Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of the Local Control Funding Formula on schools within a rural mid-sized California school district
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of the Local Control Funding Formula on schools within a rural mid-sized California school district
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1
THE IMPACT OF THE LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA ON SCHOOLS
WITHIN A RURAL MID-SIZED CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Bradley Ryan Rohrbach
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2016
Copyright 2016 Bradley Ryan Rohrbach
2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Elizabeth, our children Kambria and Gianna,
and our parents LeRoy and Donna Rohrbach, and Patricia Scannelli. Your love, encouragement,
and support made this journey possible. I would like to say an additional thank you to Elizabeth
for her unwavering commitment, patience, and sacrifice. I look forward to spending more time
with each of you in the days to come.
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, my dissertation chair, who
was continually supportive of me through this endeavor. Dr. Picus, thank you again for your
patience and guidance; your steadfastness. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Escalante and
Dr. Nate Nelson for serving as members of my dissertation committee.
Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. John Snavely, Dr. Ken Gibbs, Dr. Val Staley, and
Dr. Martha Stuemky, for your continued guidance and support of my schedule to attend classes.
Dr. Gibbs, an additional thank you to you for your time and support. I value your friendships and
also the ability to work with you toward the common goal of “Creating Opportunities and
Changing Lives” for students. Also, I would like to thank my colleague Julissa Leyva who
embarked on this journey at the same time and was a true teammate in travel, completion of
writings, and class projects. Finally, I would like to conclude with another thank you to my wife
Elizabeth and our children, Kambria and Gianna, who worked together to support me in this
journey.
4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction 9
Brief History of Education Finance 12
Models of adequacy 13
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the study 16
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 17
Summary of Methodology 18
Limitations 18
Delimitations 19
Definitions 19
Chapter 2: Literature review 21
Introduction 21
Research-Based Strategies for Improving Student Performance 30
Excellence in Student Achievement 31
10 Researched Based Strategies for doubling Student Achievement 32
Characteristics of Successful Schools 36
Successful resource allocation 46
Strategic Management of Human Resource Capital 48
School Level Resources 50
Evidence-Based Model 53
Gap Analysis 60
Summary of the literature 61
Chapter 3: Methodology 63
Overview of Methodology 64
Research Questions 65
Sample and Population 64
Instrumentation and Data Collection 66
Data Analysis 69
Summary 70
5
Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings 71
Overview of the Porterville Unified School District 71
Introduction of the Findings 75
Research Question #1: How has California’s school funding environment
changed the revenues available to the school district? 75
Research Question #2: How is the district choosing to use these new resources? 81
Research Question #3: How can resources be reallocated to align with
research-based strategies to improve student achievement? 92
Recommendations for reallocation 100
Conclusion 104
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion, and Implications 105
Purpose of Study 105
Summary of Findings 106
Limitations of the Study 108
Policy Implications 109
Concluding Comments 111
References 112
6
List of Tables
Table 2 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
Table 2.1 Summary of expenditures for public Elementary and Secondary Education,
selected years, 1919-20 through 2010-11
Table 2.2 School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
Table 2.3 Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools
Table 3 Porterville Unified School District - listing of school sites
Table 4 Porterville Unified School District School Enrollment and Demographics data
Table 4.1 Local Control Funding Formula per ADA for Porterville Unified School District
Table 4.2 Phase-in Funding for Porterville Unified School District
Table 4.3 Desired Allocations based upon established LCAP Goals
Table 4.4 Porterville Unified School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis
Table 4.5 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – Elementary Schools
Table 4.6 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis Core Teachers – Elementary Schools
Table 4.7 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – Middle Schools
Table 4.8 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – High Schools
Table 4.9 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – Alternative Schools
7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Major Shifts Made by the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
Figure 1.1 Grade Span Funding at Full LCFF Implementation
Figure 2 Estimated Effect Sizes of Major Recommendations
Figure 2.1 The Evidence Based Model
8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate data from the Porterville Unified
School District to determine how the district receives its revenues as a result of the new Local
Control Funding Formula and to research the extent to which the district is allocating resources
using research-based strategies for district and school improvement using the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP). The study explores the progression of California’s Education
Financing and Accountability reformation, Research-based strategies for improving student
performance highlighting best strategies found in successful high performing school districts,
and successful implementation of resource allocation strategies using the Evidence Based Model.
Findings indicate that the District is allocating resources in alignment with a few of the
allocation levels suggested by Evidence-Based Model. However, recommendations include the
district consider human resource reallocations for instructional coaches, certificated librarians,
extended-day programs and academic extra help. Additionally, recommendations for
reallocation over multiple years are included, in part, as a result of constraints from settlement
agreements and commitments to capital outlay both funded using Supplementary and
Concentration allocations in the Local Control Accountability Plan. Bridging research, theory,
and practice takes times, effort, and is necessary in order to effect positive change for student
achievement. In order to maximize student learning, leadership within districts and schools must
research, discuss, and pursue promising practices found in effective school organizations,
compare these to their respective practices, and create the necessary change to ensure students
succeed by graduating high school and prepared to enter into college or a career.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 9
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Introduction
We have an historic opportunity in California. Suddenly education, after years of
experiencing pressures from slow economic growth, limited resources, increased teacher pay,
escalating benefit costs, and real life decline in revenues as a result America’s recent great
recession, the voters of California in November 2012 passed Proposition 30 (Prop 30), which
implemented additional temporary taxes to support education (CDE, 2013). As a result many
California schools are experiencing their highest levels of revenue in more than three decades.
Proposition 30, combined with additional funding resulting from an improved economy and
changes in how schools receive funding passed by the Legislature, have led to this improvement
in school district finances. California school districts and charter schools began receiving most
of their funding through a new finance system, known as the Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF) beginning in July 2013 (CDE, 2013). The LCFF is constructed upon the foundation of a
weighted student formula (WSF) effectively focusing more resources on students with the
highest educational needs (CDE, 2013). In association with the new funding model, the
Legislature requires districts to prepare a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), a plan
describing how funds and resources will be allocated to schools to improve student achievement
(CDE, 2013). Amidst the current increases in funding, accountability, and flexibility, student
achievement must continue to be the focal point for educators and their communities as they
prepare students to be college and career ready.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed by Congress in 2001 aimed to improve
student achievement through district and school accountability across the nation. States
throughout the Nation were tasked to improve student performance as measured by the federally
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 10
developed Adequate Yearly Progress AYP, and in California’s Academic Performance Index
API. Districts were expected to meet specific growth targets with 100% of students meeting
reading and mathematics proficiency levels on performance assessments by the year 2014
(Rebell, 2012). Although this legislation made sweeping changes focused on student
achievement, it lacked reasonable, attainable, measures for districts and schools to meet.
Hentschke & Wohlstetter (2004) suggest many policy makers and educators were upset with the
provisions and implementation of NCLB. Furthermore, Darling-Hammond and Adamson (2010)
advise the role of the federal context standards elevated the test-based accountability in the
public education system forcing the trade-offs between preparing students to obtain higher order
thinking and performance skills with the associated costs to comply with these provisions and the
time pressures in which to meet the NCLB performance targets. California, for instance,
established a well-developed state testing and accountability system with high academic content
standards prior to NCLB. However, since its inception, California has faced difficulty meeting
both the proficiency targets within the state’s accountability system while ensuring all
numerically significant student subgroup meets the participation and proficiency status targets
under NCLB (EdSource, 2005).
California has some of the highest academic content standards in the country, yet funding
for schools to help students meet these standards has not been adequate (PACE 2012).
Additionally, California faces significant challenges in serving the population of students who
attend public schools. California compared with other states is identified as serving far more K-
12 students than any other state, just above six million students, with its largest ethnic group
being Hispanic/Latino at fifty-three percent in 2013-2014 and twenty-two percent classified as an
English Language Learner (ELL). Two decades prior, California’s total student population was
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 11
just above four and one half million students with Hispanic/Latino population at twenty-nine
percent (CDE, 2014).
Previous allocations of revenue distribution in California, typically referred to as
Revenue Limit funds, did not do a good job in providing Supplementary Educational Services
(SES) for students. In addition, economic challenges, legislative proposals and changes, and
substantial restrictions on schools’ and districts’ use of resources are a few of the reasons for this
deterioration of funding (PACE 2012). However, educators in California will experience an
historic opportunity to support these areas through the use of the Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF) guided by the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). Furthermore, passage of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) model sets high academic expectations in English-
language arts (ELA) and mathematics by defining the knowledge and skills students should
master at the end of each grade level. These new standards aim to maximize student learning
through explicit frameworks for instruction, promoting learning in all content areas through the
Common Core Standards with emphasis on literacy. Moreover, students are provided with
scaffolds to increase learning and academic achievement by meeting the standards through
science-based approaches and by developing instructional strategies.
Provided in this chapter is a brief history of California school finance, how funding has
shifted from equity to adequacy, and a comparison of four theoretical models that measure
adequacy. Furthermore, a concise statement of the problem is presented, followed by the
purpose of the study, and lastly the importance of this study. The limitations, delimitations, and
assumptions of the study are disclosed along with a list of definitions for key terms provided
throughout the study.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 12
Brief History of Education Finance
School finance policy since the early 1970s focused mostly on attaining equitable
revenue distribution from an uneven distribution of property tax base resulting in a broad
variance of expenditures per pupil. The California Supreme Court ruled in the Serrano V. Priest
case of 1971 that school district funding needed to be equalized and required wealth related
spending differences to be eliminated or reduced to no more than $100 per pupil. Picus (2006)
points to the results of efforts to meet the requirements set forth in the Serrano requirements
including a considerable reduction in general fund revenues per pupil across school districts and
a greater movement of these revenue streams out of the general fund in to complex system of
over one hundred categorical programs. The Legislature, in response to this court decision,
adopted Senate Bill (SB 90) (Chapter 1406/1972) that established Revenue Limit calculations,
limiting the amount of property taxes that were collected locally. The State of California was
required to backfill the difference owed schools during a time the State was experiencing a
surplus. Revenue Limit Calculations initially allowed for school district overrides until 1978
when California voters approved Proposition 13 (Prop 13) capping the property tax rate at 1
percent of taxable value which was also limited (Rose &Weston, 2013). Local agencies
surrendered control of levying property taxes to the State of California upon passage of Prop 13
and placed a ceiling on the amount of property taxes allowed to be collected; restricting local
communities from raising revenues for public services (EdSource 2010). The burden of funding
education now lies with the State of California. In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98, an
initiative to guarantee that schools receive a minimum share of the state’s budget through a
reallocation of property taxes. Proposition 98 calculation is adjusted each year for growth in K-
12 attendance and the economy as measured by per capita personal income (LAO, 2011). In the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 13
1990s and with the introduction of NCLB in 2002, the focus of school finance generally has
shifted to measure the adequacy of funds compared with student achievement as measured
through state content standards (Odden and Picus, 2014).
Leading up to and beginning with the fiscal year 2008-2009 our state and country
experienced what has been called the “great recession” (EdSource, 2013). After five years of
intense budget cuts, Proposition 30 (Prop 30) was passed in November 2012 temporarily
increasing the amount of revenues the state receives in sales tax from all taxpayers and from
personal income tax increases for upper-income taxpayers (CDE, 2014). As a result of the
increased funding from Prop 30 the budget package for the fiscal 2013-2014 was revamped to
include the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) creating per pupil base funding
amounts, supplemental allocations, and concentration grants while replacing revenue limits, most
categorical programs, and most other previous funding streams (CDE, 2014).
Odden and Picus (2014) note that in the new jargon of school finance it is difficult to
determine an adequate level of spending. The primary task is to identify base amount of
spending for each district and/or school to teach average students to state standards while
considering how much additional spending is required to teach students with who are not English
proficient, those in poverty and from educationally deficient backgrounds, and those with special
needs yet focused on the same rigorous standards. As a result of the additional need to provide an
adequate level of funding through an equitable distribution of revenues, adequacy models are
introduced below to demonstrate ways to measure educational adequacy.
Models of adequacy
Four models for measuring adequacy have been the basis for determining the adequate
level of revenue linking spending with student achievement results and include: the Professional
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 14
Judgment Approach, the Successful District Approach, the Cost Function Approach, and the
Evidence-Based Model Approach (Odden 2003; Rebell, 2007). Below is a review of strengths
and weakness of each model with an explanation for the selection of the evidence-based model
as the theoretical framework for this study.
Professional judgment Approach
The professional judgment approach focuses upon creating panels of educational experts
solicited by their district and/or schools for effective school wide strategies. These panels of
educators estimate the resource needs of a school to meet state standards and then estimate the
costs of the resources identified by the panel. The advantage of this approach is an attempt to
link funding levels with viable education programs based upon expert opinion. The disadvantage
of this approach is its basis on education judgments rather than research based strategies.
Furthermore, it often provides minimal differentiation between strategies for the average school
and schools with higher concentrations of at-risk students (Odden, 2003, Rebell 2007, Odden and
Picus, 2014).
Successful District Approach
The successful district approach calculates the cost of an adequate education based upon
schools identified as being successful through review of resource inputs, student test scores, and
other outcome measures. The strength of this approach is the connection made between
education costs and desired educational outcome. The limitations of this approach include the
broad variety of inputs and outputs that can be used to define “success”. Furthermore, this
approach is dependent on the availability of selected data points to support conclusions and
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 15
where sufficient data exist, studies can be easily manipulated to produce desired results (Odden
and Picus, 2014, Odden, 2003, Rebell 2007).
Cost Function Approach
The cost function approach attempts to determine how much a particular school district
would need to spend relative to an average district to meet certain performance targets focused
upon the school districts’ characteristics and student body. This approach requires extensive
statewide data with analysis on both the current and average spending levels for districts of
different characteristics serving differing student populations. The benefits of using this model
are the theoretical technical and mathematical accuracy obtained. The limitations include labor
intense calculations of the model and the fact that estimated costs are based on only a couple of
performance outcomes (Rebell, 2007).
Evidence-Based Approach
The Evidence-Based approach, also referred to as the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) uses
research or other research-based strategies, costing them out, and then aggregating them to
determine the adequate level of expenditures necessary at the school, district, or state level.
Additionally the EBM is considered a statistical model for prioritizing these researched-based
strategies based upon spending patterns at both the district and school levels while comparing
their alignment to that of the district or school (Odden and Picus, 2014). This approach has been
used to calculate adequate levels of spending in many states located outside of California during
recent years.
Regardless of the methods, there has been little adequacy research at combined district
and site levels in California and this study assists in filling this gap by focusing on resource
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 16
needs of an entire district including all elementary, middle, and high schools within it during a
period of time when California is experiencing increased revenues and accountability. The
Evidence-Based Model is a leading model for adequacy research and thus provides the
theoretical framework for this study. The EBM will be used to estimate the adequate levels of
funding, compare this to the current funding of the study district, determine how resources are
currently being allocated, and then recommend how to allocate the additional resources received
from the Local Control Funding Formula
Statement of the problem
California public school districts are currently experiencing one of their greatest revenue
increases from the passage of Proposition 30 in 2012 and a growing economy. These increases
reflect closely to increases experienced by the passage of SB 813 more than three decades ago.
The impact is magnified when significant increases in revenue are accompanied with flexibility
as to how monies are spent at the local level to foster student achievement. California districts
and schools will evaluate the effectiveness of their current practices while deciding which
programs and services to add or restore since the recent recession. Therefore effective resource
allocation, during a period of historic revenues, will be essential to increase student performance.
The opportunity resides with the districts and schools to determine which employees, programs,
and services will be selected to align with the organizational and educational goals.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate data from the Porterville Unified
School District determining the impact of how the district receives its revenues as a result of the
new Local Control Funding Formula and to research the extent to which the district is allocating
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 17
resources using research-based strategies for district and school improvement using the Local
Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The Evidence-Based Model will be used to design an
allocation and reallocation of resources to most effectively use the increased revenues currently
being experienced in California to improve student performance and will provide actual human
resource allocations data for each of its schools for an assessment as to how it leverages
increased budgets. Comparisons will be made between the Evidence-Based Model and the
actual allocation of human resources at the district and school level in the study district.
Research Questions
The study focused on the following questions
1) How has California’s school funding environment changed the revenues available to the
school district?
2) How is the district choosing to use these new resources?
3) How can resources be reallocated to align with research-based strategies to improve
student achievement?
Importance of the study
With the Passage of Proposition 30, introduction of the Local Control Funding Formula,
and the accountability requirements set forth using the Local Control Accountability Plan
education is coming full circle to ensure equity, adequacy, and accountability. This study may
inform school district constituents, including board trustees, superintendents, district level
administration, and school site administration with a case study of the Porterville Unified School
District containing information on its allocation of resources to meet the needs of its diverse
student population in the era of reform. Education leaders in other districts and/or schools may
find this study useful because it highlights best practices of how to allocate their available
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 18
resources, especially in a period of significant increased revenues, to improve student
achievement district wide through use of the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014) and
the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Summary of Methodology
The purpose of this study is to understand how district revenues have and are changing,
to understand how the district might reallocate resources to improve student achievement, to
compare the District with that of the Evidence Based Model (EBM), and propose any
reallocation of resources based upon the comparison. The study will include interviews with
district personnel and school principals to gather data regarding district mission, vision, goals,
and instructional practices. Other artifacts including master schedules, bell schedules, staff
rosters, school site budgets and single plans for student achievement will be reviewed. All sited-
based human resource expenditures will be input into a database to generate funding
recommendations as recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. For each school within the
district a gap analysis will be performed where the Evidence Based Model’s recommendations
compare current practices incorporating these into the Local Control Accountability Plan.
Limitations
The primary limitation of the study is the focus upon the new Local Control Funding
Formula and the Local Control Accountability Plan while yet in development and
implementation. Data gathered for this study is limited to expenditures and resource allocations
for the 2015-2016 school year and were not longitudinal. Therefore, findings are not necessarily
generalizable across other districts or schools.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 19
Delimitations
Two Delimitations exist for the study. First, the design of this study included only one
district and its schools. Second, the study district was selected due to the geographic location
and it’s culturally diverse demographics in kindergarten through twelfth grades. As a result of
those limitations and Delimitations findings can only be generalized to a school district of similar
size and demographic composition within California.
Definitions
Adequacy -Providing sufficient funds for the average district or school to teach the average child
to state standards plus sufficient additional revenues for students with special needs to allow
them to meet performance standards as well (Odden and Picus, 2014)
Adequate Yearly-Progress – The No Child Left Behind federal accountability system where
districts were expected to meet specific growth targets with 100% of students meeting reading
and mathematics proficiency levels on performance assessments by the year 2014 (Rebell, 2012).
Evidence-Based Model – An approach to determine an adequate expenditure level at a school
site, district, or state level. This approach identifies educational strategies that produce desired
results to help guide school sites in how to use dollars in the most effective ways (Odden and
Picus, 2014).
Gap Analysis – A tool for measuring the distance between actual and desired performance,
diagnosing causes, and proposing solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008)
Instructional Coaches – An instructional facilitator who works in schools, often on a fulltime
basis, to assist with team teaching, modeling, and peer coaching by using specific instructional
strategies (Odden, 2009).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 20
No Child Left Behind – The 2002 reauthorization of the Federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) legislation aimed to increase student achievement through standards
based reform with a focus on assessment and accountability.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 21
Chapter 2: Literature review
Introduction
In response to pressures for academic accountability at the federal, state and more
recently local levels, school districts across California focus on allocating the necessary level of
resources for all students to achieve proficiency within the recently adopted common core state
standards and through the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). This chapter helps
understand how districts might achieve such goals by exploring researched based strategies to
move districts and school sites towards allocating resources for high performance. This literature
review consists of four sections. The first section explores the progression of California’s
Education Financing and Accountability reformation. The second section, Research-based
strategies for improving student performance, highlighting best strategies found in successful
high performing school districts that implemented the 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009). The third section, Successful implementation of resource allocation
patterns explores how resources using the Evidence Based Model are used at the district and
school level (Odden & Picus, 2014), and is the adequacy tool used for the conceptual framework
for this study. The fourth and final section includes a gap analysis and is the operational
methodology by Clarke and Estes (2008).
Education Finance Then and Now
Funding for California schools has historically grown more slowly than many other
states, especially during the decades leading up to the 21
st
Century resulting in nearly the lowest
levels per student spending compared to other states. While overall per-pupil spending has
increased due to costs resulting from providing smaller class sizes, offering more elective
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 22
courses, and structured annual salary and benefit increases; student performance, in many
instances, remains unchanged (Odden & Picus, 2007). California schools, cities, counties, and
special districts, prior to 1978, had the authority to levy taxes to generate revenues for support of
their agencies. However, due to public concerns of wealth-based disparities in funding and in
response to a lawsuit filed by representatives of low property-wealth districts, the California
Supreme Court ruled in the Serrano V. Priest case of 1971 that school district funding needed to
be equalized. The Legislature, in response to this court decision, adopted Senate Bill (SB 90)
(Chapter 1406/1972) that established Revenue Limit calculations, limiting the amount of
property taxes that were collected locally. These calculations included cost-of-living
adjustments (COLAs) to equalize general purpose revenues over time. Not long after the
adoption of Revenue Limits, high rates of inflation caused property taxes to rise swiftly, and
taxpayers found themselves paying higher amounts of property taxes. In 1978, voters enacted
Proposition 13 (Prop 13), which limited property taxes to one percent of assessed valuation with
a cap of two percent on annual increases in assessed value until a property was sold. As a result,
Local agencies’ effective ability to levy property taxes at levels of their choice (or their voters’
choice) was taken away and to a large extent the legislature now controls property tax
distribution (Picus, 2006).
Shortly after passage of Proposition 13, Paul Gann sponsored Proposition 4 placing limits
on governmental spending regardless of the level of state revenues collected. Proposition 4 was
successful and the State was now held to the requirement that if state revenues were greater than
the calculated “Gann Limit”, then excess tax proceeds were to be returned to taxpayers. The first
occurrence of excess taxes returned to taxpayers by the State of California as a result of
Proposition 13 was during 1986-1987 in the amount of $1.1 billion dollars. Educational
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 23
supporters deemed this “Gann Limit” refund of monies as harmful to education funding based
upon what the state is able to provide. Therefore in 1988 the educational community,
Kindergarten through Community College (K-14), sponsored Proposition 98 (Prop 98),
establishing a minimum amount of state funding for K-14 education. Prop 98, guaranteeing forty
percent of the state general fund based upon three tests, has been used by the legislature and
governor as a maximum amount of funding for education rather than a minimum and essentially
nullifying the constraints imposed by the “Gann Limit” (Goldfinger, 2006). Additionally, of the
forty percent received from Prop 98, two-thirds revenues go to general fund while the other one-
third is directed to state categorical funding which has played a significant role in how schools
support students through supplemental services prior to the implementation of the Local Control
Funding Formula. During periods of inflation the legislature and/or governor have placed
additional state funds into restricted programs for school districts to implement.
Over the past three decades the volatility of state funding has played a significant role in
education as there have been three defined economic recession and recoveries the most recent
beginning in the 2008-2009 fiscal year being defined as the “Great Recession”. Typically during
periods of recession, the state has provided flexibility from these restrictions in order that school
districts can utilize these funds to support reductions from available funds available during the
recession. For instance, during the most recent recession, the passage of Senate Bill X3 4 (SBX3
4) and Assembly Bill 189 (AB189) in 2009 provided local school agencies the authority to use
funds received from the forty two state categorical programs for “any educational purpose”,
initially through the 2012-2013 school year and later extended through the 2014-2015 school
year (Rose & Weston, 2013).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 24
The bill specifically required that school districts hold an open public hearing taking
testimony from the public, discuss, and approve or disapprove the proposed use of funding.
State restricted categorical programs aimed for students identified as low socio-economic status
or as an English Language Learner included Economic Impact Aid (EIA) and Economic Impact
Aid Limited English Proficiency (EIA-LEP). Many other state restricted categorical programs
included such programs to provide for gifted and talented students, middle and high school
counseling, summer school programs, and trainings for administrators and teachers including
professional development on how to serve students with the highest educational needs (CDE,
2013). Although flexibility was provided during the economic downturn, accountability was
limited to some extent by allowing expenditures to be used “for any educational purpose” coined
in the education code to allow for such flexibility. In addition, during this most difficult period
of time, flexibility was provided to allow for increased class sizes in kindergarten through third
grade levels at modified levels without penalties and accounting requirement for these restricted
programs were removed.
A shift in Education Finance
As previously introduced, the new law and method of funding California K-14 public
school agencies is known as the Local Control Funding formula (LCFF) (CDE, 2013). Although
this transformative method of funding schools is in its’ infancy, the events leading to the
establishment of the LCFF are worth noting. In January 2012, Governor Brown’s priority is to
increase money for public schools and a second priority is to restore local control to schools. In
order to accomplish this, providing the state with a new mechanism to fund education while the
state was in the greatest economic recession, additional funds would be necessary. His proposal
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 25
in early 2012 was built on a weighted funding formula to simplify education funding by
providing a base and mandated block grants.
This Weighted Funding Formula aimed to support building teacher and leader capacity
through professional development, a new process and methodology for streamlining testing, and
improving accountability for a broader-based curriculum. (Bennett and McKay Underwood,
2012). Just one year prior this enactment, discussions looming at the Governor’s Office and
California Department of Education were about “Trigger cuts”. Trigger cuts of six billion
dollars to state programs were a threat tactic to voters by the Governor’s Office to support the
passage of Proposition 30. Ballot initiative proposition 30, known as “The Schools and Local
Public Safety Protection Act of 2012”, was introduced by Governor Jerry Brown with the
support of California Teachers Association, League of Women Voters, California Federation of
Teachers, California Police Chiefs Association, and California Democratic Party. Proposition 30
were temporary taxes for a seven year period to support K-12 education in California and were
put on the ballot by Governor Brown and the Legislature. Opponents placed a competing ballot
measure Proposition 38, known as “Our Children, Our Future, Local Schools and Early
Education Investment and Bond Reduction Act”, sponsored by Philanthropist Molly Munger and
the Advancement Project who were against any tax increase (EdSource, 2013).
Proposition 30, obtaining more votes than Proposition 38, was passed in the State wide
election on November 6, 2012 by a 55% to 45% vote. Due to the recent recession experienced
by the United States and especially California, this new revenue stream is a source of temporary
relief. As a result of Prop 30 passage, the Education Protection Account (EPA) was established
to apportion Prop 30 state funding as a component of a total Local Education Agency’s (LEA)
revenue (CDE, 2013).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 26
Important to note is that although the financial outlook for California is currently
improving, especially when reviewing personal income tax stability, monies from Proposition 30
are targeting the gap in funding benchmarked at 2007-2008 funding levels and are set to decrease
after four years into the funding model and end by the seventh year. Indeed, the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF) represents the largest transformation to California’s school finance
model in over forty years. This new method of funding collapses all previous categorical
program and continues to provide flexibility promoting local control. Below in Figure 1 is a
representation of the major shifts as a result of the Local Control Funding Formula (CSBA,
2013).
Figure 1 Major Shifts Made by the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
Source: Policy Brief: Impact of Local Control Funding Formula on Board Policies (CSBA, 2013)
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 27
As mentioned, the LCFF began during the 2013-2014 fiscal year and is estimated to be
phased in over an eight year period. During this time LEAs, including county office of
educations, school districts, and charter schools will each receive an LCFF Transitional
Entitlement based upon the agency’s 2012-2013 fiscal year funding level and will include funds
for changes in student population (CDE, 2013). The LCFF provides districts and charter schools
funding through a base level, supplemental, and concentration grant apportionment. Figure 1.1
below represents the average target LCFF funding amounts for school districts and charter
schools by grade level at inception and includes for the base, supplemental, and concentration
amounts (CDE, 2013).
Figure 1.1 Grade Span Funding at Full LCFF Implementation
Source: Local Control Funding Formula Overview (CDE, 2013)
Based upon these new target entitlements Districts and Charter schools serving
populations of students who are identified as an English Language Learner (ELL), Low Socio
Economic Status, or a Foster youth will experience significant increases in revenues from
supplemental and concentration grants and must use these targeted funds as outlined in Figure 1
on expanded or increased services for these students. A recent report in March 2015 from the
California Budget & Policy Center sited that California’s K-12 spending has increased $1,800
K–3 $6,845 $712 $7,557 $7,935 $8,313 $10,769
4–6 $6,947 N/A $6,947 $7,294 $7,642 $9,899
7–8 $7,154 N/A $7,154 $7,512 $7,869 $10,194
9–12 $8,289 $216 $8,505 $8,930 $9,355 $12,119
Average
Assuming 100%
Unduplicated
FRPM, EL,
Foster Youth
K–3 Class Size
Reduction and
Grades 9-12
Adjustments
Grade
Span
Base
Grant
Average
Assuming 0%
Unduplicated
FRPM, EL,
Foster Youth
Average
Assuming 25%
Unduplicated
FRPM, EL, Foster
Youth
Average
Assuming 50%
Unduplicated
FRPM, EL,
Foster Youth
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 28
more per student in the fiscal year 2014-2015 as compared to 2012-2013. Additionally,
California is now ranked 29
th
among all states and the District of Columbia; an increase from
42
nd
in spending in 2012-2013 (EdSource, 2015). As a requirement and in conjunction with the
level each district receives in supplemental and concentration grants, a Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) must be prepared and submitted to their respective County Office of
Education for review and approval. The level of spending outlined in the LCAP is referred to as
the Minimum Proportional Percentage or MPP and is the percentage of the LCFF funding
increase specific to supplemental and concentration. The LCAP, established by the State Board
of Education (SBE), is now in a second revision and contains three sections, including:
Community Engagement, Goal and progress updates, and Action and expenditures. There are
Ten State Priorities placed within three broad areas of focus known as Conditions of Learning,
Pupil Outcomes, and Community Engagement. These priorities are identified in Education Code
52060 and 52066 with the first eight targeted to Local Educational Agencies with requirements
to be included in their LCAP and the ninth and tenth priorities are the responsibility of the
County Office of Education to coordinate services for expelled pupils and foster youth.(CDE,
2013). Each of the eight broad areas for LEAs are listed below with respective priorities as
outlined in the LCAP template.
Priority 1 – Basic (Conditions of Learning): Degree to which teachers are appropriately
assigned pursuant to Education Code section 44258.9, and fully credentialed in the
subject areas and for the pupils they are teaching; pupils have access to standards-aligned
instructional materials pursuant to Education Code section 60119; and school facilities
are maintained in good repair pursuant to Education Code section 17002(d).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 29
Priority 2 - Implementation of State Standards (Conditions of Learning):
Implementation of academic content and performance standards and English language
development standards adopted by the state board for all pupils, including English
learners.
Priority 3 - Parental involvement (Community Engagement): Efforts to seek parent
input in decision making at the district and each school site, promotion of parent
participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and special need subgroups.
Priority 4 - Pupil achievement (Pupil Outcomes) : Performance on standardized tests,
score on Academic Performance Index, share of pupils that are college and career ready,
share of English learners that become English proficient, English learner reclassification
rate, share of pupils that pass Advanced Placement exams with 3 or higher, share of
pupils determined prepared for college by the Early Assessment Program.
Priority 5 - Pupil engagement (Community Engagement): School attendance rates,
chronic absenteeism rates, middle school dropout rates, high school dropout rates, high
school graduations rates.
Priority 6 - School climate (Community Engagement): Pupil suspension rates, pupil
expulsion rates, other local measures including surveys of pupils, parents and teachers on
the sense of safety and school connectedness.
Priority 7 - Course access (Conditions of Learning): Pupil enrollment in a broad course
of study that includes all of the subject areas described in Education Code section 51210
and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 30
Priority 8 - Other pupil outcomes (Pupil Outcomes): Pupil outcomes in the subject
areas described in Education Code section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of
Education Code section 51220, as applicable.
The LCFF was created to provide local control to education leaders, boards of trustees,
and communities to essentially do their best for the students they serve. Therefore, effective use
of the LCFF funding and accomplishing ambitious learning goals as outlined in the LCAP
signifies that educators must translate resources into results. The first step towards this end is to
review research that demonstrates strategies to improve student outcomes.
Research-Based Strategies for Improving Student Performance
District and school reform movements are widely studied to inform policy makers and
school leaders of research-based strategies for improving student performance, notably during a
period of increased accountability. Truly, this is a broad topic and one that continually edges at
the forefront of federal and state policy debates, however to better understand how district and
schools can most effectively and efficiently utilize the increased funding currently experienced in
California and be accountable for increased student achievement the following five research
analysis of improving student performance were examined and include, 1.) Daggett and Jones
(2008) who explore the process of change to create schools of excellence by answering the
questions Why Change? What to do?, And how to do it?, 2) Odden (2009) 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance based on case studies that provide specific strategies schools can
use to double student performance, 3) Chenoweth (2009) revealing successful high-poverty,
high-minority schools who have demonstrated high student achievement, 4.) Marzano, Waters,
and McNulty’s (2005) research on the effects of school leadership on student performance, and
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 31
5) DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many’s (2010) study of the professional learning community
model supported at the site and district levels to improve teaching and learning. A review of
these studies and meta-analysis highlights themes including, Collaboration, Leadership,
Professional Development, and Assessment and Data Decision Making as key indicators of
success in attaining or exceeding student performance targets. These same findings are woven in
the framework of the Local Control Accountability Plan and below is a discussion of each of
these themes with reference to additional research suggesting will impact school improvement
and student achievement including their incorporation into the LCAP
Excellence in Student Achievement
Daggett and Jones (2008) suggest that the skills individuals within districts and schools
need to be successful in the 21
st
Century are vastly different from those in the past and ask the
following questions including Why Change? What to Do? And How to do it? The model they
provide focuses on three principles of change 1.) Aspire for rigor, relevance, and relationships,
2.) Begin with the end in mind, 3.) Consider schools a biological system or a complex network of
relevant entities. As Daggett and Jones affirm, “This nation's fixation on preparing young people
for college, while a worthy goal, can become an impediment to achieving world-class education
standards (Daggett and Jones, 2008, pp 3)”. In other words, meaning that educators, parents, and
those who support education must prepare students for the increasingly sophisticated workplace
rather than just to be good citizens and bound for college. They further state, “The actions of
school leaders will determine the fate of schools in the 21
st
Century. In order to ensure schools
contain components of excellence including rigor, relevance, and relationships, Daggett and
Jones (2008) recommend using the following eight key educational strategies to assist in
answering the question, How to change? 1.) Embrace a common vision and goals, 2.) Inform
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 32
decisions through Data Systems, 3.) Empower leadership teams to take action and innovate, 4.)
Clarifies student learning and expectations, 5.) Adopt effective instructional practices, 6.)
Address organizational structures, 7.) Monitor progress/improve support systems, 8.) Refine the
process on an ongoing basis.
Using the components of excellence as a guide, Daggett and Jones (2008) further suggest
thirteen principles to provide educators practical and tactical direction to create change. These
include, 1.) Decide with data, not opinions, 2.) Enlist passionate people who see the possibilities,
3.) Focus on fluency in literacy, 4.) Grow staff through professional learning, 5.) Hold teams
accountable for learning results, 6.) Inspire innovative instruction as instruction matters more
than structure, 7.) Join the community to form true partnerships, 8.) Know your students, know
your strengths, no excuses, 9.) Live lofty expectations, 10.) Measure learning by proficiency,
11.) Nurture positive relationships, 12.) Offer multiple pathways to achievement, and 13.)
Prioritize the curriculum where less is more. Although these broad categories provide reasons
for change and how the processes of change can support continuous improvement, the next
section highlights Odden’s (2009) research researched based strategies for doubling student
performance.
10 Researched Based Strategies for doubling Student Achievement
Odden’s (2009) book, titled 10 research-based strategies for doubling student
performance was derived via a meta-analysis and synthesis of work of thirteen researchers
performed in schools and districts that significantly increased student achievement by strategic
allocation of resources. The major approaches districts and schools employed to make such
measurable improvements are contained in the following ten strategies. 1). Understanding the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 33
performance challenge, 2.) Setting ambitious goals, 3.) Changing the curriculum program and
creating a new instructional vision, 4.) Data based decision making using benchmarking and
formative assessment, 5.) Providing ongoing intensive professional development, 6.) Using time
efficiently and effectively, 7.) Extending learning time for struggling students, 8.) Creating
collaborative cultures and distributed leadership, 9.) Implementing professional and best
practices, and 10.) Investing in human capital.
The first strategy is understanding the performance challenge most schools encounter,
especially with large numbers of low-income and minority children and is considered the key
critical step in the organizational change process aiming to double student performance. This
strategy is best accomplished by analyzing state student test data and determining the gap
between current student achievement and desired outcomes.
The second strategy, setting ambitious goals, builds upon clearly understanding the
performance challenge and then insists that in order to double student performance, the aim, the
goal, and the outcomes need to be set at their highest level. The culture of the school must
resonate that all students, especially those from poverty, minority, and non-English speaking
backgrounds will reach their student achievement targets with the support of all personnel at the
school.
The third strategy of changing the curriculum program and creating a new instructional
vision is the prime element to focus upon and determining what can be changed. As Odden
(2009) points out, this includes many things at school including the assignment of teachers,
academic expectations, how curriculum and instruction is organized, and instructional strategies.
Odden further suggests refrain from focusing upon areas outside the control of educators
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 34
including such items as family poverty, parent involvement, the state testing system, and full
funding of No Child Left Behind. For example many districts in the study determined there were
varying programs being administered within their schools and thus created new instructional
visions with consistent textbook adoptions district-wide around reading and mathematics
exhibiting the essence of this third strategy.
The fourth strategy includes Benchmark and Formative Assessments, as well as, Data-
Based Decision Making. Although the educational community has some “push-back” to more
testing, those districts in the study that doubled student performance were found to increase in
the layers of testing by providing benchmark, formative, and summative assessments. These
provided additional information on student performance, thus guiding future instruction. A
second component of Data-Decision making is supporting teacher performance and effectiveness
providing a more consistent environment for learning by determining the degree to which there is
a variation of amongst teachers’ impact on student achievement.
Ongoing and Intensive Professional Development is the fifth strategy and is the molding
point bringing together several of the previous strategies. Effective professional development
has been found optimum when it is school-based, job-embedded, and ongoing within
departments or grade levels for a minimum of 100 hours and closer to 200 hours, if possible.
Odden (2009) reinforces the professional development should have a content focus, provide
teachers an opportunity for active learning, and include activities that promote teacher coherence
on aligning the professional development activities to student content and performance goals,
teacher evaluations, school and district goals, and an overall environment of professional
community. Certain costs are associated with implementation of this strategy and include, pupil-
free days and collaborative time during the regular school day, funds to pay for internal trainers
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 35
or external consultant/trainers, and for instructional coaches who provide in-classroom coaching
assistance. Staffing for instructional coaches is suggested to one full-time equivalent (FTE)
coach position for every 200 students in an elementary school.
The sixth strategy, Using Time Efficiently and Effectively, suggests focusing on the core
subjects at the elementary and secondary level rather than extending the school minutes stressing
better use of time. This strategy encourages maximizing the “academic learning time” (ALT),
the time most correlated to student learning. One example includes organizing students into
cross-age groups based upon reading achievement levels. Reducing class sizes to 15 students in
Kindergarten through third grade also supports ALT by reducing the number of student
disciplinary issues and is deemed that smaller groups facilitates greater development of social
relationships among teachers, students, and their families. Counter arguments to this last point
are the increased costs associated with implementation to reach the desired outcomes.
The next strategy Odden (2009) provides is extended learning time and extra-help
strategies for struggling students to learn the rigorous performance standards either during the
school day, before or after the school day, on Saturdays, or during summer school. Many of the
districts in the study used a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. Each of these offerings
needs a clear academic focus based upon the particular topic or content area each student is
struggling with. Worth noting is that most of these extra-help strategies have been funded
through a combination of federal and state categorical funds that often complicates a cohesive
implementation of interventions.
The eighth strategy entails creating a collaborative culture and distributed leadership at
the school and district level all-encompassing the previous strategies, in that, teachers, principals,
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 36
and district administration are supporting each other in a cooperative rather than bureaucratic
manner. This cohesive approach is commonly referred to as a professional learning community
whereby the schools and district worked collaboratively to create a school-wide, systematic
approach to good instructional practices, transparently supporting each other’s efforts, and taking
responsibility for student outcomes.
Next, the ninth strategy, regarded as a strategy not often explicitly exposed, is that of
seeking Professional and Best Practices. The districts and schools identified in the studies whom
doubled student performance where identified as reflective of their work for students and were
found to actively seek research evidence of how to improve schools and looked for the best
practices from other schools and districts. This strategy also empowers leaders in the studied
districts and schools to engage outside experts within their local professional learning
communities deploying the best reading, mathematics, science, and writing practices to improve
student achievement.
The tenth and final strategy, Investing in Human Capital, is the complete focus on
attracting, retaining, and managing the best teacher, principal, and district administration to carry
out strategies one through nine. The investment goes beyond managing human capital by
devoting investments to mentoring, evaluation, professional development, compensation, and
instructional leadership. Therefore, Leaders are equipped with the knowledge and skills to carry
out the improvement strategies.
Characteristics of Successful Schools
In a different approach related to the analysis of strategies to improve student
performance Karin Chenoweth, a veteran educator and an Education Trust senior writer, has
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 37
spent several years visiting schools that have successfully educated poor and minority students to
higher standards than thought possible. These schools included poor Black and Hispanic students
from schools such as George Hall Elementary in Mobile, Alabama and Graham Road
Elementary School in Falls Church Virginia whose minority demographics exceed 75% and free
and reduced lunch eligibility is above 80%. Chenoweth (2009) argues that these schools
succeeded because they ruthlessly organized themselves around helping students learn and
suggests it is as simple as figuring out what you need to teach and then you teach it. These
schools that teach teens of poverty and students of color departed from traditional patterns of
American schools by focusing on student learning, then creating structures and support for their
learning. They were successful because of their unwavering determination whereby teacher
persistence permeated the school culture to improve student achievement by focusing on
student’s background knowledge, in depth consideration of vocabulary words, thinking about
what their students know, are able to do, and deciding what more they need to learn. Teachers
are noted as discussing their classroom successes stories and teaching styles with one another
offering support to each other to replicate these teaching attributes throughout the school
(Chenoweth, 2009). These schools operated with transparency focusing on student outcomes
and embracing the necessary resources to advance student achievement. The aforementioned
research literature provides guidance on reforms to improve student performance across a district
or school through building collaborative cultures and shared leadership. Next are strategies
focused upon improving student performance through building Professional Learning
Communities.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 38
Collaboration
School improvement strategies can often be seen in the work that occurs in and around
Professional Learning Communities (PLC). Research from DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many
(2010) suggest that one of the primary ways a school can use its resources to positively improve
student performance is through collaboration within the professional learning community model
at the site and district levels. This is accomplished by providing teachers common release time
to meet within their grade levels lead by site administration. Although three ideas guide the
work of PLCs including ensuring all students learn at high levels, helping students learn requires
collaboration, and, focusing on results, DuFour, et al. (2010) argue that there are six
characteristics of successful PLCs:
1.) A focus on learning through shared mission, vision, and values
2.) A collaborative culture with a focus on learning for all
3.) Collective inquiry into best practice and current reality
4.) Action orientation: Learning by doing
5.) A commitment to continuous improvement
6.) Results orientation
The research of (DuFour, et al 2010) suggests the work of a PLC is an ongoing process in
which educators collaboratively work in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action
research to improve student outcomes. The first step characteristic “focus on learning” can
otherwise be stated as the shared vision, mission, and values. The members of the PLC create
and are guided by a clear compelling vision of what the school must become to assist all
students. The “collective culture with a focus on learning” describes the level within the PLC of
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 39
collaborative teams whose members work interdependently toward common goals. “Collective
inquiry into best practice and current reality” is the level where members of the PLC have a
heightened level of awareness about current practices and levels of achievement of their students.
Having this awareness supports the shift in attitudes, beliefs, and habits that transform the culture
of the school over time. “Action orientation: Learning by Doing” is the action step of PLCs to
implement the strategies recognizing that student outcomes will not change until the principals,
teachers, and others in the PLC move forward with reform strategies. The “Commitment to
Continuous Improvement” involves a systematic approach to gathering evidence of student
learning, responding by developing strategies to build on strengths and address weaknesses, take
action on those strategies, analyze the results, and apply the next level of knowledge for
improvement. Lastly, the PLC is results oriented; in other words, the members of the PLC
maintain that their efforts will have impact on student achievement as measured by the results of
the strategies they deliver rather than merely their intentions to participate.
Developing professional learning communities to enhance a school’s collaborative
culture includes developing common teacher planning time often within grade levels, providing
teachers additional time to meet outside of the scheduled school day or year (Odden, 2009).
Daggett and Jones (2008) concur that professional learning communities come together for
learning within a supportive community where participants interact and challenge one another’s
ideas and process new information gleaned from their encounter. Next are strategies focused
upon the impact of leadership.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 40
Leadership
Odden (2009), Daggett and Jones (2008), and (DuFour, et al 2010 focus upon building
collaborative cultures and shared leadership, research performed by Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) provides evidence to those leadership strategies within their book titled School
Leadership that Works. Leadership, is a key ingredient to improve student achievement, found
at the board of trustees, district, and at school site levels ensuring the common goals will be met.
The research suggests that leaders have the ability to determine what students need, set a clear
vision, and articulate ambitious goals (Odden 2009; Chenoweth 2009, Marzano, 2005).
Likewise leadership qualities outlined by Marzano (et.al, 2005) suggest leaders have an
awareness of the situation and based upon this awareness are flexible to respond in a way
specific to this situation. Northouse (2007) prescribes there are leadership and management
styles, however leadership is the work of adaptation and constructing change as referenced
above. Marzano (et al., 2005) were in search of the effects of school leadership on student
performance and conducted research over a 35 years period consisting of 69 studies with surveys
of more than 650 school site principals. Furthermore the meta-analysis consisted of an
estimated 14,000 teachers and 1,400,000 students, within 2,802 schools (Marzano, et al., 2005).
Findings resulted in 21 leadership responsibilities that have a significant impact on student
achievement and are represented below in Table 2.
Table 2 - 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
Responsibility The extent to which the
principal…
Average
r
Number of
Studies
Number of
Schools
Situational Awareness Is aware of the details and
undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses this
.33 5 91
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 41
information to address current
and potential problems
Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership
behavior to the needs of the
current situation and is
comfortable with descent
.28 6 277
Discipline Protects teachers from issues
and influences that would
detract from their teaching
time or focus
.27 12 437
Monitoring/Evaluation Monitors the effectiveness of
school practices and their
impact on student learning
.27 31 1129
Outreach Is an advocate and
spokesperson for the school
to all stakeholders
.27 14 478
Change Agent Is willing to and actively
challenges the status quo
.25 6 466
Culture Fosters shared beliefs and a
sense of community and
cooperation
.25 15 809
Input Involves teachers in the design
and implementation of important
decisions and policies
.25 16 669
Knowledge or
Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices
.25 10 368
Order Establishes a set of standard
operating procedures and
routines
.25 17 456
Resources Provides teachers with materials
and professional development
necessary for the successful
execution of their jobs
.25 17 571
Contingent Rewards Recognizes and rewards
individual accomplishments
.24 9 465
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 42
Focus Establishes clear goals and keeps
those goals in the forefront of the
school's attention
.24 44 1619
Intellectual Stimulation Ensures that faculty and staff are
aware of the most current
theories and practices and makes
the discussion of these a regular
aspect of the school's culture
.24 4 302
Communication Establishes strong lines of
communication with teachers
and among students
.23 11 299
Ideal Beliefs Communicates and operates
from strong ideals and beliefs
about schooling
.22 7 513
Involvement in
Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment
Is directly involved in the design
and implementation of
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices
.20 23 826
Visibility Has quality contact and
interactions with teachers and
students
.20 13 477
Optimizer Inspires and leads new
challenging innovations
.20 17 724
Affirmation Recognizes and celebrates
school accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
.19 6 332
Relationships Demonstrates an awareness
of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
.18 11 505
Source: School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty 2005)
Consequently, the five highest correlated leadership responsibilities to improve student
achievement are situational awareness, flexibility, discipline, monitoring/evaluation, and
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 43
outreach (Marzano et al., 2005). Worth noting is the highest correlated leadership attribute is
situational awareness referring to the principal’s awareness of the details and undercurrents in
the running of the school and relies upon this information to address problems, current and
future. Although these five contain the highest correlation, Marzano (Marzano et al., 2005)
cautions twenty of the twenty one responsibilities, or 95 percent, are correlated between .18 and
.28 often demonstrating the importance of each within a specific rank order.
Beyond the attributes of a great leader as outlined by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty
(2005) are those presented in Jim Collin’s (2001) book “Good to Great”, where Collins and his
colleagues conducted research on more than 1,435 fortune 500 companies. Collins defines the
difference between “effective leaders” who catalyze commitment to vision and standards and
“executive leaders” who can build enduring greatness. In other words and from an educational
perspective, the main mark of superintendents and principals during their tenure at a district or
school site is to impact the bottom line of student achievement by how many good leaders they
leave behind who can go even further. Additionally, Collins is known for his metaphor of who
to have on your team and compares this to a leader who knows “who to have on the bus and who
needs to get off”. In other words, the leader must be selective in his or her team and always
monitoring their direction (Collins, 2001). These key leadership qualities, characteristics,
responsibilities, and traits may assist leaders in their quest to improve student achievement
combined with the research-based strategies as presented by Odden (2003) and Daggett and
Jones (2008).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 44
Professional Development
The research of Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) assert that professional
development opportunities for teachers are the most frequently mentioned resources of
effectively functioning schools. Moreover Daggett and Jones (2008) suggest that professional
learning evolves from multiple forms of ongoing professional development opportunities.
Accordingly, Odden (2009) suggests ongoing intensive professional development by allocating
funds towards providing time for teachers during duty free days, funds to hire trainers,
instructional coaches, and facilitators. Through the assistance of internal and external funding
resources, districts can channel financial resources to ensure principal and teacher leader
trainings are made available. Equally important, MacIver and Farley (2003) suggest that
effective teacher strategies influence student achievement, including: Mentoring programs for
new teachers, professional development linked to specific curriculum and textbooks, providing
teacher instruction from highly qualified coaches, time for teachers to observe master teachers,
and instruction in how to use data from classroom assessments to improve instruction. During an
era of change and transparency, districts and charters will be held accountable for how funds are
spent and results from student outcomes, as such ongoing professional development will be
essential to understand the new methods of designing instructional programs and techniques the
support implementation of Common Core Curriculum and building a culture of inquiry.
Assessment and Data Decision Making
The Local Control Accountability Plan has redefined accountability through the
implementation of the LCAP requiring districts and school sites to maintain data on student
demographics, mobility, assessments, and discipline. Recent discussions at the California State
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 45
Board of Education suggest that the Academic Performance Index (API) will not be relied upon
solely for student performance rather several metrics to measure student performance as outlined
by in an EdSource (2014) article titled “Preparing new teachers to implement reforms”, including
graduation rates, rates of absenteeism, reclassification of English Learners, and passage of
Advanced Placement exams including a myriad of other data points that may be required to
measure student performance and progress. Increased accountability over such data will likely
require hiring additional staff to gather, prepare and provide information to stakeholders
including business and community members, parents, and students for review and engagement.
Additionally, such data will need to be transparent and presented in a simplified non-educational
fashion.
A literature review by Duke (2006) reviewed five studies of school turnarounds,
published between 1999 and 2004, to determine their commonalities for improving student
achievement. As a result of the review 11 key elements at least six of these eleven elements
were found in four of the five studies and closely correlate to strategies found in Odden (2009)
and Chenoweth (2009). Duke describes how Data-driven Decision Making refers to the way
decisions within a school setting need to be focused upon instruction and further suggests student
learning can best be measured through data analysis of formative assessments confirming
whether a particular topic has been learned. Odden (2009) concurs and suggests providing
benchmark, formative, and summative assessments to ensure there are multiple measures of
student work. Finally, Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007) affirm that data are used to inform
decisions at all levels ensuring system goals are accomplished through alignment of resources
and efforts as part of the process of continuous improvement.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 46
Summary
The reoccurring themes through the literature exhibit leadership strategies found in
district and school level, collaboration amidst all educational stakeholders, offerings of
professional development for continuous improvement, and decision making based upon
assessment data. Historically, education finance has remained constant, accountability has
increased and both the federal and state governments have controlled and restricted how funds
are spent for the purpose of improving student achievement. As a result of the LCFF many
California Districts will see the highest increases in annual funding ever experienced and these
same districts may be seeing significant reductions in federal Title I funding as a result of
proposed federal policy changes. This could equate to upwards of 10% reductions beginning in
the 2015-2016 (EdSource, 2015). Therefore it is vitally important that districts and schools
adequately allocate and deploy the most effective and efficient use of resources in correlation
with the above reference strategies. In light of these strategies we find the need to demonstrate
how funds are spent not by object and function as in the past, but at the school level through
educational programs and strategies as outlined in each local education agency’s LCAP.
Successful resource allocation
Effective resource allocation is at the core of recent transformative changes in education
accountability (LCAP) and revenues distribution (LCFF) in California to improve student
achievement. This study aims to close the performance gap in student achievement and thus
effective allocation of resources becomes instrumental to student learning. This section provides
an overview of adequacy in education funding, Strategic Management of Human Resource
Capital, Resource use at the school site level, and the Evidence-Based Model Approach.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 47
Adequacy
Odden and Picus (2014) suggest that over several decades revenues have increased
however these new monies have not been used effectively to impact student performance. With
the onset of standards based reform (Odden and Picus 2014, Adams, 2010), transparency and
accountability for more effective spending is at the forefront of educational reform to improve
student achievement. Revenue distributions once focused on equity however in recent decades
have transitioned to adequacy. From this shift, attentions are refocused from resource inputs to
academic outcomes and have resulted as being an effective approach to challenge school funding
systems. Odden and Picus (2014) suggest four methods to determine adequate expenditure
levels. These include the Professional Judgment Approach, Successful District Approach, the
Cost Function approach, and the Evidence-Based Model.
1. The professional judgement approach focuses upon groups or teams or educators
solicited by their district and/or school for effective school wide strategies. Inquiries
of individuals include which strategies they believe are most effective and then
assigning a cost to these strategies.
2. The successful district approach calculates the cost of an adequate education based
upon schools identified as being successful through review of resource inputs, student
test scores, and other outcome measures. Furthermore, this approach is dependent on
the availability of selected data points to support conclusions and where sufficient
data exist, studies can be easily manipulated to produce desired results (Odden and
Picus, 2014, Odden, 2003, Rebell 2007).
3. The cost function approach attempts to determine how much a particular school
district would need to spend relative to an average district to meet certain
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 48
performance targets focused upon the school districts’ characteristics and student
body. This approach requires extensive statewide data with analysis on both the
current and average spending levels for districts of different characteristics serving
differing student populations. (Rebell, 2007).
4. The Evidence-Based approach, also referred to as the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
uses research or other research-based strategies, costing them out, and then
aggregating them to determine the adequate level of expenditures necessary at the
school, district, or state level. Additionally the EBM is considered a statistical model
for prioritizing these researched-based strategies based upon spending patterns at both
the district and school levels while comparing their alignment to that of the district or
school (Odden and Picus, 2014). This approach has been used to calculate adequate
levels of spending in many states located outside of California during recent years.
Strategic Management of Human Resource Capital
Odden’s (2009) book on 10 strategies for doubling student performance provides the
tenth strategy of Strategic Management of Human Capital (SMHC). Note, this strategy will also
be discussed further within the Evidence-Based Model and as a component of Odden and Picus’s
(2014) recommendation to redesign teacher salary structures to incentivize pay and linking them
toward educational goals. Odden (2009) suggests in order to implement educational
improvement strategies, Districts must focus their efforts on attracting high quality teachers to
serve their high-poverty, high-needs schools, that limit their abilities to improve instruction and
student learning. Strategic Management of Human Capital (SMHC) As a result of the national
report that emerged in 2008 (Odden & Kelly, 2008) to explore the problems of attracting the best
and brightest into teaching, address shortages in full-time teachers to Urban schools serving said
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 49
student populations, to address high teacher turnover, explore high cost professional
development systems that leave little impact on instructional practice and often avert
core subjects matters, and review compensation systems to pay for the factors not linked to
student learning gains. School districts across the America spend most of their budgets on
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 50
teacher and administrator compensation through salary and benefits. In table 2.1 the combined
instruction and administrative percentage historically equates to about sixty percent.
For instance, in 1989-1990 the combined percentage of these two was 61.1% and in
2010-2011 remained close at 59.9%. With this high level of cost to a district, Odden (2009)
suggests, first recruit the top talent and secondly develop them. The study of by Odden and
Kelly (2008) of SMHC was not limited to teachers, instead suggested top talent was necessary at
all levels in human resources including top district leadership, positions in the central office,
school site leadership, and again instruction leadership for every classroom and teaching context.
The second component of the SMHC focuses upon the strategic management of human
resources. This second area includes aspects such as recruitment, screening, selection,
placement, induction, professional development, evaluation, and finally compensation and
instructional leadership promotion (Odden and Kelly, 2008). Next school level resources are
explored as this is a growth area in understanding how best strategies are implemented through
resource allocation.
School Level Resources
During the mid-1990s interest and speculation at the national level raised concerns about
how school funds, particularly the amounts spent on administration led Congress to require the
National Center on Education Statistics (NCES) to prepare a pilot study yielding information on
spending for administration at the school and agency levels . The unintended implications of this
study, encompassing two states Texas and Ohio, provided school level finance data enhancing
district-level analysis of different functions and across programs within a state (NCES, 1996).
More recently, Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) provided for a new school
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 51
expenditure structure in an attempt to address the shortcomings of the existing fiscal reporting at
that time. There were three purposes to the structure and include, reporting school-level
expenditures, differentiation of spending of multiple educational units within a single school
building to reflect new schools within schools, and the categories expenditures by expenditure
elements that reflect current thinking about it effective instructional strategies and resourced
deployment. More recently the structure has been updated by the work of Odden and Picus
(2014) providing relevant naming and categorization of expenditure structure and resource
indicators as provided below in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 - School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Resource Indicators
Student enrollment Length of class periods
Percent low-income Length of reading class
Percent special-education Length of mathematics class
Percent ESL/LEP Reading class size
Expenditures per pupil Mathematics class size
Professional development expenditures per teacher Regular class size
Special academic focus of school/unit Percent core teachers
Length of instructional day
School Expenditures Structure: Instructional
1. Core academic teachers
- Grade-level teachers
- English/reading/language arts
- History/social studies
- Math
- Science
- Foreign language
2. Specialist and elective teachers/planning and preparation
- Art, music, physical education, etc.
- Academic focus with or without special funding
- Vocational
- Driver education
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 52
School Expenditures Structure: Instructional (Continued)
3. Extra help
- Tutors
- Extra help labs
- Resource rooms (Title I, Special education, or other part-day pullout programs)
- Inclusion teachers
- English as a Second Language classes
4. Professional development
- Special education self-contained classes for severely disabled students (Including
aides)
- Extended-day
- Summer school
- District initiated alternative programs
5. Other Non-Classroom instructional staff
- Coordinators and teachers on special assignment
- Librarians
- Instructional aides
6. Instructional tools and equipment
- Supplies, materials, and equipment
- Computers (Hardware, software, peripherals)
School Expenditures Structure: Non-instructional
7. Student support services
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social workers
- Extracurricular and athletics
8. Administration
- Principal/assistant principal
- Clerical staff and supplies
9. Operations and maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service
______________________________________________________________________________
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 53
(Source: Adapted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross 2003)
Listed above in Table 2.2 Odden and Picus (2014) have outlined six instructional
categories and three non-instructional categories. To further clarify this structure instructional
categories include the core academic teachers section of this table and would include licensed
classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching schools core academic subjects.
Furthermore, the specialists and elective teacher component would include for licensed teachers
to teach and non-core academic classes providing planning and preparation time for the core
teachers. More specifically, the extra help category provides for a wide variety of strategies
designed to assist struggling students for students with special needs through the assistance of a
licensed teacher. Odden and Picus (2014) Suggest the reform focused on the use of resources
needs to be conceptualized by concentrating on instructional functions spending and within a
school improvement framework. For this reason, Odden and Picus (2014) developed the
Evidence-Based adequacy model and is discussed further in the next section.
Evidence-Based Model
Odden, Picus, Goetz (2010) provide an in-depth review of an Evidence Based Model
(EBM) to achieve school finance adequacy. The EBM focuses upon student characteristics of
each individual state while using two different price comparisons, including the national average
teacher salaries and the individual state teachers’ salaries per pupil cost. Odden, Picus, Goetz
(2010) referring to education under No Child Left Behind Act 2001 state, “The question of how
much it costs to educate students to state performance standards has been at the forefront of
educational policy discussions in all 50 states (Odden and Picus, pg. 628).” The research of
Odden, Picus, Goetz (2010) is an increasing amount of work built on prior research that suggests
on a national basis the evidence based approach is approximately nine percent higher than
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 54
current K12 education spending (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2008). Odden and Picus define
adequacy as, “providing a level of resources to schools that will enable them to make substantial
improvements in student performance over the next four to six years as progress towards
ensuring all, or almost all students meet their state performance standards (Odden and Picus
2009, pg. 630).” Figure 2 represents the effect size as outlined in the EBM.
Figure 2 – Estimated Effect Sizes of Major Recommendations
Recommended Program Effect Size
Full Day Kindergarten 0.77
Class Size of 15 in Grades K-3
Overall
Low income and Minority Students
0.25
0.50
Multi-age classrooms
Multi-grade Classrooms
Multi-age Classrooms
-0.1 to 0.0
0.0 to 0.50
Professional Development with Classroom
Instructional Coaches
1.25 to 2.70
Tutoring, 1-1 0.4 to 2.5
English-Language Learners 0.45
Extended-Day Programs
No consistent impact
due to variation in
program focus and quality
Structured Academic Focused Summer school 0.45
Embedded Technology 0.30 to 0.38
Gifted and Talented
Accelerated Instruction or Grade Skipping
Enrichment Programs
0.5 to 1.0
0.4 to 0.7
Source: Odden et al., 2005
The effective size listed above is representative of what the Evidence-Based Model
suggests is the engagement level of activities that will have the most significant impact on
student achievement. These program levels each represent a positive effect size towards student
achievement and support the use of the Evidence-Based Model for this study. The Evidence
Based Model is therefore not just a funding model but a framework providing a focus for a
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 55
rigorous liberal arts education, for high quality leaders and teachers, tutoring for students, and is
responsive to the federal and state accountability system pressures (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Below is Figure 2.1 is a graphic representation of the Evidence-Based Model.
Figure 2.1 – The Evidence Based Model
Source: (Odden and Picus, 2008)
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM), in Figure 2.1 above, identifies a cohesive set of
school-level resources required to deliver a comprehensive and high-quality instructional
program within a school while describing the research-based evidence on their individual and
collective effectiveness. Furthermore, the EBM is based upon three sources of evidence used to
identify a set a resources for prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools. These include:
1) Research with randomized assignment to the treatment, 2) Research with other types of
controls or statistical procedures that can help separate the impact of a treatment, and 3) Best
practices either as codified in a comprehensive school design or from studies of schools that have
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 56
dramatically improved student learning (Odden and Picus, 2014). Moreover, Adams (2010)
suggests, the work of Odden, Goetz, and Picus contributes to an emerging line of work of
estimating the cost of an “adequate” education and one that provides programs and strategies for
districts and schools to deploy, enabling all students to perform up to standards.
Below in Table 2.3 is a listing of prototypical recommendations for each type of school,
including elementary, middle, and high schools. The recommended levels of each prototype
reflect research on the most effective school sizes and are designed to be proportionally
increased or reduced based upon the school’s enrollment compared to the model. The research
suggests schools that are the most effective and efficient generally have enrollments of 400 to
600 for elementary schools and 500 to 1,000 for secondary.
Table 2.3 - Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6–8 9–12
Prototypic school size 450 450 600
Class size K-3: 15 25 25
4–5: 25
Full-day kindergarten Yes NA NA
Number of teacher work days 200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
200 teacher work
days, including 10
days for intensive
training
% disabled 12% 12% 12%
% poverty (free and 50% 50% 50%
reduced-price lunch)
% ELL 10% 10% 10%
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 57
% minority 30% 30% 30%
Table 2.3 (Continued)
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more: 8.0
3. Instructional
facilitators/mentors
2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
5. Teachers for ELL students Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.43
Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.45
Additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.60
6. Extended-day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer school 1.8 1.875 2.5
8a. Learning and mildly
disabled students
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions
Additional 4
professional
teacher positions
8b. Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds
9. Teachers for gifted students $25/student $25/student $25/student
10. Vocational education NA NA No extra cost
11. Substitutes 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11
12. Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
1 for every 100 poverty
students plus 1.0
guidance/250 students:
3.25
1 for every 100
poverty students
plus 1.0
guidance/250
students: 5.4
13. Non-instructional aides 2.0 2.0 3.0
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 58
14. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian
1.0 library
technician
Table 2.3 (Continued) - Personnel Resources
15. Principal 1 1 1
16. School site secretary 2.0 2.0 3.0
17. Professional development Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning and prep time
10 summer days
Additional: $100/pupil
for other PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning and prep time
10 summer days
Additional: $100/pupil
for other PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional
coaches Planning
and prep time 10
summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
18. Technology $250/pupil $250/pupil $250/pupil
19. Instructional materials $140/pupil $140/pupil $175/pupil
20. Student activities $200/pupil $200/pupil $250/pupil
(Source: Adapted from Odden & Picus, 2014)
The evidence-based model continues to expand its’ influence towards finance reform and
has been used to evaluate state education funding in Kentucky, Arkansas, Arizona, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Illinois, Washington, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Wyoming (Odden and Picus,
2014). In 1997 Wyoming’s state school funding model was deemed unconstitutional by the
Wyoming Supreme Court as a result of Campbell County v. State of Wyoming, yet by 2001 with
improvements to the core funding model and costing out of resources, the Wyoming Supreme
Court found the model as constitutional, with exception to some individual components (Picus,
et al, 2008). During the next two years additional improvements were made to the funding
model and implemented by 2002-2003 including a requirement by Wyoming legislature that the
funding model by recalibrated every five years. To ensure compliance with this requirement, a
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 59
team was employed to recalibrate the Wyoming cost-based model. As a result, the teams’
recommendations, using the Evidence-Based Model, were established into law for a period of
four years, beginning with the 2006-2007 school year. The EBM focused upon school level
resources following an increase in Wyoming’s education funding and a report analysis of the
implementation was provided the Wyoming legislature in 2008. Findings reported at each the
elementary, middle, and high school level indicated fewer employment of core and specialized
teachers at each level compared to the model. Middle Schools and High Schools were noted as
employing significantly more specialist or elective teachers than the model recommends.
Additionally, significant number of instructional aides and special education inclusion aides were
found above the recommendations of the model. Worth noting is that Wyoming exceeds per
student spending compared to what the EBM adequacy model suggests. Furthermore, data
suggests during the first three years of implementing the model in a school-based manner,
districts that closely followed the model experienced larger increases in student performance
(Odden, Picus, Goetz, 2009). More recently, the Evidence-Based model was used for
recalibration of North Dakota’s expenditure per student number for the School Foundation
Program enacted by the 2013 Legislature for the state’s school finance formula (Odden, Picus,
Goetz, 2014).
In summary, California public school districts are currently experiencing one of their
greatest revenue increases from the passage of Proposition 30 and a growing economy. The
feasibility that funding is adequate as compared to the EBM is yet to be determined, however is
more likely now that funding has increased through the LCFF and the improvement of the
economy. California districts and schools will evaluate the effectiveness of their current
practices while deciding which programs and services to add or restore since the recent
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 60
recession. Therefore effective resource allocation, during a period of historic revenues, will be
essential to increase student performance. Although there are several common areas within the
LCAP and the Evidence-Based Model that could be compared, those referenced in the
reoccurring themes in the literature will be the focus of this study. Using the Evidence-Based
Model as a guide, districts can compare the similarities that exist between the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) and the Evidence-Based Model. The next section of this chapter
reviews the literature on the Gap Analysis process.
Gap Analysis
A gap analysis as outlined by Clarke and Estes (2008) provides the framework and
process used to analyze the gap of how resources are allocated within the Evidence-Base Model
(Odden and Picus, 2014) compared to the study district’s allocation of resources at district and
school site levels, including those resources outlined in the Local Control Accountability Plan
(LCAP). The goal of the gap analysis, referred to as performance gaps, identifies the difference
between the intended outcome and the actual results. Clarke and Estes (2008) inform there are
three critical causes of performance gaps including knowledge, motivation, and organizational
causes.
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge and skills gaps are present as people are often unaware pf their own lack of
knowledge and skills or are reluctant to disclose their weaknesses. Moreover knowledge and
skills gaps can also be a result of poor communication or if result of withholding information.
As it relates to the study, the knowledge and skills refers to those that must be present by those
individuals within the study district to close the gap between the current human resource
allocations of the study district compared with that of the Evidence-Based model.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 61
Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that motivational gaps are more complex than knowledge
gaps simply because of their familiarity to limited performance specialist. However in general
these motivational gaps are a result of internal and psychological process that inhibits people to
keep going and moving to complete our jobs or functions. Inversely, Motivational influences
include three aspects of our work and private lives including 1) Choosing to work towards a
goal, 2) Persisting at the goal until achieved, and 3) The level of mental investment used to
accomplish the task.
Organizational Barriers
Organizational barriers are often more apparent and refer to the lack of funding,
structures, and resources as a reflection of what is and is not working well. These barriers often
are bureaucratic in nature and inhibit the ability of the organization to progress towards or close
the targeted gap. This study will analyze the organizational barriers including funding, process
or procedures that inhibit the strategic alignment of expenditures towards organizational goals.
In this study, two gaps will be analyzed including, 1) Human resource allocation district wide
compared to that of the EBM and, 2) a comparison of the study district’s LCAP compared to the
resource allocation as recommended in the EBM will be
Summary of the literature
Bridging research, theory, and practice takes times, effort, and is necessary in order to
effect positive change for student achievement. In order to maximize student learning,
leadership within districts and schools must research, discuss, and pursue promising practices
found in effective school organizations, compare these to their respective practices, and create
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 62
the necessary change to ensure students succeed by graduating high school and prepared to enter
into college or a career. This section synthesized the research on the research-based strategies
that have demonstrated significant gains in student achievement and as the foundation of this
study, information provided on research-based strategies for improving student performance will
inform education leaders on key areas when determining how to adequately allocate resources.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 63
Chapter 3: Methodology
The focus of this study is to collect and evaluate data from the Porterville Unified School
District determining the impact of how the district receives its revenues from the Local Control
Funding Formula and to research the extent to which the district is allocating resources through
the District budget and Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) aligned with research-based
strategies at district and school levels compared to best practices suggested by research. The
frameworks used in this study include the Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2014) and
the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
The EBM provides a design for allocation and reallocation of resources to most
effectively use the increased revenues currently being experienced by the district to improve
student performance. Comparisons will be made between the Evidence-Based Model and the
actual allocation of human resources at the district and school level in the study district assessing
how the district leverages increased budgets. As described in Chapter 2, Odden’s (2009) book,
titled 10 research-based strategies for doubling student performance was derived via a meta-
analysis and synthesis of work of thirteen researchers performed in schools and districts that
significantly increased student achievement by strategic allocation of resources. These strategies
provide a framework to determine if and how the schools throughout the district are effectively
implementing which strategies. The major approaches districts and schools employed to make
such measurable improvements are highlighted in the following ten strategies. 1). Understanding
the performance challenge, 2.) Setting ambitious goals, 3.) Changing the curriculum program and
creating a new instructional vision, 4.) Data based decision making using benchmarking and
formative assessment, 5.) Providing ongoing intensive professional development, 6.) Using time
efficiently and effectively, 7.) Extending learning time for struggling students, 8.) Creating
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 64
collaborative cultures and distributed leadership, 9.) Implementing professional and best
practices, and 10.) Investing in human capital. This chapter details the methodology, research
questions, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis for this
study.
Overview of the Methodology
This is a mixed method study of the Porterville Unified School District and all of its
schools. Creswell (2009) suggests a mixed method study is one that incorporates both
quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data to be gathered for this analysis will
consist of both district and individual school level expenditures, including those presented in the
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The qualitative data will represent the story of how
those expenditures are actually utilized in practice from the district and school site levels.
Research Questions
The study focused on the following questions
1) How has California’s school funding environment changed the revenues available to the
school district?
2) How is the district choosing to use these new resources?
3) How can resources be reallocated to align with research based strategies to improve
student achievement?
Sample and Population
The Porterville Unified School District is the study district selected due to the
geographic location and it’s culturally diverse demographics in kindergarten through twelfth
grades demonstrating high numbers of students who are considered English Language Learners
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 65
(ELLs) or are from low socioeconomic status across the district. The knowledge of the district’s
administrative staff will aid this study with their experience of similar dissertations lending to the
comprehensive support for data gathering, data analysis, and time for interviews. The study will
utilize a purposeful sample of the school district and the twenty schools within its oversight and
examine the district wide increases in funding levels resulting from the implementation of the
Local Control Funding Formula. Furthermore, expenditures based upon the entire district’s
budget, including those presented within the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) will be
examined focusing upon the district’s responsibility for allocation of resources.
Overview of the District
Porterville Unified School District (PUSD) is located in the San Joaquin Valley in Tulare
County, in the eastern part of California’s Central Valley encompassing 3,000 square miles.
PUSD unified almost 15 years ago between the Porterville Elementary School District
established in 1862 and the Porterville High School District established in 1896 and currently has
an enrollment of 14,109 students at an 82.55% free-reduced rate, including English Language
Learners. The district has two child development programs, 10- K-6 elementary schools, 3
middle schools, 4 traditional high schools, a school of choice for home-based instruction, 1
Dependent Charter High School, 1 Independent Study High School, and an Adult Education
Program. PUSD has 14 feeder districts, 622 certificated employees, and 560 classified
employees. A listing of the district schools are found below in Table 3.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 66
Table 3 – Porterville Unified School District - listing of school sites
Porterville Unified School District (2015)
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The study is conducted as an independent dissertation. The researcher was guided in
methods of gathering data using interview protocols, data analysis techniques, and case study
preparation. Moreover, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval will be sought after
approval of the qualification exam. Patton (2002) confirms that combinations of data collection
through observation, document analysis, and interviewing reveals different aspects of an
empirical reality, thus providing more useful material to support the study. The purpose for
instrumentation is to obtain valid answers to research questions through triangulation of collected
data from resource allocations, district and school documents, and from interviews.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 67
Resource Allocations
Resource allocations will be obtained through use of data entry and analysis protocols
using the Resource Gap Analysis Tool focused upon district and school site human resource
allocations and other educational related resources including professional development,
technology, and instructional materials (Odden and Picus, 2014). The model allows the
researcher to input staffing allocations based on what the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008) suggests and generates results for the researcher’s desired allocation. For each
school within the district a gap analysis will be performed where the Evidence Based Model’s
recommendations compare current practices incorporating these into the Local Control
Accountability Plan. All sited-based human resource expenditures will be input into a database
to generate funding recommendations as recommended by the Evidence-Based Model.
Furthermore, the model will assist the researcher in the gap analysis by providing three
measurement outcomes, including: 1) the current resource allocation by the district and schools
compared to desired allocations, 2) current allocations compared to recommendations of the
Evidence Based Model, and 3) the researcher’s desired allocation compared to that of the
Evidence Based Model. Using this tool, the researcher provided recommended personnel
resource allocations supported by researched based strategies compared to the current resource
allocations of the Porterville Unified School District.
Interviews
The study will include interviews with district administration and board member
to gather data regarding district mission, vision, goals, and instructional practices. During the
summer of 2015, the district Superintendent for the Porterville Unified School District was
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 68
contacted by the researcher and requested the district’s participation in this research
study. The researcher and Superintendent met in May to discuss necessary data for the study and
level of commitment. The researcher received approval of the superintendent for his
participation and that of other district level administration for interviews. The researcher will
seek answers to research questions regarding information as to how decisions are made to
allocate resources at the district and school levels. Other district level administrators will include
the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services and the Assistant Superintendent of
Instructional Services. Finally, a recently retired long-standing board member has been
recommended and selected by the Superintendent for an interview to provide an unbiased
perspective on the board’s role of governance and input regarding resource allocation for the
district and school sites.
Documents Review
The document review will include specific documents to validate whether current
allocation patters were in alignment with the district’s mission and vision. Additionally,
document gathering will assist the researcher to identify areas for reallocation of resources to
increase student achievement. Documents to be reviewed will include the district’s mission and
visions statements, adopted budget and interim reports for the prior and current years, the Local
Control Accountability Plan including community meetings and LCAP survey results. Other
artifacts to be reviewed will include California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADs) data, bargaining agreements, School Site Plans for Student Achievement, School
Accountability Report Cards, master schedules, bell schedules, and staff rosters.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 69
Data Analysis
The data analysis will occur immediately after data collection and will be analyzed to
provide answers to each of the studies three questions. This section details each research
questions and describes the statistical techniques that will be used to analyze the data. These are
organized in the order of the study’s three questions.
The first research question was how has California’s school funding environment
changed the revenues available to the school district? This will be answered by reviewing and
analyzing the Local Control Funding Formula calculation and specifically the details supporting
the calculations for the Porterville Unified School District, including all schools within it’s per
view. Details of the calculation include student demographics reported to the CALPAD system;
class sizes in grades kindergarten through third grade, and grade level span funding amounts.
The second question determines how the district is choosing to use these new resources?
This question will be answered by using the strategic budgeting tool of the Evidence-Based
Model demonstrating the recommended allocation of human resources at the district and school
levels. Additional information obtained through interviews, district budgets, and the Local
Control Accountability Plan will assist in triangulating of analyzed data.
The third question focuses upon how resources can be reallocated to align with research
based strategies to improve student achievement. This question will be answered by using the
gap analysis as presented by Clark & Estes (2008) as the conceptual framework. The EBM
provides a design for allocation and reallocation of resources to most effectively use the
increased revenues currently being experienced in California to improve student performance.
Comparisons were made between the Evidence-Based Model and the actual allocation of human
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 70
resources at the district and school level in the study district assessing how the district leverages
increased budgets.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the methodology of this study, outlined the
three research questions this study focused upon, reviewed the sample and population, and
specified the instrumentation and data collection process. The findings of this study are
discussed in Chapter 4 including recommendations, and conclusion with summary of the study
are presented in Chapter 5.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 71
Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate data from the Porterville Unified
School District to determine how the district uses the revenues it receives through the Local
Control Funding Formula and to understand the extent to which the district is allocating
resources using research-based strategies for district and school improvement using the Local
Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). This chapter reports the study’s findings beginning with
an overview of the school district. The second section presents the findings to answer the three
research questions:
1) How has California’s school funding environment changed the revenues available to the
school district?
2) How is the district using these new resources?
3) How can resources be reallocated to align with research-based strategies to improve
student achievement?
The final section of this chapter presents a discussion of the findings and recommendations.
Overview of the Porterville Unified School District
Porterville Unified School District (PUSD) is located in the San Joaquin Valley in Tulare
County, in the eastern part of California’s Central Valley encompassing 3,000 square miles.
PUSD unified almost 15 years ago combining the Porterville Elementary School District,
established in 1862, and the Porterville High School District, established in 1896. The unified
district currently has an enrollment of 14,109 students with an 82.55% free-reduced rate,
including English Language Learners. The district has two child development programs, 10
elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 4 traditional high schools, a school of choice for home-
based instruction, 1 Dependent Charter High School, 1 Independent Study High School, and an
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 72
Adult Education Program. PUSD has 14 feeder elementary districts which contribute to the
large number of high school students compared to its elementary school enrollment. The
district’s children are served by 622 certificated teachers and 560 classified employees. A list of
the district schools including grade level, enrollment totals, and demographic data is found below
in Table 4.
Table 4 - Porterville Unified School District School Enrollment and Demographics data
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 73
The District has a seven-member board maintaining a long history of stability among its
members. Effective communications and trust are present between the board and district
leadership. Furthermore, PUSD administration meets monthly for one-half day with all
principals and other school site administration, known as the Joint District Administration
Committee (JDAC) to discuss district initiatives, curriculum, instruction, business, and other
information common to all school sites. During the 2011-2012 school year, the PUSD
administration, along with support of the Board of Trustees, principals, teachers, parents, and
community members, defined the mission, vision, and expected graduate outcomes for the
district as listed below.
Vision
Our Vision: PUSD students will have the skills and knowledge to be prepared for college
and career and to make a positive impact in a dynamic global society.
Mission
Our Mission: The mission of PUSD is to provide students a dynamic, engaging and effective
educational experience that prepares them with the skills to be productive citizens in a global
society.
Expected Graduate Outcomes:
As a result, all students will develop and demonstrate:
Critical thinking and problem solving skills
Cultural awareness and the ability to collaborate with diverse groups
Technical skills in digital media applications and information management
Effective communication skills of listening, speaking and writing
Creativity and innovation
Leadership, self-management and organizational skills obtained through real world
applications and community involvement
Adaptability, responsibility and ethical behaviors
The ability to navigate the global world of work and further their education
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 74
In 2006, the PUSD Board and District administration embarked on a new education
endeavor through the building of a small charter high school hosting an engineering and
performing arts pathway. In 2009, Porterville Unified School District was the recipient of a $1
million grant from the James Irvine Foundation to expand this work by developing a district-
wide system of career themed pathways and PUSD established nine “open choice” pathways
within the past 3 years. The pathway programs have received an additional $1 million in 2011 to
continue this work of creating exciting opportunities for our students, business and community
partners, and parents to create real world experiences. As part of this career technical education
and college ready movement, Porterville Unified accepted the responsibility, in July 2010, to
administer the Tulare County Organization for Vocational Education (TCOVE) / Regional
Occupation Program (ROP) that includes 10 participating high school districts within Tulare
County.
Recently, the district accepted the role of linked-learning mentor district to six other school
districts within the Tulare-Kings county region. More recently in 2015-2016, the district is
supporting the initial year of planning for three new pathways to be included as “open choice”
beginning in school year 2017-2018. These include the Academy of Hospitality and Tourism,
Academy of Careers in Education, and Academy of Environmental Sciences. Consequently,
PUSD has initiated a coalition of community members, known as the “P8 Coalition” primarily
consisting of members from local businesses, community college, various city departments,
including finance, police, and fire, chamber of commerce, and other community members
functioning in an advisory capacity to the superintendent and board of education. The coalition
works to rally support from the community for the PUSD Pathways and Linked Learning
approach. The efforts of administration, board of trustees, teachers, classified support staff,
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 75
business partners, and community, have brought State and National recognition to the district
and its progress toward student achievement.
The description of the district’s demographics, student achievement levels, culture of
board and administration, and accomplishments in development and sustainability in the areas of
linked learning pathways is intended to provide relevant background information to assist with
interpretation of the answers to this study’s research questions. These questions and study
findings are examined in the next section.
Introduction of the Findings
This section provides a discussion of the study findings for each of the research
questions. The research questions were answered using data through interviews with district
administration, data collected from the district financial system, information from obtained from
district human resource financial software, data from the California Department of Education
via Ed-Data resource, and use of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) tool. The EBM tool allows
for input of data collected and informs of gaps in human resource allocations aligned with
research based strategies (Odden and Pics, 2014).
Research Question #1: How has California’s school funding environment changed the
revenues available to the school district?
In order to understand the impact the LCFF had on Porterville Unified School District,
three areas are considered including: the change in total and per pupil funding since the funding
formula was enacted; the opportunities and challenges of meeting the needs of all students; and
other internal and external challenges the district faces from this new funding and accountability
model.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 76
Change in how district receives funding
The district received its revenue apportionments via California’s Revenue Limit system
for more than forty years. The phase-in from Revenue Limits to the new local control Funding
formula occurred during the 2013-2014 fiscal year. As a result of the passage of Proposition 30
in November of 2012 the State of California, with only a few months to respond, was tasked with
preparing school districts transition revenue estimates for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. The
California Department of Education therefore relied upon the revenue limit calculations through
2013-2014 budget adoption until school district’s new level of funding could be established
using the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Furthermore the Local Control Funding
Formula is a multi-year funding mechanism to increase funding for districts that serve students
with the highest educational needs, including those who are identified as English Language
Learners, have Low Socio-Economic Status, or are Foster Youth. The initial estimate for full
funding of the Local Control Funding Formula was the fiscal year 2020-2021, however recent
estimates from an improved state economy suggest it may occur earlier.
Based upon this final revenue limit calculation for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, Porterville
Unified School District was estimated to receive $5,700 per Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
from the Base Revenue Limit multiplied times the 12,585 students attending the traditional K-12
schools, including alternative education, for a total of $71,837,085. This amount was the result
of the pre Proposition 30, great recession funding choices made by the State, and included deficit
funding that provided only 77.728% for the district’s revenue limit funding. In addition to this
funding Porterville Unified School District received thirty-one targeted categorical programs
totaling $16,149,307 based upon 2012-2013 allocation and included funding for hourly
supplementary programs, Class Size Reduction, Community Day School, California Safe
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 77
Schools, Deferred Maintenance, Economic Impact Aid (EIA), Regional Occupation Center
Programs, Middle School Counselors, Art and Music block grant, Instructional Materials Fund,
Professional Development Block Grant, School and Library Improvement Block Grant, and
Adult Education. Therefore, the total revenue received per ADA was $6,960 much of which was
from targeted programs restricted for a particular purpose.
Below Table 4.1 presents the additional funding received by the district between fiscal
years 2013-2014, 2014–2015, and 2015-2016 per pupil Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
amounts.
Table 4.1 - Local Control Funding Formula per ADA for Porterville Unified School District
Porterville Unified School District (2016)
As discussed in chapter 2, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) represents the
largest transformation to California’s school finance model in over forty years mostly because of
the significant increases in funding to targeted populations of students and the increased
flexibility on how districts, with stakeholder input, choose to use these increased funds.
Therefore it is important to determine how much of this new funding is considered unrestricted
and how much is targeted toward students who generate additional revenues through the LCFF
(English language learners, low socio–economic status, or Foster youth). Below in Table 4.2 are
the phased-in funding results for Porterville Unified School District based upon the funding
formula calculation tool, provided by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Team and is calculated
using a three year rolling percentage of student demographic data.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 78
Table 4.2 Phase-in Funding for Porterville Unified School District
As a result of the district’s student demographics as presented in Table 4 with an
unduplicated Free/Reduced meal eligibility, including English Language Learners, count of
82.55%, consisting of 82.8% of students identified as low socio-economic status, and 28.1%
English Language Learners, the district received a considerable increase in combined revenues
from supplemental and concentration funding of $12,578,022 in fiscal year 2014-2015 and
cumulative $23,250,009 for the 2015-2016 fiscal year as presented above in Table 4.2.
Opportunities and challenges of servicing all students
The significant funding increase received at Porterville Unified School District provides
unique opportunities and challenges to serve students. District administration shares the
sentiments the new funding formula provides flexibility to serve students, especially more
opportunity to serve all students due to the nature of the district’s high percentage of students
who are identified as English Language Learners or have a Low Socio-economic status. This
allows the district administration to provide programs and services focused on all students
whereby researched based strategies for targeted students are also effective for all other students.
Furthermore, the flexibility has allowed for purchases of Common Core Curriculum materials,
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 79
expanding instructional coaches, instructional minutes, professional development for
administrators in areas of leadership, support, and appropriate evaluation of teacher performance,
and for teacher professional development toward implementation of the Common Core
Curriculum. Although most aspects of the funding increase are viewed as opportunities there are
also challenges facing the district’s administration. For example, District Administration
commented some stakeholders, including parents and community members, expressed concerns
for how the district might spend the increased funding. Administration further suggested more
time is needed to communicate and educate stakeholders regarding how the new funding model
and accountability requirements work and ensuring they understand the process. Since this
funding surge is at the end of the great recession, the effects on Porterville Unified School
District are significant and have caused district administration and the board of trustees to
initially propose restorative positions and programs that were cut during the recession.
Furthermore, the increased funding provides opportunities to establish new programs and
services for all students.
Internal and external challenges
With change comes challenges, and the district has experienced some challenges around
the development of the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) and additional challenges in
working with district bargaining units during recent negotiations. Internal challenges were
evident during the transitional year 2014-2015 when funding for Economic Impact Aid (EIA)
was considered to be flexible and included as part of the new Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF). Although school sites in previous years had received EIA allocations to purchase
supplementary materials, supplies, and other equipment deemed appropriate at the site, District
administration and the Board of Trustees chose to retain control of the LCFF funds during the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 80
first year of implementation. This action not to allocate funds during the first year spurned
speculation by school site administrators. These funds however were allocated through the
LCAP to provide a wider array of services such as instructional coaches, counselors, and other
personnel costs that were then available to each school site. Allocations were also made during
the latter part of 2013-204 and during 2015-2016 for principals to use at their school sites for
implementation of technology and related purchases.
Negotiations between the district and bargaining units were strained as a result of the
funding model change due to expectations by both the Certificated and Classified unions that
deemed additional funding to be available for salary and benefits increases. During the first year
of LCFF implementation, the unions did not understand the targeted nature of the funding and
the limited amount of funding that was unrestricted for typical negotiations. Negotiations were
divided between how yearly increases in funding might be used for salaries increases versus
additional services including, additional school days or new positions to support student
achievement. Bargaining units saw these increases as a single number. Additionally, negotiating
with employees at different school sites consisting of elementary, middle, high schools, and also
specialty schools made it difficult, as groups of staff at each site were unable to come together as
a group on what they desired to negotiate for. However, by the end of the negotiations
administration felt they had reached a mutual agreement, meeting the interest of both parties,
while maintaining a common focus to improve student achievement.
The district and school site administration have also endured external challenges
including coordinating community group meetings, obtaining stakeholder input, and validating
stakeholder understanding of why these new requirements of LCFF exist for schools. Educating
parents on the concepts of LCFF and LCAP can be challenging, as suggested by administration.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 81
District administration further suggested that many parents and those from the community often
view student success as one where a student simply graduates from high school ready for work,
without the higher expectations of technical training or additional college education. Even
though much information is offered to stakeholder groups, many still do not fully grasp the new
process. In order to better communicate the LCFF and LCAP, the district continues to refine the
process of creating surveys, both electronic and hard copies, to adequately obtain meaningful
data from the community about how the community thinks the district and board of trustees can
improve student achievement through the supplemental and concentration funding. Public
meetings or forums are also used to involve community members, both informing them of the
progress made by the district in the prior year of LCAP implementation, and toward the
development of the goals for the new school year.
Summary: Research Question #1. This study’s first research question asked, How has
California’s school funding environment changed the revenues available to the school district.
This section of the chapter reported financial revenue information from implementation of the
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to answer this question demonstrating how the funding
by the district has grown. The next section will consider research question 2, how the district has
chosen to allocate resources from increased revenues.
Research Question #2: How is the district choosing to use these new resources?
This section discusses what research based strategies the district administration
considered to allocate LCFF revenues, how district administration worked with the board of
trustees and community to identify where increased funding from LCFF aligned with the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 82
organization and educational goals within the LCAP, and as a result determined the desired
resource allocations based upon the new funding model.
Research-based strategies for allocating resources
Understanding the Performance Challenge, Setting Ambitious Goals, Collaboration,
Professional Development, and Assessment and Data Decision Making are key indicators of
success in attaining or exceeding student performance targets. These strategies were woven
into the framework of the Local Control Accountability Plan and impact school improvement
and student achievement. Provided below are details about how the Porterville Unified School
District administration and board considered utilizing these research based strategies for
inclusion in the LCAP.
Understanding the Performance Challenge
The District administration, Board of Trustees, School Site staff, and community shared
in the creation of a mission statement with a common vision that encompasses the reason for
staff, students, parents, and community to support student learning. The Superintendent and
Cabinet Administration provided a sense of urgency to move this effort forward to improve
student achievement. As a result, these groups were inspired and also tasked with designing the
District’s Student Graduate Profile including 21
st
Century Learning Skills. Over a period of
months, the engagement of these groups led to the District’s Student Graduate Outcomes and is
visibly displayed at the District office, district website, and in common areas at each school site.
Beyond this effort the Board of Trustees and Superintendent’s Cabinet continued forward with
adoption of the common core standards curriculum, providing the necessary release time for
small groups of teachers within each grade level to design benchmark testing. Additional
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 83
professional developments on common core implementation have been supported through
external consultants and district instructional coaches.
Setting ambitious goals
As Odden (2009) suggests, in order to double student performance, the aim, the goal, and
the outcomes need to be set at their highest level. The culture of the school must resonate that all
students, especially those from poverty, minority, and non-English speaking backgrounds will
reach their student achievement targets with the support of all personnel at the school. As
mentioned, Porterville Unified set ambitious goals through the writing of the mission statement,
vision statement, and graduate outcomes, especially since the focus of these rewrites were to
support the linked-learning movement ensuring students were ready for college and career and
the district has embarked on a new way of providing education at the secondary level, referred to
as “Linked-Learning”. This College and Career ready focus of the district has garnered state and
national recognition for the district board, business and community coalition known as the P8,
business administration, and staff. Linked learning provides small learning communities with an
industry focus, business advisory committee, and integrated class projects. Student projects are
theme based and are discussed and taught in each of the student’s core and linked learning
pathway courses. While the district focus is to expand linked learning opportunities throughout
the district, students who are not enrolled within one of the current ten open choice linked
learning pathways are also provided guidance, interventions, and the ability to participate in a
host of programs including athletics, art, and music.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 84
Collaboration
This strategy is referred to by Odden (2009) as the creation of a collaborative culture with
distributed leadership by both administrators and teachers. Collaboration at Porterville Unified
School District occurs at many levels including board of trustees, district and site administration,
teachers, and with others outside of the district. District administration collaborates at a monthly
Joint District Advisory Committee meeting. Furthermore site administrators rotate school site
visits to review best practices at each other’s respective sites. Teacher collaboration is embedded
in the culture of each school where most teachers in the district share a common prep period at
each grade level. This holds true for the linked learning academies in the secondary level and
provides for exchange of ideas between teachers, review of student work, and is commonly
referred to as professional learning communities. The Porterville Unified School District is also
collaborating through partnerships with higher education, including both Porterville College
(PC) and California State University, Fresno (CSU, Fresno). The District and PC are working
aggressively on articulated, dual enrollment, and concurrent course offerings for high school
students, where classes are both offered at high school sites and the college campus and where
students can receive transferable college credits. Whereas, the partnership with CSU, Fresno
focuses upon Fresno State students who intern with our Linked Learning Pathway teachers to
build the capacity of these new teachers. Finally, the District collaborates on a broad scale with
the community and business partners through a coalition labeled the “P8”. This coalition
oversees the development and sustainability of the linked learning movement at the high schools
and in conjunction with higher education.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 85
Assessment and data-decision making
Prior to the onset of the new funding formula and LCAP, the district devoted time and
resources towards creating district-wide assessments in core subject areas of English Language
Arts, Math, Science, and Social Science under the No Child Left Behind Act. The district is in
the process of creating these for many Common Core foci as well for future assessments. The
district maintains a vast amount of student data including previously used API, current results
from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASP) test, attendance,
graduation rates, dropout rates, proficiency rates, designations for English Language Learners
(ELLS) and re-designated status based upon student performance. Similar data and even more
specific data regarding elements of linked learning are commonly reviewed by teachers during
common planning time. District Administration reported that based upon reviews of student data
demonstrating students were not performing well in writing and mathematics, the district chose
to use LCFF funding through the LCAP to hire additional instructional coaches, one for each
school site.
Professional Development
Effective professional development, as suggested by Odden (2009) has been found
optimum when it is school-based, job-embedded, and ongoing within departments or grade levels
for a minimum of 100 hours and closer to 200 hours. The district has implemented this strategy
by providing pupil-free days and collaborative time during the regular school day. Additionally,
the district has sought out the expertise of external consultant/trainers, and for instructional
coaches who provide in-classroom coaching assistance. The district, as mentioned, expanded
instructional coaches district-wide from six coaches in 2013-2014 to eighteen coaches in 2014-
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 86
2015. The next section discusses the how the district administration worked with the board to
align the LCAP allocations with the District’s goals.
Alignment of LCAP with the organizational and educational goals
The LCAP, established by the State Board of Education (SBE) has Ten State Priorities
placed within three broad areas of focus known as Conditions of Learning, Pupil Outcomes, and
Community Engagement. The LCFF was created to provide local control to education leaders,
boards of trustees, and communities to essentially do their best for the students they serve.
Therefore, effective use of the LCFF funding and accomplishing ambitious learning goals as
outlined in the LCAP signifies that educators must translate resources into results.
California schools were required for the first time in 2014-2015 school year to prepare
both the LCAP narrative goals aligned with budget information. This was more challenging
given the lack of time provided by the California Department of Education to implement. The
district met the CDE expectations of the LCAP process though by meeting with stakeholders,
gathering feedback, keeping the board informed of progress made on the local control
accountability plan, and preparation of associated budget documents aligned with the LCAP
during a short few months. However, during the second year, 2015-2016, the district had more
planning time providing further consideration of how proposed spending would occur. This
allowed for reflection of first year implementation and consideration of goals that encompassed
researched based strategies while also incorporating input from stakeholders, parents, students,
and board members. District administration described how through the prescribed LCAP
method, administration offered a fairly aggressive outreach online and through meetings held at
the district and school sites for parent and stakeholders to discuss priorities and expectations.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 87
The broad span of community input enabled district administration to present the high and low
interest areas of the community to the board of trustees to support the allocations of new LCFF
funding. Additionally, communications with the community included online surveys, school site
council meetings, English Language Advisory Council, and District Advisory Council.
Comments from district administration revealed that communication with stakeholders is critical
in determining ranking order of how funding will be spent. Below is a brief summary of the
Eight State Priorities that are required in the Local Control Accountability Plan. Just below these
priorities are the Porterville Unified School District administration’s determination and
summarization of the needs and associated Goals to be included in the LCAP. Each goal targets
multiple state priorities.
Eight State LCAP Priorities
Priority 1 – Basic (Conditions of Learning)
Priority 2 - Implementation of State Standards (Conditions of Learning)
Priority 3 - Parental involvement (Community Engagement):
Priority 4 - Pupil achievement (Pupil Outcomes):
Priority 5 - Pupil engagement (Community Engagement):
Priority 6 - School climate (Community Engagement):
Priority 7 - Course access (Conditions of Learning):
Priority 8 - Other pupil outcomes (Pupil Outcomes):
Identified need No. 1: The conditions of learning for all students need to be improved
by having access to highly qualified teachers, sufficient instructional materials, and facilities in
good repair. Also, the implementation of CCSS and an access to a broad course of study will
help prepare students for college and career and an instructional model for middle and
elementary schools that support college career readiness through integrated curriculum and
project-based instruction.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 88
Goal 1 (State Priority 1,2, and 7) - All students, including all subgroups, will have
access to the New California Standards, sufficient instructional materials, appropriate teacher
assignments, facilities in good repair, and be enrolled in a broad course of study that includes all
of the subject areas.
Identified Need No. 2 – Porterville Unified School District needs to increase their efforts
to seek parent participation and connectedness so that all parents understand that their active
involvement will increase academic achievement outcomes for their students
Goal 2 (State Priority 3 and 6) - PUSD will provide opportunities district wide and
school wide to increase parent participation so that all parents understand that their active
involvement will increase academic achievement outcomes for their students and in addition the
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) process.
Identified Need No.3 - All students need to continue to feel safe and connected at school
so that they continue to attend, behave appropriately, and attain a high school graduation
diploma. All students should be able to graduate from high school prepared for college and
career and meeting the PUSD graduate outcomes. Personalized learning plans and transition
process for all middle school students that provide the opportunity for students to link academics
to career interest through assessment of the graduate outcome rubric, interest inventories and
enrollment in career exploration electives
Goal 3 (State Priority 4, 5, and 8) - PUSD will provide and implement programs for all
students in order to maintain a safe and conducive school environment to be connected at school
so that they continue to attend, behave appropriately, and attain a high school graduation
diploma. All students should be able to graduate from high school prepared for college and
career and meeting the PUSD Graduate Outcomes
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 89
Identified Need No.4 - All middle school students need a personalized learning and
transition plans that provides the opportunity for students to link academics to career interest
through assessment of the graduate outcome rubric, interest inventories and enrollment in career
exploration electives, as well as linked learning Pathways.
Goal 4 (State Priority 5,6, and 8) - PUSD will seek ways to provide personalized
learning plans and transition process for all middle school students that provide the opportunity
for students to link academics to career interest through assessment of the graduate outcome
rubric, interest inventories and enrollment in career exploration electives.
As reference earlier, the Evidence Base Model (EBM) suggest many similar priorities to
be addressed as outlined by the State LCAP template and are foundational for comparison
purposes to the EBM and the research based strategies that support the model. The next section
describes how the Porterville Unified School District allocated resources to a desired level based
upon increased funding.
Desired resource allocations based upon the new funding model
This Section provides details as to how the district allocated funding towards Goals 1
through 4 as outlined in the LCAP priorities above. Minimum Proportionality Percentage (MPP)
increases in Supplementary and Concentration funding are required to be outlined in the LCAP
as additional services, measured either qualitatively or quantitatively in nature. A GAP Analysis
between resource allocations as compared to the EBM in the district’s entirety is included in the
next section.
At the beginning of this section, Table 4.2 - Phase-in Funding for Porterville Unified
School District presents the amount of increased funding attributable to Supplemental and
Concentration was $12,578,022 for 2014-2015 school year and a cumulative total of $23,250,009
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 90
for the 2015-2016 school year. Below in Table 4.3 references to how these funds were allocated
in the LCAP for the 2015-2016 school year by the district. Worth noting in this table are the
larger values for Common Core Curriculum purchases, increasing instructional minutes,
reducing class sizes, and attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers. Additionally,
significant amount of funding was allocated for improving facilities and hiring of instructional
coaches.
Table 4.3 Desired Allocations based upon established LCAP Goals
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 91
As set forth in LCAP Goal 1, the district made great strides toward this goal by
purchasing the Common Core Math Adoption for K-8 as part of the New California Standards
and deploying professional development for each grade level during the 2014-2015 school year.
Additionally, the district hired a new personnel director whose focus is to hire and ensure
appropriately credentialing of teachers to respective assignments. Many teachers, at varying
grade levels and assignments, were hired for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years to
replace retirees and fulfill the district’s obligation to lower class sizes. The district was able to
meet its’ hiring targets of teachers at various levels, in-part, because of the higher teacher pay
schedule. However, the district may find this more challenging in future years due to an
anticipated teacher shortage. Furthermore, additional instructional minutes were provided for
students as discussed below.
During the recent great recession the State of California allowed for districts to reduce the
number of instructional days below the required 180 days to save money and minimize staff
layoffs. The district reduced the school calendar by 5 days providing for 175 instructional days
beginning in the 2010-2011 school year. Although the numbers of days were reduced, the daily
instructional minutes were increased for the remaining 175 days, essentially maintaining the
same number of instructional minutes. However, when the economy stabilized, the district
increased the standard 180 teaching days for the 2013-2014 school year and maintained the daily
instructional minutes. Therefore, compared to pre-recession school years of 2008-2009, the
district was providing upwards of 185 days of instruction due to daily minutes being increased.
Furthermore, the district administration negotiated and settled with the teacher’s union to add an
additional 5 days to the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 school years to provide real gains
in instructional minutes approximating 190 days. This joint decision between district and the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 92
union has provided for more competitive teacher pay to attract and retain teaching staff, provide
additional instructional minutes for students, and also flexibility with planning for minimum
school days associated with teacher professional development in the district calendar.
Summary: Research Question #2. This study’s second research question asked how
has the district chose to use these new resources? This section of the chapter has reported
specific information around how the district and board of trustees have developed the LCAP
using Researched Based Strategies that inform how allocations were made, and data from the
LCAP specific to how allocations were made to support LCAP goals. Furthermore, the increase
in funding combined with how the district chose to allocate new resources provides the
foundation for a gap analysis between the districts staffing allocations, its desired allocations,
and those allocations suggested by the Evidence Based Model (EBM) in Research Question #3.
Following the gap analysis, recommendations will be provided of how the district might use
funding, both now and in the future, to allocate resources to improve student achievement.
Research Question #3: How can resources be reallocated to align with research-based
strategies to improve student achievement?
The passage of proposition 30 and increased funding provided the ability for school
districts to restore positions and services that were reduced during the recession. Even with these
current funding increases, educational consultants and economists, including the Legislative
Analyst Office (LAO), warn of the potential revenue reductions to school districts as a result of
Proposition 30 funding set to expire in the next couple of years. Currently though, the Porterville
unified school district has been able to utilize the funding to restore positions and add additional
services for all students via the local control accountability plan (LCAP).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 93
This section of the chapter evaluates gaps in human resource allocations made by
Porterville Unified School District and the Evidence Based Model (EBM). Comparison will be
made at each level including District, Elementary School, Middle School, High School levels,
and Alternative Education levels. Furthermore, the comparisons provide an opportunity to
recommend how the district might reallocate human resources to improve student achievement
using researched based strategies suggested in the Evidence Based Model. In an effort to
research how the Porterville Unified School District allocated its’ human resources, the
researcher interviewed the District Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and entered staff
allocations and student data into the Evidence-Based gap analysis tool. Next, the researcher
analyzed data through protocols contained within the model.
Results of the District-level data are located below in Table 4.4. Comparisons suggests a
significant gap between the Porterville unified school district’s current human resource
allocations and the Evidence-based model of Odden and Picus (2014), as well as, between the
current allocations and the desired allocations of the district. The largest gaps exist in Core
Teachers, Instructional Coaches, Specialist teachers, Special Ed teachers, academic extra help,
certificated librarians, special education aides, and non-academic pupil support. Results of the
District-level data are located below in Table 4.4. Core Teachers will be discussed below in
Table 4.5 as this gap relates specifically to elementary school level.The district first created a
cohort of six coaching positions, initially referred to as common core coaches, using one-time
state funding in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The common core coach team was to assist the
school sites to implement the new math common core math adoption. These six coaches were
assigned half-time between each of the elementary schools the first year. During the second year
the cohort was expanded.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 94
Table 4.4 Porterville Unified School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis
By the third year and upon exhaustion of the one-time funding the district administration
and board of Trustees, supported the expansion of the cohort to one coach at each site and
relabeled them instructional coaches providing for broader scope of work beyond just common
core roll out. The desired level shows a gap of 22.51 Instructional coaches and compared to the
Evidence-Based Model represents a gap of 49.61 coaches, or $3,472,350.
The district shows a positive gap in instructional aides of 27.79 for both the desired and
EBM level. Whereas, research from the EBM model does not support the need for instructional
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 95
aides as a significant strategy for improving student achievement and thus the district may
consider how to reallocate such resources to correlated with research based strategies as part of
the recommendations at the end of this section
The Core teacher allocations from Table 4.4 present a district-wide gap shortage of
103.81 teachers between Current Allocation and Desired Allocation and a 232.73 teacher
shortage between the current allocation and EBM. As a result of the recession, class sizes in
kindergarten through third grade increased and peaked around thirty-one or thirty-two students
per classroom.
Table 4.5 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – Elementary Schools
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 96
In lieu of the LCFF and LCAP, districts are required to use portions of these monies to
reduce class size to a maximum of twenty-four students in grades kindergarten through third
grade and continue to maintain these maximums going forward or risk losing all of associated
class size funding. An allowable reason to exceed the maximum twenty-four students per class
in K-3 is based upon the District’s ability to collectively bargain and include such language in
the agreement that provides for alternate grade levels and maximums. These alternate
maximums may be necessary when classrooms are not available, teacher shortages, or planning
for future state funding reductions. Porterville Unified School District maintains such language
and as a result the data in Table 4.5 above reflect the twenty-eight students to one teacher in
grades kindergarten through third, commonly referred to as Class-Size Reduction (K3-CSR).
Table 4.6 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis Core Teachers – Elementary Schools
Whereas, the gaps of K3CSR represented in Table 4.6 reflect a 97.3 elementary teacher shortage
between the current allocation and the EBM. According to the EBM, this difference represent a
$6,811,000 gap between district current allocation of 24 to 1 in grades Kindergarten through
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 97
Third and the 28 to 1 in Fourth through Eighth grades. Below in Table 4.7 presents the gaps in
human resource allocations for Middle Schools and exposing significant gaps in key areas,
including: Instructional Coaches, Core Teacher, Academic extra help staff, and non-academic
pupil support.
Table 4.7 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – Middle Schools
The gap in Academic extra help staff is 12.70 between the current allocation and Desired
Allocation, as well as, the Evidence-Based Model. This gap may exist primarily because
academic extra help is provided on time card rather than through formal part-time or full-time
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 98
positions. However, extra help of certificated staff on time card does not significantly improve
the gap that is presented. The gap analysis also reflects significant gaps, again between the
current allocations and both the desired allocation and EBM of 20.22, representing a cost of
$1,415,680.
Table 4.8 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – High Schools
The high school gap analysis represents substantial gaps for Core teachers between
current allocation and both desired allocations and the Evidence Based Model of 41.42 and
66.46, respectively. Instructional coach gaps are also significant of 9.92 between current
allocations and 24.21 between current allocations and the EBM. This is due to the fact that the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 99
district is unable to provide suggested resources by the EBM for lack of adequate funding. In
total the district, per Table 4.8, lacks 247.49 human resource allocations compared to current
allocations, representing a $16,844,089 gap.
Table 4.9 Resource Allocation Gap Analysis – Alternative Schools
Alternative school comparisons above in Table 4.9 vary greatly in for the recommended
level of core teachers. This is primarily due to the District’s independent charter school offering
non-classroom based programs to students with a teaching ratio between 15 to 25 students per
teacher. These students meet with their assigned teacher for a couple of hours on a weekly basis.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 100
As a result, the core teacher gaps are significant. Additionally, a gap exists between current
allocation, desired allocation and that of the EBM for Assistant Principals. Although significant
gaps would still exist with the independent charter being removed, the Alternative schools within
the district are impacting student achievement in many positive ways. Most recently, the Citrus
High School, was recognized as a Model Continuation High School sponsored by the California
Department of Education (CDE) in cooperation with the California Continuation Education
Association (CCEA).
Recommendations for reallocation
This final portion of this section focuses upon recommendations for reallocation of
human resources based upon the Gap Analysis with the intent to improve student achievement
using researched based strategies suggested in the Evidence Based Model. Note, although
significant gaps exist in Core Teachers at each site for both current allocation to desired
allocations, or between current allocations and the Evidence-Based Model, the current available
funding or reallocation of funds as outlined in the model would not significantly close this gap.
Therefore, recommendations below target realistic gap closures with reallocations for
instructional coaches, certificated librarians, extended day programs, and academic extra help.
Following these recommendations is a multi-year suggestion of how the district may revisit
reallocations for existing gaps based upon implications of LCAP, negotiations, and future
economic impacts.
Instructional Coaches
The first recommendation is to increase instructional coaches at each level, including
elementary, middle, and high schools. The evidence based model suggests the Effect Size of an
instructional coach results in a 1.25 to 2.7 effect as reflected in Chapter 2, Figure 2. This level of
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 101
effect size is far above that of many other instructional strategies. Based upon the allocations
presented in Table 4.3 towards the established LCAP Goals, the district has budgeted $1,451,840
in the 2015-16 school year for the purchase of the common core math curriculum. While it is
uncertain at this time when the district will adopt the English language arts curriculum or the
next generation science standards, the district could reallocate this $1.4 million for each of the
2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and increase the cohort of instructional coaches by 16 to
20 or use proposed one-time funding for the curriculum purchase.
Librarians
The second recommendation is to hire Certificated Librarians at the middle school and
high school levels. Certificated Librarians are staff members who do not teach classes but
instead are assigned to maintain and facilitate the functioning of the school’s library. The
recommendation is to reduce the number of classified para-professional librarians reallocating
these funds to open Certificated Librarian positions. Although the effective size is not directly
specified for librarians, differentiation between certificated and classified librarians highly favors
certificated. In today’s terms, 21 Century certificated librarians are considered to be highly
effective and whom also are referred to as Technology Integration Specialists who collaborate
with teachers to integrate one-to-one technologies. They may also be referred to as Coordinators
of Digital Citizenship, teaching students to be safe, responsible, and respectful while searching
the contents of the internet. Finally, they may also be referred as Information Literacy
Instructors who support the common core by supporting students learning of evaluating and
using information appropriately. Although this transition from classified to certificated could be
considered at all education levels, the middle and high school levels are deemed most
appropriate as the reallocation of costs of classified paraprofessional are within a $100,000 of
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 102
current costs and may not be deemed a drain to the overall district budget given the increased
fund balance the district currently maintains.
Extended-Day Programs and Academic Extra Help
The third recommendation is to provide for Extended-Day Programs beyond that which is
currently offered. This would allow for students who are currently on waiting lists the
opportunity to experience an extended-day program. Additionally, the district could incorporate
Academic Extra Help through tutoring opportunities within these programs whereby the
Evidence-Based Model suggests a.4 to 2.5 Effect Size for one-to-one tutoring. In order to fund
these additional services the district would need to consider utilizing the flexibility in Title I
Supplementary Educational Services to pay teachers on an hourly basis. Title I funding
previously restricted such funding for outside educational consultants and is currently slated to
become flexible beginning with the 2016-2017 school year. Next are multi-year considerations
for reallocation of funds as some of the district obligations are dependent upon multi-year
obligations as identified in the LCAP.
Multi-Year Considerations for reallocation
While the district received substantial funding increases due to the type of demographic
population they serve, the district chose to negotiate a multi-year agreement with both bargaining
units providing for increased teacher salaries in lieu of adding an additional 5 school days,
resulting in additional instructional minutes for students. The District has been challenged
during recent years to rely upon general funds to support the Districts’ capital outlay and facility
project needs. Some of these capital needs have been included in the multi-year Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP).
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 103
Current economic forecasts suggest stability for the near future, yet many economists
suggest that a recession is looming in the next few years. With that in mind, the following
discussion and recommendations are suggested as strategies to reallocate resources as mentioned
earlier, maintain current services to students, and plan for reallocations in coordination with the
next three year LCAP to begin in 2018-2019. Two factors largely impact the district’s position
on how funds are used based upon recent negotiations and also available fund balance reserves
ear-marked for district construction projects.
One consideration for district administration is to determine if student achievement was
positively or negatively affected from the additional five days of instruction. Furthermore,
district administration will need to evaluate the stability of the economy and the likelihood
California districts will be receiving increases or decreases in funding. In the event the economy
has plateaued or is experiencing a decrease, administration may consider reducing the number of
instructional days while limiting the impact on teacher salaries and avoiding teacher layoffs.
However based upon an improved economy, including factors for student achievement, the
district may find flexibility to reallocate these five days. For instance, reduce the number of
instructional days to 180 and provide for teacher professional development. This will reduce the
substitute teacher costs for providing teacher relief during an instructional day, especially in an
environment of teacher shortages.
District administration has provided the Board of Trustees a Master Facility Plan with
several options, including short-term and long-term borrowing, to facilitate the capital
improvements in the district. The Board of Trustees preferred not to borrow at this time to fund
the entire facility plan, instead has directed Administration to budget for certain capital outlay
projects using district general fund reserve balance and budgeted LCAP funds for each of the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 104
next three years. This plan however, may exhaust remaining general fund balances without the
district able to replace many temporary portable buildings that have remained in operation for
multiple decades or provide for future construction sites due to increasing enrollment. The
district administration will need to evaluate the funding of capital projects from bond or other
facility funding resources outside of the general fund in order to free up dollars to hire qualified
staff, sustain instructional coaching, professional development, and maintain a higher level of
instructional minutes for students, and summer school programs offerings.
Conclusion
This chapter reported the study’s findings beginning with an overview of the school
district. The second section presented the findings to answer the three research questions, and
the final section of this chapter presented a discussion of the findings and recommendations.
Although the study district is receiving significant revenues as a result of the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF), decisions by Administration and Board of Trustees make it difficult to
allocate resources to both restore positions reduced during the recent great recession and add
additional services thus closing the gaps that exist between current human resource allocations,
desired allocations, and allocations suggested by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The district
also faces other demands of increased Health and Welfare costs, Retirement System
Contributions from both the State Teacher Retirement System (STRS) and California Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS), as well as, current and future facility needs.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 105
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion, and Implications
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate data from the Porterville Unified
School District, determine the impact of how the district receives its revenues from the new
Local Control Funding Formula, and to research how the district is allocating resources using
research-based strategies for district and school improvement using the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP). The frameworks used in this study include Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) and the Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus,
2014). The study considered Research-based strategies for improving student performance
highlighting best strategies found in successful high performing school districts that
implemented the 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009). Furthermore,
the Evidence-Based Model, a strategic human resource allocation tool, was the guiding
framework for a comparison of how the District allocates human resources toward improving
student achievement (Odden and Picus, 2014). The data was further analyzed through a Gap
Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to measure the District’s current and desired human resource
allocations with that of the EBM. Recommendations were made as to how the district
administration might reallocate resources closing the gaps between current allocations and the
Evidence Based Model. Finally, multi-year considerations for reallocation were presented
including both certificated and classified contract negotiations and also potential impacts of
California’s volatile economic factors.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 106
Summary of Findings
The objective of the study was to evaluate how Porterville Unified School District is
allocating resources using research-based strategies for district and school improvement using
the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The following three research questions were
considered:
Research Question #1. How has California’s school funding environment changed the
revenues available to the school district? Research of this question revealed the study district
recently has experienced unprecedented revenue increases from the Local Control Funding
Formula and include three areas of consideration, the change in total and per pupil funding since
the funding formula was enacted; the opportunities and challenges of meeting the needs of all
students; and other internal and external challenges the district faces from this new funding and
accountability model. Passage of Proposition 30 in November 2012 increased the funding
available to the district which serves a population of students with the highest educational needs.
The district’s student demographics consist of unduplicated Free/Reduced meal eligibility
including English Language Learners of 82.55%, 82.8% of students identified as low socio-
economic status, and 28.1% identified as English Language Learners. As a result the district
received considerable increase in combined revenues from supplemental and concentration
funding of $12,578,022 in fiscal year 2014-2015 and cumulative $23,250,009 for the 2015-2016
fiscal year, or $8,368 and $9,598 per ADA, respectively. Internal challenges faced by the district
administration were between district and school site views on how previous restricted, now
flexible funding within the LCFF, would be used. Furthermore, negotiations with bargaining
units were strained as misunderstandings were present on how the increased funding could be
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 107
used. The district also experienced external challenges of coordinating community input and
validating stakeholder understanding of the new LCFF and LCAP process.
Research Question #2. How is the district choosing to use these new resources?
Research in response to this question revealed the district created a Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) to allocate most of the increased funding towards the following
areas including, increased instructional minutes through negotiating an additional 5 school days
to the school calendar, reducing class sizes in primary grades, attracting and retaining highly
qualified teachers, and purchasing Common Core Curriculum. Additionally, significant amount
of funding was allocated for improving facilities and hiring of instructional coaches to provide
for a coach at each school site. As a result these allocations are committed for a period of three
years, both in terms of the three year agreement and through alignment of the three years as
depicted by the LCAP. Additional resource allocations made by the district include funding for
linked learning pathways programs and elective courses to increase engagement and motivation
of student while preparing them for college and career.
Research Question #3. How can resources be reallocated to align with research-based
strategies to improve student achievement? Research revealed significant gaps exist between
district’s current and desired allocations with the human resource allocations suggested by the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2014). The gaps include a shortage of core teachers
at all levels elementary, middle, and high school. Although the district has reduced class sizes
from 30 to 24 in primary grades, smaller class sizes could be achieved if funding was available to
do so. Also, gaps in the allocation of Instructional Coaches persist. While the EBM and
District’s desired allocation agree at providing an instructional coach for every 200 students, the
District’s current allocation varies greatly as one instructional coach has been allocated to each
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 108
school site where enrollment range from elementary schools of 700 students to high school sites
of 1900 students. Many other human resource gaps exist in positions for instructional coaches,
certificated librarians, extended day programs, and academic extra help. The first
recommendation for reallocation was to increase instructional coaches at each level, including
elementary, middle, and high schools due to the suggested effect size of instructional coaches.
This would be done by either redirecting pending budget purchases of common core materials or
using one-time funds to purchase common core materials while using ongoing LCAP funding to
pay for additional instructional coaches. The second recommendation consisted of the
reallocation of paraprofessionals currently used for library services with certificated staff that are
technology savvy. The third recommendation is to utilize flexibility in Title I for the
2016-2017 school year to provide for extended-day programs beyond that which is currently
offered and incorporate academic extra help through tutoring. Finally, a multi-year suggestions
are offered to how the district may consider future reallocations for existing gaps based upon
implications of LCAP, negotiations, and future economic impacts
Limitations of the Study
The primary limitation of the study is the focus upon the new Local Control Funding
Formula and the Local Control Accountability Plan while yet in development and
implementation. Also the sample size and demographics specific to this district made the
findings less generalizable to other California districts, particularly districts with dissimilar
demographics. Furthermore data gathered for this study is limited to expenditures and resource
allocations for the 2015-2016 school year and were not longitudinal. Therefore, findings are not
necessarily generalizable across other districts or schools. Additionally, student testing was not
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 109
reliable due to recent changes in how the state gathers testing data and pending developments of
rubrics and metrics of accountability set-forth by the State Board of Education
Policy Implications
Implications for Policy Makers
Educating California’s children is challenging, especially as districts face uncertainty of
funding. A recent landmark decision against proponents from California School Boards
Association and student advocacy groups denies a right to trial to make the case that the
California Legislature is underfunding education and denying students a quality education
(EdSource, 2016). While it is purposeful to consider allocating resources to meet all standards as
established by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2014), lack of adequate and volatile
state funding continue to inhibit educators ability to persist in providing a continuous level of
resources to improve student achievement. Other factors policy makers must consider associated
with adequate and volatile funding is the cost benefits of reforming state retirement systems,
teacher evaluation processes, teacher tenure laws, and facility funding, all of which impact
available funding to school districts. As mentioned, change takes time, and while the Governor
of California, Legislature, and Department of Education have made great strides towards
increasing and stabilizing education funding in recent years, the journey must continue until
adequacy and stabilization in funding has occurred. Only then will a complete analysis of
resource allocations matched with student outcomes be the driver for further change.
Implications for other school Districts
This study may inform school district constituents, including board trustees,
superintendents, district level administration, and school site administration with this case study
of the Porterville Unified School District containing information on its allocation of resources to
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 110
meet the needs of its diverse student population in the era of reform. Education leaders in other
districts and/or schools may find this study useful because it highlights best practices of how to
allocate their available resources, especially in a period of significant increased revenues, to
improve student achievement district wide through use of the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2014) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Furthermore it outlines challenges faced by the district and board of trustees, especially when
facility funding is limited.
Implications for Study District
Competing challenges within the Porterville Unified School District was that of
providing for school construction from new said funding, however most districts in California
rely upon issuance of bonds, borrowing, or relying upon the State to fund capital projects. As a
result of the districts inability to access funding through bond issuance, the district will need to
consider other financing for current and future district construction projects. Had the district
been able to secure funding for construction projects as outlined in the Master Facility Plan using
bond funds, funding allocated through the LCFF of nearly 10 million dollars over a three year-
period could have been targeted towards additional instructional coaches, further expansion of
instructional technology, and additional researched based strategies as outlined by the Evidence-
Based Model.
Porterville Unified School District is considered to be progressive in terms of Linked
Learning Pathways and has drawn state and national recognition for such efforts. Linked
Learning Pathways, also represented in small learning communities at the high school level,
provide many opportunities to support student motivation, engagement, and transition into
college or a career mirroring many of the attributes found in the
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 111
Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2014) and 10 Strategies in Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009). Many facets of education reformation of Linked Learning
Pathways are funded both through State and private grants along with other State Career
Technical Education funding. Due to uncertainty of State grant funding, private grant funding,
and LCFF funding allocated towards Linked Learning Pathways, the district will need to be
vigilant and consider multi-year analysis not only for reallocation of human resources towards
the Evidence-Based Model for student achievement but also for available funding to support
sustainability of the current high level of Linked Learning student offerings.
Concluding Comments
Although the safety net from passage of Proposition 30 combined with the
implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula provided increased funding unseen by
Districts for decades, the result was for districts and stakeholders to determine how to use these
“new” dollars to improve student achievement. Bridging research, theory, and practice takes
times, effort, and is necessary in order to effect positive change for student achievement. In
order to maximize student learning, leadership within districts and schools must research,
discuss, and pursue promising practices found in effective school organizations, compare these to
their respective practices, and create the necessary change to ensure students succeed by
graduating high school and prepared to enter into college or a career.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 112
References
Adams Jr, J. E. (2010). Smart Money: Using Educational Resources to Accomplish Ambitious
Learning Goals. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA
02138.
California Department of Education. (2014). CalEdFacts- Facts about English Learners
in California. December 22nd 2014.
Retrieved http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2014). Educational Demographics Unit.
December 22nd 2014. Retrieved http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp
California Department of Education. (2013). Local Control Funding Formula Overview.
November 3rd 2013. Retrieved http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp
California Department of Education. (2014). Proposition 30 Impact to State Aid.
December 22
nd
, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/pa/prop30impact12p1.asp.
California School Boards Association (CSBA), 2013, Policy Brief: Impact of Local Control
Funding Formula on Board Policies (11/6/13). Retrieved from
https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/FairFunding/LCFF.aspx
Chenoweth, K. (2009, September). It can be done, it’s being done, and here’s how. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(1), 38-43. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 113
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, Georgia: CEP Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. New
York, New York: HarperCollins.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daggett, R. & Jones, D. (white paper). The process of change – why change, what to do, and
how to do it (White Paper) from Leading change in high schools (2008), International
Center for Leadership in Education
Darling-Hammond, L. & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance
assessment in achieving 21
st
century standards of learning. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
EdSource. (2005). School Accountability Under NCLB: Ambitious Goals and Competing
Systems. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource. (2010). How California Ranks. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource. (2013). Recovering from the Recession. Mountain View, CA:
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 114
EdSource (2014). Preparing new teachers to implement reforms. Mountain View, CA
EdSource (2015). Proposition 30 closes spending gap between state and nation. Mountain View,
CA:
EdSource (2016). Appeals Court denies constitutional right to minimum K-12 funding.
Mountain View, CA:
Goldfinger, P. M. (2006). Revenues and Revenue Limits: A Guide to School Finance in
California. 2006 Edition. Sacramento: School Services of California.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. R. I. S. C. I. L. L. A. (2004). Cracking the code of
accountability. University of Southern California Urban Education, 17-19.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2011). Proposition 98 primer. Retrieved from
Retrieved from http://lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primeer/prop_98_primer_020805.htm
MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central office in
improving instruction and student achievement. (Report No. 65). Baltimore, MD: Center
for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 115
National Center for Education Statistics. Assessment and Analysis of School-Level Expenditures,
Working Paper No. 96-19, by Joel D. Sherman, Clayton Best, and Lawrence Luskin.
William Fowler, project officer. Washington, D.C.: 1996.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden A. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., & Fermanich, M. (2003). An evidenced-based approach to school
finance adequacy in Arkansas. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates. Prepared for the Arkansas Joint Committee on Educational Adequacy.
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., and Goetz, M.E. (2009). A 50 State Strategy to Achieve School
Finance Adequacy. Educational Policy
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., & Goetz, M. (2014). Recalibrating North Dakota’s Per Pupil Number
for its School Foundation Program.
Odden, A. & Picus, L.O. (2014). School Finance: A policy perspective, 5
th
edition. New York:
McGraw Hill
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 116
Picus, L.O. (1990). Incentive Funding Programs and School District Response. Los Angeles:
USC Center for Research in Education Finance. Report prepared for The American
Education Research Association
Picus, L. O. (2004). School finance adequacy: Implications for school principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 88(640), 3-11.
Picus, L.O. (2006). Funding California’s Schools: Past, Present, and Future? Los Angeles:
USC Center for Research in Education Finance. Report prepared for The American
Education Finance Association
Picus, L. O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing school
finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming following adequacy-oriented
finance reform. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates
Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (2012). Getting Down To Facts:
Five Years Later
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal for
enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teachers College Record 109(6),
1-72. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743
Rebell, M. (2012). The Right to Comprehensive Educational Opportunity. Havard Civil Rights-
Civil Liberties Law Review. Vol 47.
LCFF IMPACT ON RURAL DISTRICT 117
Rose, H., & Weston, M. (2013). California School District Revenue and Student Poverty.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971) (Serrano I); Serrano
v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728, 557 P.2d 929, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345, (Serrano II) (1976), reh.
denied, Jan. 27, 1977; as modified Feb. 1, 1977 cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907 (1977).
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pp.10-22,
31-45, 47-56.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate data from the Porterville Unified School District to determine how the district receives its revenues as a result of the new Local Control Funding Formula and to research the extent to which the district is allocating resources using research-based strategies for district and school improvement using the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The study explores the progression of California’s Education Financing and Accountability reformation, Research-based strategies for improving student performance highlighting best strategies found in successful high performing school districts, and successful implementation of resource allocation strategies using the Evidence Based Model. ❧ Findings indicate that the District is allocating resources in alignment with a few of the allocation levels suggested by Evidence-Based Model. However, recommendations include the district consider human resource reallocations for instructional coaches, certificated librarians, extended-day programs and academic extra help. Additionally, recommendations for reallocation over multiple years are included, in part, as a result of constraints from settlement agreements and commitments to capital outlay both funded using Supplementary and Concentration allocations in the Local Control Accountability Plan. Bridging research, theory, and practice takes times, effort, and is necessary in order to effect positive change for student achievement. In order to maximize student learning, leadership within districts and schools must research, discuss, and pursue promising practices found in effective school organizations, compare these to their respective practices, and create the necessary change to ensure students succeed by graduating high school and prepared to enter into college or a career.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California
PDF
The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints
PDF
Allocating human capital resources for high performance in schools: a case study of a large, urban school district
PDF
Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district
PDF
Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal crisis: case study of elementary schools in a California school district
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts
PDF
District allocation of human resources utilizing the evidence based model: a study of one high achieving school district in southern California
PDF
A gap analysis study of one southern California unified school district's allocation of resources in a time of fiscal constraints
PDF
Investigating school finance adequacy in the San Marino Unified School District
PDF
Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement
PDF
Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools
PDF
Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times
PDF
Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions
PDF
Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district
PDF
The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study
PDF
Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress: a gap analysis of five southern California elementary schools
PDF
Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rohrbach, Bradley Ryan
(author)
Core Title
The impact of the Local Control Funding Formula on schools within a rural mid-sized California school district
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/27/2016
Defense Date
05/09/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education funding,local control,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael (
committee member
), Nelson, Nate (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bradley.rohrbach@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-281310
Unique identifier
UC11280451
Identifier
etd-RohrbachBr-4635.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-281310 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RohrbachBr-4635.pdf
Dmrecord
281310
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Rohrbach, Bradley Ryan
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
Tags
education funding
local control