University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education

(USC Thesis Other)

A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A CENTRAL OFFICE STAFFING MODEL TO PROVIDE
FOR AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION
by
Elizabeth A. Swift
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2006
Copyright 2006 Elizabeth A. Swift
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3233858
Copyright 2006 by
Swift, Elizabeth A.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3233858
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
School finance is a complex, multifaceted issue with many emotional points
of view expressed daily in the news, in state legislatures, in school district board
rooms, and in local schools. Working on one small part of this dynamic topic has
been a challenge and a privilege. I thank my dissertation Chair, Dr. Lawrence O.
Picus, for suggesting this component of school finance and for his guidance and
support throughout the research and writing processes. I also thank the other two
members of my committee, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke and Dr. John Nelson, for their
time and efforts on my behalf.
I must also thank countless family members, colleagues, and friends who
continually cheered me on and assisted me throughout this marathon effort. I
would like to mention a few specifically: my mother, Mary Hicks, for her unfailing
faith; my husband, Greg Swift, for his patience and encouragement; our four
daughters, Maggie Gallego, Erin Kunkle, Katie Chavez, and Anna Brenning, for
their assistance in the focus group session; my sister, Mary Ellen Hicks, for her
editing skill; and my superintendent, Dr. George Giokaris, and the Governing
Board of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District for facilitating and sup
porting the USC-Fullerton cohort. Finally, I am very thankful to the school board
members and superintendents who chose to be a part of the study. I could not have
completed this without them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER
1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY..................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study........................................................................... 6
Importance of the Study...................................................................... 7
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions......................................8
Definitions.......................................................................................... 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................11
Historical Roots of School Finance...................................................12
Early Years Through the Civil Rights Era..................................12
School Finance Issues 1960 to 1980: Equity.............................14
School Finance Issues 1980 to Present: Adequacy.................. 20
Productivity............................................................................... 27
Determining Adequacy.............................................................. 30
Additional Adequacy Considerations........................................ 36
The Central Office............................................................................ 39
Relevance to Adequacy............................................................. 39
Necessity of a Central Office..................................................... 40
Roles and Purposes.................................................................... 43
Central Office Size.................................................................... 50
Central Office Costs.................................................................. 55
Summary and Conclusion................................................................. 58
3. RESEARCH METHODS........................................................................ 61
Study Design..................................................................................... 61
Evidence-Based Method............................................................ 61
Qualitative Inquiry..................................................................... 63
Quantitative Characteristics....................................................... 66
Participant Selection Strategy.................................................... 67
Data Collection Procedures.............................................................. 68
Central Office Staffing Model................................................... 68
California School Districts........................................................ 69
Focus Groups............................................................................. 71
Instrumentation................................................................................. 76
Data Analysis.................................................................................... 77
Evidence-Based Model Data..................................................... 78
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School District Data................................................................... 79
Focus Group Data...................................................................... 81
Conclusion........................................................................................ 81
4. FINDINGS............................................................................................... 83
Research Question 1: Current Staffing in California Districts 84
Research Question 2 : Size of Central Office Staff in Research 97
Evidence From Research Studies.............................................. 97
Input by the Focus Groups........................................................100
The Issue of School Nurses......................................................106
Central Office Staffing Model..................................................108
Research Question 3: Costing Out an Adequate Central
Office Staff.............................................................................. I l l
Discussion........................................................................................113
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS................................118
Summary of the Study.................................................................... 118
Conclusions: Implications for Practice...........................................120
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................121
Closing............................................................................................ 122
REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 125
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 134
APPENDIX B....................................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX C....................................................................................................... 138
APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................... 139
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. California School Districts Included in the Study (3,000 to 4,000
Students)................................................................................................ 70
2. Profile of Focus Group Participants.............................................................74
3. Counties With School Districts of 3,000 to 4,000 Students, School
Year 2003-2004..................................................................................... 85
4. Staffing Configurations: Unified School Districts......................................88
5. Staffing Configurations: Elementary School Districts................................89
6. Staffing Configurations: High School Districts.........................................90
7. District Leadership Personnel: Elementary School Districts..................... 92
8. District Leadership Personnel: Unified School Districts............................ 93
9. District Leadership Personnel: High School Districts................................ 94
10. Leadership for Instruction and Business Operations: Elementary
School Districts...................................................................................... 95
11. Leadership for Instruction and Business Operations: Unified School
Districts.................................................................................................. 96
12. Leadership for Instruction and Business Operations: High School
Districts.................................................................................................. 97
13. Central Office Staffing Model Developed in the Present Study................ 109
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This study utilizes an evidence-based, qualitative approach to determine a
central office staffing model for a hypothetical California district of 3,500 students.
The study discusses the necessity of a central office and the essential mentoring and
support services that it must provide. Research studies and reports on adequacy, on
salaries and wages of public school professional and support personnel, on school
district productivity and cost effectiveness, as well as on other relevant topics were
reviewed for evidence of best practices. An investigation of common staffing
practices and costs in 47 California school districts with enrollments between 3,000
and 4,000 students was accomplished by using internet information and public
documents, such as organizational charts and salary schedules. A proposed model
with its accompanying costs was presented to four focus groups of California
school board members and superintendents in San Diego, California, on April 17,
2005. The focus group participants critiqued the model, considered the prospects
of its implementation in their regions of California, and suggested modifications.
Data were synthesized into a more complete and accurate central office staffing
model that may be useful to administrators, school boards, and other policy makers
as they decide central office staffing questions while considering school funding,
equity, and adequacy issues.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Many critics of the current educational system in the United States claim
that it is not working well and alternately place the blame on classroom teachers,
school districts, and state or federal bureaucracies. That improvements must be
made is widely accepted, and with the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act, educators realize, more than ever, that all students must be provided with an
education commensurate with the expanding demands of life in the 21st century.
Students are entitled to sufficient means to meet their needs for effective instruc
tion, equitable resources, and efficient services. Relating these student needs to
school finance considerations requires an explanation of two important terms:
equity and adequacy. It also requires an examination of the local government entity
that is responsible for providing for the educational needs of children, and it
necessitates a determination of how much an improved, equitable and adequate
delivery of services will cost. This study focuses specifically on that local govern
ment entity—school district central offices—on what central office staffing ratios
are necessary to adequately facilitate the educational needs of students, and what
costs are incurred.
In school finance terms, equity has to do with how states allocate equal or
substantially equal amounts of revenue per pupil among districts. It requires
“closing the gap” between low-wealth and high-wealth school districts’ abilities to
raise revenue to pay for schools. Depending on the funding mechanism in a par
ticular state, some school districts have been at a distinct disadvantage as compared
to other districts if they were located in a low property wealth area and their main
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
source of funding came from local property taxes. These districts historically had
to tax property owners at a much higher rate than neighboring high-wealth districts,
and still ended up with substantially less revenue to use in their schools. Com
pounding the problem for low-wealth districts often has been large numbers of
students with high needs. With less money to pay for services and more services
required, students in these districts have been deprived of a comparable education
to those in high-wealth districts. Over the past 30 years, law suits in 45 states have
called for more equitable, state-sponsored methods of financing schools. “Court
battles have repeatedly determined that states are responsible for all education
spending and that even when their funding is simply a minor supplement to local
budgets, states should not allow one district to spend vastly more than another”
(Park, 2003, p. 4).
In the meantime, the focus of school finance has now shifted from equity to
adequacy, which is educating students to high standards (Odden, 2003, p. 121).
Adequacy has as its focus high minimum outcomes for all students with the
assumption that decisions about resource allocations will be based on what is
necessary to achieve those high outcomes (Rose, 2001). Schrag (2003) described
adequacy as deciding what a constitutionally sufficient education is for each child
and getting that funded. Hadderman (1999) stated ,that although equity has been
stressed in the past, educators and policy makers now are deciding that an equal
share of too little is unacceptable, and high outcomes for all students come with a
higher price tag.
In order to resolve questions about the cost of adequacy, states—often at the
direction of court decisions—have employed one of several methodologies to
conduct adequacy studies: the professional judgment approach, sometimes called
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the input or market basket approach; the successful schools or successful districts
approach; the cost function approach, also known as statistical modeling; and the
evidence-based approach. Each methodology has its proponents, and each has
demonstrated strengths and weaknesses.
The professional judgment methodology makes use of professional
educators in focus group sessions to name resources that they deem necessary for
students to achieve high standards. Myers and Silverstein (2002) referred to this
approach as the market basket approach. After choices are listed, costs are
estimated, with a total cost aggregated for a hypothetical school. The strengths of
this type of method include the expertise of the professional focus group members
and their understanding of services and costs. The weaknesses are that this type of
study tends to result in higher costs than other methodologies and, according to
Odden, Picus, and Fermanich (2003), the findings are not directly related to actual
student achievement results.
The second methodology is referred to as the successful schools (Taylor,
Baker, & Vedlitz, 2005) or successful districts (Odden et al., 2003) approach. In
this methodology measures of desirable outcomes are identified, such as attendance
data, dropout rates, and achievement test scores. Schools and districts with the
acceptable outcomes are studied and their spending levels per pupil are averaged
resulting in a recommended level of expenditure. The positive component of this
study is the link that it has with actual student achievement, in contrast to the
professional judgment approach. Often, the problem with this methodology has
been that the identified level of expenditure has been very close to the median state
expenditure, leaving one to wonder why more schools are not successful schools.
Also, in the process of averaging successful school or district expenditures, schools
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and districts with atypically high results or low expenditures—called outliers—are
excluded. Odden et al. found that the resulting model was that of a suburban
setting and homogeneous demographics. Even with adjustments for location and
student needs, it is difficult to compare this with urban or rural settings.
The cost function analysis approach, as described by Taylor et al. (2005),,
uses current data on students and districts, including the per-pupil spending levels
that are necessary to attain a high level of student achievement. Adjustments are
made for special student needs, particular district characteristics, and other signi
ficant considerations. Taylor et al. mentioned the importance of establishing
measurable outcome goals. The strength of this methodology is that adjustments
for urban districts or rural districts are clearly delineated from an average district.
The problem with this approach is that there can be too large a range of costs. For
example, the Wisconsin study resulted in recommendations ranging from 75% of
the average up to 460%, a range that was not politically achievable (Odden et al.,
2003).
The fourth approach, the one chosen for this study, is the evidence-based
methodology. In this type of study, a variety of strategies, which have been
thoroughly researched and proven to produce high student outcomes, are identified
and their costs are calculated and totaled. The resulting model incorporates
recommended funding levels for a school of 500, staffing levels for administration,
teaching and clerical staff, and funds for professional development, technology, and
other resources. The strength of this approach is its dependence on what is known
to work effectively for student achievement and its identification of what is not
effectual. An adequate level of expenditure based on this methodology can be
determined and adjusted for special needs students, such as children from low
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
income families, English learners, and disabled students. The weakness of this
approach is that many district costs have not yet been determined and researchers
have had to accept them as given.
As has been discussed, school finance debates have shifted from talk of
equity—giving equal sums to schools and their students—to the understanding that,
if all students are to achieve and no child be left behind, some students will require
more resources than others. Adequacy and determining the cost of an adequate
education has substantially changed the intent of school finance.
Statement of the Problem
The evidence-based approach provides a sound method of determining costs
for adequacy, yet it has its weaknesses. By focusing almost entirely on the instruc
tional core, evidenced-based researchers have had to take as given the additional
but necessary costs of schools and districts, such as school-site office personnel,
central office personnel, transportation, safety, food services, and other costs. How
do these costs affect state education expenditures? More important, how do these
costs influence providing adequate resources for students?
Considering only the issue of central office staffing, many performance
audits have been performed to examine educational organizations and assess
whether resources are used efficiently. In response to critics’ claims of inefficiency
and unnecessary administrators, some districts have drastically streamlined their
staffs. However, can central offices be streamlined too much, and can efficiency go
awry? Buchanan (2003) reported that a North Carolina superintendent worried that
his central office was too lean, especially when considering the accountability
requirements of NCLB. In addition, the North Carolina Association of School
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administrators’ executive director warned of greater responsibilities for teachers
and principals if numbers of central office administrators are cut too much
(Buchanan). Adequacy requires more than just efficiency for efficiency’s sake. Its
objective is real resources for real student achievement. Using teachers and site
administrators to process legally required accountability reports, for example,
might actually undermine the goal of adequacy. Evidence-based research has no
answer to the question of how to staff district offices.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the current study was to address one part of the unknown
cost factor in the evidence-based method of determining adequate resources.
Evidence-based researchers have not yet defined the necessary staffing level of a
central office so that adequate resources can reach the students who need them
most. Studies and other literature on central office staffing are reviewed in this
study. Focus groups of administrators and school board members have been
conducted. The end result is the identification of a central office staffing model
along with a calculation of its accompanying costs. The model is based on a
district of seven schools with a student population of 3,500.
Three questions are answered in the study:
1. How do California school districts of 3,500 students currently staff their
central offices?
2. What does research suggest that the appropriate level of central office
staffing should be in an adequately funded educational system?
3. How can the cost of an adequate level of central office staffing be
determined?
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Importance of the Study
School district offices are an important local government entity. The
School Communities That Work task force (2002) stated that school districts ought
to be considered first when looking to improve education. Its position was based
on the fact that districts still “control the money, classify the students, assign the
teachers, and set the work rules” (p. 4). The task force members related that the
school-by-school approach to educational reform does not provide what whole
communities of students need: a local education support system. They envisioned
this system as a “smart district” that sets high standards and expectation, maintains
a pool of well-qualified staff members, provides professional development, assists
schools with materials and curriculum, establishes trusting relationships among and
between all stakeholders, accurately accounts for educational progress, and pro
vides other necessary supports. Schools by themselves would be hard pressed to do
all that a local education support system can accomplish. In fact, the task force
contended that a district is the one entity that can ensure equitable distribution of
resources among the schools within a community.
Another group emphasizing the prominence of the school district and its
functions is the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. This group held
that the primary responsibility of a district central office is to facilitate and
encourage an exchange of information and expertise among schools and among
instructional leaders. Cross City’s Burch and Spillane (2004) viewed with special
significance the mid-level district staff, whose job it is to translate “big ideas like
‘improving literacy district-wide’ or ‘closing the achievement gap’ into strategies,
guidelines, and procedures that are handed down to schools” (p. 1). In providing
this interpretive role, district staff members can hinder or assist the efforts of
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classroom teachers and site administrators, and their success and assistance can
mean increased achievement for children.
As the School Communities That Work task force (2002) suggested,
districts do not usually instill inspiring or grand thoughts but they are central to
school reform and can affect large-scale improvement in public education to the
good of individuals, communities, and society. Keeping in mind NCLB’s require
ment of high outcomes for all students, a study of the central office staff and how it
adequately provides for those students takes on additional urgency and importance.
This study’s importance relies upon identifying a comprehensive and adequate
central office model and determining its costs so that professional educators and
policy makers will have practical guidelines to consider as school funding, equity,
and adequacy decisions are made at all levels of government.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
No review of literature or educational research study can consider all that
has been written about school districts and the broad topic of school finance.
However, a sincere attempt was made to review thoroughly a large number of
reports, court decisions, adequacy studies, and other relevant information from
print and online sources. Because well-intentioned and well-informed experts
disagree about conclusions that can be drawn from the same documents, the
researcher has considered each side and made personal interpretations related to the
central office staffing topic.
Certain costs and additional staffing have been excluded from the study for
a variety of reasons. The exclusions of personnel costs for transportation are due to
the potentially wide variation among districts due to geographic and other
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
differences. For instance, one district in this study is in a suburban area and does
not provide any transportation, while a rural district with the same number of
students has 22 bus drivers. The topography and geographic size of the second
district adds significantly to its personnel and operating costs. Transportation also
has its own funding source, although many would dispute the adequacy of those
funds. Another reason to exclude some program costs is the scope or complexity of
the program itself, in particular, special education. A research study on this single
topic is necessary to calculate the costs to adequately meet the various needs of
students in special education programs. Another program not addressed by the
current study is food service, except for staff members housed at the district office,
such as a director and/or a food service accounts clerk. Limiting the study in these
ways made district staffing data more comparable among the California districts
studied and it permitted the creation of a more utilitarian staffing model.
The study was conducted from a California viewpoint, and California
administrators and school board members were enlisted to review the data and
conclusions and offer their evaluations. Although efforts were made to establish
adjustments for locations in California, the cost factors may not necessarily be
transportable to other states.
Definitions
Adequacy: Providing enough educational resources so that all or almost all
children are able to achieve at high levels and/or meet state proficiency standards
(Picus, 2004).
Adequacy study. Empirical research using one of several methodologies to
estimate the costs of providing an adequate education.
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cost function methodology. An adequacy study in which an adequate
spending level is predicted by using current data on students and districts. Adjust
ments are made for special student needs, particular district characteristics, and
other unique or important considerations. This approach is sometimes referred to
as statistical modeling.
Equity: A fair division of education tax burden between the state and local
communities (Hershberg, Rosenblum, & Simon, 2003).
Evidence-based methodology: An adequacy study approach that identifies
research and other evidence of effective educational strategies, costs out each
effective strategy, then totals the costs.
Performance audit: A comprehensive review of an organization to assess
the efficient use of resources.
Professional judgment methodology: An adequacy study approach in which
professional educators in focus group sessions list resources necessary for high
student achievement, and the costs are subsequently calculated for hypothetical
school setting.
Successful schools/districts methodology: An adequacy study in which
schools/ districts with high levels of student achievement are identified, spending
levels are compared and averaged and a recommended level of expenditure is
produced, based on the findings.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Critics of public education have routinely criticized the bureaucratic
organization of school districts and the size of central office staffs. For example,
Brewer (1996) introduced his study with a reference to former Secretary of Educa
tion William Bennett’s statement regarding the central office as “an ‘administrative
blob’: a suboptimal allocation of resources with administration consuming too
great a share of educational expenditures” (p. 111). Ouchi (2003) contended that
central offices typically have staffs that are too large and that superintendents
respond to problems by adding more staff at the central office to oversee the
schools. Reacting to a local controversy, Greenhut (2005) expressed the common
perceptions that districts spend money foolishly and that schools would be better
able to meet the educational needs of students if administrators were less focused
on bureaucracy building. This study’s purpose is to respond to accusations and
questions about the size and costs of a central office. How are school district
central offices staffed in California? How many central office staff members
adequately meet the needs of students and educators so that achievement is
maximized? How much should an adequate central staff cost?
The chapter begins with an overview of the historical roots of school
finance in the United States from before the founding of the nation to the more
recent issues of equity, adequacy, and productivity. The focus then shifts to the
specific topic of the school district central office, questions of the central office’s
purpose and size, and, finally, the costs involved in staffing the central office.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Historical Roots of School Finance
Early Years Through the Civil
Rights Era
How to provide and pay for educating the children of the United States has
been and continues to be a disputed topic since the early days of our country’s
founding. In colonial days and the early years of the nation, most students had to
pay a fee to obtain an education, if they could acquire one at all. Children of the
wealthy often had private tutors, paid for by their parents. A few free educational
opportunities were available in church charity schools in the eastern part of the
United States, at mission schools of the Southwest, and in town schools provided
by some northern colonies (Kaestle, 2001). Other methods of paying for education
emerged. Local property taxes for education were assessed in Dedham,
Massachusetts in 1648. In 1693 New Jersey began requiring towns to support
elementary schools, while other states directly supported schools as Connecticut
did in 1795 after the sale of its Western Reserve lands (Pulliam & Van Patten,
1999). However, schooling for most children was unavailable, was thought to be
unnecessary, or was considered too costly. Our founding fathers realized the
importance of an educated citizenry but the majority of the populace was engaged
in agricultural pursuits in the 18th century and did not devote time to education or
comprehend its value.
With the coming of the Industrial Revolution and the influx of millions of
non-English-speaking immigrants in the 1800s, people began to realize the need for
literacy and a shared body of knowledge. As a result, the age of the common
school was bom. Horace Mann of Massachusetts, credited with advancing the
notion of the common school, influenced his state legislature to support a more
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
liberal taxation for school funding. The increased support provided more adequate
school facilities and better teacher salaries, improved teaching methods and
curriculum, and addressed the equality of opportunity issue for the poor (Pulliam &
Van Patten, 1999). His influence spread throughout the country and other parts of
the world.
Pulliam and Van Patten (1999) stated that the ideal of a common school for
all citizens began in theory before the Civil War but became a reality afterward.
Public schooling extended, at first, from elementary school to high school and then
to higher education. Financing this expanded role of school in American life
required states to use various funding mechanisms including sales tax, state income
tax, lotteries, fees, licenses, and local property taxes. Schrag (2003) asserted that,
throughout the 20th century, most states provided for schools through a combina
tion of local property taxes and state-supported foundation programs. Foundation
dollars were to ensure that even the poorest districts had some money for the basic
educational needs of their children. Despite foundation program funding, states
relied most heavily on local property taxes. Local school boards could levy higher
property taxes with the approval of voters to enhance their schools’ offerings but
low wealth districts could do only so much. The educational opportunity dis
crepancies caused by the uneven assessment and collection of property tax
revenues was accepted for many years; with the coming of the Civil Rights era,
that acceptance was to change.
Brown v. Board o f Education o f Topeka (1954) was the court case outlaw
ing separate schools for Black children. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that
the claim of “separate but equal” schools was patently false and that the practice of
separating races violated the equal protection amendment. J. Williams (2004)
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
claimed that, looking back with a 50-year perspective, the unanimous court
decision was “a legal, political and cultural eruption” (p. 18) that changed the
nation. Although the initial resistance and slow progress toward achieving integra
tion still leaves much to be desired, an irreversible shift in thinking occurred on all
levels of American society. Berne and Stiefel (1999) noted that the court’s deci
sion did not link its findings to school funding but the resulting accommodations
involved additional resources and, therefore, school finance.
With this background of recent change, social and legal activists in the
1960s began to look at how schools were funded. Allowing some districts to enjoy
wealth and abundance while others in the same state suffered hardship resulted in
numerous court cases throughout the country. The beginning purpose of the
various cases was to gain equity—equal opportunity—for students within a state.
More recently, court cases have looked at the need for adequacy—linking funding
with a system that educates all, or nearly all, students to high standards (Odden &
Picus, 2004). A related term, productivity, has come to be politically important as
communities, parents, and policy makers expect continuously improving and
successful schools that leave no child behind, operated at a cost-efficient price.
School Finance Issues I960 to
1980: Equity
The word equity, in educational terms, focuses on mitigating the inequali
ties of educational opportunity. In the case of school funding it has to do with how
states allocate equal or substantially equal amounts of revenue per pupil among
districts. Berliner and Biddle (2002) discussed the inequities of educational
financing among the states and within individual states, noting that some of the
greatest inequities are within a single state. It was on this issue of in-state inequity
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that Arthur Wise based his legal position in 1968 as one of the first challenges to
the status quo of school finance.
Minorini and Sugarman (1999) explained the importance of Wise’s posi
tion. Wise claimed the recent victories in segregation cases demonstrated that
public education was a fundamental interest protected by the Fourteenth Amend
ment’s equal protection clause. He also presented the notion that, just as reappor
tionment cases had successfully provided for one man/one vote, likewise school
finances should be equally distributed. His idea became known as one scholar/one
dollar, but today it would be commonly referred to as horizontal equity. Berne and
Stiefel (1999) stipulated that horizontal equity is not merely dollar-for-dollar
equity. Their definition specifies that children in equal situations must be treated
equally to achieve horizontal equity. For example, Odden and Picus (2004)
described the best use of the term in studying subgroups, such as all regular educa
tion elementary students or all students scoring at a certain level in assessment
measures. In any case, horizontal equity proved to be a useful idea to stimulate
discussions and to change through court cases the accepted methods of financing
education.
Two lawsuits were filed before Wise’s ideas could be tested in court. These
two cases were based on a very different argument. Both Mclnnis v. Shapiro
(1968) in Illinois and Burruss v. Wilkerson (1969/1970) in Virginia were based on
the view that differing amounts of dollars could be spent on students if there was an
educational need for the differences (Odden & Picus, 2004). This view, called
vertical equity, took into consideration the reality that some children have diffi
culties in learning and need more help and more resources. As Berne and Stiefel
(1999) acknowledged, how much “more” was not clear. Odden and Picus (2004)
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also related that the court needed information in addition to what it had been given.
It needed a standard upon which to judge educational need and how much “more”
was enough. Due to the courts’ inability to judge the cases without a measure or
standard, the cases were dismissed. The cases foreshadowed a time when educa
tional needs would be the driving force in litigation. Unlike the unsuccessful
Mclnnis and Burruss, future cases would provide judges with standards and
assessment structures, or in some cases the judges would provide their own. These
future lawsuits would be called adequacy cases.
At the same time that these cases were being formulated, John Coons, a law
school professor, and two of his students, William Clime and Stephen Sugarman,
devised another approach. The Coons team had noticed that low-wealth districts
often taxed property at a much higher rate than high-wealth districts and still ended
up with considerably less revenue. Coons and associates postulated that this situa
tion was unconstitutional. The quality of an education could not depend on the
wealth of a district but on the wealth of the entire state (Minorini & Sugarman,
1999). Berne and Stiefel (1999) described this approach as wealth neutrality, often
called fiscal neutrality. These authors credited the Coons team with devising an
argument based on a state’s version of the equal protection clause. While their
argument showed that the current state of school finance violated that provision, it
maintained the traditional local decision-making options and focused on educa
tional inputs. Sonstelie, Brunner, and Ardon (2000) considered this theory brilliant
because it could be easily resolved by the courts without an educational quality
determination. With a variety of funding options, the theory allowed judges to be
judges, not legislators who would mandate one system for all. This approach was
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the groundwork upon which the successful Serrano v. Priest (1971) in California
was built.
Sonstelie et al. (2000) described dramatic changes occurring in California
with the coming of Serrano v. Priest, which was originally filed in 1968. From the
time of California’s statehood in 1850 through the 1960s, local school districts had
decided school revenues by assessing property taxes within their jurisdictions. The
Serrano plaintiffs claimed that this had resulted in inequality of educational oppor
tunity across districts based on race and income. The plaintiffs also claimed that
taxpayers in low-wealth districts were inequitably treated when their higher tax
rates produced less revenue for their children’s education. The case was still in
court when California’s legislature adjusted educational spending and provided
state aid to low-wealth districts in the form of supplemental aid and equalization
aid. Still, wide disparities in school funding existed.
The Serrano lawyers originally argued a case similar to the unsuccessful
Mclnnis, and both the original trial judge and the Court of Appeals dismissed their
case. However, upon appeal to the state Supreme Court, the lawyers heeded the
logic of Coons, Clune, and Sugarman and used a fiscal neutrality argument. The
state officials named as defendants stressed to the justices the importance of local
control in educational policy decisions and the local districts’ taxing authority, to
no avail. The state Supreme Court found that California’s system of school finance
was unconstitutional and sent to the legislature the task of changing the system.
The Serrano decision sent reverberations through the nation because the California
Supreme Court’s decision stated that California’s school finance practices violated
not only the state constitution but also the Constitution of the United States
(Schrag, 2003). Similar cases were filed in 30 states within a short period
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
following the Serrano decision, with varying degrees of success (Pulliam & Van
Patten, 1999).
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1972) was one of
the cases filed after Serrano. Unlike Serrano, it was filed in federal court rather
than state court. The Texas federal district court ruled, as the court had in Serrano,
that the state system of local property taxation was illegal. When the decision was
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs’ hope was to have the finding of
a Fourteenth Amendment violation upheld, but that hope was soon dashed. The 5-4
decision against the plaintiffs was based upon several factors. First, the justices
acknowledged that education is important in a democratic society to carry out basic
citizenship responsibilities but is not mentioned in the Constitution. The responsi
bilities not given to the federal government were reserved for states. Therefore,
education was not a right guaranteed by the Constitution (Schrag, 2003). Also,
because the children involved in the case were being educated, there was no abso
lute deprivation of education nor was there discrimination based on the poverty of
the children (Pulliam & Van Patten, 1999). Instead, the poverty referred to in the
case was that of school districts. The court refused to involve the federal govern
ment in what the majority of the justices considered a state matter or that of local
control. Although the decision was a disappointment to school equity advocates,
they were not deterred from pursuing their goal, and litigation continued in other
settings.
The net effect of Rodriguez was to keep education finance cases within state
court systems. Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a decision in Robinson
v. Cahill (1973), a New Jersey case, was announced. While not finding a violation
of New Jersey’s equal protection clause, the court did find the school finance
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
system unconstitutional for failing to meet the “thorough and efficient” requirement
of the state constitution for public schools (Odden & Picus, 2004). Minorini and
Sugarman (1999) credited this court’s ruling with opening a new avenue of legal
challenges by moving beyond an equal protection clause argument to those that are
based on state education clauses. Although the wording among state constitutions
differed, education clauses continued to be successfully employed in equity cases,
and with the turn toward adequacy in the 1990s to the present, education clause
legal challenges remain in their pivotal role.
Robinson v. Cahill was not a one-time event. In fact, more than 20 years of
revisiting this case or similar court cases has repeatedly required the attention of
New Jersey justices. When first given the task by the court of changing an uncon
stitutional education system, New Jersey’s legislature undertook the job of bringing
fiscal neutrality. It also established the requirement of setting state standards and
monitoring student achievement with respect to those standards. In 1976, when the
New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed this solution, the justices focused the majority
of their attention on the new quality revisions. They observed only briefly that the
finance requirements had been met and that enough funds had been earmarked for
the quality changes (Minorini & Sugarman, 1999). This was a beginning step in
the change of direction from equity in funding structure to providing for an
adequate educational opportunity for all students.
Two other states at this time were going through similar court requirements
and solutions to inequitable school funding dilemmas. Using the education clause
rationale in Seattle School District No. 1 o f King City v. State o f Washington
(1978), plaintiffs successfully argued that the city’s failure to pass a voter-approved
special tax prevented the children from receiving the educational opportunities
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
required by the state constitution. In addition, the West Virginia Supreme Court
and a lower court found a “woefully” inadequate educational system in that state.
The justices listed constitutionally valid goals in the categories of curriculum,
personnel, facilities, materials, and other equipment that the state had to meet
(Minorini & Sugarman, 1999). However, these early successes were balanced by
many early defeats as well.
Minorini and Sugarman (1999) recounted that, in the 1970s, courts in
Oregon, Idaho, Ohio, and Pennsylvania had dismissed challenges to current school
finance methods. In particular, Idaho’s Supreme Court in 1975 said that it was the
legislature’s responsibility to respond to school funding questions, not the court’s.
In Oregon the court ruled that the tradition of local control justified their school
finance situation (Odden & Picus, 2004), while plaintiffs in Philadelphia failed to
make their case that a basic level of education had been denied the students. The
fact that Philadelphia’s level of financial support was among the highest in the state
did not help their case.
By the end of the 1970s the score was about even between successful and
unsuccessful lawsuits for more equitable school funding. As this decade had
begun, successful litigants had argued for dollar-for-dollar equity but, as it ended,
people began to understand that different children need different resources. The
movement to provide adequately for student achievement was to get a boost at the
end of the next decade.
School Finance Issues 1980 to
Present: Adequacy
The plaintiffs who won in California’s Serrano v . Priest (1971) expected to
see increased educational achievements among the poor and among disadvantaged
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
minorities. However, that is not what happened. The plaintiffs had assumed that
school finance inequalities were due to race, ethnicity, or family income and that
low-income and minority families lived in low-wealth districts. Actually, poor
families were equally distributed among high- and low-wealth districts. Sixty-one
percent of families who received Aid to Families with Dependent Children were
living in districts with a higher-than-average tax base. African American students
tended to be enrolled in high-wealth districts and Hispanic students tended to be
enrolled in low-wealth districts. Sonstelie et al. (2000) stated that there was more
inequality within these groups than across race and income groups. Therefore,
restricting spending per pupil to a difference of only $100, as the Serrano decision
had done, did not bring any additional funds to many poor and disadvantaged
minorities. Equity in funding, people discovered, was not synonymous with equity
in educational opportunity. This conclusion led to changing the focus from equity
to adequacy, as the goal in school finance litigation.
The 1980s began with smaller but meaningful victories for school finance
equity and ended with one of the most significant school adequacy funding cases:
Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989) in Kentucky. In Wyoming’s Washakie
County School District No. 1 v. Herschler (1980) the court had found that the state
education system violated Wyoming’s constitution in its equity financing require
ments under its equal protection guarantee. At the same time in Arkansas, the
courts used the state constitution’s education clause upon which to base its declara
tion that the educational funding system was unconstitutional.
Another consequential event of the 1980s was the Reagan administration’s
publication in 1983 of the report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983), which detailed the decline of educational
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement to a level that the report authors called “a rising tide of mediocrity”
that threatened the national future (Lloyd, Ramsey, & Bell, 1997). This report led
to a new focus on educational achievement, and future education finance litigants
would refer to the dire warnings of this report to bolster their claims of inequitable
and inadequate educational opportunities. This document was a beginning force
for whole-school reform and accountability with an expectation of educational
productivity.
The end of the 1980s saw important cases decided in Texas, Montana, New
Jersey, and Kentucky. The Texas case involved the same district that had been the
focus of the unsuccessful Rodriguez case in the 1970s. This case, Edgewood
Independent School District v. Kirby (1989), was argued in state court rather than
in federal court, and the Texas Supreme Court found obvious disparities in school
district funding. Minorini and Sugarman (1999) claimed that the expenditures per
pupil in Texas at that time ranged from $2,112 to $19,333. The court agreed with
plaintiffs that property-wealth disparities had to be changed. As had become
common in cases in other states, this judgment relied on the state constitution’s
education clause as its authority, rather than the equal protection law. Texas
lawmakers then had the task of revamping the education system to be suitable and
efficient and to provide a general diffusion of knowledge as the state constitution
required. In 1995 the court was finally satisfied with what the legislature had
devised (Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, Memo, 1995). Along
with school finance changes, the legislators also chose to establish goals and
assessment provisions, similar in scope to those created for New Jersey in response
to Robinson v. Cahill.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Montana decision of 1989 in Helena Elementary School District No. 1
v. State (1989) resulted from a case filed 4 years earlier by a coalition of 64 school
districts and a group of parents. The plaintiffs used the state constitution’s educa
tion clause, which guaranteed equality of opportunity, to claim that children were
being denied this guaranteed right. When the state Supreme Court agreed with that
contention, the legislature’s response was to provide a foundation tax program with
higher levels of state support than had previously been given. Two years later,
rural and small districts sued, again complaining of a lack of equal educational
opportunity. Finally, in 1993 the lawmakers reconstructed the funding formula to
the satisfaction of the court and districts (Hunter, 2004).
New Jersey made news again in 1989 with a decision in the first of ten
cases labeled Abbott v. Burke (1985,1990,1994,1997,1998,2000,2001,2002,
2003). The court found the school finance system unconstitutional for only 28
districts. These were the districts with the highest numbers of minority and disad
vantaged students. While the Quality Education Act of 1990 was the legislature’s
response to the finding, the state could not raise enough money through its tax base
to finance the remedy. Plaintiffs returned to court, judges decided for the plaintiffs,
and the legislature tried again by designing a new funding system, which was later
declared unconstitutional (Odden & Picus, 2004). The New Jersey education liti
gation experience continued through the 1990s, and further discussion of it is
offered later in this section.
At the same time as the Texas, Montana, and New Jersey decisions,
Kentucky faced an historic court decision in Rose v. Council for Better Education,
Inc. (1989), which greatly affected other states’ cases and influenced the objective
of providing an adequate education for students throughout the United States.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schrag (2003) graphically related the condition of education in Kentucky,
especially in rural areas. When compared to other states in adult literacy,
graduation rates, and test scores, Kentucky was near the bottom. Many teachers
had not finished college. There were nepotistic hiring practices and property taxes
were unequally assessed and collected. Political favoritism and pressure to con
form were widespread. However, people within Kentucky had begun to consider
the Nation at Risk message, and businesses coming into the state, such as a Toyota
manufacturing plant, expected to hire high school graduates. Conditions were ripe
for change.
Change did come to Kentucky due to the state Supreme Court’s sweeping
decision that declared the entire school system—all of its regulations, school dis
tricts, school boards, teacher certification, and every other aspect—unconstitu
tional. The court required a state education system that would sufficiently provide
for capacities in oral and written communication, knowledge of economic and
social systems, understanding of governmental processes, knowledge of health
issues, appreciation of the arts and culture, preparation for advanced academic or
vocational training, and skills to compete favorably for jobs (Schrag, 2003). The
plaintiffs got much more than the fiscal equity case that they had filed; they got the
first major adequacy case. To its credit, the state legislature rose to the occasion
and produced the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) in less than 1 year after
Rose. KERA not only tackled inadequate funding; it also established an assessment
system, content standards, and accountability rewards and sanctions, and provided
for school-based decision making (Minorini & Sugarman, 1999).
With the coming of the 1990s and the precedence of Rose, many states
underwent school adequacy lawsuits. Both Massachusetts and Alabama
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experienced the declaration that their educational systems were inadequate, and
their courts used Rose guidelines to define an adequate system. New Jersey’s
education system, not new to the lawsuit method of school finance reform, found
itself in court again. In fact, it had continuously grappled with school funding
lawsuits since 1973, and it again faced the court order to provide adequate funds
and programs. However, the New Jersey court went beyond the Rose precedent of
outlining capacities to be taught when it even specified particular programs for the
lowest 28—later 30—school districts.
In 1996 New Jersey’s Department of Education (DOE) determined a
spending model that seemed to indicate that the lowest districts, called Abbott
districts, were being adequately funded and that higher spending districts were
wasteful. Concerned that their districts’ funds would be cut, superintendents from
suburban districts convinced legislators that a cut in finances would bring many
negative effects. When the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the legislature’s
funding solution kept school districts at essentially the same levels as before, it
ordered the state to provide funding equity on average with the 110 most successful
school districts. The court added a list of new reforms for disadvantaged students
in 1998, including full-day kindergartens, preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, facility
refurbishment, and after-school programs among other mandates. The state’s
response was not sufficient to satisfy the court, and further stipulations were added
in 2000 and 2002 (Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 2004). The justices seemed
determined to bring adequacy to New Jersey.
Other states that faced court challenges to their school funding systems in
the 1990s were Illinois, Vermont, Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Ohio, and
repeat cases in West Virginia and Wyoming. In Florida judges rejected the case on
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the grounds that the risk of judicial involvement in a legislative responsibility was
too great, and in Illinois judges dismissed a similar suit for much the same reason.
Rhode Island justices also rejected their case, stating that they could not “divine”
the meaning of an equal and adequate education (Minorini & Sugarman, 1999).
However, in North Carolina the opposite finding was announced. The state
Supreme Court ruled that students have a constitutional right to adequate educa
tional opportunities.
Ohio had an interesting situation because the defendants agreed with the
plaintiffs. This case, like so many others, was argued on the basis of the state
education clause requiring a thorough and efficient system. The Ohio Coalition for
Equity and Adequacy in School Funding, a coalition of 550 districts, sued for a
different, more adequate system, and the court was astounded when the defendants
disputed few facts. All agreed that the disparity between highest- and lowest-
spending district was enormous. The defense witnesses even agreed that the
system of educational finance was immoral and inequitable (Schrag, 2003). At
this time, Ohio schools were waiting for $16 billion for school construction and
refurbishment, yet the state leaders had promised $100 million dollars for new
football stadiums to professional teams. The court determined that the dependence
on local property tax had to end, that a new school funding system had to be
created to produce a thorough and efficient system of schools, and that school
facilities had to be maintained. Instead of taking up the challenge, however, the
Governor and lawmakers dragged their feet or actively refused to produce the
necessary laws. After reviewing the work in progress and being displeased, the
court relented and reversed itself, later reversing itself again (Schrag). The anger,
confusion, hard feelings, and limited progress made in Ohio discouraged all but the
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most dedicated advocates for equity and adequacy. However, the coalition has
continued to the present to press for education reform and adequate funding.
Productivity
Under the surface of equity and adequacy issues throughout the years, a
third concern has simmered, occasionally coming to a full boil. That is the issue of
educational productivity, which can be defined as the efficient use of funds to
provide education to students (Picus, 2000). The public debate about the quality of
education that students were receiving began in earnest with the publication in
1983 of A Nation at Risk, which indicted public schools as providers of a mediocre
level of education. Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s initiated by courts, by legis
lators, or by advocacy groups routinely included content and/or performance
standards for students to exhibit. Business groups and corporate leaders claimed
that schools could be more productive if they were more like business. They
influenced politicians and educators to use business practices, such as setting goals
and high standards for employees, restructuring for efficiency, holding managers
and employees responsible for the quality of the product, and rewarding those who
meet the standards and punishing those who do not (Cuban, 2001). Productivity
required efficiency and high performance, and productivity was what politicians
and the public wanted.
Herschberg et al. (2003) claimed that schools had not worsened over the
years, but test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
showed that the vast majority of students in the fourth and eighth grades were not
proficient in reading, writing, math, and science. According to Herschberg et al.,
the education system was designed in the 19th century to provide basic literacy to
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
all, to prepare a diverse people for the industrial society, and to identify and direct
high achievers to colleges and universities. With changes brought by new techno
logies and with new expectations that all children must be prepared for advanced or
technical training, the tasks that schools faced in the 1990s was much different
from those in even the recent past.
Adequacy lawsuits brought with them the demand for more dollars, but
critics claimed that public schools wasted funds or, at the very least, allocated them
inefficiently. Davis and Hayes (1990) criticized Texas schools as they stated, “If
we compare scores with the amount of money spent to produce those scores, we
conclude that about one out of every three dollars spent on public education is
being wasted” (p. 1). Admittedly, the ways in which districts spend their revenues
can be questionable. Even within a single district, disparities of educational
resources can exist among curriculum offerings, teacher quality, and other
resources (Perry, 2000). Lawmakers often want to promote their own ideas of
correctly spending public funds, and in California they have routinely restricted the
availability of new funds to specific programs by incorporating them into categori
cal programs. Categorical programs were initially developed to target additional
resources for a variety of student needs. However, currently in California, cate
gorical dollars for special needs students represent only about 25% of the total
categorical spending for the state (Perry). Obviously, there has been a shift in how
legislators view categorical programs and/or a mistrust of districts’ ability to make
wise choices with additional funds.
How have schools been using public funds? Pious’s (2000) investigation of
that question used statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics. His
findings indicated that from 1950 to 1995 the percentage of teachers in classrooms
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dropped from 74% of the total staff to 52%, and the percentage of instructional
aides rose from near zero to almost 10%. Other findings demonstrated that more
than 31% percent of all educational funds were used to pay for the people and the
equipment or supplies to provide support, such things as transportation, food
service, and buildings and maintenance. One must question how productive this
use of resources is at a time when greater student achievement is expected and
student achievement is most directly affected by the teacher in the classroom.
Creating more productive schools and school systems has been the focus of
many discussions and studies. Research has shown that people work more
productively if they have specific targets; therefore educators, as well as students,
need to know what the learning goals are (Schmoker, 1999). Conserving energy
and efficiently restructuring food service are two noninstructional expenses that can
affect productive uses of funds (Hadderman, 1998). Pereus (2000) promoted many
suggestions for cutting operating costs while improving performance and service to
students. From his experience as a chief operating officer of a large district, he
recommended conducting performance audits annually to bring to light ineffici
encies; evaluating labor contracts and eliminating language that negatively affects
performance or encourages excessive use of overtime or sick leave; controlling
absenteeism; implementing improved safety plans; redesigning school business
processes; reducing inventories of paper, custodial products, and other supplies;
and using information technology to simplify transactions such as textbook pur
chasing and delivery, as well as other ideas. Peterson (1991) claimed that school-
based budgeting and decentralization can improve productivity by giving edu
cators, parents, and community members a greater sense of participation and a
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
greater stake in the results. All of these concepts have as their goal to utilize
resources in a cost-effective manner.
With its emphasis on efficient and effective use of hinds, productivity is an
integral part of both equity—providing equal educational opportunity—and
adequacy—deciding what students’ educational requirements are and expecting all
or nearly all to achieve high outcomes. The court cases that began in 1968 and
have continued to the present day have been motivated by observing funding
disparities or other inequalities and trying to find solutions to them by arguing for
equity or adequacy or both. In any case, productivity can enhance school finance
solutions by making the best use of public funds.
Determining Adequacy
The court cases that turned the focus from equity to adequacy led to the
need of determining what adequacy is and what its components are. Adequacy
has a dual focus: high outcomes for all students and funding to enable the high
outcomes. First, to stipulate what all students must know and be able to do, law
makers have set content and performance standards, some by court order and some
on their own initiative (Hansen, 2002). To establish school accountability, political
and community leaders have demanded high-stakes assessments. To incorporate
new pedagogical methods that will better serve students, educators have requested
additional professional development training and time to implement the new
strategies. Every group seems to understand that all children must achieve.
The second component of adequacy is adequate funding. Schrag (2003)
described adequacy as deciding what a constitutionally sufficient education is for
each child and getting that funded. Hadderman (1999) stated that, although equity
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
has been stressed in the past, educators and policy makers now are deciding that an
equal share of too little is unacceptable and that high outcomes for all students
come with a higher price tag. States such as Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts
have considered all costs that go into education. Legislators there have begun to
change their funding debates from questioning how much of the state’s revenue
should go to education to what spending is most likely to be effective for student
achievement (Hershberg et al., 2003).
In order to determine an adequate funding level, researchers have conducted
adequacy studies at the behest of states or independent groups or by court order.
“Forty-four out of 50 states have experienced some form of school finance litiga
tion. . . . Adequacy lawsuits have been filed in 32 states” (Griffith & Burke, 2005,
p. 1). Griffith and Burke provided lists of states that have conducted adequacy
studies, what years the studies took place, and who initiated them.
Adequacy studies make use of four methodologies. The first is the
professional judgment approach, in which focus groups of professional educators
determine the resources necessary for students to achieve high standards. The
second approach is the successful school/district methodology, which measures
desirable outcomes, finds schools and districts whose students are demonstrating
those outcomes, and averages the spending levels of the districts. The third
approach is the cost-function approach, which uses student and district data,
estimates spending levels that are necessary for high levels of achievement, adjusts
for special student and district needs, and establishes a range of funding. The
fourth method is the evidence-based approach, which incorporates high achieve
ment strategies proven effective by research and practice. Researchers using this
method will “cost out” the various strategies and required personnel, then produce a
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
funding model. Professional judgment, successful schools, and evidence-based are
more commonly used than the cost-function approach, and examples of each
follow.
An evidence-based adequacy study that was conducted by Odden et al.
(2003) for Arkansas detailed funding recommendations backed by research on
effectiveness, and it blended findings from professional judgment panels in other
states. The researchers’ purposes were to determine adequate funding in ways that
would close the achievement gap among student groups while assuring accounta
bility for results. All proposals were based on what had been shown to work, and
the researchers stressed interventions that happen early in children’s schooling.
Some examples of the researchers’ recommendations are a teacher/pupil ratio of
1:15 in kindergarten through third grade and 1:25 for other grades; additional staff
members for all schools to allow for enrichment programs and in schools with high
concentrations of children living in poverty and English language learners; instruc
tional facilitators to coach teachers on improved methods; enhanced professional
development opportunities; and increased teacher compensation for instructional
skill that produces student achievement results. Other strategic changes that Odden
et al. recommend included the need to restructure academic programs, strengthen
core academic courses, and reallocate all resources based on effectiveness. The
proposed staffing ratios were to be implemented with little flexibility; however,
districts with staffing variations must demonstrate the academic improvement of
their students through Arkansas’ accountability system.
Augenblick and Myers Inc. (2003) used a professional judgment approach
to their adequacy study for a coalition of educational groups in Nebraska. The
consultants described that the recent practice in Nebraska had been to use a
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
standards-based approach to improve education. The legislature holds schools
responsible for results on criterion- and norm-referenced tests; however, the state
has allowed each district to decide which test to use to assess progress. In addition,
there has not been an understanding of what standards-based reforms actually cost.
Augenblick and Myers Inc. assembled three panels—one with school site expertise,
one with district-level expertise, and one with overall education expertise—each
one reviewing the work of the previous panel. The panels suggested resources for
six prototype school districts, from a small elementary district to a large K-12
district. This step was necessary because Nebraska has a wide range of district
sizes; 90 of its districts have fewer than 10 students. After costs were calculated for
the resources, a base cost for a general education student and adjustments for
special needs students were proposed. The proposal did not include an adjustment
for geographical differences, but the end result was a better understanding of what
constitutes an adequate education. Along with that understanding was the knowl
edge of the resources necessary for that adequate education cost. In contrast to the
Arkansas study recommendation, Augenblick and Myers Inc. stressed that districts
should not be required to allocate resources in exactly the manner suggested by
their research, since no district exactly matches the prototypes.
Another study that used a combination of the professional judgment
approach and the successful schools method was prepared for Kansas by
Augenblick, Myers, Silverstein, and Barkis (2002). For the professional judgment
part of the study, the researchers made use of many of the same strategies as those
used in Nebraska by forming panels of experts for prototype schools and prototype
districts. This method produced a base cost estimate of $5,811 per student. The
second part of the study made use of the successful school (district) approach.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
[This method] relies on a different logic than the professional judgment
approach, seeking to infer a base cost figure from the actual spending of
school districts or schools, determined to be successful because they meet
whatever standards are used by a state to evaluate student and school
performance, (p. 1-3)
The researchers analyzed data from 85 successful schools and determined an
average base rate of $4,547. To explain the discrepancy between the two rates,
Augenblick et al. observed that additional personnel, professional development,
and programs such as full-day kindergarten were recommended by the professional
judgment approach. As in the Nebraska study, the researchers encouraged flexi
bility when putting into practice the recommended resource funding.
Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Services (2004), commissioned to
conduct an adequacy study for New York, used an approach that its researchers
considered to be an empirical model distinct from the successful school/district
approach, yet it seems very much the same. Test results, graduation rates, diploma
requirements and dropout rates were analyzed, as were the spending levels of
districts meeting varying academic achievement criteria. The researchers claimed
that their model “identifies what has actually been possible to achieve with certain
levels of spending” (p. 84), an apparent indication of a successful school/district
methodology. Four achievement scenarios were presented, detailing spending
levels of districts that had already been successful as the top performers in the state
(102 districts); districts that had already met the state’s 2005-2006 performance
targets for NCLB (80 districts); districts that had already met the 2007-2008 NCLB
performance targets (108 districts); and districts that had met the goal of having
80% or more of their students score at or above the proficient level on fourth-grade
English language arts and mathematics tests, thus meeting the state’s definition of
an adequate education (281 districts). An average base expenditure for students
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
without special needs was computed, using the four scenarios. Then, special
weightings or other adjustments were calculated for special needs students, for
geographical differences, and for future years. The report asserted that a replication
of spending levels of the more successful districts does not necessarily predict
achievement levels of other districts, since many other factors affect achievement,
ranging from parent education levels, teacher quality, and family-school relations to
socioeconomic demographics. “While policy-makers and school administrators
cannot control all of these factors, they can control whether resources are fairly
distributed and strategically deployed to help students overcome obstacles to a
meaningful education” (p. 3).
An example of the fourth type of adequacy study, the cost-function
approach, is the Duncombe, Lukemeyer, and Yinger (2004) study, again for the
state of New York. The researchers listed the four steps taken to determine the
costs: calculate costs in a typical school district in the state for a sound basic
education; calculate how much more teachers must be paid to attract them to New
York City; calculate the higher amounts required by New York City to pay for its
large disadvantaged population; and add the first three steps to determine New
York City’s cost of a sound basic education. As simple and straightforward as this
may sound, the complexity comes through estimating wage costs and costs of
student disadvantage. This requires advanced statistical procedures, which few
policy makers understand. Comparing the complexity of this estimation with
estimations of state revenues, the researchers shrugged off the criticism of their
method by stating, “Legislators may not understand the technical details of these
models, but they understand the need for accurate revenue estimation. Legislators
know that a state will not meet its responsibilities by selecting a simplistic solution
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to a complex problem” (pp. 13-14). Duncombe et al. concluded that the per-pupil
cost of educating students in New York City was 36% higher than the state aver
age, just to mitigate the student disadvantages. Including the wage adjustments
necessary to attract qualified teachers increased the estimates to $25,000 per pupil,
which was 70% above state average. This conclusion, with its exceptionally higher
funding recommendation for New York City, is an illustration of the problem with
the cost-function approach. As Odden and Picus (2004) observed, “This analysis
usually produces an adjustment for city districts of two to three times the average
expenditure level, which when combined with the complex statistical analysis,
makes its use problematic in the real political context” (p. 76). Having tax payers
from all over New York state understand and accept that New York City schools
should receive 70% more—or even higher amounts—than their own local schools
would be very difficult to achieve.
Additional Adequacy
Considerations
As the above examples indicate, there are four methodologies, or combina
tions of the four, to determine adequate funding of schools. In any of these
approaches, adequate resources include more than just dollars and cents. Resources
include academic expectations and teacher quality as well as sufficient books and
other materials. According to studies by the Public Policy Institute of California, as
reported by Betts, Rueben and Danenburg (2000), schools with students from low-
income families offer considerably fewer Advanced Placement courses and a much
smaller number of these students complete the University of California A-G
requirements for acceptance to a state university. Clearly, expectations must be
raised and educational opportunities must be provided to low-income students.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition to course offerings, teachers are important resources that
legislators and educators must consider when determining adequacy, and many
schools for low-income students in urban areas lack experienced, credentialed
teachers. Duncombe et al. (2004), in their cost-function adequacy study for New
York City, mentioned the increased salary factor necessary to attract qualified
teachers to less desirable locations. Betts et al. (2000) noted the different teaching
staffs common among racial groups in California. Asians and Whites are taught by
more experienced, better-educated teachers who are more likely to be fully
credentialed than those who teach African American and Latino students. To
remedy this situation, the researchers suggested devising policies to entice experi
enced teachers to work in low-achieving schools, and they gave the example of
paying “bonuses to highly qualified teachers who agree to teach in schools serving
disadvantaged populations” (p. xxxi). Betts et al. reflected on how the inequality of
teaching staffs affects the unequal course offerings, as mentioned above, and the
level of student achievement. One of their most important findings was that
“inequalities in teacher preparation across schools are large, and they matter for
student outcomes, whether measured in terms of test scores or course-taking
patterns” (p. 216). Another finding was that much of the variation of school
resources—teacher preparation and course offerings—that are seen in California
takes place within districts. Intradistrict disparities will not be solved by additional
state dollars, but reform can happen, beginning at the central office.
Illuminating intradistrict disparities was the topic of Roza’s (2005) study of
seven major urban districts. The findings suggested that not only does spending
vary substantially and indiscriminately among district schools but also that district
leaders are often not aware of where the dollars are going. Roza found that
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
political influence or the often-stated axiom of past practice has led to spending
differences that have nothing to do with student needs. “Staff positions, whether
justified or not, become sacred and untouchable” (p. 4). Using salary averaging
instead of calculating actual labor costs hides another inequitable practice.
“Teacher preferences dictate assignment in ways such that the greenest teachers
generally serve in the most struggling schools, and thus the real spending on a
teacher in a high poverty school is less than on the district’s average teacher” (p. 5).
Another concern brought to light through this study was the central budget itself, in
which 40% to 60% of a district’s total operating budget was reflected. Because the
dollars were divided among many department staff members and programs, it is
difficult to clearly view the disparity in funding to schools. The researcher
expressed astonishment at finding many examples of schools receiving less than
half the resources of other schools with similar populations within the same district.
She concluded that current fiscal practices stimulate distrust as the political clout of
some principals or other employees is rewarded. The results of this distrust include
adversarial employee negotiations as well as unrealized potential to impact student
achievement for high poverty and/or high need students. Roza acknowledged that
change was beginning in some districts as they adopted new funding mechanisms,
such as student-based budgeting, and she emphasized the central office staffs
responsibility for transparent budgeting. “Clear spending information is critical for
both financial stability and efforts to spend money strategically” (p. 8).
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Central Office
Relevance to Adequacy
“The primary organizational structure for a city’s schools is the district.
For the vast majority of schools across the country, the district continues in tradi
tional ways to control the money, classify the students, assign the teachers, and set
the work rules” (School Communities That Work, 2002, p. 4). The district, often
referred to as the central office, has the responsibility to implement national, state,
and local reforms, oversee budgets, and provide necessary materials, equipment,
facilities, and repairs. Its ultimate purpose is to facilitate and support the educa
tional program at schools so that teachers are able to teach and students are able to
learn. The reform group School Communities That Work succinctly stated the pur
poses of the central office: equity and results. The group elaborated that equity—
what others may prefer to call adequacy—means to provide varying resources
based on individual student’s needs so that all will demonstrate achievement
results. School Communities That Work described the district as critical to
American democracy because it is the vehicle that a community uses to provide
education for its children. How effectively and efficiently this community unit
operates, then, necessarily relates to adequacy.
Mathews (2001), in his article “Nontraditional Thinking in the Central
Office,” corroborated the call for districts to provide results claimed that many
districts have hired superintendents from the fields of business, law, and the mili
tary to provide a results-oriented mentality. Mathews highlighted superintendents
in Seattle, Milwaukee, Chicago, New York, San Diego, and other cities that have
hired nontraditional superintendents and have seen a renewed emphasis on student
achievement. In order to change the atmosphere of their districts, most of these
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
superintendents have reviewed their organizations, made them more customer
focused, removed layers of bureaucracy, and discontinued practices that were not
working to increase student achievement. For example, one district that has seen
increased achievement, most notably in students of color, “adopted modem
management techniques and made poor customer service a firing offense” (p. 10).
Financial accountability, which includes getting more money to the places and
programs that will do the most good for student achievement, has been the hall
mark of each of these restructured school districts and their nontraditional
administrators. More decisions are made by site-based staff, and instruction has
been altered to meet state standards. Mathews credited the results that these
districts have seen to the quick reaction style of corporate management and/or
military training. The results of improved effectiveness and efficiency have meant
greater academic gains for students, thereby offering more adequate educational
opportunities.
Necessity o f a Central Office
Before discussing the effectiveness and efficiency of district central offices
further, one might ask the very basic question, “Is a central office necessary?”
Forsyth and Turner (2005) argued, “Good central-office leadership and sound
school board governance are not needless add-ons or hindrances to effective
schools; they are vital parts of an efficient and effective educational system” (p. 7).
Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, from effective schools
research, from Education Research Services surveys, and from a report by the
Finance Center of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, the authors
concluded that no district could operate without the central office. Attention to
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
such functions as legal services, employee negotiations, payroll, purchasing,
facilities acquisition and construction, and many others, including school board-
related functions such as elections and property tax issues, are not simply extras to
the smooth operation of districts; rather, they are integral parts of the public school
system and essential responsibilities of the central office.
Berg and Hall’s (1997) study of central offices that had downsized and the
effects of that restructured environment over a 3-year period provided important
evidence to support the necessity of a central office. The districts studied had
downsized as a way to reduce costs due to budget constraints and in response to
public criticism of bloated bureaucracies. Berg and Hall found over the 3 years of
the study that, initially, district staffs seemed to take the central office reduced size
in stride and even relished the idea of being more productive and efficient. Later,
the euphoria that employees had felt often turned to burnout as more individual
effort and time was required to complete important tasks. Often, tasks that could
no longer be completed at the district level were sent to principals, thus leaving
them with fewer hours to be instructional leaders. The principals who were inter
viewed expressed feeling deserted by the central office. Some districts in the study
had hired back retirees temporarily or part time as a cost-effective way to meet the
demands on staff due to growing student populations or new state mandates regard
ing standards and assessment. The researchers reasoned that central offices are not
irrelevant, as some critics have suggested.
Berg and Hall (1997) also concluded that central offices are necessary to
complete essential tasks that otherwise would be accomplished by site personnel.
One of their main findings was that the workload for site personnel who had been
given surplus central office work had become so exhausting as to be detrimental to
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the core purpose of teaching and learning. The researchers also found that, without
a folly functioning central office, districts tended to recreate one at each site. This
not only diverts personnel from the core function of student instruction; it also
reduces the efficiency that they were seeking. “When, in the name of efficiency, do
you become inefficient?” (p. 8), they asked.
An accompanying finding (Berg & Hall, 1997), considered too lightly by
many districts, was the human toll of downsizing. Encouraging superhuman effort
from those who remain is counterproductive if some become ill, either physically
or psychologically. Feelings of abandonment by principals and other staff have
“obvious consequences for the long-term health of both the organization and its
people” (p. 10). The researchers concluded that downsizing and decentralization
are not synonymous and that districts must develop long-term plans and systemic
capacity before financial crises or political pressures to downsize arise. “An
understanding of the larger context, already planned, will guide decision makers as
they respond to partisan demands and political realities of the moment” (p. 11).
To the question of the necessity of a central office, DuFour (2003)
answered, “I am convinced the practices of the central office play a major role in
the eventual success or failure of the improvement efforts of individual schools”
(p. 2). She based her conviction on personal experience and on districts with which
she had worked as a consultant. She insisted that central offices can be effective
role models of a learning community focusing on student improvement if they limit
the number of district goals or initiatives to one or two and have their staff mem
bers all contributing toward that goal or goals. As was mentioned by Berg and
Hall, DuFour also emphasized the importance of central offices as service-oriented
centers whose staff members collaborate and focus on results.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Grove (2002) offered her perspective on the necessity of a central office by
saying that its role may go unnoticed but its contributions to instructional leaders
hip are seen throughout the system. She compared the behind-the-scenes support
provided by the central office to the skeleton of a human body—out of view, yet
indispensable. Some assistance given by the central office that she highlighted are
the efforts to supply consistency toward achieving district learning goals and to
provide support services such as facilitating textbook adoptions, orienting new
teachers to the district, organizing county-wide science fairs and art exhibits,
meeting with citizen committees, and completing government reports. With these
services and the many others carried out by central office staff, teachers and
principals are able to
devote most of their time and effort to the daily challenge of instructing
students effectively. In this way, central office and school staff members
divide the often overwhelming work of the school system to more
efficiently serve the students and their families, (p. 46)
Grove claimed that consistency and support are the two central office elements of
the skeletal framework that school districts must have to operate effectively.
Roles and Purposes
Grove (2002) delineated many of the services that central offices make
available and the importance of consistency and support. Echoing Grove, Corbett
and Wilson (1991) discussed the district’s role in consistently providing high-
quality instructional practices among teachers and across grade levels. The
researchers cautioned that consistency of instructional knowledge does not mean
standardized lessons from centralized decision makers. Instead, wide access to
effective instructional practices means that centralized mandates are less likely to
“be needed to promote educational quality because the key ingredients for making
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
good instructional decisions—specific knowledge of students and extensive knowl
edge of good practice—will be diffused throughout the system” (p. 2). After study
ing five school districts, interviewing central office administrators, principals, and
teachers, and observing classrooms, Corbett and Wilson concluded that central
offices can bring consistency to instructional improvement through three functions:
involvement of all staff, including administrators, in district-wide improvement;
financial support for ongoing, during-the-day professional development; and
communication opportunities for colleagues to collaborate, both formally and
informally. Through involvement, support, and communication, school district
central offices can improve instruction throughout the local education system.
Another set of three roles for district offices, considered fundamental by the
reform group School Communities That Work (2002), are timely support,
decentralized decision making, and data-driven decision making. The first role, to
provide support and timely interventions, includes using staff differently, brokering
services to the schools that need them, and establishing partnerships with universi
ties, cultural groups, community organizations, and private contractors. The
second essential function is to decentralize decision making by giving schools the
authority and resources to make good decisions. Budget development and human
resource functions are two district responsibilities that the group suggested need
greater school site input. The third key function advocated by the reform group
was to use leading indicators and other accountability data to drive decision mak
ing. All three essential functions are service oriented rather than control oriented, a
shift in the traditional central office paradigm.
Another reform group, Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, has
as its stated goal to “completely redesign the role of central offices in urban school
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts” (Burch & Spillane, 2004, p. 2). Berne et al. (1995), writing for Cross City
Campaign, recommend paring down central office staffs and establishing small
units to complete the following nine major tasks: institute district goals and
standards, ensure equity for students with disabilities and other disadvantages,
assist failing schools, provide lump-sum operating funds to schools, manage data
collection and information systems, maintain emergency funds for major repairs or
unforeseen events, negotiate with union groups, recruit employees and conduct
background checks, and provide transportation, food service and other services on a
competitive basis. All nine roles have a service orientation similar to that
suggested by School Communities That Work.
In another Cross City Campaign report Burch and Spillane (2004) gave an
account of a qualitative study of central office and school interactions that took
place over a 3-year period in three large districts. The traditional central office role
of authoritatively monitoring compliance was seen as problematic to the improve
ment of instructional practices. The researchers contrasted the negative authori
tarian view with a “communities of practice” perspective, which is a collaborative
method of gathering expertise, creating effective processes, and supporting collect
ive work around instructional improvement. The focus of the report is placed
specifically on the pivotal role that district mid-level staff play in facilitating
services or undercutting reform. After interviews with 55 mid-level managers,
Burch and Spillane concluded that, by changing the manner in which mid-level
managers interact with school staff from an authoritarian role to a collaborative
one, a community of practice may be created and student achievement enhanced.
The two reform groups and many other research efforts offer important
points of view to consider about essential central office functions, including how to
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
continuously improve practices. “With the current focus on accountability for
results, many schools are finding ways to . . . better meet the needs of all children.
School districts, too, are focused on the goal of continuous improvement” (WestEd,
2002, p. 5). Researchers from three regional educational laboratories—WestEd,
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, and Mid-Continent Regional
Educational Laboratory—reported how successful districts pursued five important
roles so that continuous improvement would happen in their districts. Data for the
study were gathered through individual and group interviews of administrators,
school board members, parents, principals, teachers, and other district staff in
award-winning districts. Also, district documents such as frameworks and news
letters were investigated. The resulting analysis revealed that these high achieving
districts provided high-quality professional development with time for collabora
tion and an expectation that the strategies learned by teachers would be applied, a
focus on students—all students—plus planning to reach state standards and district
goals, effective communication—both one way and two way—telling what is
happening and why, including high visibility of the superintendents in the com
munity, and reinforcing a sense of community around the district vision of high
student achievement, distributed leadership—the idea that leadership is shared
among central office staff, site administrators, and teacher leaders, and data for
informed decision making so that planning and evaluation of programs are
anchored on facts and needs. The conclusions of the study contribute important
evidence toward defining appropriate roles for successful central offices.
As a practitioner whose experience validates the WestEd findings, Flynn
(1998) claimed that the central office’s primary role is to prepare site personnel to
make decisions. He provided details from his own district, which was restructured
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to provide support and guidance of principals as well as the monitoring and
auditing functions. He stated that the central office must teach collegiality and
cooperative relationship building so that students will benefit from the site-based
decision-making model.
Miller (2004) agreed with Flynn’s perception that preparing and supporting
principals is an essential role of the central office. Miller advised that districts have
a key role in “shaping the conditions under which principals can do their most
effective work” (p. 5) and she recommended reviewing literature on effective
schools to determine how best to give principals the authority and support that they
need. She advocated balancing district and school-level responsibilities. For
instance, implementing curriculum is obviously a school-based task, but aligning
the curriculum to state standards, sequencing, and pacing the curriculum are district
responsibilities that release site staff from a time-consuming process. Another
example of balancing responsibilities is in the area of monitoring and assessment.
Miller stated that districts must create a data infrastructure that allows principals to
access assessment data so that, in turn, they may accurately evaluate curriculum
and instruction. By finding ways to support principals to become effective leaders,
central office staff members participate in improving student achievement.
Whether or not a district is decentralized will affect the roles that the central
office serves. Decentralization is the process of delegating power from a central
authority to local authorities (Merriam- Webster’ s Collegiate Dictionary, 1994).
California law advocates for decentralization in California Education Code §44666
and §44667 (n.d.). In those passages the Legislature stated that its goal is not to
diminish the leadership role of school districts but it desires a more collaborative
process than has existed in the past in public school districts. The sections detail
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the intent to involve teachers in decision making, provide site personnel with
greater budget authority, and offer increased staff development to assist restructur
ing districts.
A brief look at decentralization is important to distinguish the duties that
must remain at the central office from those that could and should be passed on to
the schools. To illustrate, Ilg and Raisch (1999) reported on a case study delineat
ing the history of the Oak City School District, a Dayton, Ohio, school district. The
district had been a traditional, top-down, strong central office type of district until
1979, when a new superintendent was charged with effectively responding to
unhappy teachers, indecisive principals, and a community that had recently voted
down two school finance measures. Because the superintendent believed that “any
organization became better when people worked together for a common purpose”
(p. 6), he wanted to use decentralization as a means for people to feel more
connected to their schools and the district. Rather than diluting the central office’s
influence, decentralization enhanced it as central administration changed to become
a service center to its schools, as central office personnel adjusted to become
technical advisors and mentors, and as central office administrators modified their
behavior to visit schools more frequently. Ilg and Raisch related several valuable
lessons learned by this district in the decentralization process and they warned that
resistance is to be expected as the role of central administration is altered from the
traditional role of decision making to mentoring and supporting site staff.
Murphy and Doyle (2001) added their strong perceptions in favor of
decentralization. They stated that districts cannot flourish without being decentral
ized, and they insisted that the traditional bureaucratic model of central office
control and top-down communication inhibits the creativity, flexibility, innovation,
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and originality that are required by modem education. The authors recommended
streamlining staff and leading very large districts with a superintendent/chief
executive officer, a chief academic officer, a chief operating officer, a chief
information office, and a chief of staff. Other suggestions that were considered by
Murphy and Doyle to be vital were ongoing qualitative and quantitative evaluation,
improvements focused on curriculum and instruction, and “a ‘360-degree
evaluation’ system that allows all members of the staff to impact the governance of
the district and focus on creating the most positive learning environment possible”
(p. 3). The authors recommended that central offices be redesigned as service
centers, held accountable for their responsiveness by site-based personnel. This
emphasis on the central office as a service center is a recurring one throughout the
literature on decentralization and on central office roles.
Norfolk (Virginia) Public Schools is an example of a district whose central
office has become a service center to the schools, and Simpson and Schnitzer
(2005) reported on the steps taken in that district to connect each department with
student achievement. All central office departments are required to write annual
accountability plans to support academic achievement. The transportation
department, for example, “has dedicated more effort toward having 100 percent of
the school buses arrive on time” (p. 18) so that valuable instructional time is not
lost. The Department of Instruction and Department of Staff Development have
been merged to meet teachers’ instructional support needs. Departments are
evaluated by school personnel and self-evaluated on promptness, timeliness, and
courteousness in responding to schools and on general school support. “The central
office departments are no longer seen as ‘they’ by the schools. By emphasizing
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ongoing training and monitoring, they have become an integral part of a system
whose common goal is to facilitate teaching and learning” (p. 19).
Facilitating teaching and learning may be the highest priority of central
offices, but public interests such as protecting the tax dollar are important functions
as well. Smith (2003) categorized various central office tasks in two ways: as
public interest functions or service and support functions. Public interest functions
target accountability and protection of public revenue. These responsibilities also
include securing equitable treatment of all students, maintaining lawful practices,
and guaranteeing accountability in student assessment and other school roles. The
service and support functions of central office “build the physical and human
infrastructure needed to deliver classroom teaching and learning” (p. 2). These
services provide teachers and other employees with pay checks on time; deliver
students to schools and return them home safely; develop curriculum scope,
sequence and pacing; and perform all other tasks that affect a highly people-
oriented service organization. Both public interest functions and support functions
are crucial central office tasks to supply the free public education that the nation
has valued for its children for more than 200 years.
Central Office Size
No matter whether a district is centralized or decentralized, careful thought
is required regarding how many central office staff members are necessary to meet
the needs of students and schools. Having too many staff members can draw
resources away from necessary instructional programs or materials. Having too
few staff members can cause failures in promptly supplying essential services or in
providing the services at all. Finding the right balance in numbers can be difficult,
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and sometimes it seems to be a matter of opinion. For example, Guilford County
Schools has an administrator-student ratio that is one of the lowest in North
Carolina: 1.34 administrators per 1,000 students. The county commissioners have
complained that there are too many central office administrators. At the same time,
the superintendent worries that his staff is too lean when considering the paperwork
required by federal accountability programs such as NCLB (Buchanan, 2003).
Earlier, when the Guilford County district had proposed an increase in funding to
the commissioners rather than cutting staff, the business community in the area
backed the request. “Business leaders said schools are being run more efficiently
than they expected, which would make trimming the budget difficult” (Newsom,
2001, p. 1).
Business leaders may have supported the school district in the above
instance because business typically has more managers than do schools, according
to Forsyth and Turner (2005). Using data from the U.S. DOE and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the researchers compared the ratio of public school employees to
administrators with business and industry’s ratios of employees to management.
The results showed that public schools had the highest at 15.2:1—higher than
health care (11.7:1), transportation and warehousing (10.3:1), construction (6.5:1),
utilities (5.7:1), manufacturing (5.6:1), public administration (4.4:1) or information
businesses (3.6:1). Comparatively, school districts run lean management teams.
“We find that school districts are major enterprises performing important public
functions with substantially fewer management personnel than are found in
business and industry” (p. 18).
Ouchi et al. (2002) encouraged lean central office staffing as a sign of
efficiency in an analytic study of centralized versus decentralized school districts.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The researchers investigated one Canadian district (Edmonton) and some of the
largest school districts in the United States (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago,
Seattle, and Houston), as well as large Catholic school systems in New York,
Chicago, and Los Angeles. The findings indicated that how districts were
organized and managed made a crucial difference to student academic success, but
they did not clearly determine how large or small a central office staff should be.
One of the ways that the researchers in this study measured efficiency was by the
size of central office staffs per 100,000 students. They cited Edmonton, a
decentralized school system, as an excellent example of efficiency with its 540
administrators per 100,000 students, as compared to two centralized districts—Los
Angeles with 1,646 and New York with 2,311. Two other decentralized districts—
Houston and Seattle—did not demonstrate administrative efficiency, as hypo
thesized. Houston had 1,787 central office personnel per 100,000 students; Seattle,
with 3,401 per 100,000 had the largest staff of all of those studied. Ouchi et al.
contended that standardized test data demonstrate the superior results that
decentralized districts attain in student achievement due in large part to a realloca
tion of resources to classroom support from other expenses, including the central
office. While efficient district organization and management makes a difference
for students, it is not clear from this study how the size of the central office staff
affects that efficiency.
Marlow’s (2001,2002) studies took a different approach from the study by
Ouchi et al. (2002). Marlow attempted to determine the role of school bureau
cracies in public school systems in California and to test “which resources contri
bute the most to performance at the margin” (2002, p. 2): hiring administrators,
teachers, or non-teachers. He statistically analyzed county-level data from the
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1990s on population density, median population education, percentage of students
taking SAT tests, and number of schools in the area, along with performance
measures of average SAT mathematics and verbal scores and dropout rates. The
results indicated that the number of administrators in a district exerted a positive
effect on verbal SAT scores and that higher numbers of administrators corre
sponded to lower dropout rates. Numbers of teachers did not explain any variation
in the performance measures, and a higher number of non-teachers lowered SAT
verbal scores and raised dropout rates. He concluded, “The evidence appears to
suggest that California public schools hire too few administrators and too many
non-teachers based on the prediction that greater numbers of administrators and
fewer non-teachers would raise verbal SAT scores and lower dropout rates” (2001,
p. 1349). Marlow’s study did not specify where the administrators served (on
school sites or in central offices) but the indication that “counties with more
administrators tend to exhibit higher scores” (2001, p. 1347) is a compelling and
counterintuitive result.
Substantiating the suggestion of too few administrators in California,
EdSource (2005) used information from the National Center on Education Statistics
for fall 2004 to show California’s dismal rankings regarding professional staff-to-
student ratios. The U.S. average of district officials and administrators per 1,000
students is 1.3; California’s average is 0.4, giving it a ranking of 47 out of the 50
states plus the District of Columbia. California’s rankings are even worse in the
categories of school principals/assistant principals, guidance counselors, and
librarians (placing either 50th or 51st). The California Department of Education
(CDE) prediction that, in order to accommodate enrollment growth, “the state will
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
require about 7,000 additional classrooms annually for the next four years” (card 4)
was a sobering thought, made even more so in light of the professional staff deficit.
A. Williams, Protheroe, and Kibula (2004c) provided current information
regarding staffing in public education systems throughout the United States from
the Educational Research Service’s survey of salaries and wages in public schools.
Confirming EdSource’s data and contrary to a widespread perception of a bloated
bureaucracy at the central office, the professionals at the district level (superintend
ents, assistant superintendents, directors of finance and business, and subject-area
supervisors) comprised a very small percentage of public school employees—only
about 1%—and consuming about 3.5% of the district budget. This budget percent
age included salaries, benefits, and retirement contributions. Other information
from the study can be instructive as to how staffing has changed over the years,
with comparative details from 1993 to 2003 included. The data demonstrated that
the central office professional per pupil average was reduced from about 600
students per administrator to 562 over the reported decade for most districts.
However, large districts—those with 25,000 or more students—had reduced central
office staff and, as a result, increased the ratio from about 700:1 in 1993 to 854:1 in
2003-2004. The researchers suggested that the information about current staffing
was important for educational quality considerations. An efficient allocation of
resources is crucial, since districts are entrusted with scarce public funds; however,
when there are too few staff members to meet the workload expectations, other
costs incur: staff turnover or burnout and lower student outcomes with reduced
services.
Survey results from the Educational Research Service detailed what the
current central office staffing situations were across the United States, but very few
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
researchers have recommended what the size of a central office staff should be.
One study that provided recommendations for small school districts was by Ehlers,
Hayward, and Picus (2002) for the state of Wyoming. The study was necessary to
fulfill the judgment requirements of a court case questioning adjustments given to
small school districts. In an attempt to understand the management needs of small
districts—those with fewer than 1,350 students—the research team examined the
literature on economies of scale, reviewed how other states treated small districts,
interviewed district staff members, surveyed school staffs, and considered reports
from Wyoming’s DOE. With that background information, the researchers offered
three prototype models to supply adequate district leadership and services. For the
smallest prototype—a district or 250 students—they proposed a minimum staff of
two clerical positions and four administrators: a superintendent, a business
manager, a curriculum and instruction coordinator, and a technology coordinator.
For a district of 550 an additional administrator was included, and for a 1,000-
student district another clerical position was added. Statewide average salaries for
the positions were built in to the model, as well as fixed benefits costs, in order to
produce a total cost for each prototype. Ehlers et al. contended that the relatively
high administrative staff numbers would enable even the smallest school districts to
meet the needs of their students, even when the district consists of more than one
school.
Central Office Costs
What are the costs of a central office to adequately provide for student
achievement? Costs of central office staffing may not directly influence high
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student achievement but their indirect effect can add to or detract from the achieve
ment goals of schools.
According to Wenglinsky (1996), “The common wisdom that spending
money on administration is a waste of fiscal effort is not in fact the case” (p. 36).
His study used information from the NAEP and the Common Core of Data to
measure the influence of economic resources—including central office adminis
trators—on student achievement. Among the results of his multivariate study,
Wenglinsky found that spending on central office administration was about 2% of
all per-pupil expenditures and that increased spending on central office administra
tion positively influenced mathematics achievement. He suggested that the invest
ment in administration leads to hiring of more teachers, which brings to schools a
more cohesive social environment and improved achievement. “Investment in an
administrative infrastructure may increase the rationality and efficient organization
of a school system, thereby leading to wiser spending decisions” (p. 36).
School Services of California, Inc. and WestEd (2004) studied actual
district costs reported to the CDE using the Standardized Account Code Structure
(SACS) for the school year 2002-2003. The research groups analyzed the informa
tion using a 72-cell matrix converging eight expenditure groups (certificated and
classified salaries/benefits, textbooks, materials, maintenance and operations, and
others) and nine expenditure purposes (transportation, food services, libraries,
instructional support, and others). The matrix represented over 40 billion dollars in
expenditures, about 70% of California’s total education expenditures for that year.
“This analysis draws no conclusions about what the ‘right’ or optimal expenditure
pattern should be, but rather illustrates that individual district spending priorities
may vary from the averages” (p. 12). Regardless of whether a district is
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
elementary, unified, or high school, state averages consistently show that close to
7% is spent on non-school site administration. This category is comprised of
district insurance, contracts, conferences, operations, maintenance, and
management, as well as salaries and benefits for most central office staff. More
than 80% of a district’s budget is spent on classroom expenses and other support
services for students: teachers, counselors, libraries, professional development,
materials, health services, extracurricular activities, transportation, food services
and others. The remaining amount is spent on school site administration and
operations. The California perspective provided by the School Services study
informs the discussion about central office expenditures.
Another helpful study came from the Education Research Service, as
reported by A. Williams, Protheroe, and Kibula (2004a). Budget amounts showing
differences among geographic regions in the United States, district enrollment size,
community type, and per-pupil expenditure level were charted for easy compari
sons. Data about central office staff and per-pupil expenditures for central office
administration demonstrated that the Great Lakes region—Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin—spent the largest dollar amount and largest
percentage of budgets on central office staff at $772.65 per pupil and 8.74%. The
Mideast region—Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and
the District of Columbia—spent $652.56 per pupil, the second-highest dollar
amount, but that equated to only 5.92% of budgets. The Far West states—Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington—spent the third-highest
amount at $512.56 per-pupil for central office and school board services, which
was also the second-highest percentage at 6.9%. It is interesting to note that the
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School ServicesAVestEd results mentioned earlier were corroborated by this
information about the Far West region.
Summary and Conclusion
Schools have traditionally been financed through local property taxes,
which are unequally assessed, collected, and distributed within states and across the
United States. The most common explanation for widespread acceptance of
unequal funding has been that schools are and should be financed and controlled by
local communities. Berliner and Biddle (2002) suggested that this argument has
had a selfish motivation: to keep taxes as low as possible in wealthy districts.
They also claimed that people are ignorant of the equity problem, with some low-
wealth districts receiving several times less than high-wealth districts, even though
property tax rates may be higher. Flawed studies that claim that funding does not
matter have confused others. Berliner and Biddle refuted the funding-does-not-
matter studies and reviewed numerous studies that indicated the strong relationship
of better-funded schools attracting better-prepared and experienced teachers with
better achievement by students as a result.
Financing education in the United States is very complex, with each state
having different systems and funding formulas (Park, 2003). Most states have
foundation programs to equalize per-pupil revenue but local revenues still are
depended on to provide the majority of school financing. In an effort to equalize
educational opportunity by making school funding more equitable, law suits have
been filed in the majority of the states to call attention to the equity issue. Court
decisions have radically changed how some states have handled their education
finance responsibilities.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the course of school finance lawsuits through the years, the emphasis
changed from equity—allocating equal resource inputs—to adequacy, which has as
its goal high minimum outcomes for all students, with school allocations based on
what is necessary to achieve those high outcomes (Rose, 2001). Discussions
continue on how best to determine what constitutes an adequate education.
Numerous adequacy studies have been undertaken to provide a dollar-amount
estimate, and the studies take the forms of professional judgment panels, success-
ful-districts studies, cost-function analyses, and evidence-based studies. Whichever
methodology is used, the purpose is to answer how much money is enough and
where would it best be spent (Perry, 2000).
Besides considerations of equity and adequacy, it is critical that schools
demonstrate productivity through achievement goals for all students. Providing
equitable and adequate dollars can be undermined unless schools and districts aim
for the most productive uses of those dollars. The public has limited resources, and
many programs and goals compete for them. However, the public has a right to
expect schools and school officials to be accountable for the best use of those
resources, as demonstrated by the achievement results of students (Perry, 2000).
Central offices are the local community’s system for providing equitable
and adequate educational opportunities for students. Whether or not a district is
decentralized, central offices serve fundamental roles and supply key services such
as supporting principals, aligning curriculum to state standards, using effective
business practices, providing professional development opportunities, and many
others. Central offices need sufficient numbers of staff to meet their vital functions
but not too many to draw scarce resources away from the ultimate purpose of
producing student achievement results. Cost surveys have demonstrated that close
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to 7% of a district’s budget is used on non-school site administration, which
includes contracts, insurance, operations, maintenance, as well as central office
staff salaries and benefits. Effective management is crucial to increase productivity
by eliminating inefficient or wasteful spending and free additional funds for
academic improvement programs. “Good central-office leadership should not be
viewed as an unnecessary bureaucracy or a hindrance to effective school. It is a
vital part of an efficient and effective educational system” (Protheroe, 1998, p. 2)
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter delineates the methods used to respond to the three research
questions: (a) How are California districts with enrollments between 3,000 and
4,000 currently staffing their central offices? (b) What is an adequate central office
staff for a school district of 3,500 students, and (c) How can the cost of an adequate
central office staff be calculated? The chapter begins with an explanation of the
methodological design, including why a mixed methodology was appropriate for
the study. Following that is a description of the purposeful sampling strategy used
to select the California school districts and focus group participants. The chapter
continues with a report of data collection procedures and an explanation of the
instrumentation. The chapter ends with an outline of the analysis of the data.
Study Design
Evidence-Based Method
Four common methods of research to determine an adequate funding level
in school finance are the professional judgment method, the successful school/
district method, the cost function method, and the evidence-based method (see
chapter 2). According to Odden and Picus (2004), the evidence-based method
proposes appropriate funding levels after identifying educational strategies that
have been confirmed by research or after compiling research and best-practice
knowledge. Hoff (2005) described the evidence-based process as used by Picus
and his research associates in Arkansas. With background knowledge in best
practices, the researchers surveyed the state’s schools and calculated the cost of
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bringing up what was currently offered to the best-practice level. They then
convened focus groups of educators, shared their findings, and listened to the
educators’ reactions. The result was a workable and enriched model for Arkansas
schools that was endorsed by the focus group participants.
This study incorporated strategies similar to those used by Picus and his
associates in Arkansas because the study was designed to identify a model—in this
case, a central office staffing model—along with a calculation of its accompanying
costs. First, a review of the literature was conducted that included works on
adequacy, salaries and wages of public school professional and support personnel,
school district productivity and cost effectiveness, and central office issues, includ
ing decentralization and staffing. Then, an investigation of common staffing
practices in California school districts with enrollments between 3,000 and 4,000
students was accomplished by using Internet information and public documents,
such as organizational charts and salary schedules. Additional public information
was received via telephone calls. As in Arkansas, a proposed model with accom
panying costs was presented to focus groups. The groups in this study consisted of
superintendents and school board members who met in San Diego, California, on
April 17,2005, during the National School Boards Association (NSBA) annual
convention. Focus group members critiqued the model, considered the prospects of
its implementation in their regions of California, and suggested modifications.
Data analysis was accomplished throughout the previous steps and as the culminat
ing procedure. Data were synthesized into a more complete and accurate model
that may be useful to administrators, school boards, and other policy makers as they
make decisions regarding school funding, equity, and adequacy.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Qualitative Inquiry
For the most part, this study makes use of qualitative methods due to its
sampling design, its data collection procedures, and its analysis strategy but it also
includes quantitative characteristics.
Initially, the qualitative sampling design of purposeful sampling was used
when choosing both the focus group participants and the school districts in
California. Purposeful sampling is the technique of selecting people or organiza
tions because of what they can clarify or illuminate about the topic or phenomenon
of inquiry. The samples are information-rich sources “from which one can learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research”
(Patton, 2002, p. 46).
Second, the task of data collection fell within the parameters of a qualitative
study due to its composition of focus group interviews and document analysis.
Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) stated that focus groups are individuals selected
because they are knowledgeable about the research topic. The group interactions
“stimulate them to state feelings, perceptions, and beliefs that they would not
express if interviewed individually” (p. 238). Patton (2002) held that the strength
of this type of interview is the focused nature of its topic, of the compact time
period, and of the similarity of participants’ backgrounds.
Document analysis, another form of qualitative data used in this study,
allows a behind-the-scenes look at a program or organization. Because documents
may be incomplete or outdated, telephone calls were made to verify the accuracy of
the organizational charts, salary schedules, and other public documents.
Other qualitative procedures employed in the study were data triangulation
and ongoing data analysis. Triangulation is the process of using a variety of data
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sources to test for validity of findings (Gall et al., 2003). In this case, data were
triangulated by accessing Internet information and public documents regarding
school districts in California; verifying information via telephone calls; reviewing
research studies on staffing patterns, salaries, and other school finance topics; and
convening focus groups. The strength of each approach compensated for the
weaknesses of others, thereby increasing validity (Patton, 2002).
Data analysis in qualitative research differs from quantitative research in
that it “usually begins while the data are being collected, and affects subsequent
data-collection efforts” (Gall et al., 2003, p. 493). This was the case in the current
study. Assessing the information acquired through reviews of studies produced the
initial model design. Adjustments to the model were made as more information
about current staffing arrangements was discovered. Coding and examining
comments from focus group members resulted in further adjustments to staffing
and cost estimations. More information was collected from additional districts to
clarify previous findings. The process was ongoing and reflective, and its
conclusions at one juncture influenced those at the next.
There are substantive reasons to conduct a qualitative study, and Creswell
(1998) furnished several, some of which are the reasons that guided the present
study. Creswell said that a qualitative study begins with a “how” or “what” kind of
question to describe what is happening rather than the “why” of quantitative
research to establish cause and effect. These questions guided this study: What are
current staffing practices? How are staffing patterns in central offices affecting
what happens at schools and the achievement of students? What do district leaders
need to know to improve adequate resources for students? How can appropriate
costs be determined? Two more reasons suggested by Creswell are that some
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
topics should be explored because theories are not available and should be
developed. He argued that detailed views of issues must be presented. The
creative potential in this reasoning was intriguing in the consideration of the current
lack of a staffing model available for policy makers or administrators. At the
beginning of this study I asked a superintendent what he used as a model for
making staffing decisions. He responded, “I don’t have one. I just call around and
ask what other districts are doing” (L. Becker, personal communication, October
25,2004). Clearly, this is an issue of important possibilities, and the detailed
model presented here with accompanying costs can be the starting point for further
investigation.
Instrumental in the choice of a qualitative study were two final reasons
offered by Creswell: receptivity to this type of research design and the researcher’s
role as an active learner, not as an expert. In a hindsight review of the study,
particularly of the focus group session, Creswell’s view seemed even more per
ceptive. The focus group participants, mostly strangers to each other, had been
discussing the topic for 85 of the scheduled 90 minutes. They were engaged and
seemed excited in their involvement when I interrupted the proceedings. An
audible groan could be heard, and some remarked that they could not believe that
time was up. The culminating exercise ended the time together, but it was obvious
that the participants were very receptive and eager in their participation. The
researcher’s role that day and throughout the process was one of active learning.
On the morning of the focus group discussion, I especially appreciated the freedom
of moving from one focus group to another as the research assistants conducted the
groups. I listened, made comments, followed others’ comments with questions,
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and made insightful discoveries. I was learning along with every one else. Quali
tative studies engage all participants in the learning potential within the study.
Quantitative Characteristics
To answer the first research question—How do California school districts
of 3,500 currently staff their central offices?—I made use of descriptive research, a
method that presents conditions as they now exist. Gall et al. (2003) called the
descriptive method the most basic quantitative research method. Charles (1998)
referred to descriptive methodology as being qualitative, quantitative, or a com
bination of the two. In any case, it would not be incorrect to label this part of the
study quantitative because the question answered made use of numeric data.
Descriptive research involves a straightforward design and methods of
analysis but it is also a valuable tool to further knowledge. Descriptive research
usually begins with a question rather than a hypothesis, as this study did, and a
desire to know what is. Analysis, as Charles (1998) explained, may be to simply
present data in an organized way, without further analytic processes. Data may
also be converted to numeric representations, such as percentages or graphs, for
ease of comparison, or more complex statistical analysis may also be undertaken.
In the end, the value of this type of research to education is that, unless a problem
or condition is described as it is, changes to the condition are more difficult to
promote. Gall et al. (2003) expressed the value of this method: “Descriptive
studies in education, while simple in design and execution, can yield important
knowledge” (p. 291).
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Participant Selection Strategy
Purposeful sampling was used to identify focus group members from
among Californians with expertise in central office operations, namely, superin
tendents, assistant superintendents, and school board members. NSBA’s annual
convention provided an efficient means of finding the targeted population at a
single location over a set period of time. To find out which administrators and
board members were planning to attend the convention, I contacted the California
School Board Association (CSBA) executive director’s office, explained what was
needed and why. The next day, a list of California attendees was emailed to me. I
contacted the convention goers by telephone and invited them to attend the focus
group session scheduled for the second morning of the convention, a time when
there were fewer conflicts with the convention schedule. Those who agreed to
attend were mailed a copy of the proposed central office staffing model.
Purposeful sampling was also used when looking at current staffing patterns
in California school districts. Only those districts with enrollments between 3,000
and 4,000 were examined. At the CDE Dataquest web site, I selected “county” as
the level of inquiry from the choices of state, county, district, school, special
education local plan area, or other. By then selecting “enrollment” under “student
demographics” of the subject section, I could view all districts within each of
California’s 58 counties, noting the districts of the targeted size. The web sites of
those districts were inspected for information regarding their central office staffing
and for salary schedules.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection Procedures
Central Office Staffing Model
To locate studies and other literature regarding central office staffing,
several Internet-based resources were employed. The Education Resources
Information Center (ERIC), which is a digital library of education-related resources
sponsored by the U.S. DOE, was searched using the keywords “central office” and
“staffing” and/or “model.” Some studies could be accessed directly from ERIC.
The ERIC search led to other sources, such as web sites for the Education Research
Service, the American Association of School Administrators, Education Com
mission of the States, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Educational
Testing Service, and School Communities That Work, among others. At each site a
search was conducted to find studies and reports relating to the central office and its
staffing.
By using information obtained from these sources, especially information
from the Educational Research Service’s Staffing Patterns in Public School
Systems: Current Status and Trends, Update 2004 (A. Williams et al., 2004c),
and comparing that information with central office staffing currently in place in
California districts, a proposed central office staffing model was created. Accord
ing to Sonstelie (2001), building a cost model requires defining appropriate
resource categories and units of measure, then calculating the cost for each cate
gory. The model used the district as its unit of measure, and resource categories
included personnel for district leadership, instructional leadership, business opera
tions, and technology, as recommended by Picus, Odden, and Seder (2005).
Sonstelie offered suggestions for obtaining necessary adjustment information, such
as regional salary differences, and described how he calculated the costs of his
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
model. He also volunteered the reasons cost models are important: Although there
is no one right way to allocate a school’s budget, knowledgeable people can reach
consensus and that consensus can drive school finance legislation. The costs
incurred by the proposed model were postulated using actual salary ranges from
school districts in California. This model, including costs, was sent to participants
prior to the focus group discussions.
California School Districts
The CDE Dataquest web site was used to locate school districts with
student enrollments between 3,000 and 4,000. The Dataquest web site also pro
vided student achievement data, such as Academic Performance Index (API)
scores. Next, district web sites were perused, if available. Many of the districts
have a great deal of information on their web sites, including administrators’ names
and titles, staff directories with names and positions, and separate screens for the
separate offices, such as business, curriculum, and facilities. Many also include
salary schedules; one district—Del Mar Union Elementary School District—had its
adopted budget online.
Follow-up telephone calls to all 51 identified districts revealed that four
districts should be excluded due to inaccuracies in the CDE information or other
reasons. Oro Grande Elementary School District and Waterford Unified School
District, whose enrollments appeared to be within the targeted range, actually had
much smaller enrollments; the remaining students were enrolled in charter schools
whose offices were within the districts’ borders. Another district, Plumas Unified
School District, was eliminated because it was one of six California districts that
was both a school district and a county office of education. The Plumas district’s
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dual purposes and funding of staff members made its inclusion unworkable. San
Rafael Elementary School District was excluded because it shared a school board,
district offices, and central office staff with San Rafael High School District; again,
the dual purposes and funding of the central office made comparisons difficult.
Table 1 lists the districts that were included in the study and appendix A identifies
the districts by county.
Table 1
California School Districts Included in the Study (3,000 to 4,000 Students)
Elementary districts Unified districts High school districts
1 Brawley Elementary Albany City Unified Central Union
2 Castaic Union Elementary Bear Valley Unified Delano Joint Union
3 Del Mar Union Cabrillo Unified Fallbrook Union
4 Enterprise Elementary Calaveras Unified Hanford Joint Union
5 Fruitvale Elementary Corcoran Joint Unified Mountain View-
Los Altos
6 Goleta Union Elementary Dixon Unified San Benito
7 Lafayette Elementary El Segundo Unified Tamalpais Union
8 Lemoore Union Elementary Escalon Unified
9 Lowell Joint Elementary Fillmore Unified
10 Mountain View Elementary Gateway Unified
1 1 Oroville City Elementary Kerman Unified
12 Pacifica Elementary Konocti Unified
13 Rescue Union Elementary Lindsay Unified
14 Rosemead Elementary Oak Park Unified
15 Salida Union Elementary Ojai Unified
16 Santa Rita Union Elementary Palo Verde Unified
17 Stanislaus Union Elementary Parlier Unified
18 Walnut Creek Elementary Riverbank Unified
19 San Lorenzo Valley Unified
20 San Marino Unified
21 Soledad Unified
22 Southern Kern Unified
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Focus Groups
In order to receive valuable input from central office staffing experts—
district administrators and school board members—within a wide area of
California, the study focused on those who would be attending the annual NSBA
convention in San Diego, California, on April 16 through 19,2005. I requested a
list of California attendees from the office of CSBA’s Executive Director Scott
Plotkin. The attendees’ names and their districts’ addresses were emailed to me a
short time later. By using Internet sources, telephone numbers for the districts and
the individuals were obtained.
From the attendee list, I constructed files of administrators from the
southern part of California (Bakersfield and south), administrators from the north,
board members from the south, and board members from the north. I decided not
to contact people who were from county offices or excessively large districts such
as Los Angeles and San Francisco because their staffing issues would be much
different from those of the proposed model.
The approval of the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board was granted before the administrators and school board members were
contacted. Telephone calls were made first to administrators, then board members.
I shared that my purposes were to learn more about how the staffing of the central
office helps to provide for an adequate education for students and to determine the
cost of that level of staffing. Furthermore, I explained that the study used an
evidence-based design that makes use of adequacy studies from throughout the
United States, and that the study would be strengthened by the addition of feedback
from district administrators and board members. If they chose to participate, their
only obligation would be to attend a one-time breakfast meeting on Sunday,
71
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
April 17, 2005, and participate in a 90-minute discussion regarding a staffing
model, which would be mailed to them in advance of that day. Thirty agreed to
participate.
My plan for the focus groups was to have four groups meet within the same
room at the same time, have them seated at four separate tables—two tables for
those from northern California and two tables for those from southern California—
and have a research assistant at each table. I outlined a brief introduction to which
the groups would listen before beginning their discussions. I also planned to have a
mix of administrators and school board members at each table. Prior to the focus
group session, I met with the four research assistants, two of whom had master’s
degrees in school counseling and two of whom would soon begin master’s degree
programs, one in communications and one in education. They were familiarized
with the purpose of the focus group meeting and their responsibilities were
delineated. An interview guide listing the questions to explore with their groups
was presented to each assistant. Patton (2002) stated that a guide is essential to the
focus group process, providing a framework for developing questions with a prede
termined focus so that time may be allocated wisely. The assistants previewed
questions in the guide and I clarified their concerns.
Thirty people agreed to participate but only 17 came on the day of the focus
group discussion and signed consent forms (appendix B). Even though the
response was smaller than expected, I continued with the prearranged plans,
divided the participants among the four tables, and gave pseudonyms to each
participant and his/her district. I spoke briefly and then invited University of
Southern California professor Lawrence O. Picus to address the group. He
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
explained the purposes of adequacy studies in general and the important contribu
tion that the participants were making to the current study.
The participants were from a variety of school districts in northern and
southern California. Only two participants were superintendents, both from the
northern part of the state. “Gerald,” a superintendent in a high school district with
11,000 students, had spent the past 10 years as a superintendent in three districts.
The other superintendent, “Jim,” had been the superintendent of the same school
district for 28 years. Of the 15 board member participants, 8 were from northern
counties and 7 were from southern counties. Ten women and 5 men participated.
They represented two unified districts, one high school district, and the rest either
K-6 or K-8 elementary districts. School board member participants had served on
their boards for as little as 1 year and for as many as 26 years. Table 2 presents
their background information.
The focus group session ended with each group producing a poster of
summary statements from their discussions. One member had been appointed by
the group to record the statements—in two cases, the research assistants—and
another participant to present. Some statements were broad (e.g., “District’s
mission should drive staffing at all levels including the district office”). Some
statements were very specific (e.g., “The personnel technician needs to be brought
to a higher level, and with that drop the level of the pupil services person”). Some
suggestions were very pragmatic (e.g., “The age of buildings affects the number of
maintenance workers needed”). Some statements were idealistic (e.g., “Staff
development should have a ‘capacity building’ aim”). The energy and participation
exhibited during the focus group session, including this summarization and
reporting activity, demonstrated the participants’ engagement to the task and their
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
Profile o f Focus Group Participants
Pseudo
nym Position
Years of
service
Type o f
district
District
size
California
region
Gerald Superintendent 10a High School 9-12 11,000 Northern
Jim Superintendent 28a Elementary K-8 7,200 Northern
Abby Board member 26 Elementary K-6 7,000 Southern
Brenda Board member 25 Unified K -l 2 22,000 Southern
Cindy Board member 14 Unified K-12 22,000 Southern
Anne Board member 13 Elementary K-6 6,000 Southern
Hal Board member 13 Elementary K-6 2,100 Northern
Fred Board member 10 Elementary K-8 7,200 Northern
Diane Board member 10 Elementary K-8 2,600 Southern
Elaine Board member 8 High School 9-12 2,000 Northern
Daisy Board member 8 Elementary K-8 2,600 Southern
Howard Board member 5 Elementary K-8 7,200 Northern
Barry Board member 3 Elementary K-6 2,000 Northern
Bonnie Board member 3 Elementary K-6 7,000 Southern
Greta Board member 3 Elementary K-8 13,000 Northern
Jessica Board member 1 Elementary K-8 13,000 Northern
Kevin Board member 1 Elementary K-8 7,200 Northern
“ Years of service as a superintendent.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
enjoyment of the process. As Patton (2002) stated, “Focus groups tend to be
enjoyable to participants, drawing on human tendencies as social animals” (p. 386).
Patton (2002) made another important point regarding focus groups. As
with any qualitative strategy, high-quality data are the object, which is achieved in
a social context with focus groups. In this way, participants consider their own
views in the context of the views of others. Because I had arbitrarily moved from
group to group, listening in at various times, I needed a clear and thorough
reporting of the proceedings in order to judge whether the goal of high-quality data
had been attained. A few days after the focus group session, the research assistants
returned their interview guides with typed notes of the session. I conducted indivi
dual debriefing sessions with the research assistants to understood fully and be
familiar with what had been recorded. We discussed how well they had stayed
within the interview guide framework, whether they had managed the groups so
that the more verbal participants did not dominate the time, and other issues.
One research assistant struggled more than the others to move her group on
to the questions directly assessing the model. Her group members got bogged
down on two of the early questions—how education had changed during their
service to the district and what was public school’s greatest challenge today. Due
to her inability to limit that dialogue, other questions more pertinent to the study
were skipped as the time drew to a close. This group was a demonstration of
Patton’s warning that focus groups work best when their members are strangers to
each other. The two most verbal participants, who dominated the discussion time,
were on the same school board. One of them had arrived late and sat near her
colleague as I gave the introduction; I neglected to move her to her assigned group.
Even with fewer data about the model coming from this group, important
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experiential information resulted, and both the research assistant and I became
more knowledgeable about the complexity of this form of qualitative data
collection.
Instrumentation
The focus group session was convened to receive input from experienced
administrators and school board members regarding the proposed central office
staffing model, following the example of researchers in an evidenced-based study
in Arkansas. To create a protocol that would elicit productive information from
participants, I relied on input from members of the school finance dissertation study
group under the direction of Dr. Lawrence O. Picus at the University of Southern
California. Group members shared proposed general information questions
through email messages. I depended on my own efforts as I developed semi
structured and open-ended questions pertaining to my own particular study, while
using similarly structured examples reported by Charles (1998) and Patton (2002).
A written protocol (appendix C) for the focus group participants was
approved for use by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board. The questions in the protocol contain four of Patton’s (2002) six suggested
question types: those related to experience, those related to opinions and values,
those related to knowledge, and those related to background. The first two ques
tions were experience and background questions, asking about participants’ titles,
years of service, and descriptions of their districts. Opinion questions included
those asking for participants’ perceptions of public schools greatest challenge, their
views on equity and adequacy, the strengths and weaknesses of the model as they
saw it, the usefulness of models in general, and the efficacy of the proposed model.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Knowledge questions had to do with how California’s budget crisis had affected
their districts, whether the costs of the model were accurate, and what cost
adjustments were necessary for their regions.
Patton (2002) also suggested using questions with a variety of time frames.
A question in the protocol that required thinking through past to present emphases
in education was, “How has education changed over the length of your service in
the district?” Some participants did not have much to share because of their short
tenures, but the administrators and long-term board members offered important
perspectives for others to hear. By constructing a written protocol of questions
relating to participants’ experience, background, views, and knowledge, focus
group participants eagerly exchanged ideas and perceptions, and key data were
collected.
Data Analysis
“Analysis involves breaking entities down into constituent parts in order to
determine their composition, how they are organized, and how they function”
(Charles, 1998, p. 39). Three types of data were collected for this study: California
school district common practices data from public information sources; research
and report data for evidence regarding central office staffing, functions, and pro
cesses; and interview data from the focus group discussion. For all three types of
data, the analysis process had the same purposes of determining composition,
organization, and functioning; however, each type was treated somewhat differ
ently. School district data were examined for similarities and differences in job
titles and responsibilities. Data for evidence to create the staffing model were
inspected for typical and necessary functions of a central office. Data from the
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
focus group discussion were scrutinized for themes and commonalities among the
statements. All of the data were studied to produce answers to the research
questions.
Evidence-Based Model Data
In the analysis of data to produce a central office staffing model, I followed
the direction of Odden and Picus (2004) “to identify research- or other evidence-
based educational strategies, cost them out and then aggregate them to identify
adequate school-site, district, and state expenditure levels” (p. 76). By searching
through studies, articles, and reports on central office functions, decentralization,
operations, and other topics, I identified the roles necessary for the central office to
fulfill. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, I utilized the four primary functions of
a central office named by Picus et al. (2005): district leadership, instructional
leadership, business operations, and technology. Then I proposed staffing to cover
each of those functions and compared that with Staffing Patterns in Public School
Systems (A. Williams et al., 2004c) to verify what staff was commonly in place in
districts throughout the nation. Focus group input validated staffing positions or
directed changes.
When calculating the number of administrators and other staff to incorpor
ate in the proposed model, I kept in mind Forsyth and Turner’s report (2005), in
which the number of administrators in education was compared to those in business
and industry. The research showed a much higher ratio of employees to adminis
trator in education than any other business, thus demonstrating the fallacy of the
perception that education employs too many administrators. This research appears
to be enhanced by Wenglinsky’s (1996) study, which suggested that student
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement is increased by spending on administration. “In the case of dollars
that support the administrative infrastructure of the school, administrative spending
does appear to raise achievement” (p. 36). Marlow (2001) found evidence to link a
higher number of administrators with higher SAT verbal scores as well as lower
dropout rates. “The evidence appears to suggest that California public schools hire
too few administrators” (p. 1349). With those insights in mind I proposed a model
that does not lavishly staff the central office but does not skimp on the adminis
trative staff, either.
To cost out the proposed staffing model, it was important to consider the
typical costs of staff positions in California, which I did using public information
from school districts of 3,000 to 4,000. I also thought it wise to view these costs
against the back drop of national costs, so I made use of the data from Educational
Research Service’s national survey of salaries and wages (A. Williams et al.,
2004b). When the proposed model was presented to focus group participants, the
salary ranges seemed high to some participants and just right or low to others,
depending on their regions of California. Adjustments were made as explained in
chapter 4.
School District Data
According to the CDE web site, the enrollments of 47 districts [plus the
four excluded districts] fit within the targeted range of 3,000 and 4,000, using data
from the 2003-2004 school year. The districts’ web sites provided much informa
tion, and other public information was received via telephone calls. I placed the
staffing information on a spreadsheet for ease of comparison, using job classifica
tion designations as explained next.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Districts share the same needs for district leadership, for curriculum and
instruction leadership, for business functions such as payroll and accounts payable
and receivable, and for other important roles. However, districts often have unique
position titles or configurations of responsibilities so that comparisons are not as
straightforward as they could be with standardized job titles and responsibilities.
To mitigate this difficulty, I looked at two methods of job classification. A.
Williams et al. (2004b) classified a large number of job titles for central office
administrators: superintendent; associate, deputy, assistant superintendent; director,
manager, coordinator; public relations administrator; finance and business adminis
trator; staff personnel administrator; instructional administrator; technology
administrator; subject-area supervisors; all other central office administrative and
professional staff, both certificated and classified; secretarial/clerical personnel
classification: secretaries, accounting/payroll clerks, and typists/data entry clerks;
auxiliary professional personnel group comprised of mostly site-based employees,
but also including school nurses; and “other support personnel”: site-based teacher
aides, custodians, cafeteria workers, and bus drivers.
Although the information provided by A. Williams et al. (2004b) from their
national survey is comprehensive, understandable, and relevant, it fails to specify
other necessary district staff, such as media technicians, maintenance workers, and
groundskeepers. Presumably, these fit in the “other” category, but with that
uncertainty, I considered another classification model.
The second method of classifying central office staff that was considered
for the study was utilized by Picus et al. (2005). They grouped jobs into five cate
gories: administration (superintendents, associate and assistant superintendents,
directors and coordinators of curriculum/instruction, pupil services, special
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
education, technology, fiscal services, and business managers), clerical (adminis
trative and executive assistants, secretaries, data entry, payroll and accounts clerks,
clerks, typists), professional (nurses, directors and supervisors of maintenance and
operations and of food services), technical (media/computer technicians), and
support (maintenance workers, grounds keepers). This method of grouping was
chosen because it encompasses all of the jobs found in the review of school district
documents for the study.
Focus Group Data
Patton (2002) offered insights for the processes of organizing and analyzing
interview data. The first process of organizing qualitative data can happen through
storytelling approaches, case study approaches, or analytical framework
approaches. The “issues” option within the analytic framework approach listed by
Patton was chosen because that option permits the analysis to “illuminate key
issues” (p. 439). Within the four focus groups several issues surfaced, such as
special education financing and litigation, high student population growth or
declining enrollment, and several others. The second process is analysis of data.
Patton stated that description comes first, followed by interpretation, which
includes attaching significance to what is found. He advocated looking for patterns
or themes and integrating what various people have said. The data received
through the research assistants from the focus group setting were analyzed in this
way.
Conclusion
This study was designed to determine a central office staffing model for a
district of 3,500 students using a qualitative and evidence-based approach, and this
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chapter explained the steps taken to formulate that model. Necessary and best
practices of central office functions were identified. Common California staffing
practices for districts with 3,000 to 4,000 students were identified through Internet
and public document sources, and costs for staffs in various parts of California
were calculated. A proposed model was presented to focus groups of superin
tendents and school board members to review, and the model was adjusted accord
ing to their suggestions.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Central offices, with their potential to positively affect student achievement,
to bring equitable educational opportunities to all students, and to build community
support and partnerships, have recently been the focus of reform groups such as
Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, School Communities That Work,
and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Annenberg’s Ucelli and Foley
(2004) explained that, “despite the central role of school districts in our education
system, nearly two decades of school reform have virtually ignored the part
districts can play in promoting or hindering school change” (p. 1). The school
district’s role in the change process requires adequate central office staff to meet
the needs of students and the schools that they attend.
An adequate central office staff for a school district of 3,500 students, its
size, and its costs are the focus of this study, and the efforts undertaken to deter
mine a staffing model were detailed in chapter 3. In this chapter, the four purposes
of analysis specified by Charles (1998) are the focal point: (a) to describe data
clearly; (b) to identify what is typical and atypical among the data; (c) to highlight
differences, patterns, and relationships; and (d) to answer research questions. The
discussion that follows will accomplish those tasks, beginning with the research
questions to be answered:
1. How do California school districts of 3,500 students currently staff their
central offices?
2. What does research suggest that the appropriate level of central office
staffing should be in an adequately funded educational system?
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. How can the cost of an adequate level of central office staffing be
determined?
Research Question 1: Current Staffing
in California Districts
To answer question 1, regarding how California school districts of 3,500
students are currently staffed, required several steps, beginning with the discovery
of districts with the correct enrollment range. Next, district web sites and public
documents were reviewed to disclose staffing positions, and this information was
verified by district personnel. The descriptive data that came from this process
were presented in an organized manner. Charts and tables make information easy
to view and compare, and several are included in this section.
A search was conducted for districts with enrollments between 3,000 and
4,000. Districts of this size were targeted because they are the size of the typical
district in the United States (Forsythe & Turner, 2005). The search, which made
use of the Dataquest web site of CDE, revealed that 47 districts (plus four excluded
districts, as explained in chapter 3) in 27 counties reported enrollments between
3,000 and 4,000 students (Table 3). Eighteen of the districts were elementary
school districts, 22 were unified districts, and 7 were high school districts.
After locating districts of the targeted size, information was acquired about
each district through the CDE web site, county web sites, and district web sites.
Information from the Internet is not always current, so telephone calls to each
district were made to ensure accuracy. The central office staff for each district was
placed in a matrix in order to present information uniformly [appendix D.]
Districts were also separated by type: unified, elementary, or high school.
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3
Counties With School Districts o f3,000 to 4,000 Students, School Year 2003-2004
County School districts Enrollment
Alameda Albany Unified 3,423
Butte Oroville City Elementary 3,144
Calaveras Calaveras Unified 3,701
Contra Costa Lafayette Elementary
Walnut Creek Elementary
3,389
3,345
El Dorado Rescue Union Elementary 3,624
Fresno Kerman Unified
Parlier Unified
3,711
3,427
Imperial Brawley Elementary
Central Union High
3,767
3,947
Kern Delano Joint Union High
Fruitvale Elementary
South Kern Unified
3,936
3,257
3,352
Kings Corcoran Joint Unified
Hanford Joint Union High
Lemoore Union Elementary
3,790
3,720
3,253
Lake Konocti Unified 3,414
Los Angeles Castaic Union Elementary
El Segundo Unified
Lowell Joint Elementary
Rosemead Elementary
San Marino Unified
3,589
3,196
3,305
3,355
3,266
Marin Tamalpais Union High 3,860
Monterey Santa Rita Union Elementary
Soledad Unified
3,071
3,839
Riverside Palo Verde Unified 3,677
San Benito San Benito High 3,002
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (continued)
County School districts Enrollment
San Bernardino Bear Valley Unified 3,428
Mountain View Elementary 3,482
San Diego Del Mar Union Elementary 3,506
Fallbrook Union High 3,122
San Joaquin Escalon Unified 3,171
San Mateo Cabrillo Unified 3,633
Pacifica Union Elementary 3,169
Santa Barbara Goleta Union Elementary 3,964
Santa Clara Mtn. View-Los Altos Unified High 3,441
Santa Cruz San Lorenzo Valley Unified 3,561
Shasta Enterprise Elementary 3,761
Gateway Unified 3,612
Solano Dixon Unified 3,929
Stanislaus Riverbank Unified 3,102
Salida Union Elementary 3,458
Stanislaus Union Elementary 3,267
Tulare Lindsay Unified 3,586
Ventura Fillmore Unified 3,906
Oak Park Unified 3,764
Ojai Unified 3,808
Positions were classified into five categories, based on Picus, Odden, &
Seder, 2005):
1. Administration: superintendents, associate and assistant superintendents,
directors and coordinators of curriculum/instruction, pupil services, special
education, technology, fiscal services, personnel services, and business managers;
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Clerical: administrative and executive assistants, secretaries, data entry,
payroll and accounts clerks, clerks, typists;
3. Professional: nurses, directors and/or supervisors of maintenance,
operations, transportation, and food services;
4. Technical: media and computer technicians; and
5. Support: maintenance workers, groundskeepers, warehousemen, and
other support staff.
Positions within each classification were tallied, and totals were placed in
tables. Table 4 summarizes the position classification totals for the unified school
districts, Table 5 presents the information for elementary districts, and Table 6
presents the information for high school districts.
The classifications with their corresponding numbers do not tell the full
range of diversity represented in districts. For instance, most of the districts had
five to seven administrators, which obviously included a superintendent in each
district. However, the remaining administrators were not so obvious. One district
(Goleta) had four assistant superintendents, while many others had no assistant
superintendents. Goleta balanced the four assistant superintendent posts with few
secretaries to provide clerical assistance, claiming that most administrators are
highly computer proficient on their own. The districts with no assistant
superintendents seemed to balance their staffing with large numbers of secretaries
and other clerical support, such as Brawley and Pacifica with 15 secretaries,
accounting technicians, and other clerical staff. All districts had at least one
director or coordinator in the administration classification or in the professional
group, but Dixon Unified had 11: nine in the administrator category plus two
professional classification directors.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4
Staffing Configurations: Unified School Districts
Adminis Profes Tech
District trative sional Support Clerical nical Total
Albany City 6 1
a
8 0 15
Bear Valley 5 2 8 9 0 24
Cabrillo 7 2 4 12 1 26
Calaveras 6 1 5 11.5 2 25.5
Corcoran Joint 5 3 4 8 3 23
Dixon 11 3 5 10 2 31
El Segundo 8 2
a
10 1 21
Escalon 4 4 4 6 1 19
Fillmore 7 2 2 13 1 25
Gateway 6 3 6 13 4 32
Kerman 7 3
a
9 2 21
Konocti 6 4 6 7 4 27
Lindsay 5 5 5 12
a
27
Oak Park 7 1 5 10
a
23
Ojai 6 2 5 8
a
21
Palo Verde 7 3 7 12 l 30
Parlier 6 2
a
7 l 16
Riverbank 7 4 4 12 l 28
San Lorenzo Valley 7 2 2 12
a
23
San Marino 7 2
a
14 i 24
Soledad 6 1
a
16 2 25
Southern Kem 6 3 7 5.4 0 21.4
Mean 6.45 2.5 3.59 10.22 1.22 23
“Contracted out or school based.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
Staffing Configurations: Elementary School Districts
Adminis Profes Tech
District trative sional Support Clerical nical Total
Brawley 6 4 6 15 0 31
Castaic Union 6 3 2.5 11.5 1 24
Del Mar Union 7 3 3 14 3 30
Enterprise 5.5 3.5 a 9 3 21
Fruitvale 7 3 5 9 2 26
Goleta Union 5 2 7 5 2 21
Lafayette 4 3 6 10 5 28
Lemoore Union 6 5 7 12 2 32
Lowell Joint 6 2 9 7 0 24
Mountain View 4 2
a
6 1 13
Oroville City 4.5 3.8 7 10 0 25.3
Pacifica 6 2 8 15 1 32
Rescue Union 5 5
a
11 2 23
Rosemead 6 3
a
12 1 22
Salida Union 4 2 5 12 2 25
Santa Rita Union 6 2
a
5 0 13
Stanislaus Union 4 2 3 8.5 0.5 18
Walnut Creek 5 2
a
12 1 20
Mean 5.38 2.9 3.8 9.7 1.47 23.23
“ Contracted out or school based.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Staffing Configurations: High School Districts
District
Adminis
trative
Profes
sional Support Clerical
Tech
nical Total
Central 6 3 a 12 1 22
Delano Joint 5 4 6 10 7 32
Fallbrook 8 2 2 11 4 27
Hanford Joint 5 2 10 13 1 31
Mountain View-
Los Altos 6 1 la 14 1 22
San Benito 6 2 5 14 2 29
Tamalpais 9 3 a 9 2 23
Mean 6.42 2.43 3.43 11.85 2.57 26.57
“ Contracted out or school based.
The total number of staff, as displayed in the last column of the tables, may
be skewed by the lack of district support personnel: the maintenance workers,
groundskeepers, and others who provide important services. Some districts had
chosen to contract out these services, while others had site-based custodians who
were also responsible for general maintenance and/or gardening chores. In any
case, schools were maintained, but with a variety of arrangements.
A particular area of concern within the professional classification is the
current staff of school nurses. Of the 47 districts in the study, only 28 had creden-
tialed nurses, and those districts had only 1 in most cases. The remaining 19
districts contracted out nurse services or had only health clerks in the schools. For
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instance, Stanislaus Union School District contracted with a neighboring district for
a nurse 1 day per week. Allocating only one nurse per district creates a nurse-
student staffing ratio of approximately 1:3,500. Having two nurses per district
reduces the ratio to 1:1750, which is still much higher than the 1:750 recommenda
tion of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
(2001). This concern regarding school nurses is addressed later in this chapter.
In summary, the four leadership functions mentioned in chapter 3—district
leadership, instructional leadership, business operations, and technology—in the 47
targeted California districts were found in the following configurations. District
leadership was represented by superintendents in all districts and by at least one
assistant or associate superintendent in 35 of the 47 districts. Thirteen districts had
two assistant superintendents; 2 districts had three, and 1 district had four. The
following three tables summarize the district leadership in the elementary districts
(Table 7), the unified districts (Table 8), and the high school districts (Table 9).
Instructional leadership was the responsibility of assistant superintendents
in 27 districts. All but five of these assistant superintendents shared the instruc
tional leadership tasks with one or more mid-level managers, such as directors,
coordinators, or program specialists. The 20 districts without an assistant superin
tendent leading instruction had one or more directors or coordinators.
Assistant superintendents headed the business operations department in 15
districts, 10 of which also had a fiscal services director. The business offices
without an assistant superintendent were supervised by personnel with job titles
such as director of business services, director of fiscal services, chief business
officer, or business manager (the last title being the least common). Maintenance
functions were routinely divided from the finance functions. A director or
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7
District Leadership Personnel: Elementary School Districts
District Superintendent
Assistant super
intendents)
Brawley yes yes, 1
Castaic Union yes no
Del Mar Union yes yes, 1
Enterprise yes no
Fruitvale yes yes, 1
Goleta Union yes yes, 4
Lafayette yes no
Lemoore Union yes yes, 1
Lowell Joint yes yes, 2
Mountain View yes yes, 2
Oroville City yes yes, 2
Pacifica yes no
Rescue Union yes yes, 1
Rosemead yes no
Salida Union yes no
Santa Rita Union yes yes, 1
Stanislaus yes yes, 1
Walnut Creek yes no
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8
District Leadership Personnel: Unified School Districts
District Superintendent
Assistant super
intendents)
Albany City Unified yes yes, 2
Bear Valley Unified yes no
Cabrillo Unified yes yes, 3
Calaveras Unified yes yes, 1
Corcoran Joint yes no
Dixon Unified yes yes, 1
El Segundo Unified yes yes, 1
Escalon Unified yes yes, 1
Fillmore Unified yes yes, 1
Gateway Unified yes no
Kerman Unified yes yes, 2
Konocti Unified yes yes, 1
Lindsay Unified yes yes, 1
Oak Park Unified yes yes, 2
Ojai Unified yes yes, 2
Palo Verde Unified yes yes, 2
Parlier Unified yes yes, 2
Riverbank Unified yes yes, 1
San Lorenzo Valley Unified yes yes, 1
San Marino Unified yes yes, 2
Soledad Unified yes no
Southern Kern yes yes, 2
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9
District Leadership Personnel: High School Districts
District Superintendent
Assistant super
intendents)
Central Union yes yes, 1
Delano Joint Union yes yes, 1
Fallbrook Union yes yes, 2
Hanford Joint Union yes yes, 2
Mountain View-Los Altos yes yes, 3
San Benito yes no
Tamalpais Union yes yes, 2
supervisor was the leader of this department in all but 4 districts. The current
leadership arrangements for instruction and business operations are summarized for
elementary districts (Table 10), unified districts (Table 11), and high school
districts (Table 12).
Technology leadership functions in 38 of the 47 districts were headed by
directors of information technology or information systems or other titles that
ranged from coordinators, specialists, engineers, network administrators, and
managers to facilitators and supervisors. All but 7 of these districts also had
computer or network technicians, and 5 districts had technicians without a
designated technology leader.
Despite the variety of arrangements and titles, districts operated with about
6 or 7 administrators, 2 or 3 professional staff members, 3 or 4 support staff, 9 to
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10
Leadership for Instruction and Business Operations: Elementary School Districts
Director/ Assistant Director of
Coordinator/ Superintendent Fiscal Services
Assistant Program Specialist of Business or Business, or
Superintendent of Instruction or Administrative Chief Business
District of Instruction Special Education Services Officer
Brawley no yes, 3 no yes
Castaic Union no yes, 3 no yes
Del Mar Union yes yes, 2 no yes
Enterprise no yes, 1.5 no yes
Fruitvale yes yes, 3 no yes
Goleta Union yes noa yes no
Lafayette no yes, 3 no yes
Lemoore Union yes yes, 2 no yes
Lowell Joint yes yes, 1 yes yes
Mountain View yes yes, 1 yes no
Oroville City no yes, 1.5 yes no
Pacifica no yes, 2 no yes
Rescue Union yes yes, 1 no yes
Rosemead no yes, 2 no yes
Salida Union no yes, 1.5 no yes
Santa Rita Union yes yes, 2 no yes
Stanislaus no yes, 1 no yes
Walnut Creek no yes, 2 no yes
Responsibility of another Assistant Superintendent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11
Leadership for Instruction and Business Operations: Unified School Districts
District
Assistant
Superintendent
of Instruction
Director/
Coordinator/
Program Specialist
of Instruction or
Special Education
Assistant Director of
Superintendent Fiscal Services
of Business or Business, or
Administrative Chief Business
Services Officer
Albany City yes yes, 1 no yes
Bear Valley no yes, 3 no yes
Cabrillo yes noa no yes
Calaveras yes no no yes
Corcoran Joint no yes, 3 no yes
Dixon yes yes, 7 no yes
El Segundo yes yes, 3 no yes
Escalon yes yes, 1 yes yes
Fillmore yes yes, 2 no yes
Gateway no yes, 4 no yes
Kerman no yes, 3 yes no
Konocti no yes, 2 no yes
Lindsay no yes, 3 yes yes
Oak Park yes yes, 2 yes yes
Ojai yes, 1.5 no yes, 0.5 yes
Palo Verde yes yes, 2 no yes
Parlier yes yes, 1 yes yes
Riverbank yes yes, 2 no yes
San Lorenzo Valley no yes, 2 yes yes
San Marino yes yes, 2 yes yes
Soledad no yes, 2 no yes
Southern Kern yes yes, 0.5 no yes
“ Responsibility of another Assistant Superintendent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12
Leadership for Instruction and Business Operations: High School Districts
District
Assistant
Superintendent
of Instruction
Director/
Coordinator/
Program Specialist
of Instruction or
Special Education
Assistant Director of
Superintendent Fiscal Services
of Business or Business, or
Administrative Chief Business
Services Officer
Central yes yes, 1 no no
Delano Joint no yes, 3 no yes
Fallbrook yes yes, 2 yes yes
Hanford Joint yes no no yes
Mountain View-
Los Altos yes yes, 1 yes no
San Benito no yes, 2 no yes
Tamalpais yes yes, 3 yes yes
12 clerical staff, and 1 or 2 technology personnel beyond the technology super
visor. The total number of central office staff averaged about 23 in unified and
elementary districts and just over 26 in high school districts, but it varied widely in
all three categories. How these staffing arrangements fit with research findings is
discussed in the next section.
Research Question 2 : Size of Central
Office Staff in Research
Evidence From Research Studies
In order to answer question two—What does research suggest the appropri
ate level of central office staffing should be in an adequately funded educational
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
system?—focus groups of education experts were convened and adequacy studies
and other reports were reviewed. Very few studies have spoken specifically to the
number of necessary staff members. Most refer to central office staffs generally
and give a per-student dollar amount. For example, an adequacy study for Maine
conducted by its Essential Programs and Services Committee (EPS; 1999) recom
mended only a dollar amount for central office staff, and no specific list of job titles
was given. In contrast, detailed numbers or ratios for school site staff were listed.
Nurses, who were considered site staff members, were recommended at a ratio of 1
nurse per 800 students, in contrast to the common practice in Maine of 1 nurse per
1,000 students.
One study that talked explicitly about central office staffing was the study
to develop cost adjustments for small school districts in Wyoming, written by
Ehlers et al. (2002). They reported on the steps taken to determine three district
prototypes. They suggested a minimum staffing configuration for the base proto-
type—a district of 250 students—of a superintendent, a business manager, a curri
culum coordinator, a technology coordinator, and two clerical positions. With
enrollment increased to 550 students, an extra staff member was added. For dis
tricts of 1,000 students, another clerical position and one additional staff member
were recommended. This configuration guided the design of the proposed model.
Other studies that have influenced the number of central office staff mem
bers proposed in the current study’s staffing model documented the economies of
scale provided by increased school district enrollments above those of very small
districts. First, Augenblick et al. (2002) stated, “In general, as the size of district
and school increases, the numbers of personnel per 1,000 students tend to decrease”
(p. IV-5). Therefore, when they estimated costs in their study, the costs of district
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
level services that affected all students—administration, maintenance and opera
tion—decreased considerably as the size of a district increased. Another study with
similar findings regarding district costs was reported by Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor,
and Booker (2002). The researchers used a cost function approach to determine
costs of education outcomes, which they said depend on district size, the cost of
inputs, and the environment in which the educational process is happening. As in
the Augenblick et al. study, they also found a decrease in per-pupil costs as
enrollment increased and they found that scale economies continued to be realized
up to a district size of 25,000.
In a report on staffing for the Educational Research Service, A. Williams et
al. (2004c) related the results of the Service’s National Survey of Salaries and
Wages in Public Schools, 2003-04. In that school year there was a national average
of 562.3 pupils per central office professional and 2,508.6 students per school
nurse. The study also reported staffing information according to district size:
small districts with 300 to 2,499 students, districts with 2,500 to 9,999 students,
districts with 10,000 to 24,999 students, and very large districts with 25,000 or
more students. Using this information, one can calculate the number of central
office professionals in a hypothetical district of 3,500 students. With an average of
1 central office professional staff per 522 pupils for a district between 2,500 and
9,999 students, a district of 3,500 would be expected to have 6 or 7 (specifically
6.7) central office professionals, with the attendant secretarial and support staff.
The school nurse ratio for districts of 2,500 to 9,999 was 1,826.4; therefore, a
district of 3,500 would be expected to have 1.9 nurses.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Input by the Focus Groups
Beyond considering studies and reports, a proposed model was presented to
focus groups of school board members and superintendents for their professional
assessment and input. The responses provided applicable perspectives on staffing
requirements and on appropriate central office responsibilities.
Regarding central office functions, participants gave clear-cut views on
district leadership roles. Two long-term board member participants succinctly
expressed their views of important central office function with a list strikingly
similar to that given by researchers Picus et al. (2005). Researchers’ terms are in
brackets:
• general oversight of the district and human resource functions [district
leadership];
• curriculum and instruction issues and special education [instructional
leadership];
• finance and payroll, maintenance, and food services [business
operations];
• technology [technology].
The responses of the participants in general demonstrated a traditional and
centralized vision governing general district oversight, curriculum decisions,
communication among groups and departments, human resources, finance, and
accountability reporting. Rather than advocating the allocation of a large portion of
money to individual schools, as in decentralized settings, one participant stated,
“Schools should have some money to make individual decisions.” Other examples
of the traditional view: “The central office is the brain center,” and “Teachers are
hired to work for the district, not a specific school.” One participant said, “All the
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
paperwork should be done at the central office for reporting and accountability.”
This was qualified by empathy for site administrators: “Principals don’t have time
to deal with central office duties.” This centralized view was based on past experi
ences by at least one participant. A participant whose district had dealt with a high-
ranking employee’s embezzlement scandal several years ago said, “Some things
need to be centralized to prevent embezzlement.”
Other experience-based views surfaced in the discussion. “Our schools
used to be doing their own thing, but 4 years ago we put the district on the same
curriculum, which has done a lot for teacher training. Test scores have gone way
up since the change.” Other participants agreed with this view of centralized curri
culum; one said, “The central office should standardize the curriculum, although it
may vary slightly because of demographics.”
Issues of deep concern that were mentioned by participants included
adequate funding, special education encroachment and litigation, recruitment of
qualified teachers and business staff, and the requirements of NCLB. The
instability of state funding of education was a major concern. “Our previous fiscal
conservation has helped us through the recent budget problems. We have a 6%
reserve, but we can’t sustain that for too long.” Many participants mentioned cost-
cutting measures that had been taken: eliminating class size reduction, using
reserves, lowering salaries for new teachers, forgoing district-paid conferences.
One focus group member from a small district noted that his district and a neigh
boring one had a superintendent in common. “We also share HR and other duties
to save money.” Most participants agreed with a participant who said, “There is
never enough money.” This view was expressed when others lamented the large
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
number of unfunded mandates passed down from the state or federal governments,
including special education and NCLB.
Special education was by far the issue of greatest concern raised by the
participants. One district had put a principal on special assignment to deal with all
the individual education plans (IEP) and IEP meetings. Another district had taken
money from its reserves to cover special education costs due to increased numbers
of children identified with autism. “So many parents of autistic kids want
[expensive] nonpublic school placements,” the participant stated. Another partici
pant added that, because of the litigation costs in dollars and employee time, “It’s
cheaper to lose a suit than to [fight it to] win.” “Attorney’s fees and the burden of
proof for the district are too costly,” agreed another participant.
When asked about models in general, the proposed model, and its efficacy,
participants eagerly contributed their views. Comments included the following:
“Models are helpful because they give general ideas and ranges. Then you adjust
to your specific needs.” “Each district is unique. But this model is a good base, a
good starting point, rather than starting from nothing.” “This model is good to see
if we are the same or close to other districts.” Two participants wondered aloud
about the effectiveness of models, and their responses moderated the more positive
statements: “Staffing must be flexible. It’s really tough to predict.” “The district’s
mission must drive priorities and staffing at all levels—district office and school
site.” “It would not be effective for the state to impose a model. Our students’
needs would not be served as well as they are now in my district.” In contrast, one
participant remarked, “We would go broke [with an imposed model]. Our person
nel may be overworked now in comparison to the model, but it is what we can pay
for.”
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
About the proposed model in particular, the participants saw positives in it
and suggested adjustments that would strengthen the model. When comparing her
district with the model, one participant remarked, “The model is pretty accurate.”
One participant thought that the model was for a “static district; the model should
include a plan for fluctuation of student enrollment and a strategy for all circum
stances.” A participant from a unified district with 2,700 students in six schools
reported a central office staff of 22 people. His concern was staff development.
“In this model, who does that? Staff development must be in the job description
and be required by someone at the district office.” One participant did not see the
need for two media technicians, but others disagreed. A superintendent remarked,
“A technology division must be there with a network specialist, software specialist,
and tech person. The technology director position should be well paid, such as at a
high school principal salary level.” The summary statement of one group
emphasized that even a small school district should have a strong technology
division.
Some participants had concerns regarding the undesignated assistant
superintendent. They concurred that the position should be assigned to a particular
area, but their judgments about which specific area were contradictory. One said,
“The assistant superintendent should be in charge of educational services.”
Another said,
The assistant superintendent could be the business manager or curriculum
specialist, but a business manager is the hardest to recruit. I would give the
superintendent the education services part and the assistant superintendent
the business part, then divide the HR responsibilities between the two.
A compromise solution was offered: “I think there should be two assistant super
intendents: one to direct curriculum and instruction and one to be the business
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
manager.” In the summary statement by another group an interesting suggestion
was postulated: one superintendent, no assistant superintendent; instead, include a
director of elementary education and a director of middle school and high school
education, in addition to the other directors in the model. Later, when current
California school district staffing practices were reviewed, it was discovered that
Ojai Unified School District’s officials must have had a similar notion in mind
when staffing their central office. In Ojai, the instruction leadership was divided
between two leaders, in this case assistant superintendents. One assistant superin
tendent was in charge of elementary education and another assistant superintendent
was in charge of secondary education. Each assistant superintendent also had
supplementary responsibilities.
Critiques of the model were also directed to other staff positions. Two
participants suggested upgrading the personnel technician to the director level, and
one group summarized their suggested upgrade by calling the position “assistant for
human resources.” An idea by one group regarding maintenance was to increase
the number of maintenance workers to four, but a pragmatic participant noted that
the number of maintenance staff would depend upon the age of the buildings.
When suggesting an additional accounting position, a participant related his
district’s negative audit experience. “Our district got dinged for not having one
person as accounts payable and a separate person as accounts receivable.”
The focus groups were also asked about costs established in the model and
cost adjustments for their region in California. Many said that the salary ranges
were accurate. “Our district’s salaries fall in the upper estimations of the model,”
said a southern California participant. Another focus group member from a
southern county added, “My district is much higher in salary because it is such a
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
large district. But we stay within the mean of the county payroll.” “Salaries are
driven by the market,” explained one northern California focus group member.
Another agreed, “Even a small district must pay their superintendent $120,000
plus.” However, one northern California participant expressed her view that the
salaries were too high for her region.
Adjustments for small school districts were discussed but no conclusions
were drawn. Instead, participants recognized the difficulties that small districts
encounter. A superintendent participant stated, “Small districts are at a huge dis
advantage. Districts below 3,500 kids are struggling and have no state support.”
A board member participant indicated, “Small districts do not have as many options
for a variety of teachers.” Another proposed, “Some small districts may have to
share resources with others, but then local control is the issue.”
In summary, four focus groups totaling 17 people discussed current issues
in education funding and reviewed the proposed model. Unstable state funding for
education, the rising costs of special education, and the seemingly litigious attitudes
of parents of special education students were issues of greatest concern. No sub
stantial changes to the model were proposed. Most participants’ hesitations regard
ing the model related to the undesignated assistant superintendent position, and
participants’ solutions were contradictory. Many stated that the proposed salary
ranges reflected current market prices. Southern California costs were seen to
occupy the high end of the proposed salary ranges, and northern California salaries
and wages were reflected at the low end or may be even lower than the proposed
salary ranges. Adequately staffing a central office to meet the needs of 3,500
students in a hypothetical district of seven schools can be accomplished with the
model as proposed with an increase in one position, as discussed next.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Issue o f School Nurses
An adequate education must also include nursing services, according to
Augenblick et al. (2002). The number of personnel needed to fill this school nurse
staffing position in the proposed model changed since offering the model to focus
group input, due to analyzing data from several sources of staffing information.
The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2001)
study reveals that 52.9% of schools in the United States had a school nurse; how
ever, the ERS study (A. Williams et al., 2004c) showed that the overall current
practice in the United States was 1 nurse per 2,508.6 students. In districts of the
targeted 3,500-student range, the ratio was 1:1,826.4. Those figures are statements
of “what is,” but do those numbers represent what will affect an adequate education
for students? To address that consideration, one must bear in mind the view of
other researchers, such as those in the EPS (1999) study. They determined that the
common practice in Maine of 1 nurse per 1,000 pupils was too great a ratio, and the
committee members recommended funding for 1 nurse per 800 pupils. According
to the California School Nurses Organization (CSNO), one nurse per school or at
least 1 nurse for every 750 students was recommended. Also, the National Associ
ation of School Nurses’ Journal o f School Nursing reported studies that illustrated
how full-time school nurses benefit students’ health, school attendance, violence
prevention efforts, mental health interventions, and ultimately student success in
school (Allen, 2003; Costante, 2001; Hootman, Houck, & King, 2002; Telljohann,
Dake, & Price, 2004).
Upon reading the ERS study, the central office staffing model was changed
from the original proposal of 1 nurse to 2 nurses for the 3,500-student district. In
view of the Maine study, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Health Promotion’s advice, the CSNO recommendation, and the Journal o f School
Nursing studies, the proposed model was changed to 4 nurses. This number pro
duces a ratio of 1:875, somewhat higher than Maine’s proposed ratio or CSNO’s
recommendation but considerably closer than the current nurse-to-student ratio of
districts in the study. A staffing ratio of 1:875 would enable school districts to
handle more adequately the myriad tasks that a professional nurse is well trained to
handle—tasks that currently are either left undone or carried out by health clerks or
teachers with little or no medical training. When asked her perspective on the need
for more school nurses, one special education teacher with 29 years of experience
remarked,
With more special needs children being fully included, we have students
whose health is very fragile—with stoma pouches that must be emptied,
insulin levels that must be monitored, or other serious medical problems,
plus other students who need mental health interventions. I don’t feel
qualified to do all that as a teacher. (M. Martinez-Campos, personal
communication, August 2, 2005)
In that statement, the teacher echoed CSNO’s (2004) view:
Due to advances in medical technology and increased integration of
students with specialized health needs into regular classrooms, there are
more such students attending their neighborhood schools. Federal law
mandates that students with health related disabilities have access to
appropriate educational programs and related services. The credentialed
school nurse, as the school health professional, should determine the plan
for delivery of specialized physical health care services, (p. 8)
A report by Kober et al. (2005) listed the increased inclusion of students
with disabilities in regular education classrooms as one indicator of progress in
public education. Fifty percent of students with disabilities now spend most of the
school day in regular education classrooms, in contrast to only 26% in 1985. While
that may indeed be a very praiseworthy accomplishment, the disabilities still come
along with the children, and some of those disabilities require medical training to
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
address. Providing additional nurses in the quantity proposed by the model would
capably facilitate children’s health needs, and it would permit teachers to do their
important task of student instruction. This staffing level may also curb focus group
members’ frustration with special education in general and calm their apparent
fears of special education litigation in particular. If adequate numbers of nurses are
available to care for special needs students, parents of those students may not be as
eager to litigate. With that said, the difficulty of finding school nurses is not to be
overlooked. As one focus group participant asked, “A school nurse? How do you
get a school nurse?”
Central Office Staffing Model
With the preceding discussion as background, Table 13 displays the pro
posed staffing model for a school district of 3,500 students with its accompanying
costs. It shows the district leadership in the hands of the superintendent and
assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendent is undesignated as to which
area of responsibility that she or he will lead. Depending on the person’s skills and
the district’s needs, the one assistant superintendent could head the curriculum and
instruction function, as one assistant superintendent does in Calaveras Unified,
Rescue Union, Palo Verde Unified, and Central Union High districts; the business
services division, as one does in San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District;
human resources, as one does in Delano Joint Union High and Escalon Unified
districts; or some combination of those responsibilities, as one does in Lindsay
Unified and Fruitvale Elementary districts.
The human resource task is included in the district leadership function of
the model, and its responsibilities may be divided between the superintendent and
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13
Central Office Staffing Model Developed in the Present Study
Position title and
number of personnel
Compensation range
for die position ($)
1 Superintendent 115,000-160,000
1 Assistant Superintendent 95,000-130,000
1 Executive Assistant 3,500-4,600/month
1 Personnel Technician 3,000-3,800/month
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction 70,000-90,000
1 Director of Pupil Services 70,000-90,000
4 Nurses 45,000-58,000 each
1 Secretary, Special Education 2,900-3,500/month
1 Data Steward 3,000-3,600/month
1 Clerk 2,400-3,000/month
1 Business Manager 69,600-84,000
1 Payroll Clerk 2,900-3,600/month
1 Accounts Clerk 2,800-3,500/month
1 Director of Technology 60,000-80,000
1 Media Technician I 2,500-3,100/month
1 Media Technician III 3,300-3,900/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations 57,000-70,000
1 Maintenance Worker 2,900-3,800/month
2 Groundskeepers 2,700-3,500/month each
1 Director of Food Services 57,000-70,000
Range of annual costs 1,188,800-1,526,800
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assistant superintendent, with support provided by the personnel clerk. Lowell
Joint Elementary School District is an example of a district that divided the per
sonnel responsibilities in this way, with the superintendent handling certificated
personnel and the assistant superintendent for business in charge of classified
human resources.
To cover the important instructional leadership function, there is the option
of assigning the assistant superintendent to this department. Also, there are two
directors: one of curriculum/instruction and one of pupil services to handle the
demands of special education. Clerical support is provided by a clerk, a data
steward is responsible for ongoing assessment information, and a secretary main
tains records for special education. Four nurses complete the department.
As with instruction, business services may be led by the assistant superin
tendent. Other department responsibilities are given to the business manager,
payroll clerk, and accounts clerk. The maintenance and operations functions are
handled by a director, a maintenance worker, and groundskeepers. Maintenance
beyond the capability of the director and maintenance worker may be contracted
out. Food services are the responsibility of a director.
In California today there is no instance of a school district with 3,000 to
4,000 students that has an assistant superintendent heading the technology function.
It is one area that is typically administered by a director, as is the case with
the current model. The model shows a three-person department with two techni
cians of different skill levels.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 3: Costing Out
an Adequate Central Office Staff
How can the cost of an adequate level of central office staffing be deter
mined? It can be determined by making use of data from a variety of sources. For
this study, a central office staffing model was proposed and presented to focus
groups on April 17,2005. A few salary adjustments and position adjustments were
made to the original model after reviewing input of group members, actual costs to
California school districts in this study, the use of salary and wage information
from A. Williams et al. (2004a, 2004b), and information from adequacy studies and
best-practice recommendations. The model proposed in this study is the result of
the data gathered from these sources.
Many focus group members agreed that the salary ranges accurately
reflected the costs of central office staffing. One northern California participant
dissented by stating her view that the salaries were too high for her region. This
participant had a legitimate observation that salaries are different in various parts of
California. In a study of teachers’ salaries and benefits, Rueben and Herr (2001)
divided California into 11 regions: Northern California, Sacramento Area, San
Francisco Bay Area, North Central Valley, South Central Valley, Central Coast,
South Coast, Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino/Riverside, and
San Diego/Imperial. “Because labor market conditions, amenities, and housing
prices differ across regions of the state, teachers’ salaries may also differ, implying
regional difference in the cost of education students” (Sonstelie, 2001, p. 111).
Sonstelie took the Rueben-Herr defined divisions and calculated regional cost
differences. Los Angeles represented 100% of the per-pupil costs and the 10 other
regions equaled a fraction of that amount or a portion in excess of 100%. For
example, the per-pupil costs in the Northern California region, which included
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, and 14 other far northern counties, represented about
91.5% of Los Angeles costs. Orange County, on the other hand, represented 105%
of the Los Angeles costs.
Using Sonstelie’s (2001) calculations, the central office staffing model was
checked for accuracy and applicability. Also, another look at current costs of
California districts was taken and some adjustments were made to widen the range
on the lower end for the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and director of
food services positions, as reflected in Table 13. Not all positions were adjusted
downward because the current data indicated that the salary ranges were reliable.
One northern California focus group member stated, “Salaries are driven by
the market,” and an illustration of that point is the salary range for the director of
technology. According to A. Williams et al. (2004b), the average cost of a director
of technology in the United States was $76,139, in the far west region, it was
$85,906, and in districts with enrollments between 2,500 and 9,999 the average was
$73,533. Even in the northern California districts that tend to have lower salaries
overall, the salary for the technology leadership position is higher than had been
anticipated, and the model cost range was adjusted slightly upward rather than
downward.
The cost of superintendents may also be a reflection of market-driven costs.
One focus group member remarked, “Even a small district must pay their superin
tendent $120,000 plus.” Bernhard and Saavedra (2005) reported on the increasing
salaries of superintendents in Orange County, California, putting them in an elite
income bracket. The authors stated that the average Orange County base salary for
superintendents is $164,000, with another $36,000 in benefits, but compensation
experts and educators claimed that “the pay is simply the cost of getting the right
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
people for difficult jobs” (p. 1). A. Williams et al. (2004b) listed the average
superintendent salary in the United States as $125,609 per year for all reporting
systems, and they disaggregated the data by region. With California a part of the
Far West region, its superintendent salaries were included in the average of
$134,121. Other tables in the A. Williams et al. report showed the 2,500-9,999
enrollment group with an average superintendent salary of $117,839.
An accompanying consideration when discussing superintendents is the
total compensation package (which was not included in the model). The benefits
that a superintendent receives may be considerably richer than those given to other
employees. The $36,000 benefit package for Orange County superintendents
receiving a salary of $164,000 represents just under 22% of the salary cost.
Augenblick et al. (2002) stated that a 20% benefit rate for teachers is expected. It is
logical to assume that the same can be said of superintendents. Therefore, the 22%
benefit package in Orange County does not seem excessively large. Glass (2005)
related several high-profile instances of superintendents receiving hundreds of
thousands of dollars as extra compensation, and he recommended against too large
a package for superintendents. He also found that teacher and other employee
benefits usually were worth about 18% to 20% of salaries, as Augenblick et al.
stated. Keeping the superintendent’s benefit package at an appropriate rate—as
much as 35%—will make it easier for a school board to defend their position and
help to deflect criticism, according to Glass.
Discussion
“There is no painless way to achieve the high standards and student equity
called for in the Learning Results. These standards cannot be achieved by wishing
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for them” (EPS, 1999, p. 35). The high standards set in each state in response to
calls for a 21st-century, high-quality education and NCLB will not be achieved
without extra expenditures. “On average, the children of well educated and eco
nomically successful parents achieve more than their counterparts from less-
advantaged families” (Sonstelie, 2001, p. 114). Determining the appropriate
resources to raise the achievement of less-advantaged students and to provide
ample support for all students’ learning must include adequately staffing districts to
carry out the services that only central offices can perform. A further requirement
is that only necessary positions and costs of the central offices remain there.
Additional dollars that are available must be moved on to the object of the district’s
existence: the children and their educational needs at local schools. Therefore, the
central office staffing model proposed in this study provides sufficient staff
members to complete important central office tasks, and it allows flexibility for
districts to make local decisions regarding what is best in their particular cases.
One way of building flexibility into the model is by not prescribing which
leadership function the assistant superintendent must fill. There are many instances
in California of districts using one assistant superintendent in a variety of important
roles, from curriculum/instruction to business services to human resource functions.
The needs of the districts and the skills and abilities of the person in the assistant
superintendent position can guide the placement of this district leader.
Flexibility may also be exercised in the titles of central office adminis
trators. For example, A. Williams et al. (2004c) documented that districts with
3,500 student enrollment would be expected to have 6.7 central office adminis
trators, although this model suggests 8 persons. The researchers also classified a
large number of job titles as central office administrators. All directors, managers,
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
coordinators, public relations administrators, finance and business administrators,
staff personnel administrators, instructional administrators, technology adminis
trators, subject area supervisors, and all other central office administrative and
professional staff, both certificated and classified, were categorized as central office
administrators, including, of course, the superintendent and any associate, deputy,
or assistant superintendent(s). Therefore, districts may chose to increase or
decrease the number of directors and coordinators in favor of fewer or more
assistant superintendents in whatever configuration they require. The one caveat is
that salary costs of assistant superintendents are greater than costs of directors,
coordinators, or subject area supervisors.
In response to research question 2, a case is made for providing more school
nurses. Increased student attendance, potential violence prevention, mental health
interventions, and students’ health in general will be more adequately addressed
through this staffing change, and student achievement benefits may result. Adding
insight to the school nurse-student health connection are those who plan for
emergencies and crises. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recom
mended increased collaboration between emergency response providers and school
officials due to the fact that “in some communities, schools may be the only health
care provider for disadvantaged children. In addition, schools maintain medical
records for children. This is especially important for children with special health
care needs” (as cited in Greene, Barrios, Blair, & Kolbe, 2003, p. 4). The Centers
did not call for a certain staffing ratio for school nurses, but in its “Schools and
Terrorism” report the authors assumed that adequate numbers of medical staff were
already provided. Admittedly, proposing a greater number of school nurses may be
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
controversial due to the increased costs that the proposal would incur and due to the
difficulty of finding credentialed school nurses.
The model developed through this study does not excessively staff a central
office. It does include one additional administrator than would be expected using
the numbers in the A. Williams et al. (2004c) study. However, some may view the
model as still too lean. The leanness was intentional. The model was proposed
with a decentralization point of view. Hansen and Roza (2005) discussed their
view that decentralization, giving school decision-making authority to schools, is
necessary to improve student achievement. They contended that that authority was
never fully released from central control when decentralization was tried in earlier
reform movements.
Public education systems are bureaucracies—and bureaucracies, with their
codified rules and standardized procedures specifying how work is to be
done, are increasingly seen as problematic in environments, such as schools,
with shifting circumstances, unpredictable client needs, and a lack of clarity
on the links between tasks and desired outcomes. Bureaucracies discourage
creativity and innovation and encourage members to focus on compliance
with rules, (p. 40)
The claims that decentralized decision making allows performance at higher
levels are intriguing and seem right intuitively. Moving decisions and responsibili
ties closer to those who must carry out the actions would seem to increase buy-in
and provide motivation to succeed. Therefore, a lean staff at the central office will
decrease the urge to take back authority, once it is given. As input from focus
group members was reviewed, one concern regarding decision-making authority
surfaced. Centralization of curriculum, of hiring, and other important decisions
seemed to be widely accepted. Decentralization did not seem to be within anyone’s
consideration. That realization demonstrates to this author that decision making
authority will not be easily transposed from central office to school site.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 4 includes presentations and discussions of the findings in answer
to the three research questions of how central offices of California districts of 3500
are currently staffed, what research suggests about adequately staffing central
offices, and how the costs can be determined. A central office staffing model was
developed, presented to focus groups of school board members and superintend
ents, and then adjusted when reviewed with the research inputs in mind. Costs of
the model were cross-checked with current California salaries and with regional
calculations made by earlier researchers. The resulting model and its accompany
ing costs are applicable for districts of 3,500 students in California.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
This study utilized the evidence-based, qualitative approach to determine a
central office staffing model for a district of 3,500 students. Forty-seven California
school districts with between 3,000 and 4,000 students were studied to establish
current practice. Research studies and best practice reports were reviewed for their
rich informational foundation. Focus groups of California superintendents and
school board members were conducted to receive their valuable input. Data from
these sources were analyzed, and a central office staffing model was synthesized,
including costs. The model is offered to educators and policy makers as a practical
guide to adequately staffing a central office. This chapter provides a brief summary
of the study, followed by practical implications and recommendations for future
research.
Summary of the Study
The evidence-based method of determining an adequate education has
focused almost exclusively on the instructional core: what staff and other resources
are needed at schools. Other necessary costs hav^ been taken “as given.” A key
motivator in conducting this study was the need to fill in one of the unanswered
“given” amounts: the size and costs of the central office staff. Adequacy studies
that directly confront the central office staffing issue are practically nonexistent.
More often, indirect suggestions, such as a per-pupil dollar amount for district
administration, are given in studies. The goal of this study was the establishment
of a central office staffing model with its accompanying costs. Sonstelie’s (2001)
recognized the need for a model such as this when he called for “better information
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about the salaries and benefits of other personnel” (p. 121) besides teachers, for
whom good information was already available, in his view.
The study responded to three research questions regarding current central
office staffing practices, research recommendations, and establishing costs. The
study was undertaken with a mixed methodology using evidence-based, qualitative,
and quantitative research methods. Previous evidence-based research, such as that
utilized by Picus and his associates in Arkansas as described by Hoff (2005),
guided the study’s action plan. Research was surveyed for best-practice informa
tion, current practices were ascertained, costs were calculated, and a proposed
model was presented to focus groups.
Qualitative and quantitative methods played roles in the study, with quali
tative methods of selecting participants and analyzing data being the principal
methods used. Purposeful sampling (choosing subjects by what they can clarify
about the study topic) guided the selection of focus group members and the current
California districts. Focus group members were California superintendents and
school board members who were attending the National School Board Associa
tion’s annual conference in San Diego in April 2005, and school districts were
selected because of their enrollment size. Data triangulation (another qualitative
method) assisted in validating one data source with other sources. For example,
checking School Services of California numbers against those provided by
Educational Research Service and by current district practices or by comments
from focus group participants gave credence to what had been discovered. Analyz
ing data as an ongoing process throughout the study was a useful qualitative tech
nique that increased the efficacy of the proposed model. Quantitative methods
were also useful, particularly in organizing and presenting descriptive data
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
regarding current school district practices. By making use of mixed methods, a
justifiable, evidenced-based central office staffing model for districts of the
targeted size was developed.
Conclusions: Implications for Practice
The proposed model is based on a decentralized school district organization,
in which a large amount of authority is given to local schools to determine many
questions that previously have been controlled by a central office. Therefore,
excessive staff members at a central location are unnecessary and may be counter
productive to the mission of providing equitable and adequate resources for student
achievement. The challenge of decentralization affects local school personnel, who
must handle decisions for which they may be unaccustomed, as well as for central
office staff, who may be used to bypassing local concerns. As the literature on
decentralization and central office issues has repeatedly stated, the central office
must become a service center, providing support, mentoring, and training for site
administrators, teachers, and community members in ways to effectively use their
new decision-making authority. “While central office personnel speak of them
selves as support for the school, in truth they are still too often regulators and
monitors” (Beme et al., 1995, p. 3). The service-oriented approach—a real service
approach—represents a significant change in practice for many central office staffs.
Change is difficult, and the change that a new, decentralized arrangement
represents may take some districts a long time to accomplish. Another change that
central offices must make, along with a decentralization viewpoint, is a change in
the attitude of central office staff toward academic achievement. Accountability for
student achievement must involve central office staff as well as teachers and
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
principals. As Simpson and Schnitzer (2005) related, requiring every central office
department to write annual plans to support academic achievement helps to keep
everyone’s focus on the results that matter most for students. Results (that is,
raising achievement for all students and closing achievement gaps among ethnic
groups, according to Ucelli and Foley [2004]) is the current imperative and must be
the entire district’s focus.
The third change in practice advocated by the staffing model is the number
of school nurses. The model presents four nurses for a district of 3,500 students,
creating a ratio of 1 nurse per 875 students. This ratio is still higher than CSNO
recommends but it represents a strategic shift in practice. With this number of
nurses, special needs students would receive more adequate attention to their medi
cal needs, as would all students. Attendance rates might increase as well; mental
health interventions might be made in a timelier manner; and general student
benefits might increase the attention and achievement of the school population.
Recommendations for Future Research
A staffing model is a subject of important possibilities, and the detailed
model presented in this study with its accompanying costs can be the starting point
for further investigation. Due to the dearth of studies directly addressing staffing
numbers, further research to identify adequate central office staff for various sizes
or types of districts would add reliability to what has been presented.
Other areas unexplored in this study and unexplained in general are
adequate staffs and costs necessary for school district transportation, food service,
and special education. This last topic would seem to be of great urgency, judging
from responses by focus group members. Special education and special needs
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students brought more negative reactions than any other topic discussed in the
focus group setting, and the comments expressed that day revealed great anxiety
over the escalating costs.
Another research project related to this study is that of the role of school
nurses to positively affect student achievement. Replicating previous studies
regarding improved attendance or other school nurse interventions and determining
adequate staffing numbers and costs might present districts with a more positive
way to address special needs students and the general welfare of students and staff.
Exploring byproduct benefits, such as aiding in emergency preparedness, may
convince districts that school nurses are worth the costs incurred.
Closing
Some reformers have viewed the bureaucracy associated with central
offices as a hindrance to educational improvement, not its solution. Central offices
have been determined by many to be incurably incompetent, and their involvement
in reforms has doomed the reforms to failure (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002). Other
reformers have come to realize the potential within the central office for equity and
adequacy. In its attempts to revamp urban districts by insisting that schools—not
central offices—must have authority, resources, and accountability, the Cross City
Campaign for Urban School Reform (Beme et al., 1995) advocated for a pared-
down central office but one that still carries out an extensive list of essential tasks.
To do all that is recognized by Cross City Campaign and other authoritative
sources as being essential and appropriate for a central office, there must be suffici
ent staff for the tasks. The proposed model includes staff members to adequately
address the four major function of a central office staff. District leadership
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
functions are in the hands of the superintendent and assistant superintendent. These
two positions, with their clerical support staff, can set the tone and direction of the
district by establishing district goals and standards, recruiting qualified staff,
overseeing equitable school funding, supporting the work of schools, and being a
visible presence in the community. Instructional leadership functions—setting high
standards in the classroom, treating students equitably, providing assessment data
and ongoing professional development—may be managed by an assistant superin
tendent, as well as a director of curriculum and instruction, a director of pupil
services, along with clerical and school nurse support staff. The business opera
tions functions may be in the hands of an assistant superintendent, or districts may
chose to use a business manager as the department leader with an accounting staff
and the directors of maintenance and food service with their support personnel.
The critical roles that these staff members play—accounting for and managing
district funds wisely, providing safe and clean facilities, ensuring dependable
transportation and sanitary food handling practices—cannot be overrated. Finally,
maintaining an efficient and reliable information system is a key component to
linking schools with information from within the district and in the electronic
universe. The technology director and staff members are indispensable members of
a central office staff in the modem world of education.
Although critics may blame central office “bloat” for poor school perform
ance, the numbers refute that claim. According to Forsyth (2003), the ratio of
employees to administrator was higher in education than in any other business. He
delineated the importance of the central office function. “Central administration in
most districts now covers curriculum and staff development, student testing and
assessment, school board-related functions, state and federal regulations, legal
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
services, supervision of maintenance and operations, transportation, food opera
tions and other support services” (p. 3). Coupling all of those tasks with the even
higher responsibilities of providing equity and results for all students, one can
understand the necessity and importance of the central office. Staffing central
offices at balanced levels so that just enough dollars and authority are kept at the
central office can make major contributions to provide an adequate education for all
students.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Abbott v. Burke, 100 N.J. 269 (N.J. 1985).
Abbott v. Burke, 119 N.J. 287 (N.J. 1990).
Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444 (N.J. 1994).
Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (1997).
Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (1998).
Abbott v. Burke, 163 N.J. 95,748 A.2d 82 (2000).
Abbott v. Burke, 164 N.J. 84,751 A.2d 1032 (2001).
Abbott v. Burke, 170 N.J. 537, 790 A.2d 842 (2002).
Abbott v. Burke, 172 N.J. 294, 798 A.2d 602 (2002).
Abbott v. Burke, 177 N.J. 578, 832 A.2d 891 (2003).
Allen, G. (2003). The impact of elementary school nurses on student attendance.
Journal o f School Nursing, 19, 225-231.
Augenblick, J., Myers, J., Silverstein, J., & Barkis, A. (2002). Calculation o f the
cost o f a suitable education in Kansas in 2000-2001 using two different
analytic approaches. Retrieved June 21, 2005, from http://ksde.org/
school/financefinalreport.pdf
Augenblick, J., & Myers, Inc. (2003). Calculation of the cost of an adequate edu
cation in Nebraska in 2002-2003 using the professional judgment approach.
Retrieved April 15,2005, from http://www.nsea.org/legpol/legpdfs/
03AMNebraskaReport.pdf
Berg, J., & Hall, G. (1997, March). Downsizing o f central office: Does anyone
care? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (2002). What research says about unequal funding
for schools in America (Report No. ESPSL-0602-102-EPRP). Tempe:
Arizona State University.
Bernard, S. C., & Mondale, S. (Eds.). (2001). School: The story o f American
public education. Boston: Beacon Press.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Beme, R., & Stiefel, L. (1999). Concepts of school finance equity. InH. F. Ladd,
R. Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance:
Issues and perspectives (pp. 7-33). Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Beme, R., Wagner, R., Fine, M., Fruchter, N., Lauber, D., Lewis, et al. (1995).
Reinventing central office: A primer for successful schools. Chicago:
Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
Bernhard, B., & Saavedra, T. (2005). O.C. superintendents in elite pay class. Or
ange County Register. Retrieved October, 4, 2005, from http://
www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/24/sections/news/news/print_493828php
Betts, J., Rueben, K. S., & Danenburg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal out
comes? The distribution o f school resources and student achievement in
California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Brewer, D. J. (1996). Does more school district administration lower educational
productivity? Some evidence on the “administrative blob” in New York
public schools. Economics o f Education Review, 15(2), 111-124.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Buchanan, B. (2003, March 6). Central office earns good efficiency grade: The
district has one of the lowest administer-to-student ratios in North Carolina.
The News & Record. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from http://www.highbeam
.com/library/Doc3.asp?DOCID=lGl :98454115=2&ctrlInfo=Roun
Burch, P., & Spillane, J. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff
and instructional improvement. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban
School Reform.
California Education Code. (n.d.). Retrieved July 13,2004, from http://leginfo.ca.
gov/cgi-in/waisgate?WAISdocID=24171715827+0+0+0&WAISaction=
retrieve
California School Nurses Organization. (2004). Position statements. Retrieved
August 9, 2005, from http://www.csno.org/about/positions2004%20
updated.doc
Campaign for Fiscal Equity. (2004). New Jersey. Retrieved October 2,2004,
from http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/nj/lit_nj .php3
Charles, C. M. (1998). Introduction to educational research (3rd ed.). New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). The central office role in instructional
improvement. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374567)
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Costante, C. C. (2001). School health nursing: Framework for the future, part 1.
Journal of School Nursing, 17, 3-11.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2001). Introduction: The bottom line. In S. C. Bernard & S. Mondale
(Eds.), School: The story o f American public education (pp. 173-182).
Boston: Beacon Press.
Davis, M. L., & Hayes, K. J. (1990). Efficiency and inefficiency in the Texas
public schools. San Antonio: Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Na
tional Center for Policy Analysis.
DuFour, R. B. (2003, May). Central office support for learning communities.
School Administrator. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://
www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2003_05/DuFour_Bumette.htm
Duncombe, W., Lukemeyer, A., & Yinger, J. (2004). Education finance reform in
New York: Calculating the cost o f a “ sound basic education ” in New York
City. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 111 S.W. 2d 391 (Tex. 1989).
Edgewood Independent School District v. Meno, 893 S.W. 2d 450 (Tex. 1995).
EdSource. (2005). Resource cards on California Schools. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
Ehlers, J., Hayward, G. C., & Picus, L. O. (2002). Wyoming education finance:
Small district report. Davis, CA: Management Analysis & Planning, Inc.
Essential Programs and Services Committee. (1999). Equity and adequacy in
funding to improve learning for all children. Augusta: Maine State Board
of Education.
Flynn, P. (1998, March). Ready, set, decide! School Administrator. Retrieved
March 24, 2005, from www.aasa.org/publications/sa/1998_03/flynn.htm
Forsyth, J. (2003, September). Punchback: Answering critics. School Adminis
trator Web Edition. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://www.aasa.org/
publications/sa/2003_09/punchback.htm
Forsyth, J. M., & Turner, J. R. (2005). Answering the critics o f school administra
tion: What are the facts? Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003/ Educational research: An intro
duction. Boston: Pearson Education.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Glass, T. (2005). The big paycheck: The executive educator’s guide to superin
tendent salaries and compensation. American School Board Journal. Re
trieved September 3,2005, from http://www.asbi.com/executive/Glass
0205.html
Greene, B., Barrios, L. C., Blair, J. E., & Kolbe, L. (2003). Schools and terrorism:
A supplement to the National Advisory Committee on Children and Terror
ism. Retrieved September 15,2005, at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/children/
pdf/working/school.pdf
Greenhut, S. (2005, June 18). Picture this: Entire Capo board target of recall. Or
ange County Register. Retrieved June 20,2005, from http://www.ocregister
.com/ocr/2005/6/18/sections/commentary/ commentarycolumns/
article_555363.php
Griffith, M., & Burke, M. (2005, February). School funding adequacy cases.
States Notes. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/
clearinghouse/59/07/5907.htm
Gronberg, T., Jansen, D. W., Taylor, L. L., & Booker, K. (2002). School outcomes
and school costs: The cost function approach. College Station: Texas A &
M.
Grove, K. F. (2002, May). The invisible role of the central office. Educational
Leadership 59(8), 45-47.
Hadderman, M. (1998). School productivity. ERIC Digest 119,1-7. Retrieved
September 5, 2004, from http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/
ed420092.html
Hadderman, M. (1999). Equity and adequacy in educational finance. ERIC Digest
129,1-7. Retrieved July 12,2004, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/
publications/digest/digest 129.html
Hansen, J. S. (2002, May). New Funding Challenges. American School Board
Journal, 18915). Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www
.asbj.com/schoolspending/Resources0502hansen.html
Hansen, J. S., & Roza, M. (2005). Trying decentralization for real this time. Edu
cation Week, 24(44), 40, 52.
Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State, 236 Mont. 44,769 P. 2d 684
(1989).
Hershberg, T., Rosenblum, I., & Simon, V. A. (2003, February 19). Adequacy,
equity, and accountability. Education Week. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cftn?slug=23hershberg.h22
Hoff, D. J. (2005, January 6). The bottom line. Education Week, 24(11), 29-36.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hootman, J., Houck, G. M., & King, M. C. (2002). A program to educate school
nurses about mental health interventions. Journal o f School Nursing, 18,
191-195.
Hunter, M. A. (2004). Montana. Retrieved October 2, 2004, from http://www
.schoolfunding.info/states/mt/lit_mt.php3
Ilg, T., & Raisch, C. D. (1999, April). Building-based budgeting and decentraliza
tion: A 20-year perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Kaestle, C. F. (2001). Introduction: The common school. In S. C. Bernard & S.
Mondale (Eds.), School: The story o f American public education (pp. 11-
17). Boston: Beacon Press.
Kober, N. L., Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2005). Do you know the latest good
news about American education? Washington, DC: Center on Education
Policy.
Lloyd, K., Ramsey, D., & Bell, T. H. (1997). Reclaiming our nation at risk—Les
sons learned: Reforming our public schools. Salt Lake City, UT: The
Terrel H. Bell Knowledge Network for Education Reform.
Marlow, M. L. (2001). Bureaucracy and student performance in U. S. public
schools. Applied Economics, 33, 1341-1350. Retrieved June 17, 2005,
from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Marlow, M. L. (2002, August). The efficient mix of staffing resources. School
Administrator Web Edition. Retrieved June 17, 2005, from http://
www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_8/marlow.htm
Mathews, J. (2001, June). Nontraditional thinking in the central office. School
Administrator Web Edition. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://
www.aasa.org/publication/sa/200l_06/feature_mathews 1 .htm
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Reforming districts. In A.
Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School district
and instructional renewal (pp. 173-192). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Merriam-Webster’ s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). (1994). Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster.
Miller, K. (2004). Creating conditions for leadership effectiveness: The district’ s
role. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Minorini, P., & Sugarman, S. (1999). School finance litigation in the name of
educational equity. In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity
and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 34-71).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Murphy, J., & Doyle, D. P. (2001, June). Redesigning the operating environments
in school districts and schools. ECS Governance Notes. Retrieved May 1,
2005, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/26/64/2662.htm
Myers, J., & Silverstein, J. (2002). Calculation o f the cost o f a suitable education
in Montana in 2001-2002 using the professional judgment approach. Un
published manuscript.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2001).
SHPPS 2000: School health policies and programs study. Retrieved Au
gust 15, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/shpps/factsheets/
asthma.htm
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform (Stock No. 065-000-00177-2). Wash
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Newsom, J. (2001, June 1). Business leaders support schools: Four organizations
endorse the system’s spending plan, even if it means higher taxes. The
News & Record. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from http://www. highbeam.
com/library/doc3 .asp?DOCID=l G1:80571393&num=7&ctrlInfo=Roun
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta
Kappan 85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (3rd
ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., & Fermanich, M. (2003). An evidenced-based ap
proach to school finance adequacy in Arkansas. Report prepared for Ar
kansas Joint Committee on Educational Adequacy.
Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get your
children the education they need. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ouchi, W. G., Cooper, B. S., Segal, L. G., DeRoche, T., Brown, C., & Galvin, E.
(2002). The organization o f primary and secondary school systems. Los
Angeles: UCLA Anderson School of Management.
Park, J. (2003). School finance. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved July 12,
2004, from http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfin?id=22
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pereus, S. (2000, May). Cut costs without cutting quality. American School
Board Journal. Retrieved July 18, 2004, from http://www.asbj.com/
schoolspending/resourcespereus.html
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perry, M. (2000). How much is enough? Funding California’s public schools. In
EdSource (Ed.), Selected readings on California school finance (pp. 8.1-
8.24). Palo Alto, CA: Editor.
Peterson, D. (1991). School-based budgeting. ERIC Digest 64,1-7. Retrieved
September 5,2004, from http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/
ed336865.html
Picus, L. O. (2000). How schools allocate and use their resources. ERIC Digest
143,1-10. Retrieved July 12,2004 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/
publications/digests/digest 143 .html
Picus, L. O. (2004). Accountability: What will it cost? Urban Ed, 23-24. (Avail
able from USC Rossier School of Education, Waite Phillips Hall 1102A,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031)
Picus, L. O., Odden, A., & Seder, R. (2005). Report to state o f Wyoming. Unpub
lished manuscript.
Protheroe, N. (1998, September). The blob revisited. School Administrator Web
Edition. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/
saJ1998_09/Protheroe.htm
Pulliam, J. D., & Van Patten, J. J. (1999). History o f education in America (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973).
Rose, H. (2001). The concept of adequacy and school finance. In J. Sonstelie &
P. Richardson (Eds.), School finance and California’ s master plan for edu
cation (pp. 29-45). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186 (Ky. 1989).
Roza, M. (2005). Many a slip ‘ tween cup and lip: District fiscal practices and
their effect on school spending. Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute Con
gressional Program.
Rueben, K. S., & Herr, J. L. (2001). Teacher salaries in California. In J. Sonstelie
& P. Richardson (Eds.), School finance and California’ s master plan for
education (pp. 81-101). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of Califor
nia.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alex
andria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
School Communities That Work: A National Task Force on the Future of Urban
Districts. (2002, June). School communities that work for results and
equity. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown
University.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Services of California, Inc. & WestEd. (2004). Review o f public school
expenditure patterns. Sacramento, CA: Authors.
Schrag, P. (2003). Final test: The battle for adequacy in America’ s schools. New
York: New Press.
Seattle School District No. 1 of King City v. State, 585 P. 2d 71 (Wash. 1978).
Serrano v. Priest, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601,487 P.2d 1241, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971).
Simpson, J. O., & Schnitzer, D. K. (2005). Accountability for all: Narrowing the
achievement gap in Norfolk. American School Board Journal, 192(3), 17-
20.
Smith, N. (2003). The new central office: How charter districts serves schools
and the public interest. The nuts and bolts o f charter districts. Denver:
Education Commission of the States.
Sonstelie, J. (2001). Toward cost and quality models for California’s public
schools. In J. Sonstelie & P. Richardson (Eds.), School finance and Cali
fornia’ s master plan for education (pp. 103-123). San Francisco: Public
Policy Institute of California.
Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or for worse? School
finance reform in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of
California.
Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services. (2004). Resource adequacy study
for the New York State Commission on Education Reform. New York:
Author.
Taylor, L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy
in public schools. Retrieved October 12,2005 from http://bush.tamu.edu/
research/working_papers/ltaylor/measuring_edu_adequacy_in_public_scho
ols.pdf
Telljohann, S. K., Dake, J. A., & Price, J. H. (2004). Effect of full-time versus
part-time school nurses on attendance of elementary students with asthma.
Journal o f School Nursing, 20, 331-334.
Ucelli, M. R., & Foley, E. L. (2004). Results, equity, and community: The smart
district. Voices in Urban Education (VUE), 5 ,1-6. Retrieved May 15,
2005, from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE/fall04/Ucelli.litml
Washakie County School District No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wy.1980).
Wenglinsky, H. (1996). Modeling the relationship between school district spend
ing and academic achievement: A multivariate analysis o f the 1992 na
tional assessment o f education progress and the common core o f data.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WestEd. (2002). Improving districts: Systems that support learning. San Fran
cisco: Author.
Williams, A., Protheroe, N., & Kibula, S. (2004a). Budgeted revenues and expen
ditures in public school systems: Current status and trends, update 2004.
Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Williams, A., Protheroe, N., & Kibula, S. (2004b). Salaries and wages paid pro
fessional and support personnel in public schools, 2003-2004. Arlington,
VA: Educational Research Service.
Williams, A., Protheroe, N., & Kibula, S. (2004c). Staffing patterns in public
school systems: Current status and trends, update 2004. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service.
Williams, J. (2004). The ruling that changed America. American School Board
Journal, 191(4), 18-21.
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
Counties With Districts in the Study
County
Districts
in county
Districts with
3,000-4,000
students District names
Alameda 18 1 Albany
Butte 14 1 Oroville City ESD
Calaveras 4 1 Calaveras Unified
Contra Costa 18 2 Lafayette ESD, Walnut Creek ESD
El Dorado 15 1 Rescue Union ESD
Fresno 34 2 Kerman Unified, Parlier Unified
Imperial 16 2 Brawley ESD, Central UHSD
Kem 47 3 Delano Jnt UHSD, Fruitvale ESD
South Kem USD
Kings 14 3 Corcoran Joint Unified, Hanford JUHSD
Lemoore Union Elementary
Lake 7 1 Konocti Unified
Los Angeles 81 5 Castaic UESD, El Segundo Unified
Lowell Joint ESD, Rosemead ESD
San Marino Unified SD
Marin 19 1 San Rafael City Elementary [excluded]
Tamalpais Union HSD
Monterey 24 2 Santa Rita UESD, Soledad Unified
Riverside 23 1 Palo Verde Unified
San Benito 11 1 San Benito High
San Bernardino 33 2 Bear Valley Unified Mountain V iew ESD
San Diego 42 2 Del Mar UESD, Fallbrook UHSD
San Joaquin 15 1 Escalon Unified
San Mateo 23 2 Cabrillo Unified, Pacifica UESD
Santa Barbara 23 1 Goleta Union Elementary
Santa Clara 32 1 Mountain View-Los Altos Union
Santa Cruz 11 1 San Lorenzo Valley Unified
Shasta 25 2 Enterprise Elem, Gateway Unified
Solano 6 1 Dixon Unified
Stanislaus 27 3 Riverbank Unified, Salida Union Elementary
Stanislaus Union Elementary
Tulare 47 1 Lindsay Unified
Ventura
TOTAL
19 3
47
Fillmore Unified, Oak Park Unified
Ojai Unified
Note. ESD = Elementary School District, UESD = Unified Elementary School
District, HSD = High School District, UHSD = Unified High School District, USD
= Unified School District, JUHSD = Joint Unified High School District.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research
A Central Office Staffing Model to Provide for an Adequate Education
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Lawrence O. Picus,
Ph.D. and Elizabeth A. Swift, M.A., from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. Results of this study will contribute to the dis
sertation of Ms. Swift for the completion of her Ed.D. in Educational Leadership.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your knowledge
and expertise in central office staffing through your role as a district-level adminis
trator or as a school board member. A total of 32-40 participants will be selected
from superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school board members in Cali
fornia and separated into four focus groups based on geographic location. Your
participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about how the staffing of the central office helps to provide for an adequate
education for students and to determine the cost of that level of staffing. This is an
evidence-based study that makes use of adequacy studies conducted throughout the
United States. The study will be strengthened by feedback from school board
members and district administrators, who are knowledgeable about school district
functioning and funding.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to attend a one-time breakfast meeting on April 17 in San Diego
to participate in a focus group discussion. Prior to the meeting you will receive in
the mail a proposed central office staffing model that you may choose to review in
advance. At the breakfast meeting, you will participate in a ninety-minute focus
groups discussion at which time you will be asked to provide feedback, based upon
your professional judgment, regarding the proposed model and its attendant costs.
You will be asked about the model’s validity, its applicability and usefulness, and
its appraisal of necessary district functions and costs. You will be encouraged to
describe h o w the proposed m odel m ight im pact your district. There are approxi
mately 15 questions.
On the morning of Sunday, April 17, you will be assigned to a focus group deter
mined by the region of California in which you reside. The meeting will be held on
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
April 17 from 8:45 to 10:30 a.m. in the “Santa Fe” conference room of the Em
bassy Suites, 601 Pacific Highway, San Diego (at the comer of Pacific Highway
and Harbor Drive, two short blocks from the San Diego Convention Center).
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no risks involved. Two slight discomforts may be fatigue from partici
pating in a 90-minute focus group and also the slight discomfort of confidentiality.
You may choose not to answer any questions that make you uncomfortable. You
will be given a pseudonym. Your name will not be used in the final report.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study.
As California straggles to decide on spending priorities and policies, this study may
benefit the policy decisions to be made at the local and state levels, and your par
ticipation may help that happen.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study, however, a continental
breakfast will be provided for you on the morning of the focus group discussion.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
You will receive pseudonyms to conceal your identify and the identity of your dis
trict. Only the principal investigator and the co-principal investigator will have
access to the data. The coding sheet key will be kept separate from the research
data. The data will be stored in a locked file cabinet at the Rossier School of Edu
cation with access granted to only the principal and co-principal investigators. All
data will be destroyed three years after the study is completed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no in
formation will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, principal investigator, or Elizabeth (Beth) A. Swift, co
principal investigator. Dr. Picus may be contacted at the Rossier School of Educa
tion, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, WPH 904C, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-4039 or at 213-740-2175. Ms. Swift may be contacted in care
of the Buena Park School District, 6885 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park, CA
90621 or at 714-313-9092.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL
1. What is your title (board member, superintendent, etc.) and how long have you
served in that capacity?
2. Please tell your focus group members about your district.
3. How has education’s focus changed over the length o f your service in the district?
4. What do you see as public schools greatest challenge today?
5. How has California’s current budget challenges affected your district?
6. In most states, providing equitable resources— equal amounts per student— used
to be the goal. Now, providing adequate resources— different amounts based on
the needs for achievement— seems to have taken over the debate. How do you
view equity and adequacy?
7. What functions do you feel are important to be performed by the central office?
Why?
8. The proposed model you were given is for a hypothetical seven-school district o f
3,500 students with 21 employees at the central office site. How accurately have
necessary district functions been appraised?
9. What are the model’s strengths/weaknesses?
10. Is the model applicable to your district or districts you know well? W hy/why not?
11. How accurately does the model predict costs o f providing the central office person
nel and services?
12. What cost adjustments would have to be made for your area o f California?
13. What cost adjustments for very small districts would be necessary? For large,
urban districts? For district with a high percentage o f poor children/families?
14. How useful do you think funding models are in general? How useful is this spe
cific model?
15. If this model was imposed upon your district, what would be the potential conse
quences?
By Elizabeth A. Swift
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
STAFFING AND COST INFORMATION
FROM CALIFORNIA DISTRICTS
OF 3,000-4,000 STUDENTS
These charts of data were accumulated from online sources, from public in
formation documents, and from information received through contacts with central
office personnel. They are as accurate and comprehensive as was possible at the
time the study was completed.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Albany Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel/Student Services
[includes Special Ed]
1 Administrative Assistant-Personnel
1 Program Specialist
1 Secretary—Special Services
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business Services
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Benefits/Purchasing Clerk
1 Network Administrator
1 Student Data System Manager
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Director of Food Services
1 Food Services Accounts Technician
[Most maintenance is contracted out or completed by custodians.]
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bear Valley Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Secretary
1 Director of Pupil Services
1 Pupil Services Specialist
1 Secretary—Special Ed
1 Director of Business Services
1 Secretary
1 Assistant
2 Payroll Clerks
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Coordinator of Technology
1 Supervisor of Maintenance/Operations
[Maintenance Worker & grounds keepers on school sites]
1 Director of Food Services
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Brawley Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Assistant Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Personnel Technician
1 Receptionist
$115,000
1 Director of Special Education
1 Director of Special Projects
1 Parent Coordinator
1 Nurse
2 Secretaries—Special Education
3 Clerks
1 Director of Fiscal Services
2 Payroll Clerks
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
2 Attendance Clerks
1 Director of Technology
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Transportation Supervisor
1 Secretary
1 Maintenance Foreman
2 Maintenance Workers
1 Gardener Foreman
2 Groundskeepers
1 Director of Food Services
[Teachers’ Salary Range $34,608-73,946]
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cabrillo Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Deputy Superintendent—Personnel, Student Services
1 Administrative Secretary
2 Personnel and Office Technicians
2.744-3,465
102,355
2.744-3,465
51,024
1 Assistant Superintendent—Curriculum & Instruction
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Special Services
1 Administrative Assistant
0.5 Director of Programs—Second Language Learners
[also the Adult Ed Principall
$102,355
2.744-3,465
102,355
2.744-3,465
96,040
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Payroll Clerk
3 Accounts Payable Clerks
85,000
2.744-3,465
2.744-3,465
2,486-3465
1 Coordinator of Technology
1 Student Data System Manager
4,389-5,541
3,029-3,824
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
0.5 Transportation Coordinator [also drives]
2 Maintenance Workers
2 Groundskeepers
0.75 Food Services Accounts Technician
$72,751
4,056-5146
2,677-3,379
2,425-3,062
2,486-3,139
[Teachers’ Salary Range $39,187-71,098]
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Calaveras Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant 28,769-34,967
1 Coordinator of Personnel
1 Secretary
68,237-88,010
1 Assistant Superintendent—Curriculum/Instruction/Personnel
1 Administrative Assistant—Categoricals
1 Secretary—Ed Services
0.5 Sub Caller
68,237-88,010
41,847-56,079
2,026-3,267/month
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Attendance Clerk
1 Accounting Assistant
1 Accounting Supervisor
68,237-88,010
31,322-38,069
2,086-3,369/month
2,026-3,369/month
31,928-38,810
48,833-62,985
1 Supervisor of Technology
2 Computer Technicians
48,833-62,985
31,322-41,527
1 Supervisor of Maintenance/Operations
1 Maintenance Office Manager
3 Maintenance Workers
2 Groundskeepers
48,833-62,985
2,224-3,589/month
1.835-3,589/month
1.835-2,964/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $34,000-68,000]
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Castaic Union Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Clerk/Receptionist
120,799-138,199
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Director of Student Support
2 Secretaries—Special Services & Ed. Services
1 Nurse
1 Coordinator of Extended Learning
1 (15%) BTSA Clerk
95,073-114,781
82,412-104,708
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Coordinator of Personnel/Payroll Services
1 Secretary
1 Payroll Clerk/Personnel Technician
1 Accounts Clerk
0.5 Messenger
1 Library/Media/Technology Specialist
1 Webmaster and Internet Technician
1 Director of Facilities
1 Facilities Secretary
1 Facilities Account Clerk
1 Coordinator of Maintenance/Operations
2 Maintenance Workers
1 Coordinator of Transportation
0.5 Transportation Clerk
fFood Service is contracted out with JPA.]
[Teachers’ Salary Range $36,006-71,653]
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Central Union High School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Board Clerk
1 Director of Human Resources
1 Administrative Secretary
1 Assistant Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Director of Special Ed
1 Data Analyst
1 Nurse
1 Director of Athletics
1 Clerk—Athletics
2 Payroll Clerks—classified, certificated
2 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Accounts Receivable Clerk
1 Accounting Specialist
1 Computer Network Engineer
1 Assistant Computer Network Engineer
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Transportation Director
[Teachers’ Salary Range 34,379-79,045]
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Corcoran Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Secretary to the Superintendent
1 Receptionist Clerk
1 Director of Curriculum
1 Director of Special Projects
1 Secretary—Special Projects
1 Nurse
1 Director of Healthy Start
78,418-92,686
72,008-87,022
65,493-78,371
1 Chief Business Officer
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Payable Clerks
1 Administrative Assistant for Accounting
1 Attendance Accounting Technician
65,255-79,125
42,260-56,131
3 Computer Technicians
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
2 Maintenance Worker
1 Head Groundskeeper
1 Head Custodian
1 Director of Food Services
51,412-59,338
30,891-38,816
[Teachers’ Salary Range $39,129-67,958]
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Del Mar Union Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Executive Assistant
41.704-67,484
41.704-67,484
1 Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction
1 Office Manager/Program Assistant 35,962-58,187
1 Director of Pupil Services
1 Administrative Assistant—Special Education
2 Nurses
33,962-50,597
45,427-73,508
1 Director of Child Care
4 Assistant Child Care Directors
23,055-32,442
22,494-31,648
1 Director of Human Resources & Facility Planning
1 Personnel Technician
1 Facilities Construction Coordinator
48,363-68,053
37,780-53,161
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Payroll/Benefits Technician
1 Business Services Specialist
1 Business Coordinator
1 Account Clerk
37,780-53,161
45,427-63,920
48,363-68,053
28,794-40,517
1 Director of Technology
2 Computer Support Technicians
1 District Webmaster
44,256-62,273
39.694-55,852
39.694-55852
1 Maintenance Supervisor
1.5 Maintenance Worker
1 Groundsman
1 Custodial Supervisor
39,694-55,852
19,881-27,976
27,407-38,564
29,513-41,530
[Teachers’ Salary Range $35,764-79,258]
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Delano Joint Union High School District
1 Superintendent—includes Educational Services
1 Associate Superintendent— Personnel
2 Executive Assistants
1 Receptionist
1 Director of Special Education
1 Director of Special Projects
1 Director of Student Assessment and Support
3 Secretaries
2 Data Entry Clerks
1 Nurse
1 Chief Business Official
2 Payroll Clerks—classified, certificated
3 Accounts Payable/Purchase Order Clerks
1 Coordinator of Informational Technology
1 IT Data Specialist
2 Network Specialists
4 Computer Technicians/Programmers/Operators
1 Manager of Maintenance/Operations/Construction
1 Transportation Supervisor
1 Construction Technician
2 Maintenance Workers
2 Groundskeepers
1 Warehouse Worker
1 Director of Food Services
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dixon Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant 39,524-52,405
1 Senior Director of Personnel
1 Personnel Technician
1 Receptionist/Personnel Technician
1 Assistant Superintendent—Curriculum & Instruction $95,794-106,498
1 Secretary 29,783-38,395
1 Director of Special Education 79,740-90,442
1 Director of Health Services 66,362-75,506
1 Director of Pupil Services 66,362-75,506
1 Director of Projects and Interventions 79,740-90,442
1 Program Specialist
1 Office Manager
1 Director of Adult Education 79,740-90,442
1 Senior Director of Facilities and Adult Education 85,091-95,794
1 Director of English Learning 79,740-90,442
1 Office Manager
1 Chief Business Official $92,425-100,393
1 Secretary to CBO 32,449-41,834
1 Payroll Clerk 35,633-47,121
1 Accounts Payable Clerk 1,782-2,338/month
1 Accounts Supervisor 49,381-62,369
0.5 Director of Technology $79,740-90,442
2 Media Technicians 3,379-4,694/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations $49,683-63,016
1 Secretary 2,705-3,486/month
3 Maintenance Workers 2,508-3,295/month
2 Groundskeepers 2,123-2,914/month
1 Director of Food Services 2,326-3,056/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $33,401-68,072]
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
El Segundo Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
Receptionist/Sub Caller
1 Assistant Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Administrative Assistant
2 Curriculum Specialists—ELD & Technology
1 Director of Pupil Services
1 Secretary
1 Nurse
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 District Accountant
1 Payroll/Benefits Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Accounts Technician
1 Purchasing Agent
1 Director of Technology
1 District Technology Specialist
1 Executive Director of Administrative Services
[includes Human Resources, M & 0 , Food Service]
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Human Resources Technician
1 Supervisor of Maintenance
1 Office Assistant
1 Warehouse/Delivery Worker
1 Coordinator of Food Services/Accountant
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Enterprise Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Administrative Assistant for Human Resources
$116,122
2747-4022/month
2369-3470/month
1 Director of Instructional Services
1 Administrative Assistant
0.5 Director of Special Ed
1 Health Clerk Special Services
1.5 Nurses
1 Clerk
2369-3470/month
67,096-87,401
1462-1929/month
1608-2116/month
1 Director of Business Services
1 Assistant Director of Business Services
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Payroll Technician
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Financial Technician
59,759-66,500
2369-3470/month
2158-3160/month
1736-2540/month
2158-3160/month
1 Manager of Technology
1 Technology Specialist
1 Computer Technician
1 Technology Secretary
$53,888-59,610
2369-3470/month
1752-2326/month
1 Supervisor of Transportation
1 Director of Food Services
[Maintenance is contracted out or completed by custodians at school
sites.]
2190-2916/month
2830-3766/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $34,000-64,300]
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Escalon Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel/Business/Reports
1 Personnel Technician/Receptionist
1 Director of Curriculum, Instruction, Special Ed
1 Secretary
1 Nurse
1 Financial Director
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Payable/Receivable/PO Clerk
1 Computer Technician
1 Supervisor of Maintenance/Operations
1 Director of Transportation
4 Maintenance Workers
1 Director of Food Services
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fallbrook Union High School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
$164,823
54,289-65,987
1 Human Resources Director
1 HR Assistant
1 HR Specialist
66,696-81,069
35,270-42,870
45,003-54,701
1 Assistant Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Administrative Assistant
$111,348
35,270-42,870
1 Director of Student Services
1 Secretary
78,793-86,537
30,915-39,457
1 Director of Special Education Services
1 Secretary—Special Ed
78,793-86,537
30,915-39,457
[Health Technician at comprehensive high school site]
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business Services
1 Administrative Assistant
$108,114
35,270-42,870
1 Director of Finance
1 Payroll Technician
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Purchasing Clerk
54,289-65,987
30,158-36,664
35,270-42,870
1 Director of Technology
2 Programmers
1 Data Entry Technician
1 “Help Desk” Technician
66,696-81,069
33,258-40,418
29,445-35,790
31,687-38,513
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Secretary
1 Operations Supervisor
2 Maintenance Workers
[6 custodians share in grounds maintenance responsibilities]
54,289-65,987
30,915-39,457
31,974-38,873
28,047-48,050
1 Director of Food Services 39,833-48,417
[Teachers’ Salary Range $32,299-75,740]
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fillmore Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Secretary to Superintendent
1 Clerk Typist
3,499-4,253/month
1,965-2,387/month
1 Director of Personnel/Risk Management
1 Personnel Secretary
80,467-97,900
1 Assistant Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Secretary to Assistant Superintendent
1 EL Coordinator
Coordinator of Special Ed/Program Specialist
1 Clerk/Typist
1 District Health Coordinator
1 Secretary
$84,462-102,762
3,038-3,693/month
1,965-2,387/month
2,579-3,136/month
2,602-3,163/month
1 Chief Business Official
1 Payroll Clerk-classified
2 Accounting Clerks
2 Purchasing Agent/Clerk
1 Warehouse Clerk
1 Print Shop Worker
$80,467-97,900
2,505-3,044/month
3,774-4,588/month
1 Director of Information Technology
1 Systems Integration Specialist
66,667-81,111
3,957-4,809/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Facilities
1 Secretary
1 Lead Maintenance Worker
1 Lead Groundskeeper
60,092-73,110
2,602-3,163/month
2,956-3,592/month
2,659-3,231/month
1 Director of Food Services 50,336-61,240
[Teachers’ Salary Range $35,250-72,522]
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fruitvale Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Secretary
1 Receptionist
18.49-23.35/hour
12.93-17.78/hour
1 Associate Superintendent—Human Resources,
Curriculum/Instruction/Mandated Reports
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Secretary
1 Director of Special Education
1 Secretary—Special Services
1 Nurse
1 Director of Extended Day (Child Care)
71.277-83,253
13.59-19.34/hour
71.277-83,253
13.59-19.34/hour
53,758-62,593
33,032-42,599
1 Director of Business Services
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Accounts Clerk
1 Director of Human Resources
$64,467-74,036
13.59-18.47/hour
13.14-20.24/hour
13.14-18.91/hour
45,581-55,150
1 Director of Information/Technology Services
2 Computer Technicians
55,811-65,379
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
1 Secretary
5 Maintenance/groundskeepers
1 Director of Food Services
59,912-69,480
13.59-19.34/hour
19,220-25,200
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gateway Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Secretary to Superintendent
1 Receptionist/Secretary
15.59-21.53/hour
11.91-16.45/hour
1 Director of Human Resources
1 HR Secretary
51,355-58,131
11.91-16.45/hour
1 Director of Educational Services
1 Clerk Typist
1 Director of Special Education
1 Secretary—Special Ed
1 Categorical Programs Director
1 Coordinator of Title IX Indian Education
1 Secretary
2 Nurses
69,039-83,000
8.91-12.41/hour
55,500-66,185
63,660-75,915
11.91-16.45/hour
33,384-68,507
1 Director of Business Services
2 Accounting Technicians
1 Accounts Clerk/Secretary
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Department Secretary
$81,000-87,400
14.77-20.40/hour
11.91-16.45/hour
11.91-16.45/hour
9.95-13.84/hour
1 Director of Information & Technology Services
1 Technology Clerk
3 Systems Software Technicians
64,000-70,400
8.91-12.41/hour
13.11-17.24/hour
1 Supervisor of Transportation
6 Maintenance Staff
37,692-44,467
10.23-16.32/hour
1 Supervisor of Food Services
1 Food Services Accounts Clerk
1 Warehouse/Delivery Worker
37,692-44,467
11.91-16.45/hour
9.68-13.47/hour
[Teachers’ Salary Range $34,000-65,667]
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goleta Union Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Administrative Services/HR
$120,000-135,000
3,638-4,952
104,799-113,997
1 Assistant Superintendent Instruction
1 Assistant Superintendent—Pupil Personnel
104.799-113,997
104.799-113,997
1 Assistant Superintendent—Fiscal Services
2 Payroll Clerks
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
104,799-113,997
2844-5442/month
2844-5442/month
2 Media-Communications Technicians 3369-4589/month
1 Head of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
3 Maintenance workers
4 Groundskeepers
1 Director of Food Services
$90,178-98,046
2844-4589/month
2454-4156/month
75,602-82,171
[Teachers’ Salary Range $36,416-74,647]
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hanford Joint Union High School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Communications Coordinator
$135,750
43,260-55,200
3,196-4,089/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Human Resources
1 Receptionist/Sub Coordinator
95,406-110,600
2,152-2,757/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Secretary—Special Education
1 Bilingual Services Assistant
1 Migrant Education Services Technician
1 Testing Services Secretary
95,406-110,600
3,116-3,991/month
2.316-3,359/month
2.260-2,895/month
2.260-2,895/month
2.316-3,359/month
1 Chief Business Official
1 Assistant Business Manager
2 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable/Purchase Order Clerk
1 Accounts Clerk
$92,626-110,600
48,072-64,416
3,044-4,381/month
2.048-4,381/month
2.048-3,797/month
1 Data Network Services Director
1 Media Technician
48,072-64,416
3,196-4,089/month
1 Director of Facilities
1 Director of Transportation
3 Maintenance workers
5 Gardeners
2 Utility Workers
$57,636-77,220
$57,636-77,220
2,376-3,707/month
2.205-2,823/month
2.205-2,823/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $36,278-64,381]
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kerman Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel
2 Personnel Secretaries
1 Director of Curriculum, Instruction, & Special Education
1 Director of State and Federal Programs
1 Director of Alternative Education
1 Nurse
1 Assistant Superintendent—Chief Financial Official
1 Secretary
1 Budget Supervisor
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable/Receivable Clerk
2 Financial Technicians—Health/Welfare Benefits & Leaves, Misc.
1 Coordinator of Technology
2 Computer Specialists
1 Coordinator of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
1 Coordinator of Food Services
[Most maintenance is completed by
custodians at school sites.]
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Konocti Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant 27,481-40,360
1 Assistant Superintendent
1 Personnel Technician
76,120-92,523
23,903-36,782
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Director of Special Services
1 Nurse
1 Administrative Assistant—Special Ed
68,562-83,336
72,246-87,815
32,748-60,766
35,368-45,140
1 Business Manager
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Payable/Receivable Clerk
1 Accounting Clerk
53,742-68,590
21.041-36,782
21.041-36,782
21.041-33,920
1 Director of Management Information Systems
4 Media Technicians 22,882-30,658
1 Director of Maintenance
1 Director of Transportation
4 Maintenance Workers
2 Groundskeepers
45.140-57,611
45.140-57,611
21,876-32,871
21,541-29,318
1 Director of Food Services 45,140-57,611
[Teachers’ Salary Range $28,841-60,766]
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lafayette Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
[Superintendent pays own health benefits]
1 Executive Assistant
1 Personnel Assistant
$161,060
5,209-6043/month
5,026-5,746/month
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Instructional Technology Specialist
1 Director of Special Services
1 Nurse
1 Administrative Assistant—Special Services
1 Program Specialist
$101,195-120,290
5,026-5,746
101,195-120,290
3,609-4,061/month
2,395-2,785/month
1 Director of Business Services
1 Secretary
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Technician
1 Shipping/Receiving Clerk
1 Attendance & Accounting Specialist
1 Print/Graphics Specialist
1 Reprographics Assistant
101,195-120,290
3.609-4,061/month
4,346-4,975/month
3,062-3,533/month
2,814-3,252/month
3.609-4,061/month
3,049-3,494/month
2,572-2,990/month
1 Network Specialist
1 Technology Maintenance Assistant
$5,026-5,746/month
2,814-3,252/month
1 Maintenance Foreman/Craftsman
3 Maintenance/Craftsmen
1 Grounds Foreman
3 Gardeners
$5,605-6,174/month
3,609-4,061/month
5,011-5,579/month
3,049-3,494/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $37,136-72,478]
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lemoore Union Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Human Resources Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Curriculum/Instruction
1 Projects Director
1 Curriculum Services Technician
1 Director of Special Services
2 Nurses
1 Health Clerk
1 Secretary—Special Education
1 Director of Business Services
2 Business Services Technicians
1 Administrative Assistant
3 Duplication Technicians
1 Warehouse/Utility Person
1 Director of Technology Services
2 Computer Technicians
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
3 Maintenance Technicians
1 Grounds Supervisor
3 Groundskeepers
1 Supervisor of Food Services
1 Business Services Technician
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lindsay Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—HR/Administrative Services
2 Administrative Assistants—Operations & Credentials/Worker’s
Comp.
$122,000
40.253-51,909
100,902-116,448
40.253-51,909
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Secretary
1 Director of Assessment
1 Director of Special Ed/Pupil Services
1 Secretary—Special Ed
2 Nurses [1 RN, 1 LVN]
1 Research and Evaluation Clerk
89,572-103,369
25,557-34,371
46,340-61,730
86,995-100,399
26,851-36,111
67,180-80,507 (RN)
35,231-47,381 (LVN)
19,965-26,851
1 Business Manager
2 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Technicians
1 Benefits/Purchasing Clerk
77,861-103,721
26.196-35,231
26.196-35,231
26.196-35,231
[Contract out Computer Technology]
1 Supervisor of Maintenance/Operations
5 Maintenance Workers
1 Director of Construction
1 Director of Food Services
1 Office Manager/Secretary
47,066-62,698
23,732-47,381
60,467-80,549
56,549-75,330
26,851-36,111
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lowell Joint Elementary School District
1 Superintendent [includes certificated personnel]
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant to Admin. Assistant
$136,697
3,605-5,094/month
2,744-3,880/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Instruction
1 Administrative Assistant
1 IMC Technician
1 Publications Operator
2 Nurses
1 Director of Special Ed
1 (5-hour) Secretary—Guidance
$105,207-113,137
2,959-4,079/month
2,545-3,608/month
3,102-4,387/month
35,396-76,714
97,292-104,627
2,603-3,688/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business Services
[includes classified personnel]
1 Administrative Assistant
3 Part-time Switchboard Operators
1 Coordinator of Fiscal Services [includes benefits] (80%)
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Purchasing/Accounting Clerk [includes attendance]
$105,207-113,137
2.959-4,079/month
2,372-3,347/month
2.959-4,180/month
2,742-3,878/month
2,545-3,608/month
1 Director of Educational and Information Technology $4,972-7,021/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Assistant Maintenance Supervisor
1 (4-hour) Clerk
6 maintenance workers
3 groundskeepers
1 Warehouse/Delivery Worker
1 Director of Food Services
1 Food Services Bookkeeper (20%)
1 Warehouse/Delivery Worker
$4,614-6,520/month
3,349-4,734/month
2,141 -3,026/month
3,102-4,387/month
2,545-3,608/month
2.673-3,783/month
3,518-4,972/month
2,742-3,878/month
2.673-3,783/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $35,396-76,714]
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mountain View Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Secretary to Superintendent
1 Receptionist/Clerk Typist
47,230-55,565
2,340-2,852
1 Assistant Superintendent—Curriculum & Instruction
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Director of Student Services
1 Nurse
1 Part-time Secretary—Special Ed/Expulsions
1 Clerk Typist
92,841-106,101
40,005-48,199
87,139-99,587
48,228-54,280
2,340-2,852/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business Services
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
$92,841-106,101
2,340-2,852
1 Technology Facilitator
[Computer repair is contracted out.]
1 Director Facilities/Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
1 Part-Time Clerk
1 Director of Food Services
1 Food Services Accounts Technician
[Most maintenance & landscape is contracted out or completed by
custodians.]
$92,841-106,101
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Receptionist/Attendance Accounting
! Associate Superintendent—Human Resources
2 Personnel Technicians—certificated, classified
3,234-3,936/month
2,530-3,074/month
$120,713-137,573
3,752-4,562/month
1 Associate Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Administrative Assistant
2 Data Clerks
2 Clerks
$120,713-137,573
3,234-3,936/month
3,003-3,650/month
2,656-3,227/month
1 Associate Superintendent—Business Services
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Payable/Receivable Clerks
2 Accounting Technicians—Categoricals, Construction
$120,713-137,573
105,330-119,057
3,234-3,936/month
3,752-4,562/month
3.400-4,562/month
3.400-4,562/month
1 Director of Information Services
1 Applications Support Analyst
1 Clerk
$105,330-119,057
3,618-4,343/month
2,656-3,227/month
1 Delivery Person
1 Director of Food Services
2,934-3,565/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $50,504-95,437]
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Oak Park Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
2 Personnel Technicians—credential & classified
45,955-58,050
2598-3250/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Ed. Services and
Certificated Personnel
1 Executive Assistant
1 Director of Pupil Services & Special Ed
1 Program Specialist
2 Secretaries
$101,389-113,679
45,955-58,050
81,947-91,793
72,059-80,954
36,711-46,345
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business,
Administrative Services, and Facilities
1 Director of Accounting & Risk Management
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable/Receivable Clerk
103,019-115,506
68,370-76,844
2427-3375/month
2427-3375/month
1 Director of Technology 77,608-87,241
2 Maintenance Workers
3 Groundskeepers
1 Director of Food Services
1 Bookkeeper/Secretary
2,736-3,452/month
2,439-3,092/month
45,131-56,284
2,371-2,997/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $37,398-76,205]
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ojai Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Classified Personnel Director
1 Secretary
1 Coordinator of Certificated Personnel
$133,000
3,033-4,071/month
5,560-7,467/month
2,442-3,310/month
3,605-4,842/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Elementary Education & Student
Services
1 Secretary—Special Ed
1 Assistant Superintendent—Secondary Education &
Administrative Services
1 Administrative Assistant
$105,000
2,564-3,476/month
$105,000
3,033-4,071/month
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Senior Accountant Assistant
2 Accounting Technicians
1 Purchasing Technician
6,569-8,823/month
2,628-3,563/month
3,278-4,441/month
2,829-3,834/month
[Technology contracted out]
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Supervisor of Transportation
2 Maintenance Workers
3 Groundskeepers
5,614-7,540/month
4,290-5,761/month
2.328-3,155/month
2.328-3,155/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $35,957-74,618]
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Oroville City Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel/Facilities
1 Personnel Technician
.75 Personnel/Facilities Clerk/Sub Caller
33,517-47,655
72,673-84,705
27.804-39,669
27.804-39,669
1 Director of Curriculum, Instruction, Special Projects, &
Technology
0.5 Coordinator of Pupil Services
[also Principal of a small school]
1.8 Nurses
1 Secretary—Instruction
$72,673-84,705
60,931-70,970
30,469-43,307
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business Services
1 Business Secretary
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Technician
1 Business Clerk
$72,673-84,705
30,469-43,301
29.573-42,018
29.573-42,018
27,804-39,669
1 Computer Technician
1 Supervisor of Maintenance
1 Maintenance Clerk
4 Maintenance Workers
1 Groundskeepers
1 Coordinator of Food Services
1 Food Services Clerk
$47,677-67,461
27,804-39,669
38,781-51,940
[Teachers’ Salary Range $34,361-61,157]
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pacifica School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Director of Administrative Services
1 Credential Technician
.5 Classified/Benefits Technician
1 Director of Education Support Services
1.5 Secretaries
2 Support Staff—libraries & data/testing
1 Data Steward
1 Coordinator of Student Services
1 Secretary—Special Services
2 Student Services Specialist
1 Controller
1 Secretary
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Fiscal Technician
1 Director of Technology
1 Media Technician
1 Facilities Manager
1 Secretary
6 Maintenance Workers
2 Groundskeepers
1 Food Services Manager
1 Food Services Accounts Clerk
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Palo Verde Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Secretary
1 Receptionist/Clerk
1 Assistant Superintendent of Personnel
1 Personnel Assistant
3,100-3,902/month
1,701-2,122/month
93,665-113,477
2,958-3,739/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Educational Services
1 Director of Federal & State Projects
1 Director of Special Services
3 Secretaries—Special Ed, Special Projects, Ed Services
1 Nurse
1 Clerk
93,665-113,477
71.893-87,101
71.893-87,101
2,341-2,958/month
2.693-3,405/month
2.693-3,405/month
1 Business Manager
2 Payroll Clerks
2 Accounts Payable Clerks
$5,922-7,487/month
1.942-2,768/month
1.942-2,768/month
1 Director of Technology
1 Media Technician
$4,108-5,193/month
2,570-3,250/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
3 Maintenance Workers
4 Groundskeepers
1 Director of Food Services
1 Clerk
$4,108-5,193/month
1,942-2,894/month
1,923-2,648/month
3,569-4,512/month
1,556-1,942/month
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Parlier Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel/Student Services
[includes Special Ed]
1 Administrative Assistant-Personnel
1 Program Specialist
1 Secretary—Special Services
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business Services
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Benefits/Purchasing Clerk
1 Network Administrator
1 Student Data System Manager
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Director of Food Services
1 Food Services Accounts Technician
[Most maintenance is contracted out or completed by
custodians.]
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rescue Union School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 District Office Clerk/Receptionist
1 Personnel Technician
1 Personnel Clerk
$109,000
3,185-4,268/month
2,096-2,809/month
2,089-3,764/month
2,577-3,453/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Curriculum and Instruction
1 Director of Student Support Services
1 Department Secretary
2 Nurses
$77,911-97,134
74,049-92,317
1 Chief Business Operations Official
1 Budget Technician
1 Payroll Technician
1 Accountant
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
$74,561-92,954
3,185-4,268/month
2,809-3,764/month
2,577-3,453/month
1 Director of Media & Technology
2 Microcomputer Specialists
1 Clerk
$74,049-92,317
2,910-3,713/month
1,827-2,334/month
1 Director of Facilities
1 Maintenance/Operations Coordinator
1 Support Services Secretary
1 Food Services Coordinator
$61,757-76-991
38.734-48,292
2,180-2,782/month
38.734-48,292
[Teachers’ Salary Range $36,575-64,899]
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Riverbank Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Superintendent’s Secretary
$113,388-125,189
35,950-45,883
1 Director of Human Resources
2 Administrative Assistants
57,331-73,170
29,579-37,751
1 Assistant Superintendent—[K-5]
1 Director of Educational Services—[6-12]
2 Administrative Assistants
1 Director of Special Education
1 Nurse
1 Child Welfare and Attendance Liaison
$88,660-97,888
85,274-94,149
29,579-37,751
1 Director of Business
1 Fiscal Operations Analyst
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Account Technicians
$58,605-74,797
33,603-42,886
26,711-34,091
29,579-37,751
1 Technology Coordinator
1 Network Technician
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
1 MOT Secretary
1 Skilled Maintenance Personnel
1 Lead Groundskeeper
2 General Maintenance/Groundskeepers
1 Transportation Coordinator
1 Transportation Dispatcher/Planner
$54,146-69,105
1 Food Services Coordinator 49,903-63,690
[Teachers’ Salary Range $36,503-70,244]
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rosemead Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Director of Personnel
2,884-3,692/month
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Ed. Services Secretary
1 Director of Special Education
1 Pupil Personnel Secretary
1 Nurse
1 Cantonese Liaison
1 Mandarin Liaison
1 Teacher on Special Assignment
2.884-3,692/month
2.884-3,692/month
2.094-2,682/month
2.094-2,682/month
1 Business Manager
1 Buyer
1 Accounting Manager
1 SASI Clerk
2 Payroll Clerks
1 Director of Child Care Programs
1 Child Development Secretary
2,958-3,783/month
2,613-3,513/month
2.488-3,348/month
2.488-3,348/month
2,884-3,692/month
1 Director of Technology
1 Network Administrator
1 Special Projects and Technology Secretary 2,884-3,692/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Maintenance/Operations Senior Clerk
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Salida Union Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Secretary
1 Receptionist
1 Director of Pupil Services/Human Resources
1 District Personnel Secretary
1 Personnel Technician
1 Curriculum Director
1 Secretary
2 Nurses
3 Health Clerks
1 Secretary
1 Data Clerk Specialist
1 Director of Business Services & M/O/T
1 Secretary
1 Payroll Supervisor
2 Payroll Clerks
1 Accounting Supervisor
2 Accounts Technicians
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 District Technology Specialist
1 Computer Technician
4 Maintenance Workers
1 grounds keeper
1 Director of Food Services
2 Food Supervisors
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
San Benito High School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Human Resources Director
2 Personnel Specialists
1.5 Personnel Clerks
$150,000
1864-2265/month
88,140-106,781
2.134-2,863/month
2.134-2,593/month
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Secretary—Curriculum/Projects/Asst. Registrar
1 Director of Special Ed/Alternate Ed
1 Secretary—Special Ed Records
3 Secretaries—Migrant Ed/Health Aide
88.140-106,781
2.414-2,934/month
88.140-106,781
2.414-2,934/month
2.414-2,934/month
1 Director of Fiscal Services and Operations
1 Supervisor of Fiscal Services
1 Payroll Production Audit Analyst
1 Accounting Clerk
1.5 Student Accounts Clerk
88,140-106,781
2,355-2,863/month
2,134-2,593/month
12.01-14.60/hour
2 Media Technicians 3,167-4,356/month
1 Supervisor of Maintenance/Operations
5 Maintenance Workers
1 Supervisor of Food Services
2,536-3,850/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $40,447-82,536]
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Director of Personnel
1 Administrative Secretary
1 Personnel Technician
$126,500
2.491-3,179/month
76,294-84,562
2.491-3,179/month
1 Director of Curriculum and Instruction
1 Director of Special Education
2 Secretaries
1 Nurse
$76,294-84,562
76,294-84,562
2,151-2,747/month
$30,276-71,008
1 Assistant Superintendent—Business
1 Administrative Secretary
1 Director of Fiscal Services
2 Accounting Technicians
$116,200
2,491-3,179/month
52,250-60,520
2,151-2,747/month
1 Director of Facilities and Technology
1 Administrative Secretary
1 “Power School” Technician
$73,658-81,927
2,491-3,179/month
2,747-3,505/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations/Transportation
1 Secretary
1 Transportation Specialist
1 Maintenance Worker
1 Groundskeeper—lead
[Contract out Food Service]
$57,918-67,085
2,151-2,747/month
2,491-3,179/month
1,952-3,179/month
2,747-3,505/month
[Teachers’ Salary Schedule $30,276-71,008]
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
San Marino Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Director of Human Resources
1 Personnel Analyst
1 Secretary
46.685-57,273
2,052-2,749/month
73,125-89,935
46.685-57,417
33,037-40,530
1 Assistant Superintendent—Instructional Services
1 Administrative Assistant/Registrar
1 Coordinator of Special Education
1 Program Specialist
1 Administrative Assistant—Special Ed
99,286-122,109
41.250-50,606
73,125-89,935
41.250-50,606
1 Assistant Superintendent-Business
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Purchasing Manager
1 Director of Accounting
1 Payroll Technician
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Accounts Specialist
1 Bond Office Assistant
99,286-122,109
41,250-50,606
56,360-69,316
73,125-89,935
2,828-3,788/month
2,615-3,503/month
46,685-57,417
2,052-2,749/month
1 Director of Technology
1 Assistant Technician
73,125-89,935
3,121-4,182/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Director of Food Services
1 Administrative Assistant
80,550-99,066
41,250-50,606
73,125-89,935
34,701-42,571
[Teachers’ Salary Range $40,175-73,800]
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Santa Rita Union School District
1 Superintendent
1 Secretary to Superintendent
1 Receptionist
1 Assistant Superintendent
1 Director of Special Projects
1 Secretary
1 Coordinator of Intervention Programs
1 Bilingual Coordinator
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Account Clerk
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Supervisor of Transportation, Operations, &
Maintenance
1 Food Service Supervisor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Southern Kern Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel/Negotiations
1 Personnel Technician
$103,761-116,888
42,684-51,600
86,504-98,908
31,860-39,228
1 Associate Superintendent—Educational Services
[includes Curriculum, Instruction, Special Ed, Testing]
1 Administrative Assistant
1 (Part-time) Director—Alternative Education
91,694-103,202
31,860-39,228
1 Chief Business Official
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
$81,699-95,479
35,604-43,404
42,072-50,484
1 Coordinator of Technology
1 Coordinator of Maintenance/Operations
1 Supervisor of Transportation
1 Secretary
7 Maintenance/Grounds Workers
1 Supervisor of Food Services
0.4 Clerk
31,860-39,228
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Soledad Unified School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Secretary
1 Human Resources Director
Zi Secretary III [shared with CBO]
1 Personnel Technician
1 Payroll Technician
$114,000
39,001-60,635
67,758-78,550
31,418-48,898
32.236-50,147
32.236-50,147
1 Director of Curriculum
1 Secretary III
1 Director of Special Projects/Special Education
1 Administrative Assistant
5 Secretaries— 1 per program
[Migrant, Special Ed, After-school Programs, Preschool
Program]
$78,599-91,118
31,418-48,898
$78,599-91,118
34,483-53,688
22,498-35,940
1 Chief Business Officer/Food Service
l A Secretary III [shared with HR Director]
1 Controller
1 Accountant
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Registrar—attendance accounting
$86,979-100,833
31,418-48,898
40,998-63,699
37,162-57,434
28,535-44,381
22,498-35,003
1 Director of Technology
1 Computer Technician II
1 Computer Technician I
$78,599-91,118
32,850-50,951
31,291-48,542
1 Director of Maintenance, Operations and Transportation
1 Secretary
$49,486-57,368
29,244-45,368
[Teachers’ Salary Range $37,780-83,145]
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stanislaus Union School District
1 Superintendent—Besides other duties, in charge of
Special Education, New Facilities/Construction
1 Assistant Superintendent—Personnel and Maintenance
1 Secretary
Vi Personnel Technician
2.833-3,180/month
2.833-3,180/month
1 Curriculum Director
1 Secretary
1/5 Nurse—contracted 1 day/week from another district
1 Educational Technician
2.833-3,180/month
2.833-3,180/month
1 Business Manager
1 Payroll Technician
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Accountant
1 Attendance Clerk [SASI]
2.833-3,180/month
2.833-3,180/month
3,224-3,553/month
Vi Computer Technology Specialist 3,224-3,553/month
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
2 Maintenance workers
1 Groundskeeper
1 Secretary
1 Director of Food Services
2,592-3,184/month
2,833-3,180/month
[Teachers’ Salary Range $37,269-71,060]
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tamalpais Union High School District
1 Superintendent
1 Executive Assistant
1 Director of Personnel
1 Secretary
$96,855-115,663
$3,335-4,470/month
1 Assistant Superintendent—Instruction
1 Director of Student Instruction
1 Administrative Secretary
$96,855-115,663
$3,678-4,929/month
1 Director of Special Education
1 Secretary—Special Education
$96,855-115,663
$3,335-4,470/month
1 Director of Adult Ed/Community Services $96,855-115,663
1 Assistant Superintendent—Administrative Services
1 Administrative Assistant $3,678-4,929/month
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Payroll Clerk
2 Accounts Payable/Receivable Clerks
$96,855-115,663
$2,490-5,567/month
$2,490-3,957/month
1 Director of Technology
1 Senior Administrative Technician
1 Education Technician Specialist
$88,932-107,233
$3,504-4,694/month
$3,678-4,929/month
1 Director of Facilities Modernization
1 Director of Maintenance/Operations
1 Secretary
$96,855-115,663
. $88,932-107,233
$3,335-4,470/month
1 Director of Food Services $72,203-83,982
[Teachers’ Salary Range $44,046-84,039]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Walnut Creek Elementary School District
1 Superintendent
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Personnel Assistant
1 Receptionist
1 Director of Curriculum and Administrative Services
1 Data Processor
1 Sub Caller
1 Director of Special Services
1 Secretary—Special Services
1 Director of Fiscal Services
1 Business Services Office Assistant
1 Payroll Clerk
1 Accounts Payable Clerk
1 Accounts Receivable Clerk
1 Purchasing Clerk
1 Technology Coordinator
2 part-time technology assistants
1 Director of Construction & Maintenance
1 Secretary
1 Food Services Supervisor
1 Food Services Accounts Technician
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

PDF

Cost of university -based online, distributed, and traditional learning

PDF

A qualitative exploratory study of a proceduralized system to learning key sport knowledge: Will a proceduralized approach enhance cognitive aspects of sport team performance?

PDF

Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school

PDF

Measuring the encroachment of special education and transportation programs on the general fund of California’s unified school districts in nine southern counties: implications for state school f...

PDF

A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools

PDF

An analysis of per-pupil resource allocation at an urban elementary school

PDF

Induction practices in four public school districts in northwest Washington State: Perceptions of new teachers, mentors, and principals

PDF

Graduate student enrollment management: Toward a model that predicts student enrollment. A case study at Phillips Graduate Institute

PDF

"Show me the money": Analyzing student-level resource allocation and use in a large urban elementary school

PDF

Implementation challenges of a school district's technology plan at the middle school level

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

K--12 technology policy and practice: Relationships between a California school district's technology plan and middle school technology implementation

PDF

Adequate funding for educational technology

PDF

Cost -effectiveness analysis of two multiple-subject (crosscultural, language, and academic development) internship credential programs in California

PDF

Two-way bilingual education in a post-1998 California elementary school

PDF

How classroom teachers react to and implement California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment educational reform policy

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

An analysis in the use of student performance data in schools

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Swift, Elizabeth A. (author)

Core Title A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-435651

Unique identifier UC11336438

Identifier 3233858.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-435651 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3233858.pdf

Dmrecord 435651

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Swift, Elizabeth A.

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA