University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Resource allocation practices in three charter middle schools in relation to student achievement improvement strategies

(USC Thesis Other)

Resource allocation practices in three charter middle schools in relation to student achievement improvement strategies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: RESOURCE ALLOCATION

1

RESOURCE ALLOCATION PRACTICES IN THREE CHARTER
MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN RELATION TO
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

by

Susana Campo-Contreras
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
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
(Leadership in K-12 Urban Settings)

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Susana Campo-Contreras

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

2
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family. First, to my mother, whose
high expectation to always reach for the best motivated me to pursue my doctorate. To
my sister, Wendy, for her on-going support during this process and for never allowing me
to quit no matter how much time I had to spend away from family functions. To my
niece, Andrea, for always keeping me smiling as the process became more complex. To
my dad and step-dad, whose unconditional love allowed me to keep a focus on my goals.
I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my friends Miriana and Ivette. I know
that my accomplishment would not have been possible without their on-going support in
making sure I remained dedicated and committed to completing my dissertation. Finally,
to the One who made all this possible, our God, who provided me with the strength to
endure this process, no matter the adversities, and who provided me with the courage to
face this difficult challenge by remaining next to me at all times.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

3
Acknowledgements

This dissertation was made possible through the on-going support of my
dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus. Dr. Picus’s advice, assistance, and counsel as I
worked through this process have been invaluable. In addition, I would like to thank my
friend, Chuck Flores, for revising and editing all my chapters to ensure that my work met
academic expectations. I truly thank both of them for the countless hours they spent
editing and revising my drafts so that I would accomplish this goal. I also would like to
thank the members of my committee for volunteering their time so that I could
accomplish this goal.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 14
Importance of the Study 15
Summary of Methodology 15
Limitations of the Study 16
Delimitations of the Study 17
Definition of Terms 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 19
Accountability Measures and School Finance 19
Education Finance History 21
Evidence-Based Model 26
Figure A: The Evidence-Based Model 33
Change Process in the Educational Arena 36
Resource Allocation as a Change Strategy 36
School Improvement Strategies as a Change Strategy 38
Analyzing the Current Performance Situation 39
Setting Ambitious Goals 41
Innovative Curriculum Programs and New Instructional Vision 42
Data-Based Decision Making 43
On-Going and Intensive Professional Development 45
Using Time Effectively and Efficiently 48
Extend Learning for Struggling Students 49
Collaborative and Professional Culture 51
Ensuring Implementation of Professional and Best Practices 52
The Human Capital Side of Doubling Student Performance 52
Gap Analysis 54
Chapter Three: Methodology 56
Study Design 56
Sample 59
Instrumentation 60
Data Collection Procedures 61
Data Analysis Procedures 63
Chapter Four: Results 64
Overview of Schools 65
Middle School #1 65
Middle School #2 66
Middle School #3 66
Findings 68
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

5
Research Question #1 68
Understanding the Performance and Challenge (Strategy #1) 69
Set Ambitious Goals (Strategy #2) 70
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New 71
Instructional Vision (Strategy #3)
Utilize Benchmark and Formative Assessment and Make 72
Decisions Based on Data (Strategy #4)
Provide On-Going, Intensive Professional Development 73
(Strategy #5)
Use Time Efficiently and Effectively (Strategy #6) 75
Extend Learning and Time for Struggling Students 75
(Strategy #7)
Establish a Collaborative, Professional Culture and 76
Distributive Leadership System (Strategy #8)
Ensure that Professional Best Practices are Implemented 78
(Strategy #9)
Acknowledge and Incorporate the Human Capital Side of 79
Doubling Student Performance (Strategy #10)
Research Question #2 81
Gap Analysis 81
Research Question #3 85
Research Question #4 90
Summary 93
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations 94
Statement of the Problem 94
Purpose of the Study 94
Research Questions 95
Methodology 95
Data Collection and Analysis 96
Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications 97
Policy Implications 100
Conclusions 101
References 102
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

6
List of Tables

Table 1: Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools 34
Table 2: Position Allocation Counts for Middles Schools 1, 2, & 3 83

Table 3: Position Descriptors for Middle School 1, 2, & 3 84

Table 4: Instructional and Coaching Support for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3 86

Table 5: Core Teacher Allocation for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3 87

Table 6: Specialist Teacher Allocation for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3 80

Table 7: EL Teacher Allocation for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3 88

Table 8: Extended Day Staff and Summer School Staff Allocations for 89

Middle School 1, 2, & 3
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

7
Abstract

The purpose of the study was to develop a better understanding of the allocation
of resources used to improve student learning outcomes in three middle schools within a
Charter Management Organization (CMO). The three middle schools that participated in
the study had similar demographics and served students in low socioeconomic areas of
Los Angeles.
The practices of three middle schools as they pertained to the allocation of
resources were compared to the “10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance,”
identified by Odden (2009) as having a direct impact on increasing student outcomes.
The study found that the three middle schools’ current practices for improving student
achievement aligned with the strategies identified by Odden (20009) at various levels.
Additionally, the study found that the practices implemented by the schools may be
attributable to the ongoing dedication of the entire CMO, whose vision is focused on
effective teaching as a model for educational reform.
Finally, the use of a simulation to compare the current allocation of resources for
the three middle schools with the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden
and Picus was utilized to analyze how the schools’ practices compared to that
recommended by the EBM. The study found that the staffing realities for the three
specific middle schools within the Charter Management Organization did not vary
significantly when compared to the EBM, but that specific areas might need to be studied
further so that the reallocation of resources could be considered in greater depth, in turn
to improve how these schools provide support for struggling learners.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“A national desire to ensure that all children learn and achieve to high standards
now poses fundamental challenges to almost every facet of business as usual in American
education” (Ladd & Hansen, 1999–2000, p. 47). Policymakers and educators are
constantly seeking new ways to provide and improve the skill sets and knowledge that
schools impart to children so that they may function and compete in a society that
promises to be complex and globally interconnected (Ladd & Hansen, 1999–2000). As
mentioned by Ladd and Hansen (1999–2000), a key component of this mission involves
school finance and decisions made around effectively allocating monies so that we may
properly educate future generations (Ladd & Hansen, 1999–2000). As we move into an
era of educational reform, the education finance system has also been challenged to
facilitate efforts to generate revenue in a fair and efficient manner so that schools can use
their resources in a cost-efficient manner (Ladd & Hansen, 1999–2000). Additionally,
finance issues are subject to economic trends and increased accountability measures at all
levels, creating a sense of urgency that schools around the nation must concern
themselves with improving student performance (Sandler, 2010).
The new goal of raising achievement for all children poses an important challenge
to policymakers, because they must connect the educational finance system to this
objective (Ladd & Hansen, 1999–2000). Individual schools must recalibrate this system
and begin allocating resources in such a way that student achievement is at the forefront
of decisions; this prioritizing is especially exigent if we expect every student to reach
high levels of academic achievement and to close the achievement gap that currently
exists in our nation. School finance issues have unified economic and social worlds,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

9
because over the past quarter of a century the success of our society has come to depend
upon the quality and effectiveness of our education system (Sandler, 2010).
Background of the Problem
California serves over 6.2 million students through its public education system
(Ed-Data, 2011), which includes a very diverse population with a wide range of needs.
California’s student population varies in ethnicity, language, race, and socioeconomic
status, making schools responsible for providing many distinct resources to meet the
needs of these ranging demographics. The economic crisis that our nation has suffered
has intensified budget cuts to the educational system; however, demands made by federal
and state officials as they relate to accountability systems to improve the academic
performance of all students remain at the forefront of the educational reform agenda.
Therefore, educational entities must identify resource allocation strategies that link to
student achievement.
The school finance system has historically been challenged to ensure that all
children have access to educational resources that afford them the best academic
opportunities. In the past, school districts were allowed to set their own property tax
rates, with local revenue constituting the majority of their school funding; this system,
unfortunately, created deep inequity between wealthy and low-income districts (Weston,
2010). However, California’s current budgetary system reflects two judicial and
legislative events that changed funding from the local to the state level: Serrano vs.
Priest and the passage of Proposition 13. In the Serrano vs. Priest decision, California’s
Supreme Court ruled that the state’s school finance system was unconstitutional; thus, it
required the state to equalize general-purpose funding across districts (Weston, 2010). In
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

10
1978, the passage of Proposition 13 capped the property tax rate at 1%, limited increases
in assessed values on which the tax was based, and allowed the state to determine how
the diminished revenue would be allocated (Weston, 2010).
Over time, responsibility for financing education in California schools has shifted
largely to the state rather than to local municipalities. In 1978–1979, local support
dropped to 25%, with state support increasing to 61%. The exact percentage the state
contributes varies each year, but between 2001 and 2010, the state’s general fund
provided an average of 55% of all K–12 funding (Weston, 2010). However, it is
important to note that all school taxes include those normally raised by local property
taxes and allocated and controlled by that state (Fischel, 1999–2000).
Another major event that has changed the school finance system is the standards-
based education reform movement occurring over the last 20 years. Policymakers have
aggressively made standards-based education part of their agenda so that more students
are able to reach higher levels of academic achievement; this agenda serves to promote
equity and excellence within our educational system. Moreover, with the standards-
based model, the goals for which our schools are being held accountable are more
outcome-oriented, which means focusing on the results of our educational system
(Odden, 2003). As they relate to fiscal accountability, many of the policies regarding
standards-based reform are directly tied to multiple fiscal resources that schools depend
on to function.
An example of these policies is 2001’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which
sought to address the disparity in achievement levels between students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds and their White and Asian peers. Under this legislation,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

11
schools are held accountable for ensuring that all students achieve at higher levels
regardless of race or ethnicity. Along with the new policy demands have come many
specific monetary sanctions that penalize schools if they do not make adequate progress
toward the goal of all students achieving at proficient levels. As such, the educational
finance system has begun to align with the demands of student outcome policies.
Another issue worth noting as it relates to the allocation of resources in a time of
fiscal constraint is the money spent in developing human capital among school staff.
Schools are responsible for increasing academic achievement for all students; in their
attempt to do so, they are implementing various strategies. One of the most common
strategies is increasing both the quantity and the quality of professional development for
teachers (Archibald & Gallagher, 2002). Even though experts have come to believe that
the effort and resource allocation for professional development is necessary to reaching
the high student achievement goals set by the standards-based reform, investigating not
only what constitutes effective professional development but also its cost and the impact
on the school’s resource allocation strategies is necessary (Archibald & Gallaher, 2002).
Even though districts can play a major role in setting the vision of professional
development for teachers, according to Corcoran (1995), and as cited by Desimone,
Porter, Garet, Birman, and Yoon (2002) in “How Do District Management and
Implementation Strategies Relate to the Quality of the Professional Development that
District Provide to Teachers?”, embedding school-based professional development in the
daily life of teachers is the most effective strategy. In analyzing the allocation of
resources—especially as it pertains to increased student achievement—school-based
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

12
professional development is an important factor in developing school models that focus
on student achievement.
Statement of the Problem
Historically, fiscal equity was the major concept around school finance; however,
a shift occurred with the call for fiscal adequacy during the 1990s (Odden, 2003). The
two major factors that shifted the focus from equity to adequacy were that money really
matters when providing educational opportunities to students and that money is linked
directly to student achievement (Odden, 2003). According to Odden (2003), under
standards-based education reform, the test of a finance policy is whether it provides
adequate revenue per pupil to ensure that he or she is being educated for high levels of
performance. Additionally, under an adequacy model, the test is whether a state’s school
finance system provides sufficient revenues for the average student as well as ensures
adequate additional resources to serve the diverse needs of different populations, such as
students with disabilities, language learners, and low-income, at-risk students (Odden,
2003). Odden (2003) has also stated that to determine adequate revenue levels, we must
identify the cost-effective programs and strategies, translate the cost into appropriate
school finance structures, and ensure that the resources are used in districts and schools to
produce the desired results. Implementing this approach will also ensure fiscal equity
within the school finance system.
The shift from an equity to an adequacy framework also means that states no
longer allow districts to select their own spending levels; on the contrary, all districts and
schools must spend at an adequate level that allows them to provide a set of educational
programs that are successful in educating students to performance standards. According
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

13
to Odden (2003), designing an adequate school finance system requires the state to
identify both a sufficient expenditure level for the typical student and to make necessary
adjustments for students with different needs.
Four methods to determine an adequate foundation expenditure level have been
identified by Odden (2003): (a) the successful district approach, (b) the cost function
approach, (c) the professional judgment approach, and (d) the Evidence-Based approach.
The successful district approach identifies districts that have helped their students reach
proficiency levels; this approach allows districts to set the adequacy level at the pupil
expenditure level. The second approach, the cost function approach, utilizes regression
analysis per pupil expenditure as the dependent variable and takes into account student
district characteristics; it produces an adequate expenditure per pupil for the average
district. The third approach, the professional judgment approach, asks a group of experts
to identify effective educational strategies for primary, secondary, and special needs
students; they then attach a price to each ingredient and add the costs to obtain a total
expenditure per pupil. The fourth approach used as a method to determine adequate
foundation expenditure is the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus
(2008). “This approach identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a high-
quality, comprehensive, school-wide instructional program” (Odden, 2003, p. 123).
Notably, this approach more directly identifies educational strategies that produce desired
results; in this way, it assists schools by guiding them to better use their dollars.
In this era of accountability, in which educators must ensure that all students
achieve at the same levels, demands on schools to apply effective and proven strategies
for allocating resources is heavy. Additionally, with the economic crisis and budget cuts
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

14
they are currently facing, schools must strategically allocate resources to maximize
student outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to develop a better understanding of the use of
resources to improve student-learning outcomes in three middle schools within a charter
management organization (CMO). Additionally, the study intends to provide an
understanding of the link between resource allocation and student performance, and how
administrators can reallocate staff resources to improve student performance in times of
fiscal constraint. Finally, the study develops a staff analysis model to understand how
staffing realities relate to staffing goals for the three specific middle schools within the
charter management organization.
Research Questions
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement for students at the middle school level?
2. How are human resources allocated across this CMO’s middle schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in these
middle schools and what the research has suggested is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement for students in these three middle schools?
This study utilized the Evidence-Based Model developed by Lawrence Picus and Allan
Odden (2010) to analyze the level of resources necessary for these three middle schools
to adequately allocate funds linked to improving student performance. One of the
purposes of the Evidence-Based Model is to assist educators and communities in finding
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

15
a way to stretch education dollars and to improve student academic achievement without
raising costs (Odden & Picus, 2010).
Importance of the Study
As our nation struggles with economic crisis, schools face a dire need to identify
strategies for allocating resources in a strategic manner focused on student achievement.
This study views the allocation of human resources through an Evidence-Based Model in
which academic achievement is the priority. Additionally, the study intends to provide
practical recommendations so that urban low-performing middle schools can allocate
resources as a strategy for turning around low-performing schools.
This study is important in providing a comparison of the different types of
resources needed in an independent charter model school that starts only with one grade
level—versus a school that opens its doors serving all grade levels at once. The study
also offers insight about both how the three middle schools are similar and how their
allocation of resources should differ due to the populations they serve.
Summary of Methodology
The study identified three independent charter middle schools within a Charter
Management Organization that at the time of research was running 6
th
- to 8
th
-grade
programs. The three schools had an enrollment projection of 200 students per grade
level; the three schools in this study were all part of a CMO that served schools in
different parts of Los Angeles, such as Venice, Inglewood, South Los Angeles, Central
City, Watts, South East, and East Los Angeles. The study analyzed the resource
allocation practices of these three schools to determine if they aligned with the
recommended practices in the EBM. Additionally, the study determined if the resources
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

16
allocated by each of the middle schools aligned with the CMO’s philosophy of an
intervention-driven approach and its belief that resources should go to the classroom to
the maximum extent possible and if the resources allocated by the schools aligned with
the model established by the CMO’s overall recommendations. Finally, the study
determined if a gap exists between the current allocated resources for each middle school
and the recommendations in the EBM as they related to resource allocation practices that
improve student achievement.
This project was a qualitative study, an appropriate approach for reviewing the
multiple documents that provided information on the resources allocated to three middle
schools. Additionally, interviews consisting of open-ended questions were conducted to
identify patterns and trends as they pertained to site-level administrators and the CMO’s
main office personnel. The study also utilized a simulation document created by Odden
and Picus (2010), in which the researcher input all the necessary information so as to
conduct analysis of how the resources at these three schools compared to the
recommended resource allocation, as identified in the Evidence-Based Model developed
by Odden and Picus (2010).
Limitations of the Study
One of the most restrictive limitations of this study was that the expenditure and
resource allocations were only for the 2012–2013 school year, rather than longitudinal.
Additionally, the study only looked at school-level data from these specific schools rather
than across districts in California. This project thus contrasts to an exhaustive study,
which would take into consideration multiple years of resource allocation and different
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

17
type of schools to investigate patterns that would provide a more comprehensive and
thorough picture of the funding practices in schools.
Delimitations of the Study
This study looked at three schools in one Charter Management Organization
(CMO) within the Los Angeles area. Therefore, the findings of the study can only be
generalized to California charter middle schools meeting the criteria used for the
selection.
Definition of Terms
Adequacy - providing sufficient resources for all students to achieve expected
performance levels (SEDL, 2005).
Adequate Yearly Progress - a series of annual academic performance goals
established for each school, LEA, and the state as a whole.
Academic Performance Index (API) - annual ranking based on calculations of
student proficiency on yearly assessment as part of California’s overall accountability
system.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) - FTE enrollment count so that the aid system
provides funding for all students in the district (Odden & Picus, 2009).
Charter Management Organization (CMO) - nonprofits that operate multiple
charter schools as well as launch new ones.
Equity - the fair distribution of educational resources (including uniformity of
facilities and environment, equal resources inputs, and equal access to educational
opportunities) for all students (SEDL, 2005).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

18
Expenditures - the amount of education money spent by districts and/or states for
school needs (including functions such as instruction, support services, and food services,
and objects such as salaries, benefits, and materials) (SEDL, 2005).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - federal legislation that increased accountability
for schools in reaching high levels of proficiency for all students.
Resource Allocation - the ways in which fiscal and nonfiscal resources are divided
between competing needs and expended for educational purposes (SEDL, 2005).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of the literature related to resource allocation in
schools and to the strategies used to increase student achievement. The review also
focuses on effective instructional, organizational, and resource-allocation practices that
school districts have implemented to increase student achievement.
The purpose of this chapter is to review and synthesize the extant literature on
school finance, and on how school districts have historically developed models to target
student outcomes. Additionally, the literature on the new educational finance reforms—
especially as it pertains to adequacy—will be discussed. As will be seen, current school
finance models seek to make certain that schools adopt different approaches to allocating
dollars so as to target increased student outcomes and meet all of the demands of state
and federal guidelines, even within the current budget crisis.
Accountability Measures and School Finance
School finance issues are at the top of the agenda at the national-, state-, district-,
and local-school level. Every child’s future—as well as the future of society in general—
depends on the quality of education our school systems provide. As expectations rise for
students and teachers to perform at higher levels and for schools to guarantee success for
all students, concern remains about whether the allocated resources support achievement
(SEDL, 2003). The answer seems to be yes. Diane Pan and colleagues (2003) examined
achievement data and spending patterns in four states, and found “a strong relationship
between resources and student success,” particularly when the resources were directed
toward core instructional areas rather than toward general administration (Qtd. in SEDL,
2003, p. 4).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

20
Over the past 15 years, the urgency of raising academic achievement for all
American students has been leading the educational agenda. This aim assumes that if
students are provided with sufficient opportunities and resources, they can reach the set
expectations (Rebell, 2007). According to Rebell (2007), the rapid expansion of
adequacy cost studies contributed to the emergence of the standard-based reform
movement in the early 1990s. Additionally, the passage of No Child Left Behind (2001)
legislation put accountability at the forefront of the educational agenda throughout our
nation, and placed pressure on the need for education reform (SELD, 2003).
With NCLB and standards-based reforms, schools are responsible for raising
academic achievement; if schools do not do so, they face a number of sanctions,
including losing students, their autonomy, and even their ability to operate (SEDL, 2003).
Additionally, “the standards-based reform movement has strongly influenced judicial
concepts of adequacy, which have tended to interpret constitutional requirements for a
‘thorough and efficient’ or a ‘sound, basic’ education in terms of a ‘high-minimum’ level
related to the state learning-standards” (Rebell, 2007, p. 1308). Rebell (2007) has also
argued that because state standards have concretely identified the gaps that exist in
student preparation and achievement, states must determine the amount of funding
necessary to providing students the resources required to meet these expectations.
Therefore, she has argued, the inherent logic behind standards-based reform and the
explicit demands of other mandates such as court orders have forced the use of “adequacy
cost-analysis as the primary building block for a proper and constitutionally acceptable
state education funding system” (Rebell, 2007, p. 1309).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

21
Furthermore, according to Odden (2003), the educational arena’s main focus
concerning school finance is the issue of adequacy—unlike in the past, when the most
important topic was equity. He has pointed out that revising funding formulas to address
adequacy will create an improvement in fiscal equity as well. As noted by Odden (2003),
adequacy centers on whether the amount of funding provided can actually produce the
desired level of student performance. Therefore, in analyzing the history of educational
finance, understanding current approaches to financing student education in an adequate
and equitable manner remains crucial.
Education Finance History
Analyzing the history of education finance to understand current budget
challenges is crucial, as such insight enables us to understand how our system has
traditionally dealt with equities in education as they relate to the resources allocated to
students in different parts of the nation. As asserted by Odden (2003), differences in per-
pupil spending have a significant impact on the outcome of student performance. He has
suggested that to determine adequate revenue levels, school districts must identify cost-
effective programs and strategies, and translate those strategies into appropriate school
finance structures. Finally, he has urged districts and schools to use resources in a
manner that produces desired results (Odden, 2003).
A common belief regarding school finance is that the dollars allocated to
education are not adequate, thereby making it difficult for school districts to meet federal
and state mandates for student outcomes. According to Odden and Picus (2008), contrary
to the belief of many policymakers, educators, and the general public, dollar amounts
funding public education rose consistently during the 20
th
century and continue to rise in
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

22
the 21st century. Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) have also found a 3.5% increase in
spending for elementary and secondary schools per student every year from 1890 to
1990.
As stated by Odden and Picus (2008), according to the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), on average, per-pupil expenditures were just under $9,000
for the 2003 school year. The National Education Association (2005) estimated that per-
pupil expenditures amounted to $9,102 for the 2004–2005 school year. As of 2013, state
governments still provide the largest share of public school financial support. According
to the “Ranking and Estimates Report” by the National Education Association, federal,
state, and local revenue contributions for public education for 2010–2011 were estimated
to total $596.3 billion (NEA Report, 2010–2011).
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) have further stated that spending in general for
education has increased, but that much of the money has gone to increased expenses in
noninstructional staff. Factors that Hanushek and Rivkin have identified as having an
impact on public school expenditures are the rising price of instructional staff, declining
pupil-teacher and pupil-staff ratios, and increasing noninstructional costs. The argument
presented by Odden and Picus (2008) is that the dollar increases that have been provided
to public education, though tied to instructional functions, have usually focused on
increasing resources outside the core or regular-education program.
District-level analysis failed to reveal significant variations in the allocation and
use of resources at the school level for both equity and adequacy, making it virtually
impossible to accurately link resources and patterns of educational strategies, especially
regarding instructional quality (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich & Gross, 2003). Since the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

23
inception of holding local communities responsible for funding basic education, states
have utilized a flat-grant for each school child; theoretically, this flat-grant has covered
the cost of providing a minimum education. However, in 1920, due to claims of
inequities related to the amount of funding between property-wealthy and property-poor
districts, many states adopted “foundation” programs. According to Rebell (2007), these
programs required local school districts to levy taxes at a rate that would generate
revenue to fund a minimum education, with the state supplementing the additional
amount for less wealthy districts when the rate did not yield the minimum “foundation
level.” However, they were never realized because a system never existed to establish
minimum “foundation levels” based on educational needs. Instead, minimum
“foundation levels” tended to be established by way of legislature using the amount
allocated for education funding. This method also lacked analysis of actual cost or actual
needs.
Furthermore, a concern around public education financing is the reporting
system that has been used by educational leaders and policymakers at school, district,
state, and federal levels to make programmatic and instructional decisions. Historically,
reports that accounted for expenditures, such as salaries, benefits, heating costs, books,
and so forth, ensured that accountability guidelines were met, but the categories reported
were not very useful for decision making (Odden et al., 2003). Until the end of the 20
th

century, school financing relied on allocating expenditures for various functional
categories (i.e., instruction, instructional support, administration, operations,
maintenance, transportation, food services, etc.), as outlined in the fiscal accounting
“handbook” created by the United States Department of Education and local education
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

24
leaders in the 1950s. However, the manner in which the educational expenditures were
categorized did not allow evaluators to identify what portion of the educational dollar
was actually spent on instructional activities. This approach came under scrutiny as
studies concluded that these accounting structures were stable over time across states and
districts despite the drastic changes that occurred within education programs and service
strategies between 1965 and 1990 (Odden et al., 2003).
Due to concerns about the utilization of broad functional categories, a new
approach began to categorize expenditures by instructional programs that were defined as
regular education, special education, compensatory education, bilingual education, and
gifted and talented education. These “program” definitions reflected categorical
programs enacted at the state and local levels; as such, they allowed schools to use
guidelines set by those regulations to ensure that they were applying the dollars to the
intended populations (Odden et al., 2003). However, according to Odden et al. (2003),
even with this change in fiscal reporting, the problem remained that schools were
determining their educational programs, and there was little consistency in how this
allocation was being undertaken. Fiscal data on how schools were determining the
allocation of the dollars were scarce. An on-going problem with expenditures-based
reporting structures pertaining to school finance is the lack of feedback they provide,
especially with regard to the educational strategies they use and how they predict
schools’ use of dollars in the future (Odden et al., 2003).
The current focus on expenditures and the impact they have on student
performance, as well as the current budget cuts our educational system is facing, have led
stakeholders to rethink how we look at school finance. Additionally, the judicial focus on
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

25
the level of funding necessary to provide an adequate education for all children—as
defined within the new legislation—has resulted in an explosion of “costing-out” studies
that seek to determine the actual amount of funding needed to provide all students with a
meaningful opportunity for an adequate education.
According to Rebell (2007), in the early 1980s, Jay Chambers and Thomas
Parrish first attempted to overcome the limitations of the historical “foundation funding
in education approach,” in studies they conducted in Alaska and Illinois. Chambers and
Parrish created a Resource Cost Model (RCM) that “sought to determine the ‘exact
quantity and precise mix of resources needed to reach desired goals in education’” (p.
1307). The RCM was an input-oriented model that organized multiple levels of
stakeholders, such as superintendents, administrators, and teachers, so that they could
develop “appropriate” service-delivery systems.
Following the RCM in the mid-1990s, James Guthrie and his colleagues at
Management Analysis Planning (MAP) developed what is known as the “professional
judgment” cost-study methodology after the Wyoming Supreme Court required the state
to calculate the cost of the “basket of goods and services” needed to provide students
with a “proper” education; this methodology placed great emphasis on educational
“outputs” and “inputs” (Rebell, 2007). This “professional judgment”—similar to that
espoused by the RCM—called for a panel of experts with relevant experience to design
an educational program that would deliver a “proper” education. However, once it
identified the basic resources necessary to providing a basic education, the panel was
asked to consider if additional resources were necessary to provide certain types of
students a sound education; this population included students with disabilities, those from
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

26
low socioeconomic neighborhoods, and English Language Learners. Once the panel
identified inputs, researchers could use extensive economic analysis and market-pricing
assumptions to determine the necessary funding levels.
Another costing-out methodology, created by John Augenblick and John Myers in
response to the education adequacy order of the Ohio Supreme Court in DeRolph vs.
State, was the “successful school district” (p. 1307) method. The major task this method
entailed was to identify districts that were successfully meeting state standards, and then
to use their average expenditures to estimate the actual cost of an adequate education.
The researchers in Ohio chose successful school districts for their sample, using six
specific measures of student achievement and eight input measures, such as pupil-teacher
ratio and average teacher salary.
Evidence-Based Model
This section discusses the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) as a preferred model
due to its alignment with research-based strategies that have been identified as having a
significant impact on student outcomes, and because it uses a strategic approach to
considering the allocation of resources. The EBM’s basic approach is to identify school-
based programs and educational strategies that research has found to improve student
learning (Odden & Picus, 2010). This approach includes only recommendations that are
supported by either solid research evidence or best practices. The 10 key strategies in the
EBM are as follows:
1. Create a sense of urgency
2. Set ambitious goals
3. Adopt a new curriculum and instructional vision
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

27
4. Use multiple forms of student data
5. Invest in on-going professional development
6. Use time more effectively and efficiently
7. Provide extra time and help to struggling students
8. Create collaborative cultures
9. Become professional communities and performance-oriented cultures
10. Address talent and human capital issues.
Additionally, the EBM establishes prototypical schools; estimates resources needed at
schools, including an aggregation of school-level to district-level allocations; and adds
central office costs so as to provide an estimate of the total statewide expenditures of the
model’s recommendations (Odden & Picus, 2010). The EBM provides the content of
specific allocations for school personnel.
The prototypical school size that the EBM utilizes, based on research for a middle
school, includes 450 students in grades 6–8 with 18 core teachers and an average of 25
students per class. Odden and Picus (2008) have recommended that if it is significantly
larger than the prototypes, the school should form small learning communities and have
them operate as independent schools. Additionally, Odden and Picus (2008) have
identified professional and curriculum development as a key strategy for improving
student performance; therefore, embedding a planning period for teachers is necessary.
However, this period requires an additional 20% allocation of specialist teachers to
maintain the recommended class size.
The EBM also calls for school-based instructional facilitators in a school with 500
students in order to make professional development work. That these individuals—
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

28
usually referred to as mentors, coaches, or curriculum specialists—spend most of their
time in the classroom, modeling lessons as well as coaching teachers and providing
feedback on the instructional program on an on-going basis, is critical to improving
student outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008). The formula used to determine the number of
school-based instructional facilitators is one full-time employee (FTE) for every 200
students, which translates into 2.25 FTE facilitators for the prototypical 450-student
middle school.
The EBM also focuses on issues of staffing as they address the needs of
struggling students. According to Odden and Picus (2008), struggling students are
defined as students with disabilities, English Language Learners (ELLs), and those
eligible for free and reduced lunch. Under the EBM model, the most effective strategy
for addressing the needs of struggling students is one-on-one tutoring by a licensed
teacher. The EBM calls for one tutor for every 100 students in poverty, with a minimum
of one for every school. Odden and Picus (2008) have also indicated that the structure for
the tutoring program is crucial to this strategy’s effectiveness.
The EBM also outlines critical elements necessary to serving a student identified
as ELL; they are qualified teachers, adequate instructional materials, good school
conditions, sound assessments, less segregation of ELL students, and a rigorous
curriculum. Additionally, one FTE for every 100 ELLs is recommended. Also, because
many states have high standards for student achievement, and many students need
additional support, summer school programs should be provided to struggling learners
(Odden & Picus, 2008). All of the school prototypes following the EBM model included
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

29
a summer school provision for 50% of all adjusted-free-and-reduced-price-lunch students
in K–12. The program provisions recommend allocating one FTE for every 100 students.
Another strategy identified under the EBM, primarily in secondary schools, is
extended-day programs for some students in order to provide a safe environment, but also
to offer additional academic support. The EBM model includes resources for an
extended-day program in all prototype schools; however, because not all students will
require this type of support, the model only includes resources for 50% of the adjusted
free-and-reduced-price-lunch pupil count. The model suggests providing one teacher
position for every 15 eligible students, paid at the rate of 25% of the position’s annual
salary in order to offer a 2.5 to 3.0–hours extended-day program five days a week. Odden
and Picus (2008) have also indicated that summer school has a significant impact on
student outcomes; therefore, the EBM model includes a summer school provision for
50% of all adjusted free-and-reduced-lunch students in K–12. The model
recommendations are based on resources being allocated for an eight-week, six-hour-a-
day program, with a class size of 15 students. The program allocation targets support in
reading and mathematics instruction. In summary, the model includes the allocation of
resources to provide at-risk students additional structured programs that address this
specific population of students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Another area specifically addressed under the EBM is appropriate special-
education services for students; however, the challenge to funding such programs and
services in a cost-effective manner comes from the complex funding models utilized for
special education across the nation. Odden and Picus (2008) have argued that many
students with mild and moderate disabilities—particularly those associated with difficulty
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

30
learning to read—are able to correct these problems through strategic early intervention;
additionally, if staff team up to identify deficits and correct them in the general education
setting, special education identification—as well as costs—can be reduced. The EBM
model, therefore, allocates a fixed census amount of about 3.0 FTE special education
positions for a school of about 432 students in the prototypical middle school. The EBM
model takes a census approach to funding special education services for high-incidence
and lower services for the disabled, and suggests 100% reimbursement by the state for
the severely disabled population.
The EBM identifies additional necessary resources in prototypical schools. The
personnel resources identified include substitute teachers, support personnel, and
administrators. Additionally, the EBM allocates resources that are connected to
professional development, technology, equipment, and instructional materials. The EBM
includes an allocation of approximately 10 days for substitute coverage per teacher. The
EBM also identifies student support and family outreach strategies as necessary,
especially in high-poverty schools (Odden & Picus, 2008). Research shows that
programs that provide parent education to support children’s learning at home can
positively impact student achievement. At the secondary level, the goal should be to
have programs that help parents learn what they should expect of their children around
academic performance. In addition, at the middle school level, the need for a guidance
counselor is necessary. The EBM model uses the standard established by the American
School Counselor Association (ASCA), which recommends one counselor for every 250
secondary students. The EBM includes an allocation of one teacher-level position for
every 100 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Additionally, the model
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

31
allocates 1.8 and 2.4 guidance counselor positions in the prototypical middle school,
depending on the student population. The model, therefore, enables district and schools
to allocate FTE staff such as guidance counselors, nurses, and social workers, depending
on the school’s needs (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The EBM identifies another resource in aides, who would fulfill duties such as
lunch and before and after school supervision, as well as school bus monitoring.
However, the model doesn’t support instructional aides because no evidence indicates
that this type of support increases student achievement. Nevertheless, according to
Odden and Picus (2008), if selected and utilized in a specific manner (i.e., provided with
training in reading programs, and closely supervised), aides can have a significant impact
on student outcomes. The EBM also identifies secretarial staff to support teachers,
administrators, answer phones, and greet parents as an important resource. The model,
therefore, allocates 2.0 FTE secretarial positions for a prototypical middle school.
According to Odden and Picus (2008), every school needs a principal, an
administrative position that exists in all American schools. Most researchers and
policymakers agree that principals play an important role in the success of schools;
however, it is important to clarify that their impact on student achievement is indirect. A
school’s instructional team is critical for student success as it provides instructional
leadership by (a) creating professional communities, (b) creating professional
development opportunities for teachers, (c) signaling that instructional improvement and
student achievement are core goals, and (d) helping the school as a whole take
responsibility for student achievement increases (Odden & Picus, 2008). Therefore,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

32
under the EBM model, allocations for the leadership team are a principal and 2.3
instructional coach positions at the elementary and middle school levels.
The EBM also allocates resources for professional development. According to
Odden and Picus (2008), all school faculties require on-going professional development
so that their teaching practices can improve and remain effective. Moreover, they have
argued that all resources included in the EBM need to be transformed into high-quality
instruction in order to increase student learning. On-going, effective professional
development can transform instructional practices. The resources outlined by Odden and
Picus (2008) are intensive training institutes, on-site coaching, collaboration, planning
and preparation time, as well as funds for training during summer and the school year.
This allotment amounts to approximately $100 per pupil, translating into $45,000 for a
prototypical middle school under EBM.
The EBM indicates that, if used appropriately, technology can have a positive
impact on students, preparing them better for postsecondary education and the workforce.
As Odden and Picus (2008) have explained, technology is a motivator for students, and
potentially supports future performance expectations. The costs associated with
technology can be both indirect and direct, as it includes training, user application
development, maintenance, and downtime cost; the model suggests a $250 per-pupil rate,
which allows the school to provide one computer for every three students. Finally, the
EBM model includes an allocation of $20 per student for library services at the middle
school level, $140 per pupil for instructional material, and $200 dollars per pupil for
student activities.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

33
According to Odden and Picus (2010), prioritizing should be based on analysis of
the “effect sizes” that research has identified for each strategy, which allows the school or
district to choose the most effective strategy first. Notably, although no explicit research
indicates the impact that the EBM has had on student performance, Odden and Picus
have looked at:
[S]chools and districts in each state that have “doubled” student performance on
tests over a four-to-six year time frame and have found that the strategies used in
schools and districts that have produced impressive student achievement gains are
very similar to those included in the Evidence-Based Model. (Odden & Picus,
2010, p. 21)
Figure A, below, shows an example of the resources the Evidence-Based Model
recommends to ensure that allocation helps students achieve at high levels. Table 1
outlines the adequate resources for a prototypical elementary, middle, and high school, as
deemed adequate under the Evidence-Based Model.

Figure A. The Evidence-Based Model.
Source: Odden and Picus, 2010.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

34
Table 1
Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School Configuration K–5 6–8 9–12
Prototypical School Size 432 450 600
Class Size
K-3: 15
25 25
4–5: 25
Full-Day Kindergarten Yes N/A N/A
Number of Teacher Work
Days
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
% disabled 12 12 12
% poverty (free and 50 50 50
Reduced-price lunch)
% ELL 10 10 10
% minority 30 30 30
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist Teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more: 8.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for Struggling
Students
1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.25
1 for every 100
poverty students: 3.0
5. Teachers for ELL Students Additional 1.0 teachers for
every 100 ELL students:
0.43
Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.45
Additional 1.0
teachers for every 100
ELL students: 0.60
6. Extended Day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer School 1.8 1.875 2.5
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

35
Table 1, continued
Personnel Resources
8a. Learning and Mildly
Disabled Students

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools
8b. Severely Disabled
Students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
9. Teachers for Gifted
Students
$25/student $25/student $25/student
10. Vocational Education NA NA No extra cost
11. Substitutes 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11
12. Pupil Support Staff

1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
1 for every 100 poverty
students plus 1.0
guidance/250 students:
3.25
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students: 5.4
13. Non-instructional Aides 2.0 2.0 3.0
14. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian
1.0 library technician
15. Principal 1 1 1
16. School Site Secretary 2.0 2.0 3.0
17. Professional Development Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning and prep time 10
summer days Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses—trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning and prep time
10 summer days
Additional: $100/pupil
for other PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional coaches
Planning and prep
time 10 summer days
Additional: $50/pupil
for other PD
expenses—trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
18. Technology $250/pupil $250/pupil $250/pupil
19. Instructional Materials $140/pupil $140/pupil $175/pupil
20. Student Activities $200/pupil $200/pupil $250/pupil
Source: Odden & Picus (2010)

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

36
Change Process in the Educational Arena
The expectation to raise academic performance for all students is clearly
identified as one of the most important goals of our educational system today.
Policymakers, parents, the business community, and most educators clearly want
significant improvements to what public education is delivering (Odden & Archibald,
2009). Demands to produce student achievement scores that meet the requirements of
state standards-based education reforms, as well as the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
accountability measures and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines, are forcing
schools to engage in a major change process (Odden & Archibald, 2009). The changes
that districts and schools have adopted to achieve these goals, though, are difficult and
can take some time to implement fully. However, the big difference today, as compared
to similar efforts undertaken in the past, is that the strategies being implemented are
similar across urban, suburban, and rural districts. Odden and Archibald (2009) have
argued that such commonality is due to a new policy environment that, as never before, is
calling upon schools to educate all children to higher levels of performance.
Resource Allocation as a Change Strategy
As educational systems strive to improve academic performance levels in all
schools, redesigning the educational finance system for greater efficiency and
effectiveness becomes even more important to better determining the impact that funding
has on student achievement (SEDL, 2005). The Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory (SEDL) conducted a study that looked at district-level patterns of resource
allocation, district and school resource practices implemented to improve student
achievement, and barriers and challenges faced by districts and schools in efficiently
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

37
allocating resources. The study examined data on student performance, as well as on
fiscal and human resource allocations, from independent school districts in four states:
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas. Also included in the study were 12
selected school districts that showed consistent gains in student performance; these
school districts allowed researchers to more closely examine the resource allocation
program and practices of successful school districts (SEDL, 2005). The findings from
the study demonstrated a strong relationship between allocated resources and student
success. The results also indicated a significant impact on student performance when
resources were targeted for certain practices and selected areas (SEDL, 2005).
One of the specific findings from the study was that high-performing districts
showed different resource allocation patterns in specific fiscal and staffing categories
than low-performing districts. One general pattern that emerged was the association
between higher performance with higher spending for instruction, core expenditures, and
number of teachers, and lower spending on administrative staff. Additionally,
improvement districts showed different resource allocation patterns in specific fiscal and
staffing categories from nonimprovement districts of a similar size. Improvement
districts spent more per pupil in instruction and instruction-related areas; also, the study
found that the 12 improvement districts were faster in reallocating resources away from
administrative and noninstructional areas over the five-year period examined (SEDL,
2005). Furthermore, the study showed that the improvement districts managed to align
general reform efforts with the effective application and allocation of monetary, staff,
time, physical, and parent/community resources. These findings harmonized with
Odden’s (2011) argument that schools must implement a strategic approach in which the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

38
use of education dollars aligns to the use of resources to develop a solid, powerful, and
comprehensive education improvement strategy. Further, Odden (2011) argued that the
strategic use of education dollars would ensure specific and clear links between the
resources and the staffing needs of the improvement strategy. Therefore, determining
strategies that have proven successful in increasing student performance is necessary
when the reallocation of resources is being considered part of the change process
occurring in our school systems.
School Improvement Strategies as a Change Strategy
As stated by Odden (2011), the comprehensive strategy for improving student
learning and closing the achievement gap in schools with diverse student populations is
no secret. Odden and Archibald (2009) have identified “10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance,” which provide a framework for schools seeking to improve
student achievement; these strategies fall into the following categories: (a) Understand
the Performance Problem and Challenge; (b) Set Ambitious Goals; (c) Change the
Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision; (d) Utilize Benchmark and
Formative Assessments, and Make Decisions Based on Data; (e) Provide On-Going,
Intensive Professional Development; (f) Use Time Efficiently and Effectively; (g) Extend
Learning and Time for Struggling Students; (h) Establish a Collaborative, Professional
Culture and Distributive Leadership System; (i) Ensure that Professional and Best
Practices are Implemented; and (j) Acknowledge and Incorporate the Human Capital Side
of Doubling Student Performance.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

39
Analyzing the Current Performance Situation
According to Odden (2011), districts that have dramatically improved student
performance have, at some point, analyzed their current student performance situation.
He argued that it is difficult to craft a strategy to improve academic performance if the
district does not understand the present levels and the characteristics of its students. In
his book 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, Odden (2009) has identified
the first element of understanding the performance problem and the challenges that exist
in most American public schools, particularly those serving students in low
socioeconomic communities. As Odden (2009) has pointed out, schools and districts
must engage such analysis that will attain knowledge on how to promote the necessary
changes to moving schools from their current performance levels to desired ones. State
assessment data, which now include not only reading and mathematics but also writing,
science, and other high school end-of-year exams, are what many districts and schools
traditionally use to identify their present levels of performance. They typically look for
patterns such as the percent of students scoring at or above proficiency or passing levels,
and how results vary by grade level and subject. Additionally, districts and schools have
looked at the performance level of different subgroups, such as students with disabilities,
English Language Learners (ELL), and students from low-income backgrounds.
However, according to Odden (2011), schools are most successful when conducting
analyses of current performance levels that involve both teachers and administrators at
the site level; Odden (2011) has argued that this scope helps staff understand student
performance levels and promotes a culture of ownership over the analytical results.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

40
When using state data analysis methods to understand performance problems,
schools should not solely focus on demographics. Even though demographics can be used
to understand the performance challenges, Odden (2009) found that school districts that
double student performance have focused their attention on the implications of other
policies and practices, such as reducing funding, allocating resources, and undertaking
curriculum practices that impact the performance of students on state assessments; as
such, their analysis of state data is used to identify other issues that may impact the
present level of performance of students on state assessments.
Additionally, in attempting to gain an understanding of students’ performance
levels, Odden (2009) has argued for the necessity of recognizing the impact that
mandates such as the No Child Left Behind legislation has on schools, given that they
identify specific goals that all schools must accomplish. Further, the additional pressures
that have been created by state standards-based reforms, the business community, and
competitive practices such as open enrollment policies, charter school approvals, and
cross-district enrollment, which exert further demands on schools to improve their
performance levels, must be acknowledged (Odden, 2009). Also, the “moral” initiative
to close the achievement gap and to improve the performance of children from low
socioeconomic backgrounds must be considered. As stated by Odden (2009), schools
and districts must understand the various entities that apply pressure on them so that they
can begin to understand their performance challenges.
Finally, according to Odden (2009), gaining an understanding of the current
performance situation and the degree of the issue is integral to attacking the problem in a
systematic manner. Odden (2009) has pointed out that using state testing data can help
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

41
identify weak areas in the curriculum and instructional programs used by schools. Even
though it does not provide solutions, state data analysis identifies areas that need to be
targeted so that schools can understand their performance problems.
Setting Ambitious Goals
Another strategy often cited for increasing student performance is setting
ambitious goals. According to Odden (2011), “Districts and schools that make dramatic
improvement, sometimes literally doubling student performance on state tests, set very
high and ambitious goals” (p. 9). This assertion serves as the second strategy in Odden’s
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance; when schools commit to doubling
student performance, they set high, ambitious goals regardless of the current performance
levels or student demographics. All districts and schools that set very high goals have
managed to double student performance because they didn’t focus on marginal
improvements; notably, although some schools do not attain their targeted goals, they
typically make substantial improvement and arrive at a better place than where they
started (Odden, 2009).
Only in the second half of the 20
th
century have goal-setting strategies been
discussed by educational scholars. According to Hallinger and Heck (1996), educational
scholars recognized that to improve instructional outcomes, setting clear goals and
maintaining a sense of common purpose was necessary. They stated that, “Goals clarify
where people intend to go and how they will know when they have gotten there”
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996, p. 17). Another important factor in setting ambitious goals is
having them be specific, numeric, and subject focused (Odden, 2011). Studies have
shown that a majority of goals developed in schools or districts that have made
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

42
significant improvements also focused on student performance in core subjects, generally
defined as English/Language Arts (reading and writing), mathematics, science and social
sciences; per Odden (2011), these identified goals also serve as a driver of resource
allocation. Notably, setting goals does not cost money; however, goal setting at the
district level that trickles down to the school-site level and grade level is necessary.
Innovative Curriculum Programs and New Instructional Vision
Another strategy that has proven essential to doubling student performance is
changing the curriculum program and creating a new instructional vision. According to
Odden (2009), schools that have doubled student performance have focused on factors
that can be controlled within the school system, such as “teacher assignment, academic
expectations, the organization of curriculum and instruction, the curriculum programs and
textbooks, and effective instructional practices” (p. 27). Odden and Archibald (2009)
found that all of the school districts they studied that made progress with student
achievement had adopted a new curriculum and framed a new educational vision for their
schools in relation to the instructional programs they have implemented. Notably,
however, no specific curriculum has been identified; what has consistently been found,
though, is that schools that have made significant increases in student performance
carefully chose their curriculum based on analysis of present levels of performance and
alignment to their goals Odden (2011).
In addition to adopting new curriculum programs, schools that have doubled
student performance also claimed that, over time, they have developed a school-wide and
district-wide view of what good instructional practices look like in the classroom (Odden
& Archibald, 2009). This notion is also supported by Odden (2011), who states, “An
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

43
increasingly specific element of this new curriculum and instructional approach,
moreover, is an explicit vision of effective instructional practices (p. 11). According to
Odden, Borman, and Fermanich (2004; as cited in Odden, 2011), “[T]he curriculum that
is taught, and the instructional approaches to teaching that curriculum, are the key factors
under the control of school that impact student learning” (p. 11–12).
Odden and Archibald have also pointed out that the development of good
instructional practices often takes place through collaborative teams that include
teachers—rather than through isolation (2009). Therefore, it can be concluded that a tool
of schools and districts significantly moving the student achievement needle is the
adoption of innovative curriculum supported by a detailed and well-articulated view of
effective instructional practices (Odden, 2011).
Data-Based Decision Making
Districts and schools that are significantly improving student learning and
reducing the achievement gap not only embrace the use of data, but also engage in a wide
series of “data-based decision-making” activities, all of which require additional and
more detailed information on student academic performance in core subjects (Odden,
2011). As such, studies have indicated that districts and schools that have made
significant gains in student learning have adopted additional testing measurements, which
are administered and analyzed throughout the academic year (Odden, 2011).
Other tools designed and utilized by schools and districts to glean detailed and
concrete information on what students know—and do not know—with regard to
curriculum taught throughout the year are formative assessments (Odden & Archibald,
2009). Odden (2011) has expanded on the use of formative assessments to focus on
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

44
student assessment data to improve instructional processes (i.e., to help frame, hone, and
focus teaching to the specific learning needs of students in each class, grade, and subject).
Information about current levels of student performance that teachers gain through
assessment tools allows them to strategically plan instruction and target what students
need to know in order to achieve at expected levels (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
One other assessment instrument being used by schools and districts is the
benchmark assessment. Generally, benchmark assessments are administered on a less
frequent basis—every six to nine weeks, for example. Among the most common
assessment systems is the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) from the Northwestern
Evaluation Association (NWEA). The MAP is taken on line, is computer adapted, and
provides feedback to teachers, schools, and districts immediately after it is administered.
Benchmark assessments are typically used to track student performance progress at
multiple times in the academic year. Additionally, Odden (2011) has found that the
results of benchmark assessments are often used to place students into various
“intervention” or “extra-help” programs—if, in fact, the data show that the student is
making insufficient progress in the assessed area. These measurements differ from state
tests, which are “summative” assessments given at the end of the year; although primarily
used for accountability, the “summative” assessments are also consulted in the initial
analysis of the student performance. Furthermore, studies have indicated that schools that
have significantly increased student achievement also used common end-unit tests, thus
establishing a comparable basis on how students perform across the classroom as well as
a foundation for determining how effective the unit was in producing student learning
(Odden, 2011).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

45
Triangulating findings from multiple data sources—such as statewide testing,
formative and summative assessments, and classroom assessments—is crucial to
identifying if students are progressing toward learning outcomes. Finally, utilizing data
to make decisions, according to Odden and Archibald (2009), allows schools to analyze
where they have been effective and where adjustments are needed to improve students
learning outcomes.
On-Going and Intensive Professional Development
The analysis of data to determine current performance levels requires district and
school stakeholders to work collaboratively so that instructional plans can be deployed
and implemented effectively (Odden, 2011). As such, one strategy identified by the
literature regarding schools and districts moving the achievement needle by large
increments is strategic and on-going professional development plans (Odden, 2011).
However, typical professional development has had little impact on teacher practice or
student performance; the focus, then, should be on “effective professional development”
practices that have been linked to the growth of student achievement (Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich & Gallagher, 2002).
According to Odden (2009), schools that double student performance levels have
implemented professional development plans that are widespread, systematic, and on-
going (2009). Odden et al. (2002) have added, “[P]rofessional development is defined as
that professional development that produces change in teachers’ classroom-based
instructional practices, which can be linked to improvement in student learning” (p. 53).
Notably, to be an effective strategy for improving student performance,
professional development must be focused and embody a clear model of adult learning
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

46
that is explained to those who participate (Elmore, 2002). Professional development
should be designed to develop capacity and commitment to consistency and focus on
long-term changes for those who participate in the activities (Elmore, 2002). This agenda
is supported by Joyce and Showers (2002), who have stated that professional
development encompasses the development of knowledge, skills, and effective
implementation so that people can become more effective learners. They have identified
four main components for teacher training: developing knowledge through exploring
theory, understanding the concept behind a skill or strategy, demonstrating or modeling
skills, and practicing skills and peer coaching. Joyce and Showers (2002) have further
acknowledged that learning how to learn is just as important for teacher professional
development as is the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.
Guskey (1986) has identified three major guiding principles for planning effective
professional development: (a) recognizing that change is a gradual and challenging
process for teachers and that new programs and innovations must be presented in a clear
and explicit manner, (b) providing on-going feedback on the student learning process,
and (c) providing continued support and follow up after the initial training. These
guiding principles support, at some level, findings by Darling-Hammond and
McLaughlin (1995), who found that the most rewarding professional development
emphasizes active teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection, rather than abstract
discussions.
A study conducted by Desimone et al. (2002) of 1,000 teachers who participated
in the federal government’s Eisenhower Professional Development Program, funded by
Title II, showed six best practices of professional development; they were:
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

47
1) Form: how professional development is formatted and how it is presented to
teachers. Through this practice, Desimone et al. (2002) determined that
professional development that involves collaboration, teacher coaching,
modeling, and follow-up observation is most effective.
2) Duration: the time allocated for professional development. Extended duration
was found to be a key component of effective professional development.
3) Collective Participation: the involvement of stakeholders in the professional
development activity. Effective professional development includes the
collective participation of all teachers from a school, department, or grade-
level teams; Desimone et al. (2002) found that when all stakeholders were
involved in the professional development, a greater impact was made on
student achievement.
4) Content: professional development and training is focused on specific content
areas rather than on generic teaching methodologies.
5) Active Learning: the use of different strategies that provide the opportunity for
teachers to engage in simulations, develop lesson plans, review student
work, and present, lead, and write during professional development time.
6) Coherence: training should be designed and based on the state’s accountability
system and should provide time for teachers to dialogue about how they
will incorporate the new programs or strategies in current practices
As these improvement strategies pertain to student achievement gains, professional
development requires schools to embrace a vision of reform aligned with standards and
assessments along with other performance indicators—such as student performance
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

48
data—to evaluate the effectiveness of the training provided to teachers (Desimone et al.,
2002). Schools must create strategic plans with clear and measurable goals and objectives
regarding professional development if they are to have an impact on student achievement
(Desimone et al., 2002). Additionally, professional development plans must include
systems of evaluation through which schools and districts can conduct needs assessments
to ensure that the strengths and challenges of their teachers are being addressed. A
professional development plan seeking to focus on student learning must have a
component that holds teachers accountable for the outcomes of the training and how it
has impacted student learning.
Odden et al. (2002) have posited that a growing consensus exists among
researchers regarding the outcome of effective professional development; however, this
information is slowly entering district and school practices. As such, districts are still
delivering unfocused and ineffective professional development sessions that are not
aligned with goals for student learning. Another challenge identified by Odden et al.
(2002) is that even when reform-minded districts or leaders have the desire to employ
effective professional development strategies, they rarely know how much the programs
would cost.
Using Time Effectively and Efficiently
Time is a valuable resource in any school; therefore, using time in a strategic
manner is vital to improving student learning outcomes. Odden (2009) has identified the
effective use of time as a strategy employed by schools that are moving student
performance to higher levels. Time is a fixed resource, which, in a school system, means
instructional time must be used effectively and efficiently. One strategy used in schools
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

49
that have demonstrated student achievement improvement is reallocating time for reading
and mathematics—providing a period free of interruption, in which teachers devote the
entire time to targeting those core areas (Odden, 2009). Odden (2011) has underscored
the importance of this strategy, stating that schools making student learning a priority
concentrate on providing students a rich “liberal arts” program as well as on emphasizing
core classes as the focus of the school day. Using time effectively is particularly
important in cases where districts have identified a need to cluster students who are
performing at similar levels so that teachers can focus instruction to support students
striving to reach higher proficiency levels. Making efficient and effective use of time as
an improvement strategy might not be seen as a cost allocation for some schools; it must,
however, as time management is as important as other strategies for impacting
performance levels, such as the use of data, and aligning curriculum and practices to
overall goals. Time management is necessary; as such, the school or district must
determine how best to allocate this resource so as to have the greatest impact on student
learning outcomes.
Extend Learning Time for Struggling Students
Although schools must make sure that teachers employ the highest quality and
most effective instruction in the classroom for all students, supporting struggling learners
must also be part of the plan for schools seeking to improve student learning outcomes
(Odden, 2011). According to Odden (2011), schools that are making progress student
performance know that no matter how excellent and effective core instruction may be,
some students need additional assistance to achieve proficient, if not advanced, standards.
Some strategies schools have implemented that are increasing student learning outcomes
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

50
by helping struggling learners include providing extra help: (a) during the regular school
day; this includes one-on-one tutoring for students with the most difficult learning
problems as well as small groups (three to five) of students with less difficult learning
issues; (b) during the regular school year, but outside of the regular school day; this
additional time is provided before and after school, and/or through Saturday extended
programs; and (c) outside of the regular school day and regular school year by offering
summer school programs and services. When creating support systems for struggling
students, schools must also offer training to teachers who have been given the task of
working in these support programs. As mentioned above, schools have adopted models
that offer one-on-one tutoring for struggling learners; however, as noted by Odden and
Archibald (2009), these programs require an investment in paraprofessionals who are
trained in specific reading programs and are supervised to deliver a quality support
program. Some middle and high schools support such learners by offering double periods
for students struggling in mathematics and reading and language arts; in some cases, the
reading class has taken the place of an elective class, as this subject is deemed more
important for the long-term success of the student.
In summary, not all students received all types of extra help strategies and, as
stated by Odden (2009), not all districts implemented all four types of strategies. Schools
had a combination of double periods, tutoring, extended-day, and summer school extra-
help programs. As Odden (2009) has pointed out, the places that doubled student
performance had a rich set of extra-help strategies; all provided additional support that
was targeted and data driven; and, most importantly, the expectation was that students be
supported to achieve up to or beyond proficiency or advanced levels of performance.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

51
Collaborative and Professional Culture
All school reform programs have placed the need to implement strategies that
double student performance at the top of the agenda; however, many of the strategies can
be implemented in isolation. For this reason, among the strategies discussed in the
current research on improvement strategies, one of the most important is developing
collaborative cultures. According to Odden (2009), and as found in his book 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, the creation of a collaborative school
culture that involves both teachers and administrators can be structured as well as
evolving from the implementation of some of the strategies mentioned above. Newmann
and Associates (1996; as cited by Odden & Archibald, 2009) have defined a professional
school culture as one in which teachers know and share high expectations for all students,
and instruction is “de-privatized.” Per Odden and Archibald (2009), developing
ambitious goals and relentlessly pursuing those goals have had an impact on how schools
that double student performance see themselves as educational organizations.
Additionally, Odden (2009) argued that “de-privatization” of instruction is among
the most common approaches to effective collaborative cultures. In schools that Odden
(2009) studied, instructional practices were not private; on the contrary, they were public
and were discussed in collaborative groups. Schools engaged in activities, such as
creating common instructional practices school wide by observing each other in the
classroom, which was expected, along with using instructional coaches to help teachers
deploy new strategies. Another element of professional culture is taking responsibility for
results. In the schools that were studied, faculty and staff took responsibility and credit
for student performance changes they produced, both positive and negative.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

52
Ensuring Implementation of Professional and Best Practices
As stated by Odden (2009), “[L]eadership in the dramatically improving school is
‘dense,’ meaning that leadership is provided by all levels of the system and by all actors
in the system” (p. 141). Leadership begins at the district level, where the superintendent
defines the vision and mission of the district to educate all student to high levels of
performance; it includes all of the leadership staff at the district level, as well as
curriculum experts who work with schools and teachers to develop a common scope and
sequence aligned to state standards. According to Odden and Archibald (2009),
organizations that have doubled their performance have implemented research-based
practices, such as using experts to provide the best reading, writing, math, science, and
professional development programs.
The Human Capital Side of Doubling Student Performance
Recruiting a highly effective leadership and teaching force is key to improving
student performance. According to Odden (2009), districts and schools that have
demonstrated significant gains in their student performance have developed successful
strategies of recruitment for all levels of the organization. Notably, however, he
explained that recruiting effective and talented people can be difficult for districts located
in urban and rural communities. Additionally, Odden (2009) recognized that another
challenge in urban communities is high turnover in these high-needs districts, which can
complicate the implementation of the strategies mentioned above. Odden (2009) has
pointed out that to ensure they reach their ambitious goals, schools need highly effective
systems that address recruiting, deploying, inducting, developing, evaluating,
compensating, and managing leaders and teachers.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

53
The Strategic Management of Human Capital (SMHC) project, whose purpose
was to look at human capital issues faced by the educational system specifically in large
urban areas, identified that a key and necessary element to recruitment is district and
school deployment of aggressive, strategically planned, comprehensive, and multifaceted
recruitment strategies (Odden, 2009). Among the findings of the project, talent
recruitment organizations such as The New Teacher Project (TNTP), New Leaders for
New Schools (NFLFNS), and Teach for America (TFA) identified key components in
establishing a comprehensive recruitment plan. Among the strategies for recruiting the
most talented individuals to fulfill the needs of a school is building a strong partnership
with high quality teacher training programs at local colleges and universities, partnering
with organizations such as TFA, NLFNS, TNTP, or even developing training programs
within the organization that involve a year of “residency” and have participants serve
under the supervision of a mentor, who can be an individual from the district or from a
program at a local college or university. Another strategy SMHC identified for
enhancing the recruitment process in districts is offering incentives such as housing
support programs, flat-rate bonuses for specific positions that include a service
commitment, tax-free grants for individuals who serve in high-needs schools, as well as
salary increases. However, most important is ensuring that top talented individuals are
trained in ways that support the vision and ambitious goals of the organization.
Therefore, recruiting talented personnel to serve in schools is key to ensuring that
improvement strategies are implemented and translated into student achievement
outcomes.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

54
Gap Analysis
According to Clark and Estes (2008), to adequately evaluate performance and
provide organizations with interventions that will target the performance gap,
organizations must have the ability to identify business and individual performance goals,
determine performance gaps, and very carefully analyze the causes of the gap.
According to Odden and Picus (2010), acknowledging the two major differences between
traditional school finance models, costing-out methodologies, and the Evidence-Based
Model is crucial. First, the EBM builds funding at the school level, even though states
continue to distribute money to school districts; this model helps provide a school-by-
school estimate of the resources generated at that level. Even though this method of
funding is not the true manner in which states allocate resources, this issue can be
categorized as an organizational gap, because state and federal funding models do not yet
allocate resources to schools based on students’ needs.
Secondly, the model assumes that adequate resources are available for the
educational strategy it may recommend, which is very different from the traditional
school-funding model whereby new programs and/or strategies are determined from a
marginal, rather than a comprehensive, basis (Odden & Picus, 2010). Under the Clark
and Estes (2002) model, the gap can be categorized as knowledge based. Schools are not
always able to understand what resources are most appropriate to prioritize when not all
adequate resources are available for the education strategy proposed by the EBM.
Also, in terms of costing-out methodologies, Rebell (2007) has explained that
although the strength of this initiative is transparency and the ability to comprehensively
deal with the full range of educational needs and outputs, the study does not definitively
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

55
identify the amount of money needed for an adequate education. Again, per Clark and
Estes (2002), this ambiguity can be categorized as a knowledge gap, because funding for
public education entities is not aligned to the needs of students so that they can achieve at
higher levels.
Understanding the gaps that exist within current allocation resources models can
provide policymakers, school districts, and school-level site personnel with valuable
information for addressing the gaps and funding issues in our schools, with particular
focus on strategically allocating resources through research-based strategies that have
been proven to increase student achievement.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

56
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and
analysis process utilized in this study. The purpose of the study was to develop a better
understanding of how resources are allocated in three middle schools within a Charter
Management Organization (CMO) and how these allocations compare to the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2010). Specifically, the study investigated the links
among resource allocation, implementation strategies, and student performance.
Study Design
The study identified three independent charter middle schools within a CMO that
operated a 6
th-
to 8
th
-grade program. The three schools in the study had an enrollment
projection of 200 students per grade level, and were all part of a CMO that served schools
located in various regions of Los Angeles, such as Venice, Inglewood, South Los
Angeles, Central City, Watts, South East Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles. Middle
School #1 (MS #1) was located in the Central City area of Los Angeles and served
approximately 600 students, with 98% of the student population identified as Hispanic
and 2% identified as Black. The percentage of students who received free and reduced
lunch was approximately 99%; 10% of the student population was identified as special
education. Middle School #2 (MS #2), located in the South Los Angeles area, served
approximately 600 students, with 47% identified as Hispanic and 53% identified as
Black. Students categorized as receiving free and reduced lunch was composed of 70%
of the student population, with 20% identified as English Language Learners and 16%
identified as receiving special education services. The third school in the study was
Middle School # 3 (MS #3), which served approximately 600 students in South Los
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

57
Angeles, and had the following demographics: 87% of the student population was
categorized as receiving free-and-reduced lunch, 61% of the students identified as
Hispanic, and 39% identified as Black. Of this total, 18% of the students were identified
as ELL, and 15% was identified as students receiving special education services. As
mentioned above, the study’s main focus was to determine if the resource allocation
practices of these schools aligned to those identified by Odden and Picus (2010) as
improving student outcomes.
This project was a qualitative study, which was appropriate because it included
reviewing multiple documents that detailed the resources allocated to the three middle
schools. Additionally, interviews consisting of open-ended questions were conducted to
identify patterns and trends as they pertained to site-level administrators and the CMO’s
main office personnel. The site-level administrators interviewed were the principals, as
they were responsible for making the final budget decisions based on the School Site
Council recommendations. The other person interviewed was the school’s director, who
represented the district’s upper-level management. The director was the principal’s
immediate supervisor, who was charged with reviewing the budget and providing input to
the principal to ensure that expenditures were within the amount resources allocated to
the school, and that the decisions were aligned with the organization’s recommendations.
The study also utilized a simulation document created by Odden and Picus
(2010), whereby the researcher input necessary information, and then thoroughly
analyzed it to determine if the resource allocations at the three schools aligned with the
recommendations identified in the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus
(2010). Additionally, the study determined if the resources allocated by each of the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

58
middle schools aligned with the CMO’s philosophy of an intervention-driven approach
model and if they supported student outcomes in the classroom to the maximum possible
extent. Furthermore, the study assessed whether the resources allocated by the schools
aligned with the model established by the CMO’s overall recommendations. Finally, the
study investigated whether a gap existed between the current allocated resources for each
of the three middle schools and the recommendations in the EBM.
The study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement for students at the middle school level?
2. How are human resources allocated across this Charter Management
Organization’s middle schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in this
CMO’s middle schools and what the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement for students in these three middle schools?
The questions intended to address how the allocation of resources compared to strategies
identified by Odden and Picus (2010) as improving student achievement under the EBM.
Improving student achievement was a foremost goal of the schools that
participated in this study, as these three charter schools were part of the on-going charter
reform movement within the Los Angeles area and in the highest need areas of the
county. The first question investigated and determined if the strategies implemented in
these three middle schools were similar to those identified by research as improving
student outcomes. Question two outlined how human resources were allocated in these
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

59
three middle schools and looked at the rationale for the allocation of resources. The third
question compared whether a gap existed between the current allocation of resources and
the strategies identified by the EBM. Finally, question number four determined how best
to strategically re-allocate human resources so they aligned with strategies that improve
student achievement. The research questions, ultimately, analyzed the current practices
of the three middle schools as they pertained to resource allocation, and sought to
determine if a gap existed in relation to the recommended practices outlined in the
Evidence-Based Model. The research undertaken in this study was crucial in informing
future practices in the charter arena, providing deep analysis of whether the strategies
outlined were truly aligned with the goal of improving academic outcomes for students in
these highly impacted communities.
Sample
The unit of analysis for this study was three charter middle schools operated by
one CMO. Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to identify the resources
allocated to these three middle schools, an appropriate method given that the study
intended to determine if a difference existed between the current resource allocation
practices and those identified by the EBM as increasing student outcomes. The schools
identified for participation were purposefully selected based on the following criteria:
 All schools were identified as independent charters managed by the same
CMO
 All schools had a maximum capacity of 600 students enrolled
 The percentage of identified minority students was greater than or equal to
60%
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

60
 The percentage of identified low-income students was greater than or
equal to 60%
 The percentage of identified English Language Learners was greater than
or equal to 10%.
The three schools selected met all of the criteria listed above; additionally, all three
schools were situated in urban communities that were culturally and ethnically diverse.
The three schools also met the criteria of independent charter schools; that is, a petition
was submitted, on their behalf, to the local school district, which authorized the schools
to operate as public entities. The three middle schools participating in the study were all
charters operating in the Los Angeles Unified School District; as such, the governing
charter guidelines and funding methods were similar for all three. These three middle
schools were also identified as public schools, with all of them receiving state and federal
funding.
Instrumentation
The study utilized the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and
Picus (2009) to review and analyze the staffing patterns of the three middle schools and
to determine how they aligned to the model’s recommendations. Under the EBM, a
comprehensive set of school-level elements required to deliver a high-quality
instructional program were identified. The EBM determines an adequate expenditure
level by placing a price on each component and aggregates the components to a total cost
(Odden, 2009). Under the model, and because most states use an aid system that provides
funding for all students in the district, Odden (2009) has suggested using full-time
Average Daily Membership (ADM) as the mechanism for counting students in each
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

61
school and each district. According to Odden (2009), states must use the same pupil
count for all elements of the funding system. As it relates to the state of California,
where this study was conducted, Average Daily Attendance (ADA) was utilized. Even
though the EBM approach to adequacy shows resources for prototypical schools with a
population of 450 students at the middle school level, the schools in this study were not
of the prototypical size; however, the charter management organization to which they
belonged had a goal of maintaining a maximum student population of no more than 600
students at each site.
The EBM simulation also included sections for staff input data, student input data,
and current allocation input; with this information, the desired allocation output and EBM
model output could be enlisted to analyze any gap between the current allocation of
resources and EBM recommendations. The next section describes the data analysis
process to provide an understanding of how the study analyzed current practices for the
three middle schools and how they compared to the recommendations of the EBM.
Data Collection Procedures
The study utilized a qualitative approach that incorporated the analysis of
documents and interviews. The data collection consisted of reviewing all documents
used by the school to distribute federal, state, and grant monies. The Chief Academic
Officer of the CMO was contacted for permission to access the financial reports, human
resource reports, and school strategic budgetary plans—data that were necessary to
studying the resource allocation for the three middle schools.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

62
Additionally, interview questions for open-ended responses were developed
based on Odden and Picus’s (2008) model. Participants were asked the following
questions:
1. What is your process in identifying the resources needed to strategically fund
an academic program at the school site?
2. How are the resources that are allocated for schools related to instruction and
student achievement?
3. What type of support does your district and staff provide in the area of
instruction?
4. What resources are allocated to address staff professional development?
5. How does the school prioritize the resources being allocated when it encounters
a budget crisis?
Three interviews were conducted, then transcribed, to identify general patterns
and trends for the resource allocation practices of leaders at the school and district levels.
The interviews sought to identify the general processes utilized by the director and the
principal as they related to the allocation of resources for the schools. The interviewees
included the three principals and a cluster director. These four participants were selected
for the interviews because they were directly involved in the budget process and the
allocation of resources at the school and district levels. The information provided by the
above-named individuals was critical to the study, because these interviewees served to
identify the process by which the budget was developed by the district for school
personnel. Of equal importance, the four participants chosen to be interviewed were key
players in negotiations with other stakeholders, such as the school site council, in
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

63
determining where cuts were made if they became necessary. Therefore, understanding
the extent of their resource allocation knowledge was important to determining if their
practices aligned with the strategies identified as leading to improvement, especially in
collaborative and best leadership practices for improving schools.
Data Analysis Procedures
The researcher entered collected data into a systematically developed simulation
created by Odden and Picus (2010), which involved preset formulas for identifying if a
gap existed between the Evidence-Based Model resource allocation recommendations
and the current schools’ practices. Once the data were input, the simulation produced a
comparison between the current resource allocations and those recommended by the
EBM for the three middle schools. The simulation also identified how the three schools’
resource allocation practices aligned to improvement strategies for school reform.
The simulation model was then utilized to input information on students, staff,
and services data for the schools, which allowed for deep analysis of desired outputs and
of the gap between the current allocation of resources and those identified as
improvement strategies under the EBM. The analysis was then carefully reviewed to
determine the differences, if any, between the actual resource allocation and the desired
allocation output generated by the simulation. Additionally, the interview data were
analyzed to identify patterns and trends based on responses related to resource allocation
practices in the three middle schools and the practices recommended in the EBM as
improving student achievement. Because record review and simulation use were the
major sources of data collection, these steps have to be undertaken carefully to prevent
the data from being contaminated by any other source or technical inputting practices.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Chapter Four begins with a discussion of the purpose of the study and an
overview of the demographics of the schools in the study. The chapter also presents the
study’s findings, as revealed by the research questions. Additionally, the data that were
derived from the simulation developed by Odden and Picus (2008)—which compares the
allocation and use of resources in the three schools to the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM)—is analyzed. The final section of this chapter summarizes the findings and
recommendations from the study.
The purpose of the study was to collect data and to evaluate the current resource
allocations at three charter middle schools to better determine how they aligned to
strategies that researchers have suggested can improve student learning outcomes.
Additionally, the study analyzed how the schools’ current staffing structure compared to
the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008). The four research
questions that guided this study were:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement for students at the middle school level?
2. How are human resources allocated across this CMO’s middle schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in these
middle schools and what the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement for students in these three middle schools?
Research Question # 1 concerned the strategies implemented by the middle
schools to improve student achievement. These strategies aligned to the 10 strategies
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

65
recommended by Odden (2009) in 10 Strategies in Doubling Student Performance.
Research Question #2 addressed the areas in which the three middle schools participating
in the study exceeded the recommendations made in the Evidence-Based Model.
Research Question #3 analyzed the human resource allocation gaps in these three middle
schools, as compared to those recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. Finally,
Research Question #4 addressed suggested reallocations for these schools.
Overview of Schools
This section provides an overview of the three charter middle schools that
participated in the study. The study utilized a purposeful sample of the three schools,
which were overseen by a Charter Management Organization (CMO) committed to
changing the landscape of public education in the Los Angeles area by operating high-
achieving public charter schools focused on assuring that all students are successful in
college, leadership, and life. At the time of this study, the CMO managed 17 schools in
the Los Angeles area, which served approximately 10,000 students in grades 6 through
12.
Middle School #1
Middle School #1, which opened its doors in September of 2010 as an
independent charter with 200 6
th
-grade students, had grown to include all middle school
grades, 6 to 8, and had approximately 600 students. The school was located in the
Central City area of Los Angeles and served students identified as 98% Hispanic and 2%
Black, which qualified them to receive Title I, Title II, and Title III funding. Middle
School #1, which was in its third year of operation, had demonstrated significant gains in
its API and had earned a score of 743 in 2012, setting it apart from neighboring schools.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

66
Also, as an independent charter middle school, Middle School #1 was a “parent choice”
school, meaning that parents must submit an application to enroll students in this school
and then participate in a lottery process that selected students; however, the population
served by Middle School #1 reflected the demographics in other area schools.
Middle School #2
Opening its doors in August 2012, Middle School #2 began its first year of
operation with an initial enrollment of approximately 600 students in grades 6 through 8.
Interestingly enough, Middle School #2 began as part of a project in which the Los
Angeles Unified School District allowed outside organizations to open schools on its
campuses in an attempt to reform low-performing schools through a process called Public
School Choice. As such, Middle School #2 opened with all grade levels, 6 through 8, and
served the attendance area within its community. Additionally, Middle School #2
qualified as a Title I, Title II, and Title III school, as 70% of its population received free
and reduced lunch. Its demographics were as follows: 47% of its students were
identified as Hispanic, and 53% were identified as Black; of this student population, 20%
identified as English Language Learners, and 16% of students received special education
services.
Middle School #3
Serving approximately 600 students in the South Los Angeles area, Middle
School #3 was a sister school to Middle School #2 and had also opened its doors in
August 2012. As a Public School Choice campus, Middle School #3 also operated under
an organization granted permission by the Los Angeles Unified School District to
implement its program of instruction on low-performing campuses. Of its population,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

67
87% received free-and-reduced lunch, 61% was identified Hispanic, and 39% was
identified Black; additionally, 18% of its students was identified as ELL, and 15%
received special education services. Because of these demographics, Middle School #3
was eligible to receive Title I, Title II, and Title III funding.
As shown above, the three middle schools that participated in the study had
similar demographic elements; additionally, they all qualified as Title I, Title II, and Title
III schools due to the populations they served. Title I is supplemental funding provided
by the US Department of Education for local districts to meet the needs of at-risk and
low-income students. The three schools in this study served mostly students who
qualified for free-and-reduced lunch, which is one of the criteria for receiving this type of
aid. The three schools in this study also received Title II funding, which is a 100%
federally funded supplemental educational program that provides financial assistance to
districts to enhance quality of instruction by improving the skills of teachers and leaders
in the school system. Because they were charter schools located in highly impacted
poverty areas of the city of Los Angeles and teacher quality was a concern, these three
middle schools received this type of federal support. Finally, the three schools also
served a significant number of students considered Limited English Proficient (LEP),
which qualified them to receive Title III funding. Title III funding is officially known as
the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement
Act. The purpose of this federal aid is to ensure that LEP students, including immigrant
children and youth, attain English proficiency and meet the same challenging academic
content achievement standards that other students are expected to meet.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

68
Findings
The study was conducted as part of a thematic dissertation group at the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education that included 17 doctoral
candidates collecting data and overseeing similar research in other school districts. The
primary data collection instruments in this study were interviews of the participating
administrators and record reviews, which allowed the researchers to input gathered data
into a simulation protocol. The researcher developed her own interview questions for the
principals and cluster director, and utilized a data analysis protocol created by David
Knight and Lawrence Picus (Odden & Picus, 2010) to conduct a gap analysis (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The model allowed each independent researcher to enter all personnel data
into the simulation for the schools being studied. Additionally, the model allowed the
researchers to input staff allocations based on the Evidence-Based Model developed by
Odden and Picus (2008), thus enabling them to compare the EBM recommendations
against the schools’ actual allocations.
Research Question #1
What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement for students at the middle school level?
The study’s first question sought to identify research-based human resource
allocation strategies that have been shown to increase academic achievement for students
in middle school, and that are being utilized at the three participating schools. The
schools participating in this study used an array of improvement strategies to increase
student outcomes. For purposes of this study, the improvement strategies the three
schools utilized were analyzed through Odden’s (2009) framework in the book 10
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

69
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Odden’s (2009) list of 10 strategies that
have been identified as impactful on student achievement includes the following: (a)
Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge; (b) Set Ambitious Goals; (c)
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision; (d) Utilize
Benchmark and Formative Assessments, and Make Decisions Based on Data; (e) Provide
On-Going, Intensive Professional Development; (f) Use Time Efficiently and Effectively;
(g) Extend Learning and Time for Struggling Students; (h) Establish a Collaborative,
Professional, Culture and Distributive Leadership System; (i) Ensure that Professional
and Best Practices are Implemented; and (j) Acknowledge and Incorporate the Human
Capital Side of Doubling Student Performance.
The next section of this chapter details the strategies that the principals and the
cluster director identified during the interview process as increasing student outcomes.
The strategies will then be analyzed through the framework of Odden’s (2009) “10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance.”
Understanding the performance problem and challenge (Strategy #1).
According to Odden (2011), schools that have dramatically improved student
performance take the time to analyze and identify their performance situations.
Additionally, Odden (2011) found that schools that are most successful in analyzing their
performance levels are those in which both administrators and teachers are involved in
the processes. As members of a Charter Management Organization (CMO), the three
schools participating in the study engaged in an analysis of their performance problems
and challenges as part of their overall effort to accomplish their mission. The three
principals interviewed identified the development of strategic plans to focus teachers on
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

70
instructional goals as a way to better communicate performance goals and to increase
student achievement. The cluster director, Ms. Gonzalez, elaborated on the process that
principals engaged in as they developed their strategic plans. She stated that data
collected by principals, with the help of the Central Office Knowledge Management
Team, included API scores, CST scores, and previous year benchmark scores; these
scores were then used to inform the schools’ strategic plans. She also mentioned that the
strategic plans developed by the schools aligned to the CMO’s instructional vision.
Set ambitious goals (Strategy #2). Districts and schools that have made dramatic
improvements in academic achievement set very high and ambitious goals (Odden,
2011). Additionally, according to Odden (2009), schools that are committed to doubling
student performance set ambitious goals regardless of their current performance levels.
Odden further stated that when schools set ambitious goals, the goals must be specific,
numeric, and subject focused and oriented. The three schools in this study, as part of a
Charter Management Organization, believed in its philosophy of setting ambitious goals
no matter what the current performance levels of their schools were. The mission of the
organization, as stated by Principal #1, was to make every child college-, leadership-, and
life-ready by the time they leave school. During our interview, Principal #1 emphasized
this idea, stating, “You know, the priority at our school is academic because we have the
belief that all of our students are going to be on a college pathway by the time they leave
us.” This aim can be accomplished by increasing the school’s API score, providing
instruction in the skill sets necessary for students to begin their A-G coursework, and
establishing assessment benchmarks to inform the program of instruction and
intervention.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

71
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
(Strategy #3). According to Odden (2009), schools seeking to double student
performance must identify needed changes in the curriculum, and then develop an
instructional vision to effect those changes. Additionally, according to Odden (2009),
schools that have doubled their performance levels institute changes within control of the
school system, such as teacher assignments, academic expectations, the organization of
curriculum and instruction, and effective instructional practices.
Principals, in their interview responses, made it known that the academic program
for the three middle schools in the Charter Management Organization aligned to an
intervention approach model. The three principals spoke about the middle school model
developed by the district, which they were expected to implement at the site level.
According to Principal #3, the instructional model for every middle school in the CMO
was a program of core content classes including English, math, history, and science;
included were two intervention courses in math and reading, which provided additional
support for students struggling in these areas (Personal Conversation, 12-10-2012).
The three principals also reported that, per the Chief Academic Officer (CAO),
they were to use the research-based curriculum recommended by the CMO’s Curriculum
Specialist. For intervention classes, the organization utilized Scholastic’s READ 180
program and Number Worlds Curriculum for the math foundation course. The three
principals also spoke of the CMO’s guidance in the use of data, especially as it pertained
to setting the instructional vision of the school. The three principals utilized data to
identify the students’ level of performance; this step allowed them to develop the master
schedule based on student needs. Additionally, they spoke about the organization
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

72
providing access to curriculum specialists who delivered on-going coaching to teachers to
ensure that the organization’s instructional vision was implemented at the site level.
Utilize benchmark and formative assessments and make decisions based on
data (Strategy #4). The fourth strategy identified by Odden (2011) as increasing student
performance is the utilization of data to make decisions, but more importantly, the use of
ongoing assessments as part of a school’s decision-making plan. Odden (2011)
elaborated, stating that districts and schools focused on increasing student achievement
engage in a number of “data-based decision-making” activities. During the interviews,
the three principals identified the CMO’s expectation of ongoing assessment as one of the
strategies they utilized to improve student levels of performance.
Principal #1 explained that, at the beginning of the year, the school engaged in
analysis of data for its incoming class so as to better identify student needs. The school
obtained data from the feeder elementary schools, including the California State Test
(CST) scores for students, and conducted baseline assessments in math and reading to
identify students who needed intervention when they entered the school. Three of the
principals noted that the process had become standardized at their school site for the
purpose of placing students in the proper intervention classes when they first enrolled.
The principal from Middle School #3 elaborated on the process as implemented at
her school; all incoming students from the neighboring feeder schools were brought to
the campus prior to the first day of school so their reading level could be assessed using
the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) and READ 180. Additionally, the students were
given a math placement test to determine if they were below grade level and required the
math foundation course to address basic math skills. Also, the expectation set forth by
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

73
the curriculum specialist was that the students would be assessed in reading and math
every quarter to track progress for the intervention courses.
The three principals further reported that they administered quarterly benchmark
assessments in English and math using the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP),
developed by the Northwestern Evaluation Association (NWEA), to monitor student
performance. So as to hold teachers and administrators accountable for the
administration of on-going assessments, the principals reported that the CMO set a
window for the administration of the tests, with teachers expected to upload the data into
the system by a set deadline. The data were then analyzed by the curriculum specialist,
coordinator, cluster directors, and principals, so that strategic coaching could be
implemented at the school by the site leaders. As one of this CMO’s strategies to improve
student levels of achievement, the focus on on-going assessment and data-oriented
activities is clearly a priority and an expectation for these schools.
Provide on-going, intensive professional development (Strategy #5). Another
of the 10 strategies identified by Odden (2011) to increase student achievement is the
implementation of professional development that is strategic in nature, widespread,
systematic, and on going. During the interviews, the three principals identified
professional development as an on-going and strategic initiatives so as to better address
and support instructional goals. Because the CMO required professional development to
be structured into every school’s schedule, Wednesdays were reserved for these
instructional sessions. Principal #2 stated during the interview,“[T]he core of our
professional development plan is 90 minutes (on) Wednesdays; (as such), we have a
calendar that is created by our instructional leadership team.” Principal #3 stated that the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

74
professional development plan for the organization included the expectation that all site
administrators participate in monthly leadership meetings. Known as 95-5, the focus was
95% instruction and 5% operations, with principals and assistant principals receiving
professional development to improve their ability to observe, coach, and assist teachers in
becoming highly effective instructional practitioners. Additionally, the three middle
school principals mentioned that the CMO required the participation of all teachers in
professional development/collaboration days held throughout the year.
The professional development days provided by the CMO were facilitated by
teacher/leaders from each of the content areas and were meant to encourage collaboration
among all the schools in the organization. Six collaboration days were embedded in the
academic calendar year, with the expectation that the all of the organization’s teachers
would participate. Principal #2 emphasized that the sessions were thematic in nature, and
involved the entire organization. Principal #3 provided further information on the
thematic topics that formed the content of the professional development workshops:
Group Structures, Academic Discourse, Writing Across the Curriculum, and Safe and
Civil Environment. These thematic topics informed the organization’s philosophy and
were communicated to all teachers through the collaborative meetings. Principal #3 also
said that, as school leaders, they were required not only to ensure that these themes drove
the professional development, but also that they engaged in meetings with their
Instructional Leadership Teams (ILT) to ensure that data was being used to address and
inform the needs of students and staff. These strategies demonstrated that the
organization engaged in systematic and widespread professional development activities
to better support all stakeholders in meeting the instructional vision for the organization.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

75
Use time efficiently and effectively (Strategy #6). The sixth strategy identified
by Odden (2009) as having an impact on student achievement is the efficient and
effective use of time. Odden (2009) has argued that time is a valuable resource at any
school; as such, using it in a strategic manner is important for improving student learning
outcomes. The principals identified the importance of strategically placing intervention
classes in the master schedule to better address student needs, as determined by baseline
data gathered during assessments. At the three schools participating in the study, the
daily schedule reflected an intervention approach that sought to meet the needs of all
students. Another vital time-related strategy for improving student achievement was
providing structured collaboration time for all teachers. Principal #2 reported that the
CMO’s expectation for professional development time for teachers was that it be very
structured so that effective and quality learning was occurring during these workshops.
Principal #1 also explained how, as leaders, he and other principals were provided with
support by their cluster director to ensure that the type and quality of professional
development were effective and that they truly enhanced the ability of teachers to become
highly effective. It was evident that time, as referred to by Odden (2009), was a valuable
resource for these three schools, and that the CMO and the organization’s Chief
Academic Officer, valued instructional time.
Extend learning and time for struggling students (Strategy #7). According to
Odden (2009), schools must recognize that even if excellent and effective instruction is
implemented during the school day, identifying and implementing additional supports for
students is necessary to ensuring that students move to proficient and advanced levels.
Odden has noted that schools that have doubled their student achievement have a rich set
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

76
of activities targeted and data driven as they relate to extra support for students. At the
three middle schools participating in the study, additional academic interventions for
struggling learners were included in the master schedule. The schools also offered an
afterschool program that provided tutoring to students as part of this extended support;
additionally, teachers were expected to maintain office hours once a week to provide
support for students requiring additional intervention. Principal #2 also offered that, as
part of the strategic initiatives, the school provided support services through counselors
and school psychologists so that students struggling with emotional and social issues
received assistance to minimize barriers to learning caused by situations in their lives.
Establish a collaborative, professional culture, and distributive leadership
system (Strategy #8). The need to establish a collaborative and professional culture at
schools to inform a distributive leadership system was also identified by Odden (2009) as
one of the strategies proven to assist schools and districts in increasing student
achievement. Odden (2009) further stated that a collaborative culture leads to ownership
of an effective instructional program by all stakeholders, and allows for distribution of
leadership between members of the school and district team.
As partners in the organization, the three schools belonged to a network that
encouraged leadership development among its teachers. All teachers in the organization
had opportunities at the school site and at the district level to participate in various
programs that would develop their leadership capacity so that they could support other
teachers. The three principals identified the advisory council, instructional leadership
team, and grade-level teams at their schools as offering additional leadership
opportunities for teachers.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

77
The advisory council, as defined by Principal #1, was a decision-making,
stakeholder body that was crucial to promoting the vision of the school, especially as it
related to budget development, and to ensure that the academic program was a priority
when allocating resources. The principals explained that the function of this governing
body was to ensure that instructional needs were prioritized and funded so that students
received a quality academic program. Additionally, during the interviews, the principals
made reference to their Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), an elected body of
teacher/leaders who worked closely with the principal on professional development and
in guiding the instructional program for the schools. As Principal #1 stated during the
interview:
So one thing that we do is we have an instructional leadership team . . . one
teacher from each department and one teacher from our special education
program that work together to assess the needs of the students of our school and
staff and help create a calendar to see what topics to address in PD. The teachers
receive a stipend so there are financial resources allocated to do that, as well. We
spend money on material to make sure that the teachers have access to relevant
literature and also, from time to time, we send teachers to outside conferences if
we think that it would have more impact on what we can do here within the
organization. A lot of what we do is based on inquiry and reviewing literature
and best practices from other schools and then really thinking in a deep way on
how can we do that here . . . what would make it work at that site.

His comments on the functions of the ILT at some of the schools illustrated how the
organization supported teachers to become leaders, allowing them to promote the vision
of the school among their peers and with their administrative site leaders.
As part of the organization’s structure, schools were expected to develop Grade-
Level Teams (GLT) for addressing the socioemotional needs of the students. The GLTs
were charged with implementing the Safe and Civil curriculum, and served as members
of the Student Success Team. As noted by Principal #3, the major difference between the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

78
ILT and the GLT was that the latter focused more on supporting teachers so that they
could better address the needs of the students in a specific grade level. The ILT, on the
other hand, focused on fostering collaboration among the multiple grade-level members
to promote vertical planning and to engage teachers in developing their teaching
practices.
Ensure that professional and best practices are implemented (Strategy #9).
The ninth strategy identified by Odden (2009) as having a direct impact on student
achievement is ensuring that professional and best practices are implemented with
fidelity. According to Odden (2009), the implementation of best practices must begin at
the district level, where the superintendent defines the vision and mission of the
organization, which should be centered on educating all children to high levels of
performance. The manner in which schools implemented best practices was discussed by
Principal #1, who spoke about the teacher effectiveness initiative promoted by the Chief
Academic Officer and the educational team.
As members of the organization, the three middle schools participated in the
Teaching College Ready Promise, a grant from the Bill Gates Foundation whose main
focus was to create a teacher effectiveness framework that was part of the evaluation
system for teachers. The organization had also rolled-out the College Ready Teaching
Framework (CRTF), which all schools utilized as part of the teacher evaluation system.
The most important aspect of this initiative was highlighted by Principal #1, who
explained that the framework allowed him and other school leaders to focus on
observation, feedback, and coaching for their teachers. Also, he stated that because
CRTF was created in collaboration with teachers, district leaders, and other support staff,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

79
buy-in from all teachers was evident—especially as it pertained to the implementation of
best practices so that students could achieve at higher level.
Principal #2 characterized building collaborative models at the site-level as
essential to the teachers’ direct engagement in developing and implementing best
practices in the classroom. She discussed the approach she utilized with teachers so that
strategies acquired through professional development were implemented in the
classroom. Part of their professional development cycle, she explained, was developing a
timeline, usually 9 to 10 instructional days, in which teachers could implement best
practices learned during the workshops. The principal continued:
They are expected to implement the PD topic or strategy discussed and then . . .
come back with student work for use in the analysis protocol. So that kinds of
complete the PD cycle . . . there is a PD presentation, expectation, timeline of
implementation, and then student work analysis where everyone has to bring their
student work.

At that point, they could collaboratively discuss these samples with their department team
members.
Acknowledge and incorporate the human capital side of doubling student
performance (Strategy #10). The last strategy Odden (2009) identified as positively
impacting student outcomes is the recruitment of a highly effective leadership and
teaching force. Odden (2009) found that districts and schools that have demonstrated
significant gains in their students’ achievement have developed effective and strategic
ways to recruit the highest qualified staff at all levels of the organization. The Charter
Management Organization that oversaw the three middle schools utilized a very rigorous
process to recruit teachers and leaders for the organization. In the following excerpt,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

80
Principal #1 explained the process by which teachers were recruited to become part of the
school teams:
Our hiring process, first of all, begins with a central pool of applicants at the
CMO level; those candidates are screened for appropriate credentialing and
relevant experiences, are administered a psychological inventory, and then
participate in some preliminary interviews. All those steps take place before our
Human Capital Department gives the green light for that person to be considered
for a spot here at the school site. At that point, when HC has identified someone
as a possible match, we invite them in for a demonstration lesson and scenario
interview. We do that with a panel of teachers and with live students.
He further elaborated upon the scenarios provided for candidates and how they related to
their functions as teachers—including assessment, intervention, handling problem
students in disciplinary situations, and managing difficult and awkward issues with
colleagues. This rigorous hiring process was part of the organization's commitment to
high-quality and dedicated teachers who supported the efforts of making every student
college ready. Additionally, the organization promoted hiring highly effective leaders,
utilizing a selection process for administrative personnel that was similar to that used in
the teacher selection process.
The interview process provided the researcher with insight into the strategies
utilized by the organization as they pertained to student achievement in the context of
Odden’s (2009) framework of 10 strategies that double student performance. After a
thorough analysis of the interviews conducted with the principals, the researcher
concluded that in some capacities the organization incorporated the 10 strategies
identified by Odden for increasing student achievement.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

81
Research Question #2
How are human resources allocated across this CMO’s middle schools?
Gap analysis. Performance-driven organizations must identify existing gaps in
order to target required support and appropriate strategies. According to Clark and Estes
(2002), so as to adequately evaluate performance and provide organizations with
interventions that will target prevalent issues, organizations must identify business and
individual performance goals, determine performance gaps, and very carefully analyze
the causes of the gap. As stated in Chapter Two, the current allocation resource models
can provide policymakers, school districts, and school-level site personnel information
that is useful for addressing any gaps and funding issues in our schools; this model
includes information on strategically allocating resources through the use of research-
based strategies that have been shown to increase student achievement.
Research question #2 also intended to answer how human resources were
allocated across the three Charter Management Organization middle schools. To identify
the resource allocation per school, each school’s personnel data was entered into the
simulation, which allowed the researcher to compare the desired allocation to the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Notably, for purposes of this study, the researcher made
the desired allocation for the schools being studied similar to that of the EBM. The EBM
was the desired model because it focuses on methods that determine adequate spending to
establish high-quality instructional programs, especially when serving a diverse student
population. Additionally, the EBM was chosen because it allows schools flexibility in
their allocation of resources based on the use of student data, and to make the most
effective and efficient allocation to improve student achievement. Table 2 shows the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

82
current, desired, and Evidence-Based position allocations; additionally, it shows the gap
between the current and desired positions, as recommended by the EBM.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

83
Table 2
Position Allocation Counts for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3
Position Counts Current -
Desired
Current -
EB
Title Current Desired EB
Principals 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
Assistant Principals 6.0 0.8 0.8 5.2 5.2
Instructional Coaches 1.4 8.6 8.6 (7.2) (7.2)
Core Teachers 63.6 68.5 68.5 (4.9) (4.9)
Specialist Teachers 5.0 13.7 13.7 (8.7) (8.7)
SPED Teachers 16.0 11.4 11.4 4.6 4.6
ELL Teachers 2.0 3.6 3.6 (1.6) (1.6)
Academic Extra Help Staff 0.0 11.7 11.7 (11.7) (11.7)
Nonacademic Pupil Support 9.6 18.6 18.6 (9.0) (9.0)
Nurses 1.0 2.3 2.3 (1.3) (1.3)
Extended Day/Summer School Staff 11.0 19.6 19.6 (8.6) (8.6)
Instructional Aides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory Aides 10.0 7.6 7.6 2.4 2.4
SPED Aides 17.0 5.7 5.7 11.3 11.3
Librarians 0.0 3.0 3.0 (3.0) (3.0)
Library Technicians 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Library Paraprofessionals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Secretaries/Clerks 11.0 7.6 7.6 3.4 3.4

The findings indicated areas in which the schools have allocated positions as
recommended by the EBM: assistant principals, special education teachers, special
education aides, secretaries/clerks, and supervisory aides. The current allocation for the
middle schools showed that they had exceeded the suggested number of assistant
principals by over 5.2 positions. However, the interviews with the principals made
evident that the high number of assistant principals reflected the organizational model, as
the leaders for the CMO were specifically trained to serve as instructional coaches for
increasing teacher effectiveness in the classroom. For instance, all leaders in the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

84
organization were expected to become certified for evaluating teachers using the College-
Ready Teacher Effectiveness framework.
The framework utilized by the CMO defined the core competencies expected of
all teachers and leaders in the organization. The five domains include: Data-Driven
Planning and Assessing Student Learning; the Classroom Learning Environment;
Instruction; Developing Professional Practice; and Developing Partnerships with Family
and Community. Although other districts were in the initial stages of such
comprehensive evaluation systems, the framework utilized by the CMO had been
developed and implemented over three years previously.
For the sake of clarity, the input process the researcher engaged in reviewing
records for “Positions Allocated” is shown in Table 3, below.
Table 3
Position Descriptors for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3
Position Title in the EBM Positions Included in Count
Principals Principal
Assistant Principal Assistant Principal
Instructional Coaches English, Math Specialist
Core Teachers English, Math, Science, History, Reading, Math Intervention
Specialist Teachers Physical Education, Music, Technology
SPED Teachers Resource Specialist, Special Day Class Teacher
ELL Teachers English as a Second Language Teachers
Academic Extra Help Staff Instructional Aides for General Education Classes
Non-Academic Pupil Support Security Guard
Nurses Nurse
Extended Day/Summer School Staff Summer Bridge Teachers
Instructional Aides General Ed. Instructional Aides, Tutors
Supervisory Aides Campus Aides
SPED Aides Special Education Instructional Aides
Librarians Librarians
Library Technicians Library Technicians
Library Paraprofessionals Library Paraprofessionals
Secretaries/Clerks Office Manager, Office Assistant and Parent Coordinator

The other area in which the current allocation was above that recommended by
the EBM was in special education positions. The current allocation showed 4.6 teacher
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

85
positions over the recommended EBM and 11.3 positions over the suggested number of
special education aides. The surplus in this area can be attributed to the fact that public
schools must provide educational services for student with disabilities as prescribed in
their Special Education Program (IEP); oftentimes, this requirement calls for a restrictive
environment in a Special Day Class (SDC), in which the student-to-teacher ratio is 15 to
1. Additionally, the surplus of identified special education aides was part of this model,
as the SDC must provide one special education assistant for each special education
teacher.
The other two personnel areas in which the schools exceeded the recommended
EBM allocation were with secretaries/clerks and supervisory aides. According to the
EBM, the schools had an over-allocation of 3.4 secretary/clerk positions and 2.4 over the
recommended allocation of supervisory aides.
Research Question #3
Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in these
middle schools and what the research suggests is most effective?
According to the Evidence-Based Model described in Chapter Two, the three
middle schools in the study fell short on the recommended EBM allocation of
instructional coaches, core teachers, specialist teachers, ELL teachers, academic extra
help staff, nonacademic pupil support, nurse, extended day/summer school, and
librarians. Instructional coaches had a shortage of 7.2 positions for the three middle
schools; however, when broken down by school, the shortage was between 2.2 to 2.5
positions short per school based on the EBM. Although these findings indicated a
significant gap from the number of recommended positions, this difference had not
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

86
impacted the schools’ ability to provide on-going coaching and support to teachers, as all
administrators were trained to deliver effective professional development and mentoring.
Table 4, below, provides specific numbers for the individual schools in the study.

Table 4
Instructional and Coaching Support for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3

Coaches
Middle School
Current
Allocation
Desired
Allocation
Evidence
-Based
Current
Allocation
–Desired
Allocation
Current
Allocation
Evidence-
Based Gap
# 1
0.5 2.7 2.7 (2.2) (2.2)
# 2
0.5 2.9 2.9 (2.4) (2.4)
# 3
0.5 2.9 2.9 (2.5) (2.5)
Total
1.4 8.6 8.6 (7.2) (7.2)

Based on the results yielded by the simulation, the gap between the current
allocation and the EBM-recommended allocations for core teachers was not significant.
The district was short 4.9 core teachers, compared to the EBM-recommended number of
core teachers. Table 5, below, shows the allocation shortage by schools in the study.
Though not as significant as it appears, this gap may be because the number of core
teachers included also taught intervention math and English as part of the core. The
researcher allocated the intervention teachers as core because those teachers were
mandated to be NCLB-compliant and had to hold an English or math credential to teach
those classes.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

87
Table 5
Core Teacher Allocation for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3

Core Teachers
Middle School
Current
Allocation
Desired
Allocation
Evidence-
Based
Current
Allocation
Desired
Allocation
Gap
Current
Allocation
Based Gap
#1
20.8 21.8 21.8 (1.0) (1.0)
#2
21.6 23.3 23.3 (1.7) (1.7)
#3
21.2 23.4 23.4 (2.2) (2.2)
Total
63.6 68.5 68.5 (4.9) (4.9)

The other area in which the school’s allocation yielded a shortage was in the
number of specialist teachers; the gap was 8.7 full-time positions among the three middle
schools. As the intervention-approach model served a high population of students
requiring reading and math intervention through their middle school years, including
many electives or enrichment classes on the master schedule was not a priority. Table 6,
below, shows the allocation of specialist teachers who taught noncore classes.
Table 6
Specialist Teacher Allocation for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3

Specialist teachers
Middle School
Current
Allocation
Desired
Allocation
Evidence-
Based
Allocation
Current Allocation-
Desired Allocation
Gap
Current
Allocation
Evidence-
Based Gap
#1
2.8 4.4 4.4 (1.6) (1.6)
#2
1.1 4.7 4.7 (3.6) (3.6)
# 3
1.1 4.7 4.7 (3.6) (3.6)
Total for Middle Schools
5.0 13.7 13.7 (8.7) (8.7)

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

88
The simulation also indicated a gap in the allocation of resources relating to
English Language Learner teachers. The schools had 1.6 fewer positions allocated in this
area than the EBM recommendations. However, when analyzed by individual school, the
gap showed that only one school did not match the allocation of this resource (Middle
School #1).
Table 7
EL Teacher Allocations for Middle Schools 1, 2, & 3

ELL Teachers
Middle Schools
Current
Allocation
Desired
Allocation
Evidence-
Based
Current Allocation-
Desired Allocation
Gap
Current
Allocation-
Evidence
Based Gap
# 1
0.0 1.7 1.7 (1.7) (1.7)
# 2
1.0 1.0 1.0 (0.0) (0.0)
# 3
1.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1
Total for Middle Schools
2.0 3.6 3.6 (1.6) (1.6)

The additional area showing a gap was that of extended day staff and summer
school staff. Table 8, below shows the shortage by school and the total in this area.
Analyzed through Odden’s framework (2009) “10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance” (2009), the three middle schools showed a significant gap in this area.
Providing extended-day intervention for struggling learners could have a great impact on
the performance of students, especially for those considered at risk.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

89
Table 8
Extended Day Staff and Summer School Staff Allocations for Middle Schools 1, 2,
& 3

Extended Day Staff

Name of
Middle
School
Current
Allocation

Desired
Allocation
Evidence-
Based
Current Allocation-
Desired Allocation
Gap
Current
Allocation-
Evidence Based
Gap
# 1
0.5

3.0 3.0 (2.5) (2.5)
# 2
0.5

3.0 3.0 (2.5) (2.5)
# 3
1.0

3.8 3.8 (2.8) (2.8)
Subtotal for
Middle
Schools
2.0

9.8 9.8 (7.8) (7.8)

Summer School Staff

Name of
Middle
School
Current
Allocation

Desired
Allocation
Evidence-
Based
Current Allocation-
Desired Allocation
Gap
Current
Allocation-
Evidence Based
Gap
# 1
3.0

3.0 3.0 (0.0) (0.0)
# 2
3.0

3.0 3.0 (0.0) 0.0
# 3
3.0

3.8 3.8 (0.8) (0.8)
Subtotal for
Middle
Schools
9.0

9.8 9.8 (0.8) (0.8)

The last area in which a significant gap existed from the recommendations in the
EBM was in resources allocated for academic extra help staff and nonacademic pupil
support. According to the results, the schools were 11.7 positions short in this area,
compared to those recommended in the EBM for academic extra help staff. Also, the
school was short 9.0 positions in the area of nonacademic pupil support. However, this
dearth could be attributed to the challenge that these schools have been experiencing with
state and federal budget cuts. Notably, during the interviews, all school principals
referred to the fact that their budgets were very limited, and that they relied increasingly
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

90
on donations and the central office fundraisers. Therefore, even though resources such as
additional academic support staff for tutoring and intervention are identified strategies for
helping students perform better, the current budget crisis did not allow schools to allocate
resources in these areas.
Research Question #4
How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement for students in these three middle schools?
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008) was
utilized to analyze the resource allocation and level of support that existed in the three
middle schools participating in the study. The purpose of the model is to identify
elements of a school-wide instructional program that has been shown to have a positive
impact on student achievement. The EBM provides recommendations for schools, with
modification based on the overall student population; for a middle school serving 450
students in grades 6 to 8, the recommended class size is 25. The schools under study
served a majority of students categorized as receiving free-and-reduced lunch; the model
recommends that such schools reallocate resources to increase the number of tutors to
assist students, and to establish a training program for special education para-
professionals that serve in the general education program. This re-allocation of resources
would not impact the distribution of fiscal resources but would allow for targeted training
by special education administrators.
Additionally, the EBM model calls for planning and preparation time of up to 10
days for instructional facilitators. It would be recommended by the researcher that, as
part of grade-level instructional leaders’ responsibilities, schools establish additional
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

91
professional development protocols that include 10 days of summer planning. This re-
allocation of resources would not impact the school budgets because department chairs
already received stipends to serve as leaders within their departments. This re-allocation
is also recommended as it would allow teachers to be trained as instructional coaches to
support other teachers and to carry forward the instructional vision established by the
CMO.
Notably, the participating middle schools did not indicate many significant gaps
with regard to EBM recommendations, even given the fiscal crisis in California. That the
CMO had been able to accomplish so much given these circumstances is commendable.
One factor contributing to this success—and worth documenting—was the CMO’s
engagement in on-going fundraising at the Central Office level. To this end, the CMO
had hired a team of people to work specifically on securing private donations and
contributions so as to provide quality professional development for teachers.
To further address research question #4—especially as it related to re-allocating
human resources to better align with strategies to improve student achievement—the
researcher re-entered staffing ratios to simulate an alternative allocation of resources.
Changes made to the EBM recommendation included an increase in class size from 25 to
28 students, and a percentage change in specialists from 20% to 10%, as compared to
core teachers. This change in class size was made by the researcher to allow the middle
schools an opportunity to reallocate resources to offer a summer program for all students;
at the time of research, the schools only offered summer programs for students with
moderate/severe disabilities. As suggested by Odden (2009), one strategy leading to
increased achievement is providing access to extended school day programs for at-risk
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

92
students. To make this opportunity more feasible for the schools, the researcher
recommends that they offer a six-week, four-day, four-hour program, rather than the
EMB-recommended summer model of eight weeks, five days, and six hours.
Another important re-allocation for the three middle schools would be increasing
the number of instructional coaches. The EBM recommends one coach for every 200
students; because of the population being served—and to increase the retention of highly
effective teachers—the researcher recommended hiring one instructional coach for every
150 students. As suggested by Odden (2009), coaches can help build teacher capacity as
instructional leaders, and promote a professional culture that values student achievement.
Changes to the summer school program and to the percentage of specialist
teachers allocated could potentially increase the likelihood that these schools could
include these important resources in their school model. Also, instructional coaches are
important for providing teachers with the appropriate academic support, and in allowing
them to improve their practice; as such, teachers could better serve the needs of their
students, and decrease the number of referrals to special education. This
recommendation, however, could potentially decrease allocated positions, because
general education teachers would be better equipped to serve students with disabilities
within the general education setting. The importance of having general education
teachers serve students with disabilities within this type of setting is not only a cost-
reducing strategy, but also a method by which the schools can improve the achievement
of all students.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

93
Summary
The interviews conducted as part of this study provided insight as to the how the
current strategies utilized in these three schools compared to the “10 Strategies that
Double Student Performance,” identified by Odden (2009). It may be concluded that the
three middle schools engaged in all 10 of Odden’s strategies, which have been proven to
increase student achievement. The interview process revealed that the schools had
specific activities to assist leaders and teachers in best interpreting their current
performance problems and challenges. Additionally, this researcher identified that, as an
organization, it set ambitious goals. Furthermore, the results showed that the leaders
actively engaged in ensuring that all stakeholders understood the educational vision of the
organization and of each specific school. The on-going use of data to drive decisions was
also identified by the principals as one of the strategies used in the planning
process. Another strategy to increase student achievement at the three middle schools
was providing on-going and strategic professional development so as to develop a school
culture that thrived on accountability and distributive leadership. This strategy tied into
the efforts of the three middle schools to engage in the efficient and effective use of time,
as well as to identify the most talented educators to become members of these educational
teams. Finally, the simulation utilized to compare the current allocation of resources to
those recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) indicated areas on which the
school needed to focus when allocating resources.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

94
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides a summary of the study, the research questions, and the
methodology used in this investigation. Additionally, the chapter provides a summary of
the research findings and pertinent implications for policy and practices. Finally, the
chapter includes recommendations and suggestions for further research in the area of
resource allocation in schools as it relates to student achievement.
Statement of the Problem
The fiscal crisis that schools in America have suffered has impacted the resources
allocated for serving students; however, our educational system’s shift in focus on
adequacy versus equity has also impacted the perceptions of many educators,
policymakers, and the general public. According to Odden (20003), fiscal resources
really matter in providing educational opportunities to students and, even more so, when
money is linked to student achievement. Furthermore, the real test is whether the state’s
school finance system provides sufficient revenues for the average student as well as
adequate resources for students with diverse needs. Not surprisingly, accountability for
schools to provide adequate services to students so that they can achieve at high levels
has been at the forefront of public debate. Therefore, looking at the manner in which
schools allocate their resources so as to increase levels of achievement for students is
crucial.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to develop a better understanding of the use of
resources to improve student learning outcomes in three middle schools within a charter
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

95
management organization. The research also intended to provide an understanding of
how the resources allocated by these there middle schools linked to student achievement.
Research Questions
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement for students at the middle school level?
2. How are human resources allocated across this Charter Management
Organization’s middle schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in these
middle schools and what the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement for students in these three middle schools?
Methodology
The study analyzed the resource allocation practices of three charter middle
schools that were all part of the same charter management organization. The three
middle schools that participated in the study had, on average, a total number of 600
students in grades 6 to 8.
This study utilized a qualitative methodology. The qualitative approach was
appropriate for this study, as the researcher reviewed multiple documents that detailed
what types of resources were allocated by the three middle schools. The intent of the
document review was to enable the researcher to input the allocation of resources into the
Evidence-Based Model created by Odden and Picus (2010) and to analyze how the
current allocation compared to the recommendations found in the simulation.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

96
Additionally, the researcher conducted a total of four interviews (the three school
principals and a cluster director).
Data Collection and Analysis
The data collection included finance, accounting, and human resource personnel
records for each of the schools—data that were provided by the CMO’s Knowledge
Management department. The records included the position count for the three charter
middle schools and the average salary for those positions. The data collected were then
input into a simulation that compared the current allocation of resources for the three
middle schools with the Evidenced-Based Model (EBM) framework. The purpose of the
comparison was to determine if the current resource allocation applied by the three
middle schools aligned to those recommended by the EBM. Also, the comparison of
resource allocation provided an understanding of how the schools utilized their resources
and how the allocation of resources was determined at the three schools. Analysis of the
current allocations of resource at the participating schools was completed through the
lens of a gap analysis. The researcher looked at the recommendations of EBM for each
of the positions and the number actually allocated at each of the schools.
The study also sought to determine if the three middle schools implemented
Odden’s “10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance” (2009) as part of their overall
practice. The strategies identified by Odden (2009) as improving student achievement
are as follows: (a) Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge; (b) Set
Ambitious Goals; (c) Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional
Vision; (d) Utilize Benchmark and Formative Assessments, and Make Decisions Based
on Data; (e) Provide On-Going, Intensive Professional Development; (f) Use Time
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

97
Efficiently and Effectively; (g) Extend Learning and Time for Struggling Students; (h)
Establish a Collaborative, Professional Culture and Distributive Leadership System; (i)
Ensure that Professional and Best Practices are Implemented; and (j) Acknowledge and
Incorporate the Human Capital Side of Doubling Student Performance.
Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications
The urgency to raise academic achievement for all American students is leading
an educational agenda that assumes if students are provided sufficient opportunities and
resources, they can reach desired expectations (Rebell, 2007). The success of our
students depends upon the manner in which our schools design their instructional
programs. As expectations rise for students and teachers to perform at higher levels—
and for schools to guarantee success for all students—the concern is whether the
allocated resources are supporting achievement (SEDL, 2003). According to Diane Pan
and her colleagues (2003), a strong relationship exists between spending patterns and
student success.
The researcher found that the schools in this study implemented strategies similar
to those identified by Odden (2009) in his “10 Strategies of Doubling Student
Performance” as part of their strategic plan to address the achievement gap within their
student population. The study showed that the participating schools had processes in
place to identify and understand the performance gaps at their sites. These processes
allowed campus leaders and district personnel to guide teachers and other school
stakeholders toward critical areas of need. The three middle schools had set the ambitious
goal of making every student college ready by implementing an intervention approach
that ensured access to an instructional program appropriate to his or her performance
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

98
level. The approach used by these three middle schools showed how the CMO’s
instructional vision prioritized making every child college ready.
The researcher also found that the three middle schools engaged in a data-driven,
decision-making approach to develop an instructional program that met student needs. In
terms of on-going professional development, all three middle schools had established that
the growth of the teachers was a priority to ensure the delivery of quality instruction on a
daily basis. The model implemented at the schools called for assistant principals to serve
as coaches, and included a strategic plan that outlined the type of professional
development activities in which the school should engage throughout the year based on
analysis of data. Finally, the study revealed that the three middle schools had established
a collaborative and professional culture to ensure that all stakeholders were actively
involved in establishing and supporting instructional goals.
The findings illustrated that the three middle schools—in utilizing strategies
similar to those discussed by Odden (2009)—showed positive gains in student
achievement. Middle School #1 had an 84-point increase as measured by the Academic
Performance Index (API); at the time of this study, the school’s API was 717, a
substantial increase from its baseline 633 in 2011. Moreover, although two of the schools
in the study were in their first year of operation, their API scores compared favorably to
those of the previous schools occupying the sites; this improvement was accomplished
with similar demographics and student populations.
The study also found that the resource allocation gap existing at the three middle
schools was not as significant as expected when compared to the Evidence-Based Model.
Notably, the three middle schools—with their focus on intervention to improve learning
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

99
in the core subjects such as reading and math—limited the number of extracurricular
activities for their students. And, even though the personnel count of positions at these
three middle schools was not that different from that of the EBM, the budget gap was still
significant. A reason for this gap was the CMO’s ability to raise much-needed funds
through donors, which served to off-set the budget deficit felt by most schools in the
state. As part of its strategy to minimize the impact of the state’s limited funding, the
CMO provided resources to staff the Marketing and Fundraising Division, a dedicated
team that wrote grants to solicit funds from private donors for the purpose of
supplementing the budgetary gaps that the schools incur. For instance, because of the
budget crunch, the assistant principal position at Middle School #3 was funded through a
grant.
The three middle schools’ allocation of resources in the context of an economic
crisis that has led many school districts to provide less and re-allocate resources is worth
noting. That the schools in this study relied on private donations to stay open and were
able to provide adequate instructional programs for students spoke to the alarming state
of our educational system, and its inability to allocate adequate resources to schools.
Furthermore, that schools rely on private donors for adequate funding has still greater
implications. How do schools sustain these programs over time? This study can provide
the educational community with a baseline as to the resources required to operate schools
so that they can better focus on student achievement as their primary goal. Also, other
educational communities can use the study to identify the different strategies needed at
schools sites to better develop programs that provide an engaging and dynamic education,
especially for a diverse student community.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION

100
Policy Implications
The Evidence-Based Model, as developed by Odden and Picus (2009), can serve
educational policymakers, as well as district and school leaders, as a framework for
budgetary recommendations and, more importantly, for constructing a budget and
allocating adequate resources for schools. The EBM is a tool that yields specific
recommendations and can assist schools and districts in identifying the appropriate
resources that should be allocated to serve a diverse student population. The study also
highlighted the use of strategies shown to increase student achievement and that can be
implemented at the site level. The study provided specific ways that leaders have
implemented these strategies at their schools. Analysis of the “10 Strategies For
Doubling Student Performance” (Odden & Picus, 2009), which are similar to those
implemented by the three middle schools in the study, can serve other educational leaders
in their efforts to utilize those processes at the schools they serve.
Another policy implication highlighted by the study is that the participating
schools’ focus on increasing student achievement required a solid instructional vision
developed and supported by district leaders; the CMO was identified as providing direct
support and clear expectations about the goal of the organization as it related to student
achievement. Finally, the study brought to light the need both to build capacity among all
stakeholders for implementing any instructional program and to fortify commitment to
the mission and vision of providing students with the best education possible, regardless
of budgetary constraints.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

101
Conclusions
In conclusion, this researcher recommends that districts begin focusing on how
best to support schools in utilizing research-based strategies as a daily practice. The
current status of our state budget is problematic; therefore, educators must begin looking
at resource allocation as a method of addressing the needs of students, and of best
impacting academic achievement. The three schools in this study proved that despite the
budget crisis, allocating resources in an appropriate manner can serve to ensure that
academic performance remains the priority of our schools. As such, the three middle
schools can serve as a model for how schools can achieve academic success, even with
limited resources, by demonstrating strategies that have improved student achievement.
Finally, the study illustrated the need to re-evaluate the current fiscal allocation of
resources and the manner in which states provide funding to public schools. The three
middle schools in this study were able to succeed only by advocating for outside
resources from donors who believed in and supported their mission; this model, of
course, is not sustainable. If we are truly committed to the education of our children, we,
as a nation, must provide the resources necessary to ensure that all children are
successful.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

102
References
Archibald, S., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A case study of professional development
expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(29), 1–24.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597 –604.
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 to teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104(7), 1265–1312.
Ed-Data. (2011). State of California education profile, fiscal year 2011–12.
http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottm
=/layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?level=04&reportNumber=16
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Fischel, W. (1999 –2000). School finance litigation and property tax revolts: How
undermining local control turns voters away from public education. In W. Fowler
(Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1999-2000 (pp. 79–127). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

103
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5 –12.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980 –1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5 –45.
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in U.S.
school spending. Journal of Human Resources 32(1), 35 –68.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ladd, H. F., & Hansen, S. H. (1999-2000). Making money matter: Financing America’s
schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NEA Research. (2010, December). Ranking and estimates. Ranking of the states 2010
and estimates of school statistics 2011. National Education Association.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. The Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120–125.
Odden, A. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press
Odden, A. (2011). Improving student learning when budgets are tight. Madison, WI:
Corwin Press.
Odden A., & Archibald, S. (2009). Doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

104
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323–356.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2010). Using the Evidence-Based Model in strategic
budgeting: Examples from four diverse Ohio districts. Lawrence Picus and
Associates. December 2010.
Pan, D., Zena, R., Schneider, C., & Smith-Hansen, L. Examination of resource allocation
in education: Connecting spending to student performance. Austin, Texas:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2003.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher College
Record, 109(6) ID Number 12743. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743
Sandler, M. R. (2010). Social entrepreneurship in education: Private ventures for the
public good. New York: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). (2003). Examination of
resource allocations in education: Connecting spending to student performance.
Austin, TX: Author.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

105
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). (2005). Examination of
resource allocation in education: Connecting spending to student performance.
Austin, TX: Author.
Weston, M. (2010). School finance reform. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute
of California. Retrieved from www.ppic.org

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to develop a better understanding of the allocation of resources used to improve student learning outcomes in three middle schools within a Charter Management Organization (CMO). The three middle schools that participated in the study had similar demographics and served students in low socioeconomic areas of Los Angeles. ❧ The practices of three middle schools as they pertained to the allocation of resources were compared to the “10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance,” identified by Odden (2009) as having a direct impact on increasing student outcomes. The study found that the three middle schools’ current practices for improving student achievement aligned with the strategies identified by Odden (2009) at various levels. Additionally, the study found that the practices implemented by the schools may be attributable to the ongoing dedication of the entire CMO, whose vision is focused on effective teaching as a model for educational reform. ❧ Finally, the use of a simulation to compare the current allocation of resources for the three middle schools with the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus was utilized to analyze how the schools’ practices compared to that recommended by the EBM. The study found that the staffing realities for the three specific middle schools within the Charter Management Organization did not vary significantly when compared to the EBM, but that specific areas might need to be studied further so that the reallocation of resources could be considered in greater depth, in turn to improve how these schools provide support for struggling learners.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

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

PDF

A closer examination of resource allocations using research based best practices to promote student learning: case studies of Hawaiian-focused charter schools in Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Campo-Contreras, Susana (author)

Core Title Resource allocation practices in three charter middle schools in relation to student achievement improvement strategies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/06/2013

Defense Date 03/11/2013

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

Tag charter schools,Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,student improvement strategies

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Elsasser, Jim (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email csusana@usc.edu,scampo@greendot.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-250317

Unique identifier UC11288077

Identifier etd-CampoContr-1651.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-250317 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CampoContr-1651.pdf

Dmrecord 250317

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Campo-Contreras, Susana

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