University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT
STRATEGIES:
A CASE STUDY OF SCHOOLS IN A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
DISTRICT
BY
JOAN YEN
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2014
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wonderful family. They will always be my
strength and inspiration.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Larry Picus for his guidance,
encouragement and patience. I also want to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Frank
Donavan for serving on my dissertation committee.
Second, I would like to thank my family and friends who helped me so much
throughout my doctorate program: Jerry Yen, Reynold Chang, Dr. Keao Tano, and Dr.
Dipali Potnis.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER ONE – Introduction 1
Background of the problem 1
Statement of the problem 6
Purpose of the study 7
Research questions 7
Importance of the study 8
Summary of methodology 8
Limitations 9
Delimitations 9
Assumptions 9
Definitions of terms 10
CHAPTER TWO – Literature review 13
Introduction 13
v
Educational reform and finance on national level 13
California education financing 17
Categorical funding 24
Equity and adequacy 27
Successful District Approach 28
Cost Function Approach 29
Professional Judgment Approach 30
Evidence-Based Approach 31
Resource allocation 37
Effective strategies for improving school performance 43
School leadership 48
Conclusion 49
CHAPTER THREE – Research methodology 51
Introduction 51
Research questions 53
Purposeful sample and population 53
District profile 54
Instrument and data collection 55
Data analysis 56
CHAPTER FOUR – Findings 58
School Profile 59
Student Demographics 60
Framework for data analysis 62
vi
School performance 63
Similar school ranking 64
2012 Adequate Yearly Progress 65
Recent fiscal crisis 69
Student performance and resource allocations 70
The deficits 86
The over-staffing 88
Comparison between sample schools 90
CHAPTER FIVE – Conclusions 94
Introduction 94
The sample 94
Limitations 95
Summary of findings 95
Implications for practice 99
Recommendations for future research 100
REFERENCES 102
APPENDIX A – School sites data collection protocol 107
APPENDIX B – Gap Analysis using Evidence-Based Model 109
vii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Procedures to analyze school allocation adequacy using Odden’s 10
achievement strategies as framework 52
Table 3.2 Targeted schools and student population 54
Table 3.3 Targeted school demographics 55
Table 4.1 Similar school and statewide ranking of the five schools 65
Table 4.2 AYP for English-language arts, 2012 66
Table 4.3 AYP for Mathematics, 2012 68
Table 4.5 Personnel at the sample schools – principals, core teachers, class size,
specialist teachers, special education teachers, and EBM recommendations 78

Table 4.6 Personnel at the sample schools – instructional coaches, extended day staff,
nurses, counselors/ school psychologists, by school and average ratio to students 81
Table 4.7 Human resource allocation patterns 84
Table 4.8 EBM Simulation summary 91
Table 4.9 EBM gap analysis – special education teachers 92
Table 4.10 Resource-redistribution, restricted to reducing K-3 class-size 93
Table B1 Gap Analysis – Number of Core teachers 109
Table B2 Gap Analysis – Number of Specialist teachers 109
Table B3 Gap Analysis – Number of Special Education teachers 109
Table B4 Gap Analysis – Number of coaches 110
Table B5 Gap Analysis – Number of Special Education aides 110
Table B6 Gap Analysis – Number of librarians 110
Table B7 Gap Analysis – Number of non-academic support staff 111
Table B8 Gap Analysis – Number of instructional aides 111
viii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: California School Funding Sources 19
Figure 2.2: Comparison Table between 2007 funding and 2009 funding 25
Figure 2.3: Operating expenditures for services and goods in the average California
district in 2008-09 school year 26
Figure 2.4: Recommendations for adequate resources for prototypical elementary,
middle, and high schools 32

Figure 4.1 Student enrollment by grade-level, K-5 59
Figure 4.2 Student demographics percentage by schools and school district (school
year 2010-11) 61
Figure 4.3 Percentage of students who are socio-economically disadvantaged and
who are English learners (by schools, district, and prototypical Evidence-Based
Model school) 62
Figure 4.4 API scores in sample schools (Year 2007, 2010, and 2011) 63
Figure 4.5 School-wide percentage of students achieving proficient or advanced on
California Standards Test: English Language Arts from year 2008 to 2012 68
Figure 4.6 School-wide percentage of students achieving proficiency or better on
California Standards Test: Mathematics from year 2008 to 2012 69
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
With United States struggling to come out of a severe recession due to the
financial meltdown of 2008, public school system nationwide is facing steep funding cuts
on yearly basis. In year 2009, funding for California K-12 schools was $1.2 billion
below previous year funding. In year 2010, they lost $1.8 billion in addition to the
previous year’s cuts (LA Times, 2011). In 2011, California spent 15%, or $1,000 less per
student than it did in 2007-08 (EdSource). Yet, California is responsible for educating
the most diverse student population in the nation, while more than half of the students in
the state struggle with poverty (Ed100, 2011). About 25% of its students are English
language learners, and almost 56% of the students qualify for free or reduced price lunch
program. To offset the large funding deficit, the California Legislature in 2009 enacted
what Weston called “arguably the largest change to California’s school finance system in
decades” by lifting spending restrictions on more than 40 categorical programs for 2012-
15 (2011). This gave schools in the state more flexibility and accountability to find ways
to reallocate the limited resources and maximize student performance.
Background of the problem
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
The most notable attempt to raise America’s poor citizens’ standards of living
through the means of education was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965. It was part of President Lydon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” campaign by
expanding federal government’s role in funding primary and secondary education, and
2
emphasized equal access to education and establishes high standards for student
performance outcome with states acting as monitor. The ESEA established categorical
funds addressing specific needs in the educational system. Title I offers financial aids
and guidelines to serve students from low-income backgrounds. Title II is to meet
schools’ needs for library resources and other instructional equipments. Title III provides
funding for supplementary educational services. Title IV funds educational research and
training. Title V allocates funding to State Departments of Education. In 1966, Title VI
was amended from general funds to provide funding to educating children with
handicaps. In 1968, The Bilingual Education Act, or Title VII, became a law to provide
bilingual education programs for students with limited English language skills. .
A Nation at Risk
In 1983, directed by U.S. Secretary of Education under the Reagan
administration, National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) published the
report A Nation at Risk: the Imperative for Education Reform. Primary purpose of the
report was to address the failures of American public education system and the economic
repercussions the nation would face if the crisis were not resolved. According to the
report, about 13 percent of all 17-year-old children in the nation are illiterate. In addition,
SAT scores decline consistently over the years in verbal, mathematics and science
subjects. This report finds that between 1975 and 1980, the number of remedial
mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72 percent. (National
Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983) The report suggests greater focus on core
subjects such as mathematics and English Language, rigorous content standards, longer
3
school days and teacher training. In response to the report, Reagan and his staff pushed
for education reform focusing on states defining and measuring rigorous academics
through standardized tests and free-market approach allowing educational choices for
parents, involving vouchers and tax credit for students attending private schools. During
his first term, Reagan cut the budget of the Department of Education by 18 percent; as a
result, severely limiting the role and influence of federal government on schools at all
levels.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the reauthorization of the ESEA
and the largest standards-based reform in the recent years. Under NCLB, students in
grades three to eight and one grade in high school are required to be tested by the states
for proficiency in reading and math. The Act requires all students be proficient or higher
in reading and mathematics by 2014 for states to continue receiving federal funding for
their schools. Each state sets its definition and time line for measuring whether a school,
district and the state are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward the final goal.
Failure to make AYP for consecutive years will result in sanctions for schools and
districts (California Department of Education, 2010).
Despite its controversies, NCLB increased Federal funding for states and school
districts. For the year 2004, Congress authorized $12.3 billion to Title I program
(Education Week, 2004). The amount of money a school receives from Title I is based
on its percentage of economically disadvantaged students (Bracey, 2005). Even with the
economic crisis in recent years, $14 billion was given to Title I in year 2011 (FEBP,
4
2011). However, one of the major flaws of NCLB is its failure to address how the
funding should be used to increase student achievement (Rudalevige, 2005).
California School Funding
Prior to 1973, local property tax revenues imposed by local districts funded
California schools. This system resulted in considerable disparities between districts with
high property values and those located in lower income neighborhoods. For example,
Baldwin Park’s per pupil spending was $577 in fiscal year 1968-69, but Beverly Hills’
funding per student was $1232 (CBP, 2006). The inequalities eventually led to the filing
of Serrano vs. Priest lawsuit in 1968; and eight years later, California Supreme Court
ruled in favor of Serrano on the grounds that state’s finance system failed to provide
equal access to quality education for all students regardless of their financial
backgrounds. In response to court’s decision, the state enacted California Assembly Bill
65 (AB 65) to provide more state assistance to districts with lower wealth and more
inflation restrictions on districts of higher income neighborhoods. However, Proposition
13 went into effect in 1978 and limited property tax rates to 1 percent of a property’s
assessed value at the time of acquisition and it reduced districts’ property tax revenues
drastically (CBP, p.2).
California’s Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, or
Proposition 98, was enacted in 1988 to provide a minimum guaranteed funding for K-12
public schools and community colleges. A provision of Proposition 98 in 1990 created
three tests to specify the percent of the state’s general fund transfer to K-12 education and
public community colleges based on the state’s economic conditions. Test 1 requires
5
roughly 40 percent of general fund and this test is put into effect twice in 1998 and 2009.
Test 2 applies during the state’s period of strong economical growth measured by per
capita personal income. Test 3 applies when general fund revenue falls below per capita
income growth. It requires the state to fund as much as the previous year adjusted for
student enrollment and per capita general fund revenues plus 0.5 percent of prior year
Proposition 98 amount (SVEF, 2010). Currently, the state makes up 54.4 percent of
public school funding, federal government provides 10.9 percent, local funds 33.4
percent, and lottery revenue consists of 1.3 percent. For school year 2011-12, the
California’s educational funding is approximately $64.1 billion, and Proposition 98 made
up for $43.1 billion of the funds.
The Recession
According to a 2011 EdSource report, the number of California students who
are qualifying for federal free or reduced-price meal program increased by 300,000 in
three years after the 2008’s Great Recession. Yet, at the same time, public K-12 schools’
funding per pupil has dropped by $1,197 from prior to the recession (EdSource, 2011).
About 32,000, or 11% of the state’s teachers lost their jobs since the recession (Hoag,
2012), which resulted in larger class-size and less student services. However, even with
rapidly declining resources, districts still have to comply with mandates such as NCLB
and state’s own accountability systems, leaving them with few options to balance their
budget and address their students’ needs at the same time.
6
Evidence-Based Approach
The standards-based reform movement along with multiple litigations on funding
adequately to serve students’ learning needs began the debate on how to allocate given
resource effectively to maximize student achievement. One of the models for resource
allocation adequacy is the Evidence-Based Approach (Odden & Picus, 2003). It
identifies a set of school-level components that are key factors for achieving pre-defined
student performance goals, then determines a price for each component and aggregates
those components to compute for total cost of such identified components.
Statement of the problem
In 2007, California ranked 31 among states in per pupil spending, 49 in
student/teacher ratio, 48 in math achievement and 49 in reading achievement (LAO,
2011). In 2009, after the start of economic recession, California cut its per-pupil
spending to $7444 and that is $2856 lower than national average. California public
school system serves a much-diversified population. Among more than 6 million
students, about 1 out of 2 is from a low-income family, 1 in every 4 is an English
language learner comparing to 9 percent national average, and about 1 in 10 requires
special education services. The joining efforts by the states and federal government to
address educational resource adequacy for all students do not address the qualities of
education and methods of reallocating school resources in the time of fiscal crisis in order
to meet student performance goals. It becomes imperative for educators and legislators to
develop strategies on how to allocate limited district resources to maximize student
learning. Plecki (2006) points out that resource allocation is more than assigning dollar
7
amount to schools and programs. It is the examination of the ways to allocate time and
people in productive ways.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to examine resource allocation data on five
schools with similar student populations to determine the correlation between resource
allocation and student achievement. The indicators for student achievement in this study
are California Standardized Tests, Academic Performance Index and Adequate Yearly
Progress. According to Odden and Picus (2008), educational adequacy must contain
following components: 1) What does state expects students to learn? 2) What does state
defines as levels of proficiency in each content area, which can be measured by
standardized assessments? 3) How does state measure student improvement over time
for all students? 4) How do districts allocate resources to achieve the goals?
The data collected will be compared and analyzed against the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) to determine whether the schools are aligning resources
to support best instructional strategies (Odden, 2009). The intent of this study is to
provide leaders of education with information on how successful schools have improved
student achievement by reallocating resources adequately.
Research Questions
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?
8
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what does
research suggests as most effective? How do they differ from resource allocation
strategies based on the Evidence-Based Model?
4. How can human resources be re-allocated to align with strategies that improve student
achievement?
Importance of the study
This study will provide other researchers and leaders in education with a number
of case studies containing important information on how to reallocate resources to
significantly improve students’ learning outcomes given the current challenges.
Furthermore, with the current fiscal challenges and difficult decisions policymakers in
California have to face, this study will offer insight and relevant data on how schools
allocate the funds they have, and the adequate level of resources schools need to provide
adequate education to all students.
Summary of Methodology
The study is a detail analysis of resource allocation at the school-site level. A
purposeful sample of five elementary schools was selected for the study. The qualitative
data required for the study are collected through interviews with superintendent at the
district level and principals at the schools, quantitative examination of student
performance data in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, obtained from California Department of
Education. Lastly, resource allocations on site through methods of analyzing existing
documents on budgets and expenditures. Data collected on school resource will then be
uploaded into a system and measured against the level of resources Evidence-Based
9
Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) would generate for such given school. Qualitative data
collected through the interviews are used to generate descriptive case study on how each
school uses its resources to increase student achievement. Then this data will be
analyzed and compared against other schools in the study for the purpose of identifying
how each school’s resource allocation is aligned to the best instructional strategies
according to the Evidence-Based model.
Limitations
First limitation to this study is the limited applicability of Evidence-Based Model
to schools in California due to the state’s school funding formula. As a result, certain
elements of the Evidence-Based Model will not be compatible with current California
school funding formula. Second limitation is the amount of data the school sites and the
district are willing to provide to the researcher. Finally, because the participants of this
study are volunteers, potential bias toward individual opinions or views on specific
matters can result in inaccurate representations in statistical or analytical data collected.
Delimitations
The first delimitation in this study is the sampling size and the participant schools
are chosen purposely by the researcher.
Assumptions
It is assumed that the participants in the interviews for this study will answer all
questions willingly and truthfully. In addition, all documents and data collected for
analysis are assumed to be accurate and complete.
10
Definitions of Terms
1) Accountability: It is the concept of holding districts, schools, educators, and
students responsible for results (Education Week, 2012).
2) Academic Performance Index (API): An index number generated primarily from
California’s state standardized tests and California High School Exit Exam, to
measure performance and progress of a group of students, a school, or a district.
API scores ranges from 200, the lowest, to 1000, the highest (EdSource;
California Department of Education).
3) Adequacy: Odden, Picus, and Goetz (2010) define adequacy as a process of
allocating resources to schools to make “substantial improvements in student
performance.” According to Schrag (2003), adequacy is a method that links
school spending to educational goals. The two essential questions in adequacy
are :1) What strategies and resources do schools need to meet their performance
goals? 2) How much do these resources cost?
4) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): As defined by the federal No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), Adequate Yearly Progress is a metric for schools on their
annual progress on meeting the ultimate proficiency goals in English reading and
mathematics in compliance with No Child Left Behind Act by 2014. Each state
sets its own definition and time line for measuring whether a school or a district is
making “adequate yearly progress” toward the final goal. Failure to make AYP
for consecutive years will result in sanctions for schools and districts (California
Department of Education, 2010).
11
5) California Standards Tests (CSTs): The testing system developed by California to
measure “students’ progress toward achieving California’s state-adopted
academic content standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and
social science, which describe what students should be able to do in each grade
and subject tested.” (Standardized Testing and Reporting Program, 2012).
6) Categorical Funding: Federal and state government aid for students with special
needs or special purposes such as improving instruction and supporting heath
programs (EdSource, 2012).
7) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA): The act “launched a
comprehensive set of programs,” including the federal aid to address the needs of
social-economically disadvantaged students (U.S. Department of Education,
2012)
8) Equity in education: Government mandates to provide students with equal access
to education regardless of their backgrounds (EdSource, 2012).
9) Evidence-Based Model: This adequacy approach identifies components
necessary to increase student learning performance based on research or pre-
designed programs demonstrating evidence of success. Then it determines a price
for each ingredient before calculating the total cost to implement a similar
program in a school (Odden and Picus, 2003).
10) General Purpose Funding: Funding directed to schools for general purposes like
day-to-day operations of schools. In California, the fund is computed based on a
“per-pupil revenue limit.” (EdSource, 2012)
12
11) No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): It is the reauthorization of the 1994
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). To comply with NCLB, states
are required to set specific standards for achievement within each grade levels in
schools, and evaluate schools using standards assessments to ensure they are
meeting the growth targets set by NCLB and the states.
13
Chapter Two
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to the
fundamental ideas in this study. The literature has been divided into five major areas
with subcategories contained within each:
1) Federal Government’s role in public school finance throughout the history.
2) California State Government’s role in public school funding.
3) Finance equity to adequacy.
4) Resource allocation.
5) Effective strategies for improving student performance at school level.
Educational Reform and Finance on National Level
The idea of providing free education for all children supported by taxation was
proposed by Thomas Jefferson as early as 1779 (The Leonore Annenberg Institute, 2012).
However, schooling remained a local community affair and the Federal government’s
role in public education was minimal or non-existent. In 1826, Massachusetts built the
first state education system with the common-school movement. It required every town to
form a school committee and provided basic content curricula in order to manage all
public schools under a centralized system. While the states began to form their public
school systems, the Federal Office of Education, now known as the U.S. Department of
Education, was established in 1867. The purpose of this government branch then was to
collect data on schools and teachers to help states improve school systems (Jefferson-
14
Jenkins and Hill, 2011). In the 1874"Kalamazoo Case,” the Michigan Supreme Court
sided with local governments on the rights to tax citizens to pay for public education.
The rest of the nation followed suit and began to impose local school taxes as well.
Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the Federal government had little role in how
each state managed or funded its public school system. Brown v. Board of Education
was the first time Federal government became directly involved in a state’s educational
affairs. In 1951, the Supreme Court overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision,
which upheld the state laws requiring segregation in school, citing that “separate
education facilities are inherently unequal” and thus a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment (Reber, 2005). In 1955, the Supreme Court told the states that desegregation
must occur “with all deliberate speed” (The U.S. Courts, 2011). Since Brown and Brown
II, the role of the Federal government in the nation’s educational system expanded
drastically. Besides enforcing racial integration in schools, it also began to create
legislatures and increase funding to address various issues in equal access to educational
opportunities regardless of race, gender, and economic background.
In response to the Cold War, President Eisenhower believed that one way to
strengthen the nation’s defense against the Soviet Union’s technological advancement
was to increase the literacy of our nation. The National Defense Education Act in 1958
(NDEA) was the first comprehensive Federal legislation that provided students with more
access to higher education. For the following four years, NDEA injected $877 million
into the public school system at all levels, including support for college loans and
graduate fellowships, improvements in science, mathematics, and foreign language
15
instruction in elementary and secondary schools, and increased programs for foreign
language studies and vocational-technical training (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
While there is no systematic, comprehensive system to track and analyze the outcomes of
the NDEA, researchers suggest that broad educational legislation such as the NDEA
contributed to the increasing numbers of post secondary education institutions, and
citizens with bachelor or doctoral degrees (Flattau, Bracken, Atta, Bandeh-Ahmadi, Cruz,
and Sullivan, 2007).
After the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War, the Federal government
further expanded its power over state government by addressing the issues of social and
educational inequality with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965
(ESEA) as a part of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” The Act has been the most
far-reaching policy in the modern U.S. public school system (Hana, 2005). It specifies
how schools had to use the funds: Title I – financial assistance for students of low-
income families, Title II – instructional resources, Title III – supplementary educational
services, Title IV – educational research and training. The Act was later revised and
added two other categories: assistance for children with disabilities and bilingual
education programs (EdSource, 2011). In 2007, according to a report by Lips, Watkins,
and Fleming, the Federal government spent $71.7 billion on Elementary and Secondary
Education programs. The largest programs in the Department of Education’s elementary
and secondary budget were education for the disadvantaged, or Title I ($14.8 billion), and
Special Education ($11.5 billion).
16
However, additional funding from the Federal government did not close the
performance gaps between disadvantaged students and students of more affluent families.
In 1981, under President Reagan’s authorization, the National Commission on Excellence
in Education released the report “A Nation at Risk” (Jorgensen and Hoffmann, 2003).
The report recommended a tougher set of high school graduation requirements, more
rigorous and measurable standards for high school curricula, lengthening the school day
or school year, and the improvement of teacher training programs. This report paved the
way for the next educational reform in which standardized assessments became the focal
point.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is the federal government’s
largest educational reform since the re-authorization of the 1994 Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). To comply with NCLB, states are required to set
specific standards for achievement within each grade level in schools, which are then
used to develop and evaluate schools to ensure they achieve the growth targets set by
NCLB and the states. While its ultimate goal is to ensure all groups of students reach
proficiency in math and literacy, it lacks a set of clear definitions for proficiency and
allows the states to create their own standards for measuring students’ learning outcomes.
The other complaint is the lack of additional funding required to comply with NCLB
mandates (Duncombe, Lukemeyer, and Yinger, 2006). However, the lack of additional
funding could be attributed to the already high expenditures on the K-12 education
system. The expansion of Federal influence into local schools since ESEA came with a
17
tremendous increase in Federal funding: In 2011, the Department of Education spent $67
billion on elementary and secondary schools (Digest of Education Statistics, 2011).
California Education Financing
There are 958 public school districts and 10,286 public schools in California,
educating about 6.2 millions students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011) or
12.8% of the nation’s total K-12 public school students (Market Data Retrieval, 2011).
Due to the demographics of the state, the students are also a very diverse group. 8.5% of
the students are Asian, 51.4% are Hispanic, 6.7% are African-American, and 26.6% are
white. About a quarter of the state’s students are English learners and 30% of
kindergartners are English learners. Besides language challenges, the state also battles
poverty: 55.7% of the students qualify for free or reduced price meals (Ed-Data, 2010-
11). California also has one of the toughest standards in the nation for its K-12 students.
In the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation’s 2006 ratings, California ranked top three in all
core subjects. In the American Federation of Teachers' 2008 report, only four
states/jurisdictions ranked higher than California (Edwards, 2010). However, a state with
high expectations and standards does not equal a state with a high performance outcome
under the policy of NCLB. As a result, California consistently falls below the national
average in school performance. While the state has the sixth highest NAEP scale
equivalent score for state grade-8 reading proficiency standards (Linn), 61% of schools in
California failed to make AYP in 2010 (Crawford, 2011). This implies that it is unlikely
100% of California schools will meet the 2014 NCLB mandates; hence, many will face
sanctions (Larsen, Lipscomb, and Jaquet, 2011). The recession also worsened the state’s
18
financial struggle to meet the mandates. Until the 1970s, California’s public schools
were among the nation’s best funded; but as of 2011, the state ranked 47th overall in per-
pupil spending (Baron, 2012). Currently, state funding such as Proposition 98 for K-12
and community colleges dropped from $56.6 billion in 2007-08 to $47.6 billion for 2011-
12. California's State Proposition 98 accounted for 54% of the state’s public school
system funding. Local Proposition 98 is 19.7%, Federal categorical funds such as Title I
accounted for 9.7%, and State and Local non-Proposition 98 funds are 6.1% and 2.9%.
Lastly, local revenue is 6.2% of the public school system funding (see figure 2.1)
(EdSource, 2011). Federal policies, Serrano v. Priest, Senate Bill 90, Assembly Bill 65,
Proposition 13, and Proposition 98 shaped the current California school funding system
by shifting local control to the state government. The districts today have little flexibility
to control their total revenue growth unless the community is willing to contribute
additional funding through a parcel tax (School Service of California, 2005).
19
Figure 2.1: California School Funding Sources
(Source: EdSource , 2011)
Prior to Serrano v. Priest in 1971, California’s districts were funded by local
property taxes, basic state aids, state’s categorical and federal categorical aids. All
districts were to receive same amount of state aid and those who were unable to fund
adequately by levying the pre-specified property tax rate would be given equalization
assistance from the state (Downes, 1992). Although this system seemed to be adequately
addressing the funding issues that less affluent communities had, the Serrano case argued
that the system created great disparities for students in poorer districts. The case argued
that any increase in per pupil spending would require a smaller tax rate increase for the
wealthier districts, while poorer districts had to impose higher tax rate to generate the
same amount of revenue.
20
The lower Court’s initial decision in Serrano I did not rule the system of financing
unconstitutional, but with a State Supreme Court ruling looming, Senate Bill 90 (1972)
was passed to address some aspects of the lawsuit. The Legislature set revenue limits to
put a cap on the amount of tax each district could receive per pupil. The other component
of the reform was an increase in the general-purpose (foundation) spending level, which
became the base amount in calculating each district’s annual revenue limit.
In Serrano II (1976), the State Supreme Court ruled the financing system
unconstitutional, arguing that two school districts with the same tax rate but with
different taxable income would yield different per pupil spending and create disparities
between districts as a result. In response to Serrano II, 1977’s Assembly Bill 65 created a
system called power equalization, assigning a higher inflation rate to districts with low
revenue limits.
Proposition 13 (1978) limited property tax rates to 1% of a property’s assessed
value, and increased in assessed value per year are capped at 2% or lower. This measure
eliminated 60% of local property tax revenues and nullified Assembly Bill 65’s reform
efforts (EdSource, 2012). The combination of Serrano II and Proposition 13 led to the
creating of California’s current state-financed system for public education (Downes,
1992). Even through there have been many changes to the system, the underlying
structure placing control with the state has not changed (EdSource, 2011).
In 1979, California's voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 4, also known
as the Gann Limit Initiative, to further the definition of Proposition 13. Proposition 4
21
greatly limited growth in appropriations made by the state and local governments by
pegging the rate of appropriation growth to the percentage increase in the cost of living
and the percentage increase in the state or local population. Any amount of appropriations
made in excess to the limit must be refunded to the taxpayers (California Legislative
Analyst's Office, 2000).
Due to the restrictive nature of Proposition 4, California public schools suffered
tremendous funding pressure. In response to the already limited funding being further
diverted away from schools to fund other administrative necessities, Proposition 98 was
introduced in 1988 and passed by voters to amend a relief to the California public
schools. Proposition 98 places a minimum funding level that is a percentage of
California's general fund spending. It also amended the California Constitution to divert
refunds of Proposition 4 to education funds instead of rebate checks to taxpayers
(California Legislative Analyst's Office, 2005).
How the state computes the revenue for each school year is based on three tests
(EdSource, 2009):
1. K-12 must receive a minimum percentage of General Fund spending (41%).
2. K-12 must receive at least the same amount of state and local tax dollars as in
the prior year, adjusted for average daily attendance (ADA) and growth in per
capita personal income.
22
3. K-12 Test 2, adjusted for changes in ADA and per capita General Fund
revenues, plus 0.5% of prior year Proposition 98 amount.
In addition, a cost-of-living-adjustment, or COLA, mandates an increase in the
school districts’ revenue limit funding (School Service of California, 2005). Very few
districts in California can raise enough funding through local property taxes to refuse
state aid. These districts are called basic aid or community funded districts, and they are
allowed to keep their revenue and have higher per-pupil funding (Alvarez, 2009). A one-
time 4.53% Cost of Living Adjustment was provided in 2007, or $2.1 billion. K-12 did
not receive a percentage increase on their revenue, but got a flat dollar amount per
student for that year.
The economic recession that started in 2008 resulted in a sharp decline in the
state’s revenues and it forced the state legislators to re-examine their financial priorities
and impose deep cuts to budgets and funding. After the start of the recession, along with
cuts on the federal level, per pupil funding in California dropped from $8,235 in 2007 to
$7,038 in 2011 (EdSource, 2011). In early 2009, to help districts deal with budget cuts,
Governor Schwarzenegger signed a law to allow districts the flexibility to use funds from
40 state categorical programs for other purposes until 2012-13. This flexibility totaled
$4.5 billion for all the districts (Human Services Management Corporation, 2011).
However, not all districts have access to these categorical programs in the first place. A
survey created by the California Department of Education (2010) asked 287 school
districts, county offices and charter schools what types of cuts they had to make to
balance their budgets: 65% of respondents cut facility maintenance, 58% made cuts on
23
district administration, 58% on instructional materials, 48% on nurses, counselors, and
psychologists, 48% had to make cuts on art and music programs, 47% on staff
compensation, 34% made cuts on electives, 32% on teachers and 30% on professional
development programs (Johnson, 2010; Dev, 2010). If Governor Brown’s Proposition 30
—raising state sales tax and income tax for taxpayers making over $250,000—fails, an
additional $441 cut will apply to per pupil funding (Fensterwald, 2012).
In 1999, a class lawsuit, Williams v. State, complained that the state had failed to
provide a class of students with adequate learning tools including safe and clean facilities,
qualified teachers, and appropriate instructional materials. In August 2004, the parties
reached a settlement in which the state would provide $800 million over the next few
years for facility repairs and $140 million for instruction materials in 2004, along with
other provisions (EdSource, 2012). The legislations implementing the Williams
settlement are:
1) Senate Bill 550 and Assembly Bill 2727: establish minimum standards for school
facilities, instructional materials, teacher quality, and accountability system to
enforce these standards.
2) Senate Bill 6: provides funds to districts to repair facilities and one-time needs
assessment for schools with the lowest Academic Performance Index in the state.
3) Assembly Bill 3001: encourages qualified teachers to work in low-performing
schools and increases oversight to ensure teachers are qualified.
24
Categorical Funding
In addition to the revenue limit, schools also receive “need-based” funds to serve
students with specified needs. The funding for these programs is restricted and can only
be spent according to state mandates. The two largest categorical funds in California are
special education and class size reduction for K through three. Other large programs
include Economic Impact Aid, the School Improvement Program (SIP), Teacher Staff
Development, Transportation Services, and Instructional Materials (School Service of
California, 2005). Currently, about 30% of a district’s funding is categorical. Although
there are more than 60 categorical programs, about 90% of the funding is distributed
among only 15 programs. In 2006-07, categorical programs made up about 40% of the
total K-12 funds (Weston, 2011). In 2009-10, due to large budget shortfalls caused by
the recession, the California Legislature removed restrictions from 40 categorical funds,
while at the same time reduced the funding by 20% (figure 2.2) (EdSource, 2010; RAND,
2012).
25
Figure 2.2: Comparison Table between 2007 funding and 2009 funding, with funding
allocation flexibility in each category. Source: EdSource, “Newly Flexible State
Categorical Programs,” 2010.
A typical California school district would spend the bulk of its revenues on
personnel cost due to its labor-intensive nature. According to a 2010 EdSource report,
districts spend two-thirds of the revenue on instruction and related spending; which
includes teacher salary, classroom instructions, libraries, teacher training, and instruction
26
technology (figure 2.3). The EdSource report also points out that California has one of
the nation’s highest students per teacher ratio. .
Figure 2.3: Operating expenditures for services and goods in the average California
district in 2008-09 school year. Source: EdSource, 2010.
The recession is one of many contributors to California school districts’ current
fiscal crisis. Many ongoing programs have one-time funding due to state or federal
mandates and this forces the districts to pay for the excess amounts with their own
resources. These programs include Home-to-School Transportation, Deferred
Maintenance, and High Priority (low-performing) School Grant Program. The rising cost
of employee benefits and the growing number of charter schools also contribute to the
loss of revenue.
27
Equity and Adequacy
From Brown v. Board of Education to Williams, et al., v. State of California, the
history of school finance reform can be divided into three major categories: Equal
Protection Clause, inequalities between district spending, and the last wave of
movements that focus on states providing adequate public K-12 education regardless of
unequal tax bases among the districts (Briffault, 2005). The adequacy theory challenges
at the state government level for failing to provide adequate amount of resources to all K-
12 students in the state and thus denying them the same educational opportunities as the
students of more affluent communities. While legislators and citizens remain vigilant
over issues of funding equity, more begin to question whether additional funding would
lead to improvement in student performance. As a result, the focus over quality of
education begins to shift to adequacy due to the modern day education reform (Odden,
2003). The current education reform such as NCLB is standards-based with measurable
goals implemented. One of the goals is to address the issue of equity by closing the
“achievement gap” between disadvantaged students and mainstream students (Odden,
2003; Rebell, 2007). Without additional funding to address the mandates, the states and
districts are re-examining how to use their funding more efficiently to address the needs
of the students and reach the desired performance goals. This shift in educational
paradigm, combined with the recent recession, forces more educators and legislators to
re-examine the definitions and strategies for funding adequacy. According to Baker
(2005), educational adequacy consists of two components: absolute standards and relative
standards. Absolute standards focus on the overall level of financial support associated
28
with the overall level of desired outcomes. Relative standards measure the differences in
the costs of achieving outcomes for children with different needs. However, Baker
argues, there is no absolute cost standard that applies to all schools within a state.
Bowles (1967) suggests that an efficient resource allocation model must address
the question: What is the optimal level and composition of labor usage within the
organization?
Four basic models provide the framework on how a school or a district can
allocate its limited resources to ensure both adequacy in funding and equity in student
performance. They are: 1) the successful district approach, 2) the cost function approach,
3) the professional judgment approach, and 4) the evidence-based approach (WestEd,
2000; Odden, 2006).
Successful District Approach
This approach has been adapted by Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio
(Odden, 2003). First, it identifies successful districts, then uses the weighted average per
student spending in these districts to determine the adequate amount (WestEd,2000;
Odden, 2003). The advantages of this approach are that the formula is simple and the
characteristics of success are already identified. The key disadvantage of this approach,
however, is the reliance on assessment data that may not measure the desired learning
outcomes. It also limits the district’s own financial data to provide estimates (WestEd,
2000). Odden points out that the successful districts identified can have very different
demographics and therefore making it difficult to relate to the needs of a school with
different a population and needs.
29
Cost Function Approach
This model uses district data (such as student characteristics, school
characteristics, etc.) to correlate student performance goals with the amount of funding
needed for the tasks (WestEd, 2000). Wood and Associates (2007) point out that it can
also be used to estimate the quantities and qualities of educational resources associated
with higher educational outcomes. The advantage is its detailed analysis on the amount
of funding required for a specified performance level. This model is also sensitive
toward the demographics and the particular needs each school has. The disadvantage is
that it is a complicated statistical formula thus difficult to explain the entire process to the
client (school). Also, it relies on measurable performance outcomes such as test scores,
and cannot measure the qualitative aspect of student outcomes (WestEd, 2000). Another
disadvantage, according to Odden, is the spending level required for a goal will rise or
fall depending on the desired performance level, and this requires the district to re-
calculate the cost, which is not practical. Currently several states including New York
and Wisconsin are conducting research on the effectiveness of this model, but none has
implemented the system. Even though the researchers suggest this model is accurate in
predicting the cost of raising to a specified performance level, they offer no insight on the
programs they used to achieve higher performance level (Odden, 2003). Furthermore,
the statistical model that is working for one district might not work for another due to
various factors such as a different student population (Wood and Associates, 2007).
Baker (2005) points out another challenge to implementing this approach is to sort out the
30
differences between the costs of producing a set of the desired educational outcomes and
the existing spending practices within the districts.
Professional Judgment Approach
This approach was used in Kansas, Maryland, Oregon, and Wyoming (Odden,
2003). It has a panel of education experts including teachers, principals, and other
administrators, to identify effective educational strategies and key elements required to
educate students and reach a specified level. The total cost is computed for the task and
adjustments can be made later. One of the advantages of this approach is its simplicity
(WestEd, 2000). Also, teachers and administrators welcome this approach because they
have the opportunity to participate and offer input. The other advantage is the panel is
able to bring real life experiences to the discussion and identify what the effective
strategies are to create an efficient system. One of the disadvantages of this model is that
educational innovations unfamiliar to the professionals may not be considered even when
the goal is to allocate resources efficiently to improve learning. The second disadvantage
is that the decisions made are based on the opinions of the panel and not necessarily
backed by research or evidence (Odden, 2003). Wood and Associates (2007) argue that
the model should be a “Collective Judgment Model” which requires surveying educators
around the state instead of a small group of individuals. Currently, only the Professional
Judgment and the Evidence-Based approaches specify a set of programs and strategies for
a prototypical K-12 school (Odden and Archibald, 2009).
31
Evidence-Based Approach
In a 2008 study of school finance adequacy for North Dakota, Lawrence O. Picus
and Associates defined adequacy as sufficient resource to enable schools to double
student achievement over a four- to six-year period (Odden and Archibald, 2009). This
approach identifies components necessary to increase student learning performance based
on research or pre-designed programs demonstrating evidence of success (figure 2.4).
Then it determines a price for each ingredient before calculating the total cost to
implement a similar program in a school (Odden and Picus, 2003). This approach will
effectively identify research-backed strategies that produce desired results. The other
advantage of an evidence-based model is that it provides the school with a detailed plan
for improvement and a clear picture of the expenditures for this program. One of the
disadvantages is that, due to different populations and structures between schools, the
factors contributing to the success of one school may not be replicated in another. In
addition, since every school or district has its own needs and challenges, the evidence-
based model can be vastly different from one to the other.
32
Figure 2.4: Recommendations for adequate resources for prototypical elementary,
middle, and high schools
33
Figure 2.4 (Continued): Recommendations for adequate resources for prototypical
elementary, middle, and high schools

34
Figure 2.4 (Continued): Recommendations for adequate resources for prototypical
elementary, middle, and high schools
Source: Doubling Student Performance (Odden and Archibald, 2009).
Note: ELL = English language learners; FTE = full-time equivalent; PD = professional
development.
The evidence-based models first start with core resources: small class size and
access to teacher specialists. The model then expands to additional resources for
struggling students categorized under “extended support.” Specialized education and
career training take the next level of funding priority, and teachers are given more
resources to support student learning such as extra professional development days and
instructional coaches. Other factors outside of core resources include teacher
compensation, pupil support outside of classroom, technology and instructional materials.
35
The evidence-based model is composed of six essentials of a well-rounded school
(Odden et al., 2003):
1) Core curricula: reduce class size for core academic subjects such as English
language arts, mathematics, science and social science.
2) Specialists, librarians, and elective teachers: they are responsible for elective
courses such as foreign languages, arts, vocational school courses. They are
essential in providing planning and training time for core academic teachers.
3) Credential teachers assigned to provide additional assistance to struggling
students or students with learning challenges: this includes special education
teachers working in his/her own classroom or placed in a mainstream
classroom alongside a core curriculum teacher; tutors who are credentialed
teachers and resource specialists serving students with special learning needs.
The teachers who are responsible for intervention programs such as summer
school also belong in this category.
4) Professional development: the amount of resources allocated to school staff’s
professional development.
5) Non-classroom instructional staff: provide support to a school’s instructional
programs, this category includes program coordinators, substitutes, and school
aids.
6) Funding allocated to instructional materials, technology equipments, and
student support system: including counselors, nurses, psychologists,
attendance monitors and extra-curricular activities.
36
Source: Picus and Odden
The Evidence-Based method was developed by Odden and Picus in two stages:
first stage is a review of evidence gathered from various research studies and proven
practices in the educational field. During the second stage, a study of districts and
schools that have significantly improved student performance over a three to seven year
period is conducted. The study of effectively aligning resources using an Evidence-
Based model was done in several states including Arizona (Odden, et al., 2004),
Arkansas (Odden and Picus 2006), Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Odden and
Picus, 2008). Among these states, Wyoming has struggled to create an adequate funding
system, or a constitutional funding system, by the rulings of the state’s Supreme Court.
In 2005, the state’s Legislature commissioned Lawrence O. Picus and Associates to
37
recalibrate the state’s cost-based funding system. The most important aspect of this study
is to address the Legislature’s two main concerns: 1) how actual resource allocation
patterns differ from strategies implemented in the Wyoming Funding Model? 2) What
instructional improvement strategies are currently implemented at the school level?
Eleven schools were studied during the research period and the recommendations
resulting from the evidence-based study became law for the school year 2006-07.
Another example is the Ohio School Funding Advisory Council, which produced a 2010
report on a new system for determining the cost of education based on the Evidence-
Based Model. To ensure the districts will properly implement the model’s programs,
Ohio required the districts to submit annual spending plans describing how the Evidence-
Based Model funding components were deployed.
Resource Allocation
Before 1970’s, the common practice for reporting educational spending is by
object of expenditure: teachers, aides, administrators, and supplies (Fowler, 1999). Its
simplicity was adequate at the time when the educational system in America was mostly
a local matter and much smaller. However, as the educational system gradually shifting
from local branch to state- and federal- managed entity, the citizens of the nation are
demanding more accountability in issues such as educational quality and resource
management. Ultimately, as Francis (2004) pointed out, public education funding is
really about where the money came from and how they are spent.
In the school year 2011-12, public K-12 schools spent about $525 billion
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). This sum was up almost $354 from 15
38
years ago and currently is the largest state- and local government-spending category
(Barba, 2011). While the spending increased by almost 50%, the total enrollment
increased by only 10% and average on-time high school graduation rate increased slightly
to almost 75% (United Health Foundation, 2011). Barba (2011) further points that not
only about 60% percent of the expenditures are defined as instructional; many
instructional expenses are unrelated to the classroom. In an era of school performance
accountability, it is essential to study how schools and districts invest their resources and
how to measure the returns in terms of student performance outcomes. Odden defines
adequate as a level of funding that would allow each district and school to deploy a range
of educational programs and strategies that would provide each student an equal
opportunity to achieve to the state’s educational performance standards (2009).
Even prior to the methods of creating adequacy in school funding, researchers
have already raised questions on how the resources are used in various categories of
instruction and administration. The answer to this question is to categorize expenditures
by programs defined as general, special, compensatory, bilingual, English learner, and
gifted programs (Odden et al., 2003).
Loeb, Grisson, Strunk (2006) found in a study of the 2004-2005 California
Standardized Accounting Code Structure (SACS) that despite state’s efforts to create
equity in school finance, there are still many discrepancies in how districts across the
state spend monies. In fact, the study found that the difference in total expenditures in a
top 25-percentile and a bottom 25-percentile school is more than $1,000 per student when
the per pupil spending is only around $7,000. This represented a significant 14%
39
discrepancy in spending between two districts within same state. The study further
discovered that there were significantly fewer administrators in districts with low
percentage of students on free-reduced lunch program comparing to the state average
(Loeb et al., 2006).
While the four adequacy models described in this study have their strengths and
weaknesses, they are all developed for the purpose of creating a more effective district-
or school-level resource allocation system to maximize the performance results of the
students. The shift in school finance from equity to adequacy requires a clearly defined
relationship between funding provided to schools and student learning outcomes (Odden,
2003). In order to create the most efficient way to allocate resources, one must seek
better understanding of how each school deals with its finance.
Derived from a wide range of educational research, Odden et al. (2003) created an
expenditure structure to provide two set of information about school resources and
strategies. The resource indicators, which provide context for school instructional
priorities, are as follows:
1) Student enrollment
2) School unit size – as indicator for whether a large school building facilitates
smaller learning communities
3) Percent low income – the percentage of students qualified for free or reduced
lunch program. This particular indicator provides insight to the needs of the
student population
40
4) Percent Special Education – the percentage of students with an Individual
Education Program (IEP) which indicate the types of special services they need
5) Percent ESL/bilingual – the percentage of students require services as English
language learners
6) Expenditures per pupil – obtained by dividing total school operating expenditures
from all funds by total student enrollment
7) Professional development expenditures per teacher
8) Special academic focus – such as science and technology, arts, and college
preparatory programs
9) Length of instructional day – how many hours per day of instructions for students
10) Length of class periods – how much time is available for each course
11) Length of reading and mathematics class periods – for elementary schools
12) Reading and mathematics class size – also for elementary schools
13) Regular class size – for elementary schools, such as science and social studies, but
not special classes such as art and physical education
14) Core class size (secondary level) – English language, mathematics, science, and
social studies
The second part of the expenditure framework is composed of nine instructional
expenditure elements (Odden et al., 2003; 2006). This framework is also the building
block for the Evidence-Based Adequacy Model (Odden and Picus, 2006):
12) Core academic teachers: teachers who are responsible to teach core academic
subjects such as English language art, mathematics, science and social
41
science. This category also includes English Language Development (ELD)
teachers and special education teachers.
13) Specialists, librarians, and elective teachers: they are responsible for elective
courses such as foreign languages, arts, vocational school courses.
14) Additional help for struggling students:
 Credential teachers assigned to provide additional assistance to
struggling students or students with learning challenges
 Inclusion teachers who work in a mainstream classroom alongside a
regular classroom teachers to provide assistance for students with
disabilities
 Self-contained special education classrooms – the teachers and
instructional aides who work primarily
 Teachers who work in an intervention programs such as summer
school or extended school day
 Teachers of English language learners
 Resource rooms that provide extra help to students who struggle
academically
 District alternative programs that are located within a school, usually
serve students who have trouble learning in a mainstream classroom
setting
15) Professional development: the amount of resources allocated to school staff’s
professional development, the number of trainers and coaches and
42
administrators, and any fees such as travel expanses involving attending
professional development outside of the school.
16) Non-classroom instructional staff: provide support to a school’s instructional
programs, this category includes program coordinators, substitutes,
instructional aids, and teachers on special assignments.
17) Funding allocated to instructional materials such as books and supplies, and
technology equipments.
18) Student support system: include counselors, nurses, psychologists, attendance
monitors, and expenditures for sports and other extra-curricular activities.
19) Non-instructional: Administration
 Principal, assistant principal(s)
 Clerical staff
 Administrative office supplies and equipment
20) Non-instructional: Operations and maintenance
 Custodial staff
 Food service staff
 Security personnel
 Utilities and building maintenance
43
Effective Strategies for Improving School Performance
This study thus far focuses on funding adequacy and resource allocation. The
section, strategies for improving student performance, provides a bridge connecting two
previously discussed primary components. In Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies to Doubling
Student Performance, the author provides educational leaders with ten research-based
strategies that can lead to a dramatic improvement in overall student performance. These
ten strategies can be utilized by schools of any sizes since the author’s research is done
across the nation and mostly with large urban schools with high number of students from
economically disadvantaged background. The strategies are:
1) Setting high and ambitious goals regardless of the school’s current
performance level. This particular strategy is derived from setting high
expectation for students.
2) Understanding the performance problem with various tools and methods to
analyze student performance data such as standardize testing to understand the
“gap” between current standings and performance goals.
3) Creating a new instructional vision and change or adapt a new curriculum
program to allow administrators and teachers to focus on factors they can
control: the curriculum and instructional programs within the school.
4) Creating formative assessments and a system for data-based decision making.
This strategy allows teachers to examine the data based on which skills and
standards their students have learned, and what need to be re-taught to reach
the performance goals.
44
5) Provide ongoing, intensive professional development, including training on
how to analyze benchmark assessments and implement effective instructional
strategies. The strategy must also take into consideration on time allocation
for teachers to train and collaborate.
6) Using (instructional) time efficiently and effectively: this strategy includes
restructuring school days or creating block schedule to provide additional time
for core curriculum like English language arts and mathematics. These times
should have little or no interruptions.
7) Extending learning time for struggling students so they can receive additional
instruction or assistance within the school day. However, this strategy
includes intervention programs taking place before and after school, or outside
of the regular school year like summer school.
8) Creating a collaborative, professional culture with teacher leaders, so that
school can be divided by subjects or student groups. Teachers work in groups
to develop unified curriculum and instructional plans along with student data
analysis to increase student success.
9) Implementing professional and best practices by reaching out and seeking
expertise outside of schools and districts.
10) Investing in Human Capital: in order to retain teachers and administrators who
show great promises, the schools need to provide continuous professional
development and offer compensations (incentives) for their performance.
45
Other researchers had drawn similar conclusion as Odden (2009). After
reviewing five studies focusing on improving the turn around for low-performing
schools, Duke (2006) identified few critical elements for school improvements that
the literatures have shown in common. Many of these strategies coincide with
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies:
1) Assistance – students struggling academically receive prompt assistance.
2) Collaboration – teachers are expected to work together to plan, monitor
student progress, and assist students struggling to perform.
3) Data-driven decision making – data on student performance are used regularly
to make decisions regarding student needs, teacher effectiveness, and resource
allocation.
4) Leadership – principals and teacher leaders need to set the tone for school
improvement process.
5) Organizational structure – aspects of school organizations like teams and
planning processes must adjust to support the process to raise student
achievement.
6) Staff development – teachers receiving continuous training in order to sustain
school improvement efforts.
7) Alignment – tests are aligned with curriculum content and curriculum content
is aligned with instruction.
8) Assessment – students are assessed on regular basis to determine their
progress.
46
9) High expectations – teachers insist that students are capable of achieving
high-quality work.
10) Parent involvement – schools reach out to parents to keep them informed of
their children’s progress, and to enlist them in supporting school improvement
efforts.
11) Scheduling – adjustments are made in scheduling to increase time for
academic work, especially core classes like reading and mathematics.
Barnes (2004), in his report, Inquiry and Action, created the self-study cycle for
continuous instructional improvement: 1) Identify desired student learning outcomes. 2)
Develop essential questions. 3) Collect relevant data. 4) Analyze data. 5) Choose and
implement actions. 6) Evaluate the impact of the actions. Then repeat the cycle.
Source: Barnes (2004). Used without permission.
According to the author, by nurturing a culture of inquiry, the school can embed
its philosophy (vision) in the process. And this process has the potential to build a
47
collaborative professional community and allow teachers to become leaders in their
fields.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) is developed with Odden’s
framework to increase student performance through reallocation of resources using
methods closely related to Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model:
Set organizational goals – in this step, a long-term goal in terms of where does the
organization want to be. Then intermediate goals that can be measured on weekly or
monthly basis. The short-term performance goals are defined and aligned to meet the
intermediate benchmark goals, just as intermediate goals are set up to meet the
organizational goal.
1) Determine performance gaps – data analysis are performed in this stage after
goals are created to determine gaps between where the organization stands
and where the organization wants to be.
2) Analysis of causes of gaps – researches are done at this stage to determine the
barriers preventing organization reaching the goals. The barriers generally
can be categorized into three categories: Skill and Knowledge, Motivation,
and Environment (Culture).
3) Find solutions – the process of identifying best solutions, or treatments, to
address the causes of gaps must be research-based.
4) Evaluate – data are collected systematically and periodically, then analyzed to
identify the effectiveness of the treatment programs.
48
School Leadership
For a school to improve its performance, adequate funding and resource allocation
are key ingredients, along with theoretical framework to create programs. However, a
strong leadership is also required to ensure all these components are integrated smoothly
and the organization is moving toward its benchmark goals. Spillane, Halverson, and
Diamond (2001) point out that while there were plenty of literature regarding school
structures and programs to improve instructional processes, less studies were conducted
on how the changes were enacted by school leaders in their daily work.
Williams, Rosin, Perry, Webman, Wilson, Payne, and Woodward (2010)
surveyed principals, English Language Arts (ELA) and math teachers from 303 middle
schools in California, and superintendents or charter school administrators of the districts.
Half of the schools participated in the study serve low-income students and the other half
serve middle-income students. The purpose of the study is to examine what are the
possible attributes of a high-performing school. Based on the patterns of the survey
responses, Williams et al. concluded that an organizational culture must be established
for higher performance.
In terms of academics, the principals of the high-performing schools, according to
Williams et al., are more likely to set measurable achievement goals and communicate
the expectations clearly. When a goal is defined and the criteria for measuring progress
are identified and designed, everyone within the organization is assigned a specific role
and clear communications are implemented at every level of the organization to push the
organization toward that goal. They are also more likely to personally use the testing
49
data to set goals for selected students and monitor their progress periodically, develop
intervention strategies for these students, and identify teachers’ professional development
needs.
Conclusion
Today, regardless of the performance of each school, California public education
system faces devastating funding cuts. When designing a system to increase student
performance, one must equate the factor of limited resource and the potential decrease in
funding in the future into the formula. Based on surveys conducted by EdSource in 2011
and 2012 on 30 California districts including some of the largest in the state, the findings
offer insights to the challenges educators and school leaders have to face in a not-so-
distant future:
 Since 2007-08, these 30 districts lost 20% of the school counselors on
average.
 More than one-third of the districts interviewed had laid off about 2,000
teachers for the current year.
 Almost 90% of the districts are now serving more free and reduced-price
meals. Currently 57% of students qualify for the meal programs, which is a
6% increase since 2007-08.
 Slightly more than half of the districts are suffering declined enrollment,
which equates to loss of ADA funding.
 Twelve of these districts already reduced their instructional days to less than
180 days.
50
 Half of the districts now have 30 or more students in one or more of their K-3
grades. Among these districts, only one maintains 20-student ratio in
kindergarten level.
With an economic environment like this, education might be the sole opportunity
many students have to create a better future. Therefore, a study on how to reallocate the
ever-dwindling resources to address the learning needs of our students has greater
implication than ever. The first part of the literature review covers the impact of the
Federal Government on schools, and discusses how California funds its public schools.
The second part of the literature review covers the trend of shifting from equity to
adequacy and the concept of resource allocation. Four models are developed by
researchers to address the issue of funding adequacy: Successful School Model, Cost
Function Model, Professional Judgment Model, and lastly, what this study will be based
on, Evidence-Based Model, developed by Odden and Dr. Picus, who is my dissertation
chair. The last part of the literature review covers Odden’s research on the effective
practices to improve student performance, how it compares with other designs and
theories on improving instructional performance, and finally discusses the characteristics
of an effective leader.
51
Chapter Three
Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of the study is to analyze how Timber Unified School District
allocates resources, particularly its personnel, to improve student-learning outcomes.
Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies will be used as the framework for analyzing what strategies
are implemented effectively by the school district. The current resource allocation
formula used by the school district will be compared to the Evidence-Based Model
created by Odden and Picus (2008) and Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model (table
3.1) to determine whether the school district is allocating its resources in an efficient
manner to close its student achievement gaps, according to the research-based model.
52
Table 3.1) Procedures to analyze school allocation adequacy using Odden’s 10
achievement strategies as framework.
Odden’s 10 strategies Evidence-Based Model by
Odden and Picus
Clark and Estes’ Gap
analysis model
1) Understanding
performance challenge
2) Setting high goals
3) Adopting a new
instructional vision and
curriculum program
4) Data-driven
decision making
5) Providing
ongoing professional
development
6) Using time
efficiently
7) Extending
learning time for
struggling students
8) Creating
collaborative cultures
9) Implementing
best practices
10) Investing in
human capital (retaining
the best educators and
administrators, etc.)
Performance Indicators:
1) School Building Size
2) School Unit Size
3) Percent Low Income
4) Percent Special
Education
5) Percent ESL/LEP
6) Expenditures Per Pupil
7) Professional
Development
Expenditure Per Teacher
8) Special Academic Focus
of School/Unit
9) Length of Instructional
Day
10) Length of Class Periods
11) Length of Reading Class
(Elementary)
12) Length of Mathematics
(Elementary)
13) Reading Class Size
(Elementary)
14) Mathematics Class Size
(Elementary)
15) Regular Class Size
(Elementary)
16) Length of Core Class
Periods (Secondary)
17) Core Class Size
(Secondary)
18) Non-Core Class Size
(Secondary)
19) Percent Core Teachers
1) Set organizational
goals:
Long-term
Intermediate
Short-term
2) Determine
performance gaps
3) Analysis of causes of
gaps
4) Find solutions
5) Evaluate
Source: Odden (2009), Odden and Picus (2008), Clark and Estes (2008).
The methodology for this study will be qualitative or mixed-methods.
Quantitative data that shows how funds are allocated at the school sites within the school
53
district will be collected if such data exist. The qualitative data will be generated from
document analysis and interviews with both district level and school level administrators.
Research Questions
The study will address following research questions:
1) What are the research-based resource allocation strategies being used to
improve student achievement at school level?
2) How are resources at the school and district allocated?
3) What are the gaps between the current resource allocation practices and what
are the most effective resource allocation strategies suggested by the research?
4) How can resources be re-allocated to align with the suggested strategies that
can improve student performance?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This is a purposeful sample of one school district that manages seven K-12
schools. According to Sanders (1997), while probability sampling uses random samples
to represent the larger population, purposeful sampling is to generalize research findings
to the population.
Timber Unified School District has one preschool, five K-5 elementary schools,
one middle school, one high school, one continuation high school, and one adult school.
Among the elementary schools, one elementary school offers Spanish and Japanese
language immersion programs (table 3.2).
54
Table 3.2: Targeted schools and student population.
School
EM
School
FA
School
LB
School
ER
School
LE
Timber
Middle
Timer
High
E E E E E M H
Grade K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 6-8 9-12
Populati
on
697 475 527 454 490 1648 2195
Source: Timber Unified School District (2012)
Note: E – elementary school; M – middle/junior high; H- high school
The district is selected for this study due to several characteristics the districts
possess. First is its ethnically diverse student population because of its location within a
major metropolitan area. In addition, because of the number of students from low-
income families, the schools receive a variety of federal and state funding. The third
factor is that due to the number of English language learners, this small-to-midsize
district struggles to accommodate all their needs. Another reason for choosing this
district is how resources are allocated to its language immersion school contained within
the district. The language school has two immersion programs: Spanish and Japanese.
This study will examine the funding pattern for the seven schools and will take
into consideration all federal and state funding.
District Profile
Timber Unified School District is located next to Los Angeles County and near
Los Angeles International Airport. The district served 6615 students as of year 2011-
2012 and employs 312 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers.
During past five years, due to the rising cost of living within the city, younger
families were moving out of the city; as the result, district suffered a steady loss of
55
enrollment. To offset the effects, the district issues permits to students who are not the
city’s residents. In year 2009-2010, the percentage of high school students with
attendance permit is 28%. For the year 2010-2011, the TUSD Board of Education
approved the policy to curb the number of permit students. Students who have already
received permits for attendance are allowed to finish their schooling with the district;
however, no new permits are issued once a 500-cap is reached for each grade-level. This
permit system allows the district to have a very diverse student population and it is not a
reflection of the demographics of the city (table 3.3). In 2010, 60% of the city’s residents
are white (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
Table 3.3: Targeted school demographics.
School
EM
School
FA
School
LB
School
ER
School
LE
Timber
Middle
Timer
High
Hispanic
s
29% 28% 70% 30% 46% 42% 38%
Black 7% 12% 5% 40% 10% 20% 25%
White 36% 41% 15% 19% 33% 24% 21%
Asian 24% 16% 9% 9% 6% 13% 13%
Other 5% 3% 1% 2% 5% 1% 3%
free
lunch
8% 18% 57% 28% 31% 30% 24%
reduced
lunch
4% 10% 18% 14% 15% 12% 9%
Source: Public Schools K12 (2011)
Timber Unified overall performs slightly higher than state average. In 2011-12,
the district has a graduation rate of 78.7%, comparing to state average of 71.2%; and a
dropout rate of 2.6%, comparing to state average of 5%
Instrument and Data Collection
This study is one of the seventeen conducted under the guidance of Dr. Lawrence
O. Picus at the University of Southern California. The thematic topic and instruments for
56
the research will be consistent throughout the thematic group. During the summer of
2012, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus will provide expertise to the thematic group on how to
create interview questions and conduct interviews for the purpose of data collection.
Using the Evidence-Based Model as interview protocols, qualitative data along with
quantitative data will be collected on district and school level expenditure, resource
allocation, and student performance pattern (Odden et al., 2003). The strength of
qualitative research is its ability to answer questions about the what, how, or why instead
of just how many, which is the characteristics of quantitative methods (Patton and
Cochran, 2002).
After the interviews and data collection, researchers will input the information
into a simulation created by David Knight. The simulation will return data on how the
district’s resource allocation pattern is aligned or different from the desired allocation
outcome. In other words, the simulation is to provide a gap analysis (Clark and Estes,
2008) on the existing resource allocation pattern and the research-based effective pattern.
Data Analysis
Data analysis process will occur after the completion of data collection. Each
school will be analyzed on how the current resource allocation is aligned with the
Evidence-Based Model. By the end of the data collection process and analysis process,
the researcher will acquire information on 1) district’s current resource allocation pattern
in comparison to their desire allocation; 2) district’s current resource allocation pattern in
comparison to the Evidence-Based Model. The researchers will then proceed to make a
57
report with recommendations for improving student achievement through resource re-
allocation.
58
Chapter 4
Findings
This study analyzes resource allocation and instructional strategies in high
performing schools in California. Odden’s (2009) “10 Strategies” will be used as the
framework to analyze the instructional strategies implemented by the schools studied.
The current resource allocation model, adapted by the schools, will be compared to the
Evidence-Based Model, created by Odden and Picus (2008), to determine whether the
schools and the district are allocating their resources in an efficient manner to increase
student performance. The findings presented in this chapter reveal: the current
instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school level; how human resources
are allocated across the study district and its schools; the gap between current human
resource allocation practices and what the research suggests would be most effective; the
difference between the resource allocation strategies of the schools and those derived
from the Evidence-Based Model; and, finally, how human resources can be re-allocated
to align with strategies that improve student achievement.
The schools were specifically chosen for the study because of the diverse student
populations they serve. In addition to being ethnically diverse, four of the five schools
present a high number of socio-economically disadvantaged students. School LE, School
LB, and School ER are Title I schools, while School FA and School LM are not. In
addition to the diversity presented in each of the five schools, School EM has two
language immersion programs: Spanish and Japanese. All five schools in the study have
achieved API scores of 800 or more, which met the California student performance goal.
59
Four of the five schools demonstrated a steady increase in student performance over the
years. The following section presents the profile and demographics of each of the studied
schools.
School Profile
The schools in the study were all located in suburban cities close to Los Angeles.
School LE served 501 K-5 students during the school year 2011-12, School LB served
529 students, School FA served 551 students, School ER served 536, and School LM
served the largest K-5 population within the district at 763. Even the smallest school in
the study, School LE, had 69 more students than a prototypical Evidence-Based Model
school (Picus and Odden, 2009). The largest school in the study had 73.4% more students
than the Evidence-Based Model school. Together, the five K-5 schools served 481
kindergarten students, 534 first graders, 488 second graders, 471 third graders, 435 fourth
graders, and 471 fifth-graders, in the school year 2011-12. Figure 4.1 shows the student
enrollment, by grade-level, for each studied school.
Figure 4.1 Student enrollment by grade-level, K-5
60
Student Demographics
Each of the schools in the study presented their own unique demographic
composition, even though they are all part of the same school district. School LB had the
largest Hispanic or Latino population among the five schools with 67.5%. School LM
had the smallest Hispanic or Latino population with 30%. School ER had the largest
Black or African-American student population with 37.3 %, Schools FA and LE both had
a Black or African-American population of a little over 10%, and Schools LM and LB
both had Black or African-American populations of around 6.4%. White students were
the next largest group, and ranged from 14.9% of the student population in School LB, to
almost 40% in School LE. The fourth significant group within the schools was Asian-
American students, who ranged from 3.6% of the population in School LE, to 21.5% in
School LM. The remaining student population was distributed among American Indians,
Native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, and students who are two or more races.
Figure 4.2 shows student demographics in each school in comparison to the district's
overall student demographics.
61
Figure 4.2 Student demographics percentage by schools and school district (school year
2010-11)
Another key demographic characteristic for a school is the percentage of students
who are socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) and English learners (EL). School LM
had the largest SED population with 13.8%. School LE had the second largest population
with 13.8%. School FA had the smallest SED population with 7.6%. All of the sample
schools had smaller SED populations than that of a typical Evidence-Based Model
elementary school, which has a 50% SED student population.
Among the sample schools, School LB had the highest percentage of EL students,
with 47.1%, while School FA had the lowest percentage of EL students, with 12.3%. The
school with the second highest percentage of EL students was School LE with 27.5%,
which was followed closely by School ER with 18.3%. All of the sample schools had a
larger EL population than a prototypical Evidence-Based Model elementary school,
which has a 10.6% EL population. Figure 4.3 shows percentages of socio-economically
62
disadvantaged and English-learner students in each school, as compared to that of a
prototypical Evidence-Based Model school.
Figure 4.3 Percentage of students who are socio-economically disadvantaged and who are
English learners (by schools, district, and prototypical Evidence-Based Model school)
Frameworks for Data Analysis
This section focuses on the theoretical frameworks used for data collection.
Odden's (2009) “10 Strategies for Double Performance” will be used to analyze what
resource allocation strategies are effectively implemented by the schools and the district.
The current resource allocation formula used by the studied schools and the district will
then be compared to that of the Evidence-Based Model created by Odden and Picus
(2008).
California Department of Education uses the California Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program to measure how students from each public school are
63
performing at certain grade-levels. The results are used in this section to identify
strengths and weaknesses of the instructional strategies for each of the studied schools.
School Performance
All the sample schools have shown a steady increase in student performance over
the years, with the exception of School ER whose API score in the year 2011 was lower
than 2010's score. Based on 2011's report by the California Department of Education,
School FA and School LM had the highest API scores, with 932 and 931 respectively.
School LE had the lowest score, with 826. Based on a comparison of 2007's report and
2011's report, School FA achieved the most progress with 74 points improvement over
the five years. School ER had the least amount of improvement with just 5 points.
Overall, the district improved by 55 points during the same period of time (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4 API scores in sample schools (Year 2007, 2010, and 2011)

64
Similar School Ranking
According to the report by the California Department of Education, all of the
sample schools earned a state decile ranking of 6 or higher. School EM had the highest
ranking of 10, School LB had the lowest ranking of 6. School FA had a ranking of 9, the
second highest among the sample schools, followed by School ER and School LE.
In order to determine the similar schools rank for a school, 100 similar schools of
the same type (elementary, middle, and high) will be used for comparison, based on
similar demographic characteristics. The API scores of the 100 schools in comparison
group are used to divide the schools into 10 deciles, from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). The
demographic characteristics used to calculate the ranks include: pupil mobility; ethnicity;
socio-economic status; percentages of students who are English learners, or who have
disabilities; and the percentage of teachers with full credentials.
The sample schools revealed a disparity among schools of the same district in
performance. School LE demonstrated tremendous growth over the five-year period,
climbing from a rank of 4 in 2007 to 8 in 2011. School EM, School ER, and School LB
all declined in the category of similar school ranking. School ER went from a rank of 9
in 2007 to 5 in 2011, and school LB went from a rank of 6 in 2007 to 3 in 2011. School
FA demonstrated the most consistent growth in both categories, and improved from a
rank of 9 in 2007 to 10 in 2011 (Table 4.1).
65
Table 4.1 Similar school and statewide ranking of the five schools
2012 Adequate Yearly Progress
The Adequate Yearly Progress is a measurement defined by the “No Child Left
Behind Act” (NCLB) to determine school performance according to state standardized
tests. The Act requires each state to set a time-line for yearly progress. The sample
schools mostly met the NCLB benchmark requirements in 2012, by increasing overall
student academic performance and closing the achievement gap between all subgroups.
The exceptions were: School LB, which did not meet the AYP requirement for English-
language arts, as a school as well as for each of the significant subgroups; School FA,
which failed to meet the AYP criteria for socio-economically disadvantaged students;
and School ER, which failed to meet the AYP criteria for its English-learner students.
School EM had the highest percentage of students scoring at proficiency or advanced
levels with 85.2%, while School LB had the lowest proficiency rate with 62.4%.
Hispanics or Latino students in School EM demonstrated the highest proficiency rate
with 81.3%. School LB had 56% of Hispanics or Latino students achieving proficiency
or above in English-language arts, which was the lowest among the sample schools.
School FA had the highest percentage of EL students performing at proficiency or better
on their standardized exam, while School LE had the fewest EL students achieving
proficiency or better on the CST (Table 4.2).
66
As for mathematics, all the sample schools and their subgroups met the AYP
criteria for the year 2012, except for School ER's White subgroup, which only achieved
74.3% proficiency or above. School EM had the highest percentage of students
achieving proficiency or above on their math standardized test. School LB, although it
met its yearly performance goal, had the lowest rate of proficiency in math. 90% of
English learners in School EM achieved proficiency or better on the math CST, while
School LE was 21.6 percentage points below, with 68.4%. SED students in all sample
schools, except for School ER, had 70% or more achieving proficiency or better (Table
4.3).
67
Table 4.3 AYP for Mathematics, 2012
School EM School ER School FA School LE School LB
%
Proficie
ncy or
above
Met
AYP
Criteria
%
Proficien
cy or
above
Met
AYP
Criteria
%
Proficien
cy or
above
Met
AYP
Criteria
%
Proficien
cy or
above
Met
AYP
Criteria
%
Proficie
ncy or
above
Met
AYP
Criteria
School-wide 91.1 Yes 74.4 Yes 90.7 Yes 76.4 Yes 72.8 Yes
Black or
African-
American
81.8 -- 72.2 Yes 88.1 -- 64.3 -- 62.5 --
Asian-
American
99 Yes 92.9 -- 100 -- 85 -- 88.5 --
Hispanics or
Latino
83.9 Yes 73.5 Yes 87.8 Yes 70.4 Yes 68.4 Yes
White
93.9 Yes 74.3 No 90.9 Yes 85.7 Yes 85.5 Yes
SED 82.7 Yes 67.5 Yes 81.9 Yes 70.9 Yes 70.3 Yes
EL 90 Yes 80.6 Yes 86.7 -- 68.4 Yes 68.6 Yes
Students with
Disabilities
74.1 -- 52 -- 73 -- 48.1 -- 51.3 --
An analysis of the California Department of Education reports, from year 2008 to
2012, revealed that the English-language arts AYP for the schools increased by 10 to
24%. School FA had the most significant improvement, with a 23.9% increase over the
same period. School LM had a 10.5% increase, which was the smallest for AYP (Figure
4.5).
68
Figure 4.5 School-wide percentage of students achieving proficient or advanced on
California Standards Test: English Language Arts from year 2008 to 2012

In terms of the percentage of students scoring at proficiency or above on the Math
CST, School FA and School LE had the most significant increase, with 25.2% and 19%,
respectively, in the span of five years. School LM had 85.2% of high performing students
back in 2008, with marginal growth over the years. The lowest achieving school among
the five was School LB, with 66.8% of students achieving proficiency or better on the
Math CST in 2008, and 72.8% in 2012, representing a 6% increase over the five years
span (Figure 4.6).

69
Figure 4.6 School-wide percentage of students achieving proficiency or better on
California Standards Test: Mathematics from year 2008 to 2012

Recent Fiscal Crisis
The recent government budget cuts to education resulted in the district
eliminating a significant portion of staff and services to students. Programs and personnel
that are essential to address the needs of staff and struggling students, such as summer
schools for elementary and middle school students, full-time independent study program
teachers, classroom instructional assistants, Title I classroom instructional assistants, and
summer school teaching positions were terminated or greatly reduced.
70
Student performance and resource allocations
Research Question 1: What are the current instructional vision and improvement
strategies at the school level?
This section describes the research-based strategies adapted by the district and the
schools in this study, using Odden's “10 strategies” to improve student achievement as
the framework, and how human resources are allocated to implement each strategy.
Setting high goals
Performance goals, both long and short-term, as well as strategic plans to reach
these goals, are vital to the growth of an organization, whether that organization is
seeking to produce breakthrough results, or is performing below expectancy. With these
goals and the strategies to realize them as the framework, people within the organization
are able to prioritize their limited resources.
The sample district presented a vision for creating a more learner-friendly
environment and increasing student-achievement. One of the indicators for success is that
all subgroups within the district meet their growth targets set by the NCLB.
School FA met all of the accountability targets for every subgroup except one, but
still set a goal for further improvement by all students. By analyzing the CST results, the
school identified areas of weakness, such as writing strategies and reading
comprehension, and created a plan for improving students' reading and writing skills. At
the beginning of the school year, FA set school-wide goals to increase the percentage of
students scoring at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics, English-language
arts, science, and to meet or exceed the minimum writing standards set forth by the state.
71
At the beginning of the year, the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents
presented their vision, and a summary of the district's action plan to realize that vision, at
the all-staff meetings at each school site. Throughout the school year, the vision will
continue to be a topic of discussion at all-staff meetings, with principals or teacher-
leaders as presenters, and during grade-level meetings (or department meetings at middle
and high school sites), presented by teacher-leaders and coaches.
Data-driven decision-making
One of the barriers for an organization to reach its performance goals is the lack
of proper tools to periodically assess and monitor growth and deficits. Without the
process of performance growth monitoring, staffs tend to focus on their immediate
agenda and daily challenges instead of working to help their organization advance.
The district and the schools receive their STAR Test data for yearly progress
report, many smaller-scaled common assessments are given throughout the years to
monitor whether the staff and students have reached the short-term goals, and whether
invention programs are required. These local assessments include Galileo Benchmark
Assessments in English-language arts and mathematics, Open Court Reading Unit
assessments, Fluency assessments, Envision Math assessments, and teacher- designed
assessments.
For each school, the principal and teachers use Galileo Benchmark Assessment
data for math and English language art to modify instruction and create an intervention
program. The benchmark assessments are given in second through fifth grade, three times
a year, in order to identify students who are at risk of not meeting the performance targets
72
on the state standardized tests, at the earliest possible stage when an intervention program
will be most effective. Teachers will identify which standards need re-teaching and how
interventions are delivered. Principals and staff will continue to monitor the progress of
“targeted” students.
Understanding performance challenge and providing ongoing professional development
Recent research indicates that effective professional development programs, to
improve teacher instruction, have a direct correlation to student achievement. However,
many training sessions are designed as “one-shot” workshops, and thus have little to no
impact on teaching practices after the workshops have concluded (Garet et al., 2001).
Some of the characteristics of an effective professional development program are:
understanding the skills teachers need to improve instructional practices; comprehending
the new skills required to teach the student population of today; integrating technology
into the classrooms; and developing on-going training programs, with progress-
monitoring and feedback, to help teachers successfully implement new practices into
their daily lessons.
Each of the sample schools has listed the performance barriers to achieve their
goals based on staff and teacher surveys. At School FA, in order to increase the number
of students meeting the writing benchmark, the staff identified that the main challenge
was that while students are constantly required to demonstrate proficiency in writing
through essays and narratives, they rarely had the opportunity to practice the multiple
choice format of the writing strategies portion of the CST. Also, the staff at School FA
needs further training to continue to implement the “Step Up to Writing” strategies they
73
acquired from the previous school year. For improving student achievement in
mathematics, teachers will continue to be trained to implement “EnVision’s Math and
Intervention Skills Kit” (MDIS) in their daily lessons. For English-language arts, teachers
continue to participate in modeled lessons as coordinated by the district. K through 5
teachers receive a full day of training with a consultant on the “Open Court” reading
program, and observe lessons modeled by the consultant in actual classroom setting.
At School LB, which is the school with the highest percentage of English-
language learners and Socio-economically disadvantaged students, these subgroups did
not meet the target goals for the state standards test, although there was some growth in
student performance over the years. The school identified several key barriers to high
performance including: that the student’s primary home language is not English; a limited
vocabulary and acquisition of academic language; a lack of academic writing instruction;
weak basic skills in numeracy; a lack of additional support staff to facilitate small group
or individual instruction based on specified needs; and a lack of professional
development among the staff, especially for teaching higher level mathematical concepts.
All teachers in the district are required to participate in ongoing professional
development, at their work sites, focused on differentiated instruction, in order to
accommodate their students. Multiple training sessions are provided to teachers to
increase familiarity with implementing district benchmark assessments, Galileo, as part
of instructional and intervention. District English Language Development Teachers on
Special Assignment provide implementation of ELD materials in a classroom setting for
the EL students, along with ongoing instructional assistance for teachers. Personnel from
74
“Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment” (BTSA) provide support to new teachers.
Resource Specialist Program staff create workshops for teachers to help students who are
struggling academically due to disabilities. The Assistant Superintendents work with the
principals to provide teachers additional classroom support, to prepare students for the
state writing assessment, by offering continuous training on the implementation of
programs such as “Being A Writer and Author's Chair.” The principals, ELD specialists,
and volunteer teachers will attend a yearlong training program focused on improving the
performance of EL students through the implementation of “Thinking Maps,” specially
designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE), and high-engagement strategies. The
knowledge obtained through the training will be shared with the rest of the school during
staff meetings.
The principals at the sample schools conduct frequent formal and informal
classroom observations to monitor the instructional program, and determine professional
development needs. Teachers observe one another to share best practices, work in grade
levels to analyze student work and performance, and collaborate to improve instructional
methods. At the sample schools, an early dismissal schedule on Wednesdays provides
time for this on-going professional development and grade level collaboration. The first
Wednesday of each month is a faculty meeting, the second Wednesday is reserved for
grade-level meetings, the third Wednesday focuses on technology training, and the fourth
is dedicated to ongoing professional development.
75
Extending learning time for struggling students
The district sets the standard for number of minutes of instruction per day for each of
the key subject areas. For English-language arts, kindergarten students require 90
minutes, first through third grades require 150 minutes, and forth and fifth grade require
120 minutes. For mathematics, kindergartners require 45 minutes and first through fifth
graders require 60 minutes. Students who are identified as “at risk” to fail to achieve the
performance goals are directed by staff to attend tutoring programs before or after school,
as well as an intervention program built into the school day.
The tutoring sessions before and after school are held four days a week for
students who struggle in English-language arts and mathematics. The Open Court
Reading Workshop provides daily flexible grouping time to allow teachers to work with
small groups and provide intervention. Instructional Aides provide additional in-class
support to under-performing or “at risk” students.
The administrators and staff at the sample schools use benchmark assessments to
identify students who required intensive intervention. These students are then referred to
“SuccessMaker Club,” a before and after school intervention program, using the
instructional software, also called “SuccessMaker,” for math and English language arts,
that are aligned with the California content standards. Struggling students in grades K to
12 are assigned a special schedule during school hours to use “Waterford,” which is
another instructional software, for the purpose of preview, review, and extra practice. All
students at all of the schools are in a training program called “Step UP to Writing,” which
focuses on writing strategies and process. In School LB, students in second through
76
fourth grade receive weekly instruction in “ST MATH” and piano keyboarding through
the “MIND Research Math+Music Program.” The software is a series of computer-
delivered games that teach math concepts, by helping students to visualize number sense,
and bypass the challenges of introducing concepts in a language foreign to English-
language learners.
Research Question2: How are human resources allocated across the study district and
its schools?
This section describes how human resources are distributed throughout the district
overall and across the five sample schools in particular. The personnel categories, defined
by the California Department of Education and the Evidenced-Based Model (Odden and
Picus, 2006) include: principals (administrators) for an elementary school setting;
teaching staff, including core/grade-level teachers; specialist teachers; special education
teachers; and certificated staff. Certificated staff includes: instructional coaches, tutors,
librarians, nurses, counselors, instructional aids, and school secretaries.
Principal/administrator
A principal at a school site supervises all school personnel, ensures that the
school’s programs meet all legal and financial requirements, and maintains and develops
the organizational structure of the school system. In the sample district, the principals are
to ensure that all teachers understand the district's vision and goals for performance. The
principal also identifies objectives for all school programs, evaluates student progress,
assigns responsibilities to school staff, facilitates the professional growth of the staff, and
77
appraises staff performance. In a prototypical EBM elementary school, the ratio of
student population to principal is 432 to 1. Among the five schools studied, School LE
had the lowest student to principal ratio at 510 to 1, which is still 18 percent higher than
the prototypical EBM school. School LM had the highest student to principal ratio, which
was 77 percent higher than the prototypical EBM school (Table 4.5).
Certificated Teaching Staff – Core/grade-level teachers
Elementary school teachers are specified by the grade they teach instead of
specific academic subject areas. The California Department of Education defines a
teacher in this category as a “person who teaches a group of children in a self-contained
setting.” K to grade 5 teachers made up 41.8 percent of the certificated teaching staff in
the studied district. The average K-3 student-to-teacher ratio within the sample district
was 25.3:1, and the ratio for grade-levels 4 and 5 was 28.6:1, both of which far exceeded
the Evidence-Based Model's recommendation (Table 4.5).
Certificated Teaching Staff – Specialist teachers
Specialist teachers teach courses outside of the core content areas. Teachers of
physical education, art, music, Regional Occupational Programs (ROP), psychology, and
other elective courses belong to this category. Due to recent budget cuts, each of the
sample schools was only able to keep one specialist teacher, which, in all schools, had
been the physical education teacher (Table 4.5).
Certificated Teaching Staff – Special education teachers
The primary responsibilities of a special education teacher are to identify children
who have special needs, and to modify the mainstream curriculum to meet the
78
educational needs of children with learning disabilities. The special education teacher
also develops an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student, and ensures
that appropriate accommodations are made. Periodically, special education teachers
review the IEP with the parents, school administrators, and general-education teachers to
assess whether all student learning goals and accommodations are met. These teachers
are often involved in training general-education teachers on strategies to meet the
learning needs of students with disabilities. Currently, there are total of 12 full-time
special education teachers working at the sample school sites (Table 4.5).
Table 4.5 Personnel at the sample schools – principals, core teachers, class size, specialist
teachers, special education teachers, and EBM recommendations
School
LM
School
LE
School
FA
School
LB
School
ER
Average
per site
EBM
Prototy
pical
School
size
763 501 551 529 536 577 432
Principals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Teachers
K to 3
23 15 16 16 15 19.2
20
Teachers
4 to 5
9 6 6 5 6 6.2
6
Total core
teachers
32 21 22 21 21 23.4 24
Avg Class-
size per
teachers
K to 3
22 27.7 23.5 28.8 24.7 25.3 15
Avg Class-
size per
teachers
4 to 5
26.6 29 29.2 30.4 27.7 28.6 25
Specialist
teachers
2 1 1 1 1 1 4.8
Special Ed
teachers
1 4 2 2 3 2.4 3 additional
teachers
79
Certificated Staff Providing Specialized Services
Certificated staff provide services to students in settings outside of mainstream
classrooms. Instructional coaches, tutors, nurses, counselors and school psychologists are
filed under this category. Other positions mentioned in the Evidence-Based Model will
not be included in this section, if no position at the sample schools fits the job definitions.
Instructional coaches
The instructional coaches facilitate professional development, by: presenting new
strategies to enhance student learning, modeling lessons, observing classroom instruction,
and providing one-to-one coaching to teachers. Working together with administrators and
teachers, the basic role of an instructional coach is to help teachers grow professionally
and bring positive changes into their classrooms. Currently, the district employs two full
time instructional coaches for elementary school teachers, and this translates to an
average of 0.4 instructional coaches for each school site. To compensate for the lack of
professional trainers for the teachers, the administrators at the sample schools also serve
as coaches for their teachers (Table 4.6).
Extended day staff/academic extra help staff
Academic extra-help staffs are teachers who function as intervention specialists,
for students who are identified to be at risk academically. The teachers work with under-
performing students in intervention programs before and after school, as well as time
during school that is allocated for enrichment or intervention. Currently, there are no full
time positions dedicated to tutoring programs at the five sample school sites. Teachers at
the school sites are offered additional income for the extra responsibility of providing
80
intervention to struggling students outside of regular school hours. Based on the number
of hours allocated for the tutoring programs at each sample school site, the district has the
equivalent of 2 full time staff providing intervention, before and after school, to its K to 5
student population (Table 4.6).
Nurses
A school nurse is a registered professional nurse, working in a school setting to
provide health related services to students. A school nurse can provide health assessments
such as an early detection of illness, and screens for deficits in vision, hearing, and
growth. A school nurse also maintains health data to accommodate the needs of
individual students, and functions as a health specialist to develop individualized
educational plans (I.E.P.), if necessary.
Due to limited budgets, a school nurse and a health technician are assigned to the
sample schools for only certain amount of time throughout the school year. During the
absence of a school nurse, school secretaries and attendance clerks are trained in first aid
and will handle non-life- threatening situations (Table 4.6).
Counselors and school psychologists
School counselors have a long list of job requirements, but their essential
responsibilities are to appropriately interpret student data, collaborate with parents and
educators, and assist students with the development of their academic and career plans.
The counselor also provides individual or group counseling to students with needs. A
school psychologist often has a similar role to that of a counselor. The major difference is
that the psychologist is trained in child psychology, with an emphasis on special
81
education. While a counselor typically works with students on academic and career
planning, a school psychologist is trained to work with special education students, and is
responsible to assess the students, and provide instructional, as well as behavioral,
interventions according to the assessments.
Due to budget cuts, the sample schools no longer have on-site counselors. School
psychologists from the district are being assigned to three of the sample schools, to work
with their special education students, on certain days or by appointments (Table 4.6)
Table 4.6 Personnel at the sample schools – instructional coaches, extended day staff,
nurses, counselors/ school psychologists, by school and average ratio to students
Schools LM ER FA LB LE Avg ratio
Instructional
coaches
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 N/A
Extended day
staff
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 to 1440
Nurses 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 to 2880
Counselors /
psychologist
0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 1 to 1920
Classified staff
The term “Classified Staff” refers to personnel who hold a non-certificated
position in a school. These positions include secretaries, clerks, classroom instructional
aides, special education aides, library aides/technicians, maintenance workers,
custodians, and cafeteria workers. This research focuses on the allocation of: instructional
aides, special education aides, library aides/technicians, secretaries, and clerks.
82
Instructional aides
The job of an instructional aide is to assist the classroom teacher to identify and
address the specific needs of students. The aides often work with the teacher in planning
and implementing strategies, to enhance the learning experience, and, if necessary,
provide intervention for individual students or groups of students. They also work with
teachers to create a classroom environment that is safe and conducive to learning.
Instructional aides, in the five sample schools, also work with teachers to supervise
students outside of classrooms: during recess, lunches, time in between instructional time,
and during after school programs. There are currently 33 instructional aides assisting the
2,880 K-5 students at the sample schools, and this equates to one instructional aide for
every 87 students. School ER has the most aides, with 9 of them providing services to
536 students. School LM and School LE each has 5 instructional aides. School LM has
much larger student population than other four sample schools, with 763 students, or 227
more than School ER, the second largest school in the study (Table 4.7).
Special education aides
The essential functions of special education personnel are to provide supplemental
services to students with disabilities, and assist in the implementation of intervention
strategies to manage behaviors of children with disabilities. Additionally, they have the
duty to update other teachers regarding student progress and to communicate with parents
according to the school’s request. Finally, they provide supervision to special education
students outside of instructional periods, such as during recess, nutrition period, and
lunch. There are a total of 24 special education aides working at the five school sites, and
83
School LE has 11 of them. School LM has only 3 special educational aides, and has the
largest percentage of students with learning disabilities, 17.1%. However, without more
data on the special education students at each school site, the reason behind the
discrepancy cannot be determined (Table 4.7).
Library technicians/paraprofessionals
Due to budget cuts, the sample schools have no librarians, only library
technicians. Library technicians assist school staff, parents, and students on how to use
library catalogs and databases to locate needed materials. They also maintain and update
library resources and equipment, as well as patrons' (students') records. In all sample
schools, library technicians were actively involved in student learning activities, such as
reading groups during school hours, after school intervention programs, and less formally
structured activities such as recess and lunch (Table 4.7).
Secretaries and clerks
The school secretaries and clerks are responsible for maintaining all school
record-keeping systems, including but not limited to: student attendance, behavior, and an
academic database that develops and tracks all records related to significant incidents and
accidents. Secretaries and clerks also handle many of the business aspects of a school,
such as: tracking supply and purchase orders, handling conference/travel claims, creating
and amending budgets, and maintaining student files. They also frequently communicate
with parents regarding student information and attendance records. At the sample
schools, the secretaries and clerks also handle first-aid issues, in the absence of a school
84
nurse. Currently, every school in the study has one secretary and one attendance clerk
(Table 4.7).
Table 4.7 Human resource allocation patterns – instructional aides, special education
aides and the number of special education students, Library
technicians/paraprofessionals, secretaries and clerks; by school and average to student
ratio
Schools LM ER FA LB LE Avg ratio
Instructional
aides
5 9 7 7 5 1 to 87
Special ed.
aides
3 6 3 1 11 1 to 14.4
special ed
students
Library
technicians
1 1 1 1 1 1 to 576
Secretaries
and clerks
2 2 2 2 2 1 to 288
Research Question 3: Is there a gap between current human resource allocation
practices, and what the research suggests would be most effective? How do current
human resource allocations differ from strategies derived from the Evidence-Based
Model?
This section uses the allocation strategies derived from the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden and Picus, 2008), to analyze the existing gaps between the EBM and the
current resource allocation model adapted by the sample district. The section will first
address the deficits of the sample district's resource allocation patterns, compared to the
recommendations of the EBM. Subsequently, any indicated over-staffing at the studied
school sites will then be addressed.
85
Current resource allocation deficits in comparison to the EBM
Eleven out of eighteen categories show deficits in the sample district's personnel
allocation. California has been lagging behind the rest of the nation in per pupil spending
in public school. Since the 2008 economical down turn, California schools have endured
steep cuts, which resulted in thousands of positions lost. In 2010-2011, California spent
$2,856 less per student than the national average (California Budget Project, 2011).
Comparing the Evidence-Based Model to the sample district's current resource
allocation model, major discrepancies occur in the areas of core teachers (grade-level
teachers in the sample schools), specialist teachers, instructional coaches, supervisory
aides, librarians, library technicians, instructional aides, and special education aides. The
section below, will first describe the areas where the sample district is showing a deficit
in allocating appropriate resources (to improve student-achievement as suggested by the
EBM), and then provide a description of those areas the sample district has significantly
overstaffed.
86
The Deficits
Core teachers
A core teacher organizes and manages a classroom that is conducive to student
learning and development. The teacher has to plan, document, and implement daily
lesson plans according to the state's and district's guidelines. The teacher is also
responsible to maintain complete and accurate records of students' academic progress,
and communicate with parents on a regular basis. The sample district currently has 128
core teachers, serving 2,880 K-5 students, and that is an average 1 teacher to 22.5
students. The EBM simulation recommends 167 core teachers total according to the size
of the sample schools, which means that the sample district had a deficit of 39.8 teachers
(Table 4.8).
Specialist teachers
All children learn differently and have different talents and skills, and specialist
teachers provide opportunities to discover their other talents beyond core subjects like
language art, mathematics, social studies and science. Yet as the state slashes more
funding for schools, these so-called “non-essential”, or not APY-related, programs such
as arts, music, and physical education are often the first classes to be eliminated. After
years of eliminating programs outside of core subjects, the sample district currently has a
total of 6 specialist teachers, most of them physical education teachers, for 2880 students.
According to the EBM simulation, 33.6 specialist teachers are required to create a
comprehensive learning environment for the students. This means the district has a deficit
of 27.6 specialist teachers (Table 4.8).
87
Special education teachers
Special education teachers work with students who have learning, mental,
emotional and physical disabilities. For children with mild or moderate disabilities, the
teachers, along with parents and other school personnel, create modified lessons to
accommodate the learning needs of the students. With students who have severe
disabilities, these teachers often have to teach the students basic life skills. Currently the
sample district employs 15.2 special education teachers for the elementary school
students, the schools have a total of 346 special education students. The EBM simulation
recommends 19.2 special education teachers to adequately meet the needs of the students.
Thus there is a deficit of 4 special education teachers (Table 4.8).
Supervisory aides
Supervisory aides perform duties that are instructional in nature, directly assist
teachers, students and parents to ensure effective implementation of daily lessons and
programs. Their jobs often include, but not limited to: supervising students in and outside
of classrooms; organize and duplicate materials; and tutor and assist students individually
or in small group settings for the purpose of intervention. The EBM suggests 5
supervisory aides for the sample district, but currently the district has none. At the
moment, all duties of supervisory aides are carried out by instructional aides, special
educational aides, and parent volunteers (Table 4.8).
Instruction coaches
An instructional coach is a professional developer at school-site who trains and
supports educators on how to effectively implement research-based instructional
88
strategies. Their duties often include meeting with teachers and administrators to explain
the goals for the professional development programs, analyzing teachers' needs and
challenges to implement the introduced strategies in their daily lessons through
observations, and working with teachers individually or in groups. Essentially, the role of
an instructional coach is not punitive in nature but supportive. While the administrators
and teachers identified their needs for more effective instructional coaches, the district
currently employees two to work with all staff from the sample school sites. Technology-
based professional trainings are usually carried out by the site administrators. Special
education and EL related trainings are often performed at the district level, with one of
the assistant superintendents as the trainer. The EBM simulator suggests 14.4
instructional coaches, so more time can be dedicated to improve teacher's skills on a more
regular and personal level, instead of only being able to observe and analyze each
teacher's needs for a few times a year, with little time to train or retrain a teacher and
perform follow-ups (Table 4.8).
The over-staffing
Instructional aides
An instructional aide is often known as a teacher assistant. Their duties involve
helping struggling students in a classroom, monitoring student progress and behavior in
classroom, and reporting to the classroom teacher of any unusual findings. They also
support teachers' daily lessons by helping the teachers to prepare material and set up
equipment. Currently 33 instructional aides are working at the five sample school sites.
And according to the EBM, they are not a key component to increase student
89
performance. As a result, the EBM simulator indicates a surplus of 33 instructional aides
(Table 4.8).
Special education aides
The essential duty of a special education aide is to accommodate the learning
needs of special education students by providing supplemental services. Also, they assist
the special education teachers in implementing individualized intervention strategies to
manage students with emotional and mental challenges. The biggest difference between
an instructional aide and a special education aide is that a special education aide is
required by federal law to provide services specified on the student's Individual
Educational Plan. Therefore, special education aides are often funded by separate
categorical funds. Currently, there are 24 special education aides working at the five
sample school sites. The EBM simulator suggests 0 special education aides, thus creates a
surplus of 24 personnel in this category (Table 4.8).
90
Table 4.8 EBM Simulation summary (red indicates deficit)
Comparison between sample schools
While all five sample schools have insufficient number of teachers, whether they
are core teachers, specialist teachers, or special education teachers; it is worthy to note
that according to the EBM simulation, School LE actually has overstaffed its special
education teachers by 2.7 positions, while School LM needs another 4.9 special education
teachers (Table 4.9).
91
Table 4.9 EBM gap analysis – special education teachers
Research Question 4: How can human resources be re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement?
The research question attempts to address the disparities in the current resource
allocation model adapted by the sample district, in comparison to the research-backed
EBM. With the possibility of more budget cuts in the future, it is unrealistic to suggest an
increase in funding to address the deficits. However, the EBM also provides
recommendations on how existing resources can be re-allocated to increase performance,
without increasing the given district’s budget. Since the existing resources, which can be
redistributed, are limited, the trade-offs are suggested for the sole purpose of maximizing
student-achievement.
Increase the number of core teachers
The Evidence-Based Model, by Odden and Picus, places heavy emphasis on small
class-size, especially for grade-levels K through 3. Finn and Gerber's research (2005), on
the long-term effects of small classes, concluded that there is a positive correlation
between small class sizes in K to 3 and high school graduation rate. The research further
concluded that this positive correlation is especially true for socio-economically
disadvantaged students. The current average class-size for K-3 at the sample district is 1
92
teacher to 25.3 students. This average far exceeds the ideal 1 to 15 ratio recommended
by the EBM. To reduce the current class size at the sample school sites, in order to create
a more personal and interactive learning environment for the students, more core teachers
are needed. The EBM simulation for the sample district indicates that the district needs
an additional 39.8 core teachers and 27.6 specialist teachers. The district currently has 33
instructional aides and 14.4 special education aides, distributed among the five studied
schools. According to the EBM, the sample schools require no instructional aides if the
ideal teacher-student ratio is obtained. Special education aides are personnel trained to
address the individual needs of disabled children, and are often assigned to monitor the
disabled children, both in and out of the classrooms, which is a service the district is
legally required to provide for children with special needs. Therefore, the only area where
the most significant trade-offs can be made is in the number of general instructional
aides. Based on the sample district's average expenditures on its instructional aides, the
district will be able to hire 19.8 more core teachers in exchange for the number of general
instructional aides currently employed by the sample district. This means 3 or 4
additional core-teachers for the K-3 students in each school sites. The extra core-teacher
in ER can also be re-assigned to the school site with the most severe deficit. While this
resource-allocation plan will not achieve the ideal 1:15 ratio according to the EBM, but it
will allow the school sites to reduce their average K-3 class size to below 1:20, and thus
decreases the dependence on instructional assistants in each class (Table 4.10). If the
schools find needs for general instructional aides, the schools can reach out to volunteer
parents to assist core teachers in supplementing reduced workforce at the school sites.
93
This arrangement will not only relieve the schools of funding dilemma, it will also forge
a stronger school-teacher-parent connection through intimate understanding of how the
schools and classes work on educating the children.
Table 4.10 Resource-redistribution, restricted to reducing K-3 class-size
School-
site
Number of
students
K-3
Number
of core-
teachers
Deficit according to
EBM (class-size
1:15)
Number of core-
teachers after
resource-
reallocation plan
Deficit after
resource-
reallocation
plan
LM 524 23 -11.9 31 -3.9
ER 370 26 1.3 25 0.3
FA 376 16 -9 21 -4
LB 377 16 -9 21 -4
LE 327 15 -6.8 17.8 -4
94
Chapter 5
Conclusions
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine resource allocation data on five
elementary schools within the district to determine correlations between resource
allocation and student achievement. The indicators for student achievement used in this
study were California Standardized Tests, Academic Performance Index, and Adequate
Yearly Progress. The data collected were compared and analyzed against the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) to determine whether these schools are aligning
resources to support optimal instructional strategies. Upon discovering discrepancies
between the Evidence-Based Model and the actual resource distribution pattern, this
study then made suggestions on actions and trade-offs the district could make to address
educational adequacy for all the students within this study.
The Sample
The five elementary schools chosen for the study were all part of the same
district, yet each with its own unique student demographic composition. While one
school's Hispanic or Latino population is 67.5% of its total population, another school has
30%. One school's Black or African-American student population is 37.3 % of its student
body, yet another sample school has a Black or African-American population just a little
over 10%. One of the sample schools has 40% of its student population who are white,
while another sample school has only 15%. In terms of student-achievement, all of the
sample schools are ranked as high performing school based on their API scores and AYP
95
in 2011. One of these schools in the study, however, had failed to meet its growth targets
for almost all significant subgroups.
Limitations
One of the limitations discussed was the amount of the data the schools and the
district were willing to provide. The interview participants in this study were volunteers,
and potential bias toward individual opinions or views upon specific matters could result
in inaccurate representations within statistical or analytical data collected. In addition,
this study offered limited applicability of Evidence-Based Model for other California
schools due to the state’s school funding formula.
Summary of Findings
This section summarizes the key findings for each of the four research questions.
Research Question 1: What are the current instructional vision and improvement
strategies at the school level?
The research uses Odden's strategies as framework for analyzing the strategies
adapted by the district to improve student performance and how resources are allocated to
implement the strategies. The sample district's key strategies include: 1) creating a vision
for the district and setting high performance goals; 2) making decisions based on data; 3)
understanding performance challenge (barriers to overcome to reach the goals); 4)
providing ongoing professional development to address the barriers; and 5) extending
learning time for struggling students.
96
Creating a vision and setting high performance goals
The sample district creates a vision increasing student-achievement, using the API
scores and AYP for all subgroups within the district as the key indicator for success.
Data-driven decision-making
Once the sample schools receive their API scores, the staffs collaborate to create
smaller goals for growth throughout the academic year. Smaller-scaled common
assessments are given periodically to monitor whether the staff and students have reached
the short-term goals, and whether invention programs or modified lesson plans are
required before the next benchmark test. These local assessments include Galileo
Benchmark Assessments in English-language arts and mathematics, Fluency assessments,
and Envision Math assessments.
Understanding performance challenge and providing ongoing professional development
Each sample school identifies a list of performance barriers to achieve their
growth targets using measurement tools such as California State Tests, staff and teacher
surveys. Then the district, site administration, and staff determine which research-backed
strategies will be the most effective to overcome the barriers. New technology to help
overcome the barriers will also be identified during this stage. The trainings on how to
properly and effectively integrate these new strategies and technology into everyday
lessons are given as the next step in the course. Evaluations are required afterward to
ensure the trainings are effective. One of the tools to evaluate whether the new strategies
and technology are appropriately implemented is the result of the benchmark exams
given throughout the school year.
97
Extending learning time for struggling students
While the district has a standard of number of minutes of instruction per day for
all core subject areas, students who are identified as “at risk” get referrals from staff to
attend tutoring programs before or after school, and intervention programs built into the
school day.
Research Question2: How are human resources allocated across the study district and
its schools?
Each of the sample school sites is basically composed of:
1. One school principal
2. Teaching staff: mainly core/grade-level teachers; a specialist
teacher teaching mainly physical education, only one school has
additional specialist teaching position; special education teachers
3. Certificated staff: instructional coaches, extended-day staff/tutors;
nurses, counselors/school psychologists
4. Classified staff: instructional aides; special education aides; library
paraprofessionals; secretaries and clerks
98
Research Question 3: Is there a gap between current human resource allocation
practices, and what the research suggests would be most effective? How do current
human resource allocations differ from strategies derived from the Evidence-Based
Model?
After the data were collected on district and school level expenditure, resource
allocation, and student performance pattern. The researcher then input the information
into an Evidence-Based Model simulation created by David Knight. The simulation then
returned a gap analysis on how the district’s resource allocation pattern is aligned or
different from the EBM recommendation.
Based on the simulation result, the most significant gaps between the sample
district's current resource allocation pattern and the Evidence-Based Model are:
a. The number of core teachers: the sample district
has a major deficit -23.7%
b. The number of specialist teachers: the sample
district has a deficit -82.1%
c. The number of special education teachers: the
sample district has a major deficit -20.8%
d. The number of instructional coaches: the sample
district has a major deficit -86.1%
e. The number of instructional aides: the sample
district has a major surplus
99
f. The number of special education aides: the
sample district has a major surplus
Research Question 4. How can human resources be re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement?
The research question attempts to analyze the disparities in the current resource
allocation strategies adapted by the sample district, in comparison to EBM. The EBM
then provides a list of recommendations on how existing resources can be re-allocated to
increase student performance. According to the EBM simulation for the sample school
district, the areas that are most over-staffed are the number of instructional aides and the
number of special education aides. Special education aides are often a key component for
special education student's I.E.P. This means the district is legally required to provide the
accommodation to the disabled student. At the end of the section, a recommendation is
made on increasing the number of core teachers by reducing the number of instructional
aides at each sample school site.
Implications for Practice
This study will provide other researchers with a number of case studies on how
high performing schools with diverse student populations allocate their resources and
how they can reallocate the existing resources to further improve students’ learning
outcomes, given the current funding challenges. All of the schools in the study have API
scores 800 or above. However, not all of the studied schools have met their growth
targets for significant subgroups. The studied district has devised a set of strategies to
100
close performance gaps between all significant subgroups, and many of them are
corresponding to Odden's “10 strategies”. While the district has placed a heavier
emphasize on data-driven decision-making and more intervention strategies, including
both staff-facilitated and technology-based. It might have overlooked a key strategy to
enhance students’ learning experience and therefore increase student achievement, which
is smaller class-size. By re-examining the district's current resource allocation strategies,
the schools can reduce their class-size without increasing its financial burden for the
upcoming school year.
Secondly, this study focused on the elementary schools of a small school district,
located within a small suburban city. Many other factors can contribute to the significant
academic growth in the recent years, such as parental income, family support, and
community involvement. California's public schools face more challenges to educate its
students than many other states: lack of funding, high percentage of students who are
English language learners, socio-economically disadvantaged, or both, while trying to
meet the NCLB mandates. In the future, the study can be conducted in a larger scale by
including other California districts, in both suburban and urban settings, who also
demonstrated steady student performance improvement over the years. Such study has
the potential to provide insight into how resources can be allocated or re-allocated to
meet the unique set of challenges California schools regularly face.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused mainly on best strategies to move an organization forward,
such as creating a vision for the organization, using existing data to analyze performance
101
barriers, finding appropriate professional training to acquire the knowledge to overcome
the barriers, using benchmark assessments to monitor growth and implement
interventions when necessary. Then it focused on how resources are allocated to allow
the organization to reach its performance goals, and how resources can be re-allocated to
create a more efficient organization. However, this study did not cover how technology
affects the student outcomes. For future studies, a separate section should be created on
how technology influenced the pattern of resource allocation over the years.
102
References
Alvarez, V. L., (2009). School Funding in California And The Uniqueness and
Vulnerability of Basic Aid Funding. Field Report submitted to University of
Southern California Rossier School of Education.
Augenblick, J., Myers, J., Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and Adequacy in School
Funding. Financing Schools Vol. 7, No. 3.
Baker, B. (2005). The Emerging Shape of Educational Adequacy: From Theoretical
Assumptions to Empirical Evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30:3, 259-
287.
Barba, M. (2011). How Much Do Public Schools Spend on Teaching. National Center
For Policy Analysis: Brief Analysis No. 745.
Bracey, G. W. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Where Does the Money Go? Executive
Summary. Education Policy Research Unit. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State
University.
Briffault, R. (2005). The Relationship between Adequacy and Equity. Columbia Law
School. PEPG 05-33.
Bowles, S. (1967). The Efficient Allocation of Resources in Education. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Volume 81, Issue 2, 189-219.
California Department of Education. (2010). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved
August, 2008, from www.cde. ca .gov/
California Legislative Analyst's Office. (2000). Historical Perspective of Education
Funding. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/lao_sectionpage.aspx?catid=5
California Legislative Analyst's Office. (2005). Proposition 98 Primer. Retrieved
August, 2008, from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primer/prop_98_primer_020805.htm
California Budget Project (CPB). (2006). A Budget For All Californians: Improving the
Transparency and Accountability of the State Budget. Retrieved August, 2008,
from http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2006/0605_budgettransparency.pdf
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
103
Crawford, J. (2011). Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)… and the Policy Issues at Stake. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.diversitylearningk12.com/.
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. National
Center For Education Statistics.
Downes, T. A. (1992). Evaluating The Impact of School Finance Reform On The
Provision Of Public Education: The California Case. National Tax Journal, Vol.
45, No. 4, 405-19.
Duncombe, W., Lukemeyer, A., Yinger, J. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act: Have
Federal Funds Been Left Behind? Center for Policy Research.
Ed-Data. (2010-11). Fiscal, Demographic, and Performance Data on California’s K-12
Schools. Retrieved August, 2008, from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!
bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/finance/MC-FinanceResults.asp
EdSource. (2009). Proposition 98 Sets a Minimum Funding Guarantee for Education.
Retrieved August, 2008, from http://www.edsource.org/school-finance.html.

EdSource. (2011). California’s Fiscal Crisis: What does it mean for schools? Retrieved
August, 2008, from http://www.edsource.org/school-finance.html.
EdSource, (2012). Categorical Funding for 2007-08 and 2009-10. Retrieved August,
2008, from http://www.edsource.org/data_RevClassSizePenalties_08-10.html
EdSource, (2012). Finance System: Expenditures. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_expenditures.html#top
EdSource, (2012). Schools Under Stress: Pressures Mount on California’s Largest
School Districts. May Report. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.edsource.org/pub12-schools-under-stress.html.

Edwards, B. (2010). California and the “Common Core”, Will There Be a New Debate
About K-12 Standards?. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Fensterwald, J. (2012). School Funding Primer: A is for Alligator. Retrieved August,
2008, from http://www.edsource.org/today/2012/school-funding-primer-a-is-for-
alligator/18700
104
Flattau, P. E., Bracken, J., Atta, R. V., Bandeh-Ahmadi, A., Cruz, R., Sullivan, K. (2007).
The National Defense Education Act of 1958: Selected Outcomes.
Francis, L. (2004). Equity and Adequacy: Americans Speak on Public School Funding.
Educational Testing Service. Institute For Defense Analyses Science &
Technology Policy Institute. Washington, DC.
Hana, J. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: 40 Years Later. Ed., the
magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved August, 2008,
from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/
Hoag, C. (2012). California Teacher Layoffs: 4
th
Year of Pink Slips Spur Concerns.
Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/05/california-teacher-
layoff_n_1486326.html.
Human Services Management Corporation. (2011). $4.5 Billion in Categorical Funds/No
Oversight/Does What Exactly? Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/
Jefferson-Jenkins, C., Hill, M. H. (2011). Role of Federal Government In Public
Education: Historical Perspectives. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.lwv.org/content/role-federal-government-public-education%C2%A0-
historical-perspectives
Jorgensen M., Hoffmann, J. (2003). Assessment Report: History of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This report is prepared for Person Education, Inc.
Larsen, S. E., Lipscomb, S., Jaquet, K. (2011). Improving School Accountability in
California. Public Policy Institute of California.
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB Accountability System. Policy Brief of the
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standard, and Student Testing.
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Loeb, S., Grisson, J., Strunk, K. (2006). District Dollars: Painting a Picture of Revenues
and Expenditures in California’s School Districts. This report is part of Getting
Down to Facts: A Research Project to Inform Solutions to California’s Education
Problems.
105
National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secertary of
Education, United States Department of Education.
Odden, A., Picus, L.O. (2003). An Evidence-Based approach to school finance adequacy
in Arkansas. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A., Picus, L.O. (2004). An Evidence-Based approach to school finance adequacy
in Arizona. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4
th
edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Picus, L. & Odden, A. (2009). An Evidence Based Approach to Estimating The National
and State-by-State Costs of an Integrated PreK-3
rd
Education Program. Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and Adequacy in School Finance Today. The Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 85, No. 2, 120-125.
Odden, A., Archibald, S. (2009). Doubling Student Performance… and finding the
resources to do it. Corwin Press. A SAGE Company. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Patton, M. Q., Cochran, M. (2002). A Guide To Using Qualitative Research
Methodology. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://evaluation.msf.at/fileadmin/evaluation/files/documents/resources_MSF/MS
F_Qualitative_Methods.pdf.
Plecki, M. L., Alejano, C. R., Knapp, M. S., Lochmiller, C. R. (2006). Allocating
Resources and Creating Incentives to Improve Teaching and Learning. Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy. University of Washington.
RAND Corporation. (2012). California School Districts Use Budget Flexibility to
Balance Budgets, Avoid Layoffs. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2012/06/25.html
Reber, S. J. (2005). Court-Ordered Desegregation: Successes and Failures integrating
American Schools since Brown versus Board of Education. The Journal of
Human Resources. Vol. 40, No. 3, 559-590.
Rebell, M. (2007). From Adequacy to Comprehensive Educational Equity. Toward a
Realistic Agenda for Equity and Excellence. Annenberg Institute for School
Reform at Brown University. Retrieved August, 2008, from
http://annenberginstitute.org/
106
Rudalevige, A. (2005). Adequacy, Accountability, And The Impact of “No Child Left
Behind.” Department of Political Science, Dickinson College. Carlisle, PA.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating School Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 3, 23-
28.
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program, 2012
Silicon Valley Education Foundation (SVEF). (2012). CA Student Spending Near
Bottom. Top-Ed: Analysis, Opinion, And Discussion On California Education
Policy. Retrieved August, 2008, from http://svefoundation.org/svefoundation/
The U.S. Courts. (2011). History of Brown V. Board of Education. Retrieved August,
2008, from
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/LegalLand
marks/HistoryOfBrownVBoardOfEducation.aspx
WestEd Policy Program, (2000). Policy Brief: From Equity To Adequacy.
Retrieved August, 2008, from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/180
Weston, M. (2011). Rethinking the State-Local Relationship: K-12 Education. Public
Policy Institute of California.
Williams, T., Rosin, M., Perry, M. Webman, B., Wilson, K., Payne, R., Woodward, K.
M. (2010). Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
107
APPENDIX A
School Sites Data Collection Protocol
School Contact Information
School Name
Street
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
Principal
E-mail Adress
Student Performance, 4-year Comparison – consists of California Standards Tests
(CSTs), California Modified Assessment (CMA), and California Alternate Performance
Assessment (CAPA).
Student Performance by Student Group
Group Number of students performing proficient or advanced:
Mathematics English-Language Arts
All student
Black or African-
American
Asian
Hispanic or Latino
108
White
Others
(insignificant)
English Learners
Students with
Disablities
Number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) School Staff Other Than Teachers
Position Number of FTE at the
school site
Number of FTE throughout
the district
Academic Counselor
Librarian (Library Teacher)
Library Staff
(Paraprofessional)
Psychologist
Nurse
Language/Speech Specialist
Resource Specialist
Secretary
109
APPENDIX B
Gap Analysis using Evidence-Based Model
Table B1 Gap Analysis – Number of Core teachers
Table B2 Gap Analysis – Number of Specialist teachers
Table B3 Gap Analysis – Number of Special Education teachers
110
Table B4 Gap Analysis – Number of coaches
Table B5 Gap Analysis – Number of Special Education aides
Table B6 Gap Analysis – Number of librarians
111
Table B7 Gap Analysis – Number of non-academic support staff
Table B8 Gap Analysis – Number of instructional aides

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A case study of five schools in a California school district on the correlation between resource allocation and student achievement. The data collected are compared and analyzed against the Evidence‐Based Model (by Odden and Picus) to determine whether the schools are aligning resources to support best instructional strategies (by Odden).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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 four California charter schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts

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 learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Yen, Joan (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/12/2014

Defense Date 08/12/2014

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

Tag California schools,evidence‐based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation strategy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair)

Creator Email syen777@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-459934

Unique identifier UC11287772

Identifier etd-YenJoan-2813.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-459934 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-YenJoan-2813.pdf

Dmrecord 459934

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Yen, Joan

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