University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

(USC Thesis Other)

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 1
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES IN A TIME OF
FISCAL STRESS

by

Larry Joseph Hausner II

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 Larry Joseph Hausner II
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 2
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my children Riley and Jacob. My love
for them motivated me to be a model for them of dedication, organization, and drive - all
designed to achieve one’s goals. They are the reason I pursued this doctorate, and, for
that, I am grateful.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 3
Acknowledgements
This dissertation was made possible through the on-going support of my
dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus, who I wish to thank for his expertise and
enthusiasm. Most importantly, thank you for reading drafts at all hours of the day and
night and for being available to answer questions and provide guidance by e-mail, text,
and face-to-face settings. I pushed the envelope of an early timeline, and I appreciate
your willingness to support my goals in this area. You served as an outstanding mentor
and guide and provided invaluable suggestions and directions throughout this process. I
especially appreciate your model of acting as my “co-author” as well. Finally, I know the
professional relationship we built will extend beyond this dissertation. I would also like
to thank the members of my cohort and dissertation group. It has been a pleasure
working with each and every one of you.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 7

Abstract 8

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 11
Causes of California funding crisis 11
Federal and state academic accountability 12
History of education funding in California 13
History of education funding in California 13
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
The Importance of the Study 17
Limitations 18
Delimitations 18
Assumptions 18
Definitions 18

Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance 21
10 strategies for doubling student performance 21
Moving from low-performing to high-performing schools 24
School leadership’s impact on student performance 26
The impact of professional development on student achievement 29
A call for teacher collaboration 32
Characteristics of successful schools 34
Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource Allocation 36
Adequacy in education funding 36
Resource use at the school level 41
Resource use at the school level 41
Figure 2.3 Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model 50
Constraints to Limited Fiscal Resources 55
Current fiscal situation and response 56
Federal stimulus fundin 58
Local constraints 59
Opportunities for change 60
Gap Analysis 61
Summary of the Literature 61
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 5
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 63
Research Questions 64
Sample and Population 64
Overview of the District 66
Instrumentation and Data Collection 67
Data Analysis 69

Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings 70
Overview of the Hampton School District 70
Introduction of the Findings 72
Human Resource Allocation Strategies Designed to Improve Student
Achievement 73
Understanding the performance challenge 73
Setting ambitious goals 75
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. 76
Formative assessments and data-decision making 77
Ongoing, intensive professional development 78
Using time efficiently and effectively 79
Extending learning time for struggling students 80
Creating a collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership 81
Professional and best practices 81
Human capital side 82
Human Resource Allocation across Hampton School District 84
A Gap Analysis between the Current Human Resource Allocation Practices
and What the Research Suggests is Most Effective 87
Organizational barriers. 94
Human Resources Strategically Re-allocated to Align with Strategies that
Improve Student Achievement 95
Recommendations 99
Recommendation number one-the evaluation process 100
Recommendation number two-instructional coaches 100
Recommendation number three-increase elementary core teachers 101
Impact of the Financial Crisis 102
The Governor’s Budget 103
Conclusion 103

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 6
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Implications 105
Purpose of the Study 105
Summary of Findings 107
Elementary findings 108
Middle School Findings 109
High School Findings 109
District Findings 109
Limitations of the Study 110
Policy Implications 111
Concluding Comments 112

References 113

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 7
List of Tables
Table 2.1 McREL Researchers identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities
that are Significantly Correlated with Higher Student Achievement 27

Table 2.2 School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 41

Table 2.4 Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and
High Schools 51

Table 3.1 Hampton School District Schools 66

Table 4.1 Hampton School District School Demographics 72

Table 4.3 Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis 88

Table 4.4 Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis-Elementary
Schools 89

Table 4.6 Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis-High
School 92

Table 4.7 Hampton School District Resource Allocation Comparison to EBM 97

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related to
the allocation of resources, and to determine how those resources are used to increase
student achievement in the Hampton School District. The study was based on an analysis
of one school district located in Los Angeles County in Southern California. All of the
schools within the district under study received Title I federal funding, with populations
that consisted of at least 88% socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In reviewing
the level to which the district implemented Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance, the district was found to be implementing – at least to some degree
– all of Odden’s (2009) strategies. The district was found to have a strong understanding
of the performance problem and challenge. The superintendent and instructional
leadership teams at each school created an instructional vision. Each school's vision
included setting high expectations and ambitious goals for all students. Although the
sample school district in this study did not have access to the level of resources suggested
by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM), it was found to be allocating its resources to the
best of its ability during times of economic crisis.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 9
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
California educators face a financial crisis unparalleled in the history of public
education. Economists suggested that America has not experienced a recession of this
magnitude since the Great Depression of the late 1920’s (Eichengeen, 2010). In drawing
comparisons between the two economic downturns, Aiginger (2010) asserts that, while
not quite depression, high unemployment, deflation, and a reduction in the GDP
significantly contributed to the current recession. As a result, California is one of four
states (along with South Carolina, Hawaii, and Arizona) to reduce K-12 per pupil funding
by 20% since the 2008-2009 school year (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). Public education in
California comprises 40% of the state budget but has suffered 60% of statewide budget
reductions since 2008 (ACSA Governmental Relations Department, 2011). Those cuts to
public education affected the livelihoods of school district employees as layoffs, salary
reductions, and furlough days became commonplace. Moreover, services and programs
in schools throughout the state have either been suspended or eliminated altogether
(American Institutes for Research, 2011). Increases in class size, reductions or cuts in
support personnel, and the lowering of the number of school days per year are other
examples of the fallout from budget reductions to public education (American Institutes
for Research, 2011). Clearly, schools are asked to do more with less while the
accountability for improving student performance continues to put pressure on limited
resources.
Student achievement is the driving educational issue of the day, and policymakers
and educational leaders continue to wrestle with the challenge of teaching students
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 10
mastery of the rigorous state standards of California while being fiscally responsible.
The federal and state governments continue to impose strict academic accountability
mandates while the local level struggles with the one size fits all approach to school
funding in California, which relies heavily upon the state for its funding stream (ACSA
Governmental Relations Department, 2011).
Tied to student achievement outcomes is how much money the state of California
allocates to fund public education. Experts debate where California ranks nationally in
per pupil spending and suggest the state falls between 31
st
and 43
rd
nationally in per pupil
spending (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011, PPIC, 2010, & EdSource, 2011). The
significance here is this state funding allocation drives general fund expenditures at the
school district level. Regardless, California schools are underfunded. Moreover, the
California Legislative Analyst’s Office (2011) asserts that one-third of those limited
funds are subject to strings that are for specific categorical programs and districts must
continue to fulfill the various associated program requirements.
In California, total revenues for K-12 public education for the 2010-2011 school
year were $64.4 billion versus $71.1 billion for the 2007-2008 school year (EdSource,
2011). Despite lower levels of funding resources, as compared to the national average,
California schools face educating over 6,200,000 students (PPIC, 2011) each school day,
and these make up one of the most diverse student populations in the nation. For
instance, 23.7% of California students are English Learners, while 55.9% of the state’s
K-12 student population receives free or reduced-price meals (EdSource, 2011).
California consistently ranks at or near the bottom of staff-to-pupil ratios compared with
the rest of the United States. In 2008-2009, California ranked 49
th
in the ratio of total
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 11
staff to students in the United States at 93.3 per 1,000 students compared to the U.S. ratio
of 128.4 per 1,000 (Ed Source, 2011).
Background of the Problem
Causes of California funding crisis. The cause of this current funding crisis in
California is tied to the fiscal struggles resulting from the national recession. Public
education suffered at the hands of the current recession as unemployment, deflation, and
the struggling GDP gripped the United States while the state of California has been hit
hard (Aiginger, 2010). However, a closer look suggests that California’s public schools
are subject to the peaks and valleys of a confusing and ill-fitted funding model (Ed Week,
2010). The current approach through which school districts receive funding is directly
connected to the health of the state’s economy. For instance, when state revenues are
robust, schools benefit. However, when there is an economic downturn, public education
funding is reduced through the Proposition 98 allocation. For the 2011-2012 school year,
California public schools received $43.5 billion in funding through Proposition 98
compared to $50.4 billion in 2007-2008. These general fund revenues are derived from
state income and property taxes collected statewide (EdSource, 2011).
In short, public education and its students are caught in an economic ocean and
are subjected to its ebbing and flowing current. Clearly, this current recession had a
damaging impact upon schools throughout the nation and California has also been
negatively affected by the loss of emergency fiscal aid provided by the federal
government (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). In the meantime, the question becomes how to
maximize resources in a climate of drastic budget reductions.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 12
Federal and state academic accountability. California public schools are
subject to two accountability measures for student achievement. The first is the federal
government’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 as part of the Elementary
Secondary Education Act. NCLB came on the heels of the standards-based reform
movement of the 1990’s. While the budget crisis is a sobering reality, the increasing
accountability demands of NCLB continue to pressure California’s school leaders to
improve student performance or face sanctions. Under NCLB mandates, state educators
search for answers on how to meet increasing student achievement targets. NCLB was
enacted as an educational reform plan by then President George W. Bush that established
performance goals, setting into motion one of the most controversial pieces of public
education legislation in history. As these mandates escalate, many district schools find
themselves labeled underperforming when they fall short of state and federal targets for
student achievement. Most alarmingly, a number of student subgroups persistently
demonstrate insufficient growth while the targets slip further out of reach. The moral and
professional obligation is to meet the needs of all students a district serves. As a result of
the NCLB legislation, and to meet those needs, California became a leader in the
standards movement by adopting some of the most highly regarded and rigorous
standards in the nation (Rose, Sonstelie et al., 2003).
The second academic accountability measure is the California Academic
Performance Index measure (API). The API was legislated by the Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 and summarizes a school's or a local educational
agency's (LEA) academic performance and progress on statewide assessments (California
Department of Education, 2012). Unlike NCLB, API is a growth model and rewards
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 13
schools for increasing student achievement from one performance band to another.
NCLB’s all or nothing approach to accountability establishes the criteria of students
reaching proficiency in meeting targets while California’s API is based on a sliding-scale
point system aimed at rewarding schools for student growth regardless of proficiency.
For example, schools receive the greatest number of points for moving students from a
lower performance band to one higher.
History of education funding in California. California’s educational funding
changed dramatically since the 1971 Serrano v Priest court ruling which found that
California’s funding model violated the Fourteenth Amendment and stated there was
inequitable funding among school districts (Kemerer & Sansom, 2009). In 1978, voters
passed Proposition 13 which capped the property tax rate at 1% of assessed value
(Kemerer & Sansom, 2009) and limited the growth of that assessed value until a property
was sold; greatly limiting a traditional funding source school districts relied upon. In
1988, California voters passed Proposition 98 which reallocated property taxes and
guaranteed a minimum funding floor for K-12 and community colleges. The design of
Proposition 98 anticipates more equitable funding for school districts in California and
states that public education is allotted the lion’s share, roughly 40%, of the state’s general
fund budget (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011). However, underlying Proposition 98’s
positive intentions is an inherent flaw that occurs when the economy struggles. In an
economic downturn, the amount of funding that flows to public education declines, and
this undermines the original intent of Proposition 98, which is aimed at stabilizing
educational funding (Ed Source, 2011). California Governor Brown’s 2012-2013 budget
proposal calls for an additional $5 billion reduction to Proposition 98 and a possible
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 14
rebenching, or funding adjustment, by the state legislation (Legislative Analyst’s Office,
2011). In sum, the funding for California’s schools over the last forty years shifted from a
reliance on local property taxes to a statewide approach for funding allocation. The result
is that California has one of the most convoluted educational funding systems in the
nation (Ed Week, 2010).
In light of the current economic crisis, public education finds itself challenged to
learn how to use limited resources more effectively and efficiently, which is more crucial
than ever. While Hanushek (2006) asserts that no adequacy model is capable of
articulating the exact amount it would take to ensure every student obtains at least
proficiency, the Evidenced-Based Model was successfully implemented in a number of
states. This resource allocation model is research-based and has been effective in
recommending resource allocations to support student achievement (Odden, Picus, et al.,
2005).
Statement of the Problem
California public school districts face tremendous budget reductions that
significantly affect the quality of the educational program that these districts offer their
students and communities. At the same time, the federal government, under NCLB
legislation, continues to increase academic accountability, which pressures school
districts to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Districts must be strategic in
how resources are allocated to ensure increased student performance. Unfortunately, this
academic challenge occurs while public education faces its greatest financial crisis in
history. The burden then falls upon school districts to decide which employees,
programs, and services should be eliminated or reduced.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 15
One funding model designed to support states, school districts, and schools in
effectively allocating resources to improve student performance is the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus 2005). According to Odden and Picus (2005), the
strengths of the model are numerous. First, it provides detailed references supporting its
claims of success and was successfully implemented in numerous states. Second, results
from the Evidence-Based Model are taken directly from schools that have doubled
performance. Third, the model is supported by research from randomized trials, quasi-
experimental designs, and meta-analysis (Odden & Picus, 2005). Finally, while
California school districts have yet to address all of the recommendations identified in the
Evidence-Based Model, numerous strategies embedded within the EBM are implemented
in districts throughout the state. Therefore, using a human resource allocation tool that
allows for assessment of the link between school performance and the way in which
schools allocate resources through the use of Odden and Picus’ (2005) Evidence-Based
Model is timely.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate resource data from the
Hampton School District (pseudonym) to compare the district’s actual staff resource
allocation to the desired uses of personnel and determine the variation between the
desired and the actual allocation to drive student achievement. This is a challenging
undertaking, especially with school districts in California, considering the state does not
have adequate resources to educate students to world-class professional standards (Picus,
2011). Picus (2011) asserts that four approaches to adequacy currently exist. One is cost
function that statistically identifies the desired level of resources needed to reach
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 16
proficiency. A second approach identifies successful districts and schools that meet high
academic standards while effectively allocating resources in the process. Third, a
professional judgment approach exists that is led by educators guided by current research.
A final approach centers on successful school reform models such as Odden and Picus’
(2005) Evidence-Based Model.
Data from the school district was compared to the Evidenced–Based Model in
strategic budgeting as a framework in an effort to determine whether or not Hampton
School District aligned resources to support its priorities and goals. This comparison of
resource allocation provides insight into how school district leaders’ decisions and
budgetary strategies affect students and their academic achievement. This study also
sought to determine how many of Odden’s top Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (2009) are present in the schools under study and how resources are
allocated to support such strategies.
The research questions for this particular study were:
1. What research based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across Hampton School District and its
schools?
3. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 17
This study aimed to provide a detailed analysis of how resource allocation at the
district level is used to support student performance at its eleven school sites. As a result,
this study utilized a qualitative methods design to assist in answering the research
questions. The data on instructional goals and priorities was collected through interviews
with the Superintendent of Schools, district administration, and school principals.
Additionally, data focusing on resource allocation was gathered from the personnel
division and analyzed through a gap analysis comparison using the Evidenced-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2005).
The Importance of the Study
This study is important for numerous reasons. Over the last four years, the State
of California suffered a major economic crisis unseen since the Great Depression of 1929
resulting in devastating cuts to public education. It is expected that this study will
provide practitioners with a common resource allocation framework to support improving
student performance as presented in the Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2005)
and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Additionally, this study may provide school district constituents such as school
board trustees, superintendents, district level administrators, and school site
administration with a case study of the Hampton School District containing information
on its allocation of resources to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Public
school leaders may find this study useful because it highlights best practices for resource
allocation tied directly to student outcomes that could ultimately enhance their strategic
budgeting decisions.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 18
Moreover, this study may also be of benefit to policymakers such as State
Assembly Members and State Senators who control the legislative funding policy in
Sacramento. It will provide them relevant data and best practices on district-wide
allocation of resources with the desired outcome that they will make informed decisions
on enacting educational funding policies to provide school districts the resources
necessary to increase student performance.
Limitations
Data gathered for this study was limited to expenditures and resource allocations
in the 2011-2012 school year and were not longitudinal. Additionally, only district-level
data were used. Therefore, findings are not necessarily generalizable across districts.
Delimitations
There are two delimitations for this study. First, only the Hampton School
District in California was chosen for participation within this study. Second, the district
was selected for its culturally diverse demographics and kindergarten through twelfth
grade configuration. Findings can only be generalized to the Hampton School District or
school districts of similar size and demographic composition within California.
Assumptions
It is assumed that all data collected for this study through interviews and school
district documentation were true and reflective of current resource allocation practices at
the Hampton School District.
Definitions
Adequacy: The provision of a set of strategies, programs, curriculum, and instruction,
with appropriate adjustments for special-needs students, districts, schools, and their full
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 19
financing that is sufficient to provide all students an equal opportunity to learn to high
performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Evidence-Based Model: School instructional improvement design model grounded in
scientifically based research and widely documented effective practice based on resource
allocation associated with achieving desired student performance outcomes (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
Expenditures: Any resource of time, money or personnel expended to provide instruction,
facilities, or services to support students.
Free Reduced-Price Meals: Under the Title I federal regulations, qualifying students may
receive lunch (or breakfast) at a reduced price or free. Due to changes in a family’s
financial situation, families must reapply each year.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB’s provisions represent a significant change in
the federal government’s influence in public education throughout the United States,
particularly in terms of accountability, assessment, and teacher quality.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 20
Chapter 2
Literature Review
In response to federal and state pressures for academic accountability, school
districts across California focus on allocating the necessary level of resources for all
students to achieve proficiency to meet the state’s rigorous academic standards. One way
to meet this challenge is to investigate what research-based strategies are currently
implemented by successful school districts. This chapter provides an overview of the
literature pertaining to district personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal
stress. To that end, this chapter draws on educational research to support this study.
This literature review consists of four sections. The first section, Effective
Practices for Improving Student Performance, details best practices that are common to
high performing successful school districts, identified in the latest research using the 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizational
framework. The second section, Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource
Allocation, adds to and synthesizes the research of adequacy, resource use at the school
level, and the preferred resource allocation tool of the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Section three, Constraints to Limited Fiscal Resources, explores the
economic instability in California, the causes behind that situation, and what schools have
done to overcome limited, or lack of, funding for public education. The final section,
Gap Analysis, identifies the operational framework of Clark and Estes (2008) and applies
this model to the alignment of the district’s resource allocation with its instructional goals
by evaluating the organization’s staff’s knowledge and skills, motivation to achieve the
goals, and the organizational barriers prohibiting support of the goals.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 21
Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance
A district’s resources need to be invested in the right people who know how to
use the right strategies to improve student performance. Clearly, improving student
performance is a broad concept and this study is not equipped to accommodate all of the
current research on the subject. However, the following six research analyses of student
performance were examined:
1. Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance based on
case studies that provide specific strategies schools can implement to double
student performance;
2. Research by Duke (2006) on what is known and unknown about improving
low-performing schools;
3. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty’s (2005) research on the impact of school
leadership on student performance;
4. Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and Archibald’s (2004) research on school district
spending on professional development in five urban districts;
5. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek’s (2004) examination of the
professional learning community model encompassing the collective
intelligence of educators to improve teaching and learning;
6. The research by Chenoweth (2009) on the lessons learned from high
achieving schools with high levels of poverty.
10 strategies for doubling student performance. Odden’s (2009) book, titled
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, provides ten strategies for achieving
significant gains in student performance based on information obtained through
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 22
numerous studies by Odden and his staff of researchers and serves as the framework for
this study. Odden (2009) defines “doubling student performance” literally by suggesting
that “doubling” may include doubling the percentage of students scoring proficient or
students’ increasing from below average performance standards to those much higher.
Odden’s strategies are derived from research conducted on schools and districts that met
the criteria for dramatically improving student achievement by allocating resources to
support increased student performance. The following ten strategies are the major
approaches districts and schools employ to make dramatic, measureable improvements in
student achievement (Odden, 2009):
1. Understanding the Performance Challenge: This calls upon the staff to engage in
activities beginning with an analysis of student performance data from the state’s
standardized test to measure the distance between current student achievement
and the desired outcomes;
2. Setting Ambitious Goals: Administrators and teachers collaborate on setting high
and ambitious goals regardless of student performance levels or demographics.
All constituents hold the belief that all children can learn and attain high levels of
performance;
3. Changing the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision: This
area concentrates on encouraging schools to focus on the areas over which they
have control. Those areas include curriculum and instructional programs, the
assignment of teachers, and the expectations for student performance;
4. Data-Based Decision Making Using Benchmark and Formative Assessments:
This involves the implementation of formative assessments to drive an awareness
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 23
of what concepts students have mastered and what skills need to be taught. In
turn, the results from these assessments guide teacher instruction to assist students
in mastery;
5. Providing Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development: This strategy calls upon
schools to implement a widespread, systematic, and ongoing professional
development program. There are associated resource requirements for effective
professional development including: a) pupil-free days which allows time for
teachers to receive training, b) training funds set aside for trainers, c) funds set
allocated toward instructional coaches or facilitators, and d) teacher collaboration
time built into the school day;
6. Using Time Efficiently and Effectively: While educators typically consider this
resource fixed, this strategy focuses on utilizing time more efficiently and
effectively. By reducing interruptions and protecting instructional time for the
core subjects of reading and mathematics while increasing time for those subjects,
schools use the resource of time more efficiently and effectively;
7. Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students: This strategy involves the
school staff’s commitment to providing multiple opportunities for struggling
students to achieve proficiency. The extended learning time should occur during
the instructional day, outside the regular school day, and outside the regular
school year which is designed to help students meet the target of proficiency;
8. Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership: Collaborative school
cultures are derived from dedicated staff focused on a common, school-wide,
professional approach to effective instruction. Often, this strategy is referred to a
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 24
“professional learning community” which includes teacher teams holding the
value of high expectations for all students, reviewing and sharing assessment data
driven to improve teaching effectiveness and improved student performance.
Distributive leadership means that the principal does not assume all of the
leadership responsibilities. Instructional leadership is shared by the district office
as well as teachers;
9. Implementing Professional and Best Practices: This strategy, often omitted from
similar studies, focuses on the district’s and schools’ reaching out beyond their
system to the larger, collective professional community for expertise and
knowledge. Consulting research and searching for best practices of other districts
and schools are proactive approaches to implementing this strategy;
10. Investing in Human Capital: This final strategy centers on recruiting and
retaining the best teacher and principal talent to reach the goals of an ambitious
educational improvement plan. It is key to select, place, provide professional
development, mentor, effectively evaluate, and compensate that talent in order to
carry out and execute the improvement strategies mentioned above.
Moving from low-performing to high-performing schools. In an effort to
identify common characteristics associated with improving low-performing schools into
high-performing schools, Duke (2006) reviewed five studies that focused on factors that
contributed to the success of these schools. Through a review of the studies, Duke (2006)
found the following 11 elements that turned low-performing schools into high-
performing schools. The first six of these elements are in agreement with Odden’s
(2009) ten strategies.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 25
1. Collaboration: Teachers are encouraged to work together to collaboratively plan,
monitor student progress, and provide assistance to struggling students;
2. Data-driven decision making: Student data were used continuously to make
decisions regarding resource allocation, student needs, the effectiveness of
teachers, and other concerns;
3. Leadership: Principals and other teacher leaders set the tone for the school
improvement process;
4. Scheduling: Daily schedules were adjusted in order to increase time for academic
work, especially in the core areas of reading and mathematics;
5. Staff development: Ongoing professional development was provided to teachers
in order to support and sustain the school improvement process;
6. Assessments: Students were assessed on a regular basis to determine their
progress in learning and identify their learning needs;
7. Organization structure: The roles, teams, and planning processes, all aspects of
school organization, were adjusted to support efforts to increase student
performance;
8. Alignment: Tests were aligned with curriculum content, and district approved
curriculum content was aligned with instruction;
9. High expectations: Principals and teachers held high academic expectations for
student learning;
10. Assistance: Students experiencing problems with learning required content
received prompt assistance;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 26
11. Parent involvement: Protocols were put into place to support and encourage
school personnel to reach out to parents to keep them informed of their children’s
progress and to involve them in supporting the school improvement process.
School leadership’s impact on student performance. While Odden (2009)
stressed building collaborative cultures and shared leadership, the work of Marzano,
Waters, and McNulty (2005) validated this strategy while focusing on the impact of
school leadership on student performance which became the driving force behind their
book titled School Leadership that Works. Based on their meta-analysis of 69 studies
from the past 35 years that met their criteria, the authors also conducted a factor analysis,
surveying more than 650 site principals, searching for the effects of school leadership on
student performance. In total, the meta-analysis consisted of 2,802 schools, along with
an estimated 14,000 teachers and 1,400,000 students included (Marzano et al., 2005).
Marzano et al. (2005) approached the effects of school leadership by blending research
with practical experience and advice. Their findings validated the opinions expressed by
leadership experts for decades as the data in their analysis produced an average
correlation of .25 (Marzano et al., 2005). Their conclusions resulted in an identified list
of 21 leadership responsibilities that have significant effect on student achievement
(Marzano et al., 2005). Those leadership responsibilities are represented below in table
2.1 in order of significance.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 27
Table 2.1
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
Culture Fosters shared beliefs
and a sense of
community and
cooperation
.25 15 809

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 28
Table 2.1, continued
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
Communication Establishes strong
lines of
communication with
teachers and among
students
.23 11 299

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 29
Table 2.1, continued
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)

The impact of professional development on student achievement. One of
Odden’s (2009) seminal strategies for doubling student performance was ongoing and
intensive professional development for teachers. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and
Gallagher’s (2002) support this by suggesting, “In the context of today’s standards-based
educational reforms, where the goal is for students to achieve high performance
standards, effective professional development is critical” (2002, p. 1). While research
finds that high quality professional development should be part of any effective strategy
to improve schools, little evidence exists that says current professional development
investments predictably lead to improved results (Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 30
Archibald, 2004). In order to improve school performance dramatically, the authors
suggest school leaders need to do three things to justify and find the necessary resources
to support professional development:
1. Be able to describe professional development and show how it is organized
strategically;
2. Quantify the costs of quality professional development;
3. Measure the effects of professional development in terms of changed
classroom practice and student performance;
To that end, Miles et al. (2004) researched school district spending on professional
development in five urban districts. In this study, Miles et al. (2004) tried to standardize
the following:
1. Define components of professional development;
2. Describe purpose and organization; and
3. Track and describe cost.
After comparing five urban districts using the cost structure framework, Miles et al.
(2004) offer six lessons that became apparent:
1. Districts invest significant, but widely varying, resources in professional
development. Numerous departments managed these resources: Ranging from 2-
7%. Some of these were much more than the district considered when reporting
professional development costs;
2. Estimates of spending should explicitly account for cost of contracted time for
professional development: Districts should include the cost of professional
development days in spending totals because it reflects the district’s commitment
to investing in professional development. Comparisons here of dollars to dollars
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 31
are difficult to make because the sums are large and vary from one district to
another. However, a closer comparison of the percentage of operating budget
ranged from 2.2% to 4.1% in the districts studied;
3. District spending to provide teacher time for professional development is
significant, but highly variable in size and composition: The five districts studied
by Miles et al. (2004) devoted between 21% and 51% of all of their professional
development spending toward purchasing teacher time. This was reflective in the
buying of time through stipends and release time by allocating funds for substitute
teachers;
4. Most districts target professional development toward school-level capacity
building, but none had formal strategies for coordinating or integrating these
investments: Four out of five districts aimed the majority of their district
spending at improving school-level capacity in some way and invested a much
smaller portion in developing individual capacity apart from school or district
programs and initiatives. Some districts discovered an inequity of allocated
resources to the school level which led to school site administrators struggling to
effectively integrate those resources;
5. Districts use common delivery strategies for professional development, but in
different mixes: more deliberately. Overall spending levels of the five districts
studied hide large discrepancies in the level of investment in the different kinds of
professional development offered. The mix of strategies employed by a district
may reflect a blend of past practice, politics and, quite possibly a deliberate
strategy for some; and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 32
6. Districts rely on external sources of funding for almost half of professional
development that is provided: All five school districts represented in this study
relied heavily on revenue outside of the general fund to support the professional
development program. In four of five districts, federal funding sources such as
Title I accounted for nearly one-third of their professional development budget.
Other sources, for instance grants from corporations and foundations, comprised
five percent of the districts’ funding.
In short, this analysis represents a first step in addressing professional
development. Before districts can effectively plan for resource allocation for professional
development, they must first analyze current investments and where those are directed.
Districts must agree on the definition of professional development and how to calculate
cost. Only then can one start to look at its impact on teacher practice and student
performance. Therefore, educational leaders and policy makers can organize support to
make investments in professional development leading to increased student performance
(Miles et al., 2004).
A call for teacher collaboration. In a time of heightened accountability, it is
particularly important to remember that creating and sustaining good schools is more
about creating a culture of working in a learning community than academic performance
(DuFour, 2004). One of Odden’s (2009) top 10 strategies calls for a building of a
structured collaborative environment centered on using data to improve performance. To
that end, DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek’s (2004) book, Whatever it Takes: How
Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn, examines the
professional learning community model which encompasses harnessing the collective
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 33
intelligence of principals and teachers focused on improving instruction and learning.
DuFour et al. (2004) provide the seminal research in the area of professional learning
communities and the application of the strategies that lie within the model.
DuFour et al. (2004) suggest that the fundamental purpose of school is learning
and not teaching. Therefore, this emphasis on student learning drives those within the
school community to concentrate all of their collective effort on three critical questions.
If we believe all kids can learn, critical questions must be asked:
1. What is it we expect students to learn?
2. How will we know when they have learned it?
3. How will we respond when they don’t learn?
Educators who implement the professional learning community model within
their school pursue a relentless focus and vision on student learning (DuFour et al.,
2004). These strategies include communicating this focus to the collective school
community, providing time for teacher teams to collaborate, and setting measureable
goals for student performance (DuFour et al., 2004). Additionally, DuFour et al. (2004)
assert that professional learning communities always attempt to answer critical questions
by building shared knowledge and the foundation of a professional learning community is
built upon nine core components. They include:
1. A belief that all students will learn;
2. A dedication to teaching and learning;
3. The work is about students, not adults;
4. Working smarter, not harder;
5. Critical questions centered on common formative assessments;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 34
6. Involving our support staff;
7. Collaboration and examination of student work is often and on-going;
8. Protocols provide guidance; and
9. Norms provide structure to collaborative teams.
In short, the Professional learning community model is more than simply
dedicating time to analyze student work and plan lessons. DuFour et al. (2004) suggest
keys to effective teaming within a professional learning community, and, without these in
place, students will not reach their full academic potential. Strategies for professional
learning community success include embedding collaboration in the routine practices of
the school with a constant focus on learning. Also, the time for collaboration is built
within school day and school calendar. Another key centers on teachers providing
feedback to each other in a risk-free environment and, in turn, providing that feedback to
the students themselves. DuFour et al. (2004) also assert that effective teams commit to
reteaching when students do not master what is expected without excuses. Finally, Rick
DuFour reminds educators that, “We should indeed promote high levels of learning for
every child entrusted to us, not because of legislation or fear of sanctions, but because we
have a moral and ethical imperative to do so” (DuFour et al., 2004, p. 27).”
Characteristics of successful schools. The literature suggests that research-
based effective strategies to improve student performance are generalizable across
various settings in public education. Certainly, Odden’s (2009) research on the
successful implementation of his 10 strategies in places like Madison and Milwaukee in
Wisconsin, and Kennewick, Washington, supports this notion. Additionally,
Chenoweth’s (2009) research findings would concur, as she spent years studying the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 35
qualities shared by schools that have been successful in educating poor and minority
students to high levels in poverty stricken areas such as Alabama, New York, and
Virginia. She argues that educators often possess a sense of powerlessness in educating
minority low-socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The danger, asserts Chenoweth
(2009) is the belief that challenges presented by students of poverty outweigh the ability
to teach them. Her findings suggest that these successful schools overcame the feeling of
powerlessness by restructuring the organization with research-based strategies. She
concluded that these successful schools succeed where other schools fail because they
ruthlessly organize themselves around one thing: helping students learn. While she
suggests this seems too simple an explanation, focusing on student learning can, in turn,
create structures that support learning, and these schools have drastically departed from
the traditional organizational structures of American schools (Chenoweth, 2009).
For instance, these successful schools began by figuring out what children needed
to know and be able to do (Chenoweth, 2009). To accomplish this, teachers assessed
what their students already knew and were able to do and figured out how to move their
students from where they are to where they need to be. Next, they analyzed what
students learned and whether they needed further reteaching. Chenoweth (2009)
observed teachers doing this systematically class by class, student by student, grade by
grade, each and every day relentlessly and carefully. Additionally, she suggests the
research-based practice of using time effectively by building in dedicated time for teacher
planning centered on teaching and learning into the school day (Chenoweth, 2009,
Odden, 2009, DuFour, et al., 2004). Finally, her findings suggested that strong teacher
collaboration was the cornerstone of success and served as the most critical of the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 36
structural strategies. In short, collaboration presented the mindset that the organization
operates as a school, not as a collection of individual classrooms (Chenoweth, 2009) with
teachers acting as independent contractors.
Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource Allocation
As California faces another year of financial crisis, the allocation of resources in
public education continues to be an important topic to educators and policymakers alike
as they struggle to adequately fund schools throughout the state. In spite of this time of
fiscal stress, Odden and Picus (2008) suggest that, while money allocated toward
education increased each decade over the past one hundred years, most new monies have
yet to be used effectively to improve student performance. In order to provide a context
for successful implementation of personnel resource allocation in public education, this
section begins by providing an overview of adequacy in education funding, resource use
at the school level, strategic management of human resource capital, and the Evidenced-
Based Model approach to school funding.
Adequacy in education funding. Odden (2003) asserts that the focus of school
finance shifted in recent years in response to the emphasis on standards-based education
reform. He argues that the chief issue now is adequacy, which he defines as the sufficient
amount of funding for districts and schools to produce the desired level of student
performance through successful instructional strategies. States, therefore, must identify
an adequate expenditure level for the typical student in the typical district and make
sufficient adjustments for different student needs (Odden, 2003). Odden (2003) points
out that, as funding formulas are revised to ensure adequacy, there will also be an
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 37
improvement in fiscal equity. To determine adequate revenue levels, Odden (2003)
suggests the following:
1. Identify the cost of effective programs and strategies;
2. Translate those costs into appropriate school finance structures;
3. Ensure that resources are used in districts and schools to produce the desired
results.
While, to date, no single approach to determining an adequate spending level is
dominant across the country, Odden (2003) suggests four methods to determine an
adequate foundation expenditure level:
1. The successful district approach: Seeks to identify districts that have been
successful in teaching student to meet proficiency standards and sets the adequacy
level at the weighted average of per pupil expenditures per pupil;
2. The cost function approach: Employs regression analysis with expenditure per
pupil as the dependent variable and student and district characteristics, as well as
performance levels desired, as the independent variables. The result produces an
adequate expenditure per pupil for the average district;
3. The professional judgment approach: This approach asks a group of experts to
identify effective educational strategies for primary and secondary school levels
and special needs students. The experts specify the ingredients required for each,
attach a price to each ingredient, and sum everything to obtain a total expenditure
per pupil; and
4. The evidence-based approach: Developed by Odden and Picus (2003). This
approach identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a high-quality,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 38
comprehensive, school wide instructional program. Then, it determines an
adequate expenditure level by assigning a price to each ingredient and
aggregating to a total cost. A lengthier discussion for the Evidence-Based Model
will follow.
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) conducted a qualitative study providing a
framework for resource allocation based on case studies of five high performing schools,
three elementary schools and two high schools, in the Boston area. Based on the finding
of the study, the authors assert six overarching resource reallocation principles
successfully implemented in innovate ways to improve student achievement.
1. Reduction of specialized programs to provide more individual time for all in
heterogeneous groups;
2. More flexible student groupings;
3. Structures that create more personalized environments;
4. Longer and varied blocks of instructional time;
5. More common planning time for staff; and
6. Creative definition of staff roles and work schedules.
In short, Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) found the connection between the vision
for teaching and learning and resource allocation at each of the five schools studied.
Miles (1995) asserts that a problem in public education exits as educators often
argue for more funds while critics counter that school spending is already at an all-time
high. However, neither group has looked systematically at the use of existing resources
(Miles 1995). The findings of her case study of the Boston Public Schools suggested that
students reduced individualized attention as well as schools limited flexibility to respond
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 39
to the growing needs of students was a result of the fragmentation and specialization of
teaching resources. While Miles (1995) admits that there have been small changes
overcoming this problem, nothing has broken the cycle of what currently exists. She
suggests four strategies reduce the sources that collectively limit a schools flexibility to
best match its teaching resources to student needs:
1. Increase the portion of teachers who serve children in regular classrooms
settings while reduction the segregation of students with special needs;
2. Consider new ways of providing for teachers not used to cover this time to
reduce average teacher-student ratio;
3. Eliminate age grading or combining grades and programs within schools to
reduce the unevenness in class sizes where the differences are not
educationally driven;
4. Rethink school schedules to reduce the number of students each teacher has
responsibility for.
Collectively, these strategies have the potential to free the resource allocation of teacher
resources and organize schools in alternative ways (Miles, 1995)
While there are no easy answers to move school districts to reform their current
allocation of resources, Odden (2008) suggests a Strategic Management of Human
Capital (SMHC) plan that would align a district’s educational improvement strategy with
the goal of educating all children, especially minority and low-income children, to world
class performance standards. Admittedly, most K–12 leaders accept the need for
improvement and reform and many have already produced impressive performance gains
(Odden, 2008). However, using the data from the measurement of both student
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 40
achievement and teaching performance to guide management decisions over time,
including talent recruitment, placement and selection, and rewarding and supporting the
talent presents the overall management challenge portion of the strategic management of
human capital (Odden, 2008).
Odden (2008) found that the elements of the SMHC system centered on the
challenge of acquiring talent, developing and motivating the talent acquired, and,
ultimately, retaining that talent. If successful, the result should be four-fold:
1. The district and its schools should have quality and sufficient quantities of
talent that is distributed equitably in positions such as teachers, principals, and
teacher leaders, which should increase teacher retention while decreasing teacher
turnover;
2. Those acquired should have the core competencies needed to perform the job
and have those skills improved over time by the professional development and
reward systems;
3. The district’s strategy and vision for improving and supporting student
achievement and teacher performance should be clear to everyone, and should be
implemented efficiently and effectively; and
4. Both student achievement and teacher performance should improve to higher
performance levels.
Odden’s (2008) results are a reflection of the overarching goal of SMHC, which is
to create a strategic human capital management system that acquires the best talent, arm
them with instructional practices that produce high levels of student academic
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 41
achievement and significant reductions in achievement gaps, and retains those valuable
individuals over time.
Resource use at the school level. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross
(2003) suggest an alternative way to report expenditures at the school level. The authors
propose an expenditure framework that is recommended as an improvement over other
models in the following ways: 1) it is designed to specifically report school level
expenditures, 2) it can differentiate spending within a school building and account for
school within a school expenditures, and 3) it organizes expenditures in ways that are
reflective of current thinking about effective teaching strategies and resource uses. Table
2.2 is representative of the nine identified effective indicators of school resources
according to Odden et al. (2003).
Table 2.2
School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
School Unit Size Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Percent Low Income Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Percent Special Education Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Percent ESL/LEP Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Expenditures Per Pupil Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Core Class Size (Secondary)
Special Academic Focus of School/Unit Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
-English/Reading/Language Arts
-History/Social Studies
-Math
-Science

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 42
Table 2.2, continued
2. Specialist and Elective
Teachers/Planning and Preparation
-Science
-Art, music, physical education, etc.
-Academic Focus with or without Special
Funding
-Vocational
-Drivers Education
-Librarians
3. Extra Help
-Tutors
-Extra Help Laboratories
-Resource Rooms (Title I, special
education
or other part-day pullout programs)
-Inclusion Teachers
-English as a second language classes
-Special Education self-contained classes
for severely disabled students (Including
aides)
-Extended Day and Summer School
-District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
-Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
-Trainers and Coaches
-Administration
-Materials, Equipment and Facilities
-Travel & Transportation
-Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional
Staff
-Coordinators and Teachers on Special
Assignment
-Building Substitutes and Other
Substitutes
-Instructional Aides

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 43
Table 2.2, continued
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
-Supplies, Materials and Equipment
-Computers (hardware, software,
peripherals)
7. Student Support
-Counselors
-Nurses
-Psychologists
-Social Workers
-Extra-Curricular and Athletics
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
-Custodial
-Utilities
-Security
-Food Service

Note: Adapted from Defining School-Level Expenditure Structures by Odden et al. (2003), pp. 330.
Copyright 2003 by Journal of Education Finance. Adapted without permission.

Odden et al. (2003) provide a detailed description of the core instructional and
non-instructional elements. They are as follows:
1. Core academic teachers: These credentialed classroom teachers are primarily
responsible for teaching a school's core academic subjects including
reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science, and history/social studies.
In elementary schools, core academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-
contained regular education classrooms. In secondary schools, ESL/bilingual
teachers and special education teachers are included. The cost of the core
academic teachers is equivalent to an FTE;
2. Specialist and elective teachers: These credentialed teachers who teach non-
core academic classes, may provide planning and preparation time for core
academic teachers such as:
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 44
a. Specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical education teachers, who
may release regular classroom teachers for planning and preparation time;
b. Teachers who provide instruction in a subject area that represents the special
academic focus of a school. For example, if a school offers a foreign language
magnet program, those teachers would fall into this category;
c. Vocational education teachers;
d. Drivers education teachers;
e. Licensed librarians or media specialists;
3. Extra help: This category consists of credentialed teachers who assist
struggling students, or students with special needs, to learn a school's regular
curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers utilize supplement the
instruction of the regular classroom. Examples of teachers providing this support
include:
a. Tutors who are credentialed teachers who provide one-on-one support to
students. This is most common in elementary schools;
b. Extra help laboratories that may provide extra help in reading and mathematics
for students struggling to meet academic performance standards through
additional classes. This is most common in secondary schools;
c. Resource rooms provide extra support to students in small groups, usually
focused on remedial reading or remedial mathematics skills that are not directly
related to the school's regular curriculum or standards;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 45
d. Inclusion teachers who assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed
students with physical or mental disabilities. These students generally have less
severe learning disabilities;
e. Teachers of English as a second language (ESL) who work with non-English
speaking students to support them mastering English;
f. Self-contained special education teachers along with their instructional aides
work with severely disabled students for most or all of the school day in a self-
contained classroom;
g. Extended day or summer school programs to provide students with extra
instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum;
h. District alternative programs serve students who have trouble learning in
traditional classrooms. These programs may be administratively and
instructionally separate from the student’s home or assigned school although they
may be located in the school building or reported as part of the school's operating
budget;
4. Professional development: This expenditure element includes spending on the
professional development of a school's staff including the costs of teacher time;
trainers and coaches; administrating the professional development; materials;
travel and transportation; facilities; and tuition and conference fees;
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff: Included here are credentialed and
non-credentialed instructional staff that support a school's instructional program,
such as program coordinators, curriculum or technology coordinators, substitutes,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 46
and instructional aides other than those working in self-contained special
education classrooms;
6. Instructional materials and equipment: This includes books, instructional
supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and software used for all
instructional programs, including regular education and all extra help programs;
and
7. Student support: This final instructional expenditure element consists of
school-based student support staff such as counselors, nurses, social workers,
psychologists, attendance monitors, or parent liaisons, as well as extra-curricular
activities and athletics expenditures.
The final two non-instructional expenditure elements are:
8. Administration: This consists of all expenditures pertaining to the
administration of a school, including the principal, assistant principal(s), clerical
staff, administrative office supplies, equipment and technology, and school
reserve funds; and
9. Operations and maintenance: This expenditure element includes the costs of
staff, supplies, and equipment for custodial services, food services, and security,
as well as other expenditures charged to school such as utilities, and grounds, and
maintenance.
The objective of Odden et al.’s (2003) empirical portion of the study was to use
the above expenditure structure and gain insight into the array of spending in different
elementary and secondary schools. The authors chose a purposive sample of two
elementary schools and two secondary schools that were compared with those schools
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 47
using the expenditure structure framework for both instructional and non-instructional
purposes and schools not using the framework. These schools varied in demographics,
size, context, expenditure level, and the educational strategies within (Odden et al.,
2003). Their finding suggested that there were significant differences in the allocation of
resources at the schools within their study, concluding that those resources may not be
appropriately allocated at the school level to support the instructional program.
Odden and Picus (2008) suggest that educational resources fall into numerous
categories and are spent in many ways. The authors identified the primary functions as:
1. Instruction: includes all resources dedicated to providing instruction to
students. This also includes teacher and instructional aide salaries,
benefits, services purchased, tuition, books, and other instructional
supplies;
2. Instructional support: the expenditures for this function includes
curriculum development, staff training, media centers consisting of
libraries and computer labs, including the salaries, benefits, purchased
services, tuition, and supplies dedicated to support the instructional
program at the school site;
3. Administration: includes salaries and benefits of principals, assistant
principals, other administrators, and secretarial staff at the site or the
district office, also including purchased services, tuition, and supplies
dedicated to this expenditure at the district level;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 48
4. Student support: includes salary, benefits, purchased services, and
supplies dedicated to guidance, attendance, speech pathology services,
health, social workers, family outreach to community resources, and other
functions that support the instructional program of the school or are
focused on students’ well-being;
5. Operations and maintenance: includes the salaries, benefits, purchased
services, and supplies for custodians, carpenters, plumbers, electricians,
groundskeepers and other support personnel, and other expenditures for
cleaning schools and grounds, and operating, maintaining, heating, and
cooling schools;
6. Transportation: include the salaries, benefits, purchased services, and
supplies dedicated to providing transportation to students; and
7. Food services: also include the salaries, benefits, services, and supplies to
provide food to students.
Odden and Picus (2008) assert that gathering data on the allocation of resource
and its usage at school sites is necessary considering that schools are the quintessential
"production units" in education. Preferably, Odden and Picus (2008) suggest, in order to
evaluate the resource use at all levels of education, elementary, middle, and high school,
there are five types of data on resources and resource use are needed that include 1)
staffing and expenditures by program—the regular instruction program, programs for
special needs students, special education, staff development, and instructional materials,
2) staffing and expenditures by educational strategy—class size ratio, tutoring,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 49
professional development, pull-out programs, and core versus elective subjects, 3)
staffing and expenditures by content area, 4) the interrelationships among these staffing
and expenditure patterns, and 5) the relationships of these staffing and expenditure
patterns to student performance.
The Evidenced-Based Model. In taking the school level resource use a step
further, Odden and Picus (2008) developed the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) that
identifies a comprehensive set of school level elements that are required to deliver a high-
quality instructional program designed to improve student performance within a school.
These elements are research-based and have proven successful in improving student
achievement at the school level. Odden and Picus (2008) argue that the EBM delivers the
most substantially sound methodology in adequacy research. Therefore, the EBM
provides the theoretical framework for this study and is the preferred approach. Figure
2.3 provides a detailed explanation and a more clear understanding of the Evidence-
Based Model.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 50
Figure 2.3
Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model

(Source: Odden & Picus, 2008)
As Figure 2.3 shows, the Evidence-Based Model is based on evidence from three
sources: 1) research with randomized assignment to the treatment, 2) research with
other types of controls or statistical procedures that can help break down the impact of a
treatment, and 3) best practices either as collected from comprehensive school design or
from studies of impact at the local district or school level. The EBM establishes
prototypical school models and then adjusts for demographics and school size. For
example, the model suggests that a prototypical high school would have a total of 600
students with an average class size of 25 students (Odden & Picus, 2008). With 600
students, 24 full-time core teachers would be staffed at the high school. Additionally, the
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/Best Practices Approach Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 51
model also provides for eight full-time specialist teachers, three instructional coaches,
and one technology coordinator. Coaches would spend most of their day in classrooms
during the instructional day providing feedback to teachers and also modeling lessons.
They would also coordinate professional development and oversee the instructional
program (Odden & Picus, 2008). Table 2.4 summarizes the elements included in the
prototypical elementary, middle, and high school.
Table 2.4
Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6–8 9–12
Prototypic school size 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 RESOURCE ALLOCATION 52
Table 2.4, continued
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more: 8.0
3. Instructional
facilitators/mentors
2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
5. Teachers for ELL
students
Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.43
Additional 1.0
teachers for every 100
ELL students: 0.45
Additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.60
6. Extended-day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer school
8a. Learning and mildly disabled students
8b. Severely disabled students
9. Teachers for gifted
students
1.8 1.875 2.5
10. Vocational
education
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
11. Substitutes 100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
12. Pupil support staff $25/student $25/student $25/student
13. Non-instructional
aides
NA NA No extra cost
14. Librarians/media
specialists
5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11
15. Principal 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
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 53
Table 2.4, continued
16. School site
secretary
2.0 2.0 3.0
17. Professional
development
1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian
1.0 library
technician
18. Technology 1 1 1
19. Instructional
materials
2.0 2.0 3.0
20. Student activities 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.

(Source: Odden & Picus, 2008)
The Evidence Based Model includes resources for extra support and staff to assist
disadvantaged and low income students. The number of disadvantaged students
determined the resources allocated for extra help. Also, the model funds one credentialed
tutor for every 100 students who participate in the free or reduced-price lunch program.
The tutor provides one-on-one tutoring for 20 minutes per student or for a group of three
students for one hour. The credentialed tutors are trained in teaching specific skills and
the tutoring is intended to support the regular curriculum with the goal of closing the
achievement gap for those students and then returning them to the regular classroom
(Odden & Picus, 2008). The model also supports English Learner students with one full-
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 54
time teacher for every 100 EL students to provide additional support for these students.
In addition to the support classes, English Learner students would also be supported by
the tutoring program (Odden & Picus, 2008).
In 2006, Wyoming adopted the Evidence-Based approach as the funding model
for its schools and implemented it beginning with the 2006-07 school year. Picus,
Odden, Aportela, Mangan, and Goetz (2009) described how Wyoming schools used the
funds they received during the first year the state implemented this funding model. Picus
et al. (2009) conducted an initial study in both a representative, random sample of 187
schools which constituted 50 percent of all schools in Wyoming and in a near universe
sample of 344 schools. The findings were then reported to the legislature in 2008. The
findings on their current resource allocation use compared to the Evidence-Based Model
suggested that schools in Wyoming were focusing on a different theory to improve
student performance than the one embedded in the EBM. Schools in their sample
revealed fewer core teachers and many fewer teacher tutors than the model suggested.
Also, they found that categorical funding requirements led to similar numbers that were
provided by the EBM (Picus et al, 2008). Considering these findings followed only one
year of implementation, more research is required to fully understand the effectiveness of
the EBM in Wyoming.
The Evidence-Based Model is not without criticism. Hanushek (2006) suggests
that there is little reason to believe that the effect sizes identified in Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidenced-Based Model indicate what can be expected from implementing any
policy on a broad scale. What Picus and Odden provide, Hanushek (2006) asserts, is a
selective review of the published literature on program effects. For instance, regarding
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 55
full-day kindergarten, Odden and Picus ignore a large body of literature that shows little
impact on advantaged students and smaller impacts on disadvantaged ones, while the
empirical reality is that the 56 percent of students currently attending schools that have
full-day kindergarten do not surpass the remaining 44 percent attending schools without
full-day kindergarten (Hanushek, 2006).
Given that this study focuses on a school district located in the state of California,
the fact that the Evidence-Based Model is not used in the state presents a challenge for a
couple of reasons. First, considering the current economic crisis, California does not
have the funding to support the EBM. Additionally, due to California’s current model of
allocating funding to schools and school districts, it is unlikely that this study will show
similar successful resource allocation patterns. However, some elements of the EBM
may be implemented and draw comparisons between current allocations and EBM
desired ones.
Constraints to Limited Fiscal Resources
The national recession created unique resource challenges for public education.
California was hit especially hard, and the impact on the state’s K–12 education was
particularly pronounced (Shambaugh, Kitmitto, Parrish, Arellanes, and Nakashima,
2011). This section examines the literature centered on the current fiscal situation and
how public education and policymakers responded to budget reductions, the federal
government’s attempt at filling the hole created by the recession, the local constraints to
implementing a lasting reallocation of resources, and lastly, reasons for optimism for
change will be explored.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 56
Current fiscal situation and response. Educators describe the current budget
crisis that has lingered for the past four years as the worst in recent memory
(Shaumbaugh et al., 2011). Similarly, while California education funding has
historically seen large fluctuations, the current cuts to public education funding are
unprecedented (Shaumbaugh et al., 2011). These cuts have led to some districts’ seeing
significant losses of between $900 and $1,400 per student. As a result of the decline in
resources for California’s schools, districts were forced to make several changes in an
attempt to ease the impact on schools and produce a balanced budget each year.
Shaumbaugh et al. (2011) suggest, given that the vast majority of district budgets are
dedicated to salaries and benefits, large cuts had to focus on staffing, including layoffs,
cutting salaries and benefits. Additionally, the authors assert that educators were forced
to make cuts to the instructional program by increasing class size, reducing or eliminating
professional development for teachers, and making cuts to campus technology. Finally,
Shaumbaugh et al. (2001) describe other cuts to non-instructional programs as affecting
maintenance, facilities, and athletics.
Recent state policy changes attempt to ease this burden and could potentially have
large effects on district decision-making. According to Shaumbaugh et al. (2011) those
policies include:
1. Increased funding flexibility: Starting in the 2008–09 school year, districts
received temporary flexibility in numerous categorical grant programs. As a
result, some of the funds that had historically been provided for a specific
program could now be used for any educational purpose deemed appropriate by
the county, district, or school;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 57
2. Reduced incentives for smaller classes: Beginning in 1996, California provided
financial incentives to districts for all classes with 20 or fewer students in
kindergarten through third grade and in 1998 the state added financial incentives
to offer smaller classes to high school freshman in certain subjects. As part of the
budget compromise, the state relaxed the requirements for receiving class-size
reduction funds for the next four years, so that districts can increase class size and
compromise losing funding;
3. Temporary waiver of requirement to buy new instructional materials: the
requirement to buy new instructional materials approximately every three years
for English language arts, mathematics, science, social science, and bicultural
subjects, and approximately every four years for other subjects, was relaxed;
4. Reduction of required school days: prior to the fiscal crisis, California required
students to attend school for 180 days per school year. State policymakers
relaxed this requirement by allowing school districts to offer five fewer days per
school year;
5. Removal of requirement for district match funds on maintenance projects: In
2009-2010, the state removed the traditional requirement that school districts
were to set aside a portion of its general fund for routine maintenance and
deferred maintenance projects;
6. Change in district’s financial reserve requirement: Prior to the fiscal crisis,
districts were required by the state to maintain a certain portion of their funds in a
reserve account and the state reduced this mandate in 2009–2010; and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 58
7. Deferral of payments of state funds to districts: districts now only receive a
portion of the state funds promised to them during a school year instead of
receiving their overall allotment of state revenue in portions staggered throughout
the school year. As a result, the state delayed the final apportionment to the next
fiscal year’s budget.
In short, ponders Miles (2011), is the question and challenge before public
education of whether policymakers and educational leaders can seize this moment of
financial pressure and economic crisis to clarify a new vision for schools and systems and
move more quickly toward the new structures.
Federal stimulus funding. On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama
signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly
known as the “stimulus.” ARRA contributed more than $800 billion in federal spending
and tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy while laying the roots of future long-term
growth. Enacted during the midst of a deep recession brought on by global financial
collapse, a significant portion of ARRA funding, more than $100 billion, was dedicated
to education. This unprecedented one-time spending boost was greater than the entire
annual budget of the U.S. Department of Education (Mead, Vaishnav, Porter, &
Rotherham, 2010). Mead et al. (2010) assert that the architects of ARRA sought not just
to patch holes in state and local budgets due to the economic crisis and to save teacher
jobs, but to also advance education reform in four key areas: 1) turning around
chronically low-performing schools, 2) increasing teacher effectiveness, 3) creating pre-
K-20 longitudinal data systems, and 4) implementing college- and career-ready standards
and high-quality assessments.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 59
At the outset of the recession, some analysts had assumed that education might be
more protected than other state priorities when it came to cutting budgets. However,
Roza and Funk (2010) found that this was certainly not the care across the nation. After
receiving ARRA funding, their study of 36 states revealed that 13 states showed a
shrinking portion of the state budgets allocated toward K-12 education, with California
representing the third highest decrease in spending at nearly 4%. That suggests that,
either California schools did not allocate the funding toward the intended goals, or the
state might have seen a more significant cut to its public education budget without the
ARRA funding. Regardless, while a portion of ARRA permitted states to use the
stimulus funding to fill holes in the state budget over a multi-year period from fiscal year
2009 to 2011 (Roza & Funk, 2010), it is clearly too early to assess the full influence of
ARRA’s reform and economic impact on public education (Mead et al., 2011). In the
end, the question that remains is how states will adjust now that the ARRA funding is
gone.
Local constraints. Odden (2008) offers insight into the constraints to limited
resources through the lens of systemic problems within public education that limit the
power of standards-based reform efforts. Reasons suggesting these problems could be
tied to a lack of funding, barriers imposed by teachers unions, past practice, or a lack of
vision or expertise. Odden (2008) specifies those problems to include:
1. Lack of a strategy for aligning human capital;
2. Staffing schools with high-need students (e.g., low socioeconomic, low-
achieving) with quality teachers;
3. High teacher turnover, particularly in urban districts;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 60
4. Persistent shortages of qualified math, science, and technology teachers;
5. The difficulty nationwide some district have in attracting the “best and
brightest” to teaching and the problem of not using nontraditional sources of
teacher supply;
6. Professional development systems that spend upwards of $6000-8000 per
teacher per year with little impact on instructional practice, and very little
focus on core subjects; and
7. Compensation systems that pay for factors not linked to student learning
gains.
Odden (2008) concludes by offering solutions to this challenge by suggesting that the
role of a strategic human capital management system can play in schools and districts can
also include promoting, designing, and supporting a professional culture that is
characterized by four characteristics, 1) support for the district’s educational
improvement strategy and vision, 2) collective responsibility for the student achievement
results of the system, 3) a shared understanding of effective instructional practices, and 4)
high expectations for student learning.
Opportunities for change. Shambaugh et al. (2011) suggest tough economic
times like the present provide not just extreme challenges but also opportunities for
change, including addressing long-standing inefficiencies in California state policy and at
the district level as well. To this end, the authors offer several key considerations for
state policymakers heard while conducting their qualitative study, including:
1. Stabilizing and increasing education funding in the state;
2. Making permanent the funding flexibility allowed during the fiscal crisis;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 61
3. Reforming the current budgeting process to lessen the burden on districts; and
4. Changing state regulations on seniority to increase flexibility for districts’ staffing
decisions.
Gap Analysis
This study pursued a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) process as the preferred
tool to analyze the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) to determine how this
ideal model of resource allocation compares to the district under study and its current use
of resources. Clark and Estes (2008) define gap analysis as diagnosing the human causes
behind performance gaps. They suggest three areas, knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational barriers, often impede performance or prevent the attainment of
desired outcomes and must be used in the process of analyzing a performance gap. The
goal of a gap analysis, in turn, is to reveal the performance gaps between an intended
outcome and current reality.
Summary of the Literature
This chapter began with an overview of Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance, which offered effective practices for improving student
performance. Next, the connection between the vision for teaching and learning and
successful resource allocation was the focus of review. The chapter then highlighted the
current constraints to limited fiscal resources while exploring economic instability in
California and what schools have done to overcome limited, or lack of, funding for public
education. The final section of this chapter identified the operational framework of Clark
and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis as the preferred application model to compare the
alignment of the district’s resource allocation to its instructional goals by evaluating the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 62
organization’s staff’s knowledge and skills, motivation to achieve the goals, and the
organizational barriers prohibiting support of the goals to the Evidence-Based Model of
Odden and Picus (2008).
Clearly, in California, the lingering economic crisis has led to limited resources
allocated to school districts and schools. This limited funding forced school leaders to do
more with less and to become increasingly more innovative by trying new strategies
designed to maximize resources. The literature explored in this chapter on allocating
resources for an adequate education and the strategies that research proves work in
schools may provide educators with tools to use not only to overcome the current
recession but to implement in times when resources are more plentiful.
As the literature indicates, the path to creating better educational opportunities is a
process, and research findings generally support the implementation of the components of
the Evidence-Based Model that were the focus of this review. The usage of this model
would allow resources to be reallocated in areas that may have a greater impact on
instruction and student performance without increasing funding to school districts in the
process. The Evidence-Based Model of Odden and Picus (2008) offers a research-based
point of comparison when looking at the school district use of allocating resources to its
school sites. Further, the interest of this study is in comparing the strategies suggested in
the literature suggested in this chapter and using those outlined above in the Evidence-
Based Model. The next chapter explains the methodology of this study including the
research questions and the sample selection.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 63
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
This study investigated how the Hampton School District uses its current
personnel resources to support its instructional program. Resource allocation driven from
the central office to school sites was compared to the Evidence-Based Model created by
Odden and Picus (2008) as comparison means of determining whether the district aligns
its resources with best practices suggested by research. The Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) takes into account the Hampton School District’s diverse student
population and provides one possible allocation framework for the district and its
schools. The researcher also offers his model as another approach to comparing current
and desired resources within the school district of study. Further, a framework by Odden
(2009) outlining ten strategies for doubling student performance was used as the
framework to examine which of the strategies are effectively implemented in the schools
throughout the district. The ten strategies for doubling student performance consist of: 1)
understanding the performance challenge, 2) setting ambitious goals, 3) changing the
curriculum program and creating a new instructional vision, 4) benchmarking and
utilizing formative assessments and data-based decision making, 5) providing ongoing,
intensive professional development, 6) using time efficiently and effectively,7)
extending learning time for struggling students, 8) collaborative cultures and distributed
leadership, 9) implementing professional and best practices; and 10) focusing on the
human capital of the organization.
The methodology for this study was qualitative in nature, as qualitative data was
collected from the Hampton School District, which is located in an urban region in
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 64
Southern California. This qualitative method approach to data collection allows for the
gathering of qualitative data that shapes the story regarding how the district utilizes its
resources to support the instructional program at its school sites. The qualitative data was
collected through document analysis, interviews with the Superintendent of Schools,
district level personnel, and finance administrators. The data analysis section of this
chapter provides a summary of the resource allocation differences among the district’s
eleven schools compared with the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
through the gap analysis model created by Clark and Estes (2008).
Research Questions
The research questions for this particular study were:
1. What research based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across Hampton School District and its
schools?
3. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Sample and Population
This study utilized a purposeful sample of one school district containing eleven
schools. The Hampton School District was also selected for this study due to the
diversity of its student population and its being centered in an urban community.
Hampton School District was also selected based on the high number of students from
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 65
low socioeconomic status backgrounds, which contributes to the variety and scope of
federal and state funding resources allocated to the school district. This study
examined the funding levels for seven elementary schools, three middle schools, and
one charter high school in terms of all federal and state funding and how these monies
are allocated to support student achievement at those school sites from the district’s
perspective. Additionally, this study examined schools from a single school district to
focus on the responsibility the district has on the allocation of resources.
The researcher sought the advice of the Dissertation Chair, Dr. Lawrence O.
Picus, as to which urban school district could serve as one to study. Dr. Picus is a
nationally recognized expert in school finance and recommended the Hampton School
District based on a number of factors. One, the current Superintendent is a recent
graduate of the doctoral program within the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. Second, her dissertation was under the guidance of
Dr. Picus and focused on a similar area of emphasis. Therefore, it was assumed, based
upon her experience and knowledge of the demands of a similar dissertation, that she
would be willing to offer her district for study and her time for interviews.
Patton (2002) defines a purposeful sample as a sample within a sample and
suggests that purposeful samples can be stratified or nested by selecting particular
cases that vary according to a key dimension. For example, one may purposefully
sample based on size or setting (Patton, 2002). In this study, the setting is paramount,
as the schools selected for this study all reside within the Hampton School District
Boundaries. All of the schools in this sample are traditional public schools except for
the Hampton Math & Science Academy which is a charter high school and has
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 66
numerous entrance requirements including the potential for a lottery should demand
exceed student space.
Pseudonyms were used in place of school district and school names to honor the
anonymity of the district and its schools. Table 3.1 shows a list of each school by name,
the type of school, and the grade levels served.
Table 3.1
Hampton School District Schools
School Name Type of School Grade Levels Served
Edgewood School Elementary K-5
Jackson School Elementary K-5
King School Elementary K-5
Reuss School Elementary K-6
Wilson School Elementary K-5
Young School Elementary K-5
Zeta School Elementary K-5
Bill Clinton School Middle 6-8
Hampton School Middle 6-8
Point View School Middle 6-8
Hampton Math & Science
Academy
Charter High School 9-12
Hampton school District (2012)
Overview of the District
The Hampton School District is an urban school district and lies in Southern
California’s Los Angeles basin, minutes from the Los Angeles International Airport. The
Hampton School District educates close to 10,000 students in grades pre-kindergarten
through twelfth grade in the richly diverse urban community of Hampton. Founded in
1910, the district is currently comprised of seven elementary schools, two middle
schools, and a charter high school. All district schools follow a modified traditional
school calendar. The district’s charter high school, Hampton Mathematics and Science
Academy, opened in the 2005-2006 school year and offers a rigorous, college-
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 67
preparatory program. Students from the Hampton School District not attending the
charter high school attend high schools in the Cello Vista Union High School District
(Hampton School District, 2012). While the district’s website states that hundreds of
students apply each year to attend Hampton Mathematics and Science Academy, after a
rigorous testing and interview process, only 150 incoming freshman students are accepted
(Hampton School District, 2012). In short, based on 2010-2011 enrollment data, 16.25%
of promoting Hampton School District eighth grade students were accepted at the charter
high school (Hampton High School, 2012).
Instrumentation and Data Collection
This study was conducted within a thematic dissertation group at the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education made up of 17 researchers collecting
data and creating similar studies. With the goal of establishing consistency throughout
the 17 studies, the researcher and others in the cohort attended a training led by Lawrence
O. Picus, Dissertation Chair in the summer of 2012. The training consisted of creating
interview questions, data entry and analysis protocols utilizing the model created by
Rossier School of Education Ph.D. Student David Knight to perform a gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008). All 17 doctoral students use this model, which was designed to
allow each researcher to independently enter all personnel resources allocated to each
school site within their district of study. The model also permits the researcher to input
staff allocations based on what the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) would
generate and what the researcher’s desired allocation approach would call for. Next, the
model enables the researcher to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to provide
three outcomes of measurement: 1) the current reality of resource allocation for the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 68
district compared to the district’s ideal or desired allocation, 2) the current allocation
versus the recommendations of Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model, and; 3)
the researcher’s recommended allocation compared to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008). There was a high probability that most schools within the Hampton
School District have a resource allocation that is less than the Evidence-Based Model and
also the researcher’s desired recommendations. With these data, the researcher then ran
simulations of personnel resource allocations and offered research-based strategies,
recommendations, or alternatives to the current resource allocation of the Hampton
School District. These alternatives to the district’s current allocations were based on
what may be possible if additional funding were available to the district in a best-case
scenario.
In the fall of 2011, the Superintendent of Schools for the Hampton School District
was contacted by the researcher and asked for the district’s participation in this research
study. After agreeing to the request, the researcher and Superintendent met in early
December 2011 to discuss the level of commitment and necessary data for the study. She
was also informed that her agreement to participate in the study would include being the
subject of interviews and answering a series of questions developed from an instrument
created at the summer 2012 training. The answers to these questions provided the
researcher with information regarding the decision making process of allocating
resources to district schools. The Superintendent assured the researcher that she would
support the study and act as the liaison between the district and the researcher.
Additionally, district level administrators were interviewed for the study. The
researcher scheduled interviews with the Personnel Director and Director of Finance in
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 69
the fall of 2012. Finally, district site principals participated in a survey designed to
gather data on how resources were allocated compared to the needs of the schools
themselves.
Data Analysis
The data analysis occurred immediately following the collection of the data. All
verifiable district document data consisted of the district budget, policies, procedures and
district-developed algorithms for the allocation of human resources at each of the eleven
school sites within the Hampton School District. These data were triangulated along with
the district’s “people book” and the principals’ survey which completed the triangulation.
A critical element of this triangulation of the data was to analyze the:
 District’s current resource allocation compared to their desired allocation;
 District’s current resource allocation compared to the Evidence-Based
Model;
 Researcher’s desired allocation compared to the Evidence-Based Model.
After this comparison, the researcher offered recommendations and alternative strategies
for improving student performance through effective resource allocation. The results are
discussed in chapter four of this study and final recommendations are revealed in chapter
five.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 70
Chapter 4
Presentation of Findings
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate resource data from the
Hampton School District to determine the relationship between how the district allocates
staff and what research suggests and how those allocations would differ if there were
fewer fiscal constraints. This chapter provides a synthesis of the findings from this study.
The first section of this chapter presents an overview of the district that participated in the
study. The second section of this chapter presents the findings as they relate to each of
the four research questions:
5. What research based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
6. How are human resources allocated across Hampton School District and its
schools?
7. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective?
8. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
The final section of this chapter presents a discussion of the findings and
recommendations.
Overview of the Hampton School District
This section provides an overview of the district that participated in the study.
This study used a purposeful sample of the Hampton School District, located in Southern
California’s Los Angeles basin, minutes from the Los Angeles International Airport. The
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 71
Hampton School District educates close to 10,000 students in grades pre-kindergarten
through twelfth grade in the richly diverse urban community of Hampton. Table 4.1
below shows student demographic data for the district. Additionally, the Hampton
School District receives Title 1 federal funds aimed to bridge the gap between low-
income students and other students. The U.S. Department of Education provides
supplemental funding to local school districts to meet the needs of low-income students
and those considered to be at risk of academic failure (Bright Hub Education, 2012).
Founded in 1910, the district is currently comprised of seven elementary schools, two
middle schools, and a charter high school. The district’s charter high school, Hampton
Mathematics and Science Academy, opened in the 2005-2006 school year and offers a
rigorous, college-preparatory program (Hampton School District, 2012).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 72
Table 4.1
Hampton School District School Demographics
School
Name
Grade
Levels
Served
Enrollment English
Learners
%
English
Learners
Special
Education
Students
% Special
Education
Students
Socio-
Economic
Disadv.
% Socio-
Economic
Disadv..
Edgewood
School
K-5 990 521 52.6% 71 7.1% 908 91.7%
Jackson
School
K-5 561 261 46.5% 48 8.5% 508 90.5%
King
School
K-5 740 320 43.2% 75 10.1% 653 88.2%
Reuss
School
K-6 770 365 47.4% 72 9.3% 599 77.7%
Wilson
School
K-5 722 347 48.0% 43 5.9% 656 90.8%
Young
School
K-5 596 337 56.5% 67 11.2% 545 91.4%
Zeta
School
K-5 1,181 543 45.9% 97 8.2% 1,084 91.7%
Bill
Clinton
School
6-8 781 195 24.9% 88 11.2% 693 88.7%
Hampton
School
6-8 944 238 25.2% 92 9.7% 803 85.0%
Point
View
School
6-8 982 217 22.0% 83 8.4% 905 92.1%
Hampton
Math &
Science
Academy
9-12 595 19 3.1% 2 0.3% 472 79.3%
Total 8,866 3,363 37.9% 738 8.3% 7,826 88.2%

Hampton school District (2012)
Introduction of the Findings
This section provides a discussion of the study findings as they relate to each of
the research questions. The research questions were answered using the data found in the
spreadsheet simulation model. The information found in this model is a result of
interviews with the Superintendent of Schools for the Hampton School District in the
summer of 2012.
This study was conducted in concordance within a thematic dissertation group at
the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education that included 16
other researchers collecting data and creating similar studies. The researcher created
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 73
interview questions for the Superintendent along with data entry and analysis protocols
utilizing the model created by Rossier School of Education Ph.D. student David Knight
to perform a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). The model was designed to allow each
researcher to independently enter all personnel resources allocated to each school site
within their district of study. The model also permitted the researcher to input staff
allocations based on what the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) would
generate and what the researcher’s desired allocation approach would call for. In
addition, the model enabled the researcher to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes,
2008). With these data, the researcher ran simulations of personnel resource allocations,
and in this chapter offers research-based strategies, recommendations, and alternatives to
the current resource allocation of the Hampton School District.
Human Resource Allocation Strategies Designed to Improve Student
Achievement
The sample school district used a variety of improvement strategies in an attempt
to increase student performance. The improvement strategies used throughout the district
were evaluated through Odden’s (2009) framework, 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance. Odden (2009) based these strategies for doubling student performance on
the research conducted on sample schools and districts that have effectively reallocated
their resources to support increasing student achievement.
Understanding the performance challenge. One of Odden’s (2009)
recommendations is that the school’s staff needs to engage in a variety of activities,
beginning with analyzing student data and then moving toward curriculum mapping to
fully understand the problem and to determine how far away a school is from the desired
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 74
outcome. The Hampton School District addressed this strategy through a communication
plan that includes having every teacher, parent, and student know and understand the
challenges this Title I school district faces and understanding the student performance
growth targets (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012). A major portion
of federal funding for K-12 education in is for students from low-income families.
Schools receiving these funds are known as Title I schools. The challenges facing schools
regarding educating students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds are numerous.
According to the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP, 2012), poverty can
impede children’s ability to learn and can contribute to emotional, behavioral, and social
problems. NCCP (2012) also suggests that poverty can contribute to poor physical and
mental health. Moreover, the organization’s research asserts that risks are greatest for
children who experience poverty when they are young or experience deep and persistent
poverty (NCCP, 2012). Such challenges compound the pressure for schools to reach the
AYP targets and avoid consequences for not making the mandate (California Department
of Education, 2012).
As a result of being a Title I district, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
performance targets in English Language Arts and Mathematics are at the forefront of
everything the school district does. These targets are tied to the NCLB federal mandate
that all students achieve proficient status by the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year
(California Department of Education, 2012). NCLB requires all districts and schools that
receive Title I funding to meet California State adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for
specific demographic subgroups and the total student population. If a school fails to meet
the AYP target during two or more consecutive years in English Language Arts and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 75
Mathematics, it is labeled a Program Improvement (PI) school and faces consequences.
Consequences for failing to meet the AYP targets include 1) parents of children enrolled
in Program Improvement Schools can transfer to schools not designated as such, 2) the
school must develop an improvement plan that will ensure that all targets are met. The
improvement plan shall specifically address the factors that prevented the school from
achieving the targets (California Department of Education, 2012), 3) the district must
take corrective action for a PI school failing to meet targets four consecutive years
including at least one of the following: replace school staff, appoint outside experts to
advise the school, or restructure the curriculum, and 4) the school can be restructured if it
does not meet AYP for five or more consecutive years (Great Schools, 2012).
Specifically, the district can opt to reopen the school as a charter school, replace all or
most staff, including the principal, contract with an outside entity to manage the school,
or have the state take over the school (Ed Source, 2012). As a result, the district is
focused on data-driven decision-making to inform teachers and principals of these targets
and of specific students who are in need of support.
Setting ambitious goals. Odden (2009) asserts that administrators and teachers
should set high and ambitious goals regardless of student demographics or current
performance levels. He argues all stakeholders should hold core values that all students
can learn and should be held accountable to high levels of achievement. Hampton School
District’s Superintendent models and leads this strategy through her mantra of, “Raise the
bar.” She encourages her team to strive for 100% of all students’ reaching proficient or
advanced performance levels on the California Standards Test. Along with this
encouragement comes the idea of no excuses. While the community presents a number
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 76
of challenges for the teachers and administrators in the Hampton School District, the
employees of the district adhere to a no excuses approach. In short, every student is
expected to meet the performance targets no matter their background or needs.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision.
Another important step in doubling student performance is creating a focus on the
curriculum and instructional programs, which are the core educational issues over which
educators have control (Odden, 2009). This strategy may include the assignment of
teachers, the setting of academic expectations, as well as the organization of the
curriculum and instruction. Over time, the Hampton School District changed the
curriculum program to meet the needs of all students. Supporting this effort is the
expertise and background that the superintendent brings to the table in the area of
curriculum as teacher, assistant principal, principal, Coordinator of Professional
Development, Director of Special Projects, and as Superintendent. Additionally, the
superintendent notes that the district has a strong Director of Curriculum and Instruction
supporting the effort.
Specifically, the district implemented a new approach for intervention designed
for elementary students who are two grade levels and below in English language arts.
Those students are placed in the Language! intervention series as their core language arts
program and receive extended time in ELA instruction. At the time of this study, this
program had been in place for two years following the recommendation of a district paid
consultant who recommended the program As a result, the district has seen students
excel in language arts and be able to exit the Language! program. Those students exiting
the program were transitioned into the core English language arts program. For the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 77
district’s middle schools, the program for struggling students consists of providing an
extra period, or support class, focusing on deepening the skills learned in the Language!
program and transferring them to the core class.
An example of organizing the curriculum is the implementation of pacing guides
which are stringent and hold the expectation that, on any given day, the instruction in one
class would mirror that in another in the same grade level or core subject area. Also, the
district realigned the pacing guides to strive for higher expectations while at the same
time moving toward the newly adopted Common Core Standards which begin in 2014.
Every year, the pacing guides are revisited and revised by a committee comprised of
administrators and teachers with the goal of meeting the needs of teachers and students.
Formative assessments and data-decision making. Research supports the
implementation of formative assessments to provide teachers with data on specific skills
and standards students have mastered and, conversely, what skills still need to be taught
and learned (Odden, 2009; DuFour, et al., 2004). In turn, teachers should use the
information gleaned from the assessments to guide their instruction to assist students in
mastering content and increasing their performance. Currently, the Hampton School
District has regular benchmark assessments tied to the curriculum and administered to all
students in kindergarten through eighth grade. English language arts assessments are
delivered every six weeks while mathematics assessments are aligned with the chapter
units that vary in length.
In addition, the district uses Data Director, an online management system that
houses and disaggregates all of the district’s assessment data. Teachers received
professional development training on how to access and use the data so it is meaningful
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 78
for their instructional practice. The expectation is that principals will ensure that either
site technicians or the teachers themselves access the data and that teachers work
collaboratively to use the data to improve teaching and student performance.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Odden (2009) emphasizes the
importance of implementing a widespread, ongoing, strategically aligned, and systematic
professional development program that takes place in team-based settings through a
restructuring of the school day with a focus on improving teaching practice and student
performance. Also noted by Odden (2009) are three resources required for solid
professional development: 1) pupil free days for teachers to receive training, 2) funds
designated for trainers, and 3) instructional facilitators, or instructional coaches. With the
current budget crisis, this has been an area of challenge for the Hampton School District
and led to creative problem solving in order to deliver meaningful professional
development to the district’s teachers and administrators. For example, the district
utilized categorical funding to train coaches to increase their efficiency which, according
the superintendent, was some of the most critical professional development the district
has engaged in recently.
The plan for the school year occurring after this study was to add literacy coaches
to every elementary school and a portion of a mathematics coach at every school as well.
The middle schools do not have coaches assigned to their schools, but, instead, have
special projects teachers, or a teacher on special assignment (TOSA), who have expertise
in English language arts and mathematics. Additional strategies include paying teachers
a stipend for collaboration with a focus on improving student achievement. Also, the
district has TOSA’s who provide in-house professional development. For example, the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 79
district paid a teacher to become a National Language Trainer so that she can work with
struggling teachers and provide demonstration lessons. Furthermore, the district
restructured time to allow each school site one day per month for site-based professional
development after the conclusion of the instructional day. Teachers are paid a stipend to
stay additional time beyond their contractual workday to participate in this professional
development. Another area of professional development focus was that of principal
training that consists of 90 minutes per week designed to develop stronger instructional
leaders. In turn, principal meetings were restructured from the business of the district to
an emphasis on this professional development training. The superintendent saw this as a
need because many of the district’s principals lacked experience in being instructional
practitioners. They were challenged in being able to recognize good teaching and in
supporting struggling teachers as well.
Using time efficiently and effectively. The research conducted by Odden (2009)
suggests that, while instructional time during the school day is considered to be a fixed
resource, districts and schools that increased student achievement used time more
effectively and efficiently. These schools accomplished this by setting aside a large
block of time for core instruction, limiting disruptions during reading and mathematics by
considering that time “protected,” extending time for some subjects, providing more time
for struggling students, and reducing class sizes to fifteen students (Odden, 2009).
Restructuring time also presented a challenge for the Hampton School District as it,
unfortunately, moved in the opposite direction of creating time by reducing the number of
school days from 180 to 175. However, the district is moving toward a focus on “Bell to
Bell Teaching” meaning that instructional time is used effectively. In addition, schools
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 80
are encouraged to have protected time for core subjects. District personnel are notified of
these times to ensure the district office does not interrupt schools and principals during
the block. This block of protected time equates to two and a half hours of English
language arts in elementary school. In the middle schools, it may consist of a double
period of core instruction, depending on student need. Also, middle school students
receive one hour of mathematics instruction with an additional 15 minutes of
remediation.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Odden (2009) asserts that
there is great importance in providing extended learning time for struggling students.
This time should take place during the instructional day, outside of the instructional day,
and outside of the regular school year in order to help students achieve their goals. The
district created an after-school tutoring block of time designed to support students in need
of intervention. However, at the time of this study, the program was facilitated by an
outside organization whose curriculum was not aligned with the core instructional
curriculum students receive during the school day. Additionally, the Hampton School
District offered after-school classes to struggling students when a school found teachers
willing to teach these classes. Unfortunately, district teachers had been reluctant to tutor
students who were not in their class, but the superintendent hoped the program would
expand by challenging teachers to be willing to provide intervention to all students.
Also, during recess, a “Math Club” was established at several of the elementary schools.
This intervention provided students with an opportunity to revisit skills not previously
mastered during the instructional day in a mathematics computer lab setting using a
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 81
software program. Finally, the district no longer offered summer school to its struggling
students due to a lack of funding and the ongoing budget crisis.
Creating a collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership.
This strategy concerns something built inside the district and its schools that involves the
creation of a collaborative culture with distributed leadership provided by both
administrators and teachers (Odden, 2009). As an organization, the Hampton School
District principal deepened collaboration in that principals took more of a leadership role
on their campuses. For example, principals worked together to develop strategies to offer
support and guidance to their teaching staff as opposed to the past practice of turning
over these responsibilities to the Literacy Coach to facilitate on their behalf (Personal
conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012).
This monthly collaboration time was centered on unit planning. Substitute
teachers were hired to release entire grade level staff members and various departments,
allowing teacher teams to collaborate. At the time of this study, each school had a data
room where the collaboration took place. This meeting room had a data wall where every
student’s name was represented on a chart that provided a visual representation of which
students possess the greatest needs. During collaboration, teachers spent this time
sharing strategies on how students made gains and helped one another overcome
challenges. The collaboration time was, therefore, mainly focused on data rather than on
other potentially distracting topics not connected to teaching and learning.
Professional and best practices. Odden (2009) suggests that highly professional
organizations actively seek out research on how to improve schools as well as look at
best practices for improving student performance in other districts and schools. At the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 82
time of this study, the staff of the Hampton School District supported this strategy by
adhering to the belief that the most significant influence on student performance is solid
teaching followed by strong site-based leadership. Specifically, the superintendent
challenged the district’s principals to deepen their role as instructional leaders by
devoting a minimum of two hours per week to observing teaching and learning in
classrooms. The idea was that, by observing instruction, principals would be able to offer
specific and meaningful support to their teachers. Moreover, on a monthly basis, the
superintendent shared research articles tied to the professional development training
principals receive on instructional leadership. The district’s philosophy was to remain
current with research on proven best practices and learn from the experiences and
successes of others (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012).
Human capital side. The final strategy of Odden’s (2009) stresses that, in order
to achieve ambitious improvement strategies, each district should focus on getting the
best talent in place to implement and execute their plan to improve student performance.
Without question, the budget crisis created challenges for the Hampton School District
human capital efforts. Certainly, teachers receiving Reductions in Force (RIF)
notifications were far more prevalent in the district than were hiring fairs. However, this
led the district to focus on a number of strategies to ensure the right people were in the
right positions district-wide.
First, the superintendent focused on providing additional support strategies to the
human resources department due to the department’s administrator’s lacking school site
experience. Specifically, the superintendent took on the responsibility of communicating
the expectations of the district to any new employee. She also facilitated the now
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 83
common practice of potential new teacher’s providing demonstration lessons as part of
the interview process. Previously, only the charter high school had candidates create a
lesson and deliver a sample lesson before being offered a teaching position.
Second, the culture in the district changed to encourage principals to hold teachers
accountable through the evaluation process and, if principals found teachers unable to get
the job done, to assist them in ensuring those teachers moved on. The notion was that
evaluation should help improve teaching practice and not simply be considered another
administrative task. The superintendent stressed the importance of this during the
probationary period for teachers because the district had been saddled with poor
performing teachers who were granted tenure.
Third, there was a concerted effort to position staff most effectively even if that
necessitated moving personnel from a site or position. For instance, admittedly, it was
nearly impossible to remove an ineffective tenured teacher at the time of this study.
Therefore, the district utilized the practice of involuntary transfer to make things
potentially uncomfortable for teachers who needed to move on or needed to be taken out
of their comfort zone to improve practice. For example, the district had a teacher in the
Peer Assistance Review (PAR) remediation program for seven years who was quite
complacent and adamant that she was untouchable. In turn, using the involuntary transfer
process, the district moved her from an assignment she held for 35 years to a new school
in a different grade level.
Finally, when the superintendent was hired two years prior to this study, she
discovered that principals were not receiving performance evaluations. Thus, difficult
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 84
conversations took place about holding site leaders to high standard along with teaching
staff. As a result, one principal was removed from his/her assignment.
Human Resource Allocation across Hampton School District
The Hampton School District experienced some structural changes and personnel
reductions for three years as a result of the budget crisis. While Class Size Reduction
(CSR) was implemented in the mid-1990’s in kindergarten through third grade with a
class size ratio of 20 to1, due to the financial situation, the district was forced to eliminate
the program and all classes in kindergarten through third grade were staffed at a ratio of
30 to1. Also, a 35 to1 ratio was in place for fourth and fifth grade classes, and, in grades
in sixth through eighth, there was a ratio of 37 to 1.
Additionally, the district reduced the number of workdays for all employees. Five
furlough days were implemented the past two years. Coupled with the non-paid days, the
school year was reduced from 180 to 175 instructional days. Also, teacher reductions
from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 totaled 32 fewer teachers. Unlike years past when the
district was able to reinstate all teachers who received a Reduction in Force (RIF) notice,
for the upcoming school year, 20 teachers who were laid off for the 2012-2013 school
year were laid off without the possibility of returning to their fulltime positions.
Furthermore, for the past three years, administrative staff reductions totaled $500,000.
As a result, those administrative cuts comprised a combination of reductions and
elimination of positions. Those included: 1) the Assistant Superintendent’s retiring and
being replaced by a Director, 2) the Director being replaced by a coordinator, 3) the
elimination of a Director position, 4) the elimination of two coordinator positions, and 5)
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 85
the reduction of one-half of an assistant principal. In terms of classified staff reductions,
from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 there were 67 fewer positions.
The Hampton School District executed a number of cost-saving strategies
throughout the prior three years as well. Along with the furlough days, reduction in
certificated and classified Full Time Employees (FTE), the district saved $400,000 by
changing employee health insurance carriers. Also, an early retirement incentive
program was implemented in 2009 and 2010. An additional cost saving strategy for the
district was spurred by a deep recession and large budget shortfalls. The California
Legislature in 2009 enacted the largest change to California’s school finance system in
decades. The legislature relaxed spending restrictions on more than 40 categorical
programs through 2014-2015. Categorical funding provides school districts money in
addition to the general funds they already receive from the state. Prior to this new
legislation, spending had been limited to specific, narrow purposes such as providing
summer school or purchasing textbooks. Under the 2009 changes, districts could begin
spending these funds for any educational purpose they determine to be necessary
(Weston, 2011). In turn, the district has reallocated most of the allowable Tier III
programs including:
 GATE-Gifted and Talented Education
 PDBG-Professional Development Block Grant
 SLIBG-School and Library Improvement Block Grant (District)
 SLIBG-School and Library Improvement Block Grant (Site)
 TIIBG-Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 86
A revenue enhancement that the district received in 2009 was the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). On February 17, 2009, President Obama
signed this act into law with the purpose of creating and saving jobs throughout
the country, including those in public education (California Department of
Education, 2012). The Hampton School District received ARRA funds and used
them for salaries and benefits for people who would have been laid off during the budget
crisis. However, this additional funding source was short-lived and expired at the
conclusion of the 2010-2011 school year. While the loss of ARRA funding did not
contribute to the teacher layoffs in the 2012-2013 school year, it did preclude the district
from hiring additional support staff.
Moving forward, according to the Superintendent, the district anticipated the local
county office of education would direct the district to plan for the worst-case budget
scenario for the fiscal year 2013, which is a decrease of $370 per ADA. This cut would
equate to approximately $2,967,900 in funds lost for the district. The Hampton School
District continued to deficit spend, which also continued to be cause for concern. The
district projected deficit spending of $4,993, 289 for the 2012-2013 term and of $4, 791,
144 for the 2013-2014 term.:
The total annual operating budget for the Hampton School District at the time of
this study was $73,089,135. As a matter of comparison, the district was deficit spending
by 6.8 percent in 2012-2013, and estimated a 6.5 percent deficit for 2013-2014.
Moreover, the district carried reserve funds allocated as follows:
 2012-2013 - 7.1 percent or $4,458,001
 2013-2014 - 0.36 percent or $233,322
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 87
 2014-2015- 6.55 percent or $4,311,045.
These numbers reflect a decrease of $451 per student projected if Proposition 30 were to
fail at the November 2012 voting polls. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office
(2012), if passed, Proposition 30 would require the state of California to increase
personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four
years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget such
as public education.
A Gap Analysis between the Current Human Resource Allocation Practices
and What the Research Suggests is Most Effective
The economy caused many school districts across California and the country to
reduce the level of financial support and resources provided to schools. The sample
district in this study used categorical funds and site discretionary funds to implement
strategies to improve student performance. In an effort to research how the Hampton
School District allocated its human resources, the researcher interviewed the
Superintendent of Schools and entered staff allocation and student data into the
simulation model. Next, the researcher analyzed the data through protocols contained
within the model. As Table 4.3 shows, that analysis suggests a significant gap between
the Hampton School District’s current human resource allocation and the Evidence-Based
Model of Odden and Picus (2008) and between the current allocation and the desired
allocation. Understanding the causes of the gap will provide additional insight to the
challenges facing the district.
Clark and Estes (2008) define gap analysis as diagnosing the human causes
behind performance gaps. They suggest factors associated with knowledge and skills,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 88
motivation, and organizational barriers often impede performance or prevent the
attainment of desired outcomes and must be the focus of a process to analyze a
performance gap.
Table 4.3
Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis
Position Counts Gap

Title

Current

Desired

EB
Current -
Desired
Current -
EB
Principal 11.011.011.00.0 0.0
Asst. Principal 5.5 10.3 8.8 (4.8) (3.3)
Instructional Coach 6.5 27.8 41.1 (21.3) (34.6)
Core Teacher 282.7 300.9 428.4 (18.2) (145.7)
Specialist Teacher 11.1 66.6 88.7 (55.5) (77.6)
Categorical Teacher 62.0 62.2 202.9 (0.3) (140.9)
Counselor 9.066.291.7(57.2) (82.7)
Other pupil support staff 4.0 24.7 69.7 (20.7) (65.7)
Instructional Aide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory Aide 0.0 44.3 39.4 (44.3) (39.4)
Librarian 0.03.011.0(3.0) (11.0)
Library Technician 11.0 31.7 0.0 (20.7) 11.0
Secretary/ Clerk 33.5 33.0 39.4 0.5 (5.8)
Total number of positions short (245.4) (595.7)

Table 4.3 shows the gap at the time of this study for the Hampton School District human
capital allocation as compared to the district’s desired allocation and to that of the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM). When examining Table 4.3, a negative number (in
parenthesis) means that the district has fewer of the position than either it desires or is
recommended by the EBM research base. For example, in regards to instructional
coaches, the district has 21.3 and 34.6 fewer coaches than it desires or are identified by
the Evidence-Based Model.
The continued fiscal stress in California, combined with the budget crisis, led to
staffing levels substantially below the district’s desired levels and even well below what
the EBM suggests. For instance, in total, the current gap in the desired resource
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 89
allocation of the district is a shortfall 245.4 positions, while the district’s current
allocation compared to the EBM is 595.7 fewer positions.
However, in terms of core teachers, the district has a gap of only 18.2 teachers
compared to its current allocation and its desired allocation. The subsequent tables
present the summary data in Table 4.3 into elementary, middle, and high school
allocations. These findings suggest that the elementary school allocation poses the
greatest challenge to closing the human capital allocation gaps.
Table 4.4
Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis-Elementary Schools
Position Counts Gap

Title

Current

Desired

EB
Current -
Desired
Current -
EB
Elementary Schools
Principal 7.07.07.00.0 0.0
Asst. Principal 1.5 5.7 5.7 (4.2) (4.2)
Instructional Coach 6.5 19.9 27.4 (13.4) (20.9)
Core Teacher 194.0 207.5 319.0 (13.5) (125.0)
Specialist Teacher 8.1 41.5 63.8 (33.4) (55.7)
Categorical Teacher 34.0 46.5 146.0 (12.5) (112.0)
Counselor 5.041.856.5(36.8) (51.5)
Other pupil support staff 4.0 18.0 49.5 (14.0) (45.5)
Instructional Aide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory Aide 0.0 25.4 25.4 (25.4) (25.4)
Librarian 0.01.87.0(1.8) (7.0)
Library Technician 7.0 19.0 0.0 (12.0) 7.0
Secretary/ Clerk 21.2 19.0 25.4 2.2 (4.2)
Total number of positions short (164.6) (444.4)

Table 4.4 indicates the gap for elementary school allocation as compared to the
district’s desired allocation and also to that of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) at the
time of this study. Typically, the number of core teachers at a school refers to the total
number of English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and world
language teachers assigned to a school site. In elementary school settings, however,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 90
teachers commonly teach all of the subjects listed above, so the numbers of core teachers
refers to the number of teachers at a particular grade level. Regardless, the gap is
significant compared to the EBM, while the district was only 13.5 teachers from its
desired allocation. In total for the Hampton School District’s elementary schools, the gap
of the desired resource allocation of the district was 164.6 positions short, while the
district’s allocation compared to the EBM was 444.4 fewer positions.
Certainly, the budget crisis led the district to back away from the Class Size
Reduction (CSR) efforts and that, in turn, helped create the current gap. While the
Hampton School District, at the time of this study, showed gaps of 13.4 instructional
coaches compared to a desired allocation and a gap of 20.9 from the EBM
recommendation, this gap was expected to decrease in the current school year as the
district hired one language arts coach at each elementary school in addition to a part-time
mathematics coach. While the district was planning for a worst case scenario with the
ballot measure, it had no impact on hiring the additional coaches for two reasons. First,
these coaches had already been hired, and there was not a way to eliminate them before
the end of the year, and second, they were paid from categorical funds that were in place
before the positions were advertised.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 91
Table 4.5
Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis-Middle Schools
Position Counts Gap

Title

Current

Desired

EB
Current -
Desired
Current -
EB
Middle Schools
Principal 3.03.03.00.0 0.0
Asst. Principal 3.0 3.3 1.8 (0.3) 12
Instructional Coach 0.0 6.0 10.8 (6.0) (10.8)
Core Teacher 71.7 71.8 86.2 (0.1) (14.5)
Specialist Teacher 3.0 18.0 17.2 (15.0) (14.2)
Categorical Teacher 27.0 12.8 45.0 14.2 (18.0)
Counselor 3.018.327.1(15.3) (24.1)
Other pupil support staff 0.0 5.2 15.5 (5.2) (15.5)
Instructional Aide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory Aide 0.0 15.0 10.0 (15.0) (10.0)
Librarian 0.00.83.0(0.8) (3.0)
Library Technician 3.0 10.0 0.0 (7.0) 3.0
Secretary/ Clerk 10.9 10.0 10.0 0.9 0.9
Total number of positions short (49.6) (105)

Table 4.5 shows the gap for the Hampton School District middle school allocation
as compared to the district’s desired allocation and to that of the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM). Surprisingly, the district’s middle schools show a near even allocation of core
teachers as compared to the desired (-0.1) while falling short of the EBM suggested
allocation of core teachers (14.5). A reason for this could be that the class size ratios for
middle school grades six through eight were staffed at 37 to 1. Another surplus is the
district’s allocation of categorical teachers, which stood at 14.2 more than their desired
allocation. However, as compared to the desired (-15) and the EBM (-14.2), the district
had significant gaps in specialist teachers. In total for the Hampton School District’s
middle schools, the gap of the desired resource allocation of the district represents a
shortfall of 49.6 positions, while the district’s current allocation compared to the EBM is
105 fewer positions.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 92
Table 4.6
Hampton School District Resource Allocation Gap Analysis-High School
Position Counts Gap

Title

Current

Desired

EB
Current -
Desired
Current -
EB
High Schools
Principal 1.01.01.00.0 0.0
Asst. Principal 1.0 1.3 1.3 (0.3) (0.3)
Instructional Coach 0.0 1.9 2.9 (1.9) (2.9)
Core Teacher 17.0 21.5 23.2 (4.5) (6.2)
Specialist Teacher 0.0 7.1 7.7 (7.1) (7.7)
Categorical Teacher 1.0 2.9 11.9 (1.9) (10.9)
Counselor 1.06.28.0(5.2) (7.0)
Other pupil support staff 0.0 1.6 4.7 (1.6) (47)
Instructional Aide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory Aide 0.0 4.0 4.0 (4.0) (4.0)
Librarian 0.00.51.0(0.5) (1.0)
Library Technician 1.0 2.7 0.0 (1.7) 1.0
Secretary/ Clerk 1.5 4.0 4.0 (2.6) (2.6)
Total number of positions short (31.2) (46.3)

Table 4.6 indicates the gap for the district’s single charter high school allocation
as compared to the district’s desired allocation and to that of the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM). Clearly, the high school allocation is closely aligned to the district’s desired and
the EBM versus the elementary and middle schools, as noted above. Admittedly, this
presented a challenge, as the district staffed high school classes at an average of 27
students. However, in total for the Hampton School District’s middle schools, the gap of
the desired resource allocation of the district represents 31.2 positions missing, while the
district’s current allocation compared to the EBM is short 46.3 positions.
Knowledge and skills. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that people’s knowledge
and skills present a critical factor in determining the cause of a gap. In analyzing the
district’s knowledge and skills, the Superintendent of Schools for the Hampton School
District suggests that, most notably, there appears to be a discrepancy in the knowledge
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 93
and skills of the classified versus the certificated staff in the district. However, the
superintendent focused on working with both groups to ensure that they had the
knowledge and skills to perform their jobs to their capabilities. For example, there was a
focused effort on meaningful professional development throughout the district.
Specifically, principals were trained in what it means to be an instructional leader while
teachers were supported through the efforts of English language arts and mathematics
coaches. Moreover, all employees were educated on conceptual, strategic, or theoretical
knowledge and skills though current research and best practices.
One unique aspect of the knowledge and skills of employees in the Hampton
School District is that, prior to the budget crisis and cuts to public education, its
employees recalled an educational climate when the state fully-funded school districts.
This was a source of frustration for the district’s employees because they endured cuts
that affected their specific jobs as well as the educational program offered to the district
(Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012). The challenge for district
leadership was to improve employee morale. That accomplishment, coupled with a
positive turn in the economy, in the view of the superintendent, would fortify the district
with the knowledge and skills t to propel them to success in the next decade of the 21st
century (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012).
Motivation. Motivation, as defined by Clark and Estes (2008), is what keeps
people going, keeps them moving in the right direction, and tells them how much effort
needs to be spent on tasks to complete them. In times of increasing academic
accountability, Hampton School District employees were asked to do more with less
resources, which affected motivation in that numerous employees served in more than
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 94
one position. In fact, the Superintendent of Schools herself serving as superintendent as
well as the district’s acting Chief Business Officer. As result of the budget crisis, Clark
and Estes’ (2008) notion of time on task changed dramatically in the Hampton School
District. Specifically, over the previous three years, the district lost 86 certificated staff
along with 65 classified employees. It is not that the district lacked motivation to close
the human capital gaps. They clearly did not have the resources to do so at the time.
Organizational barriers. Finally, Clark and Estes (2008) assert that organization
gaps such as alignment, culture, and ability to embrace change all play a significant role
in understanding gaps. For example, during the economic crisis, the superintendent has
saw employee attention shift from a student-centered focus to one a preoccupation with
adult issues. Once district employees accepted the budget crisis as real, employee
associations with different agendas designed to protect their own membership surfaced.
As a result, the superintendent’s perception of the employee associations acting in their
own best interest contributed to the organizational gaps throughout the Hampton School
District (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012).
Additionally, the Hampton School District Board of Trustees found its individual
members pulled by the employee associations and their agendas as well. For example,
the classified employee association was successful in encouraging the Board of Trustees
to eliminate assistant principals at the elementary schools, and reduce the number
assistant principals at the middle schools. Conversely, the teachers association countered
with a campaign to increase the number of teachers district-wide.
Throughout this process, and time of economic uncertainty, the superintendent
suggested her role was to keep the employees focused on the educational program the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 95
district offered its students. She believed that her experience as a district employee for
35 years, including a six-year tenure as the president of the teacher’s association, helped
drive this effort (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012)..
Human Resources Strategically Re-allocated to Align with Strategies that
Improve Student Achievement
The resource allocation model presented through Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence–Based Model (EBM) was used to analyze the levels of support and specific
resource allocation throughout the Hampton School District. Odden and Picus (2008)
developed the Evidence-Based Model to identify the elements of a school-wide
instructional program that research has shown to be effective at improving student
achievement. The EBM establishes prototypical schools and then adjusts for
demographics and school size. For example, the model suggests that a prototypical
elementary school would have a total of 432 students with an average class size of 15
students (Odden & Picus, 2008). With 432 students, 24 full time core teachers should be
staffed at the elementary school. Additionally, the model also provides for five full time
specialist teachers, two instructional coaches, and one technology coordinator. Coaches
would spend most of their day in classrooms during the instructional day, providing
feedback to teachers and also modeling lessons. They also would coordinate professional
development and oversee the instructional program (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Evidence-Based Model also provides recommendations to fund site
administrators, clerical staff, support staff, and librarians. Additionally, the model also
includes ten days of extra professional development during the summer break. The
funding for professional development, gifted and talented student education, technology,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 96
and instructional materials are all based on the number of students enrolled per school
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Evidence Based Model includes resources for extra support and staff to assist
disadvantaged and low-income students. The number of disadvantaged students
determined the resources allocated for extra help. Also, the model funds one credentialed
tutor for every 100 students who participate in the free or reduced lunch program. The
tutor would provide one-on-one tutoring for 20 minutes per student or for a group of
three students for one hour. The credentialed tutors would be trained in teaching specific
skills and the tutoring is intended to support the regular curriculum with the goal of
closing the achievement gap for those students and then returning them to the regular
classroom (Odden & Picus, 2008). The model also supports English Learner students
with one full-time teacher for every 100 EL students to provide additional support for
these students. In addition to the support classes, English Learner students would also be
supported by the tutoring program (Odden & Picus, 2008).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 97
Table 4.7
Hampton School District Resource Allocation Comparison to EBM
Position Counts

Title

Current

Desired

EB

Principal 11.011.011.0
Asst. Principal 5.5 10.3 8.8
Instructional Coach 6.5 27.8 41.1
Core Teacher 399.0 300.9 428.4
Specialist Teacher 11.1 66.6 88.7
Categorical Teacher 62.0 62.2 202.9
Counselor 9.066.291.7
Other pupil support staff 4.0 24.7 69.7
Instructional Aide 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory Aide 0.0 44.3 39.4
Librarian 0.03.011.0
Library Technician 11.0 31.7 0.0
Secretary/ Clerk 33.5 33.0 39.4

According to the Evidence-Based Model prototype, the sample school district fell
short of the resources suggested by Odden and Picus (2008). The district established the
number of core teachers based on the enrollment in each grade level by the ratios
negotiated between the Hampton School District and the teacher’s association. For the
district, the EBM would provide a total of 428 core teachers compared to the current, at
the time of this study, allocation of 299 teachers. Moreover, the EMB would call for an
additional 112 certificated teachers working in positions as instructional coaches and
specialist teachers providing support to struggling students and English Language
students and collaborating with core teachers. At the time of this study, the district
employed 11 specialist teachers and 6.5 instructional coaches.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 98
Table 4.8
Hampton School District Class Size Comparison to the EBM Recommendations-Current
Grade Level Current EBM Rec

K 30.0 15.0
1 30.0 15.0
2 30.0 15.0
3 30.0 25.0
4 35.0 25.0
5 35.0 25.0
6 37.0 25.0
7 37.0 25.0
8 37.0 25.0
9 27.0 25.0
10 27.0 25.0
11 27.0 25.0
12 27.0 25.0

There was a large discrepancy between the EBM recommendations for the
prototype school and the Hampton School District’s class size student to teacher ratio.
Specifically, the EBM calls for a 15 to 1 class size ratio in grades kindergarten through
second while a class size ratio of 25 to 1 is suggested in grades three through twelve. All
of the class size ratios in the Hampton School District significantly exceeded the EBM
recommendations at each of the district’s elementary and middle schools. For example,
in grades kindergarten through second, the number of students was double that of the
prototypical EBM school. Moreover, due to a direct result of the budget crisis, and
reduced funding from the state, student to teacher ratios in the district continued to
increase in grades pre-kindergarten through eighth (Personal conversation,
Superintendent, August 3, 2012). In terms of the charter high school, the class size ratio
of 27 to 1 was more closely aligned to the EBM recommendation of 25 students per class
in grades nine through twelve.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 99
Recommendations
Based on the findings from this study, a number of recommendations and
alternatives are suggested in this section. The goal of this section is to provide the school
district and practitioners with a way to systematically examine the possibilities of
reallocating teacher resources to improve student achievement.
Certainly, the battle cry for more education dollars is a resounding anthem up and
down the State of California. Educators clamor for two things. One request is to
eliminate further cuts to education (Democratizing Education Network, 2012). At the
time of this study, two Propositions, 30 and 38, were placed before California voters.
Both were designed, in part, to restore some of the cuts public education endured in the
past. For example, during the previous three years, the Hampton School District suffered
a total of $20 million dollars in cuts to its general fund. A second request is to restore
educational per pupil spending to pre-crisis levels. In the Hampton School District, per
pupil spending prior to the budget crisis was $6,707 per student versus the more recent
allocation of $4,758 (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012).
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2012), throughout the
nation, states made steep cuts to education funding since the start of the recession and, in
many instances, those cuts deepened over time. For example, elementary and high
schools received less state funding in the 2012-13 school year than they did the previous
year in 26 states, and, in 35 states, school funding stood below 2008 levels. California,
for instance, ranked sixth in the nation in cuts to per pupil spending at 17.3% since the
2007-2008 school year (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2012).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 100
The recommendations that follow are more critical than ever as school districts
try to manage the crisis and offer alternatives to the allocation of human capital without
the prospect of additional funding. As City (2008) suggests, what matters most in times
of need are how resources are used versus the notion of throwing more money at the
problem.
Recommendation number one-the evaluation process. The first
recommendation is to ensure that high-quality, effective teachers and administrators are
serving the students in the Hampton School District. Collins (2001) suggests that getting
the right people in the right positions is a critical component to organizational success,
and this is true in public education as well. At the time of this study, the evaluation
process for both employee groups in the Hampton School District was in need of revision
to support this recommendation (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August 3, 2012).
The district level administration team recognized this as a critical need to its success and
to improving student achievement. Therefore, it is recommended that the Hampton
School District continue to focus its professional development principal training on
becoming effective instructional leaders. The skills and knowledge gained by the
district’s site leaders will help them offer support for teachers while holding them
accountable for their performance in the classroom.
Recommendation number two-instructional coaches. The second
recommendation is to increase the number of instructional coaches throughout the
district. City (2008) supports the strategy of putting coaches into schools to improve
student achievement. She asserts that coaching meets many of the criteria of effective,
high-quality professional development. First, coaches are close to the curriculum and,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 101
therefore, the classrooms. Second, coaching involves the teacher and coach collaborating
in a one-on-one face-to-face setting. Third, the coach often may collaborate with groups
of teachers and their work is closely aligned with the school’s improvement plan. Fourth,
having a full-time coach ensures that coaching occurs on a regular basis. Finally, there is
an underlying accountability piece in which teachers, with the coach’s and principal’s
support, will strive to improve their practice that, in turn, increases student performance.
Specifically, in order for more coaches to be placed in schools, the Hampton
School District could reallocate teachers from their current assignments to coaches
without encroaching on the general fund. First, the district’s current allocation of core
teachers in their middle schools exceeds the desired allocation by 16.2 teachers. Next,
the district planned to add seven English Language Arts coaches to the elementary
schools. Coupling the surplus 16 teachers and the seven new coaches would bring a total
of 23 coaches to be placed throughout the district. The recommendation is to place 14 of
these teachers, or two per school, at the elementary sites as instructional coaches, which
would eliminate the current gap completely. Additionally, three instructional coaches
could be added to the high school, which currently has none. This reallocation would
completely eliminate the gap in desired personnel allocation and comply with the
Evidence-Based Model’s recommendations for the school. Finally, the remaining six
teachers, or two per site, should be placed at the three middle schools as instructional
coaches. Again, this would completely eliminate the district’s allocation gap for
instructional coaches.
Recommendation number three-increase elementary core teachers. The third
recommendation is to increase the number of Hampton Elementary School core teachers
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 102
at its seven sites. Currently, there is a gap in the number of the district’s desired number
of core elementary teachers and its current allocation of 13.5 teachers. The research
compiled by Miles and Hammond (1997) suggests that focusing additional teacher
resources to elementary schools is an effective practice in improving student
performance. Thus, the recommendation is for the Hampton School District to increase
its kindergarten through third grade class size ratio from its current 25 students per class
to 27.5 students while increasing its allocation in fourth and fifth grades from its current
30 students per class to 30.5. This would completely eliminate the district’s current gap
of 13.5 teachers. In fact, it would provide one additional core teacher to be used at the
discretion of the school district.
Impact of the Financial Crisis
The budget crisis had a direct effect on the Hampton School District and severely
limited its ability to plan for the future because there of much uncertainty on the level of
funding coming from the state. The Hampton School District faced making difficult
budgetary decisions in the wake of the financial crisis including, five furlough days for
all employees, administrative, certificated, and classified FTE reductions, the elimination
of Class Size Reduction (CSR), and a reduction of the school year from 180 days to 175
instructional days. While reductions were made, the district continued to deficit spend by
millions of dollars each year. The state continued to defer money, which drastically
affected Hampton School District’s cash flow. During each year the district experienced
increases in operating costs in both personnel and services without an increase in
funding.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 103
The Governor’s Budget. At the time of this study, the Governor’s budget was
set to rely heavily on the passing of a tax initiative. Should the initiative be successful, it
would only flat fund education (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2012). Meaning that school
districts would see the same deficit allocation they received the previous fiscal year.
Also, should the initiative pass there would not be an increase to help address the
increasing costs of doing business, such as step and column salary increases for teachers
and classified staff, which amount to a 2% increase for certificated staff, and .5% for
classified staff (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2012). Should the initiative fail, it would
mean mid-year cuts of $370 per ADA to the Hampton School District. This would
equate to a loss of revenue for the district of $2,967,900. The district’s strategy was to
plan for the worst and hope for the best (Personal conversation, Superintendent, August
3, 2012).
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data from the district level to
determine the connection between the current allocation of resources to the desired uses
of personnel and a research based model to determine gaps in allocations designed to
drive increased student achievement. The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus
(2008) served as a framework to determine whether or not the Hampton School District
effectively allocated resources to support an increase in student performance.
Additionally, Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was used
as a research-driven framework to determine which strategies the district implemented to
increase student performance.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 104
While the current financial crisis severely affected the Hampton School District’s
planning because of uncertainty about the funding coming from the State of California,
the district’s leadership remained committed to its educational program. The district was
forced to creatively distribute diminishing resources through budget cuts and the
reallocation of resources to remain solvent. The district aimed to move forward with its
ambitious student performance goals by having the right people in place and supported
by ongoing, meaningful professional development. Clearly, the sample district’s schools
fall significantly below the recommended allocations by the Evidence-Based Model in
many areas. However, the district, at the time of this study, wasclosing in on its desired
resource allocation. Chapter 5 provides further discussion on this issue, suggestions for
future research and conclusions.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 105
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions and Implications
This final chapter presents a brief purpose of the study, a summary of the
findings, limitations of the study, and policy implications.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate resource data from the
Hampton School District and compare the district’s actual staff resource allocation to the
desired uses of personnel and determine the variation between those allocations to
improve student achievement. This was a challenging undertaking, especially with
school districts in California, considering the state, at the time of this study, did not have
adequate resources to educate students to world class professional standards (Picus,
2011). Picus (2011) asserts that four approaches to adequacy exist. One is cost function
that statistically identifies the desired level of resources needed to reach proficiency. A
second approach identifies successful districts and schools that meet high academic
standards while effectively allocating resources in the process. Third, a professional
judgment approach exits that is led by educators guided by current research. A final
approach centers on successful school reform models such as Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model.
Data from the school district was compared to the Evidenced–Based Model
(EBM) in strategic budgeting framework in an effort to determine whether or not the
Hampton School District aligned its resources to support its priorities and goals to
improve student achievement. This comparison of resource allocation provided insight
into how the school district leadership’s decisions and budgetary strategies affeccted
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 106
students and their academic achievement. This study also sought to identify which of
Odden’s top Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (2009) were present in the
district and its schools under study. It also attempted to analyze how resources were
being allocated to support such strategies district wide. The ten strategies are:
 Understanding the performance challenge
 Setting ambitious goals
 Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
 Formative assessments and data-decision making
 Ongoing, intensive professional development
 Using time efficiently and effectively
 Extending learning time for struggling students
 Creating a collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership
 Professional and best practices
 Inventing in human capital
Although the level of state funding for school districts continued to be inadequate
and an area of concern, this study provided a detailed analysis of how resource allocation
at the district level was used to support student performance at its eleven school sites. As
a result, this study utilized a qualitative methods design that assisted in answering the
research questions. The data on instructional goals and priorities were collected through
interviews with the Superintendent of Schools. Additionally, data focused on resource
allocation was gathered from the personnel division and analyzed through a gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008) comparison using the Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2005).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 107
Summary of Findings
The objective of this study was to examine how the Hampton School District
utilized its human resource allocation to improve student achievement. The following
four research questions served as the framework for evaluating the evidence gathered in
this study:
1. What research based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across Hampton School District and its
schools?
3. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Although the sample school district in this study was facing unprecedented financial
challenges, the findings suggest that the district was committed to finding ways to
effectively manage its decreased funding while maintaining a focus on improving student
performance. This was evident by reviewing the level to which the school district
addressed Odden’s top Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (2009).
For the purposes of analyzing personnel resources, the researcher utilized a
simulation model designed to allow all district human capital resources allocated to each
school site within the district to be disaggregated. The model also permitted the
researcher to input staff allocations based on what the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
(Odden & Picus, 2008) would generate, and what the district’s desired allocation
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 108
approach would call for. Next, the model enabled the researcher to conduct a gap
analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). In turn, with these data, the researcher ran simulations of
personnel resource allocations showing the current gap for the Hampton School District
human capital allocation as compared to the district’s desired allocation, and also that of
the Evidence-Based Model (EBM).
In sum, the continued fiscal stress in California, combined with the recent
economic downturn, led to staffing ratios of the Hampton School District being below
the district’s desired levels and substantially below what the EBM suggests. The findings
for elementary, middle, and high schools are as follows.
Elementary findings. Typically, the number of core teachers at a school refers to
the total number of English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and world
language teachers assigned to a school site. In elementary school settings however,
teachers commonly teach all of the subjects listed above, so the numbers of core teachers
refers to the number of teachers with a regular classroom assignment at a particular grade
level. Regardless, the findings offer that the present gap was large when compared to the
EBM, while the district is only 13.5 teachers from its desired allocation. Certainly, the
budget crisis led to the district eliminating its Class Size Reduction (CSR) efforts and
that, in turn, created the current gap. Additional findings also include a gap of 13.4
instructional coaches district-wide compared to its desired allocation, and a gap of 20.9
from the EBM recommendation. This gap of instructional coaches was set to decrease in
the upcoming school year as the district intended to add one language arts coach to each
elementary school along a portion of a mathematics coach as well.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 109
Middle School Findings. Surprisingly, the district’s middle schools showed a
near even allocation of core teachers as compared to the desired level while falling short
of the EBM suggested allocation. A reason for this could be the class size ratios for
middle school grades six through eight being staffed at 37 to1. Another finding was the
surplus in the district’s current allocation of categorical teachers, which stood at 14.2
more than their desired allocation. However, as compared to the desired and the EBM,
the district has a significant gap of 77.6 specialist teachers.
High School Findings. The findings suggest that the high school allocation is
closely aligned to the district’s desired allocation and to the EBM when compared to the
elementary and middle schools as noted above. This was accomplished by the district’s
staffing high school classes at a ratio of 27 students per teacher.
District Findings. According to the Evidence-Based Model prototype, the
sample school district significantly fell short of the resources suggested by Odden and
Picus (2008). The district established the number of core teachers based on the
enrollment in each grade level by the staffing ratios negotiated between the Hampton
School District and the teacher’s association. For the district, the EBM would provide a
total of 428 core teachers compared to the existing allocation of 282 teachers. Moreover,
the EBM would call for an additional 112 certificated teachers working in positions as
instructional coaches and specialist teachers providing support to struggling students and
English Language students and collaborating with core teachers.
There is a large discrepancy between the EBM recommendations for the
prototype school compared to the Hampton School District’s current class size ratio in its
elementary and middle schools. All of the class sizes at each of the elementary and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 110
middle schools significantly exceeded the recommended size. In grades kindergarten
through two, the number of students was double that of the prototypical EBM school.
Class size ratios continued to increase in grades pre-kindergarten through eighth as a
direct result of the budget crisis and reduced funding from the state. However, in terms
of the charter high school, the class size ratio of 27:1 was closer aligned to the EBM
recommendation of 25 students per class in grades nine through twelve.
In short, the findings suggest that the state fiscal crisis significantly influenced the
manner in which the school district allocated its human resources. However, the findings
also show that the Hampton School District aligned those scarce resources to the best of
its ability as it sought to provide a comprehensive educational program to its community
while maximizing those resources to improve student achievement.
Limitations of the Study
As with any research, limitations that were present in this study. The limitations
are as follows.
 Data gathered for this study was limited to expenditures and resource allocations
in the 2011-2012 school year and, therefore, are not longitudinal.
 Only district-level data was used. Therefore, due to the sample size, the findings
may not be necessarily generalizable across school districts, especially those with
different student populations.
 The method of data collection was based upon a semistructured interview
protocol with the possibility that the results were subjective.
 The information gathered from the interview was stemmed from the perception of
the Superintendent of Schools and may have been subjective.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 111
Policy Implications
Over the last four years, the State of California suffered a major economic crisis
unseen since the Great Depression of 1929 resulting in devastating cuts to public
education. This study provided practitioners with a common resource allocation
framework to support improving student performance as presented in the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008), and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009) during a time in which a dire financial situation provided the
backdrop against the research being conducted.
Additionally, this study provided school district constituents such as school board
trustees, superintendents, district level administrators, and school site administration with
a case study of the Hampton School District that contained information on its allocation
of human resources to meet the needs of a diverse student population. These public
school leaders should find this study useful because it highlights best practices for
resource allocation and research-based strategies for improving student performance tied
directly to student outcomes that could ultimately enhance their strategic budgeting
decisions.
Moreover, this study also benefits policymakers such as State Assembly
Members, and State Senators who control the legislative funding policy in the State
Capitol in Sacramento. It provides them a sample of relevant data and best practices on
district-wide allocation of resources. The desired outcome is that these policymakers will
make informed decisions on enacting educational funding policies to provide school
districts the necessary resources needed to increase student performance.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 112
Moreover, the California model for funding public schools is directly tied to the
health of the state and federal fiscal climate forces school districts to regularly confront
the ebb and flow of resources coming from Sacramento. As a result, school districts find
themselves in a dilemma as to which programs and services they can offer. In turn,
policymakers should focus on supporting the research-based improvement strategies
described in this study to yield the maximum outcomes for improving student
performance.
Concluding Comments
At the conclusion of this study, it seems futile to recommend increased financial
resources for school districts to target research-based improvement strategies. The state
budget continues to have a structural deficit and there is uncertainty about the future of
school funding and ongoing reductions to school district’s budgets. While this was the
status quo at the time of this study, the Hampton School District demonstrated a focus on
elements within its control to improve student achievement. The desire that can be
gleaned from this case study on effective resource allocation in times of fiscal stress is
that, within uncertain and unprecedented economic climates, researched-based and
targeted strategies can be implemented with existing resources to improve student
performance.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 113
References
Aiginger, K. (2010, May 25). The great recession vs. the great depression: Stylized facts
on siblings that were given different foster parents. Economics-Ejournal, 4(2010-
18), 1-41.
Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Petek, S., & Shretha, J. (2011). Californians and education
(Public Policy Institute of California).
Chenoweth, K. (2009, September). It can be done, it's being done, and here's how. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(1), 38-43. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhenek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes how
professional learning communities respond when kids don't learn. Bloomington,
Indiana: National Educational Service.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
EdSource. (2011). Resource cards on California education [Mountain view, CA: author].
Eichengreen, B. (2010, September). The great recession and the great depression:
Reflections and lessons. Central Bank of Chile.
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges’
Good Intentions and Harm our Children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Hanushek, E. (2006). September 2007. Education Next, Summer 2007, 73-78.
Kemerer, F., & Sansom, P. (2009). California school law. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Legislative Analyst's Office. (2011). Proposition 98 primer. Retrieved from
http://lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primeer/prop_98_primer_020805.htm
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., & Rotherham, A. (2010). Conflicting missions and
unclear results: Lessons from the education stimulus funds (Bellwether Education
Partners, pp. 1-28).
Miles, K. H. (2011, October). Transformation or decline? using tough times to create
higher performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 42-46. Retrieved from
http://www.kappanmagazine.com
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 114
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.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.

Odden, A. (2008, June). Strategic management of human capital. Retrieved from:
http://www.smhc-cpre.org.
Odden, A. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: 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., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A., Femanich, M., & Picus, L. (2003, February). A state of the art approach to
school finance adequacy in Kentucky (Lawrence o. Picus and Associates, pp. 1-
52).
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., et al. (2005). An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance
Adequacy in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Legislature.
Odden, A.R. and Picus, L.O. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4
th
Edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. See in particular chapters 4 and 6
Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011, October 7). New school year brings steep cuts in state
funding for schools. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Picus, L., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008, January 25).
Implementing school Finance Adequacy: School Level Resource Use in Wyoming
Following Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform (Lawrence o. Picus and
Associates, pp. 1-54).
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2010). California education California Department
of Education (Ed.).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 115
Roza, M., & Funk, S. (2010, January 25). Have states disproportionately cut education
budgets during ARRA? early findings (Center on Reinventing Public Education,
University of Washington, pp. 1-6).
Shambaugh, L., Kitmitto, S., Parrish, T., Arellanes, M., & Nakashima, N. (2011, May).
California's k-12 educational system during a fiscal crisis [American institutes for
research].

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related to the allocation of resources, and to determine how those resources are used to increase student achievement in the Hampton School District. The study was based on an analysis of one school district located in Los Angeles County in Southern California. All of the schools within the district under study received Title I federal funding, with populations that consisted of at least 88% socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In reviewing the level to which the district implemented Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, the district was found to be implementing – at least to some degree – all of Odden’s (2009) strategies. The district was found to have a strong understanding of the performance problem and challenge. The superintendent and instructional leadership teams at each school created an instructional vision. Each school's vision included setting high expectations and ambitious goals for all students. Although the sample school district in this study did not have access to the level of resources suggested by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM), it was found to be allocating its resources to the best of its ability during times of economic crisis.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Hausner, Larry Joseph, II (author)

Core Title Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Defense Date 11/19/2012

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

Tag fiscal stress,OAI-PMH Harvest,Personnel,resource allocation,resource strategies

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 lhausner@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-224078

Unique identifier UC11294884

Identifier usctheses-c3-224078 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HausnerLar-1464-0.pdf

Dmrecord 224078

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hausner, Larry Joseph, II

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