior sections. Then, Clarke and Estes (2008) asserted
“the Big Three” causes found to be critical factors in diagnosing performance gaps:
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 133
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. The purpose of examining
District gaps was to develop solutions or, in this case, recommendations.
Knowledge and skills. In a gap analysis, it is necessary to determine what people
know and how they apply their knowledge (Clarke & Estes, 2008). The District goal,
“All students will increase one proficiency level in English Language Arts and
Mathematics on the California State Test,” was supported by the structural goal of
instructional professional development through Direct Interactive Instruction (DII) and
Illuminate for Data decision making for all teachers and administrators. Training for DII
was limited to English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics teachers; however, the
District required all teachers to implement DII techniques. A solution was to train
principals to become instructional leaders for the remaining staff. The training received
by ELA and math teachers encompassed four days of off-site training, in class modeling,
co-teaching, and feedback. The knowledge and skills of the remaining staff members
were not developed to the extent that DII full implementation would be likely to occur.
A strength listed in the Local Education Agency Plan (2012) is Illuminate, a web
based program for data-based decision making. The District acknowledged a weakness in
using data analyses to guide and modify instructional decisions. Teachers throughout the
District did not have the knowledge to gain access and scan benchmark assessments. Data
decision making based on state test results and benchmark assessments had not been
implemented with full fidelity because teachers had not received training and, therefore,
did not possess the knowledge to use Illuminate or modify instruction utilizing data.
Motivation. According to Clarke and Estes (2008), motivation gaps are more
complex to identify because motivation is internal and a psychological process. In 2007,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 134
the District instituted full implementation of benchmark assessments to be incorporated
into the data-based decision making process. Prior to benchmark assessments, decisions
and goals for instruction were based on state test results. In 2008, District schools were
introduced to Professional Learning Communities in order to develop grade
level/department goals and lesson plan according to the pacing guides that accompanied
benchmark assessments. In 2010, the District introduced DII instructional strategies to
align standards-based learning and data-based decision making. The Curriculum and
Instruction Department received the greatest resistance from high school level teachers,
especially in grades 11 and 12. The two main issues were educational philosophy and
school culture. The philosophy that “every student has the right to fail” resonated in the
high schools. In addition, years of working in isolation created resistance to working in
Professional Learning Communities. Clarke and Estes (2008) explained there are
personal differences influencing people about what is effective and what makes them, as
a person, effective, which can diametrically oppose the motivation to change.
For the District, changing high school instructional practices would require
changes in school culture and philosophy. It would be difficult to change individual
beliefs, but strong instructional leadership can guide motivation. Clarke and Estes (2008)
synthesized four factors contributing to increasing motivation to close the gap. First,
instructional leaders can build individual and team confidence by asking what they
believe is effective instruction and why it is effective. Second, they should allow the
teams to discuss what they see as organizational barriers to achieving academic goals. An
instructional leader needs to be attentive to what the staff feel are organizational barriers
and steer them away from labeling students as a barrier. Third, they should create an
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 135
emotionally secure environment. If teachers feel threatened, they are less likely to
become motivated. Lastly, they should increase staff connection between instructional
improvement and personal values. It is unlikely that most teachers want their students to
fail.
Organizational. Clark and Estes (2008) describe organizational performance
gaps as the lack of effective work processes and materials to support achievement of
goals. The District created ambitious goals for learning and initiated strategies to support
the goals. However, District policies and procedures were not aligned.
The fiscal crisis resulted in fewer people being available to accomplish the state’s
rigorous performance demands. School Improvement Plans were required to align with
District goals which require approval from the Site Council, District office, and School
Board. However, implementation of School Plans was not monitored. Title I schools
received the most supervision, professional development, and regular visits from District
personnel, leaving 20 out of 32 schools with less support and accountability.
The Superintendent and School Board’s reinstatement of Department Chairs was
intended to support student achievement. However, the Grade level/Department chair job
description was last updated in 1994. The chair position was intended to assist the
principal in leading and monitoring grade level/department PLC meetings, data
discussions, and curriculum planning and alignment. In 1994, the chairs responsibilities
included being a liaison between department and administration, holding regular
department meetings, facilitating curriculum changes, providing input into site budgets,
ordering supplies, providing orientations for new teachers, reviewing educational
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 136
materials, evaluating programs, attending district meetings, requesting textbooks, and
assisting in writing department goals (District Human Resources, 1994).
One solution Clarke and Estes (2008) provided is to align the organization’s
structures and processes with goals. For the District, revaluating and restructuring
policies and procedures could increase the desired performance. Distributed leadership
emerged as a solution to the fiscal crisis, allowing more people greater responsibilities.
However, if the responsibilities are not clear, the performance will not meet the goals.
Expectations, job descriptions, and regular communication between levels of leadership
can help the change processes and achieve District goals.
Resources Strategically Reallocated to Align with Strategies that Improve Student
Achievement
When district budgets are tight, strategically reallocating resources is difficult.
The Evidence Based Model (EBM) illustrated in A 50-State Strategy to Achieve School
Finance (Odden, Picus, & Gotez, 2009) outlines how to adequately fund resources to
schools, and the resource requirements were utilized for the comparative analysis.
Overall, at the time of this study, the EBM was not feasible for California schools.
Districts were funded at $4,764 per student, including the deficit factor. According to the
EBM Excel simulation, the District would need an additional $4,329 per student for a
total of $9093 per student. Comparing District implementation allowed the researcher to
evaluate actual and desired resource allocation strategies to strategies that are proven to
improve student achievement. The outcome determined the District was working towards
Odden’s 10 Strategies (2009), supported by the EBM. However, there were several gaps
in distributing resources. District teachers lacked the knowledge and skills to implement
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 137
the systematic instructional strategies with full fidelity. Therefore, resources should be
redirected to professional development and instructional coaches. High school teachers
resisted instructional changes and data-based decision making, instead remaining in an
isolated environment. The District has not created policies and procedures to keep up
with changing strategies. In an attempt to assist the District’s transition to more strategy
based resource allocation, there are three recommendations for resource reallocation and
one for adding resources as finances improve.
Recommendation one – Increase instructional coaches. The District, at the
time of this study, had14 Instructional Coaches, and the desired number includes at least
two coaches per school: one for Mathematics and one for English Language Arts. Thus,
the desired total was 29. The EBM suggests adding one instructional coach per 200
students, requiring an additional 126.8. To move closer to staffing the desired number of
Instructional Coaches, the recommendation is for the District to reallocate the 10
elementary school assistant principals desired by the Superintendent for 2013-2014 to 11
Instructional Coaches. This would bring the count from 14 to 25. Since the 2008-2009
school year, the District experienced a reduction in student population. Between 2008 and
2013, the average loss had been 670 students. In response, the number of teachers was
reduced. The estimated loss for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years was 500
students per year, which equates to 16 full-time elementary teachers or two secondary
teachers (Assistant Superintendent of Business, 2012). If estimating the loss based on
secondary schools only, two teachers per year can be reallocated to instructional coach
positions, closing the gap between the actual and desired numbers. With the passage of
Proposition 30, the education tax initiative of $441 per Average Daily Attendance was
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 138
restored to the District. Over three years, the estimated total is $38 million. There were
numerous items in line for District budget restoration: uniforms for duplicating staff,
warehouse delivery staff, transportation staff, athletic transportation, reinstating
duplicating staff work-year from 11 to 12 months. Each item, though important, does not
support strategies for doubling student achievement. The tax initiative is temporary, but
the budget can be analyzed to allocate two instructional coach positions at $80,000 per
year for three years.
Instructional Coaches address the knowledge and skills gap. Implementing a
systematic instructional methodology requires professional development. Odden’s (2009)
studies of professional development revealed teacher learning should be focused on
goals, continuous, and collaborative. The two main knowledge gaps found were DII and
data-based decision making. Training for both does not meet Odden’s approach.
Instructional coaches could close this gap. Initially, instructional coaches’ subject area
expertise would be in Math and English. However, DII and data-based decision making
techniques could be taught during contracted time on early release/late start days. To
observe modeling techniques, teachers could utilize their preparation period to visit
instructional coaches while they teach in Mathematics and English Language Arts
classes. During Professional Learning Community meetings, ELA/ social science and
math/science teachers could plan cross-curricular lessons with the instructional coach
present to assist with integrating DII techniques into lesson plans, and coaches could
guide data analysis.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 139
Instructional coaches would be an additional component in the distributed
leadership chain, assisting principals with professional development, PLC meetings, and
instructional improvement. In a large district with fewer staff to perform tasks,
instructional coaches would alleviate pressure for the principals to perform training,
complete ongoing needs assessments, and develop strategic plans while managing the
school, evaluating the staff, and attending parent/student conferences. Instructional
coaches are not a replacement for principals as instructional leaders, but they do increase
the hours of strategic professional development exposure and can improve DII and data-
based decision making implementation.
Recommendation two – Distributed leadership policies and procedures. To
increase the effectiveness of distributed leadership, District policies and procedures for
positions should be updated. Grade level/department chairs were reinstated December
2012, but the list of responsibilities dates to 1994, prior to DII, data-based decision
making, and Professional Learning Communities. All three elements were expected to be
a part of the grade level/department chair responsibilities. However, teachers had the
ability to deny the new responsibilities based on the current description. The District had
a two-year Leadership Academy through the District Assistance and Intervention Team
(DAIT) and the Local Education Agency plan stated site leadership teams would be
trained in District action plan implementation until 2012. The recommendations to
increase distributed leadership efficiency are to update the Human Resources department,
to align the grade level/department chair description, and for the DAIT and the District to
reopen the Leadership Academy for an additional year.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 140
Reopening the Leadership Academy and updating the chair job description can
address the motivation and organizational gaps demonstrated in high school teachers’
resistance to new instructional strategies. Clarke and Estes (2008) described five elements
that destroy motivation: constantly changing goals, dishonesty and unfairness,
unnecessary rules, constant competition, and negative feedback. An open discussion
during leadership meetings would provide the District a clear understanding of perceived
motivational barriers. As the District works with teacher leaders, they can create a
positive collaborative environment and address perceived barriers. In addition, continuing
the Leadership Academy and updating the chair job description would address the
organizational gap by providing additional training for required performance goals while
also fostering instructional leaders.
Recommendation three – Reallocate funds to increase personnel and
training. To increase funding for personnel, it is recommended that automatic step and
column increases across all positions be temporarily changed from September to April.
According to the 2012-2013 Interim Financial Report, certificated management positions
would be excluded because the step and column increases were frozen. Therefore,
temporary postponement would include certificated and classified positions. Changing
step and column increases to April would provide the District, in 2013, with $1,623,516
or 20 certificated level positions and, in 2014, with $1,398,517 or 17 certificated
positions. Step and column increases for 2015 were not in the Interim Report, but
estimating at the lower figure would maintain 17 certificated positions for 2016. This
recommendation would require District/Union negotiations. Foreseeable problems
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 141
include complete rejection by union representatives, effects on retirement, especially for
those retiring prior to April, and increased negative perceptions of District personnel.
The benefit of postponing step and column increases is that it would provide the
District with options for strategic reallocation. First, the funds would close the gap for
desired instructional coaches in 2013. To further close the instructional strategies
implementation gap at the high school level, eight instructional coaches, including ones
for science and social science, should be added. The remaining funds ($400,000) could be
used for professional development days prior to the start of the 2013, 2014, and 2015
school years. However, two days of professional development for the entire core teaching
staff would take the majority of the money. A better option would be to utilize the funds
for new instructional coaches’ training resources. An additional strategic option for
$400,000 is to increase extended-day programs with certificated teacher tutors at a
maximum rate of five students to one teacher, five days a week. The stipend for the
extended-day tutor would be $6429.60 based on the certificated union hourly
instructional rate, providing 56 tutors. The caveat for tutor positions is an application and
interview process or a recommendation by the site principal because the position would
require literacy intervention strategies. According to the EBM, there should be one
certificated tutor for every 100 at-risk students. Fifty-six tutors would provide half the
EBM requirement. Odden and Picus (2011) suggest reducing tutors as the final option
when budgets are tight; therefore, it is recommended the District increase tutors for
struggling students, which would support District achievement goals.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 142
Recommendation four – Planning for the future. The Assistant Superintendent
of Business stated the economy is cyclical and times would get better. With that in mind,
recommendations for multiyear resource allocation can encourage adequate spending.
Odden and Picus (2009) recommend starting with professional development components
including instructional coaches, resources for trainers, and additional days for teacher
professional development, and then provide resources for struggling students. The
estimate for adding professional development training days for 1234.3 full-time
equivalent staff would require $1,214,859.78 for five days and $2,429,719.55 for 10 days
of training. Figures were calculated using the hourly instruction union rate at five hours a
day. The EBM recommends 10 days, but, each year, the budget could factor in five days
and add a day or more per year as financial circumstances improve.
The District should increase instructional coaches for core subject areas until
instructional strategies are implemented with full fidelity. According to the EBM, the
District, at the time of this study, needed 126.8 additional instructional coaches. On
average, the recommendation includes at least three per elementary school, four per
middle school, and 11.8 per high school. Each year, as the budget allows, the District
should increase instructional coaches in high needs schools and then increase them in the
remaining schools. As stated before, when the student population decreases, the District
should transfer teacher positions into instructional coach positions. Funding adequately is
not a silver bullet for improvement, but it is a systematic ongoing change to improve
education.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 143
Finally, long-term planning for instructional materials requires research,
evaluation, and funds. In the digitized information age, the Federal government and
California are moving rapidly towards free digital books and affordable technology.
California launched the free digital textbook initiative in 2009, which already includes
texts for high school level courses in Mathematics and science (FCC, 2012). In addition,
the FCC (2012) reported San Diego Unified began a five-year program called i21
Interactive in 3,500 classrooms with a distribution of 78,000 digital textbooks. For
districts interested in transitioning into the digital age, the FCC and Project RED,
Revolutionizing Education provides a digital textbook playbook, listing the research
requirements available in references (Digital Textbook Collaborative, 2012). In 2014, the
District was set to begin textbook adoption cycles for English Language Arts and
mathematics with social science and science following in 2016. The textbook adoption
estimate from Curriculum and Instruction leaders figured around $13.5 million, with the
caveat that this was a low estimate and they were unsure what this next cycle would
require. These figures do not include the cost of copying worksheets or supplemental
materials required for English Language Learners or Special Education.
In 2011, Utah piloted the free digital textbooks for secondary schools created by
Brigham Young Professor Wiley. Panels of teachers and professors reported great
success, as students could experience media within the textbook, highlight and annotate
(Pullmann, 2012). Possible cost savings can include printing, transportation, and
warehouse storage. However, ongoing investments in technology include bandwidth,
equipment and repairs, software, support and teacher training (Digital Textbook
Collaborative, 2012). Should the District decides to wait and adopt hardcover textbooks,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 144
an upgrade in technology may take another seven years, or the technological transition
would occur mid cycle, increasing textbook expenditures. It is recommended the District
utilize 2013 to research digital possibilities and then conduct a comparative cost analysis.
Conclusion
Data collected through Assistant Superintendents interviews, documents, and
observations provided insight into goals, improvement strategies, and resources at the
District level. In 2010, the District developed a sense of urgency to change when AYP
results placed it in Program Improvement Status. The District created ambitious goals
supported by instructional strategies for improvement. Strategies identified to assist the
District in exiting P.I. status include Direct Interactive Instruction, data decision making,
PLCs, English language arts and mathematics interventions embedded in the school day,
instructional coaches at Title I schools, Common Core Standards alignment training, and
partnerships with the community.
Implementation began during the fiscal crisis, which limited the resources to
support improvement strategies. For the District to remain solvent, leaders had to reduce
management, certificated, and classified positions. In addition, Tier Three funds were
utilized to maintain the general budget. District resource allocations compared to those
proposed by the EBM determined all schools were underfunded.
Class sizes at all levels were higher than the desired and EBM-recommended
numbers. Increases in pupil-teacher ratios were agreed upon by certificated union and
district staff to be 31:1 for K-3 and 36:1 for 4-12, exceeding the EBM count by 16 and 11
respectively. Title I elementary schools provided slightly lower class sizes than 31:1, but
they did not meet desired or EBM recommendations.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 145
Strategies for professional development were focused on English language arts
and mathematics although the District’s goals include full implementation across all
subjects and grades. The time allotted for professional development did not meet District
goals or EBM recommendations. To encourage PLC meetings, schools were approved to
have scheduled early release/late start days, which can be utilized for one hour of staff
development time per week.
The EBM highly recommends instructional coaches to assist in facilitating
strategic instructional improvements. At the District, instructional coaches work at Title I
schools at the elementary and middle school levels, but their numbers do not meet the
EBM’s allocation rate. District goals for full implementation of DII and data-based
decision making require instructional coach support. The researcher recommended
increasing the numbers of instructional coaches over increasing those of elementary
school assistant principals. In addition, instructional coaches could facilitate high school
teachers’ motivation to change instructional practices.
The additional support delineated in the EBM for struggling students, tutors,
extended-day, and summer school does not match that of the District. Therefore, these
were found to be underfunded programs. Instead of fully implementing these programs,
the District supplied schools with English language arts and mathematics interventions
during the school day. Extended-day staff were not funded at the District level. Title I
funds could be used by principals to pay extended-day teachers, but they would not be
listed in human resource data as a full-time equivalent. Summer school programs were
cut and remained available only for credit recovery or for students in danger of retention.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 146
The EBM adequacy model cost is high for California and for the financial
situation. The benefit of utilizing the EBM is that it allows districts’ leaders to guide
resource use based on the strategies they want to focus on. Chapter five provides the
possible implications for practice and suggestions for future research.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 147
Chapter Five
Conclusion
This chapter provides a brief summary of the study, methodology, findings,
implications for the study district and policy makers, and suggestions for future research.
Summary of the Study
A majority of California schools do not meet the No Child Left Behind Act’s
federal demands for student achievement. Though schools made progress, California
remains one of the lowest ranked states in student achievement, per-pupil spending, and
personnel allocation. Spending is based on revenue limits that may promote equity but do
not provide targeted resources with attention to outcomes. The federal and state
governments established clearly defined desired student outcomes, and school districts
have large populations of students who require additional resources. The most difficult
challenge for districts is to effectively allocate resources to maximize student
achievement during a fiscal crisis.
The purpose of this study was to identify the resource allocation strategies of one
unified school district compared to what research suggests is best practice for improving
student achievement. Major findings indicated the study district did not fund at a strategic
level because California was, at the time of this study, in the midst of a financial crisis
and had reduced education spending. In addition, the allocation of resources did not
support District expectations for improvement strategy implementation.
The Evidence-Based model was used to examine the District’s strategic plan and
resource allocation patterns to determine whether district goals were adequately fiscally
supported. The Gap Analysis process, established by Clark and Estes (2008) was used to
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 148
determine the reasons resource allocation patterns were not meeting district goals.
Recommendations for resource reallocation were made based on the district strategies for
improvement that aligned with what research suggests is best practice.
Overview of the District
The study district was a large southern California unified school district with 22
elementary schools (two were K-8), five junior high schools (7-8), four high schools, and
one continuation school. The study district, at the time of this study, served 28,340
students with a diverse population. Fifty-five percent of district students were Latino,
23.1% were White, 10.8% were Asian, and 4% were African American. Thirty-nine
percent of the total population qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, 12.6% were
English Language Learners and 11.9% were Students with Disabilities (CDE, 2011). The
District received Title I, II, and III federal funds dedicated to low socioeconomic student
populations, teacher and administrator training programs, and English language learners.
Accepting Title funds requires meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) student
achievement benchmarks. The District had not met AYP benchmarks since 2009 and, in
2010, was identified as a Program Improvement district. State recommendations to exit
Program Improvement status align with what research identifies as effective student
achievement strategies; however, the state does not provide adequate funding to support
district-wide implementation. To determine the District’s resource allocation patterns
compared to their goals and to what research deems is most effective, the Evidence-based
model was used as the strategic funding formula.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 149
Overview of the Evidence-based Model
The Evidence-Based model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008)
identified a set of inputs required to deliver a high quality, comprehensive instructional
program. The funding formula was built from the school level up. Based on student
population needs the EBM recommends pupil-teacher ratios in core and elective courses,
tutorial ratios, extended-day, and summer school courses, professional development
resources, instructional materials, and administration.
The EBM programmatic recommendations are based on three types of research:
randomized trials and meta-analysis, practices derived from resource parameters of
comprehensive school reforms, and reviewed research or recommendations from
professional associations, to arrive at the strategies and distribution of human resources
that benefit student learning. The EBM allows districts and individual schools to adjust
the formula based on the student population needs at each school.
Review of Methodology
The study employed qualitative research using formative evaluation methods to
evaluate the allocation of resources. The researcher gathered district level documents,
interviewed assistant superintendents, and observed school board meetings to obtain
district desired and actual resource allocation data. Documents from the Human Resource
department provided the data required for an EBM comparison, student populations,
certificated positions, classified positions, and certificated management positions.
Interviews with the Assistant Superintendents for Business and for Curriculum and
Instruction offered the district perspective on the financial situation, instructional goals
and personnel resource strategies. School Board meetings demonstrated the support and
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 150
relationship between the Board, Superintendent and district goals. The research questions
that guided this study were:
1. What are the current resource allocation strategies of the district?
2. What are the desired resource allocation strategies of the district?
3. What are the differences between the current, desired, and the Evidence-Based
model resource allocations?
4. How can resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Once the data were gathered, current and desired human and financial resources
were entered into the EBM Excel simulation. Comparisons were made among current,
desired, and EBM resource allocations. Analysis revealed gaps between current, desired
and EBM resource allocation strategies. A Gap Analysis was conducted using the Clark
and Estes (2008) framework. The gaps were identified and the interviews and observation
process allowed the researcher to postulate why the gaps exist. Finally, the EBM Excel
simulation allowed the researcher to propose recommendations to reallocate resources
aligned with strategies to improve student achievement.
Summary of Findings
Current resource allocation strategies. The District’s resource allocation
strategies were examined through Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance. The District aligned goals and strategies to what research recommends
improves student achievement; however, the fiscal crisis impeded resources to support
full implementation. The District’s approach to improvement included curriculum
alignment, a uniform instructional policy, data-based decision making, and professional
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 151
development targeted at mathematics, English language arts and leadership. Curriculum
was aligned district-wide by subject and grade level. The Illuminate data program,
accessible district-wide, supported data decision making; however, the instructional
practice of using data to guide instruction and collaboration was not uniform across
district schools. The common approach to instruction, Direct Interactive Instruction, was
a strategy in progress. Structured professional development was limited to math and
English, compromising fidelity in science, social science, and foreign languages. The
District had begun implementation of numerous improvement strategies. However,
policies and procedures to ensure professional development and accountability, which
increase practice, were not fully in place.
Desired resource allocation strategies. To acquire the desired number of
personnel to support district improvement goals, interviews were conducted with the
Assistant Superintendents of Business and Curriculum and of Instruction, the District
Improvement Plan and union contractual agreements were analyzed, and School Board
meetings were observed. Data gathered revealed a disparity between current allocations
and desired resource allocations. On average, elementary, middle, and high schools had
higher teacher to student ratios than desired. Title I schools demonstrated smaller
disparities between actual and desired teacher allocations. The District desired additional
resources for “at risk” students, assistant principals at the elementary and middle school
levels, and increased resources for instructional strategies professional development.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 152
Summary of Gap Analysis between Current and Desired Resource Allocations and
What Research Says is Most Effective
A Gap Analysis was conducted on the study District’s utilization of current and
desired resources compared to the Evidence-Based model (EBM). Calculations provided
in the EBM are based on strategies proven to increase student achievement. The Gap
Analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008) assisted in determining resource gaps in
relation to performance goals. Barriers for implementation of goals were identified,
which enabled resource reallocation recommendations.
The gap between actual and desired allocation of elementary core teachers
demonstrated, on average, understaffing by 1.2 teachers, totaling 26. The EBM, on
average, demonstrated a disparity of 15 teachers, requiring 334 additional elementary
core teachers. The cost of eliminating the gap between actual and desired allocation was
$2,078,467 and between actual to EBM was $26,726,400. Class size reduction was not
fiscally feasible. However, the District could consider future focused class size reduction
in six low performing elementary schools at the desired 25:1 count. The additional cost
for focused class size reduction would be $1,272,000 a year. Middle schools current to
desired core teacher disparities were 4.3 teachers per school with a total of 21.5 required
to close the gap. According to the EBM, the middle schools are understaffed by, on
average, 11.38 core teachers requiring an additional 56.9. It would cost $1,711,500 to
close the gap between actual and desired allocation and $4,547,200 to close that between
actual and the EBM’s recommendations. High schools, on average, require an additional
4.8 teachers, whereas the EBM suggests on average 24 core teachers per school or 120.2.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 153
To close the gap between actual and desired allocation would require $1,928,333 and
$9,612,800 to meet the EBM’s recommendations.
Examination of specialist teacher gaps focused on the secondary level.
Elementary teachers were core, specialist, and English Language Learner instructors.
However, the EBM recommends specialist teachers at the elementary level, providing
grade level teachers with time to collaborate. The middle schools did not demonstrate
significant gaps for specialist teachers within the desired or EBM calculations. Three of
the four high schools demonstrated disparities averaging 8.5 specialist teachers per
school. The fourth high school, the lowest performing, had one specialist teacher over the
EBM recommendation. This particular high school offered a variety of Regional
Occupational Program (vocational) courses. To meet EBM recommendations for the first
three high schools, the District would need $2,040,000. According to the EBM, the
benefit of specialist teachers is providing core teachers with time to collaborate.
Principals create master schedules and could align courses to provide common planning
time for core teachers.
Resources need to support best practices include administrative, clerical, multiple
resources for struggling students, pupil support and instructional support. Compared to
the EBM, administrative staff throughout the study district aligns closely. Principals
demonstrated no difference and assistant principals were short 1.4 FTE. The
Superintendent would also like an additional 10 elementary assistant principals.
According to the EBM, this would not be necessary to support best practices. The District
employed one librarian, and the EBM recommends one per school. Library technicians
and paraprofessionals were utilized part time at the elementary schools, and full time at
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 154
the middle and high schools. It was not feasible to increase librarians. A temporary
solution to encourage best practices is professional development for technicians and
paraprofessionals conducted by the librarian.
Secretaries and clerks are vital to the functions of schools. According to the
desired allocation and the EBM’s recommendations, the gaps are 25 and 26 respectively.
The researcher did not recommend increasing secretarial staff, initial allocation of
resources to support best practices needs to focus on areas that directly affect student
achievement. Supervisory aides are recommended by the EBM and resource numbers
demonstrated a 99.8 position gap. Noted as part of this gap was the certificated union
contract language requiring teachers and administrators to perform before-school and
after-school supervisory duty. Closing the gap between the district’s allocation and that
recommended by the EBM would require an additional $2,750,561. The money would be
better spent on increasing instructional coaches, certificated tutors, closing the single
assistant principal gap or focused class-size reduction.
Struggling student services include certificated tutors, summer school staff,
English Language Learner (ELL) teachers, Instructional Aides, and the Gifted and
Talented program (Odden & Picus, 2001). Certificated tutors were not supplied during
the school day as the EBM recommends. After-school tutoring is determined by each
school site and can be paid or voluntary. Summer school was reduced to support students
in danger of retention and credit recovery. According to the EBM, the District should
have an additional 133.3 positions for academic extra help staff and 217.3 for extended-
day and summer school staff. In addition, the majority of funding to support the Gifted
and Talented program was swept into the general fund, leaving six dollars per gifted
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 155
student. The EBM recommends allocating $25 per student in the school and then utilizing
the total for gifted and talented students. Non-Academic pupil support staff are guidance
counselors, nurses, and family liaisons. Current resources support 63 positions, while the
desired number is 98.7 positions and the EBM recommends 226.6 positions based on the
“at risk” student population.
Instructional support was analyzed last, but was seemingly one of the most
important factors in supporting best practices. Instructional coaches provide training,
modeling, and feedback. They are the key to changing instructional practices. According
to the district performance goals for implementing DII, an additional 15 instructional
coaches are desired; however, the EBM recommends an additional 126.8 based on one
coach per 200 children. Current and future funds could not support 126.8 additional
positions, but reallocating the 2013-2014 desired 10 assistant principal positions to
instructional coaches is recommended.
The resources for the EBM are based on the needs of students in each school.
Current distribution of resources, based on the employees in the schools, is calculated on
the Average Daily Attendance monetary value of each student. To remedy the gap
between current resource allocation and the EBM’s recommendations, the District budget
would need to double. The EBM was not financially feasible at the time of this study.
However, based on district performance goals and EBM strategies for reallocating
resources, four recommendations were provided.
 Increase instructional coaches from 14 to 25 by reallocating the 10 assistant
principals for 2013-2014 to 11 instructional coaches.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 156
 Human Resource department should update the Grade level/Department Chair job
description to include leadership responsibilities for Professional Learning
Communities, DII implementation, and data decision-making. To support the
reinstated but new leadership role, the District should reopen the Leadership
Academy to provide training and encourage a collaborative environment.
 The automatic step and column salary increase should be changed from
September to April. Though foreseeable problems include rejection by union
representatives, effects on retirement, and increased negative perceptions of
District personnel, the possible outcome is $1,623,516 for the 2013-2014 and
$1,398,517 for the following two years. The funding would provide an additional
17 certificated positions. The District should further close the gap in numbers of
instructional coaches by adding eight more positions. With the remaining
$400,000, the district could provide 56 extended day certificated tutors at
$6,429.60 per stipend.
 The fourth recommendation involves strategies for future spending. The District
should begin with professional development training. Ten days are recommended.
However, the district could begin with five and, as finances improve, add more
days. In addition, the district should increase instructional coaches for core
academic subjects until strategies are implemented with full fidelity. Finally, the
district should address long-term planning for instructional materials. As the
federal government and the state of California move toward free digital textbooks
and affordable technology. It is recommended the District utilize 2013 to research
digital possibilities and conduct a comparative cost analysis.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 157
Limitations
A limitation of this study was data collection was limited to one district, and the
findings may not be generalizable to other districts. The study was also limited to the
district’s leadership’s perspective of resource allocations and strategy implementations.
In addition, interviews were based upon structured and semi-structured questions, and
there was a possibility the results were subjective. District personnel may perceive
resource allocation strategies differently than school site personnel. Finally, School Board
observations were limited to three. Additional budgetary decisions are discussed
continuously throughout the year and may or may not support student achievement goals.
Implications for Practice
District implications. The study provides an examination of resource allocation
based on strategies that improve student achievement. Results indicated the District
strategies align with Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance.
However, resource distribution does not support full implementation. The Evidence-
Based model may not be affordable for the District, but the guidelines for resource
allocation were adjusted to support district performance goals. The study provides the
District with the data to analyze existing resources and recommendations for current and
future resource reallocation.
Implications for Policy-Makers
This study adds to the body of research in school finance and may assist in
determining the financial resources necessary to meet proficiency targets. It is clear the
demand for more money in education is necessary; however, simply supplying funds to
districts and schools will not increase student achievement. The current California
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 158
funding formula is complex and focused on equity, not adequacy. This study supports the
knowledge that education finance needs to be student-centered. The EBM calculates
student requisites from the school level up; therefore, state policy-makers ought to create
a student-centered funding formula.
Future Research
Previous Evidence-Based model (EBM) research included analysis of state,
district and school level resources. This study was limited to District data and future
research conducted should include school level data to provide a complete picture. As
this study was one of 17 studies conducted on southern California school districts, data
collected and the EBM simulation tool can be used to continue examining districts. The
Evidence-Based model is flexible to meet the needs of varying states and school districts.
However, future research for a California Evidence-Based model (CEBM) would be
beneficial in meeting the needs of the diverse population.
Conclusion
The Evidence-Based model was an idealized benchmark for examining the
District’s resource allocation methodology. Results indicated the District was unable to
allocate resources at the level the EBM recommends. However, the research results and
strategy guidelines can assist district personnel with strategic reallocation and future
resource allocation that support goals for student achievement. The goal of this study was
to ascertain whether the district was implementing strategies that doubled student
performance and providing adequate resources to support goals. District goals and
strategies do align to effective strategies, but California’s financial crisis prevented
adequate funding to support strategies. Recommendations based on the EBM framework
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 159
provided reallocation options to reinforce district-wide goals. Hopefully, as finances
improve, resources will remain focused on strategies that improve student performance.
The Evidence-Based model provides state policy-makers and district personnel with a
framework that focuses on adequately funding education.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 160
References
Adams, J.E. (2010). Smart money and America’s schools. In Smart money: using
educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning goals. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Alm, J. & Sjoquist, D. (2009). The response of local school systems in Georgia to fiscal
and economic conditions. Journal of Education Finance, 35(1), 60-84.
American Institutes for Research. (2003). California’s public schools accountability act
(PSAA): Evaluation, findings and implications. California Department of
Education and Edsource. http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_psaa03.html
Anonymous. (2012). Governor brown signs 2012-2013 budget. Targeted News Service.
DOI: 1022537004. Retrieved from:
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/?url
=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/1022537004?accountid=14
749
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Baker, B.D., and Green, C. (2009). Conceptions, measurement, and application of
educational adequacy and equal educational opportunity. In Sykes, G., Schneider,
B., Plank, D.N., and Ford, T.G, Handbook of Education Policy Research (pp.
438-452). New York, NY: Routledge (AERA).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 161
Bartunek, J.M. & Moch, M.K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change
and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), pp. 483-500
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
California Department of Education (2011). 2011 Adequate yearly progress report:
Information guide. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide11.pdf
California Department of Education (2011). 2011 adequately yearly progress report:
Information guide. Retrieved July 6, 2012 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide11.pdf
California Department of Education (2011). Standardized testing and reporting:
CalEdFacts. Retrieved July 6, 2012 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/cefstar.asp
California Department of Education (2011a). 2011 Adequate yearly progress report:
Information guide. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide11.pdf
California Department of Education (2012). 2011-12 academic performance index
reports: Information guide. Retrieved July 6, 2012 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide12.pdf
California Department of Education (2012). Accountability progress report. Retrieved
November 23, 2012 from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 162
California Department of Education (2012). The Williams case – An explanation.
Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp
California Department of Education. (2012). Glossary of acronyms and frequently used
terms. In California Department of Education. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/hiperfelmnglossary.asp
Chambers, J.G. & Levin, J.D. (2006). Funding California’s schools, part ii: Resource
adequacy and efficiency. In Crucial Issues in California Education 2006:
Berkley, CA: Rekindling Reform. Policy Analysis for California Education, pp.
27-50
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11) pp. 55-68. Retrieved from:
http://hbr.org/2006/11/how-to-manage-urban-school-districts/ar/1
Chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington,
DC: Brookings.
City, E.A. (2008). Resourceful leadership: Tradeoffs and tough decisions on the road to
school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clune, W. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-384. doi: 10.1177/0895904894008004002
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Harper-Collins: New York, NY.
Conley, D.T. & Picus, L.O. (2003). Oregon’s quality education model: Linking adequacy
to outcomes. Education Policy, 17(586). doi: 10.1177/0895904803256790
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 163
Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S.H., & Belcher, C.L. (2001). The district role in instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), pp. 78-84. Retrieved from:
http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/6
Deich, S.G. (2009). Reallocating resources to support school improvement. Newsletter
from The Center for Comprehensive School Reform. Retrieved from:
http://www.centerforcsri.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=676
&Itemid=5
Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Birman, B.F., Garet, M.S., & Yoon, K.S. (2002). How do
district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the
professional development that districts provide teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104 (7), 1265-1312
Dobbie, W. & Fryer, R.G. (2011). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence
from New York city. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved from:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/effective_schools.pdf
Dufour, R., Durfour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
EdSource (2010). Challenging times: California schools cope with adversity and the
imperative to do more. Retrieved from: http://www.edsource.org/pub10-
challenging-times.html
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 164
Edsource (2010). About California’s K-12 system. Consequences and interventions.
Retrieved from: http://www.edsource.org/iss_sta_interventions.html
EdSource (2011, May). California’s fiscal crisis: What does it mean for schools?
Edsource. Retrieved from: http://www.edsource.org/pub11-fiscal-crisis-
brief.html.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, D.C.: The
Albert Shaker Institute.
Federal Communications Commission (2012). Fact sheet: Digital textbook playbook.
Retrieved from: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-
312244A1.pdf
Fermanich, M. (2002). School spending for professional development: A cross-case
analysis of seven schools in one urban district. The Elementary School Journal,
103(1), pp. 27-50. Retrieved January 18, 2012 from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002307.
Fleming, N. (2012). Parent, community groups pressed to fill k-12 budget gaps.
Education Week, 31(24), 1, 18. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Research Library
Core. (Document ID: 2618234211).
Fullan, M. (2010). The awesome power of the principal. Principal, 89(4), 10-15.
Garet, M. S. Porter, A., Desimone, L. Birman, B. & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 165
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading education change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3). doi: 10.1080/030576403200001220055
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.
Hanushek, E. (2007, Summer). The confidence men: Selling adequacy making millions,
Stanford. Education Next, 3. Retrieved from:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/7273471.html
Harris, K.D. (2012). (12-0009) Temporary taxes to fund education. Guaranteed local
public safety funding. Initiative constitutional amendment. Retrieved from:
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_final_t&s.pdf
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Abingdon, Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Huber, S & Muijs, D. (2010). School leadership effectiveness: The growing insight in
the importance of school leadership for the quality and development of schools
and their pupils. In Huber, S.G. (ed.), School Leadership-International
Perspectives (pp. 57- 77). Netherlands: Springer Science + Business.
Institute of Education Science (2001). Characteristics of top 500 school districts.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/100_largest/table_app_a_1.asp
Keedy, J.L. (1994). The twin engines of school reform for the 1990s: The school site and
national coalitions. The Journal of School Leadership, 4(1), 94-111.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 166
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Leana, C.R. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 17. Retrieved from:
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_missing_link_in_school_reform
Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day
versus half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more?
American Journal of Education, 112(2), 168-208.
Legislative Counsel of California (2011). California education code. Retrieved on April
28, 2012 from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the
Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from:
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-
research/Pages/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.aspx
MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report No. 65).
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk,
Johns Hopkins University.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 167
Masumoto, M. & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and school-
community interrelationships in high-performing high-poverty, rural California
high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(9). Retrieved June 18,
2012 from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-1.pdf
Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., & Rotherham, A. (2010). Conflicting missions and
unclear results: Lessons from the education stimulus funds. Retrieved from the
Bellweather Education Partners website: http://www.education-
first.com/files/Lessons%20from%20the%20Education%20Stimulus%20Funds.pd
f
Miles, K. H. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study of teacher
allocation in Boston public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(4), 476–493.
Miles, K. H. (1998). Freeing school resources for learning: The “missing piece” in
making accountability meaningful. District Issues Brief. Arlington, VA: New
American Schools. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from
http://www.naschools.org/uploadedfiles/freeing-school.pdf
Miles, K.H. (2000). Critical issue: Rethinking the use of educational resources to support
higher student achievement. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/go600.htm
Miles, K.H. (2001). Rethinking school resources. District Issue Brief, New American
Schools. Retrieved from:
http://www.educationresourcestrategies.org/documents/rethinking-resources.pdf
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 168
Miles, K.H. (2010). Making strategic resource decisions. In Smart Money: Using
Educational Resources to Accomplish Ambitious Learning Goals. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Miles, K.H. (2011). Transformation or decline? Using tough times to create higher-
performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2) 42-46.
Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
Miles, K.H. & Roza, M. (2006). Understanding student-weighted allocation as a means to
greater school resource equity. Peadbody Journal of Education, 81(3), 39-62.
Morgan, Helen (2009). How improving schools allocate resources: A case study of
successful schools in one Southern California urban school district (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from:
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu.libproxy.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-
Morgan-3598.pdf
Northouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Nutini, H. (1971). The ideological bases of Levi-Strauss’s Structuralism. American
Anthropologist, 73(3) pp. 537-544. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/671753
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. The Phi Delta Kappan
85(2) pp. 120-125.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 169
Odden, A. R. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand
Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Odden, A. & Archibald, S. (2000). The possibilities of resource reallocation. Principal
Leadership. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved
from: http://www.nassp.org/portals/0/content/48544.pdf
Odden, A. & Archibald, S. (2009). Doubling student performance…and finding the
resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Odden, A.R., Goetz, M.E., & Picus, L.O. (2010). Merging costs with effective resource
strategies. In Smart Money: Using Educational Resources to Accomplish
Ambitious Learning Goals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Odden, A & Picus, L.O. (2010). Using the evidence based model in strategic budgeting:
Examples from four diverse Ohio districts. Preliminary Draft: Picus and
Associates.
Odden, A. & Kelly, J.A. (2008). What is smhc? Consortium for Policy Research in
Education. Retrieved from: www.smhc-cpre.org/download/27/
Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight.
Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (1), 42-48.
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., & Goetz, M.E. (2009). A 50-state strategy to achieve school
finance adequacy. Education Policy, 20(10). doi: 10.1177/0895904809335107

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 170
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M. (2006). Recalibrating the Arkansas school funding
structure. A report prepared for the Adequacy Study Oversight Sub-Committee of
the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education, of the Arkansas General
Assembly. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates Working Paper. Retrieved from:
http://www.educationjustice.org/assets/files/pdf/Policy/Cost%20Studies/Arkansas
.pdf
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M. (2009). A 50-state strategy to achieve school finance
adequacy. Education Policy 10(5). doi: 10.1177/095904809335107
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., et al. (2005). An evidence-based
approach to recalibrating Wyoming’s block grant school funding formula.
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M.T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy in washington. Prepared for
the K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learners by Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates, Draft. Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/Tab1Doc1EvidenceBasedReportf
orAC7-18-06_02.pdf
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Petko, M. (2005). Weighted student formula: What is it and how does it impact
educational programs in large urban districts? National Education Association.
Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/formula.pdf
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 171
Picus, L.O. (2006). Funding California’s schools, part I: Past, present, and future? In
Crucial Issues in California Education 2006: Berkley: CA: Rekindling Reform.
Policy Analysis for California Education, pp. 15-26
Picus, L. (2011). Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://blackboard.usc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&
url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse
%26id%3D_64366_1%26url%3D%252Fwebapps%252Fblackboard%252Fexecut
e%252FdisplayIndividualContent%253Fmode%253Dview%2526content_id%253
D_2205333_1%2526course_id%253D_64366_1
Plecki, M.L., Alejano, C.R., Knapp, M.S., & Lochmiller, C.R. (2006). Allocating
resources and creating incentives to improve teaching and learning. Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Retrieved from:
www.ctpweb.org
Porter, A.C. & Polikoff, M.S. (2007). NCLB: State interpretations, early effects, and
suggestions for reauthorization. Social Policy Report, 21(4).
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-27.
Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the
poor: New evidence and possible explanations. Russell Sage Foundation.
Retrieved from:
http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20whither%20opportunity%2
0-%20chapter%205.pdf
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 172
Rebell, M. (2006). Adequacy cost studies: Perspectives on the state of the art. Education
Finance and Policy, 1(4), 465-483. doi: 10.1162/edfp.2006.1.4.465
Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
Center for Performance Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%
20beyond.pdf
Roza, M. (2009). Breaking down school budgets: Following the dollars into the
classroom. Education Next, 9(3), 29-33. Retrieved from:
http://educationnext.org/files/breaking_budgets.pdf
Rudalevige, A. (2005). Adequacy, accountability, and the impact of “No child left
behind.” Paper prepared for presentation at the “Adequacy Lawsuits: Their
Growing Impact on American Education” conference of the Program on
Education Policy and Governance. Retrieved from:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/Adequacy/PEPG-05-
27rudalevige.pdf
SEDL (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Issues About Change, 6(1). Retrieved from:
http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html
Sanzo, K.L., Sherman, W.H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful
middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), pp. 31-
45. DOI: 10.1108/09578231111102045
Schanzenbach, D.W. (2010). The economics of class size. Economics of Education.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 173
Shambaugh, L., Kitmitto, S., Parrish, T., Arellanes, M., & Nakashima, N. (2011).
California’s K-12 education system during a fiscal crisis. Retrieved from the
American Institute for Research website:
http://www.air.org/files/ca_fiscal_crisis_report_draft_final_may_19.pdf
Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts: Themes
from research. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA.
DOI: 04-0045. Retrieved from:
http://www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/DistrictImprovementReport.pdf
Song, K. (2008). The impacts of district policy and school context on teacher professional
development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(4), pp. 436-447
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
Stuart, L. & Hahnel, C. (2011). A report card on district achievement: How low-income,
African American and Latino students fare in California school districts. The
Education Trust – West. Retrieved from:
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/ETW%20Report%20Card%20on%2
0District%20Achievement_0.pdf
Swift, B. (2012). School districts solvent, but worries persist. Union Democrat. Retrieved
from: http://www.uniondemocrat.com/News/Local-News/School-districts-
solvent-but-worries-persist
Tasci, C. (2012). Chino valley unified to send teachers preliminary layoff notices. Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin. Retrieved from: http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_20139995
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 174
Torlakson, T. (2011). A blueprint for great schools. News Release: California
Department of Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/documents/yr11bp0709.pdf
Tucker, S. (1996). Benchmarking: A guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
The Digital Textbook Collaborative (2012). Digital textbook playbook. Retrieved from:
http://transition.fcc.gov/files/Digital_Textbook_Playbook.pdf
The Education Trust-West (2011). District report cards. Retrieved from:
http://reportcards.edtrustwest.org/
Togneri, W. & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond the islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools – A leadership brief.
Washington, D.C.: Learning First Alliance. www.learningfirst.org
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Webb, L.D. & Norton, M.S. (2008). Human resources administration: Personnel issues
and needs in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weston, M. (2010). Funding California schools: The revenue limit system. Public Policy
Institute of California. Retrieved from:
Weston, M. (2011). California’s new school funding flexibility. Public Policy Institute of
California. Retrieved from:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_511MWR.pdf
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 175
Whithurst, G.J. & Chingos, M.M. (2011). Class size: What research says and what it
means for state policy. Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
Retrieved December 15, 2012 from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/5/11%20class%20s
ize%20whitehurst%20chingos/0511_class_size_whitehurst_chingos.pdf
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.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades:
Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: Edsource.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 176
Appendix A
Interview Questions: Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
Interview Protocol: The researcher will interview the Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services about the human resource allocation methods used at SSSD. The
information provided in this interview will be utilized to complete a dissertation as part of
the doctoral program.
Name of Assistant Superintendent:
Contact Phone Number/E-Mail:
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 roles does 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?

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 177
Appendix B
Interview Questions: Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction
Interview Protocol: The researcher will interview the Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum and Instruction about the human resource allocation methods used at SSSD.
The information provided in this interview will be utilized to complete a dissertation as
part of the doctoral program.
Name of Assistant Superintendent:
Contact Phone Number/E-Mail:
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 site?
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?
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 178
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?
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?

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 179
Appendix C
Observation Checklist for SSSD Board Meetings
Date of Observation: Time of Observation: End of Observation:

General Information about School Board Meeting
Description of facility where board meetings are held

School Board Members Present:

Description of Room Arrangement

Number of Audience Members Present:

Description of Audience Members

School Board Meeting Observation
Number of People Who Speak During Public Comment

Topics of Discussion during Public Comment

Do parents/community members speak about special populations?

Number of budgetary topics

Budgetary Topics Covered

Length of time devoted to budgetary topics

Interactions between board members

Interactions between board members and community

Interactions between board members and Superintendent

How are decisions made with regard to human resource allocation?
Is there discussion of strategies for human resource allocation?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies the Evidence Based model (EBM) from education adequacy funding literature to understand the resource allocation strategies of one southern California unified school district. The purpose of the study was to use the EBM to examine the current resource allocation patterns of the study district to determine whether district goals were adequately fiscally supported. The study utilized a formative evaluation qualitative research design in the form of document analysis, interviews, observations, and human resource allocations to determine the extent to which the school district allocates resources to maximize student achievement. The study determined the District was working towards improvement strategies supported by the EBM

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

PDF

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

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 and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

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

PDF

Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

Asset Metadata

Creator Rowcliffe, Tamra Dawn (author)

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

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 Education,evidence-based model,Finance,OAI-PMH Harvest,reallocation,resources

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 rowcliff@usc.edu,tamrarowcliffe@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-228775

Unique identifier UC11293284

Identifier usctheses-c3-228775 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RowcliffeT-1495.pdf

Dmrecord 228775

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rowcliffe, Tamra Dawn

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