University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 1

THE REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO IMPROVE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT IN A TIME OF FISCAL CONSTRAINTS

by

Steve Behar

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Steve Behar
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 2

Dedication
I dedicate this to my family. Kathy has supported me in every venture of school
and career. Without her support none of this happens. I am a better person today than I
would have been without you in my life. Our children, Nick, Jessica, and Kenna have
accepted my long hours at work and the extra hours of going to school. In the end, I
think they all sacrificed more than I did. Gennie and Tristan- thank you for coming into
our lives as our daughter and grandson. You have been a special addition and will be
forever. To my sister Serena Tobias, I know it is hard to believe that I continued on with
school. I wish my mother Joan Hecht could have been here to see this.
I dedicate this to everyone else in my personal and professional life that has
supported and believed in me. I doubt I have done as good of a job expressing this as I
could have. One special person is “Coach”- Dr. Duffy Clark. Thank you for always
being a true mentor and providing the quote that I will never forget, “You need to get
your butt into USC!”
Ultimately, I dedicate this to my father, Morris Behar. You have always
supported me in everything I do. You have given me the opportunities to fall and get
back up. You never stopped believing in me, even when I gave you reasons to. You
believed in me when I am not certain I did. You are a very special man.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 3

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Larry Picus for being my
Dissertation Chair and a tremendous supporter for the entire process of researching and
writing this dissertation. His knowledge of school finance is incredible. His dedication
to trying to figure out how school districts can reallocate resources in order to better serve
students is amazing. He has taught me to look through a different lens with respect to
reallocating resources in a school district as well as in individual schools.
I would like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Helen Morgan for being on the
committee for the Qualification Examination and proposal of this study. I would also
like to thank Dr. Michael Escalante and Dr. Frank Donavan for participating on the
committee for the oral defense of this dissertation. All of them have busy professional
lives and taking the time to give back to a future Trojan means so much.
I would like to say that the group of friends I have made during the last three
years will always be with me. We have helped each other, provided guidance and
support, and had fun while doing it all. OC-8- What else needs to be said? We started
together. We are finishing together. Fight On!
Thank you to Amber Lane for helping me kick-start the two most difficult
chapters. Finally- Thank you to my hardcore writing partner Tamra Rowcliffe. It was a
great opportunity to work together through the entire writing process on those long days
in June and January. We did it!

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 8

Abstract 9

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Introduction 10
California’s two accountability systems 11
The current state of California school finance 12
Four different education adequacy costing-out models 14
Statement of the Problem 15
Costing-out education 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Importance of the Study 16
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions 17
Limitations 17
Delimitations 17
Assumptions 17
Definitions 18

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 5

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
Introduction 23
School Improvement Strategies 23
A system-wide approach to raising student achievement 23
School district approaches to improving student achievement 24
School level strategies that improve student achievement 27
Emergent Themes among Successful Schools: Leadership, Professional
Development, and Professional Learning Communities 31
An overview of leadership 31
Professional development 44
Professional Learning Communities 47
Limited Resources and Fiscal Constraints 52
Federal, state, and local school district responses to fiscal constraints 52
Resource Allocation - Personnel, Time, and Money 59
School finance history at the federal level 59
Practical Resource Reallocation Strategies 60
The Shift from Equity to Adequacy 64
The Four Methods for Determining Adequate Funding 67
Successful school district approach 67
Cost function approach 68
Professional judgment approach 68
Evidence-based (expert judgment) approach 69
Resource Reallocation Using the Evidence-Based model 69
Figure 1: The Odden and Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model. Source: Odden &
Picus, 2008 70
The Gap Analysis 77
Summary 79

Chapter Three: Methodology 81
Introduction 81
Sample and Population 82
Instrumentation 87
Data Collection 87
Data Analysis 88

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 6

Chapter Four: Findings 90
Introduction 90
Overview of the District 91
What Research-based Human Resource Allocation Strategies Improve Student
Achievement? 96
Current leadership structure and practice 96
The current practice of professional development 99
The current practice of Professional Learning Communities 106
How are Human Resources Allocated across the Study District and its Schools? 109
Is there A Gap between Current Human Resource Allocation Practices and What
the Research Suggests is Most Effective? 113
Student-teacher ratios 115
Professional development 116
Resources for struggling students 119
Pupil support at the school sites 121
Administrative and clerical support at the school sites 123
Recommendations 124
How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement? 124
Recommendation one: Increase K-3 class size 126
Recommendation two: Negotiate step and column salary deferral 127
Recommendation three: Reallocate general education instructional aides 130
Recommendation four: Support the new Superintendent’s vision 132
Recommendation five: Re-evaluate early release Wednesdays 133
Recommendation six: Staff schools based on equity, not equality 134
Conclusion 136

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 7

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 138
Introduction 138
Purpose of the study 138
Overview of the study district 138
Overview of the Evidence-Based Model 139
Limitations of the study 140
Summary of Findings 140
Findings for currently practiced research-based strategies 141
Findings for how human resources are currently allocated 142
Findings for the gap analysis between current practice and the Evidence-Based
Model 142
Findings for recommendations for reallocation of human resources 143
Implications for Practice 145
How this study informs practice for Forest Unified School District 145
Implications for Policymakers 145
Recommendations for Future Research 146
Conclusion 147

References 149

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 8

List of Tables
Table 1: McREL Researchers identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities
that are Significantly Correlated with Higher Student Achievement 39

Table 2: Staffing for a prototypical school using the Evidence-Based Model 75

Table 3: Forest Unified School District Academic Performance Index
Scores 2009-2012 84

Table 4: Forest Unified School District Annual Yearly Progress 2009-2012 86

Table 5: Forest Unified School District Four-year AYP Statistics and Growth 93

Table 6: Forest Unified School District four year API growth 95

Table 7: Number of Core and Specialist Teachers in FUSD Schools Compared
to the EBM 116

Table 8: Forest Unified School District Professional Development of Compared
to the EBM 119

Table 9: Forest Unified School District Current Resources Compared to the EBM
Recommendations 121

Table 10: Forest Unified School District Pupil Support Compared to the EBM 123

Table 11: Forest Unified School District Current Administrative and
Clerical Staffing compared to the EBM 124

Table 12: Staffing 44 TOSAs using Increase to K-3 CSR and Step and
Column Deferral 129

Table 13: General Education Instructional Aides Currently Assigned to
Elementary Schools 131

Table 14: Reallocation of Revenue Saved by Reallocating General Education
Instructional Aides to be used for Extended-day Tutoring 132

Table 15: Current Administrative and Secretarial Support by Site Compared
with the Evidence-Based Model 135

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 9

Abstract
This study compared the allocation of human resources of a K-12 unified school
district in Southern California to the Evidence-Based model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Using document analysis and interviews of key administrators of the district, data was
input into a spreadsheet to identify gaps between current practice and the Evidence-Based
model. Once the gaps were identified, recommendations were made to reallocate human
resources toward strategies that research suggests lead to improvements in student
achievement. The district demonstrated overall success in improving student
achievement over the previous four years. During the same time period, the district, and
all schools that were in Program Improvement, except one middle school, successfully
exited Program Improvement. This study determined the district had successful
programs for staff and students to improve student learning, but there were opportunities
to reallocate human resources to continue to improve student achievement. Fiscal
limitations prevent the district from funding human resources at the levels recommended
by the Evidence-Based model, but other opportunities to reallocate staff exist. This study
makes specific recommendations for how this can be achieved, given fiscal constraints, to
improve student achievement. Possible reallocation strategies included filling special
education instructional aide vacancies with general education instructional aides and
using the financial savings to fund extra support tutoring for struggling students,
increasing K-3 class sizes and deferring step and column salary increases to generate full-
time instructional coaches for all schools, and re-negotiating contract language for the
professional work day of teachers.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 10

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
California adopted some of the nation’s most rigorous content standards in 1999
when the State Legislature enacted the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) (Ed
Source, 2005). When passed, the PSAA was intended to provide public accountability
for the performance of individual schools and school districts. As part of the PSAA,
California established two measurements for student performance in order to rate
individual schools. The first, the Academic Performance Index (API) is a school level
index score between 200 and 1000 based on student performance on annual standardized
tests. Schools are expected to show growth from one year to the next with specific targets
set based on their prior year’s API score. The second measurement is a two component
ranking of each school’s API, each of which relies on decile scores from 1 to 10 for each
school. The first component is based on a school’s overall ranking in the state while the
second is based on the school’s performance compared to socio-economically similar
schools.
Less than three years after the passage of the PSAA, The No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) was signed into law in January, 2002, by President George W. Bush as part
of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Ed
Source, 2005). When NCLB was signed into law, it created a second accountability
measure in California, and this was one that did not align well with the API index
established by the state. While the API is based on growth, NCLB measures Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) with predetermined percentages of students required to score at
proficient levels in mathematics and English Language Arts. With the ultimate goal of
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 11

NCLB being that all students in the United States reach proficiency in these subjects by
2014, AYP targets were set to adjust upward until the percentage required to make AYP
becomes 100 percent. AYP measures entire districts, individual schools, and subgroups
of students within those schools based on their socio-economic status, ethnicity, English
learner level, and disability. NCLB emphasizes meeting the targets for proficiency and
not growth alone.
California’s two accountability systems. California was unwilling to abandon
its original accountability approach created prior to NCLB (Ed Source, 2005), thus
creating the current two accountability measurement systems in California. Success in
each of the two models is defined differently. With the API, a school demonstrates
success by meeting its growth target. This growth target is based on the Base API score
for the school year. Schools can be low performing and still meet the API growth goal by
improving by the target amount. The AYP model is significantly different in that schools
and districts are held accountable to a set percentage of students who must meet the
proficient benchmark or the school or district is considered to have failed regardless of
growth. The conflicting result of each of the accountability systems is complicated for
school systems. Under one model, a school may be praised for achieving success while,
under the other, it is not only seen as having failed, but it may also face repercussions for
not meeting targets. This is more commonly seen when a school makes the growth
targets for API yet fails to meet the proficiency targets of AYP. Although both
accountability measures seek improved student achievement, failing to meet AYP can
cause significant sanctions to be placed on a school and district. Thus, accountability
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 12

measures can have a significant impact on district and school budgets and California
schools have been affected by the financial difficulties of the state since 2007.
The current state of California school finance. At the time of this study, the
financial situation in California continued to be a struggle just as it had in recent years,
causing a financial shortfall, which, in turn, resulted in lowered revenues to local school
districts that rely on revenue limits for funding (California Legislative Analyst’s Office,
2011). California continued to experience financial difficulties consistently referred to as
being at a “crisis level” (California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011; Ed Source, 2010).
In the 2009-10 school year, California schools were funded at an average of $4,984 per
pupil, which was lower than the previous year. This marked the third consecutive year
that school funding was lower than the year before. In 2007-08, California funded K-12
public education at an amount that ranked 28
th
in the United States at $5,821 per pupil
(Ed Source, 2010). Had Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) been made during this time
period, school districts would have seen an increase in funding amounting to $590 per
pupil as opposed to a 14% cut to revenue (Ed Source, 2010). Additionally, teacher
salaries in California rank at the top of the national average (NCES, 2010). The costs
associated with K-12 education in California are affected by these factors and less money
budgeted for the schools requires more creativity in resource allocation. In order to better
understand the difficulties California schools face in a time of fiscal crisis, it is helpful to
understand the history of California’s funding of education.
Serrano v. Priest (1971) is a landmark lawsuit in the state of California that
initiated changes to the ways schools were to be funded in the future. The lawsuit
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 13

identified disproportionate funding for schools based on the communities they were
located in (Duncombe & Yinger, 2006). The lawsuit was brought about because the
practice of funding education based on local taxes created inequity in funding based on
the location of the school district. Higher wealth communities had substantially more
money than lower wealth cities based on tax revenues alone. Following the decision in
Serrano v. Priest, California voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978. Proposition 13
limited the amount of money that could be generated through property taxes to 1% of the
assessed value of the property at the time of purchase (Duncombe & Yinger, 2006).
Proposition 13 resulted in a significant increase in the amount of money the state needed
to contribute to fund education. Allocation of funds to the education system seemed to be
an after-thought to the state budget, so voters were again asked to consider a change in
how education funding in California. In 1988, the passage of Proposition 98 allocated
40% of the state budget to K-14 education.
Funding education appropriately means different things to different people.
Policymakers need to include the goals of educating school children as decisions are
made regarding the levels of funding to be allotted to schools. Whereas Serrano v. Priest
intended to create equity in educational funding across the school districts of California,
other models for creating adequacy in educational funding have risen over the last two
decades. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether spending levels are adequate in
terms of meeting the needs of all children, how educational resources are allocated and
used, and how funding levels are linked to student outcomes (Picus, 2000). California
funding for education is limited, and this limitation makes it important for school
administrators to carefully evaluate how resources are allocated in order to maintain an
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 14

adequate level of funding to improve student achievement. Different approaches to
determining adequacy in school finance are available for evaluation.
Four different education adequacy costing-out models. Odden (2003)
describes four methodologies used for costing-out educational adequacy: 1) Successful
district approach, 2) Cost function approach, 3) Professional judgment approach, and 4)
Evidence-based approach. Chapter Two provides a detailed description of each of the
four models.
The successful district approach identifies districts that have been successful in
helping students meet proficiency standards. The adequacy level is, then, set on a
weighted average per pupil. Not all districts fit into this model, as it eliminates typical
districts and keeps high and low spending districts. This approach has been used in
Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio.
The cost function approach uses several variables to determine per pupil
expenditure. When compared to other districts, different student needs are accounted for
and the per-pupil expenditure is adjusted accordingly. The statistical analysis required
makes this method difficult to use. No states use this approach for costing-out
educational adequacy.
The professional judgment approach has been used in many states, including
Kansas, Maryland, Oregon and Wyoming. This method employs a group of educational
experts to identify effective educational strategies for students at all levels and abilities
and then costs out those strategies. The model can adjust for size of district and
geographic price variations.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 15

The evidence-based approach identifies a set of ingredients that are required to
provide a high quality instructional program. By assigning a price to each of the features
of the instructional program, the cost is determined. In identifying best strategies for
student achievement, this model assists in determining how best to allocate resources.
The Evidence-Based model has been used in Wyoming, Arkansas, Washington, Oregon,
and Vermont.
Statement of the Problem
Costing-out education. Four different models for costing-out adequate funding
levels for education are identified in the literature (Rebell, 2007). Each offers differences
in how to provide an adequate level of funding so that all students have the opportunity to
achieve at the highest levels. The differences offered in each of the models are
significant and provide the opportunity to evaluate each on its own merit. Due to the
relatively short period of time each of the models has been in existence, there is still a
need for more scrutiny (Rebell, 2007). This creates an opportunity to improve the models
in order to advance resource allocation strategies for student achievement.
Costing-out strategies are employed at varying levels in school districts across the
United States. The Evidence-Based model may provide some of the most significant
results although the most successful model has yet to be identified in the literature.
Distribution of resources to the schools by the central office may be done with the same
consistency across schools. If the Evidence-Based model is the best model to use to
determine allocation of human resources, more in depth study must be completed in order
to recognize whether student achievement increases in times of fiscal crisis.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 16

Purpose of the Study
This study examined human resource allocation in a California K-12 unified
school district as it results in student achievement in times of fiscal crisis. Using the
Evidenced Based Model as a comparison to the actual allocation of resources served as
the grounds for future recommendations regarding the allocation of human resources to
improve student achievement. Analysis of both district and school level data helped
determine how best to reallocate resources to improve student achievement. The
following research questions served to guide this study:
1. What research based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Importance of the Study
California’s current, at the time of this study, fiscal crisis creates an opportunity to
carefully analyze how best to allocate resources in order to continue to meet student
academic achievement goals. By considering the current patterns coupled with changes
in the state budget and funding model, this study sought to determine whether
reallocation of resources actually assist the district in meeting its stated goals for student
achievement. Analysis of the district’s allocation of human resources provides the
opportunity to identify reallocation options in order to improve student achievement. The
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 17

analysis consisted of evaluating the distribution of full time equivalent (FTE) units
throughout the schools within the district. Ultimately, this study may lead to the
opportunity to re-evaluate how resources are used when compared to the Evidence-Based
model.
Use of the Evidence-Based model as the framework for this study, may enable
decision makers to recognize what is necessary to develop an adequate distribution of
resources for schools to be successful. A comparison between the Evidence-Based model
and the actual allocation of human resources in the district offers the opportunity for
district officials as well as policy makers to evaluate how resources are used with respect
to student achievement. This study incorporates the literature relevant to adequacy in
education in making recommendations for the future, leading to student achievement and
the application of district goals in the allocation of human resources.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Limitations. A limitation of this study was that the study was based on the
analysis of one K-12 unified school district alone. With respect to resource allocation,
the researcher was bound to the information provided by interviewees.
Delimitations. Given the evaluation of one school district alone, the results were
generalizable only to K-12 unified school districts of similar size and demographics.
Assumptions. It was assumed that all information regarding student achievement
retrieved from the California Department of Education was accurate. It was also assumed
that all information provided by interviewees from the school district was accurate.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 18

Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API) - A numeric index that is assigned to each California
School per 1999’s Public School’s Accountability Act (PSAA). The range is from 200 to
1000. Each annual API cycle includes a “Base API” and a “Growth API”. The Base API
is calculated from statewide test results of continuing and new assessments from the prior
school year and serves as the baseline for comparisons with the Growth API. The Growth
API is calculated in exactly the same way and with the same indicators as the Base API
but utilizes test results from the following school year. The Growth API establishes
whether schools met their API targets (California Dept of Education, 2007).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – AYP is an accountability measure of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB). Progress is based on whether the school or district met
its Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated 95% participation on standardized
tests, achieved its target on the Academic Performance Index and, for high schools, met
target graduation rates. The eventual goal is for 100% of all students to be proficient in
English Language Arts and Mathematics by 2014 (Ed-Data, 2008).
Content Standards - Standards adopted by the state that identify what each student must
learn in each grade level in language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, physical
education, and visual/performing arts.
Cost Function Approach - Econometric approach to identifying school costs associated
with achieving required and/or desired student achievement outcomes.
Educational Adequacy- School finance concept that describes the allocation of resources
to provide an adequate education so students achieve proficiency levels in core academic
content areas.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 19

English Language Learners (ELLs) - Most current designation for students not yet
proficient in the English language enough to access and learn from the regular
instructional programs offered in general education. English language proficiency is
assessed annually through the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
Evidence-Based model - A resource allocation model that provides recommendations for
allocating school resources to improve student achievement. The school instructional
improvement design is grounded in scientifically based research and widely documented
effective best practices.
Expert Judgment Approach - Use of a panel of educators, specialists, and administrators
to determine the necessary resources to achieve required and/or desired student
achievement outcomes.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) - Indicates one person for each full time position.
Funding formulas - Specific formulas used to fund educational systems.
Growth Target - Derived from the California’s PSAA. California sets Academic
Performance Index growth targets for each school as a whole and for each numerically
significant subgroup in the school. The annual growth target for a school is 5% of the
difference between a school’s Base API and the statewide performance target of 800.
Any school with an API of 800 or more must maintain an API of at least 800 or more in
order to meet its growth target.
Instructional Leadership - A style of leadership that is considered important for school
improvement. It incorporates a leader who engages in the act of continuously improving a
school’s capacity to teach children by modeling and being an instructional facilitator to
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 20

the school’s staff and is grounded in a solid foundation of knowing what constitutes good
instruction and how to maximize student learning.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) - A congressionally authorized
project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of
Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. It has conducted assessments
for over three decades in reading, math, science, writing, US History, civics, and
geography.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - The 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that places comprehensive accountability requirements
on all states, with increasing sanctions for schools and districts that do not make adequate
yearly progress toward proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics or that fail
to test 95% of all students and all significant subgroups. In California, those sanctions
currently apply only to schools and districts that accept Title I funding (Ed-Data, 2008).
Per Pupil Funding - A specific monetary allotment that is given to school systems for
each student currently enrolled. Per pupil funding is determined through a state funding
formula and is weighted depending on the students’ demographics such as being
identified as receiving free or reduced price lunch and/or as an English Learner.
Professional Judgment Approach - A resource allocation model that utilizes a panel of
educators, specialists, and administrators to determine the resources a school needs to
achieve required and/or desired student achievement outcomes.
Proposition 13 - Passed in California in 1978, this initiative limited the property tax rate
to 1% of assessed value and capped increases in assessed value at 2% or the percentage
growth in the state’s Consumer Price Index, whichever is less (Ed Source, 2009).
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 21

Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) - Passed in 1999, this legislation was intended
to ensure the creation and implementation of a system to monitor achievement in all
schools and provide incentives or sanctions to schools depending on whether they met
their API goals.
Research Based Instructional Practices - Educational practices that have a research base
that attests to their effectiveness in improving student achievement.
Resource Allocation - Resource allocation is used to describe the operational activities
required to run schools and encompasses all inputs, defined by dollars spent, the
resources these dollars buy, and the way these resources are used by educational
institutions (Nakib, 1995).
Resources - Indicates the products and resources (monetary, personnel, time, materials, or
facilities) required and expended to educate students in a school system.
Similar Schools Rankings - California schools are ranked in ten categories of equal size,
called deciles, from 1 to 10. These ranks are provided in the Base API reports. This rank
compares a school’s API to 100 other schools that have similar demographics (California
Dept of Ed, 2007).
Statewide School Rank - This rank compares a school’s API to the APIs of all other
schools statewide of the same type (elementary, middle, or high school).
Successful District Approach - A resource allocation approach that identifies programs,
strategies, and resources used in “successful schools” with the intention of transferring
them to other schools to achieve required and/or student achievement outcomes.
Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) - Students who participate in the free/reduced
price lunch program.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 22

Teacher Professional Development – Training, of any length, that teachers receive to
provide them with additional strategies and knowledge to effectively teach students.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 23

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature in relation to strategies that are
proven to improve student achievement, resource allocation, and school finance. Each
section of the chapter begins with an overview and then narrows the specific topics to
what the research has indicated. The chapter is divided into the following four sections:
1. School Improvement Strategies - Including Leadership, Professional
Development, and Professional Learning Communities. This section reviews the
literature that evaluates effective strategies within each of the three topics.
2. Limited Resources/Fiscal Constraints - Specifically discussing the current
financial situation in California and the role of federal and state funding sources
in education. An overview of local fiscal constraints is also presented.
3. Allocation and Use of Human Resources - A historical look at expenditures and a
review of adequacy models including A) the Successful District Approach, B) the
Cost Function Approach, C) the Professional Judgment Approach, and D) the
Evidence-Based Approach.
4. Gap Analysis - The definition of the Gap Analysis based on the work of Clark and
Estes and the use of a Gap Analysis to determine reasons for gaps between current
status and desired results in resource allocation.
School Improvement Strategies
A system-wide approach to raising student achievement. Student achievement
is a system-wide responsibility. While principals and teachers can create dramatic
improvement at the individual school or classroom level, this type of “heroic leadership”
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 24

creates islands of excellence rather than systemic improvement (Togneri & Anderson,
2003). Individual school improvement is important and a valuable part of districtwide
increases in student achievement, but, with the mandates of the No Child Left Behind
Act, it is the responsibility of school districts to focus on individual school as well as on
districtwide improvement. Because of this, it is necessary for school districts to focus on
systemic improvement that begins with centralized procedures and practices that happen
at all schools in the district. Teamwork, goals, and effective use of data are key
components that favor results and improvement (Schmoker, 1999). Such procedures and
practices include leadership, professional development, and data-driven decision making
that originate from the central office but are collaboratively developed by members from
all stakeholder groups. Whether it is for district level administrators, school board
members, site administrators, teachers, or parents, everyone needs to understand what is
necessary to support high quality teaching and learning (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
School districts that have demonstrated success and improved student achievement often
have similar characteristics and strategies that helped them achieve their goals. Common
themes emerge from these successful school districts and, in turn, the schools within the
districts.
School district approaches to improving student achievement. Accountability
on the federal and state level added pressure for school districts to perform better
academically and show continued growth in student achievement (Odden, 2009). The No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires school districts and schools meet Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) targets as set by the state with an ultimate target of 100% proficiency for
all students tested by 2014. California’s accountability system, the Public School
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 25

Accountability Act (PSAA) mandates annual growth in the Academic Performance Index
(API), a scaled score to 1000 with the minimum annual goal set at 800. As the mandates
remain in place and the target scores rise annually, school districts are required to
demonstrate success and appropriate improvement or they may face sanctions. Along
with the pressure to meet the standards set by the state, school districts also face pressure
from the business community and competition, such as open enrollment transfers to other
school districts, charter schools, and private schools (Odden, 2009). The accountability
measures placed pressure on schools and school districts to not only perform, but also to
figure out how to perform better. This led to a number of common strategies
implemented by successful school districts.
Dailey et al. (2005) conducted research to determine what the literature said in
respect to schools’ improving student achievement. One specific component of their
research showed that school districts played a key role in raising student achievement. In
all, they found that successful school districts had seven primary themes:
• Focus first and foremost on student achievement and learning.
• Have a theory of action for how to effect improvements and establish clear
goals.
• Commit to professional learning at all levels and provide multiple, meaningful
learning opportunities.
• Use data to guide improvement strategies.
• Enact comprehensive, coherent reform policies.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 26

• Have educators who accept personal responsibility for improving student
learning and receive support to help them succeed.
• Monitor progress regularly and intervene if necessary.
Togneri and Anderson (2003) looked at five school districts that maintained three
years of increasing student achievement in math and/or reading; saw improvement across
grade levels, races, and ethnicities; had at least a 25% free and reduced lunch rate; and
had a reputation for effective professional development practices. This study also found
common characteristics among these successful districts. Seven factors emerged as
essential to instruction:
• Districts had the courage to acknowledge poor performance and the will to
seek solutions.
• Districts put in place a system-wide approach to improving instruction - one
that articulated curricular content and provided instructional supports.
• Districts instilled visions that focused on student learning and guided
instructional improvement.
• Districts made decisions based on data, not instincts.
• Districts adopted new approaches to professional development that involved a
coherent and district-organized set of strategies to improve instruction.
• Districts redefined leadership roles.
• Districts committed to sustaining reform over the long haul.
Whereas some school districts prove successful in improving student achievement
as a whole, individual schools are where the students actually succeed. What has proven
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 27

consistent among successful school districts are the strategies that begin at the central
office level and are seen through to the schools. What begins as a vision of a school
district, with respect to focusing on student achievement, is developed collaboratively.
Teamwork, appropriate goals, and a data-driven culture are three critical elements to
achieving results (Schmoker, 1999). Additional factors consistent among successful
schools contain the inclusion of all stakeholders districtwide so as to demonstrate a
system-wide focus on student achievement and changes in policies and practices,
including professional development, throughout the district (Daily et al., 2005; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Characteristics of successful school
districts include behaviors that are consistent throughout all of the schools in the district,
creating a centralization of practices.
School level strategies that improve student achievement. Improving student
achievement districtwide begins with the centralization of policies and practices by the
central office leadership. Although this centralization of policies and practices may
appear to be top-down management, it works best when stakeholders from all affected
groups are included in the process (Schmoker, 1999; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The
inclusion of stakeholders allows buy-in to take place more easily at the individual school
level. Principals and teachers are important stakeholders in the role of improving
academic achievement of students for both the district and the individual schools.
Individually successful teachers and/or schools are good for the small scale level of
improvement, but not necessarily for a districtwide or systemic change (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Transferring the view of student achievement from being a teacher or
school issue takes the leadership of a school district to help orchestrate systemic changes.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 28

Teachers cannot work in isolation if a school is going to recognize overall improvement
(Schmoker, 1999). One constant in school improvement is the enhancement of
instruction (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The literature identifies what successful schools
have done to improve student achievement.
Duke (2006) looked specifically at turnaround schools and found 11 common
characteristics in the schools he studied. Similar to what the research says districts need
to do to improve student achievement, Duke identified many of the same strategies were
implemented at the school level. He found 11 common characteristics in the turnaround
schools:
• Assistance for students experiencing problems with learning required content
received prompt assistance.
• Collaboration.
• Data-driven decision making.
• Leadership.
• Organization structure.
• Staff development.
• Alignment - Tests were aligned with curriculum content, and curriculum
content was aligned with instruction.
• Assessments - Students were assessed on a regular basis to determine their
progress in learning required content.
• High expectations.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 29

• Parent involvement - School personnel reached out to parents to keep them
apprised of their children’s progress and to enlist them in supporting school
improvement efforts.
• Scheduling - Adjustments were made in the daily schedule in order to increase
time for academic work.
In a study specific to middle school student achievement, Williams, Kirst, and
Haertel (2010) looked at 10 specific domains to determine the effect of each domain on
student achievement on the Mathematics and Language Arts California Standards Test
(CST). Their research identified an intense, school-wide focus on improving academic
outcomes as the one domain having the greatest predictive strength on student
achievement. Next, they determined six domains consistently followed in terms of
predictive strength on student achievement. These domains were standards-based
instruction and curricula, extensive use of data, proactive academic interventions, teacher
competencies, principal leadership, and superintendent leadership. Finally, the
researchers determined three domains had the least predictive strength regarding change
in student achievement. These three domains were school environment, the organization
of time and instruction, and attention to student transitions.
Extensive research has been conducted on 90/90/90 schools. These schools are
identified as schools where more than 90% of the student population qualifies for free or
reduced price lunch, are of an ethnic minority group, and have met or achieved high
academic standards (Reeves, 2003). Like other successful school models, a consistent
focus on similar strategies that affect student achievement at all schools is present. The
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 30

emphasis on focusing on student achievement shows a consistency with other research as
to what improves student achievement as a whole. Five characteristics were found to be
consistent at all 90/90/90 schools:
• A focus on academic achievement.
• Clear curriculum choices.
• Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for
improvement
• An emphasis on nonfiction writing.
• Collaborative scoring of student work.
Odden (2009) researched schools within 23 different school districts to identify
the strategies used to improve student performance. More specifically, his research found
schools that were able to double student performance on annual state tests. Odden
identifies 10 specific strategies for doubling student performance:
• Understanding the performance challenges placed on schools by NCLB and
state mandates.
• Setting ambitious goals for all students.
• Changing the curriculum program and creating a new instructional vision.
• Benchmark and formative assessments and data-based decision making.
• Provide ongoing, intensive professional development.
• Using time efficiently and effectively- specifically referring to student time
and collaborative time for teachers.
• Extend learning time for struggling students.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 31

• Collaborative cultures and distributive leadership.
• Professional and best practices.
• The human capital side of doubling student performance - recruiting and
developing talent.
Emergent Themes among Successful Schools: Leadership, Professional
Development, and Professional Learning Communities
Common themes emerge from the research on what school districts and individual
schools do to improve student performance. District and school leadership, professional
development, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are consistently identified
by the researchers as elements that help move students from one level to the next with
respect to academic achievement. Leadership may be where all of the success stories
begin in education. The leadership style a school district’s leadership team displays
begins the process of developing improvement strategies at both the district and the
school level.
An overview of leadership. Collins (2001) writes of the qualities of a Level 5
executive as being the pinnacle of leadership. Level 5 leaders build and blend both
personal humility and professional will in order to build enduring greatness. These
leaders are able to channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal
of building greatness in an organization. They maintain an unwavering resolve to do
what must be done for the success of the organization. This means Level 5 leadership is
not just about humility and modesty, but it is equally about a leader having the “ferocious
resolve and stoic determination” (page 30) to do whatever needs to be done for
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 32

organizational improvement and success. The precipice of Collins’ work revolves around
changes in personnel in order to achieve results, which is commonly referred to as,
“Getting the right people in the right seat on the bus”. Collins’ work transfers well from
the business sector into the type of educational leadership necessary for improvement in
student achievement.
In the 1970’s, Hallinger and Heck (1996) recognized the importance of the role of
the principal in school improvement effects. They found that principals do have an effect
on school improvement. However, the conditions and circumstances associated with the
desired improvement are important. Principals influence internal school processes that
are directly linked to student learning, norms, routines, instruction, and organization.
The internal processes principals have an influence over range from school policies and
norms to the teaching practices of the faculty. Within the policies and norms are
academic expectations, school mission, student opportunity to learn, instructional
organization, and academic learning time. They identified the leadership of a principal as
the internal processes that lead to an overall greater effect on student achievement.
Masumoto and Brown-Welty (2009) identified shared leadership as a crucial
function of a school principal. They also recognize the principal as the one to facilitate
the roles of others as leaders. Additionally, they see the principal’s focus on instructional
improvement as the school-wide focus. In creating shared leadership, principals are also
the linkages in the community to help all stakeholders realize school-wide goals.
Vision, mission, and goals as a function of leadership. Huber and Muijs (2010)
write about leadership being not only managing others in what they do, but developing
others so they can carry on the goals of the district to help meet the mission and vision of
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 33

the larger organization. Schools that are classified as being successful possess a
competent and sound school leadership. The leadership is firm and purposeful, with
shared responsibilities, decisive and goal oriented strategies, and the participation of
others in leadership tasks. The synchronization of both top-down and bottom-up
approaches are important to the successful school because there are internal conditions
necessary for development and for increasing professionalism. They find that developing
a cooperative school culture is critical for a school to be successful and that the effect
leaders have on their school is indirect and modest once they develop a collaborative
culture. Their work identifies the need to begin the process by planning and setting
goals.
Organizations should utilize a strategic planning model to develop the vision,
mission, and goals necessary to achieve success (Schmoker, 2004). Schmoker (2004)
also suggests that strategic planning in its current state is ineffective. Hallinger and Heck
(2002) identify differences in vision, mission, and goals and suggest researchers use the
terms synonymously in spite of the fact that they have different theoretical foundations.
A vision can identify a path to a new future and a strategic dimension of leadership. It can
also help to identify critical paths for change and/or organizational learning. The role of
vision in school improvement is based in transformational leadership, but the central
facet is that there is a vision. Vision is an important condition in organizational learning
during times of change and should be considered as a way to influence school
improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
Mission is seen as the organizational avenue of influence in school improvement.
The power of having a mission lies in engaging others in a shared quest. This quest is a
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 34

shared vision among stakeholders that develops but is sustained over time. A clear
school mission is used by principals to help shape teacher expectations and students’
opportunities to learn in school (Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
Goal setting is an important avenue for school improvement because goals can
originate at the organizational level and filter down through the organization. Goals are
often specified in measurable terms. The use of goal setting in school improvement is
crucial to clarifying where people want to go and how they plan to get there (Hallinger &
Heck, 2002).
Schmoker (2004) indicated the balance and changes that are important when
assessing the progress being made as being ongoing and formative rather than annual or
summative. Systemic reform should focus primarily on establishing and sustaining
structures for norms of continuous improvement. He found educators need to
continuously work in teams to implement, assess and adjust instruction in short term
cycles of improvement. He cautioned that educators must replace complex long term
plans with simpler plans that focus on actual teaching of lessons created in learning
communities that promote team-based, short term thought and action. The cumulative
effect of such small ongoing wins is the most likely route to annual achievement.
Fullan (2010) says there are six features that stand out as essential to principals in
their efforts towards school reform. The variations of responsibilities and roles for
leadership revolve around principals creating shared leadership among stakeholders.
Fullan identifies characteristics displayed by effective principals:
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 35

• Principals participate as a learner and do not dominate; they fully engage in
the learning just as the teachers.
• Principals have an instructional focus and are obsessed with instructional core.
They personalize learning and getting results for all students.
• Principals develop others. Collaborative cultures are effective at solving
problems and making progress.
• Principals are network and system engaged. They network outside of the
school. They consume research and know what will create instructional
improvement.
• Principals realize moral purpose. Some teachers do not believe all students
can learn, so it is crucial for principals to help teachers accept responsibility
for all students.
• Principals help teachers actually help students learn, but not by providing
them with research, by actually assisting them.
Transformational and distributed leadership. Northouse (2010) stated
transformational leadership does as its name implies; it changes and transforms people
because it is a charismatic and visionary type of leadership. It involves a significant
influence that moves followers to accomplish more than is normally expected of them.
Transformational leadership results in performance that goes beyond what is expected of
others. It is different from traditional transactional leadership, which focuses on the
exchanges between leaders and followers, because transformational leadership engages
others in creating commonalities that raise the level of motivation in both the leader and
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 36

follower. Authentic transformational leadership is a form of socialized leadership which
is concerned with the collective good of all stakeholders. Because transformational
leadership is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long term goals, it
can be more emotional for stakeholders than traditional transactional leadership.
Spillane and Halverson (2001) believe transformational leadership is the ability to
empower others and create shared leadership. It is important to establish the conditions
for the possibility of teaching others to learn from resources, allocation, and conditions.
Research in this area focuses on the task of the principal in conjunction with the
knowledge of others. Transformational leadership is a function of the work of multiple
leaders, and leadership is grounded in the context of situations and interactions with
people (leaders, followers, and situation). The authors found a need for more research in
this area.
Northouse (2010) stated the characteristics of transformational leaders are those
of being charismatic, strong role models who appear competent to their followers; being
able to articulate goals; communicating high expectations; expressing confidence; and
arousing motives. The socialized transformational leader transcends his/her personal
interests for the sake of stakeholders. S/he is able to connect followers and their self-
concepts to the organization’s identity. Northouse warns that, because a transformational
leader exhibits characteristics that make others want to follow, there is also a concern that
power can be abused due to the loyalty of others. Where transformational leaders
maintain the main role of being the leader, shared or distributed leadership replaces the
“one-leader” concept with leadership by many.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 37

Distributed leadership is used interchangeably with shared leadership, team
leadership, and democratic leadership (Spillane, 2005). This indicates that leadership
involves multiple leaders. Distributed leadership is about leadership practice, not leaders.
Spillane (2005) defines distributed leadership as being different from a “heroics of
leadership” approach because the heroics approach suggests school leadership lies with
one individual leader. A second issue with “heroics of leadership” is that it focuses on
the “what” and not the “how” of school leadership. Leadership practice is viewed as a
product of the interactions of school leaders, followers, and their situation. Distributed
leadership is not just a statement that multiple individuals take responsibility for a school-
it is the leadership practice that results from interactions among the leaders, followers,
and their situation that is critical and what is important is not that leadership is distributed
but how leadership is distributed. Situation, in turn, is not simply important to leadership
practice, but it actually constitutes leadership practice as a function of interaction
between leaders and followers. From a distributed perspective, leadership is a system of
practice that is comprised of the interaction of leaders, followers, and a situation. These
interactions between principals, teachers, and a situation must be understood together
because a system is more than the sum of the component parts or practices (Spillane,
2005).
The research of Hallinger and Heck, (2002) determined that educational scholars
found instructional outcomes are enhanced when staff have clear goals and maintain a
sense of purpose. Shared leadership combined with personal vision when shared by
others can become the catalyst for transformation. They identify the transformation and
achievement of goals as the result of creating a shared leadership model.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 38

Masumoto and Brown-Welty (2009) found that shared leadership and a focus on
instructional improvement school-wide is beneficial to academic improvement. They
determined shared leadership is one of the key components to increased student
achievement because of the shared responsibilities of all stakeholders.
Marzano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of research on leadership styles.
Their study concluded that there are specific traits of leaders that lead to positive
achievement for students. Evaluating various leadership styles, including
transformational and distributed leadership, they identified the 21 particular school leader
traits that correlate with increased student achievement. The authors suggest that the
leadership traits, when embedded into a principal’s leadership style, can have a direct
impact on student achievement. They refer to the traits as being responsibilities of a
school leader (Table 1). The work of Marzano et al. (2005) demonstrates multiple
characteristics of school leaders that incorporate shared decision making and a clear
decision to build capacity in others.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 39

Table 1
McREL Researchers identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities that are
Significantly Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
Responsibility The extent to which
the principal…
Average
r
Number
of
Studies
Number of
Schools
Situational Awareness Is aware of the details
and undercurrents in
the running of the
school and uses this
information to address
current and potential
problems
.33 5 91
Flexibility Adapts his or her
leadership behavior to
the needs of the
current situation and is
comfortable with
descent
.28 6 277
Discipline Protects teachers from
issues and influences
that would detract
from their teaching
time or focus
.27 12 437
Monitoring/Evaluation Monitors the
effectiveness of school
practices and their
impact on student
learning
.27 31 1129
Outreach Is an advocate and
spokesperson for the
school to all
stakeholders
.27 14 478
Change Agent Is willing to and
actively challenges the
status quo
.25 6 466

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 40

Table 1, continued

Culture Fosters shared beliefs
and a sense of
community and
cooperation
.25 15 809
Input Involves teachers in
the design and
implementation of
important decisions
and policies
.25 16 669
Knowledge or
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is knowledgeable
about current
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices
.25 10 368
Order Establishes a set of
standard operating
procedures and
routines
.25 17 456
Resources Provides teachers with
materials and
professional
development
necessary for the
successful execution
of their jobs
.25 17 571
Contingent Rewards Recognizes and
rewards individual
accomplishments
.24 9 465
Focus Establishes clear goals
and keeps those goals
in the forefront of the
school's attention
.24 44 1619
Intellectual Stimulation Ensures that faculty
and staff are aware of
the most current
theories and practices
and makes the
discussion of these a
regular aspect of the
school's culture
.24 4 302

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 41

Table 1, continued
Communication Establishes strong
lines of
communication with
teachers and among
students
.23 11 299
Ideal Beliefs Communicates and
operates from strong
ideals and beliefs
about schooling
.22 7 513
Involvement in
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is directly involved in
the design and
implementation of
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices
.20 23 826
Visibility Has quality contact
and interactions with
teachers and students
.20 13 477
Optimizer Inspires and leads new
challenging
innovations
.20 17 724
Affirmation Recognizes and
celebrates school
accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
.19 6 332
Relationships Demonstrates an
awareness of the
personal aspects of
teachers and staff
.18 11 505
Source: School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty 2005)
Capacity building and collaborative culture as a function of leadership.
DuFour and Marzano (2009) argue for the need of school leaders to move from a model
of supervision to a model that includes capacity building. Capacity building in teachers
includes providing the necessary training and support to address problems that come from
a gap as a clearly articulated need. To do this, principals should provide time, structures,
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 42

training resources, and clarity of purpose so teachers can work collaboratively to improve
student achievement. Teachers need to work in collaborative teams and have common
assessments, effective and balanced assessment practices, resources, and information and
guiding questions. Building capacity in teachers leads to shared decision making and
empowers others to have an essential role in leading student achievement.
The role the teachers play in building an effective collaborative culture is a result
of the willingness to follow the vision of the principal and the development of a shared
mission and goals. DuFour and Marzano (2009) contended we do not need instructional
leaders. Rather, what we need is learning leaders. What was taught is what was learned
and how we use the evidence of learning to strengthen the profession should be the role
of the principal as identified by teachers. This creates new demands on the principal. If
teachers have to clarify essential curriculum, common assessments, establish consistent
pacing, and use results to inform instruction, then principals must make sure the
collaborative time to accomplish all of these tasks is available on a regular and consistent
basis. More specifically, DuFour and Marzano suggested collaborative teams should
have schedules to ensure one hour per week of time that focuses on questions and issues
that directly affect student learning and provide training support resources, tools and
templates to become the most effective teachers. In addition to providing the
collaborative time for teachers to work together, they believe that traditional teacher
evaluation is flawed and should be changed. What they referred to as traditional
bureaucratic observation or direct instruction does not equal improvement. The role of
the principal needs to include inspection of work to make sure it meets the set standards.
Principals also need to meet with each teacher team quarterly to review its work.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 43

Teachers need to submit the ongoing work products that flow out of collaborative
dialogue, so the principal can maintain an interest and oversight in the work they are
doing together.
Schmoker (2004) observed there is a need for time for teachers to work
collaboratively in teams to plan and implement the information learned from one another.
This specifically refers to teachers’ teaching each other in planning, designing,
researching, evaluating and preparing teaching materials together. Through short term
trial and error, teachers have found more effective ways to actually teach. Regular,
collaborative time allows for the short term trial and error opportunities that ultimately
can lead to improving instructional practices of teachers. Schmoker suggested that the
ultimate benefit to collaboration is higher quality solutions to instruction. When teachers
do encounter problems with instruction, the increased confidence due to working together
frequently supports strengths and accommodates the weaknesses by providing
opportunities for improvement. He also emphasized that collaboration provides built in
assistance to beginning teachers that may not normally be readily available to them.
Lambert (1998) studied building capacity in schools and identified leadership as
not being a trait theory. She also stated that leadership and leader are not the same. She
found that leadership for the purpose of building capacity in schools involves five
specific key assumptions:
• Leadership means the reciprocal process that enables participants to construct
and negotiate leading to a shared purpose.
• Leadership is about learning that leads to constructive change.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 44

• Leading is skilled and complicated, but every member of the school
community can learn to lead through active participation.
• Leading is a shared endeavor. School change is a collective endeavor. The
learning journey must be shared.
• Leadership requires a shared distribution of power and authority.
She continued with the qualities of high participation and high skillfulness schools, which
she identified as being a school with high leadership capacity. The principals of these
schools are collaborative and inclusive in their leading. These schools are characterized
by:
• Broad-based, skillful participation in the work of leadership.
• Inquiry- based use of information to inform decision making.
• Roles and responsibilities that reflect broad involvement and participation.
• Reflective practice/innovation as the norm.
• High student achievement.
Professional development. Professional development is an important part of
school improvement strategies and is directly linked to the leadership of a school district
and individual school site. Researchers have drawn direct correlations to improved
student achievement and quality professional development for teachers and principals
(DuFour and Marzano, 2009; Schmoker, 2004; Togneri and Anderson, 2003). The
different types of professional development range from site-based decision making to
overall districtwide practices. When schools receive Title I or other categorical funds,
the leadership teams have the ability to supplement what is available for use through their
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 45

general fund budget (Fermanich, 2002). What is needed for schools to sustain academic
improvement for students is for the instructional strategies to be regularly reviewed and
observed to determine what is effective and for this to take place in a collaborative
model, not the traditional teacher observation model (DuFour and Marzano, 2009;
Schmoker, 2004). Traditional “sit and get” professional development for educators is not
the method that demonstrates best practice.
MacIver and Farley (2003) conducted research to determine what strategies
school district central offices can use to promote professional development at various
levels. Their research determined that central offices do have a function in providing
support at the school level despite evidence of schools’, including charter schools,
demonstrating success in improving student achievement without the support of a central
office. Specific qualities embedded into the professional development offered to
principals and teachers should consider the following questions.
To what extent does the district provide support to principals in the following:
• Mentoring programs for new principals?
• Hands-on guidance (including school visits) from central office supervisor?
• Professional development in how to be an instructional leader?
• Professional development in how to use data to improve instruction?
• Relevant student data in a timely fashion?
• Relevant budget information in a timely fashion?
• Relief from bureaucratic demands that take time away from instructional
leadership?
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 46

To what extent does the district office provide support to teachers in the following:
• Mentoring programs for new teachers?
• Professional development linked to specific curriculum and textbooks used?
• Follow-up, including hands-on guidance (with classroom visits) from central
office staff or highly qualified coaches?
• Time for teachers to observe master teachers, talk with colleagues about
instructional issues, reflect on learning to better put it into practice?
• Instruction in how to use data from classroom assessments to improve
instruction?
Fermanich (2002) evaluated the professional development spending practices of
an urban school district for seven elementary schools. He looked into the type of
professional development that the district and the schools used and how they spent these
resources. This included on-site instructional facilitators and coaches, teacher time for
engaging in professional development, and spending in departmental budgets that had not
been identified as professional development. He determined that, on average, the seven
schools spent 7.8% of their site budget on professional development. School
expenditures per teacher varied significantly due to the use of discretionary funds and
because schools with Title I funds were able to spend more resources on professional
development than the other schools.
Desimone et al. (2002) studied how districts provide high quality professional
development for teachers. The research determined that, when a superintendent with a
strong vision of reform was in place, alignment of standards and assessments to the
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 47

professional development had a positive effect on student achievement, and that
performance indicators are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional
development. They identified three areas of research focus and study analysis for
professional development as being strategic planning with goals and objectives, needs
assessments, and teacher involvement in planning. From the research, they identified six
best practices in professional development:
• Reform type: teacher network, committee, research project as opposed to a
“sit and get”.
• Duration: hours involved and length of time opposed to a one shot deal or the
latest trend.
• Collective participation: groups of teachers, whole school, and grade levels
opposed to individual teachers.
• Content focus: activities that focus on domains.
• Active learning: opportunities for teachers to be engaged.
• Coherence: incorporating experiences consistent with goals, like standards
and assessment alignment.
Professional Learning Communities. Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) are a function of professional development. When a school develops into a PLC,
it is often a cultural shift in 13 different areas (DuFour et al., 2002). The focus of a
school as a PLC is to collaborate on student learning and to shift away from any primary
focus on teaching. With student learning as the central tenet of a PLC, schools must
make adjustments to traditional focus on teaching first, as a PLC responds to good or bad
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 48

student achievement. When students fail to learn, it becomes the responsibility of the
professional learning community to determine how to respond so the students do learn
because all students can learn. Much of the professional development in a professional
learning community comes from the internal structure of the school. Schools have to
make a complete commitment to function as a PLC, and, when they do, the focus on
student learning is driven by research-based information and strategies that are known to
promote success in student learning. Collaborative teams of teachers become the
developers of the strategies and programs that help students learn. Instructional practices
focus on student learning and not teacher teaching. Administrators become distributive
leaders in developing teachers as being the transformational leaders of the school.
Administrators manage behaviors and do not dictate to teachers what the best practice is
that helps students learn. DuFour et al. (2002) identify the cultural shifts a school goes
through when it transitions from a traditional school to a PLC as being:
• Working in collaborative teams.
• Developing a mission statement specifying that students will learn, how the
faculty knows the students are learning, and how the school will respond for
students who do not learn.
• Developing a vision statement based on research, focus on essential learning,
provide a blueprint for improvement, and are widely shared through
collaboration.
• Developing value statements linked to the vision, used as a blueprint, and
articulated as behaviors and commitments.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 49

• Developing goal statements that are linked to vision, focused on desired
outcomes, measurable, continuously monitored, and designed to produce
short-term wins and stretch aspirations.
• Focus on learning as the primary focus - not on teaching.
• Curriculum that is collaboratively agreed upon and taught to greater depth and
assessment is collaboratively developed with a collaboratively developed plan
for responding when students do not learn.
• Collective inquiry for collaborative teams of teachers to seek best practices for
making research-based decisions.
• Research and results are based on teacher teams’ collaborating to determine
the best approaches to affect student learning and the effect on student
learning is the primary basis for assessing various improvement strategies.
• Leadership is distributed with administrators being leaders of leaders and
teachers as being transformational leaders.
• School improvement plans focus on few important goals that affect student
learning and school improvement is the vehicle for organized, sustained
school improvement.
• Celebration is used to recognize achievement of a goal and improvement with
the school working hard to create winners in order to celebrate their successes
and celebrations are linked to the vision and values of the school and student
achievement.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 50

• Persistence in staying the course in attainment of the new school vision and
the leader’s role is to promote, protect, and defend the school’s vision and
values and confront behavior that is incongruent with the vision and values.
DuFour et al. (2004) identify the importance of the structures of teams and the
behaviors of team members. Within these roles, administrators maintain a responsibility
to lead the leaders, and the leaders are the teachers. Teachers comprise the collaborative
teams that make decisions regarding what students are to learn, how the staff knows
whether the students are learning, and how the staff will respond for students who do not
learn. The authors presented the principles a professional learning community is built
upon:
• A belief that all students will learn.
• A dedication to teaching and learning.
• Students not adults.
• Working smarter, not harder.
• Critical questions centered on common formative assessments.
• Involving our support staff.
• Often and on-going.
• Protocols provide guidance.
• Norms provide structure.
Norms for High Performing Teams:
• Willingness to consider matters from another’s perspective.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 51

• Accurate understanding of spoken and unspoken feelings and concerns of
team members.
• Communicating positive regard, caring, and respect.
• Willingness and ability to evaluate a team’s own effectiveness.
• Maintaining a positive outlook and attitude.
• Proactive problem-solving.
The Importance of Building Shared Knowledge:
• Professional Learning Communities always attempt to answer critical
questions by building shared knowledge.
Keys to Effective Teams:
• Embed collaboration in routine practices of the school with a focus on
learning.
• Time for collaboration built in school day and school calendar.
• Teams focus on key questions.
• Team norms guide collaboration.
• Providing feedback to each other and to students.
• Re-teaching.
• No excuses.
• Administratively supported.
Fullan (2006) writes about theories of action that are seriously flawed in
education, including standards based districtwide reform, professional learning
communities, and qualifications frameworks that focus on developing and retaining
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 52

quality leaders. More specifically, he identifies that PLCs promote autonomous behavior
of school sites when the schools should be collaborating with the rest of the district. The
autonomous nature of a PLC goes against the grain of districtwide improvement because
of the focus on the individual school. Standards, assessments, curriculum and
professional development are all good things to do, but, as a theory of action, they all are
seriously incomplete because they do not come close to what happens in the classrooms.
All theories of action may come from a centralized perspective, but, if they do not
develop from the perspective of the classroom, they lack the true emphasis they need
because what is needed is for teachers to be involved in the planning and development
(Fullan, 2006).
Limited Resources and Fiscal Constraints
Federal, state, and local school district responses to fiscal constraints. Fiscal
constraints and budget concerns have given way to responses from the Federal
government, State of California, and local education agencies. The responses come in
varied forms and commonly allow for local school districts to be able to meet their
annual budgets. The federal government recently allocated funds through the American
Recovery and Rehabilitation Act (ARRA) to assist states with being able to fund
education. California has responded with voter supported tax initiatives and flexibility
for the use of categorical funds to help districts meet their budgetary needs. Local school
districts have taken the initiative to pass local school bonds and negotiate with labor
unions to allocate and reallocate dollars to help meet the district budget.
Federal response to fiscal issues. In 2008 a global financial crisis caused the
United States and World economies to drop into the worst recession since the Great
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 53

Depression (Mead et al, 2010). The Obama Administration enacted the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and funds equaled $800 billion in federal
spending and tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy. Of the money, one hundred
billion dollars was dedicated to education with $70 billion specifically set aside for the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - a total that was greater than the
entire 2009 United States Department of Education budget of $62.3 billion. The largest
portion of the ARRA funds was the $48.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF)
which was intended to fill the gaps that the economic crisis brought about in state
funding. Of the SFSF money, 81.8% went to education and 18.2% went to government
services. Although the message from the federal government was that the ARRA funds
were to be tied to reform efforts, in many cases the funds helped districts maintain their
local budget as several states had planned to cut education budgets by roughly the same
amount of money. In lieu of reform, the money was used to preserve existing programs,
services, and educator jobs. The mixed message between saving jobs and advancing
effective reforms left the priority of what to use the money for unclear. Therefore,
reforms were left largely to chance. Some school districts were able to advance reform
agendas, but the use of incentives rather than mandates to drive state and local reforms is
a more effective method (Mead et al, 2010).
Roza and Funk (2010) note the ARRA and SFSF money was intended to stabilize
state budgets and avert cuts to education. Their report was on 23 states budget plans to
explore how state education spending had changed or will change. They identify that the
SFSF money was different than most federal allocations in that the law allowed states to
use the one-time money to fill holes in state budgets. Their analysis examined changes in
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 54

education spending as a portion of the state budget in the year the SFSF was applied.
Education as a share of the state budgets fell in 13 of the 23 states examined. While in
the short term the SFSF likely resulted in a protection of state education spending, the
long term effect will likely be the opposite due to being one-time money. For state
policymakers the trends provide an early warning signal. State spending plans are still in
flux so considering the interplay between this new type of federal allocation and state
spending remains unclear (Roza & Funk, 2010).
California’s response to current fiscal crisis. Shambaugh et al., (2011) discuss
how California has responded to the current fiscal crisis with key considerations for state
policy makers; stabilizing and increasing education funding in the state, making
permanent the funding flexibility allowed during the fiscal crisis, and reforming the
current budgeting process to lessen the burden on districts. The researchers note that all
states with similar student achievement to California have greater resources. The
national average funding per pupil in 2007 was $8,775 and the California average was
$7,321. With respect to staff to student ration, California ranks near the bottom of the
national average. In 2007, California had 4.5 more students in classrooms than the
national average despite the class size reduction initiative of 1996, California still ranked
poorly. The class size average for secondary schools saw California ranked 51
st
in 2007-
08 with 6.6 more students than the national average. California’s ranking in demographic
adjusted achievement dropped from 19
th
in the nation in 1998 to 23
rd
in 2007, but despite
limited resources and larger class sizes, the state ranked higher than the median and
scored above average in all years. With the limited resources available, California school
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 55

districts are forced to make decisions regarding resource allocation, and in certain
circumstances resource reallocation.
Mead et al, (2010) evaluated the use of ARRA funds and determined
approximately 47,000 educator jobs were saved in California because of the one-time
ARRA funds. They note that the purpose of the ARRA money sought to not only plug
holes in educational finance, but to advance reform in the following four areas;
implement college and career ready standards and high quality assessments, create a Pre-
K through 20 longitudinal data system, Increase teacher effectiveness, and turn around
chronically underperforming schools. Despite the goal of states implementing reform
measures with the influx of the federal SFSF one-time dollars, the reality for most
districts was that they used the money to remain status quo and did not implement
significant reform measures. Several key themes from both states and districts with
respect to their specific experiences with ARRA funds include; districts primarily used
ARRA funds to continue current spending levels due to state and local budget cuts, in
some cases districts existing processes as opposed to reform priorities drove the
allocation and distribution of ARRA funds, in districts that did use ARRA to a strategic
end, local leadership, rather than federal policy decisions were the basis for decisions,
and budget pressures on states and districts proved to be greater and longer lasting than
initially expected and are resulting in a long term and systematic problem.
Categorical programs spending flexibility. In 2009, in light of the economic
recession, California loosened the reigns and permitted flexibility to school districts in
spending categorical funds that were traditionally restricted to spending in only the
program they were identified for. This was another strategy California determined would
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 56

assist school districts as they struggled to meet the financial needs to meet their budgets.
Weston (2011) identifies the flexibility as being an opportunity for districts to sweep the
funds from more than 40 categorical programs and use them to help balance their budget
as long as the funds were used for educational purposes. The law allowing the flexibility
is set to expire after the 2014-15 school year. Categorical funds have traditionally been
reserved for use in specific programs that assist students identified within the said
program. With open flexibility, there remains concern that the law allows for too much
local discretion in spending. Weston suggests when the law expires, consideration of
modifying the flexibility be made so inappropriate uses do not happen. One use she
recognizes as being inappropriate is funds being used in the collective bargaining arena
and ultimately used to increase salaries. Because categorical programs are designed to
assist students in the specified area of need, this is a concern for policymakers as well.
Weston’s report focuses on three key considerations when the law sunsets in 2015;
distribute these less restrictive categorical funds more equally, apply clear criteria for
flexibility and consider alternative configurations, and consider some restrictions on flex
item funds.
District response to limited resources. School districts have needed to respond to
the current fiscal crisis in a variety of ways. The federal government and the state
government have provided some supports and opportunities to assist California school
districts meet their budgetary mandates, but these sources of support are limited. Over
the last 20 years, school districts have used these, as well as additional strategies when
faced with fiscal constraints.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 57

Ladd (1996) conducted research to determine how districts typically respond to
fiscal constraint. Districts facing fiscal constraint attempted to maintain staffing in
teaching positions while decreasing the number of classified staff and central office
administrators. Because of this decision, they have disproportionately less support staff
than districts in a better fiscal predicament. Class sizes were increased and this hurt
students in some cases. Shambaugh et al, (2010) echoed many of the same ways districts
have recently responded to the current fiscal crisis in California. Districts have
responded with staff lay-offs at the central office level, class size changes- with 35% of
districts increasing class sizes in 2010, and cuts to salary and benefits in the form of
salary freezes, furlough days, and salary reductions. She and her colleagues noted that
higher ranking districts detailed a clear decision making approach driven by either
committee input, evidence-based information, or proactive planning to determine where
cuts would be made. Lower ranked districts were silent on approaches and rationales for
making cuts. There was no difference in what was cut across school districts.
Technology, maintenance and operations, transportation, and athletics were all cut
regardless of the district making cuts to the budget.
Ladd (1996) provides specific considerations regarding determining a district’s
fiscal condition. She states that measuring a district’s fiscal condition refers to the gap
that exists between the ability to raise revenue and meet its expenditure need. The goal is
to develop a measure that is independent of the districts spending and taxing decisions,
however it accurately reflects the fiscal constraints it faces in making those decisions.
This measure must also incorporate the reality that some districts have to spend more
money per student than others to attain a given level of educational services. The impact
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 58

on budget allocation includes; districts trying to protect instructional spending, spending
less per pupil on central office administration and instructional administration, and
lowering the share of plant services such as maintenance and operations. A district in
poor fiscal condition imposes a double hit because overall spending is less and a smaller
share of that spending is devoted to building and maintaining school facilities.
Shambaugh et al, 2010 conducted interviews with stakeholders at various levels
across the state of California to understand the types of decisions practitioners and
policymakers have been facing during the current fiscal crisis. The study recognized that
policy changes that have been a result of the current economic crisis in California include
the following concessions by the state; increased funding flexibility, reduced incentives
for class sizes, temporary waiver of requirements to purchase new instructional materials,
and a reduction in the number of required school days, removal of the requirement for
districts to match funds on maintenance projects, changes to the district requirement to
maintain 3% reserve, and the deferral of payments of state funds to districts. Special
Education has not been touched because of the IDEA federal mandate to fund all services
required in a student’s IEP. Professional Development and support for teachers has been
cut in some ways which may result in hurting the development of some teachers and in
turn student achievement in the long run. State funding cuts to school district budgets
have ranged from $900-$1400 per pupil.
The federal government, State of California, and local school districts have
responded to the financial recession in a variety of ways to help fund education.
Equitable funding in education has been attempted historically, and adequate funding in
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 59

education has become a different way to look at how resources are allocated so every
child receives the education he/she deserves.
Resource Allocation - Personnel, Time, and Money
The allocation of school funds to school districts has changed significantly in the
last 120 years. Historically, the belief that equity in funding would balance the playing
field for all students, regardless of differences, has been refuted. California has attempted
to provide equitable funding for school districts as a result of lawsuits and voter
initiatives such as Serrano v. Priest (1971), Proposition 13, and Proposition 98, but the
current fiscal crisis has made it necessary to look at adequacy in education. Even in years
the state has had a strong economic standing, additional funds for education go to
categorically funded programs rather than the general fund due to the 40% cap of
Proposition 98 (Kirst et al., 2007). California underfunds education and an adequacy
model may demonstrate ways to appropriately reallocate resources so all students receive
the educational opportunities they deserve. With the current fiscal crisis in California, it
is valuable to look at the history of school finance from the federal perspective and the
discussion on adequate funding versus equitable funding for schools.
School finance history at the federal level. Schools have traditionally been
funded by local taxes. In the 1890’s, per-student expenditure in the United States was
$164. In 1940 this figure had risen to $772 per-student. The 1990 amount was $4,622
per pupil showing a rise in funding by nearly quintupling each 50 year period (Hanushek
& Rivkin, 1997). With these changes in per-pupil expenditures also came a change in
how schools received their educational funds. In the early 1900’s, nearly 80% of all
money came from local tax dollars. By the end of the century, approximately 40% of
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 60

educational funds came from local taxes and nearly 60% come from the federal and state
levels. Federal and state dollars now make up approximately 60% of all educational
funding, whereas in the early part of the twentieth century, this was approximately 20%.
The face of educational funding has changed dramatically over the last 120 years
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997).
The federal government and state governments have provided additional funding
to school districts in the form of categorical funding (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). These
are funds that are designated to be used for specific purposes and specific students. Title
I funds, as appropriated through the ESEA, are a specific example of categorical dollars
designed for a specific group of students. Title I money is allocated for use with students
who are considered high poverty, hence high risk (Roza, 2005). States also allocate
categorical funds (Duncombe & Yinger, 2010). These funds can help school districts
offset the budget, but they are designed to be used for specific programs that supplement
the education system, not supplant existing dollars. Another example of the federal
government allocating money to support the states is the one-time AARA money that was
distributed in conjunction with the Federal Jobs Bill in 2008-10 (Mead et al, 2010).
These are examples of how states have been forced to determine how their education
system would receive educational funds. California’s landmark lawsuits and ballot
initiatives over the last 40 years have driven educational funding to its current status.
Practical Resource Reallocation Strategies
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1998) studied the practices of five different high
performing schools to determine what they did in order to reallocate resources based on
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 61

their individual instructional goals and strategies. Their research identified the following
practices to be common in the typical schools:
• Specialized programs conducted as add-ons - 58% of new dollars devoted to
education were being spent on specialized programs and not infused into the
regular classrooms.
• Isolated instruction-free time for teachers - student free time did not equate to
a substantial amount of time for collaboration with others.
• Formula-driven student assignments - students are assigned to classes or
programs based on staffing formulas.
• Fragmented high school schedules and curriculum- teachers maintain short
teaching periods (45 to 50 minutes) with 25-30 students meaning teachers had
less contact with a higher number of students.
• Large high schools - High schools are typically around 2000 students when
research suggests schools above 800 students do not achieve as well smaller
schools.
• Inflexible teacher workday and job definition - teacher contract language
makes it difficult to be creative with flexible starting times and utilize staff to
best meet the needs of the students.
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1998) identified six principles of resource reallocation in
the study schools that allowed them to make changes to the conditions listed above.
These strategies include:
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 62

• Reduction in specialized programs to provide more individual time in
heterogeneous groups.
• More flexible student grouping.
• Structures that create more personalized environments.
• Longer and varied blocks of instructional time.
• More common planning time for staff.
• Creative definition of staff roles and work schedules.
All five schools Miles and Darling-Hammond (1998) studied made the first five
changes listed above. Three of the schools were alternative model high schools, and they
also found ways to collaboratively define staff roles and work schedules. The changes
the schools made were the result of reallocating staffing resources. This included
limiting specialized programs and increasing the class sizes of regular classes in order to
free up staffing for work with small groups in support roles. All changes began by
constructing a new instructional vision for the school. Without an instructional vision,
the researchers cautioned that the barriers of state, district, and union practices can
prevent change from taking place. All of the schools had an underlying instructional
design which made the changes relevant to the desired outcomes of being a high-
performing school (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998).
With the funding changes that have taken place in education, staffing has also
changed. Spending on new staffing appears on the surface to have gone towards new
teachers, but, in reality, it has gone to teachers teaching outside of the core subjects and
to other certificated employees who do not provide instruction to students. Odden and
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 63

Picus (2006) note that, in the latter half of the 20
th
century, the percentage of regular
classroom teachers dropped by nearly 33%. Although this number is accurate, the pupil
to teacher ratio is misrepresented because individuals classified as teachers do not always
have teaching assignments. Examples of this may include counselors, psychologists, and
nurses as well as other certificated support staff who are identified in the full time
equivalent (FTE) staff allocation. They also identified how expenditures changed with
three major uses for new dollars expended within instruction. These were modest
expenditures for class size reduction (CSR), modest increases to teacher salaries, and
substantial increases to instructional aides. The increase in instructional aides has grown
from nearly zero in 1960 to the current allocation. Another shift the authors note is a
large increase in spending coming in the form of teachers who teach outside of the core
classes. Close to 50% or more of high school teachers provide instruction in non-core
classes. Odden and Picus (2006) refer to core classes as being mathematics, science,
reading-English language arts, history, and foreign language. The increased investments
have been made to non-core classes as opposed to core subjects. Changes in the use of
educational resources over time include large portions of real dollar increases used to add
staff (non-core, lower class size, and expand other educational resources), more teaching
staff used to expand special education during the 1980s disproportionate to other
increases, and increases in teacher salaries. This has caused the dilemma of determining
whether small amounts of improvement in student achievement despite large increases in
spending have been valuable (Odden & Picus, 2006).

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 64

The Shift from Equity to Adequacy
Baker (2005) conducted research on the history of funding an adequate education
for students. His research determined there may never be a single standard that can be
applied across all states to determine the absolute cost of an adequate education. He
stated that an overall or absolute standard of adequacy of any state’s public educational
system is going to continue to be driven by the legislatures and under the watchful eye of
a court system. Research determined district inefficiencies as being difficult to measure
with accuracy, so this leads to distortions in a cost function analysis. This leaves
adequacy models open to more research to determine plausibility. Baker discussed that
student achievement has been proven to be connected to particular resource allocations.
For example, research suggests that student outcomes tend to be maximized in high
schools with 600-900 students and elementary schools with 300-500 students. Additional
resources are positively associated with student outcomes.
Picus (2004) reviewed the cost of adequate education, showing the four models of
adequacy as being cost function, successful school, professional judgment, and the
Evidence-Based model. All four models link spending to student performance in that the
goal is to provide the adequate level of funding to achieve the prescribed performance
standards. He suggested that, regardless of which approach to adequacy is used, the
likely outcome will be an increase to spending for education and an increase in
accountability for student performance. Policymakers need to run multiple studies before
setting a newfound level of funding for our schools. The Kentucky Supreme Court
decision in Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989) was the first to focus on
adequacy as an issue in education. The federal report, A Nation at Risk, turned what
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 65

began as a lawsuit based on equity into one focused on adequacy. The entire school
system was deemed unconstitutional, and it led to the Kentucky Education Reform Act
and the ongoing research on adequate levels of funding education.
Rebell (2006) recognizes that adequacy studies aim to determine the amount of
funding needed to provide all students with a meaningful opportunity for an adequate
education. Prior to 1990, there were only a handful of adequacy studies. Since 1990,
adequacy studies have been conducted in more than 30 states. Some of the studies have
been ordered by the courts as part of school funding lawsuits, by state legislatures, or
sponsored by other advocacy groups. The adequacy studies have had an impact, as an
increasing number of legislatures have relied on cost studies in formulating funding
policies. The adequacy studies allow for a level of transparency unfamiliar in traditional
funding practices. The adequacy studies developed now attempt to overcome the
deficiencies of the historical foundation approach.
Odden (2003) suggested the focus on educational funding had long been on fiscal
equity, but school finance is shifting toward fiscal adequacy. The shift represents a
change to school finance. The changes are not only to fiscal inputs, but also their
connection to educational programs, teacher compensation, and student achievement.
Teachers will need to know more to be able to accommodate student needs. Salary
structures for teachers will need to change to more directly reward the acquisition and use
of high level of expertise. A new explicit linkage between finance systems and pay
levels, as in performance-based pay structure, is also a function of the changes. States no
longer allow districts to select their own spending levels, so districts must spend at least
at an adequate level. The Evidence-Based model developed by Odden and Picus will
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 66

allow schools to deploy strategies the research has shown to have a statistically
significant impact on student learning. Odden recognized that there is no single approach
to determining adequate spending level that is dominant across the country. Most
adequacy models will require substantial increases in educational funding. The
Evidence-Based model was used as the basis for the 1998 final state Supreme Court
decree in the school finance litigation in New Jersey. A variation of the model was
proposed in Wisconsin. The approach was the basis for a recent recommendation to the
Kentucky State Board of Education. The states of Washington, Arizona, and North
Dakota looked at the Evidence-Based model, and Arizona and North Dakota developed a
spending basis, to an extent, based on the model. Ohio looked seriously at using the
model in 2009 and 2010. Two states, Wyoming and Arkansas, currently use the
Evidence-Based model to fund education.
A critic of using adequacy studies as a method for looking at school funding is
Eric Hanushek. He refers to the studies as being alchemy and not real science because
they do not answer, “What level of funding would be required to achieve a given level of
student performance?” (Rebell, 2007, p.1343). Hanushek does not offer any alternative
scientific methodology to accomplish this task and ignores what Rebell calls the most
critical policy issue at stake: “Do they provide a rational and more equitable approach to
decision making?” (Rebell, 2007, p. 1343)
The research of Odden and Picus (2008) presents a framework for spending as
being likely to have an impact on student achievement. Such a framework would include
30-40% spent on regular classroom teachers, professional development, and a principal.
There would also be 30-40% allocated for specialist subject teachers including extra
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 67

support for struggling students, pupil support, and instructional aides. Finally, 20-30% of
the budget personnel allocation would be for necessary overhead such as the central
office staff, maintenance, and transportation. They discuss the perception of school
principals that their budget is only $30,000-40,000, but this is only the amount the school
controls. If staffing were included, the budget may actually be in the millions. The
ultimate question is whether some of the resources used to fund special programs,
including elective teachers, can be reallocated to core subjects where student achievement
is not sufficiently high.
Baker (2005) identified opportunities for allocation to support student
achievement as coming in different ways including from the fact that the need for
intensity possibly means more teacher contact time and/or smaller class sizes. He
compared cost function to a top-down method of determining what students will receive
for support and contrasted this with the resource cost model as a bottom-up method to
determine what students need. Two specific groups who may benefit from additional
resources are socio-economically disadvantaged and English language learners. Costs of
achieving outcomes with children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds
are between 35 and 100 percent above the average cost of 20-25%. Costs for English
language learners fall around 100% above the average cost.
The Four Methods for Determining Adequate Funding
Successful school district approach. The successful school district approach to
determining adequate funding has been used in a handful of states. The approach focuses
on districts that have been successful in teaching students and helping them meet
standards of achievement and, in the 1990s, was the method most widely used to
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 68

determine adequacy. Using a successful schools approach, districts use their average
expenditures as an estimate of the actual cost of an adequate education and set the level
of funding at the weighted average of per pupil expenditures. It has been used effectively,
but, in high and low wealth and high and low spending districts, they are normally
eliminated from the analysis. This means that, in the districts where this method of
analysis works, the demographics are normally heterogeneous. A significant issue with
this model is that it is difficult to relate rural and urban districts even when making
adjustments for student need and other demographic issues. The model does not account
for what educational strategies improve student performance (Odden, 2003; Rebell,
2006).
Cost function approach. The cost function approach utilizes sophisticated
econometric models which analyze data in private industry in the education context. It is
based on an analysis of expenditure per student that looks specifically at student and
district characteristics as well as the desired performance levels. The result of the
analysis determines an adequate expenditure per student. Given the basis, when looking
at other districts, adjustments for student needs and educational prices are accounted for.
Issues with this model arise when the analysis is completed and ranges in adequate
funding have significantly different levels within the same state. Odden (2003) identifies
discrepancies in Texas ranging from 75% to 158% and, in Wisconsin, from 49% to
460%. This model does not indicate the educational strategies necessary to improve
student performance (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
Professional judgment approach. Rebell, 2007 describes the professional
judgment approach as one that uses a panel of educators to design a program that would
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 69

deliver an adequate education and to identify specific resources needed for success. After
determining a basic prototype, panel members are asked to consider whether resources
should be required for certain groups. The required resources refer to specific needs of
the members of the group. One of the key benefits of the professional judgment model is
that it identifies strategies that will be used to help students achieve the desired
performance outcomes (Odden, 2003).
Evidence-based (expert judgment) approach. Rebell, (2007) defines the
evidence-based approach as a model that uses evidence from literature on effective
school reform models and estimates the cost to achieve adequacy in school funding. A
difference between the evidence-based approach and the professional judgment approach
is that this model uses empirical evidence to determine what is needed. The goal is to
identify specific strategies of best practices that lead to increases in student achievement
(Odden, 2003). Some positive aspects of this approach are that there is simplicity in
understanding, it provides transparency, and it is comprehensive with a full range of
needs and outputs. One of the negatives to the approach is that the validity is undermined
if the research base is inconclusive. The evidence-based approach provides direct
connections between student performance and the resources due to the allocation of
resources based on the model.
Resource Reallocation Using the Evidence-Based model
The goal of this study was to determine what resource reallocation strategies can
be used to best meet the needs of a school district in the midst of devastating budget cuts
and still help students meet the performance standards as identified by the State of
California and the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. Because of this, the
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 70

Evidence- Based model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) was used to compare current
practices of resource allocation by the school district with the allocation
recommendations the Evidence-Based model suggests while still improving student
achievement. The Evidence-Based model provides comprehensive school-level
strategies for the reallocation of human resources to be able to deliver the necessary
strategies to improve student achievement. Figure 2.1 below is a graphic representation
of the Evidence-Based model which identifies all essential layers of student support that
are known to lead to higher levels of student achievement.

Figure 1: The Odden and Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model. Source: Odden & Picus,
2008

Although the Evidence-Based model begins with core recommendations for the
resource allocation that will support student achievement, it also utilizes a team of state
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 71

policy makers, educational leaders, and practitioners to create the model that best suits
their needs (Odden, Goetz, & Picus, 2010). This approach to educational adequacy is
supported by research-based empirical evidence regarding that which yields gains in
student achievement. Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) identify the strategies
implemented in high performing schools as:
1. Full-day kindergarten.
2. Core class size of 15 for grades K-3 and 25 for grades 4-12. Core classes are
defined as regular classroom teacher in elementary school and mathematics,
science, reading/English/writing, history, and world languages in secondary
schools.
3. Specialist teachers to teach art, music, physical education, career and technical
education, and similar courses adequately staffed to cover the full-time day at
the secondary schools.
4. At least one (typically one hour) preparation/planning period for all teachers-
elementary, middle and high school.
5. Pupil support staff, including guidance counselors at the secondary schools
(one FTE per 250 students), nurses, social workers, and family liaisons (one
per every 100 at-risk students).
6. A full-time librarian and principal and two full-time secretaries in the
prototypical elementary (432 students) and middle schools (450 students),
three secretaries in the prototypical high school (600 students) and an
additional library technician and sometimes assistant principal in the
prototypical high school.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 72

7. An ambitious set of professional development resources including one
instructional coach for every 200 students, at least 10 pupil-free days for
professional development which normally means extending the school year
for teachers by five days, $100 per pupil for trainers and other expenses
related to professional development.
8. Supervisory aides to cover recess, lunch, hall monitoring, and bus loading and
unloading.
9. About $180 per pupil for instructional materials, formative assessments, and
supplies; $250 per pupil for technology and equipment; and $250 per pupil for
student activities (sports, clubs, and the like).
10. The sum of $25 per pupil to provide extra strategies for gifted and talented
students.
11. A comprehensive range of extra-help strategies for students who need
additional instructional assistance and extra time to achieve rigorous state
proficiency standards, including the following.
• Resources to provide one-to-one tutoring at the ratio of one teacher tutor
position for every 100 at-risk students.
• Extended-day resources to provide an eight to nine week summer
program, up to six hours per day with academic help at the ratio of one
FTE position for every 30 at-risk students, assuming about 50 percent of
at-risk students would participate.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 73

• Summer school resources to provide up to a six hour-a-day, eight- to
nine-week summer program and academic help for two-thirds of the
time, at the ratio of one FTE position for every 30 at-risk students,
assuming about 50 percent of the at-risk students would need such extra
help and would attend the program. An additional one FTE teacher
position for every 100 English language learners, primarily to provide
instruction in English as a second language. Most of these students are
also at risk and, thus, trigger the first three extra-help resources.
• One FTE teacher for every 150 students to provide services for high
incidence but lower cost students with disabilities (three positions at the
prototypical elementary and middle schools and four positions at the
prototypical high school), with an additional half-time aide full-time
special education staff member. The model also advocates full state
funding of high-cost, special needs students (assuming 2 percent of those
with disabilities are in the high-cost category).
12. Substitute teacher resources at ten days for each teacher and instructional
facilitator position.
13. Central office staff covering the superintendent’s office, business office,
curriculum and pupil support, technology, personnel, and an operations and
maintenance director (configured on a prototypical 3,500-student school
district and then prorated depending on actual district size).
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 74

14. Food services in the model are assumed to be a self-supporting activity; where
such services operate at a loss, the model recommends out-sourcing the
function to a private sector company whose core business is food services.
Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) note that the evidence-based approach to
adequacy has been used in Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming to determine funding levels necessary to provide an adequate education for
students. In Arkansas and Wyoming, the Evidence-Based model has been used by the
legislatures of each state to restructure their education finance system. In 2009, Ohio
enacted the Ohio Evidence Based Model (OEBM) to determine funding for an adequate
education for students (Picus et al, 2010). Utilizing the Evidence-Based model and the
modification to the prototypical schools within the model, Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates was contracted to develop a proposal and used four school districts with
differing demographics to illustrate the cost of funding the OEBM. In order to determine
the necessary level of funding, the Evidence-Based model uses a framework for
prototypical schools. Table.2 below clarifies the breakdown of resources needed to staff
a school based on the Evidence-Based model given a prototypical school.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 75

Table 2
Staffing for a prototypical school using the Evidence-Based Model
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6–8 9–12
Prototypic school size 432 450 600
Class size K-3: 15 25 25
4–5: 25
Full-day kindergarten Yes NA NA
Number of teacher
work days
200 teacher work
days, including 10
days for intensive
training
200 teacher work
days, including 10
days for intensive
training
200 teacher work
days, including 10
days for intensive
training
% disabled 12% 12% 12%
% poverty (free and 50% 50% 50%
reduced-price lunch)
% ELL 10% 10% 10%
% minority 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more:
8.0
3. Instructional
facilitators/mentors
2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.25
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 76

Table 2, continued
5. Teachers for ELL
students
Additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.43
Additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.45
Additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.60
6. Extended-day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer school 1.8 1.875 2.5
8a. Learning and mildly
disabled students
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 4
professional
teacher positions
8b. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds
9. Teachers for gifted
students
$25/student $25/student $25/student
10. Vocational
education
NA NA No extra cost
11. Substitutes 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11
12. Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
1 for every 100
poverty students
plus 1.0
guidance/250
students: 3.25
1 for every 100
poverty students
plus 1.0
guidance/250
students: 5.4
13. Noninstructional
aides
2.0 2.0 3.0
14. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian
1.0 library
technician
15. Principal 1 1 1
16. School site
secretary
2.0 2.0 3.0

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 77

Table 2, continued
17. Professional
development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning and prep
time 10 summer
days Additional:
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning and prep
time 10 summer
days Additional:
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
Included above:
Instructional
coaches Planning
and prep time 10
summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for
other PD
expenses—
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc.
18. Technology $250/pupil $250/pupil $250/pupil
19. Instructional
materials
$140/pupil $140/pupil $175/pupil
20. Student activities $200/pupil $200/pupil $250/pupil
Adapted from: Odden and Picus, 2008
The Gap Analysis
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested organizations need to be goal-driven. They also
found that most performance or work goal systems are not connected to the
organization’s goals. As an organization makes strides to move to the next level, it is
important for it to be focused on goals and the authors recommended goals be designed
as:
• Concrete - clear, easily understandable, and measurable.
• Challenging - doable, but very difficult.
• Current - short-term daily or weekly goals are more motivating than longer-
term monthly or annual goals.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 78

Poor goals are identified in two ways. The first are “stretch goals” which can be difficult
to achieve and, in turn, cause people to lose motivation and stop trying. The second type
of poor goal is “thrashing” goals which are characterized by setting too many goals.
When too many goals are set, people lose the ability to stay focused on a reasonable
number of goals.
Benchmarking goals is a way to set goals based on a target the organization hopes
to achieve. Once an organization completes the benchmarking process, it can set goals to
help achieve desired standards. Clark and Estes recommended setting and analyzing
benchmarked goals by following six steps.
1. List the areas where goals will be set and describe the indicators that will be
used to determine achievement of the goals.
2. Benchmark and quantify one successful organization’s achievements.
3. Quantify your organization’s achievements in the same areas.
4. Compute a gap by determining the difference between your organization’s
achievements and the organization you benchmarked.
5. Determine the benefit of closing the gap.
6. Identify individual and team goals that will close the gap.
A gap analysis is a method of evaluating the difference between current practice
and desired performance goals. As previously discussed, Clark and Estes (2008) provide
the guidelines for goal setting and benchmarking. The importance of setting performance
goals and determining the reasons for performance gaps between current practice and
desired goals of achievement is the purpose of a gap analysis. More specifically, the
purpose of the gap analysis is to determine the human causes behind performance gaps.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 79

Clark and Estes write that there are three specific reasons for human causes in
performance gaps: knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes. A knowledge gap
refers to a person’s not having the knowledge and skills to perform the tasks necessary to
complete a job. Motivational gaps tend to occur when a person lacks the motivation to
work towards a goal or does not have the ability to persist until a goal is achieved.
Organizational barriers are gaps that occur when people suggest there are limitations in
the facilities or processes that limit ability to complete tasks.
Although the gap analysis is written for businesses to use to determine the gap
between their desired goals and actual performance, it works well in education. This
study was designed to compare the resource allocation practices of a school district with a
specific model, the Evidence-Based model, to determine the allocation practices that will
yield an adequate education for all students. The school district was benchmarked on the
Evidence-Based model. The current resource allocation practices of the school district,
when subtracted from the Evidence-Based model, determined the performance gap. The
ultimate goal was to determine how to reallocate resources to meet the Evidence-Based
model’s standards.
Summary
The review of literature in this chapter grounds this study on the reallocation of
resources for a California school district during a fiscal crisis. The review included a
look at school improvement strategies, limited resources and fiscal constraints, allocation
and use of human resources, and the gap analysis. The purpose of this study was to
determine whether reallocation of human resources can be completed during the current
fiscal crisis in California and, at the same time, still improve student achievement when
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 80

compared to state and federal requirements. The Evidence-Based model by Odden and
Picus (2003) was used because it utilizes research-based strategies known to improve
student achievement, and it includes a formula for reallocating resources to meet the
goals of improving student achievement. The following chapter summarizes the
methodology used in this study.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 81

Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the current study, which was conducted
within the Forest Unified School District (FUSD) to analyze the use of school resources
during fiscally difficult times. FUSD is a suburban K-12 school district located in
Southern California. The study looked specifically at the actual use of resources for
staffing and compared them to district leadership’s desired staffing ratios and also to the
Evidence-Based model (Picus et al, 2008). The Evidence-Based model helped assess the
potential reallocation of resources to strategies that research suggests can increase student
achievement. The State of California continues to function in a fiscal crisis, and this
study aimed to consider how the district can reallocate resources in order to maximize
student achievement, as measured by the California Standards Test, despite financial
difficulties.
The research on adequacy models for funding education remains mixed.
Although a model such as the Evidence-Based model has shown a degree of success in
some locations, the expenses associated with funding the model remain an issue for many
school districts. Few California school districts are funded adequately to implement the
model as it is designed. This leads to questions regarding the utility of studying the
Evidence-Based model in a district that cannot fund it. Comparing the model to actual
and ideal staffing allocations may identify potential reallocation of resources that will
lead to improved student achievement despite financial limitations, which is the purpose
of the study.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 82

This qualitative study employed formative evaluation research methods to gather
detailed information about the current allocation of human resources for the purpose of
improving the policies employed for staffing allocations (Patton, 2002). Forest USD may
be able to utilize the findings from this research for purposes seen fit by leadership and
decision makers within the organization. The study provides analysis of actual versus
ideal resource allocation and compares both of these to the Evidence-Based model with
the ultimate goal of improving student achievement.
The study used four research questions to evaluate what the district is currently
doing to allocate resources compared to what district leadership says is desired and what
the research suggests should be used as a model for resource allocation.
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the district and its schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies
that research suggests improve student achievement?
Sample and Population
The sampling used in this study was critical case sampling. The reason for
selecting critical case sampling is that it is likely that, if this district is having problems
with the allocation of resources, other districts are also having similar issues (Patton,
2002). Studying one district provides insight into the role district leadership plays in the
success of schools. Forest USD was selected because of recent academic achievement
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 83

towards meeting Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) goals as a district and at the schools within the district. Over the five years prior
to this study, the district as a whole exited Program Improvement (PI). At the time of this
study, one middle school remained in PI despite improvement in all tested academic
areas. Forest USD is the only large school district (over 10,000 ADA) in the state to have
met AYP targets in 2011. Student achievement continued to exceed API and AYP
targets despite the district realizing budget concerns similar to those of many other
districts in the state. Stratified purposeful sampling was used to gather data through
interviews with the Superintendent of Schools and Assistant Superintendents of Fiscal,
Personnel, and Instructional Support Services. Evaluation of Governing Board meetings
through observations was used to determine whether the financial decisions made were
consistent with the goals of increasing student achievement.
Forest USD serves a diverse student population in its schools. The district is
comprised of 14 elementary schools, of which two are K-8, four middle schools, three
comprehensive high schools, and one alternative continuation high school. The total
enrollment is 22,065 students (Ed-Data, 2011). The student population is 52% Hispanic
or Latino, 35% White, 6% Black, 3% Filipino, 2% Asian, 1% Native American or Alaska
Native, and 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Fifty-four percent of the students
participate in the Free or Reduced Price Lunch Program, 14% of the population is
classified as English Learners, and 14% of the population is identified as Students with
Disabilities (CDE, 2011). Table 3 presents the Academic Performance Index for Forest
USD for the school years 2009 through 2012.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 84

Table 3
Forest Unified School District Academic Performance Index Scores 2009-2012
School 2009
API
Score
2009
API
Growth
2010
API
Score
2010
API
Growth
2011
API
Score
2011
API
Growth
2012
API
Score
2012
API
Growth
Elementary Schools
Calla Lily
ES
843 17 894 51 885 -9 892 7
Day Lily
ES
841 7 879 38 845 -34 867 22
Eucalyptus
ES
864 41 918 54 876 -42 879 3
Evergreen
ES
817 11 833 16 788 -45 794 6
Lantana ES N/A N/A N/A N/A 752 N/A 738 -14
Lemon ES 869 14 900 31 869 -31 872 3
Marigold
ES
810 38 816 6 778 -38 788 10
Red Fern
ES
820 33 864 44 803 -61 821 18
Red Plum
ES
879 22 884 5 892 8 887 -5
Rose ES 838 17 885 47 847 -38 867 20
Tulip ES 938 47 948 10 919 -29 914 -5
Watsonia
ES
822 9 862 40 834 -28 821 -13
Weeping
ES
826 17 860 34 816 -44 839 23
Willow ES 861 6 899 38 847 -52 847 0

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 85

Table3, continued
Middle Schools
Citrus MS 821 56 833 12 794 -39 814 20
Dogwood
MS
780 37 828 48 783 -45 787 4
Eggplant
MS
778 23 779 1 776 -3 783 7
Thyme MS 840 44 845 5 799 -46 802 3
High Schools
Encilia HS 759 744 781 22 760 -21 760 0
Laurel HS 719 14 790 71 751 -39 763 12
Tipuana HS 761 -1 782 21 749 -33 761 12
Alternative High Schools
Opuntia HS 599 -39 739 140 628 -111 641 13
California Department of Education, 2012
Table 4 presents the Annual Yearly Progress and Program Improvement status for
all schools in Forest USD for the school years 2009 through 2012.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 86

Table 4
Forest Unified School District Annual Yearly Progress 2009-2012
School 2009
AYP
%
ELA
2009
AYP
%
Math
2010
AYP
%
ELA
2010
AYP
%
Math
2011
AYP
%
ELA
2011
AYP
%
Math
2012
AYP
%
ELA
2012
AYP
%
Math
PI
Status
Elementary Schools
Calla Lily 63 63 74 79 79 82 75 80 No
Day Lily 59 67 66 77 71 84 67 76 No
Eucalyptus 64 79 79 88 82 83 67 78 No
Evergreen 51 62 52 68 74 73 53 57 No
Lantana N/A N/A N/A N/A 64 58 44 41 No
Lemon 72 71 77 77 84 82 74 69 No
Marigold 52 56 57 55 64 73 46 59 No
Red Fern 53 64 62 75 65 83 56 63 No
Red Plum 72 80 71 75 83 86 73 79 No
Rose 64 65 75 76 77 85 70 76 No
Tulip 85 88 90 90 94 92 81 83 No
Watsonia 58 65 63 80 76 80 53 69 No
Weeping 60 59 63 69 74 81 64 68 No
Willow 67 75 76 81 77 89 64 73 No
Middle Schools
Citrus 59 50 59 54 77 64 65 53 No
Dogwood 56 41 69 57 71 60 57 50 No
Eggplant 49 35 58 40 67 57 55 46 Yes
Thyme 59 64 65 68 59 72 57 56 No
High Schools
Encilia 58 55 55 48 74 63 55 53 No
Laurel 48 48 56 56 64 62 50 57 No
Tipuana 58 66 60 66 65 59 56 63 No
Alternative High Schools
Opuntia 14 18 15 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A No
California Department of Education, 2012
Issues with sampling were present due to the limitations based on the selectivity
of the people sampled for interviews or observations. This refers specifically to the
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 87

leadership of the school district who were interviewed. There were also limitations in the
observations of the Governing Board in public meetings as well as in the documents
sampled to determine whether the decisions the district leaders make are consistent with
decisions that improve student achievement.
Instrumentation
This study involved document analysis, interviews, and observations as the means
of instrumentation. The documents analyzed included district budgets, the organizational
strategic plan, and the formulas used for allocating human resources. Interviews were
conducted with the Superintendent of Schools, the Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal
Support Services, the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Support Services, and the
Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Support Services. Observations were conducted
of meetings of the Governing Board and the Superintendent’s Cabinet. Comparisons of
resource allocation with the stated goals and objectives of the district were made through
analysis of the documents used by the district, interviews of key decision makers, and
observation of the decision making process of the district leadership.
Data Collection
The researcher participated in a training conducted by Lawrence O. Picus
pertaining to the strategic budgeting tool used as the model for data input (Evidence-
Based model). Through the interviews with the Assistant Superintendents of Fiscal and
Personnel Support Services, exact allocations of human resources were received and, in
turn, input into the Excel spreadsheet that was the strategic budgeting tool. Student data
input into the strategic budgeting tool included enrollment per school by grade level, the
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 88

number of students identified as English Learners, Special Education, and those receiving
Free and Reduced Price Lunch.
Interviews and observations completed the methods for data collection.
Interviews were conducted individually with the Superintendent of Schools and the
Assistant Superintendents of Fiscal, Personnel, and Instructional Support Services.
Interviews were scheduled to last one hour in length and were recorded electronically as
well as through written notes. Observations were conducted of two Governing Board
meetings wherein written notes were taken and agendas and minutes were analyzed.
Attendance in two Superintendent’s Cabinet meetings occurred in order to observe how
this particular body of decision makers for the district actually makes decisions.
Governing Board meetings and Superintendent’s Cabinet meetings were selected based
on the inclusion of personnel allocation and related budgetary items to the extent
possible.
Data Analysis
The analysis of data for this study occurred immediately following each interview
and observation. Analysis also occurred following the input of data into the strategic
budgeting tool. As the data were generated, a gap analysis was established (Clark and
Estes, 2008). The focus of the gap analysis was to specifically address differences that
exist between the research questions of this study and the human resource allocation
practices incorporated by district leadership. Determining the reasons for the gaps
between current practice and the Evidence-Based model allow for analysis regarding
whether reallocation of resources may be reasonable and possible. The gaps that exist
between current practice and the Evidence-Based model may be directly related to
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 89

knowledge and skills when there is an opportunity to reallocate monies with respect to
personnel decisions. Analysis of the data may assist in determining whether the gaps that
exist can be overcome by reallocation of resources for the purpose of improving student
achievement.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 90

Chapter Four: Findings
Introduction
This study evaluated the allocation of human resources in the Forest Unified
School District. This chapter provides an overview of the study district, the findings of
the research, and recommendations based on the findings. Four research questions were
used to guide the study:
1. What research based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the study district and its schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Several strategies were used to answer the research questions. The first was to
identify research-based strategies that have been shown to lead to the improvement of
student achievement. Following the identification of the research, district data was
evaluated and interviews with district administrators were conducted to determine what
the study district did, at the time of this study, in terms of the allocation of human
resources. This resulted in the identification of gaps in the way the district currently
allocated human resources when compared to best practice as suggested by the research.
A brief overview of the district is followed by responses to the four research questions.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 91

Overview of the District
The Forest Unified School District (FUSD) was considered a large school district
in California because it served, at the time of this study, more than 10,000 students.
Located in southern California, FUSD and, at the time of this study, served three cities
and a portion of its county. With approximately 21,000 students and nearly 2,500
employees, FUSD was the single largest employer in all of these cities. The district was
comprised of a diverse population with multiple cultures and ethnicities and a vast range
of socio-economic levels. Table 4 identifies the school populations and some general
demographic information of the student population of each school: 14 elementary schools
including two K-8 schools, four middle schools, three high schools, and one continuation
high school.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 92

Table 5
Forest Unified School District Student Demographics
School
Name
Grades
Served
Enrollment English
Learners
English
Language
Learners
%
Special
Education
Special
Education
%
Socio-
Economically
Disadvantaged
Socio-
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
Calla Lilly K-5
879 52 5.9 22 2.5 291 33.1
Day Lily K-5
575 113 19.7 16 2.8 334 58.1
Eucalyptus K-5
838 176 21.0 25 3.0 468 55.8
Evergreen K-5
527 255 48.4 16 3.0 489 92.8
Lantana K-8
1,087 364 33.5 44 4.0 590 54.3
Lemon K-8
855 72 8.4 8 0.9 530 62.0
Marigold K-5
689 303 44.0 26 3.8 602 87.4
Red Fern K-5
584 207 35.4 29 5.0 443 75.9
Red Plum K-5
898 123 13.7 17 1.9 460 51.2
Rose K-5
730 73 10.0 17 2.3 306 41.9
Tulip K-5
734 46 6.3 0 0.0 225 30.7
Watsonia K-5
758 186 24.5 14 1.8 538 71.0
Weeping K-5
721 196 27.2 28 3.9 482 66.9
Willow K-5
605 146 24.1 32 5.3 436 72.1
Citrus 6-8
1,147 39 3.4 61 5.3 536 46.7
Dogwood 6-8
954 43 4.5 47 4.9 580 60.8
Eggplant 6-8
709 75 10.6 37 5.2 573 80.8
Thyme 6-8
1,299 95 7.3 43 3.3 889 68.4
Encilia 9-12
2,152 135 6.3 115 5.3 1,139 52.9
Laurel 9-12
1,813 158 8.7 78 4.3 1,271 70.1
Tipuana 9-12
1,923 77 4.0 61 3.2 888 46.2
Opuntia 9-12
203 39 19.2 25 12.3 114 56.2
District
Total
K-12
20,680 2,973 14.0 573 3.0 12,184 59.0

The district received Title I funding to support students considered to be at-risk in
terms of academic achievement. Due to receiving these federal resources, it was required
to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standards as determined by the State of
California. Due to inadequate percentages of students meeting proficiency standards on
the California Standards Test in each of the subgroups within the district, FUSD entered
Program Improvement beginning in the 2004-05 school year. Despite four years in
Program Improvement, in 2008 FUSD became the only school district in the county to
exit Program Improvement by meeting all minimum requirements for Adequate Yearly
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 93

Progress in two consecutive years. By 2009, all schools in the district, with the exception
of one middle school, had exited Program Improvement, and this was still the case at the
time this study was conducted. Table 5 identifies the student performance on the
California Standards Test by school for the previous four years. The table shows the
percentage of students by school who met the standard of achieving proficient or
advanced on the annual assessment.
Table 5
Forest Unified School District Four-year AYP Statistics and Growth
School 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 Year
Change
4 Year
Change
Forest Unified 58.4 64.2 70.5 61.3 -9.2 5.1
Cala Lily 63.2 79.5 84.5 79.5 -5.0 14.5
Day Lily 67.2 77.7 83.7 75.8 -7.9 7.3
Eucalyptus 77.6 88.0 93.2 77.9 -15.3 7.3
Evergreen 62.7 68.4 73.1 57.4 -15.7 -3.8
Lantana N/A N/A 58.1 41.0 -17.1 N/A
Lemon 71.5 77.5 82.9 69.2 -13.7 0.7
Marigold 56.3 55.2 73.1 59.3 -13.8 3.0
Red Fern 63.9 75.7 83.6 63.1 -20.5 6.2
Red Plum 80.5 75.6 86.5 79.3 -7.2 5.7
Rose 65.9 76.3 85.8 75.5 -10.3 17.3
Tulip 88.9 90.5 92.3 83.1 -9.2 4.4
Watsonia 65.4 80.0 88.4 68.6 -19.8 2.6
Weeping 59.9 69.7 81.0 67.9 -13.1 3.6
Willow 75.9 81.0 89.2 73.4 -15.8 -2.2
Citrus 53.1 62.2 63.9 52.5 -11.4 12.3
Dogwood 40.8 57.6 60.1 50.1 -10.0 12.2
Eggplant 40.3 42.2 57.2 46.4 -10.8 9.9
Thyme 64.7 68.9 72.8 56.2 -16.6 -1.6
Encilia 55.6 48.6 63.5 53.2 -10.3 -1.1
Laurel 47.9 56.2 62.1 56.7 -5.4 9.1
Tipuana 66.6 66.8 59.2 62.7 3.5 -1.8
Opuntia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 94

Table 6 below shows the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in
the district over the last four school years. The API, at the time of this study, was the
measure used by the State of California to determine whether schools progressed towards
continued academic achievement by students. The API is a reflection of student
academic achievement, but was reported separately from the federal AYP. The schools
of FUSD consistently demonstrated growth in API through 2011. In 2012, the State of
California changed the method for determining whether a student was considered mobile,
or transient. With this change came a significant change to FUSD API scores.
According to the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Support Services, this was a
one-time bubble that reflects a change in reporting student mobility that would not
happen again unless the method used to report changed again.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 95

Table 6
Forest Unified School District four year API growth
School 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 Year
Change
4 Year
Change
Forest Unified 790 814 791 798 7 8
Cala Lily 843 894 885 893 8 50
Day Lily 841 879 845 866 21 25
Eucalyptus 864 918 876 879 3 15
Evergreen 817 833 788 794 6 -23
Lantana N/A N/A 752 738 -14 N/A
Lemon 869 900 869 873 4 0
Marigold 810 816 778 789 11 -21
Red Fern 820 864 803 821 18 1
Red Plum 879 884 892 887 -5 8
Rose 838 885 847 866 19 28
Tulip 938 948 919 914 -5 -24
Watsonia 822 862 834 821 -13 -1
Weeping 826 860 816 839 23 13
Willow 861 899 847 847 0 -14
Citrus 831 833 794 814 20 -17
Dogwood 780 828 783 787 4 7
Eggplant 786 779 776 781 5 -5
Thyme 840 845 799 803 4 -37
Encilia 759 781 760 761 1 2
Laurel 719 790 751 762 11 43
Tipuana 761 785 749 759 10 -2
Opuntia 599 739 628 612 -16 13

FUSD showed success in improving student achievement while adjusting to
increasing fiscal constraints levied by the State of California. The district as a whole
showed positive growth in student achievement over the previous four years. Of the 22
schools in the district, 15 also showed positive growth during the same time period. The
financial difficulties of the state continued to trouble school districts and the need to
reallocate resources may be one specific method to help continue to improve student
achievement in spite of the fiscal limitations (Ed Source, 2010). Exiting Program
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 96

Improvement removes specific mandates a school must follow, so self-imposed decisions
regarding how to continue to improve academic performance become the centerpiece of a
school district’s leaders (Ed Source, 2005). A change in the district Superintendent of
Schools beginning with the 2012-13 school year generated alternative opportunities for
the district’s management. The new Superintendent implemented changes in the
organizational structure and management of the district, but all student testing data
collected for this study was consistent with the prior leadership of the district. The first
research question addresses the leadership, professional development, and professional
learning communities’ approaches currently implemented in FUSD.
What Research-based Human Resource Allocation Strategies Improve Student
Achievement?
Current leadership structure and practice. The FUSD Governing Board
adopted a strategic plan centered on the Organizational Core Value, “Students are the
highest priority in all we do” (Forest Unified School District, 2012). Without a
traditional model of an identified vision, mission, and goals for the district, the strategic
plan supported similar concepts (Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Schmoker, 2004). The
district’s strategic plan was designed with a mission statement and a number of identified
values statements designed to help achieve the mission. The mission statement reads,
“Through a shared commitment with our community, we ensure rigorous, relevant, and
globally competitive opportunities for each student in a supportive learning environment
(Forest Unified School District, 2012). Without a clearly written vision statement, the
mission of the district served as both a vision and mission statement (Hallinger & Heck,
2002). Statements regarding what the district did to help ensure students have
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 97

opportunities to achieve the mission of the district served as the goals that support and led
to meeting the mission statement.
The strategic plan did not specifically address the leadership style of the district
administration, but it lent itself to distributive leadership. Distributive leadership was
practiced from the Governing Board down to school site administration for much of the
decision making. A change in the Superintendent created more opportunities for district
level and site administrators to make decisions based on situational leadership. Per the
current Superintendent, the goal was to build capacity in others so they could be
confident in making decisions that directly affect them, their staff, and the students they
served. The Governing Board provided oversight of the Superintendent and the district,
but left the day-to-day leadership of the district to the Superintendent’s judgment
regarding the best decisions. The Superintendent had an advisory group, known as
Cabinet, made up of assistant superintendents and executive directors. In the past, this
group had been the key filter for all major decisions made for the district’s students and
employees and a common decision-making body for minor decisions.
In addition to the Superintendent’s Cabinet, various advisory committees were in
place to assist in the process of decision making. One example of this is the use of a
districtwide curriculum advisory committee for changes and modifications to the
curricular program of the district. The committee was advisory only and did not hold the
authority to actually enforce or make changes. There had also been a District Budget
Committee during two of the four years prior to this study to help find strategies to make
fiscal cuts to the district budget with fairness to all employee groups. This group was
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 98

also advisory only, but the recommendations of the group were ultimately taken to the
Governing Board for final decisions.
District office administrators, who oversaw specific programs, allowed site
administrators to make decisions for their schools whenever practicable. Situational
leadership opportunities arose daily at school sites and the daily operation of the school
was left to the principal’s discretion. Site administrators, in turn, worked closely with
their leadership teams to do what was in the best interest of the students at their schools.
Examples of this included the use of supplemental instructional materials and technology
purchases to assist with instruction. The use of categorical funds and the limited general
fund budget was typically left to the site administrators to determine as long as the
expenses met qualifications outlined by the use of particular monies. Despite the practice
of distributive and shared leadership often being the norm, not all decisions were left to a
decentralized decision making process. This was the case specifically with respect to
personnel decisions.
Personnel decisions tended to be one district practice that demonstrated a
centralized approach to decision making. Human resources were allocated consistently
with the certificated employee contract for class size or caseload for special education
faculty. Nearly all classified employee positions were allocated with the same number of
personnel at all schools within the grade level regardless of the number of students. This
amounted to personnel distribution being equal, or similar, rather than equitable, or what
was needed. The decision to follow the collective bargaining agreements was an
expected practice, but staffing schools equally rather than equitably left the district
practice open to questions.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 99

As an organization, FUSD relied on the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel
Support Services to determine the necessary staffing from one year to the next. The
staffing for certificated employees, specifically teachers and guidance counselors, was
driven by the number of students enrolled in each school. Working together with the
Fiscal Support Services division to project student enrollment by grade level, each spring,
the enrollment projections were used to guide the staffing for some certificated
employees. This was not the case for all certificated employees and all classified
employees. Certificated employees such as nurses, psychologists and administrators
were typically staffed at the same number per site regardless of the number of students.
Classified employees such as secretaries and other clerical staff were also allocated at the
same number per site without considering the number of students at the school. Although
there were different numbers of positions allocated based on the school level’s being
elementary, middle, or high school, within each school level, the staffing remained
consistent. Restrictions on hiring additional staff members occurred because schools had
a limited amount of discretionary funds in order to be able to add staff. Schools with
significant categorical funds were given limited authority to hire staff, with Personnel
Support Services overseeing all hiring decisions.
The current practice of professional development. The district did not have a
defined professional development department. Through the Instructional Support
Services division, trainings happened for teachers and administrators as they became
necessary. When a new textbook adoption took place, the publisher was brought in to
conduct training for teachers and administrators. Similarly, when a new program was
purchased for use with students, the training was typically offered by the publisher or
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 100

vendor as a service that came with the purchase and implementation of the program.
These strategies for providing professional development were common for school
districts when working with outside vendors.
Site administrators had the ability to request specific professional development for
their staff by utilizing the members of the Instructional Support Services division. With
one assistant superintendent, two directors, and two additional administrators involved
with instructional technology and data and assessment, principals could request specific
trainings for their staff based on a particular need. There is no formal process for this, as
it was based on individual school need. The type of professional development most
commonly requested by principals was for evaluation of assessment data, which was
typically provided by the coordinator of data and assessment. The coordinator provided
all of the necessary data and materials for the training by virtue of downloading
information via Data Quest on the California Department of Education website or by
looking on the website of the company the district contracted with for housing all
assessment data, Educator’s Assessment Data Management System (EADMS). Data for
annual assessments such as the CSTs and the district’s benchmark assessments were both
available utilizing the EADMS program and teachers received updated training on
utilizing all of the data maintained on the website.
When the district entered Program Improvement, all school site administrators
were required to participate in AB 430, the State of California’s Administrator Training
Program (California Department of Education, 2012). Administrators found two benefits
included in the training. First, the administrators received valuable content associated
with being a site administrator. Second, the administrators had the opportunity to clear
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 101

the second tier of their administrative credential if they completed certain practicum
requirements within two years of their final training. This program was designed to assist
administrators in three specific modules. The first module was training in the district’s
adopted language arts and mathematics curricula. The second module was in overall
management including brief overviews on finance, personnel, and English language
learners. Finally, the third module provided support in learning how to integrate
technology into the instructional model of the school. AB 430 training was no longer
required as a condition of being in Program Improvement once the district exited
Program Improvement. However, the district still required site administrators complete
the training due to the perceived benefits associated with learning the content included in
the three modules.
Professional development for use with new technology was provided on an as-
needed basis as well. Either the director of instructional technology, or one of the two
technology teachers on special assignment (TOSA), provided this training for principals
and teachers. With the increased use of technology devices such as iPads, and iPods in
the classroom, the technology TOSAs provided support in learning how best to integrate
these with regular classroom instruction. Like other professional development, this came
on a requested basis rather than being built in to the purchase of the equipment.
There were a total of eight teachers on special assignment (TOSAs) who served
school sites on an as-needed basis. In addition to the two technology TOSAs, there were
six others who served school sites in the core academic areas and English Language
Development (ELD). The TOSAs went to schools for a short period of time and
primarily worked to directly support students. Their work on site was limited to a
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 102

maximum of four to six weeks and was typically organized by the principal to help
students receive a boost in additional small group pull-out instruction in addition to their
regular core academics. This supplemental instruction happened during the school day
and replaced non-core academic instructional time for the students. The TOSAs were
also used by the Instructional Support Services division to assist with professional
development for teachers and administrators when they held the expertise in the
particular area. One consistent area of professional development for teachers and para-
educators (instructional aides) that was provided by the district office staff was for those
who taught or supported English Language Learners (ELLs). Monthly meetings for
English Language Development (ELD) teachers and para-educators took place and
provided support for improving instructional techniques.
The Director of Special Education provided weekly training for para-educators
who worked as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) tutors for students with Autism. A
team of speech pathologists and psychologists conducted this training on minimum days.
They worked together to improve the techniques associated with assisting students who
had difficulty with verbal communication. This was the only consistent and ongoing
professional development that was hosted by the district office that took place this
frequently, regardless of the audience.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) and Peer Assistance Review
(PAR) were run through Personnel Support Services. BTSA provided ongoing support
for new teachers, as they are paired with an experienced teacher to help them learn how
to navigate the new profession. Particular strategies emphasized included planning
lessons, time management, classroom management, and balancing life with the new
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 103

profession. BTSA participants had the opportunity to maintain these relationships for the
first two years of their time in the district, as all teachers new to the profession were
expected to fully participate. PAR was designed to provide support in teaching and/or
classroom management strategies for experienced teachers. PAR was utilized when a
principal determined there was concern for a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom, and
the purpose was to help improve rather than move towards punitive measures such as
dismissal. PAR was intended to assist teachers and help them remove barriers inhibited
more effective teaching. PAR was voluntary, but expected if a principal referred a
teacher to the program. Fewer than 10 teachers had been involved in PAR over five
years prior to this study.
New principals were offered support by a principal coach provided by the County
Office of Education. The principal coach worked directly with the principal to assist in
the transition of leading a school for the first time. The relationship was based on the
needs of the new principal. The principal was told who his/her coach would be. The
goal was to match principals with coaches who would help meet the needs of the
principal. This professional development operated outside of the school district. Little
guidance was given to the coach by the district. They operated more like independent
contractors, and in isolation, with the principal. There was not an emphasis on the
district’s strategic plan or mission.
Occasionally, a professional development opportunity was offered during the
school year. One example is McREL’s 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities designed by
Robert Marzano (Marzano, 2005). The district offered this training for all administrators,
and then pared it down to site administrators because the content was most appropriate
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 104

for principals. This was offered in 2011, and took place at the district office. Nearly all
principals stayed for the training and completed the multiple day professional
development opportunity. Few district office administrators remained in the training
once it was made optional.
District office administrators typically received professional development outside
of the district in a number of different ways. The County Office of Education hosted job-
alike meetings for many of the director level and above positions. These serve as a
primary source for professional development. There were also other opportunities to
attend workshops and conferences related to the position a person held. Even for a large
school district, this was common because a single school district does not have multiple
persons in the same job description. Going outside for professional development was
common for other districts as well. Each individual division held weekly meetings with
the managers from the division. This served as professional development at times, and,
at other times, the topics discussed were related to the day-to-day management of the
division.
As an administrative team, there were opportunities in the summer for
professional development at the annual administrative retreat and through reading
common books on leadership. At the retreat, activities for the participants were centered
on receiving information rather than actively participating in professional development.
The common readings were an annual activity that normally culminated with group
debriefing during the administrative retreat based on the book that had been read. In
2011, there was also one particular book reading that resulted in a two-day inservice
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 105

training that took place during the school year. This was not the norm for professional
development.
For the six years prior to this study, principals meetings and administrative team
meetings happened monthly. The purpose of the meetings was to distribute information.
This often included the same information at both meetings, so principals, directors, and
assistant superintendents received/presented the same information twice. The
superintendent changed the structure and content of these meetings. His goal was to
make meetings related to professional development rather than information providing.
Principals dictated what topics they wanted on the agenda, and the appropriate director or
assistant superintendent was invited to present on the topic. This was a significant
change from the previous model for both the principals and those who presented on the
topics. Administrative team meetings were not designed under the same model, but they,
too, changed from being an information receiving session to one of professional
development and professional growth.
Until 2011, two days of voluntary professional development was offered for all
certificated staff members, other than management employees, in the days prior to the
start of the school year. Certificated employees who attended this voluntary professional
development were paid their per diem salary to attend. At the two-day event, there was a
menu of classes offered to allow staff members to learn more about any topic offered that
they wanted more information about. The two-day professional development activities
were attended by approximately 20 percent of all who were eligible to attend. Those who
attended received training that might not have been offered at any other time due to the
cost associated with conducting professional development during the school year. The
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 106

professional development days were later placed on hold due to funding issues.
Professional development was primarily the responsibility of the principal to coordinate
on his or her own. The principals determined what was needed at their site and utilized
the experts they already had on staff, the district office personnel with the expertise, or
outside consultants or trainings whenever possible.
The current practice of Professional Learning Communities. From 2004
through 2007, the County Office of Education offered training in Professional Learning
Communities based on the model designed by Rick DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and
Robert Eaker (DuFour et al., 2004). Schools had the opportunity to attend the year-long
training by taking a team of eight teachers and the principal. To fund the cost of
participating in the training, principals used their own site funds, as this was perceived to
be a site decision rather than the direction of the district. During this time period, three of
the 22 schools participated in the training. Two of the three schools entered Program
Improvement status for failing to meet AYP during this time period. They both exited
Program Improvement in 2009 when they did meet AYP. It is unclear whether
participating in professional learning community training was effective. Because some
schools took advantage of the trainings of professional learning communities and found a
positive level of collegiality among their staff, and there was overall interest from all
principals, the district determined training for all schools was a positive next step in
professional development.
In the summer of 2007, the district used Title II Staff Development funds to have
administrators and teachers from every school site trained in Professional Learning
Communities at three-day conferences offered by Solution Tree and Rick DuFour,
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 107

Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker. All sites sent one administrator and four teachers to
the training in either Massachusetts or Tennessee. The goal was to bring the
philosophical basis and other key components back to the school site for the ultimate
implementation of professional learning communities. All schools were represented at
the trainings and were able to bring back information to be distributed to the rest of the
staff. With the training and the ongoing work to develop professional learning
communities in all of the schools districtwide, some schools adopted the practice well
and others had room for growth. Nevertheless, the district made a concerted effort to
assist with the implementation of professional learning communities and the related
activities. Some specific issues with appropriate implementation were the result of the
certificated collective bargaining agreement and the restrictions it placed on requiring
teachers to stay for professional development and collaboration. This issue is discussed
in detail later in this chapter.
School site administrators varied in their knowledge and experience with
professional learning communities. Although nearly all principals attended formal
training on the strategies involved with the collaboration required to function as a
professional learning community, few of the assistant principals at the secondary level
experienced the same training. With assistant principals helping principals supervise
instruction, this gap in training posed concerns with their ability to carry out the goals
associated with professional learning communities. As a consequence of being able to
send only five staff members to the formal training provided by Solution Tree, the
training of the rest of the staff fell on those who were trained. The district had not been
able to provide additional training for others, so the training that took place at the school
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 108

site was what the remaining staff members had to accept as their training. The site level
training was successful at some schools and less successful at others as a result of the
level of experience of those conducting the training.
In 2009, the district negotiated early release days for nearly all Wednesdays
during the school year. The goal of this agreement was to create built-in professional
learning community time in which staff members could work collaboratively analyzing
student achievement data, developing common benchmark assessments, and meeting to
discuss common students on a weekly basis. All secondary schools attempted to build
master schedules with common preparation periods for teachers within a specific subject
area, but this was never guaranteed due to student needs for particular classes and
teachers’ teaching multiple subjects within the day. Although some schools utilized the
time and did well to implement the tenets of professional learning communities, some
schools did not have the same success. Not understanding the concepts of professional
learning communities created some of the difficulties in schools’ embracing the time
allocated to them. Another issue was the collective bargaining agreement and certain
language within it that allowed certificated employees to leave when their professional
responsibilities were complete. The definition of professional responsibilities caused
issues for some principals when they instructed staff members to remain on site for their
professional learning community time. Some staff members, as well as the teachers
union, maintained that, when the students were gone, the teacher’s professional work day
was complete. Although this was an issue for some school sites, it was not an issue for
all of them.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 109

Overall complications with professional development, specifically professional
learning community time, were an ongoing issue between the teachers union and the
district administration. The concepts of appropriate use of professional learning
community time were continuously negotiated since the inception of the common
minimum days in 2009. The district worked within the negotiations of the collective
bargaining agreement to outline clear language regarding the use of professional
development time on minimum days.
The next section reviews the actual allocation of human resources across the
district. Looking at how resources were allocated provides the ability to analyze how
they are utilized in comparison to what research suggests is effective. This in turn,
allows for the evaluation of the differences in the two and a gap analysis that is a result of
these differences.
How are Human Resources Allocated across the Study District and its Schools?
The second research question addresses how FUSD allocated human resources
districtwide. Staff allocations were based on the negotiated language of the collective
bargaining agreements where applicable and the past practice of the district. Teacher
class sizes were based on contract language, but teachers comprised one of the few
groups who had language written into the contract. Counselors and speech pathologists
also had limits to the size of their caseload, but no other certificated employees had this
written into the contract. Classified employees were not staffed with a per pupil ratio in
any of the job classes. This left the decision as to how to staff classified employee
positions largely up to past practice and equality rather than what was needed, or equity.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 110

FUSD allocated human resources for teachers consistently with the district’s
collective bargaining agreement. An exception to this was found in the primary grades.
Kindergarten through third grades were staffed with one teacher per 24 students. This
was not a negotiated agreement, but the district staffed for class size reduction since
1998. Fourth and fifth grades were staffed at 33 students per teacher. All comprehensive
secondary schools were staffed at 38 students per teacher. The alternative high school
did not follow a set class size. All classes at the alternative high school were staffed
significantly below the negotiated agreement of 38 students per teacher. Special
education teachers were assigned no more than 16 students while resource specialists
were assigned a maximum of 28 students. Students who received instruction in an
inclusion model, where they were in class with a general education teacher, counted
toward that particular class size.
Of the other certificated employees at the school site, counselors and speech and
language pathologists were staffed according to the collective bargaining agreement.
Counselors were assigned at a ratio of one counselor for every 550 students at the
secondary level. No counselors were assigned to the elementary schools. Speech and
language pathologists were assigned a maximum of 55 students. School psychologists
and certificated registered nurses were assigned to school sites based on need, but no
formula existed to determine how many were needed. This was a judgment call made by
the directors who oversaw each of these employee groups.
Site administration was staffed the same at all schools within a given level. There
was no staffing formula to determine how many administrators were necessary at a
particular school. All elementary schools had one principal and no assistant principal, K-
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 111

8 and middle schools had one principal and one assistant principal, and comprehensive
high schools had one principal, three assistant principals, and one assistant
principal/athletic director. The assistant principal/athletic director counted in the site
administration total, but spent the majority of his/her day tending to athletics. The
alternative high school was staffed with one principal as the only administrator on site.
Instructional aides were assigned to one of four categories. Schools with a pull-
out English Language Development program had bilingual instructional aides. Schools
with Special Day Classes had two part-time aides or one full-time aide assigned to the
classroom and received an additional part-time aide if the teacher’s class size went above
16 students. Similarly, Resource Specialists also had one full-time aide or two part-time
aides assigned to their classroom. There was a specialized aide position that was the one-
on-one aide assigned to a specific student. One-on-one aides were determined by the
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) of the student and were not automatically built in to
the annual budget because they could be required to begin or end at any point in time.
The district followed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in these
cases. The final instructional aide category was the classroom instructional aides
assigned to the general education population at elementary schools.
Each of the schools had aides who were not assigned to work in the classroom.
At the elementary schools, these non-instructional aides were assigned to supervise recess
and lunch during the school day and before and after school. At the middle and high
school, non-instructional aides were used as campus supervisors and their duties were
similar to that of the elementary aides. They supervised students during break and lunch,
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 112

as well as before and after school. They also assisted in the locker rooms for Physical
Education.
The Instructional Support Services division employed eight Teachers on Special
Assignment (TOSAs). Six TOSAs were assigned to different schools for various periods
of time. A typical assignment lasted four to six weeks, and the TOSA worked directly
with students in a pull-out model for extra support in Language Arts or Math. The goal
was to provide additional support to assist the student in performing closer to grade level
proficiency. After the assignment ended, they moved on to another school to assist in
similar ways. Two additional TOSAs were specifically in place to assist with technology
and their role was more similar to that of a Coach. They provided technology support in
the way of training on the use of specific devices, programs, and applications. They
worked with teachers and administrators rather than with students.
Aside from the TOSAs in the Instructional Support Services division, FUSD did
not have employees at the district office who provided direct support to students. The
remaining members of the district office administrative team did provide support to the
schools in ways directly related to their department or division. Examples of this include
assistance in the management of the school by the site administration with the support of
the district office administrators. For example, Personnel Support Services provided
assistance with the staffing processes and any personnel related issues of staff members;
Fiscal Support Services supported budgetary issues; Instructional Support Services
provided assistance for schools with respect to instruction, instructional materials, and
guidance for appropriate use of categorical funding; Special Education assisted with
providing what was mandated by student Individualized Education Plans and also
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 113

assisted in meetings when the school administration felt the need for support due to
potential legal issues; Child Welfare and Attendance assisted with attendance and
disciplinary issues and also provided training to site administrators in both arenas.
The following section evaluates the gaps that exist in human resource allocation
throughout the district’s schools when compared to what research suggests is effective.
Specific comparisons to the Evidence-Based model were utilized, as the Evidence-Based
model was used in this study for benchmarking actual practice compared to an ideal goal.
Is there A Gap between Current Human Resource Allocation Practices and What
the Research Suggests is Most Effective?
The district allocated teachers and counselors according to the collective
bargaining agreement. Site administrators, other certificated employees and classified
employees were allocated similarly across all schools regardless of the student
population. Because of this practice, FUSD showed gaps in the current practice of
human resource allocation when compared to what research suggests is the most
effective. This section evaluates how FUSD allocated human resources compared
specifically to recommendation made in the Evidence-Based model (EBM) by Allan
Odden and Lawrence Picus (2008).
The Evidence-Based model provides specific staffing ratios identified to improve
student academic achievement. Many of these strategies are supported by other
researchers and studies over the decade prior to this study. The Evidence-Based model
serves as a starting point to determine what the research suggests is effective for
improving student achievement. University of Southern California Rossier School of
Education PhD student David Knight developed a simulation for the Evidence-Based
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 114

model in which data entered into an Excel spreadsheet determine human resource
allocation gaps between actual practice of a school district and the recommendations of
the Evidence-Based Model. The data for FUSD collected for this study was, in turn,
entered into the Excel simulation to identify gaps in human resource allocation. An
analysis of the gaps between current practice and the Evidence-Based model was then
conducted.
Clark and Estes (2008) provided the guidelines for goal setting and benchmarking
with respect to a gap analysis. The Evidence-Based model serves as the goal for staffing
while the current practice of the school district was used to identify the gap between what
was actually being done versus the goal. According to Clark and Estes (2008), here are
three specific reasons for human causes in performance gaps: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational. A knowledge gap refers to a person’s not having the knowledge and
skills to perform the tasks necessary to complete a job. Motivational gaps tend to occur
when a person lacks the motivation to work towards a goal or does not have the ability to
persist until a goal is achieved. Organizational barriers are gaps that occur when people
suggest there are limitations in the facilities or processes to be able to complete tasks.
The district did not have the knowledge to be able to staff schools in a manner consistent
with the Evidence-Based model. The members of the administrative team also faced
organizational barriers that prevented them from being able to implement staffing ratios
consistent with the Evidence-Based model. The organizational barriers stemmed from a
limited budget and the lack of financial resources to fund the Evidence-Based model as
written. The following section identifies the district’s actual staffing ratios at the time of
this study.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 115

Student-teacher ratios. FUSD staffed classrooms consistently with the
negotiated collective bargaining agreement for teachers. Although the district attempted
to maintain some semblance of class-size reduction for K-3 classrooms, it was not
negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement and there were no guarantees of
smaller class sizes. As a general rule, the K-3 classes were loaded to 24 students per
teacher. The actual number of students in K-3 classrooms varied districtwide due to
student mobility. Some schools encountered more student turnover during the course of a
school year than others. Grades four and five were staffed at one teacher per 33 students.
Middle school and high school classes were staffed with a student to teacher ratio of 38:1.
This was the case for all general education academic and elective classes with the
exception of physical education and some specialized elective courses. Physical
Education was staffed at 50 students per teacher, and electives such as Marching Band,
Concert Band, Theatre, and Choir had no set cap on the number of students per class.
The Evidence-Based model recommends class sizes significantly lower than those found
in the district. The Evidence-Based model recommends class sizes for K-3 be set at 15
students per teacher and at 25 students per teacher for grades 4-12. Table 7 shows the
gap between current practice for staffing schools with teachers and the recommendations
of the Evidence-Based model. The negative gap between actual practice and the
Evidence-Based model is significant in every school and for core and specialist teachers
with the sole exception of specialist teachers in middle schools. The overall gap for the
district compared to the Evidence-Based model is 514.4 total teachers, or 56% fewer than
is recommended.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 116

Table 7
Number of Core and Specialist Teachers in FUSD Schools Compared to the EBM
Core Teachers Specialist Teachers
School
Current
Allocation
EBM Difference
Current
Allocation
EBM Difference
Elementary
Cala Lily 34.0 50.7 (16.7) 0.0 10.1 (10.1)
Day Lily 23.0 33.3 (10.3) 0.0 6.7 (6.7)
Eucalyptus 33.0 49.0 (16.0) 0.0 9.8 (9.8)
Evergreen 21.0 31.0 (10.0) 0.0 6.2 (6.2)
Lantana 37.6 55.7 (18.1) 6.0 11.1 (5.1)
Lemon 31.8 45.6 (13.8) 2.0 9.1 (7.1)
Marigold 27.0 40.2 (13.2) 0.0 8.0 (8.0)
Red Fern 23.0 33.8 (10.8) 0.0 6.8 (6.8)
Red Plum 35.0 51.9 (16.9) 0.0 10.4 (10.4)
Rose 30.0 42.6 (12.6) 0.0 8.5 (8.5)
Tulip 28.0 42.8 (14.8) 0.0 8.6 (8.6)
Watsonia 30.0 44.2 (14.2) 0.0 8.8 (8.8)
Weeping 28.0 41.9 (13.9) 0.0 8.4 (8.4)
Willow 23.0 35.5 (12.5) 0.0 7.1 (7.1)
Middle
Citrus 24.4 45.9 (21.5) 10.8 9.2 1.6
Dogwood 20.8 38.2 (17.4) 9.6 7.6 2.0
Eggplant 20.0 28.4 (8.4) 5.8 5.7 0.1
Thyme 29.8 52.0 (22.2) 11.6 10.4 1.2
High
Encilia 40.0 86.1 (46.1) 25.4 28.4 (3.0)
Laurel 46.2 72.5 (26.3) 22.0 23.9 (1.9)
Tipuana 44.0 76.9 (32.9) 19.6 25.4 (5.8)
Alternative
Opuntia 7.4 29.0 (21.6) 3.8 NA NA
District
Totals 626.0 1027.0 (401.0) 116.6 230.0 (113.4)

Professional development. Due to the financial situation in California, FUSD
eliminated all professional development opportunities that previously occurred prior to
the beginning of the school year. These were two optional work days for teachers, and
those who participated were compensated at their per diem salary rate. Professional
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 117

development had largely become the responsibility of the school principal to oversee and
coordinate for teachers. Ongoing staff development provided by site administrators and
teacher leaders could be incorporated into one mandatory staff meeting and one
mandatory department meeting per month. All schools currently had one early release
day per week with the purpose of collaboration time with other teachers. The site
administrators were not permitted to dictate the topic of the collaboration time, nor were
they allowed to mandate teacher participation. Both of these issues were the result of
contract grievances filed by the teachers union. Some schools experienced greater
success with the quality of the collaboration time than others due in part to the
relationship the administrators and teacher leaders had with each other as well as with the
rest of the staff. Although the designated weekly collaboration time at each school site
was to be coordinated collaboratively by teachers and administrators, even if the content
was mutually agreed upon, teachers were not to be mandated to attend. This created
difficulty in providing across-the-board professional development throughout the district.
The Superintendent and his cabinet members discussed the benefit of having districtwide
early release days and whether there was a need to continue the current practice absent
the ability of principals to require teacher participation.
The Superintendent for the district recognized the need for more consistent
professional development opportunities for all employees. He changed the method by
which administrative team meetings were run and the content of the meetings to include
professional growth opportunities for all managers. He eliminated the former style of “sit
and get” informational sessions that had limited interaction. The Superintendent also
altered the way principal meetings occurred to include collaboration and interactive
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 118

trainings separated by elementary and secondary levels. Principals were encouraged to
build the agenda for these monthly meetings, so they had the information they requested
brought to them rather than being provided information regardless of whether it was
wanted or needed. All principals met together, regardless of their school level, to cover
topics that were consistent across all levels.
As a district, mandatory trainings for teachers happened for specific subject area
topics, such as new curriculum. Specifically, training for the Common Core Standards
happened throughout the school year as the district prepared for the upcoming transition
from the California State Standards. These trainings were mandatory and all teachers
were required to attend because the trainings took place during their regular work day.
Consistent with the Evidence-Based model, this type of training and professional
development occurred during the regular school year with substitute teachers provided so
the regular teachers can attend. A significant difference to the Evidence-Based model is
that these professional development days were not added on to the work year of teachers.
The added expense of budgeting 10 extra paid work days for teachers was a significant
addition to the annual budget of the school district and was unlikely given the financial
situation in California. The district modified the number of student days to 175, down
from 180, and eliminated non-student teacher work days in order to meet the budget.
Furlough days were negotiated for each of the four years prior to this study and
eliminating non-student teacher work days had been one of the ways the district and the
teachers union agreed to meet the furlough day need. Table 8 shows the additional
expense associated with adding 10 days to the teacher work year for professional
development.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 119

Table 8
Forest Unified School District Professional Development of Compared to the EBM
Current District
Practice
Contracted
Professional
Development Days
EBM
Recommended
Intensive
Training Days
Difference in
Days
Additional Cost in
Salaries if
Implemented
0 10 10 $3,727,760

Resources for struggling students. Forest Unified School District provided
additional support for struggling students in multiple ways. For English language
learners (ELL), students identified as ELL level 1 or 2, received additional support for
English Language Development (ELD) through classes where they were pulled from the
general population for their elective class, language arts, and social studies. This
amounted to at least half of their instructional day being spent in a sheltered environment
with a smaller group of students. Students who were identified as ELL level 3 typically
attended one period per day with an ELD teacher in a pullout class. Finally, students who
were identified as level 4 or 5 English Language Learners normally maintained a class
schedule similar to students who were not English learners and received support through
teacher practice of using instructional strategies that assist all learners.
Students who faced difficulties in language arts or math often had the opportunity
to take a double-block of the subject they struggled with most. Students normally lost
their elective class in favor of the second period of support for the math or language arts
class. In the secondary schools, this was typically met by virtue of a two period language
arts class in which the curriculum was different than the normal curriculum because it
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 120

was based on actual reading and comprehension levels. For students struggling in math,
there was an Algebra support class taken conjunction with Algebra 1. The Algebra
support class was the only additional math support class available to students.
Some schools used their discretionary funds, or Title I funds to pay teachers to
tutor students before or after school, or to add classes to the schedule for student support.
An example of this support at the secondary school level was a study skills class, offered
in lieu of an elective, where students worked on homework and received additional
academic support from a credentialed teacher. The study skills class was more of an
anomaly than the norm at the schools within the district. Title I funded teachers were
used in a variety of ways throughout the district’s elementary schools. The primary use
of Title I teachers was to take students in small groups at the same academic level and
provide small group instruction to help increase their achievement level.
The one school in Program Improvement was the only school to offer professional
tutoring from an outside agency. This was done through the mandates of No Child Left
Behind for underperforming schools. District Title I funds were used to pay for this
service. Aside from this program, there were no professional tutors employed by the
schools of the district. Adding Coaches and Tutors according to the Evidence-Based
model would require nearly 17 million dollars to fund the positions. Table 9 identifies
actual resources provided for students compared to the Evidence-Based model and the
difference in expenses if these resources were to be provided. It identifies the difference
in expenses given the average total compensation of a teacher of $81,000.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 121

Table 9
Forest Unified School District Current Resources Compared to the EBM
Recommendations
School Current
Resources
(Coaches,
Title I,
ELD)
EBM
Recommended
Resources
(Coaches and
Tutors)
Difference
in position
counts
Difference in
Salaries
Elementary
Cala Lily .57 8 7.43 601,830
Day Lily .57 6 5.43 439,830
Eucalyptus .57 8 7.43 601,830
Evergreen 1.57 8 6.43 520,830
Lantana 1.57 12 10.43 844,830
Lemon .57 10 9.43 763,830
Marigold 1.57 10 8.43 682,830
Red Fern 1.57 7 5.43 439,830
Red Plum .57 10 9.43 763,830
Rose .57 7 6.43 520,830
Tulip .57 6 5.43 439,830
Watsonia .57 9 8.43 682,830
Weeping 1.57 9 7.43 601,830
Willow .57 7 6.43 520,830
Middle
Citrus 1 11 10 810,000
Dogwood 1.6 11 9.4 761,400
Eggplant 2.4 10 7.6 615,600
Thyme 1.4 16 14.6 1,182,600
High
Encilia 1.6 22 20.4 1,652,400
Laurel .8 22 21.2 1,717,200
Tipuana .8 19 18.2 1,474,200
Alternative
Opuntia 0 2 2 162,000
Total 22.6 230 207.4 $16,799,400

Pupil support at the school sites. Additional pupil support at the schools of
FUSD was provided by way of a limited number of community liaisons, guidance
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 122

counselors at the secondary schools, and school nurses. Few schools had the funds
available to provide additional pupil support above what the district allocated.
Community liaisons were not allocated; they were a site decision based on fund
availability. One elementary school and one high school employed a community liaison
and, in each case, the community liaison served in a role of written and oral translation
services for Spanish speaking families. The role of a family liaison was similar to that of
a licensed social worker. The schools of FUSD did not employ anyone in this capacity.
Guidance counselors were allocated to secondary schools at a rate of 550:1 for students
and one high school and one middle school use categorical funds to employ one
additional counselor. The Evidence-Based model recommends guidance counselors be
assigned at a rate of 250:1 for students. Nurses were not allocated using a specific
formula. There were 10 school nurses who covered all 22 schools, and their assignments
adjusted based on specific student needs. The district employed the same number of
nurses for more than a decade regardless of the number of students or schools. When
compared to the Evidence-Based model, FUSD did not staff any of these positions
comparably. Table 10 shows the differences between the Evidence-Based model and the
practice of FUSD in providing these particular pupil support positions.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 123

Table 10
Forest Unified School District Pupil Support Compared to the EBM

Administrative and clerical support at the school sites. FUSD staffed schools
of a similar level the same with respect to administration and clerical support. All
elementary schools had one principal and three secretaries/clerical staff members.
Middle schools and K-8 schools were allocated one assistant principal and one additional
clerk for the office. All high schools had four assistant principals and seven total
secretaries/clerks in the office. Since FUSD staffed all schools similarly, a gap exists
based on the size of the schools alone. All schools were staffed with these support
positions the same as other schools at the same grade level. This automatically created a
disproportionate allocation of resources among schools within the district. When
compared to the Evidence-Based model, the positions beyond the school principal are
understaffed due to the number of students at the larger schools. Student populations at
each of the three levels, elementary, middle, and high varied in size by as many as 470
students. This method of staffing, because it was not controlled by a collective
bargaining agreement such as the teachers’ contract, demonstrates a pattern of equal
School
Level
Family
Liaisons
EBM
Family
Liaisons
Guidance
Counselors
EBM
Guidance
Counselors
Nurses EBM
Nurses
Difference Difference
in Cost
Elementary
0 60 2 42 6.3 14 47.3 3,831,000
Middle
0 26 8 16.5 1.8 5.5 38.2 3,094,200
High
0 33 13 23.5 1.4 7.8 49.9 4,041,900
Alternative
0 1 1 1 .5 0 .5 40,500
Totals
0 120 24 83 10 27.3 135.9 11,007,600
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 124

staffing rather than equitable staffing. Gaps between the Evidence-Based model and
actual staffing procedures are shown in Table 11.
Table 11
Forest Unified School District Current Administrative and Clerical Staffing compared to
the EBM
School Current
Administrators
EBM Difference Current
Clerical
Staff
EBM Difference Total
Difference
in Cost
Elementary 16 30 14 42 47 5 1,929,000
Middle 8 8 0 16 18 2 94,000
High 15 15 0 21 30 9 423,000
Alternative 1 1 0 3 3 0 0
Totals 38 52 14 82 98 16 2,446,000

The school district was limited financially in what it could do for staffing all
positions as the Evidence-Based model recommends. The recommendations of the
Evidence-Based model are ambitious in California given historical and current, at the
time of this study, per-student funding levels. What the Evidence-Based model does
provide is the opportunity to consider trade-offs for the staffed positions. Reallocation of
human resources is one strategy that may be used in order to utilize the budget and
continue to improve student achievement.
Recommendations
How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement? In reviewing the data related to Forest Unified
School District student achievement for the previous four years and the ways in which the
district allocated resources, some specific recommendations may be made with regards to
how human resources may be reallocated in order to continue to improve student
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 125

achievement. The district did well to continuously improve student performance on the
California Standards Test while achieving mandates associated with the federal No Child
Left Behind Act. There was evidence in the Academic Performance Index and the
Adequate Yearly Progress that the district took steps to help students improve
academically. With the annual budget of the district constrained by the fiscal difficulties
of the State of California, opportunities to do more with what is in place present options
that may not have been considered by district officials. Being innovative in reallocating
resources was a key strategy to making positive changes and keeping current employees
employed. This section takes into consideration the potential to reallocate and shift
resources in order to continue to improve student achievement in a district where student
achievement had been demonstrated as a priority. The benefits related to this study are
that all recommendations are inclusive of what was already happening in the district
while maintaining respect for what the district had already been able to achieve in its
recent past. All recommendations take into account the fiscal situation in California and
do not rely on any new monies coming to the district in its foreseeable future.
The Evidence-Based model served as the goal that the FUSD current allocation
model was benchmarked against to determine gaps between the two. When analyzing the
gaps between the system in FUSD and the Evidence-Based model, it became apparent
that the school district could not match all of the recommendations of the model due to
fiscal limitations. Implementing the Evidence-Based model as written (Odden & Picus,
2010) would require new monies totaling nearly 91 million dollars in personnel alone.
This does not take into account the need to add facilities, either new schools or additional
classrooms to accommodate smaller class sizes at all grade levels. With an annual
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 126

operating budget of 154 million dollars, this would require an increase in spending of
59% and, with no new monies available, this cannot be recommended. This created the
opportunity to look at trade-offs to the current budget in order to make changes. The
recommendations look to make changes among staff without terminating employees.
Recommendation one: Increase K-3 class size. The first recommendation is to
increase class sizes in K-3 classrooms to possibly generate additional positions for
professional development and student academic support. Class sizes in all programs
within FUSD were larger than the Evidence-Based model recommends. Increasing class
sizes in grades 4 through 12 should not be considered due to the fact that these numbers
were already high: 33 in grades 4 and 5 and 38 in grades 6 through 12. An increase class
sizes is possible at the primary grade levels of kindergarten through third grade. The
district staffed elementary schools with teachers in K-3 classrooms at a rate of one
teacher for every 24 students. This was how schools were staffed prior to the beginning
of the school year, but some classes can and do go have more than 24 students. This was
not a negotiated agreement with the teacher’s union and classes were permitted to be as
large as 33 students in any K-3 classroom.
Increasing class size in K-3 classrooms from 24 to 27 students would generate a
savings of nearly 2 million dollars to the general fund. As a result of increasing class
size, there would be 30 teaching positions that would need to be reduced. Because
generating the two million dollars was not the goal of reallocating human resources, this
would create an opportunity for the district to make 30 new Teacher on Special
Assignment positions for. These new positions could be opened exclusively to existing
employees during the spring. This would allow the district to avoid reducing any
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 127

teachers from the work force. The TOSAs would work at a single school site, but be
supervised jointly by the Principal of the school and the Director of Professional
Development. The role of the TOSAs would be to be subject matter experts and coaches
for teachers on effective teaching strategies. They would become instructional coaches
who provide follow-up on previous professional development. Research has shown that
85% of teachers who receive ongoing coaching continue to work on the strategies they
learned in trainings while only 15% of teachers who do not receive follow-up coaching
do so (Cornett & Knight, 2008). From this group of 30 new TOSAs, two can be assigned
to each elementary and K-8 school. One TOSA for each school can emphasize language
arts skills and one can emphasize mathematics skills and provide appropriate staff
development training to the staff. They would be assigned full-time to the same school
for the entire year, so they may become the direct support for the principals with respect
to staff development and coaching of all teachers on staff. Teachers who collaborate with
other teachers are more likely to continue to develop the skills that make them more
effective teachers. The same teachers are more likely to seek guidance and support from
teacher colleagues rather than the principal of the school (Leana, 20111). Each TOSA
can split time between training/coaching for teachers and providing direct support for
struggling students. This leaves two TOSAs to be assigned to the secondary schools
serving the same purpose of being subject matter experts in language arts or mathematics.
Recommendation two: Negotiate step and column salary deferral. The second
recommendation is to consider negotiating a step and column salary deferral for all
employees. In a presentation to the FUSD Governing Board, the Assistant Superintendent
of Fiscal Support Services and his team identified a series of potential ways to generate
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 128

additional funds for the district (FUSD Governing Board Meeting, October, 2012). One
of the recommendations for the 2013-14 school year included freezing annual step and
column salary increases for all employees for nine months until the April paycheck. This
would generate nearly 2.4 million dollars in revenue for the district. Although this would
freeze salaries for a portion of the year and creates revenue for the district, it would also
allow employees to still move step and column on the salary schedule before the end of
the school year. This would allow employees to be moved to the next level on the salary
schedule and receive earned raises annually. Building from this concept, the district may
consider doing this for only six months of the school year. If the district were to
negotiate a six month step and column freeze from July through December, it would
generate 1.6 million dollars in revenue that could, in turn, be used to staff all eight
secondary schools with two TOSAs - one language arts specialist and one specialist in
mathematics. Table 12 identifies the manner by which 44 total TOSA positions can be
created without negatively affecting the current teaching population. It also demonstrates
the increase in revenue needed to support 16 of the positions, an additional 15 days added
to the work year of all TOSAs and a Director of Professional Development who would
supervise the TOSAs.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 129

Table 12
Staffing 44 TOSAs using Increase to K-3 CSR and Step and Column Deferral
Number of TOSA
positions generated
using reallocation
of human resources
Amount of
annual revenue
generated
Total positions
Increase CSR
to 27 students
per class
30 0 30 TOSAs
Six month step
and column
salary deferral
0 $1.6 million • 14 TOSAs
• 15 days added to
annual contract of
TOSAs for
training and
planning
• 1 Director of
Professional
Development
Grand Totals 30 $1.6 million 45 positions
• 30 current
teachers
• 14 new positions
• 1 administrator

Combined with the potential increase to class size in K-3 classrooms, all 44
TOSA positions with extended work year calendars of 15 extra days, and a Director of
Professional Development, can be funded using the revenue generated by deferring step
and column salary increases. Salary deferral would need to be negotiated with the
teachers union and approved by the Governing Board. The TOSA positions and the
Director of Professional Development would need to be approved by the Governing
Board and would also need specific job descriptions written and approved by the
Governing Board. The Director of Professional Development would assist the
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 130

Superintendent in continuing his mission of increasing Professional Development for all
of the administrators in the district.
Recommendation three: Reallocate general education instructional aides.
The third recommendation is to eliminate all instructional aide positions currently
assigned to general education classrooms at the elementary schools. The displaced
personnel can be reallocated to the current vacancies in the number of special education
aides. The savings in revenue can be reallocated to fund extended-day tutoring for
struggling students at all grade levels. The use of instructional aides as support in general
education classrooms was not supported by the Evidence-Based model (Odden et al.,
2010). The district should reallocate the instructional aides to the vacant special
education instructional aide positions that were filled by substitute employees. With
approximately 60 vacant special education instructional aide positions, all of the
displaced general education aides could be moved without losing any current permanent
employees. Eliminating these positions would generate revenue that would allow for
extended-day tutoring by certificated teachers at all schools and all grade levels. Table
13 identifies the number of general education instructional aide positions by elementary
school that could be reallocated.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 131

Table 13
General Education Instructional Aides Currently Assigned to Elementary Schools
Instructional Aides
School Current Allocation EBM Difference
Elementary
Cala Lily 1.0 0.0 1.0
Day Lily 1.3 0.0 1.3
Eucalyptus 1.3 0.0 1.3
Evergreen 1.3 0.0 1.3
Lantana 1.0 0.0 1.0
Lemon 1.3 0.0 1.3
Marigold 1.7 0.0 1.7
Red Fern 2.0 0.0 2.0
Red Plum 2.0 0.0 2.0
Rose 1.7 0.0 1.7
Tulip 2.7 0.0 2.7
Watsonia 2.3 0.0 2.3
Weeping 3.3 0.0 3.3
Willow 3.7 0.0 3.7
District Totals 26.7 0.0 (26.7)

The revenue generated by eliminating the general education instructional aides
can be reallocated to fund extended-day tutoring for struggling students. The amount of
revenue is limited, but would create a starting point for schools not offering extended-day
tutoring and additional resources for schools that are. The amount to be allocated per site
should be based on the number of socio-economically disadvantaged students the school
serves. The principal can best determine how to distribute the opportunity to receive
these services as s/he knows her/his school population best. Table 14 outlines the
reallocation of funds that would be generated by eliminating general education
instructional aides and using those funds to implement extended-day tutoring. Given the
hourly rate for a teacher to work beyond the regular work day negotiated at $35.09, then
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 132

12,428 hours can be utilized. A total of 12,184 hours is necessary to fulfill the total of
one hour per disadvantaged student across the district.
Table 14
Reallocation of Revenue Saved by Reallocating General Education Instructional Aides to
be used for Extended-day Tutoring
Certificated Teachers as Extended-day Tutors
Revenue generated with the
elimination of general
education instructional
aides
Total number hours of
tutoring to be generated at a
cost of $35.09/hour (based
on CBA)
Total hours per school
would equal one hour per
socio-economically
disadvantaged student.
$436,103 12,428 12,184

Recommendation four: Support the new Superintendent’s vision. The fourth
recommendation is to utilize the leadership strategies of the Superintendent to have
district office administrators and site administrators conduct more effective professional
development throughout the district. The new Superintendent made the statement early
and often in his tenure that leadership was to be distributed and those with the knowledge
and experience ought to lead those who need information and training. He worked to
eliminate long administrative team and principal meetings where information was
disseminated and interaction was rare. With the addition of a Director of Professional
Development, the concept of trainings and professional development can move to the
forefront of the district goals that support the Strategic Plan. Not only would this person
help supervise the newly reallocated TOSA positions, but she/he would be able to lead
professional development for the district. Isolating this responsibility to a single person
rather than across the administrators of Instructional Support Services would alleviate
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 133

some of the pressure to equally distribute responsibility for trainings. This position
would also increase the time that the current administrators can spend at school sites
providing support to principals. The position would support the Superintendent with
professional development for the administrative team. With one of his/her primary focal
points being to provide professional development to all employees, this person would
help close one gap in the leadership of the district that the superintendent recognized
when he arrived.
Recommendation five: Re-evaluate early release Wednesdays. The fifth
recommendation is to determine the value of early release Wednesday and renegotiate the
contract language for the professional work day of teachers. It would be beneficial for the
district to re-evaluate the purpose of common early release Wednesdays at all of the
schools in the district. The language in the collective bargaining agreement for teachers
was restrictive with respect to a principal’s ability to mandate teacher participation in the
professional learning community activities on Wednesday afternoons (FUSD Collective
Bargaining Agreement, 2012). District leadership ought to reconsider the benefits of this
common time based on past experiences. The purpose of the common early release was
to allow for common collaboration time for teachers to be able to discuss student
achievement with their peers (DuFour et al., 2002; Duke, 2006; Fermanich, 2002; Odden
& Picus, 2010; Reeves, 2003; Schmoker, 2004). Although this took place on all
campuses to some degree of success, the converse also happened. Some teachers refused
to participate and some filed grievances against principals for violating the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement. The result of these grievances was that principals were
not permitted to mandate teacher participation after the end of the student day. This was
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 134

a reflection of the contract language that stated a teacher’s work day was complete when
s/he completed all professional responsibilities (FUSD Collective Bargaining Agreement,
2012). The interpretation of the contract language was restrictive and prevented
principals from requiring teacher participation in collaborative activities and should be
renegotiated in the best interest of student learning.
Should district leadership decide to revisit this particular contract language
regarding the teacher work day in negotiations with the teachers union, a decision on the
benefit of early release days would become clearer. The lack of ability to require teacher
participation in common collaboration time may be an opportunity to end the practice of
early release days and put the minutes back into student learning time. These
recommendations would require negotiations with the teachers union and could not
happen without it. The two subjects to cover are not exclusive and would need to be
bargained together as they are inter-related. Defining whether the teacher work day
actually ends when the students leave campus or at a specific time would provide the
necessary first step to determine whether teachers can be required to participate in
collaboration time.
Recommendation six: Staff schools based on equity, not equality. The sixth
recommendation is to develop a method for staffing administrators and clerical staff at
each school with equity for what is necessary rather than equality among the schools at
the same grade level. Administrative and clerical positions were staffed according to the
grade level of the school and not necessarily based on what was needed to support the
number of students enrolled at the school. The district should consider developing an
algorithm to determine the number of administrators and clerical staff members that
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 135

should be assigned to a school based on student need. Schools’ student numbers vary in
size by more than 300 at the elementary schools, nearly 500 at the middle schools, and
350 at the high schools. A school with such a significantly different number of students
may be able to support a different staffing ratio for administration and clerical support. A
school with 400 more students will need more clerical support than a smaller school, so
staffing closer to needs rather than equality seems appropriate. Below, in Table 15, the
actual allocations are compared to the Evidence-Based model. Although staffing
according to the Evidence-Based model may not be practical at the time of this study, the
table serves to chart the differences among schools.
Table 15
Current Administrative and Secretarial Support by Site Compared with the Evidence-
Based Model
Administrators Secretarial
School
# of
Students
Current
Allocation
EBM Difference
Current
Allocation
EBM Difference
Elementary
Cala Lily 879 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 3.9 (0.9)
Day Lily 575 1.0 1.3 (0.3) 3.0 2.6 0.4
Eucalyptus 838 1.0 1.9 (0.9) 3.0 3.7 (0.7)
Evergreen 527 1.0 1.2 (0.2) 3.0 2.3 0.7
Lantana 1,087 2.0 2.4 (0.4) 4.0 4.8 (0.8)
Lemon 855 2.0 1.9 0.1 3.0 3.8 (0.8)
Marigold 689 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 3.0 3.1 (0.1)
Red Fern 584 1.0 1.3 (0.3) 3.0 2.6 0.4
Red Plum 898 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 4.0 (1.0)
Rose 730 1.0 1.6 (0.6) 3.0 3.2 (0.2)
Tulip 734 1.0 1.6 (0.6) 3.0 3.3 (0.3)
Watsonia 758 1.0 1.7 (0.7) 3.0 3.4 (0.4)
Weeping 721 1.0 1.6 (0.6) 3.0 3.2 (0.2)
Willow 605 1.0 1.3 (0.3) 3.0 2.7 0.3
Middle
Citrus 1,147 2.0 2.5 (0.5) 4.0 5.1 (1.1)
Dogwood 954 2.0 2.1 (0.1) 4.0 4.2 (0.2)
Eggplant 709 2.0 1.6 0.4 4.0 3.2 0.8
Thyme 1,299 2.0 2.9 (0.9) 4.0 5.8 (1.8)

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 136

Table 15, continued
High
Encilia 2,152 5.0 3.6 1.4 6.0 10.8 (4.8)
Laurel 1,813 5.0 3.0 2.0 6.0 9.1 (3.1)
Tipuana 1,923 5.0 3.2 1.8 6.0 9.6 (3.6)
Alternative
Opuntia 203 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0
District
Totals 20,680 40.0 46.2 (6.2) 76.0 94.3 (21.3)

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis of the human resource
allocation of FUSD compared to the Evidence-Based model. The Evidence-Based model
was used as the standard to achieve and was benchmarked on. The ability to fulfill the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based model was not reasonable given the fiscal
situation in the State of California and in the Forest Unified school District. What was
able to occur in this study was the opportunity to identify alternatives to implementing
the Evidence-Based model entirely as written. Recommendations for change were made
based on improving student achievement in a district that already proved it was capable
of improving student achievement without these recommendations. Another key
component of the recommendations was a focus on keeping people employed.
Reallocating human resources as recommended would not force people into
unemployment. Negotiating contract language with regards to defining the teacher work
day would benefit all teachers and administrators because it would outline expectations.
It was not feasible to staff the study district with the Evidence-Based model
recommendations, but opportunities to make some smaller adjustments were available.
These recommendations may lead to continued progress in student achievement. The
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 137

final chapter discusses some of these issues further, consider limitations of the study, and
identify policy implications.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 138

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Introduction
Purpose of the study. This study examined the human resource allocation
practices of the Forest Unified School District and compared the way in which the district
allocated human resources to what research suggests is best practice for increasing
student academic achievement. The comparison was used as a strategy to determine the
actual practice of the school district and whether recommendations could be made that
may result in increasing student achievement in times of fiscal crisis. A gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008) was conducted in order to determine differences between the
district’s current practices and the recommendations of the Evidence-Based model
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Use of the Evidence-Based model as the benchmark to compare
the actual allocation of human resources against was the grounds for the
recommendations regarding all reallocation of resources. Analysis of both district and
school level data was used to determine how best to recommend the reallocation of fiscal
and human resources.
Overview of the study district. The Forest Unified School District (FUSD) was
considered a large school district in California, as it served more than 10,000 students.
Located in Southern California, FUSD served three cities exclusively and a portion of its
county. The district was comprised of a diverse population with multiple cultures and
ethnicities as well as a wide range in the levels of socio-economic status. At the time of
this study, FUSD had 14 elementary schools- including two K-8 schools, four middle
schools, three high schools, and one continuation high school serving a total of
approximately 21,000 students while employing nearly 2,500 people.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 139

Over the five years prior to this study, FUSD showed success in improving
student achievement while at the same time adjusting to increasing fiscal constraints
generated by the State of California. The financial difficulties of the state challenged
school districts in California and the opportunity to reallocate resources was one specific
strategy to help continue to improve student achievement despite ongoing fiscal
limitations (Ed Source, 2010). Even if the budget of the school district were to remain
stable, the need to improve student achievement would continue to be raised as the
expected proficiency bar continued to move upward.
A change in the district’s Superintendent of Schools beginning with the 2012-13
school year generated alternative opportunities for how the management of the school
district. The new superintendent implemented changes in the organizational structure and
management of the district during his first three months on the job. Among his initial
changes, he altered the purpose of management meetings to become focused on staff
development rather than being informational. In doing so, a variety of district office
administrators were given the task of presenting topics in a manner where the audience
participates rather than simply receives the information. The superintendent’s mission to
infuse professional development into the organization of the school district was
consistent with the Evidence-Based model’s emphasis on professional development.
Overview of the Evidence-Based Model. The goal of this study was to
determine what resource reallocation strategies can be used to best meet the needs of a
school district in the midst of devastating budget cuts while helping students meet the
performance standards as identified by the State of California and the mandates of the No
Child Left Behind Act. Because of this, the Evidence-Based model (Odden & Picus,
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 140

2008) was used to compare practices of resource allocation by the school district with the
recommendations the Evidence-Based model incorporates to reallocate designated
resources and continue to improve student achievement. The Evidence-Based model
provides comprehensive school-level strategies for the reallocation of human resources to
be able to deliver the necessary strategies to improve student achievement. The
Evidence-Based model recommends specific staffing ratios, school size, and resource
expenditures (Odden & Picus, 2008). This study focused on staffing ratios based on
school size while considering the recommendations of the Evidence-Based model.
Limitations of the study. The limitations of this study include that the study was
based on the analysis of only one K-12 unified school district located in Southern
California. With respect to the district’s human resource allocation, the researcher was
bound to the information provided by interviewees and documents provided to him. The
researcher was an employee of the school district, so his background knowledge of
district operations may have been a factor in the information provided and the
recommendations.
Summary of Findings
Forest Unified School District improved student achievement across all grade
levels despite significant budget issues over five years. The district utilized research-
proven strategies known to be effective in improving student achievement. The new
superintendent was moving the district leadership towards an increased emphasis on
professional development. Although human resources were allocated in ways that were
inconsistent with some research-proven strategies, they were allocated more effectively
for smaller schools. Large gaps between actual practice and the Evidence-Based model
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 141

exist for the allocation of staffing, but staffing according to the Evidence-Based model
was unrealistic given the way California funded public education at the time of this study
and the district’s current budget. There are recommendations for reallocating human
resources and clarifying contract language for teacher that may assist the district moving
forward.
Findings for currently practiced research-based strategies. The district
practiced many research-based strategies identified as methods to improve student
achievement. Practices such as professional learning communities were in place
throughout the district and were used to benefit student achievement to some degree in all
schools. The degree to which the practices were used varied by school. Collaboration
among fellow staff members was declared as a practice, and there was evidence this took
place in all schools to a certain degree. Students with special needs received support
consistent with their Individualized Educational Plans. English Language Learners were
provided support at their specific level by an English Language Development teacher.
Additional student support was in place for struggling students, although this varied by
school and by subject because it was determined by site administration and staff. The
district provided professional training for the use of new materials and curricular
standards. There was additional professional development available on an as-needed
basis, but the district did not provide consistent opportunities for teachers and
administrators to receive ongoing professional development. The budget constraints the
district faced limited the amount of professional development opportunities it could offer.
This had a specific effect on offering professional development outside of the regular
work day. The district employed a limited number of teachers on special assignment who
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 142

served in a limited role similar to a professional tutor to assist students, but this was
provided primarily to the elementary schools and for limited time during the school year.
The next section discusses human resource allocation by the district.
Findings for how human resources are currently allocated. The district
allocated human resources differently than the Evidence-Based model, but there was
representation in nearly every staffing position the Evidence-Based model recommends.
Students were provided additional support by certificated teachers in all schools, but the
method by which the additional support was provided was different depending on the
school. For some schools, it was during the school day as part of a teacher’s assignment,
while, in other schools, it was outside of the normal school day and teachers were paid
extra-duty to tutor students. Clerical support and administrators were assigned similarly
across all schools of the same grade level regardless of school size. Student support by
non-instructional personnel was in place in all schools. All schools had a school nurse
assigned for a portion of his/her assignment, guidance counselors were on staff at all
secondary schools, and non-instructional aides assisted with campus security and student
supervision at all schools. A gap analysis was conducted to determine whether
shortcomings existed between the district’s practice and the recommendations of the
Evidence-Based model.
Findings for the gap analysis between current practice and the Evidence-
Based model. Significant gaps in the allocation of human resources became evident
when the district was compared to the Evidence-Based model. This was not surprising to
the researcher, as it was understood prior to collecting data that the district did not
supporting human resource allocation according to the model. Although the gaps
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 143

between actual allocation and the Evidence-Based model are significant in some areas,
the gaps are not significant in others. Schools were between two and four times the size
of the prototypical schools in the Evidence-Based model. Three areas of significant gaps
in staffing exist. First is in the number of students per teacher. Classes were loaded with
9 more students at K-3, 8 more at 4-5, and 13 more at 6-12 than the model recommends.
Next is in the number of people in place for student academic support as certificated
tutors. There was no method to providing tutors as this was a site decision based on need
and site budget funds. Finally, the lack of coaches at all schools within the district is
significant. The district budget was unable to fund staffing as the Evidence-Based model
recommends. The district had opportunities to consider reallocation of human resources
in the face of difficult budget decisions that would support student achievement despite
these financial difficulties. The Evidence-Based model served as an appropriate model to
benchmark current practices against. The Evidence-Based model provides the
parameters to attempt to build future practice towards.
Findings for recommendations for reallocation of human resources. The
district was doing some things very well to ensure academic achievement of the students
it served. There were opportunities to make changes to practice that would provide
ongoing support for students. The following recommendations reallocate human and
financial resources to support student learning.
• Increase class size in K-3 classes by three students to generate an extra 30
teachers. These teachers can apply for new teacher on special assignment
positions where they will serve as an instructional coach and student academic
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 144

tutor for either language arts or math. If not selected, they will be able to
move into other vacant teaching positions because the coach/tutor positions
will be filled by existing staff.
• Defer step and column salary increases for all employees for six months to
generate 1.6 million dollars to support additional language arts and math
instructional coaches/student academic tutors so all schools have two
coach/tutors. The additional monies will support an increase in the work year
for these employees of 15 days for additional training and preparation. A
Director of Professional Development will also be created from this revenue
savings and this person will oversee professional development for the entire
district as well as support the new coach/tutors.
• Reallocate all general education instructional aides from their current position
to fill current special education instructional aide vacancies. Enough
vacancies exist to be able to handle this reallocation of personnel. The
revenue saved will generate monies to be reallocated to all school sites to
provide extended-day tutoring for students identified as at-risk by socio-
economic status.
• Utilize the new superintendent’s mission to make professional development a
priority. Continue with the re-organizational strategies he has already put into
place and take advantage of the new position of Director of Professional
Development to increase the amount of high quality professional development
districtwide.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 145

• Consider developing a consistent formula for staffing school sites with
administrators and clerical support so it is based on student need and not
equality at all schools within a given grade level.
• Re-open negotiations with the teacher’s union to write new language that
clarifies the definition of the teacher work day so teachers can be required to
remain on campus and participate in professional development activities on
minimum days.
Implications for Practice
How this study informs practice for Forest Unified School District. This
study identified areas where significant gaps between the district practice for staffing
positions and the recommendations of the Evidence-Based model exist. The district was
not able to make many, if any, of the costly changes based on what the model
recommends. This study does, however, provide district leadership the opportunity to
look at how positions are staffed and determine whether this was a practice that ought to
be continued. It also recommends evaluating certain practices that were currently
allowable due to language of the collective bargaining agreement for teachers.
Implications for Policymakers
Policymakers within the study district may use the information to help guide
future decision making for human resource reallocation as well as initial allocation.
There was no indication that the State of California was going to dramatically increase
funding for school districts, so looking for alternative ways to spend the same monies
was a viable option for improving student achievement. For human resource reallocation,
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 146

district leaders may choose to use the specific recommendations as alternatives to
traditional thinking. With respect to the actual allocation of staffing resources, the study
provides information indicating that equal distribution of human resources rather than
equitable distribution was a practice that may be modified. The district may also be
encouraged by realizing that many research proven-strategies were in place, and leaders
can use the information from the study to advance the same practices.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study provides an opportunity for additional research to be completed in the
future. It seems unlikely that public school districts in California will be able to fully
fund the Evidence-Based model for two reasons. The first reason is that of the expenses
associated with additional personnel. This study determined that staffing Forest Unified
School District according to the recommendations of the Evidence-Based model would
increase the annual budget by nearly 60%. The second reason is that the Evidence-Based
model recommends school sizes significantly smaller than was typical in California
public schools. The expenses associated with facilities would be a significant additional
expense. Two specific areas of future research may be opportunities. One is for
researchers to work specifically with charter schools prior to opening and staffing.
Utilizing the research associated with strategies that help student achievement would be
beneficial to charter schools preparing to open. The second area to conduct future
research is in another state that has public school funding levels that may be able to
support the Evidence-Based model’s recommendations but do not currently follow the
model.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 147

Conclusion
The Evidence-Based model provided an ideal model to benchmark Forest Unified
School District’s human resource allocation on. The Evidence-Based model is ambitious
in the staffing ratios it proposes, but, in many ways, that was the goal of this study.
Realizing before beginning the research that the district would not be able to fund the
recommended changes of the Evidence-Based model allowed the researcher to look into
options that were realistic and possible. The recommendations made are specific to the
study district with respect to collective bargaining language and generalizable to any
school district given consideration of leadership of the Superintendent and creating
reallocated personnel positions through step and column salary deferral. The goal of this
study was to recognize options for a school district to continue to grow student academic
achievement.
If California funded education at a higher dollar figure per student, similar to
some other states in the country, the need to reallocate human resources might not exist.
It would still be good practice to consider the research-proven strategies that improve
student achievement over continuing to staff the same without data to support the
practice. Being at the negotiating table with the labor unions and working together to
develop personnel positions that support student academic achievement may be an
enlightening opportunity for all participants. Labor negotiations can be difficult at times,
but, when all stakeholders have concrete data provided to them that support the proposals
being made, the others may be more inclined to negotiate openly. The recommendations
from this study are not simple to employ, but, with open and honest, negotiations by all
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 148

stakeholders, there exists an opportunity to take control of a financial mess the students in
California’s public education system did not create.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 149

References
American Institute for Research. (2005). Toward More Effective School Districts: A
Review of the Knowledge Base. Washington, DC. American Institute for
Research.
American Institute for Research. (2010). Beyond the School: Exploring a Systemic
Approach to school Turnaround. Washington, DC. American Institute for
Research.
Archibald, S., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A case study of professional development
expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(29), 1-24.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
California Department of Education. (2012). DataQuest [Data file]. Retrieved April 24,
2012 from https://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Home.aspx
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper-Collins.
Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coaching. Coaching: Approaches and
perspectives, 192-216.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 150

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & Karhenek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington,
Indiana: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R. & Marzano, R. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62-68.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Duncombe, William D. & Yinger, John. (January 1, 2001). Does School District
Consolidation Cut Costs? Syracuse University – Maxwell School of Citizenship
and Public Affairs Center for Policy Research Working Paper No. 33. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.2139/ssrn.1808202
Eaker, R. DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting Started- Restructuring Schools to
Become Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, Indiana: Solution
Tree
Ed Source. (2010). Per-Pupil Funded Revenue Limits for the Average School District.
Mountain View, CA: Ed Source.
Elmore, R. (2003, November). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3),
6-10. Retrieved from http://www.qualitylearning.net/strongpractice.htm
Fermanich, M. (2002). School spending for professional development: A cross-case
analysis of seven schools in one urban district. The Elementary School Journal,
103(1), pp. 27-50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002307.
Fullan, M. (2010). The awesome power of the principal. Principal, 89(4), 10-15.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 151

Garet, M. S. Porter, A., Desimone, L. Birman, B. & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-45.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
vision mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwood
and P. Hallinger & Colleagues, (Eds.), The handbook of educational leadership
and administration (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, South Africa: Kluwer.
Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in U.S.
school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35–68.
Huber, S & Muijs, D. (2010). School leadership effectiveness: The growing insight in
the importance of school leadership for the quality and development of schools
and their pupils. In Huber, S.G. (ed.), School Leadership-International
Perspectives (pp. 57- 77). Netherlands: Springer Science + Business.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). Learning experiences in school renewal: An exploration
of five successful programs. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.
Lambert, L (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, Virgina:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
30-35.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 152

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2011). The 2012-13 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook.
Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Leithwood, K. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective
in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 245-291.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A, & Hopkins, D. (2008): Seven strong claims about successful
school leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School
Organisation, 28(1), 27-42.
Louis, K.S. & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional community effect the classroom?
Teachers’ work and student experience in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S.D. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in
restructured schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (4), 757-798.
MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report No. 65).
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk,
Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report65.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
In Northouse, Peter G. (2010). Leadership – Theory and Practice. (5
th

ed.).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 153

Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., & Rotherham, A.J. (2010) Conflicting Missions and
Unclear Results: Lessons from the Education Stimulus Funds. Bellwether
Education Partners. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/PDFS/ED519238.pdf
Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
Miles, K. H., Odden, A. R., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S. (2004). Inside the black box
of school district spending on professional development: Lessons from five urban
districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.
Nakib, Y. (1995). Beyond district-level expenditures: Schooling resource allocation and
use in Florida. In L. Picus & J. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go?
(pp. 106–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Northouse, Peter G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. R. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand
Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A cost framework
for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-74.
Odden, A.R. and Picus, L.O. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective. (4
th
ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 154

Odden, A.R., Goetz, M.E., & Picus, L.O. (2010). Merging Costs With Effective Resource
Strategies. In Adams, J.E. (2010). Smart Money (141-156). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Picus, L.O. (2000). How Schools Allocate and Use Their Resources. Eric Digest. OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming
following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2008). Just the facts: California’s future economy.
Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_FutureEconomyJTF.pdf
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher College
Record, 109(6). Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743
Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
Center for Performance Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%
20beyond.pdf
Roza, M. (2005) Strengthening Title I to Help High-Poverty Schools. Working Paper.
Center on Reinventing Public Education. Seattle, WA.
REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 155

Roza, M., & Funk, S. (2010) Have States Disproportionately Cut Education Budgets
During ARRA? Early Findings. Center on Reinventing Public Education. Seattle,
WA.
Schmoker, M (1999). Results - The Key to Continuous Improvement. (2
nd
Ed.).
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Schmoker, M (2004). Tipping Point: From Feckless Reform to Substantive Instructional
Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-438.
Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance
of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-27.
Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science
teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

REALLOCATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES 156

Williams, T., Perry, M., Oregon, I., Brazil, N., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., Kirst, M., &
Levin, J. (2007) Similar English Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do
Some Schools Do Better? Ed Source. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/PDFS/ED496646.pdf
Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2010). Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades.
Mountain View, CA: Ed Source.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study compared the allocation of human resources of a K-12 unified school district in Southern California to the Evidence-Based model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Using document analysis and interviews of key administrators of the district, data was input into a spreadsheet to identify gaps between current practice and the Evidence-Based model. Once the gaps were identified, recommendations were made to reallocate human resources toward strategies that research suggests lead to improvements in student achievement. The district demonstrated overall success in improving student achievement over the previous four years. During the same time period, the district, and all schools that were in Program Improvement, except one middle school, successfully exited Program Improvement. This study determined the district had successful programs for staff and students to improve student learning, but there were opportunities to reallocate human resources to continue to improve student achievement. Fiscal limitations prevent the district from funding human resources at the levels recommended by the Evidence-Based model, but other opportunities to reallocate staff exist. This study makes specific recommendations for how this can be achieved, given fiscal constraints, to improve student achievement. Possible reallocation strategies included filling special education instructional aide vacancies with general education instructional aides and using the financial savings to fund extra support tutoring for struggling students, increasing K-3 class sizes and deferring step and column salary increases to generate full-time instructional coaches for all schools, and re-negotiating contract language for the professional work day of teachers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

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

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Behar, Steve (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Defense Date 02/11/2013

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

Tag education adequacy,Educational Leadership,equity in education,evidence-based model,k-12 human resources staffing model,K-12 leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,student achievement

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Donavan, Frank (committee member), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email dexter1248@gmail.com,stevebeh@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-223962

Unique identifier UC11295080

Identifier usctheses-c3-223962 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BeharSteve-1463.pdf

Dmrecord 223962

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Behar, Steve

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA