University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 1 
 
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL TO INCREASE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT

by

Dipali Potnis

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

August 2013

Copyright 2013 Dipali Potnis
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 2 
 
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mom, dad and brother. Their support during this
process has been instrumental in my success. I cannot thank my mom enough for sitting side-by-
side with me for hours as I wrote as well as being my biggest cheerleader by nourishing me with
love throughout this doctoral program at USC. My dad graciously provided me with words of
encouragement and always believed in me which I am thankful for. And finally my brother, who
has served as my inspiration, best friend and tutor throughout all of my schooling.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 3 
 
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Lawrence O. Picus for taking on such a large thematic
dissertation group, and supporting each and every one of us throughout this process.
I would also like to thank my editor, Holly Eubanks, for spending days scrutinizing every
comma, word, and sentence in this paper—while occasionally taking breaks to chat, eat good
food, and enjoy each other’s company.
Finally, to all my friends who stood by me while I complained about my lack of a social
life—your support and words of encouragement will always be remembered.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 4 
 
Table of Contents
Dedication 2 

Acknowledgements 3 

List of Tables 7 

List of Figures 8 

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10 
Background 13 
Court cases 13 
Legislation 14 
Statement of the Problem 15 
Purpose of the Study 16 
Research Questions 17 
Importance of the Study 18 
Methodology 19 
Limitations 19 
Delimitations 20 
Assumptions 20 
Definitions of Terms 20 

Chapter Two: Literature Review 23 
Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance 24 
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 24 
Moving from low-performing to high-performing schools 27 
Professional development 28 
Teacher collaboration 29 
Successful school restructuring 31 
Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource Allocation 33 
Adequacy in education funding 34 
Resource use at the school level 36 
Strategic management of human resource capital 39 
The Evidenced-Based Model 41 
Constraints to Limited Fiscal Resources 44 
Current fiscal situation and response 44 
Federal stimulus funding 48 
Opportunities for change 49 
Gap Analysis 50 
Summary of the Literature 50 

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 5 
 
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 52 
Research Questions 55 
Sample and Population 55 
Overview of the District 57 
Instrumentation and Data Collection 58 
Data Analysis 59 

Chapter Four: Findings 60 
Overview of the District 60 
Demographics 61 
Student achievement 62 
Funding conditions 63 
Research Question #1: What research-based human resource allocation strategies
improve student achievement for students at the two high schools? 63 
Professional development 64 
Teacher collaboration 66 
Successful school restructuring 69 
Research Question #2: How are human resources allocated across Promising Future
High Schools? 72 
Management 72 
Certificated teaching staff 73 
Certificated staff providing adjunct or specialized services 75 
Certificated pupil support staff 78 
Classified staff 79 
Research Question #3: Is there a gap between current human resource allocation
practices in Promising Future High Schools and what the research suggests is
most effective? 81 
Negative gaps: Current allocations compared to EBM 81 
Positive Gaps: Current allocations compared to EBM 85 
Question #4: How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with
strategies that improve student achievement for students in Promising Future
High Schools? 87 
Tradeoffs to increase student achievement 88 

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 6 
 
Chapter Five: Conclusions 90 
The Sample 90 
Limitations 90 
Summary of Findings 91 
Research Question #1: What research-based human resource allocation strategies
improve student achievement for students at the two high schools? 91 
Research Question #2: How are human resources allocated across Promising Future
School District high schools? 92 
Research Question #3: Is there a gap between current human resource allocation
practices in Promising Future High Schools and what the research suggests is most
effective? 92 
Research Question #4: How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to
align with strategies that improve student achievement for students in Promising
Future High School? 93 
Implications for Practice 93 
Implications for the sample district 93 
Recommendations for Future Research 94 
Summary 95 

References 96 

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 7 
 
List of Tables
Table 1: Promising Future School District High Schools 57 
Table 2: Demographics for High Schools in Promising Future School District 62 
Table 3: Student Achievement Data for High Schools in Promising Future School District 63 
Table 4: Management Staff 73 
Table 5: Certificated Teaching Staff 75 
Table 6: Certificated Staffing: Adjunct or Specialized Services 78 
Table 7: Pupil Support Staff 79 
Table 8: Classified Staff 80 
Table 9: Total Human Resource Allocation Gaps 87 
 
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 8 
 
List of Figures
Figure 1: Circles of Support 32 
Figure 2: Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model 41 

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 9 
 
Abstract
This study analyzed resource allocation practices of the high schools in one urban district in
Southern California. Using the Evidence-based Model (EBM) as a framework, this study
compared current personnel allocation practices with the EBM to determine whether the district
could reallocate personnel to support student achievement. Using the gap analysis, the study
determined gaps in the district’s current resource allocation patterns, its desired patterns, and
those patterns recommended by the EBM. Findings revealed that the district is understaffed in
comparison to the EBM and that the funding conditions in the state of California hinder the
ability to resolve all the gaps in personnel. Instead, the study made recommendations to alleviate
the gaps by decreasing positions that were overstaffed to help fund additional positions that were
understaffed—with the intent to increase student achievement.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 10 
 
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The “achievement gap” is a pressing educational challenge nationwide that strongly
affects minority students in inner-city schools. The “achievement gap” is also a term of art
defined by specific criteria with the potential for legal consequences for schools (California
Department of Education (CDE), 2001). The Department of Education defines the achievement
gap as “the difference in academic performance between different ethnic groups.” Along the
same lines, the California Department of Education adds that the achievement gap is “the
disparity between white students and other ethnic groups…between English learners and native
English Speakers, [and] socioeconomically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged” (CDE, 2009).
The National Governors’ Association (NGA) succinctly expresses that “The achievement gap is
a matter of race and class” (NGA, 2011).
Education policy makers have worked to close the gap by implementing a variety of
mandates and incentives. Chief among these has been Federal legislation enacted in 2001 during
the George W. Bush administration called “No Child Left Behind (NCLB).” The objectives of
NCLB were to ensure statewide consistency of educational standards of learning, to hold
educators and students to high performance expectations, and to create a vision and commitment
among all stakeholders toward the goal of ongoing increased student learning and proficiency
nationwide (Kerr, Ikemoto, Marsh, Derilek & Barney, 2005). NCLB required each individual
state to create content standards by grade level. Additionally, it mandated annual testing to
determine levels of student proficiency. As a result, educators and students were held to higher
levels of accountability.
An important aspect of NCLB was the component of statewide homogeneous standards.
This element addresses the issue of access to equitable education for all students. If academic
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 11 
 
instruction properly addressed the standard, student performance should eventually be proficient
across the board. Standardized testing based on those standards could then be deemed a reliable
and valid measure for all, regardless of background (Resnick & Hall 1998). NCLB intended all
this to be accomplished by 2014, that is, all students were expected to be performing at proficient
or grade level on the statewide assessments. A school’s overall student performance would then
yield two distinctly different scores. One of the scores was a State score, called Annual
Performance Index (API); the second was a Federal score, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
The two scores do not correlate. The accountability system of each is distinct. API, the State
score, is a performance target for both students and schools. It ranks individual schools in
California among all schools in California on a scale ranging from 200 to 1000. The school’s
ranking is derived from student scores on the California Standards test. Significant gains on test
scores would increase the Annual Performance Index (API) while a decrease in scores would
cause the API to drop (CDE, 2011). The AYP, on the other hand, is a performance target
specifically for schools. The California Department of Education describes the law accordingly:
“AYP is a series of annual academic performance goals established for each school…and the
state as a whole (CDE).
In theory, NCLB seemed like a legitimate way to increase student performance. It
recognized that there was a disparity in student achievement between ethnic groups, between
native and non-native English Speakers, and between those with differing socioeconomic
backgrounds. While the desired outcome of high student achievement was laudable, actual
results consistently demonstrated that NCLB was unattainable and unreasonable, especially for
minority students in low-income neighborhoods.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 12 
 
The student achievement gap has tenaciously fallen short of the aims of NCLB, and both
state and federal legislators have gone on to mandate additional reforms—provision of public
school choice when deemed appropriate, supplemental services to students, and if need be,
complete restructuring of the school's governance (NGA, 2010). All these reforms are driven by
a deadline—2014. So as the deadline approaches, focus has shifted to two fundamental
considerations: fiscal adequacy and personnel.
Budgetary aspects of education are complex and girded up by decades of tortuous
legislation. Since the fall of 2008, the global economic crisis has played a critical part in how
monies are distributed within the state. While the intended goal is that students be successful,
budgetary cuts to education over the last four years have increased. Large state fiscal shortfalls
persist in California, and more damaging cuts to education are inevitable. However, despite
these deficits, NCLB continues to demand high student achievement (American Association of
School Administrators, 2003).
With money in short supply, distributing funds appropriately to increase student
achievement is an imperfect prospect. Therefore, we must examine how personnel can be
reallocated.
In the state of California, there is a deep-rooted history of legislation that determines how
money will be allocated to school districts by the California Department of Education. The
fundamental challenge concerns student equity and access. Many court cases and statewide
initiatives have played a significant part in the process of monetary distribution—that is the
“equity” component. Additionally, several statewide initiatives have addressed the issue of
“access”—ensuring that all students in the state of California receive equitable educational
opportunities.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 13 
 
Background
California serves over 6.2 million students in the public education system (Ed-Source
Data). These students come from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic
backgrounds. Although needs of minority students differ, districts and schools are required to
provide students with underprivileged or diverse backgrounds the same quality of education as
their non-disadvantaged peers.
In California’s School Finance System, there are five sources that provide funding for
public schools. State taxes fund 60% of K-12 district revenues; local property taxes provide
23%; federal funds are10%; local miscellaneous revenues supply 6%; and the California state
lottery, 1%.
Legislation, court cases and initiatives also have had a significant impact on how much
money is available to California school districts and in many instances how that money should
be spent.
Court cases. Serrano v. Priest of 1977 also played a critical role in how money would be
spent. Parents of students in Los Angeles filed a case alleging a disparity in the amount of per-
pupil funding in low-income neighborhoods in comparison to funding provided in affluent areas.
Serrano v. Priest is a classic example of the issue of equity for all. The Court ultimately ruled
that all students, regardless of neighborhood or economic status, must be funded on an equal
basis with non-minority students.
Another court case that was critical in creating equity for students was Williams v.
California, 2004. This court case was originally filed in 2000, and claimed that the State had
neglected to give students adequate basic materials and facilities necessary to succeed in school.
It was determined that over 1 million students in 1475 of the lowest performing schools were
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 14 
 
being taught in “inadequate, unsafe, and unhealthful facilities” (Williams v. California). The
settlement mandated schools to annually report the “overall condition of their facilities, the
number of teacher misassignments and vacant teacher positions, and the availability of textbooks
or instructional materials” (CDE). The state was also required to provide extra financial support
for the upgrading of facilities.
Legislation. In 1972, Senate Bill 90 “established revenue limits” (Ed Source). This bill
capped the amount of general purpose funding that could be spent per individual student. It
created a base amount that could be distributed to each district, creating a shift from local control
of district finance to state control.
Initiatives
Two initiatives that altered school finance include Proposition 13, which passed in 1978,
and Proposition 98, which passed in 1988. Under Proposition 13, limits were placed on property
tax relative to assessed valuation, and the degree to which annual property taxes could be raised
was also limited. Proposition 13 also limited the amount of local tax revenue that was
distributed to school districts.
Proposition 98, which was barely passed by voters, guaranteed a minimum level of
funding for schools from both state and property taxes for K-14 education. Through Proposition
98, each school and district was required to comply with major components, including the
“School Accountability Report Card” (SARC) and a “prudent” state reserve. The SARC
includes test scores, teacher qualification rates, and dropout rates.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 15 
 
Statement of the Problem
Currently, the most significant issue in school finance is educational adequacy (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Educational adequacy as defined by Odden & Picus (2008), contains several
components:
1. State Standards of Learning—also referred to as a standards-based curriculum. The
standards provide a clear description of what students are required to learn;
2. a definition of standards that will be addressed by formal testing, and what constitutes
levels of proficiency for each content area;
3. a system for measuring ongoing student improvement for all students at all
achievement levels, for student backgrounds representing all income levels and all
ethnicities. This particular component is driven by the state accountability system and
Federal law: NCLB;
4. the financial resources that school districts and schools have available per pupil.
What we derive by examining these components is the argument that a correlation is
assumed to exist between adequate school funding and student achievement (Odden and
Picus, 2003).
Rigorous standards legislated by NCLB, as well as standards-based educational reform,
demand high levels of academic performance (Odden, 2003). However, the state’s continuing
economic crisis translates into diminishing resources. This leaves legislators and education
policy makers with a serious predicament. Prior to litigation initiated by Serrano in 1968
(Serrano vs Priest), funding for districts was based on property tax. After the Serrano case was
settled, funding became framed by considerations of equitable input—monies were to be
distributed according to a formula based on average daily attendance (ADA). When that formula
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 16 
 
failed to meet budgetary expectations, the focus shifted from “equitable inputs to adequate
inputs” (Odden and Picus, 2008).
Within California, educators are facing challenges due to the state’s financial status.
While rigorous standards of learning remain in place and high-stakes testing for State and
Federal proficiency standards continue, the budget for education is depleting. These limitations
cause stressors that affect instruction and performance within a school. Monetary deficits have
compelled school districts to downsize, limiting the number of personnel within a school. These
cut-backs have in turn resulted in significantly larger classes. Research findings indicate that
class size is one of the predictors of student academic performance (Glass, 1982).
Districts and individual schools wield no control over State budget. However, they can
determine how personnel are allocated within the district and each school. Currently, the
challenge is to determine how to increase student achievement despite diminishing resources.
Purpose of the Study
Standards of accountability for educators are becoming more rigorous, as are student
performance standards. Since 2008, annual budgetary cuts have resulted in the reduction of
work force—across the board—in our schools. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate how
educational personnel can best be allocated to ensure that student achievement is maximized,
given the current economic climate.
This study will examine two Los Angeles secondary schools with similar student
populations in similar urban neighborhoods. Using Odden and Picus’s Evidence-Based Model,
the schools will be compared for their use of personnel and resultant student achievement. As a
result of insignificant growth on the CST and failure to meet AYP targets, these schools have
entered Promising Future School District either through Public School Choice (PSC) or iDesign.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 17 
 
Both PSC and iDesign are local District level strategies to permit alternate forms of school
governance and other innovative options for “high quality educational environments” (CLUSD).
These interventions are designed to assist schools that have low performance scores to achieve
success by becoming a charter school or a network partnership with outside organizations that
can assist by finding additional innovative ways to reach academic success.
The purpose of this study is to determine ways that administrators and leaders in the
network partnership can reallocate personnel to increase student achievement. The following
questions will be addressed in the study:
Research Questions
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student achievement
for students at the two high schools?
2. How are human resources allocated across Promising Future School District high
schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in Promising Future
School District high schools 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 for students in Promising Future School District high
schools?
The study will include the Evidence-Based Model that was developed by Lawrence Picus and
Allan Odden (2010). The Evidence-Based Model will be used to help examine the current
spending practices and staffing of personnel of the two high schools within Promising School
District and link it to the levels of current student achievement. This model will then also be
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 18 
 
used to determine how human resources can be reallocated in order to increase the levels of
student achievement within the high schools in Promising Future School District.
Importance of the Study
This study is intended to demonstrate ways in which school site administrators,
Promising Future School District as a Network Partnership, and policy-makers can discover
pathways to ongoing student achievement despite the current economic crisis.
Regardless of dismal fiscal projections for schools, policy makers continue to create
mandates and propose laws requiring student academic improvement. Each year, continuing
budgetary shortfalls result in teacher layoffs and increased class sizes. These factors impact
student achievement—with compounding severity for each year. The disconnect between
legislators and education is counterproductive to the desired outcome. The focus regarding
student achievement needs to shift from year-to-year achievement to effective strategies in
closing the gap by setting realistic expectations on educators and students.
Promising Future School District as a Network Partnership operates as its own non-profit
school district within Changing Lives Unified School District. As a Network Partnership that
brings in additional revenue to increase student achievement at schools, the organization also
must be aware of how monies should be appropriately spent in order for student achievement to
increase. The purpose of the network partnership is to increase student achievement at
significantly low-performing schools by providing extra funding and personnel to assist in school
decision-making processes. If it is to succeed as a partnership with these two high schools, it is
imperative that Promising Future School District have an understanding of what resources need
to be reallocated to ensure student achievement.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 19 
 
School site administrators must also be aware of how the budgetary limitations affect
student outcome in terms of achievement. Decisions about how money is allocated should be
made in the best interest of the students and with the objective of ensuring their academic
successes. This study may suggest that money be reallocated to create additional positions or
remove current positions for the betterment of the school as a whole. It may suggest that
additional funds be set aside for Professional Development that increases effective instructional
strategies within the classroom.
Methodology
A mixed methods approach will be utilized to study two high schools within a single urban
district in Southern California. Qualitative methodology will be used to guide the researcher in
determining how current staffing practices support the instructional program within the two
Promising Future schools. The qualitative data will be collected through document analysis,
interviews with the Superintendent of Promising Future schools, Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum of Instruction and school-level administrators. Data analysis will provide resource
allocation disparities between the district’s two schools compared with the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). The gap analysis model created by Clark and Estes (2008) will
be used to determine what knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps hinder the desired
student achievement outcome within the two schools.
Limitations
The data will be collected over a one-year period within two urban schools that are part
of the network partnership with Promising Future School District in Southern California. The
researcher was not able to control for factors of willingness of the participants or preconceived
biases about funding, resource allocation and student achievement within the organization.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 20 
 
Delimitations
The sample selected consists of two Changing Lives Unified School Distrct schools that
coexist in a network partnership with Promising Future School District. These schools are in
urban neighborhoods with the majority of students coming from minority backgrounds. Findings
may only be applicable to schools with similar demographics and partnerships with other non-
profit organizations.
Assumptions
It was assumed that all participants from schools were willing to participate honestly and
accurately. It was also assumed that their answers may have biases to the degree that the fiscal
crisis has influenced their own practices and school environment. Data collected was complete
and accurately analyzed by the researcher.
Definitions of Terms
1. Achievement Gap- “The disparity between White students and other ethnic groups as
well as between English learners and native English Speakers, [and] socioeconomically
disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged.”  (Department of Education)
2. Academic Performance Index- Tracks the change in one measure of a school’s academic
performance based on one test, the CST, with the promise for rewards with increased
achievement and sanctions for declined performance (EdSource, 2000).
3. Accountability- The idea that people and organizations should be held accountable for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or reprimanded for their
performance (EdSource, 2004).
4. Adequacy- Student academic performance expectations that are determined by a state’s
content standards, NCLB, and measured by a state’s testing system with a goal that all
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 21 
 
students will achieve at grade level proficiency– and the funding to support necessary
resources to achieve these outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
5. Annual Yearly Progress- “A goal of the 2001 federal law No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
that requires schools and districts to measure and report students’ annual progress toward
proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics by 2013-14. Progress is based on
whether the school or district met its Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated
95% participation on standardized tests, achieved its target on the Academic Performance
Index and, for high schools, met target graduation rates” (Ed-Data, 2008).
6. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)- The target percentage of students whose state
standardized test results identify them as proficient or advanced each year.
7. Average Daily Attendance (ADA)- The total number of days of students’ attendance
divided by the total number of days in the school year. A school district’s revenue limit
income is based on its ADA.
8. California Standards Test- “Tests in English/language arts and mathematics in grades 2-
11, science in grades 5 and 9-11, and history/social science in grades 8, 10 and 11 based
on California's academic content standards. This is the core of California's statewide
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR)” (Ed-Data, 2008).
9. Categorical Funds- State and federal funds allocated in addition to the revenue limit
income for special populations of students.
10. English Language Learners (ELL)- Designation for students who are not yet proficient in
the English language.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 22 
 
11. iDesign- The focus of iDesign is to improve student achievement and graduation rates in
collaboration with Network Partners by utilizing innovate practices to reform how school
districts successfully serve and support their students (CLUSD).
12. Network Partnership- Outside organizations that work in collaboration with school
districts to provide schools with innovative ways of creating reform and increasing
student achievement.
13. No Child Left Behind- “The 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that places comprehensive accountability requirements
on all states, with increasing sanctions for schools and districts that do not make adequate
yearly progress toward proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics or that fail
to test 95% of all students and significant subgroups. In California, those sanctions
currently apply only to schools and districts that receive Title I funding (EdSource,
2010).”
14. Public School Choice (PSC)- “The Public School Choice (PSC) process has been
developed for LAUSD educators, charter school operators, partnerships, non-profits, and
other independent groups to submit instructional and operational plans aimed at
improving student achievement at a participating PSC school through a Request for
Proposal (RFP) process that calls for collaborative input from parents, high school
students, and community members in the development of their proposals.” (CLUSD)
15. Small Learning Community- Is a form of school structure that divides a large school
population into a smaller, more autonomous group of students and teachers. The purpose
of Small Learning Communities is to restructure schools and give students a more
personalized learning environment to meet individual needs.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 23 
 
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Due to increased levels of educational accountability mandated by federal and state
policies, California school districts must allocate resources with the desired outcome of increased
student performance. For student performance to increase, educators and policy makers must
find or develop research-based strategies that result in increased student achievement as a
function of effective resource allocation during times of fiscal crisis. This is the greatest
challenge that the California Department of Education currently faces. Chapter 2 provides a
framework for educational methodologies regarded as successful in providing students with a
rich instructional program. It also presents a synthesis of how resources can be better allocated
during times of economic challenges in a way that will increase achievement.
This literature review consists of four sections. Each section plays a pivotal role in
understanding how student achievement can increase through resource allocation. The first
section, “Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance,” identifies strategies that can
increase student achievement by using best practices in high performing schools. Within this
section, Odden’s 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) will be used as
a framework. The following section, “Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource
Allocation,” will be a synthesis of research addressing adequacy, resource use at the school level,
and the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Section three, “Constraints to Limited
Fiscal Resources,” examines the fiscal crisis that is plaguing California, and what the education
system has done to try to utilize the resources to try and meet federal and state mandates. The
final section entails the “Gap Analysis.” The Gap Analysis model by Clark and Estes (2008)
identifies motivational, organizational and knowledge barriers which in turn hinder the district’s
ability to successfully reallocate personnel in a manner that would increase student achievement.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 24 
 
Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance
It is imperative to determine how resources are being allocated in terms of people or
positions to assess how to they can properly be used to improve student achievement. This study
will address the following four research analyses of improving student performance:
1. Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance based on case
studies;
2. Research by Duke (2006) on what is known and unknown about improving low-
performing schools;
3. Togneri & Anderson’s (2003) the impact of Professional Development
4. DuFour (2004) an examination of Professional Learning Communities and its positive
impact on student learning;
5. Newman, and Wehlage (1995) research on successful school restructuring;
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance, by Odden (2009) presents strategies that can cause an increase in student
performance. He suggests schools that implement these strategies have the potential to move
students up to proficiency levels or raise scores from below standards to higher levels of
performance. Odden’s (2009) ten strategies will be used as a framework because districts and
schools that have used them have demonstrated performance gains. These following strategies
are addressed by Odden (2009):
1. Understanding the Performance Challenge: This strategy requires staff to participate in
activities that analyze current school data from standardized testing and calculate the
disparity between the intended outcomes;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 25 
 
2. Setting Ambitious Goals: School site employees, consisting of administrators and
teachers, co-construct ambitious performance targets despite current student
demographics or current levels of performance. Stakeholders within school-sites must
believe that all students can achieve high levels of performance;
3. Modifying or Adopting a New Curriculum Program and Creating a New Instructional
Vision: This allows school site administrators and teachers to focus on areas within
their access such as the curriculum and instructional program, desired student
outcomes, and placements of teachers within certain content areas;
4. Assessments and Data-Driven Decision Making: This strategy uses formative
assessments to determine standards that students have mastered and concepts that need
further instruction. By using formative assessments, teachers could have an
understanding of what skills need to be re-taught in order for students to understand it
at proficient levels;
5. Providing Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development: The implementation of
ongoing and effective professional and development programs includes ideas of
allowing for a) time allotted for teachers to receive professional development; b)
funding for trainers; c) funds for instructional coaches or those leading professional
development; and d) time for teachers to collaborate within the working school day;
6. Using Time Efficiently and Effectively: This strategy focuses on using time efficiently
and effectively by blocking out instructional time for core subjects such as English
Language Arts and Mathematics. By allowing for increased instruction within these
content areas and minimizing the amount of interruptions, teachers within schools will
be able to use their time more effectively;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 26 
 
7. Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students: Extending learning time allows for
struggling students to receive additional opportunities for instruction and intervention
in order to attain grade level proficiency. This time should be allotted to students
during the school day, before or after school during the regular school year, and outside
of the school year (during summer);
8. Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership: “Collaborative school
cultures” refers to an idea where all staff members work cohesively to attain the goals
and vision of the school. In order to do so, schools require a strategy often referred to
as “Professional Learning Communities.” Professional learning communities
generally determine desired student outcomes, and teachers within those communities
collaborate by sharing best practices to increase student achievement. By allowing
teachers to be more hands-on in determining goals and sharing best practices, principals
at school sites are able to distribute leadership to their leadership team, as well as the
teachers on site;
9. Implementing Professional and Best Practices: Implementing professional and best
practices often requires school districts to seek outside assistance. If districts consider
best practice methods used by other districts and successfully implement them, they
may see results from those methods;
10. Investing in Human Capital: Finally, this strategy centers on employing teachers and
administrators who show talent and have the willingness to improve the quality of
education for students within their institution. In order to retain these talented teachers
and administrators, it is vital to provide ongoing professional development and
compensate them for their hard work and dedication to their organization.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 27 
 
Moving from low-performing to high-performing schools. Similar to the strategies
defined by Odden (2009) as effective methods in improving low-performing schools, Duke
(2006) shares similar approaches. Duke (2006) published five separate studies in which he was
able to find common characteristics of how schools could be changed from low performing to
high performing. In order to do so, he discovered what contributed to the schools’ successes.
Through a synthesis of the studies, Duke (2006) was able to recognize eleven commonalities
among the schools which were transformed into high performing schools. Many of these
characteristics parallel Odden’s (2009) strategies.
1. Assistance: Students received prompt assistance with learning required content in which
they faced difficulties;
2. Collaboration: Teachers were required to collaborate in order to plan, monitor student
progress, and provide assistance to struggling learners;
3. Data-driven decision making: Student data were continuously used to make informed
decisions regarding resource allocation, student needs, the effectiveness of teachers, and
other concerns;
4. Leadership: Administrative teams and teachers determined the tone for school
improvement processes;
5. Organization structure: School structures such as roles, teams, and planning processes,
and other aspects of the school organization, were adjusted to support efforts to increase
student performance;
6. Staff development: Teachers received ongoing professional development efforts in order
to sustain the school improvement process;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 28 
 
7. Alignment Tests: Tests were aligned with the curriculum, and curriculum was aligned
with instruction;
8. Assessments: Students were assessed regularly to determine their learning and to
determine their areas of weakness;
9. High expectations: Teachers held their students to high academic standards and provided
students with rigorous work;
10. Parent involvement: School personnel provided parents with ongoing progress of their
child’s academic work in the classroom, and also provided parents with alternative
interventions if students needed additional support;
11. Scheduling: In the area of reading and mathematics, students were given extra scheduled
time for academic work.
Professional development. A substantial body of research has been conducted regarding
the effects of professional development (Birman et. al, 2000; Desimone et. al, 2002; Garet et. al,
2001; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Suppovitz & Turner, 2000). Effective professional development
can positively impact instruction, which in turn can lead to higher levels of student learning and
achievement. Professional development is imperative in order to analyze and interpret state test
data, for exposure to new curriculums, for the implementation of new instructional practices, and
for interpreting formative assessment data (Odden, 2009). When schools prioritize professional
development by finding ample time and funding, and by implementing a comprehensive
program, schools are most likely to be successful (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003; Fermanich et. al, 2006; Odden, 2009). Professional development programs are
most effective when they continue over several years and require between 100 and 200 hours of
training in a single school year (Odden, 2009).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 29 
 
In order for professional development to be most successful, it must be emphasized school-
wide and align with district goals (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Also, those receiving
professional development must be expected to implement the strategies learned (Odden, 2009).
Successful professional development programs are subject-matter specific (Odden, 2009) and the
content is determined by the data (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Instructional strategies that are
presented in professional development should be proven effective by research (Fermanich et. al,
2006).
To ensure that the learned strategies are being implemented and prioritized, instructional
coaches are instrumental for mentoring struggling teachers, modeling sample lessons, and team-
teaching core concepts (Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Fermanich et. al, 2006; Odden, 2009).
Instructional Coaches ensure that necessary training is provided to teachers and help enforce new
practices and that instruction is changing as a result of the professional development.
Teacher collaboration. State and federal mandates have increased the demand for
accountability for all stakeholders in education. In efforts to maintain or create high functioning
schools, it is vital to build an environment that focuses on learning rather than teaching (DuFour,
2004). This requires that two assumptions be made in order for all students to be successful.
The first assumption requires that all educators believe that all students can learn. The second
assumption demands that educators take responsibility for making this a possible outcome for all
students (DuFour 2004). In order to do this, schools must focus on the idea of Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs). The idea of a PLC (DuFour 2004) is to focus on these three Big
Ideas:
1. Focus on Learning: The Professional Learning Community model values that students
are being taught, but places significant value on that idea that students are learning.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 30 
 
Schools and staff members would have to analyze best practices that allow for student
learning to occur. They must also assess ways they can adopt these best practices, ways
they can commit to their colleagues and schools that they are willing to work
collaboratively to achieve these high levels of learning and finally, ways they can
monitor the progress that is made within the school. As the school moves forward, it is
also imperative that PLCs that address the following areas:
a. What do we want the students to learn?
b. How will we know they are learning?
c. What will our response be when we realize we have a student with difficulties in
learning?
2. Create a Collaborative Culture: Educators that build PLCs work collaboratively to
create a collective purpose for learning for all students. It is essential that they create
and maintain structures to ensure a collaborative culture. Often, when schools and staff
members participate in professional development, they gather to deal with logistical
issues within the school such as tardiness, discipline issues, scheduling, school climate,
and technology. Although these are essential for schools to run, these alone do not
open dialogue revolving around professional learning communities. Meaningful
collaborating, which can positively affect a school, uses a systemic approach that
allows teachers to work together and collaborate on practices that can improve student
learning. In order for all teachers to participate, every member must be a part of a team
and this team must meet regularly throughout the school year.
3. Focus on Results: This big idea involves the use of data to inform future practices.
Data is often provided to educators, but how they utilize the data determines its value in
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 31 
 
the educational process. By creating common formative assessments, teachers will get
a better understanding of student learning, and can use the data to create adequate
interventions to develop growth and understanding in areas where students are
struggling. By using PLCs, teachers can work with their collaborative team to come up
with solutions, and find materials and strategies that will increase student learning. It
also can be used as a reflective measure in one’s teaching.
It is impossible for one single teacher to possess all the knowledge, skills, time, and
resources to ensure that all students are learning at high levels. Educators who work
collaboratively in PLCs are able to share insightful information on student learning and best
practices with their colleagues. In the case of PLCs, collaboration does not occur by chance and
spontaneously; instead, it occurs often and is imbedded into a teacher’s working day. In the
collaborative model, teachers can work within their grade level, content matter, and inter-
disciplinary teams to create and achieve common goals that are intended for students and
emphasize learning (DuFour 2004). Odden (2009) also notes in his 10 strategies for doubling
student achievement, that schools should be comprised of a collaborative culture.
Successful school restructuring. In order to improve student achievement, Odden
(2009) stresses ten key factors. Newman and Wehlage (1995) also share strategies similar to
those suggested by Odden (2009) in which schools can positively be restructured in order to
increase student performance. Based on a study of 24 schools at both the elementary and
secondary levels, and apportioned between 22 states, Newman and Wehlage (1995) believe that
the solution lies in four “circles of support.” These circles of support are based on four essential
categories that include student learning, authentic pedagogy, school organizational capacity, and
finally, external support. The following image below displays the “circle of support.”
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 32 
 

Figure 1. Circles of Support. (Source: Newman & Wehlage, 1995)
Newman and Wehlage define each area, and ways that schools can positively be restructured.
1. Student Learning: Planning, implementation and evaluation should center its attention on
the quality of student learning. Teachers within a school site need to agree on a vision of
high quality education. This vision must be clearly communicated to both students and
parents. Curriculum, instruction, assessment, scheduling, staff development, hiring,
student advising all the core activities of the school must be aligned and directed toward
the vision of student learning.
2. Authentic Pedagogy: There must be a vision for high quality education, but that alone
will not increase student achievement. Teachers must teach according to the vision of the
school. They must use and find techniques that promote high qualities of learning for
their students. Teachers must therefore be well versed in a variety of ways that students
are learning, are interacting with peers and teachers, and are assessed. This would
promote equity to all students of varying backgrounds.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 33 
 
3. School Organizational Capacity: Learning rigorous content and instruction is challenging
for students, and authentic pedagogy places high demands on teachers. The solution
would be to hire and provide staff with ongoing training and to build a staff community
that thrives to improve the quality of the school. Most effective schools that were
restructured from low to high performing created professional communities in which
teachers were able to collaborate and share best practices which would allow additional
strategies and support for attaining student learning. Schools with strong professional
communities were successful in promoting strong student learning.
4. External Support: With ongoing expectations from districts, schools, parents, and both
state and federal mandates, schools need support. These same groups that have high
expectations must provide teachers with financial and technical support to meet the
learning expectations placed on them.
Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource Allocation
With the ongoing budget crisis that California endures, educators and policy makers
struggle to adequately allocate resources in a way that will significantly improve student
achievement. This section of the literature review will synthesize and address ways in which
personnel resource allocation can be done to increase student performance, based on research.
The following topics will be used as a frame of reference of successful implementation strategies
of personnel resource allocation in public education:
1. Adequacy in education funding;
2. Resource use at the school level;
3. Strategic management of human resource capital;
4. Evidenced-Based Model approach to school funding.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 34 
 
Adequacy in education funding. During the standards-based movement in the 1990’s,
it became abundantly evident that there was an achievement gap. As a result of the achievement
gap, the emphasis shifted from the idea of equity to educational adequacy. The shift from equity
to adequacy suggests that school finance must take into consideration financial contributions and
their correlation to educational services, compensation, and student performance (Ladd &
Hansen, 1999). However, when there are more fiscal resources that are allocated to schools, an
increased level of achievement expectations occurs. This suggests that resources must be
allocated in a way that allows schools to meet the accountability measures that are determined by
states. Adequacy is defined as student academic performance that is measured by a state’s
content standards, NCLB, and measured by a state’s testing system with a goal that all students
will achieve at grade level proficiency–and the funding to support necessary resources to achieve
these outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Odden (2003) suggests that adequacy is a paramount issue, and that schools need
sufficient funding to generate the desired outcomes in terms of student performance. Odden
(2003) points out that as funding formulas are revised to ensure adequacy, there will also be an
improvement in fiscal equity. To determine adequate revenue levels, Odden (2003) suggests that
the cost of effective programs needs to be identified, the costs need to be translated into
appropriate school finance structures and finally that the resources that are used within the
district produce results. There are four models suggested by Odden (2003) that attempt to
determine adequate expenditure levels of resources:
1. The successful district approach: The successful district approach refers to districts that
are meeting state standards and use their resources to estimate the necessary costs to
provide an adequate education. Augenblick (1997) developed this approach based on
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 35 
 
school districts that had met state goals while simultaneously using their expenditures to
estimate the cost of an adequate education. However, there are some significant
weaknesses to this approach. The first deficit to this approach is that it mainly focuses on
smaller rural school districts (Odden & Picus 2008) and secondly, there is little evidence
of what particular strategies caused increased student achievement.
2. The cost function analysis: The cost function analysis uses a statistical approach to
determine education finance and the necessary expenditures a district would need to
ensure that students would meet achievement targets. In order for this approach to be
useful, the cost function analysis requires data on demographics, district expenditures,
and student outcomes and tries to conclude how spending levels based on demographics
can influence student achievement. According to Leob (2007), adequacy varies based on
the demographics in districts. This cost function analysis approach falls short in one
main area. It looks at the district as a whole rather than analyzing the data at individual
school sites. This makes it challenging to determine which instructional strategies
increase student achievement because the demographics at different schools can vary.
3. The professional judgment approach: Using the professional judgment approach requires
a team of educators who determine what resources are needed to provide elementary,
secondary, and special need students with an adequate education. After the resources
have been determined, business analysts determine the costs and find the per-pupil
expenditure. This approach is often used because it allows districts to adjust costs based
on the size of the district (Odden, 2003). The downfall of this approach is that it only
takes into consideration the outlook of the members on the panel, and panels vary based
on the district and the school (Hanushek, 2006).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 36 
 
4. The evidence-based approach: This approach uses research on the allocation of resources
and educational strategies that have proven successful in attaining, maintaining and
increasing student achievement targets. It was developed by Odden and Picus (2003).
This approach takes into consideration research-based best practices along with school-
wide strategies that would assist schools in allocating resources in a way that would best
benefit student achievement (Odden, 2007). A more comprehensive description will be
described under the Evidence-Based Model.
Resource use at the school level. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
created an alternative way to determine school expenditure levels based on extensive research
and took two main factors into consideration. Odden et al. (2003) looked at commonly existing
expenditures within schools, and then also took into consideration new methods more recently
focused on school improvement. The authors creating the model wanted to prove three
shortcomings to existing models by doing the following:
1. Focusing specifically on school expenditure levels;
2. Differentiating the spending of the various educational units within the school. It
focused more on a school within school model; and
3. Categorizing current levels of expenditure levels that would lead to increased student
learning.
Within this model, Odden et al. (2003) focuses on nine expenditure elements that
emphasize school-wide instructional strategies. The following nine strategies are both
instructional and non-instructional by nature:
1. Core academic teachers: These credentialed teachers are required to teach core subjects
such as English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, History/Social Science. Most
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 37 
 
elementary schools consist of teachers within self-contained classes; however some
teachers in the higher levels of elementary schools may departmentalize their classes by
core content areas, such as Math and Science or English and History. In secondary
schools, special education and ESL teachers are also included. The costs of core
academic teachers are considered full-time equivalents;
2. Specialist and elective teachers: These credentialed teachers consist of non-core
academic classes, and generally allow for planning time for core academic teachers.
These members include:
a. Specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical education teachers, who
provide planning and preparation time for core teachers;
b. Teachers who provide instruction in a subject area that represents a special
academic focus. 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 of credentialed teachers assists struggling students or students
with special needs get better access to the curriculum. This is generally supplemental to
the curriculum that is being received in the general education classroom. These support
providers include:
a. Credentialed teachers who provide one-on-one support for students; most
commonly in the elementary school setting;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 38 
 
b. Extra help laboratories that provide students with additional guidance in
reading and mathematics for struggling learners. These classes will be used to
help students meet academic expectations. This is most common in secondary
schools;
c. Resource rooms that provide small groups of students with remedial math and
English skills that do not necessarily align with the content standards taught in the
general education classrooms;
d. Inclusion teachers who assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed
students with varying disabilities or learning problems;
e. Teachers of English as a second language (ESL) who work with non-English
speaking students to support them in speaking English;
f. Self-contained special education teachers who work with severely disabled
students for most or all of the school day in a self-contained classroom and teach
a modified curriculum based on their individualized learning programs;
g. Extended day or summer school programs to provide students with extra
instructional time to achieve an understanding of the learning standards;
h. District alternative programs provide an alternative location for learning to
students have difficulty learning in traditional classes;
4. Professional development: This element includes spending on the professional
development of a school's staff. This includes the cost of materials for the professional
development and also includes the cost of teacher time, trainer or coach time, and
administrators’ time for the professional development;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 39 
 
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff: Included here are credentialed and non-
credentialed instructional staff who support a school's instructional program, including
program coordinators, substitutes, and instructional and special education aides;
6. Instructional materials and equipment: This includes books, instructional supplies,
materials, equipment, and computer hardware and software that support the instructional
program; and
7. Student support: This final instructional expenditure element consists of school-based
support staff including 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 administrative staff 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 element includes the costs of staff, supplies, and
equipment for custodial services, food services, and security, as well as utilities, and
building and grounds maintenance.
Strategic management of human resource capital. Miles (1995) suggests that that two
important barriers preventing school improvement include time and flexibility. In a study
conducted by Miles (1995), Boston Public Schools were used to further understand how teachers
are allocated. Boston Public Schools were specifically picked for three reasons. First, Boston
Public Schools spends equal money per-pupil as large urban school districts. Second, most
Boston schools allocate teachers similarly to traditional schools; using one teacher per
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 40 
 
classroom, and each teacher serving 5-6 periods; and finally, certain schools in Boston have
allowed for more flexible and individual instruction with more time for planning. Boston Public
Schools faced four barriers that prevented more schools from freeing up more time:
1. A significant number of teachers who worked outside of the classroom because they
worked with specific students with certain classifications;
2. Planning time was provided to teachers but it had no particular format and was
fragmented throughout the day;
3. A formula-driven approach that grouped students for instruction by student classification
and contractual guidelines as opposed to school-based decisions; and
4. Fragmented daily schedules which only allowed teachers to see students for short periods
of time throughout the day.
Miles (1995) suggests that if even one of these barriers were adjusted, there would be more
time within the day. She later describes potential solutions that could allow more time for
planning and development:
1. Combing planning periods to create longer blocks of time;
2. Specifying that teachers must use part of this additional time for common planning;
3. Using non-certified, contracted, or part-time teachers;
4. Regrouping students, and sometimes going above the maximum class-size limit for
particular lessons within certain content areas; and
5. Extending the day for the teacher.
Miles and Hammond (1998) also state that in order for personnel to be used in a way that
benefits the school, there should be more common planning time for teachers and a creative
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 41 
 
definition of the roles of staff and their work schedules. These changes can create opportunities
that realign teaching resources to school goals (Miles, 1995).
The Evidenced-Based Model. The approach of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
(Picus & Odden, 2008), is to identify school-based programs and educational strategies based on
research that have increased student learning and achievement (Odden, Goetz & Picus, 2007).
These strategies are research-based and include best practices that have proven successful in
improving student achievement at the school level in Kentucky, Arkansas, Arizona, Washington
and Wisconson. Odden and Picus (2008) believe that the EBM exhibits a solid methodology in
adequacy research. Therefore, the EBM provides the theoretical framework for this study and is
the preferred approach. Figure2 provides a clear understanding of the Evidence-Based Model.

Figure 2. Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model. (Source: Odden & Picus, 2008)
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 42 
 
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) includes the following:
1. Full-day kindergarten;
2. Core class sizes of 15 for grades K-3, 25 for all other graders to twelve. Core is defined
as regular self-contained classes in the elementary school. In secondary schools, this
includes teachers of English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and History. With
these ratios, class sizes would give a mean of 18 in the elementary school and 25 in the
middle and high schools;
3. Specialist teachers who would provide instruction in art, physical education, music,
career technical education to cover a six period day in the middle and high schools, where
teachers teach five periods, and in 90-minute block schedules;
4. At least one period each day which is used for planning and preparation for all teachers in
the elementary and secondary levels;
5. Pupil and support staff, including one guidance counselor for each 250 students; nurses,
and additional support including social workers and family liaison personnel;
6. A full-time librarian and principal, and two secretarial positions at every prototypical
elementary school (consisting of 432 students) and middle school (consisting of 450
students). At the prototypical high school (consisting of 600 students), three secretaries,
an additional library technician, and an additional assistant principal as appropriate;
7. An ambitious set of professional development resources, including one instructional
coach for every 200 students, and at least ten pupil free days in which teachers are
provided with rich professional development. This may usually mean extending the
school year for teachers by five days, and $100/pupil for trainers and other expenses
related to professional development;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 43 
 
8. Supervisory aides during recess and lunch, hall monitoring, and the loading and
unloading of buses;
9. Approximately $180 per pupil in instructional materials, formative assessments, and
supplies; $250 for technological equipment, and $250 per pupil for student activites;
10. $25 per pupil to provide extra strategies for gifted and talented students (GATE);
11. Extra help strategies for students needing additional instructional guidance and extra time
to achieve rigorous state standards including:
a. One-on-one tutoring by one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) teacher tutor for every
100 students;
b. Extended learning day resources to provide an extensive summer program with
one FTE for every 30 at-risk students;
c. Summer school resources to provide students with a six hour day, and at least
eight to nine weeks of a summer program, providing academic help for at-risk
students
d. As additional FTE teacher position for every 100 English Language Learner
(ELL) student to provide instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL);
e. One teacher FTE for every 150 students to provide services for high-incidence but
lower-cost students with disabilities, with an additional half-time aide for each
full-time special education staff member;
12. Substitute teacher resources at 10 days for each teacher and instructional facilitator;
13. Central office staff covering the superintendent’s office, business office, curriculum and
pupil support, technology personnel, and operations and maintenance director; and
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 44 
 
14. Food services are assumed to be a self-supporting enterprise where services operate at
neither a profit nor a loss. This model recommends out-sourcing this function to a private
company whose core business is food services.
Constraints to Limited Fiscal Resources
California’s education system has been deeply affected by the national recession
(Shambaugh, Kitmitto, Parrish, Arellanas, and Nakashima, 2011). Significant interest is devoted
to the California education system because it serves nearly one-eighth of the nation’s K-12
students (Shambaugh et al., 2011). Also with the ongoing recession, it has been noted that
California has been identified as a low-spending state in education (Shambaugh et al., 2011).
This section will examine literature focused on the current fiscal situation, the federal
government’s attempt at filling the hole created by the recession, and lastly, reasons for optimism
for change will be explored.
Current fiscal situation and response. The nation’s current economic crisis has taken a
toll on the education system for several years (Shaumbaugh et al., 2011). State budget cuts have
increased significantly—and over two-thirds of the states have made cuts in their educational
spending (National Governors’ Association, 2010). California took a hard hit due to the
economic crisis. In 2008, California endured a $14.5 billion deficit, which then increased the
following year to $24 billion. Thereafter, in 2010, California faced another $19 billion shortfall.
This caused a fourteen percent cut in the education system (Shaumbaugh et al., 2011; Brown,
2010).
The year prior to the fiscal crisis, California ranked twenty-ninth in the nation for overall
per pupil spending (Shaumbaugh et al., 2011). While they were below the median, they did not
compare to the lowest ranking states. As the deficit grew, California dropped to forty-sixth in
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 45 
 
the 2009-2010 school years (Shaumbaugh et al., 2011; Rogers, Fanelli, Freelon & Medina,
2010). These cuts have led to significant losses in per pupil spending; sometimes ranging
between $900 and $1,400 per student. As a result, with the decline in resources for California’s
schools, districts have taken drastic measures in order to balance the budget (Shaumbaugh et al.
(2011). Shaumbaugh et al. (2011) state that between the 2008 and 2010 school years, nearly
39,000 teachers endured layoffs. The following areas were also affected:
1. Reduced Incentives for Smaller Classes: With the belief that smaller class sizes would
enhance learning environments, California provided financial incentives to districts for
all classes with 20 or fewer students in kindergarten through third grade in 1996.
Beginning in 1998, the state added financial incentives to offer smaller classes to high
school freshman in particular subjects. In order to operate with fiscal constraints, the
state relaxed the requirements for receiving class-size reduction funds for the next four
years so school districts could increase class size without losing funding;
2. Temporary Waiver of Requirement to Buy New Instructional Materials: Districts were
required to purchase new instructional materials every three years for content areas
including English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, History, and Bicultural subjects.
In other areas of learning, districts were required to purchase up-to-date materials every
four years. As a result of budgetary cuts, this requirement became relaxed and districts
did not need to purchase new materials until 2013-2014;
3. Reduction of Required School Days: before the fiscal crisis, students were required to
attend school for 180 days. As a result of the crisis, state policymakers relaxed this
expectation and allowed districts to offer five fewer days annually;
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 46 
 
4. Removal of Requirement for District Match Funds on Maintenance Projects: County
offices of education provided dollar for dollar matching in school maintenance. As a
result of the budget cuts, in 2009-2010 the state removed the requirement that school
districts and the county were to set aside a portion of their general funds for routine
maintenance and deferred maintenance projects;
5. Change in District’s Financial Reserve Requirement: Before the economic crisis, districts
were required by the state to save a certain portion of their funds in a reserve account
between 1-5 percent based on the size of the district. In 2009-2010, the state reduced this
mandate by two-thirds;
6. Deferral of Payments of State Funds to Districts: Districts received funding in portions
throughout the year. The last portion of money was distributed to schools in the spring.
Due to the fiscal situation, districts would receive the last portion of their funding during
the beginning of the following school year;
7. Staff Layoffs: There were significant cuts in staff members, not only limited to teachers.
District employees, including but not limited to, library clerks, instructional aides, special
education aides, bilingual tutors, counselors, and athletic coaches were also deeply
affected by the cuts;
8. Increasing Class Size: With a more relaxed style for class size reduction, schools were
able to increase class sizes to about 24-28 in the lower levels. In some cases, class sizes
would be able to increase to 30 students. 35% of school districts increased class sizes
during the 2010 school year (California Department of Education, 2010);
9. Cutting Salaries and Benefits: In addition to layoffs, many school districts dealt with
furlough days, salary freezes, and even salary cuts. In some districts, there were also
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 47 
 
reports in changes in staff member benefits; reducing the amount that districts would pay
in insurance premiums;
10. Shorter School Year: Districts now had the ability to determine whether they would have
the previously mandated amount of school days which was 180, or reduce the school year
by up to five days;
11. Instructional Materials: School districts stopped purchasing new instructional materials as
often. Although the materials were not as up-to-date, it shifted some of the financial
burden;
12. Education Programs: Few educational programs were left untouched. Programs
including but not limited to, summer school, after-school programs, art and music
programs, Advanced Via Individual Determination (AVID) suffered from dramatic
cutbacks or were eliminated completely;
13. Professional Development and Support for Teachers: Professional Development
opportunities had minimized tremendously for teachers. New teachers who previously
worked with support programs had suffered from cuts;
Cuts to Non-Instructional Programs include:
14. Maintenance and Facilities: Many districts cut back on maintenance of their buildings,
either by not repairing buildings, cutting back on the use of water, or repainting
buildings. Some cuts included the numbers of custodial staff members at the district
level and school site;
15. Transportation: Prior to the fiscal crisis forms of transportation were accessible for
students. Due to increased monetary shortages, some school districts limited the use of
buses, while other districts created alternate routes which caused for students to have to
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 48 
 
walk more. Students participating in sporting activities would be charged for
transportation as long as their parents could afford the costs;
16. Athletics: Some school districts made cuts to athletic programs. Some competitive sport
teams reduced the size of their programs. In other instances students with disabilities
suffered from cuts in adaptive physical education.
Shaumbaugh et al. (2011) assert that there were no differences in the types of resources
that were cut for low-performing or for high-performing districts. Both types of schools
experienced budgetary cuts with staff, instructional materials and programs, and non-
instructional services. Districts that were higher-performing used evidence-based information,
and had committee input for decision making. These districts were also transparent in their
spending, whereas lower-performing districts were silent on their approaches to district spending
(Shaumbaugh et al., 2011).
Federal stimulus funding. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
known as the “stimulus,” was signed by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009. Enacted
during the middle of a deep recession, this act provided $100 billion to education, an
unprecedented one-time spending boost, larger than the entire annual budget of the U.S.
Department of Education Enacted (Mead, Vaishnav, Porter, & Rotherham, 2010). ARRA was
not only sought out to save jobs and patch up state and local budget gaps, but also to advance
reform in education in four major areas including the implementation of college and career-ready
standards, creating data-systems for K-20 education, increasing teacher effectiveness, and finally
turning around historically known low-performing schools (Mead et al., 2010).
For most of ARRA funding was used to primarily “backfill” state and local budget cuts
and save existing programs, services and educator jobs. Districts that received State Fiscal
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 49 
 
Stabilization Funds (SFSF) report utilizing those funds to save teaching jobs. In the state of
California, these funds saved an estimated 47,000 education jobs (Mead et al., 2010). In other
cases, instead of backfilling state and local budget cuts, some exceptional school districts used
funding to advance reforms, make one-time investments in infrastructure, hire and retain staff
members critical to attaining reform goals, or better align resource reallocation to meet district
reform goals (Mead et al., 2010).
Most districts, ARRA only postponed the oncoming financial strains, and these funds
cannot diminish the strains completely. Districts have worked hard to realign spending patterns
in response to state budget cuts so they are adequately prepared for the long-term challenge that
is yet to come. However, some districts that used ARRA to postpone difficult decisions might
find themselves in similar to worse conditions in the future (Mead et al., 2010).
Opportunities for change. California has suffered from tough economic shortages that
have impacted the education system. With these extreme challenges come opportunities.
Educators and policy makers can finally address long-standing inefficiencies at both the district
and state level. The authors share four key considerations for state policy makers (Shambaugh et
al., 2011):
1. Stabilizing and increasing education funding in the state;
2. Making permanent the funding flexibility allowed during the fiscal crisis;
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.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 50 
 
Gap Analysis
The gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2002) is the method that will be used to compare the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) to determine the disparities in how resources
have been allocated to the district within the study. Clark and Estes (2002) suggest that there are
three significant factors that help determine reasons for performance gaps, and determine the
roots of the problem; including knowledge and skill, motivation and organizational barriers.
Clark and Estes (2002) define gap analysis as the cause for human performance gaps. According
to Clark and Estes (2002), knowledge and skill development are necessary for job performance
under two conditions. First, they are required when people do not know how to accomplish their
performance goals, and second, when you anticipate that future challenges will require problem
solving (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clark and Estes (2002) also suggest that motivation is the inner,
psychological mindset that keeps the organization going and gets the job completed (Clark and
Estes, 2002). Finally, organizational barriers include “missing tools, inadequate facilities, or
faulty processes or procedures that prevent or delay work” (Clark and Estes, 2002, p. 44).
The purpose of using the gap analysis is to determine the performance gaps between the
intended outcome and what the current situation is. The Evidence-Based Model is the favored
model, however, the gap analysis will most likely uncover that with external funding such as
Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) and School Improvement Grant (SIG), these extra
monies from the state create schools that are similar in nature to the Evidence Based Model.
Summary of the Literature
This literature review consisted of four separate sections that meld to address the need for
increased student achievement through resource allocation. The first section, Effective Practices
for Improving Student Performance identified strategies by using Odden’s 10 Strategies for
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 51 
 
Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as a framework. The following section,
Successful Implementation of Personnel Resource Allocation, analyzed research addressing
adequacy, resource use at the school level, and the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) to better understand best practices in resource allocation. Section three, Constraints to
Limited Fiscal Resources examined the fiscal crisis California faces, and what the education
system has done to try to utilize the resources to try and meet federal and state mandates. The
final section entails the Gap Analysis. The Gap Analysis model by Clark and Estes (2008)
identifies motivational, organizational and knowledge barriers which in turn hinder the district’s
ability to successfully reallocate personnel in a manner that would increase student achievement.
While resources are scarce in California, and education is deeply affected by the
recession, the research indicates that students can still achieve if monies are allocated in a
strategic manner. Hardships in education must force policy makers and educators to examine
best practices based on research to implement models such as the EBM that will ensure that
students are still receiving quality education to meet state and federal mandates. The purpose of
this study is to further examine the EBM, and compare it to one school district within the
Southern California region. The next chapter will explain the methodology of this study
including the research questions and greater detail about the selected sample.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 52 
 
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
This study explored how Promising Future School District, a non-profit organization that
is a network partner of Changing Lives Unified School District, utilizes current personnel to
guide its instructional program at the high school level. In Changing Lives Unified School
District, the human resources division determined the amount of personnel allocated within each
school, but grants such as Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) and the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) could influence the numbers as well. In this study, personnel
allocation at the two Promising Future’s high schools was compared with the Evidence-Based
Model created by Odden and Picus (2008), a best-practice instrument based on research. This
model took into account the diversity in student population and suggested a personnel allocation
framework for Promising Future. In addition, Odden (2009) identified ten strategies that would
increase student performance. This framework was used to determine the success of
implementation of the various strategies. Those ten strategies for increasing student performance
consisted of:
1. Understanding the Performance Challenge: This strategy required staff to participate in
activities that analyze current school data from standardized testing and calculate the
disparity between the intended outcomes;
2. Setting Ambitious Goals: School site employees, consisting of administrators and
teachers, co-constructed ambitious performance targets despite current student
demographics or current levels of performance. Stakeholders within school-sites were
assumed to believe that all students can achieve high levels of performance;
3. Modifying or Adopting a New Curriculum Program and Creating a New Instructional
Vision: This allowed school site administrators and teachers to focus on areas within their
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 53 
 
access such as the curriculum and instructional program, desired student outcomes, and
placements of teachers within certain content areas;
4. Assessments and Data-Driven Decision Making: This strategy used formative
assessments to determine standards that students have mastered and concepts which need
further instruction. By using formative assessments, teachers could have an understanding
of what skills needed to be re-taught in order for students to demonstrate those skills at
proficient levels;
5. Providing Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development: The implementation of
ongoing and effective professional and development programs includeed ideas of allowing
for a) time allotted for teachers to receive professional development, b) funding for trainers,
c) funds for instructional coaches or those leading professional development, and d) time
for teachers to collaborate within the working school day;
6. Using Time Efficiently and Effectively: This strategy focused on using time efficiently
and effectively by blocking out instructional time for core subjects, such as English
Language Arts and Mathematics. By allowing for increased instruction within these
content areas, and minimizing the amount of interruptions, teachers within schools were
able to use their time more effectively;
7. Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students: Extending learning time allowed for
struggling students to receive additional opportunities for instruction and intervention in
order to attain grade level proficiency. This time could be allotted to students during the
school day, before or after school during the regular school year, and outside of the school
year (during summer);
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 54 
 
8. Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership: Collaborative school
cultures referred to an idea where all staff members worked cohesively to attain the goals
and vision of the school. In order to do so, schools required a strategy often referred to as
“Professional Learning Communities.” Professional learning communities generally have
determined desired student outcomes, and teachers within those communities have
collaborated by sharing best practices to increase student achievement. By allowing
teachers to be more hands-on in determining goals and sharing best practices, principals at
school sites were able to distribute leadership to their leadership team, as well as the
teachers on site;
9. Implementing Professional and Best Practices: Implementing professional and best
practices often required school districts to seek outside assistance. When districts have
considered best practice methods used by other districts and successfully implemented
them, they have often seen results from those methods;
10. Investing in Human Capital: Finally, this strategy centered on employing teachers and
administrators who showed talent and had the willingness to improve the quality of
education for students within their institution. In order to retain these talented teachers and
administrators, it was vital to provide ongoing professional development and compensate
them for their hard work and dedication to their organization.
The primary source of data collection in the study of Promising Future consisted of
qualitative methods. Qualitative methodology was used to guide the researcher in determining
how resources were being used to support the instructional program within the two Promising
Future schools. The qualitative data was collected through document analysis, interviews with
the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Promising Future schools, and school-level
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 55 
 
administrators. Data analysis will reveal resource allocation disparities between the district’s
three schools compared with the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). The gap
analysis model created by Clark and Estes (2008) will be used to determine what knowledge,
motivational, and organizational gaps hindered the desired student achievement outcome within
the two schools.
Research Questions
The research questions for this particular study were as follows:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improved student achievement
for students at the two high schools?
2. How were human resources allocated across Promising Future School District high
schools?
3. Was there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in Promising Future
School District high schools and what the research suggested is most effective?
4. How could human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement for students in Promising Future School District high
schools?
Sample and Population
This was a purposeful sample that used a network partnership consisting of two high
schools. Patton (2002) defined a purposeful sample as one that has been selected due to a key
aspect. For instance, one might purposefully select a sample based on the setting or the size
(Patton, 2002). Promising Future School District was chosen for this study by exploring both
the urban community in which the schools are located and the ethnic diversity within the
schools. According to the criteria described by the concept of achievement gap, Promising
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 56 
 
Future School District consists of the lowest performing schools within Changing Lives
Unified School District; and was the impetus for Promising Future School’s becoming a
network partnership. Because these schools have been known in California as “at-risk”, this
district was selected because it has received additional funding through grants such as QEIA,
and SIG.
This study examined the funding levels for two high schools. It also took into
consideration all additional federal and state funding that was given to the school and whether
or not the school used best practices in allocating these financial resources to support student
performance.
Dissertation Chair Dr. Lawrence O. Picus’s expertise was used to determine which
school district within an urban community could be used for the purpose of the study. Dr.
Picus is known nationally for his remarkable knowledge in the area of school finance. One
reason for selecting this district was its diversity and setting. Also, because of the tensions
between Changing Lives Unified School District and Promising Future School District, it
became imperative to understand whether the network partnership ideals truly supported the
instructional program to increase student achievement.
In this study, the setting is critical as all schools within Promising Future School
District fall within an urban, inner-city background. The schools within the sample are public
schools and follow the traditional setting calendar school setting. Each school within the
study was considered to be in an at-risk school within the state of California, and therefore has
either received QEIA funding which emphasizes class-size reduction or SIG. Both funds are
designed to improve achievement.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 57 
 
To respect the anonymity of the school district and schools, pseudonyms were used.
Table 1 shows a list of each school by name, the type of school, and the grade levels they serve.
Table 1
Promising Future School District High Schools
School Name Type of School Grade Levels Served
MNO High School Secondary 9-12
WXY Preparatory High
School
Secondary 9-12
Promising Future School District (2012)
Overview of the District
Promising Future School District covers a span of eight square miles in terms of
enrollment zone within the South Los Angeles region. Each school within the district is located
no more than four miles away from one another. It consists of one middle school and two of the
largest high schools within Changing Lives Unified School District. Promising Future School
District educates close to 6,500 students in grades six through twelve in the richly diverse urban
community of South Los Angeles. While Promising Future was established in 2003, it did not
add its first high school to the district until September of 2007. Shortly after, Promising Future
added its second high school in 2008. This school had a deeply rooted history with Changing
Lives Unified School District and was founded in 1910.
According to Promising Future’s website (2012), the neighborhood within the school
boundaries serves a community and students who reflect the following conditions:
- Median household income is $29,904
-More than 34% of families have an annual income less than $15,000
-5% of residents 25 and older have a four-year college degree
-Estimated 45% of students graduate in 4 years
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 58 
 
-Estimated that single parents head 27% of families
-Student transiency rate is 37%
-Over 80% of families in Promising Future’s Neighborhood rent their homes
-43% of students are overweight or obese
-7.8% of children age 0-17 have asthma
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Within the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, 16
studies of similar nature were also conducted under the guidance of dissertation chair Dr.
Lawrence O. Picus. Each student within the thematic dissertation process used the Evidence
Based Model (Odden & Picus 2008) and the Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2002) to determine
the gaps between high-performing schools and low-performing schools based on the allocation
of personnel.
Over the course of the 2012 school year, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus guided members of the
thematic dissertation group in methods of collecting data, ranging from interviews with district
and school administrators to data entry using the simulation created by PhD student David
Knight. All members of the group used the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus 2008) and
then collected the “people book” which lists the number of personnel at a school site. Using the
simulation, researchers within this thematic group determined the numbers which could allow
optimal results in student achievement within the school. Then, those numbers were compared
to the actual current status of the school using the Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes 2002). With the
external funding from QEIA and SIG, the researcher predicted that these schools within the
study are similar to Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus 2008). Using the recommendations
from the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus 2008), the researcher will also provided
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 59 
 
alternative suggestions for resource allocation to increase student achievement since additional
funding supported those measures.
During the fall of 2012, district level administrators from Promising Future School
District were interviewed. During these interviews, data were gathered to better understand how
resources were being allocated within the school, and how these resources are used to improve
the instructional program of the schools and increase student achievement.
Furthermore, the study included interviews of two district level administrators, including
the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Promising School District, as well interviews
with administrators from the actual school site.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed after it had been collected. Interviews were evaluated, and current
levels of allocation in Promising School District were compared to the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus 2008). Those data results were triangulated. The data showed how the district
currently allocated its resources and personnel compared to their preferred allocation; this
information was compared to the best practices from the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus
2008). Finally, the researcher presented suggestions for resource allocation based on the
Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus 2008).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 60 
 
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter provides a detailed summary of the study’s findings and gives an overview of
the focus schools in the sample district. The following questions were addressed and answered
in the study:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement for students at the two high schools?
2. How are human resources allocated across Promising Future School District high
schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices in Promising
Future School District high schools 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 for students in Promising Future School District high
schools?
The results for each of the research questions are analyzed with further explanation of
contributing factors.
Overview of the District
Promising Future School District has two high schools and one middle school within its
network partnership with Changing Lives Unified School District. This study specifically
examined the two high schools within the Promising Future’s School District. Promising
Future’s mission is to transform public schools that are chronically failing, open new schools,
and remake schools into a community hub that provides comprehensive support services for both
students and families within the district.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 61 
 
This section provides detail from the sample district, including student demographics,
achievement, and the fiscal conditions for these schools in order to give background information
to the study’s finding.
Demographics. Promising Future School District covers an enrollment zone of eight
square miles within the South Los Angeles region. Each school within the district is located no
more than four miles away from one another. Currently, Promising Future School District
educates close to 6,500 students in grades six through twelve in the richly diverse urban
community. Promising Future was established in 2003 and added its first high school to the
district in September of 2007. That was the first year that WXY Preparatory High School was up
and running. Shortly after, Promising Future added its second high school to the network
partnership in 2008. Founded in 1910, MNO High School had a deeply rooted history in the
area.
According to Promising Future’s website (2012), the neighborhood within the school
boundaries serves a community and students whose:
- Population of residents is 150,000 within the Promising Future’s neighborhood
-Student Population is 80% Latino; 20% African American
- Median household income is $29,904
-More than 34% of families have an annual income less than $15,000
-5% of residents 25 and older have a four-year college degree
-Estimated 45% of students graduate in 4 years
-Estimated that single parents head 27% of families
-Student transiency rate is 37%
-Over 80% of families in LA's Promise Neighborhood rent their homes
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 62 
 
-43% of students are overweight or obese
-7.8% of children age 0-17 have asthma
Between the two high schools:
Table 2
Demographics for High Schools in Promising Future School District
Grade Level ELL SPED FARL
High School # Total 9 10 11 12 # % # % # %
MNO High School 1752 492 292 407 561 665 37.9% 123 7.0% 1595 91.0%
WXY Preparatory
High School 2347 626 556 583 582 1021 43.5% 191 8.1% 2347 100%
Subtotal for High
Schools 4099 1118 848 990 1143 1686 41.1% 314 7.7% 3942 96.2%

Student achievement. The two high schools in the sample study have shown growth
independent of one another, and as a district. While they did not meet AYP because API targets
were not met by each subgroup, there has been significant growth in API within each category of
students.
MNO High School has increased their API score in the past three years by 51 points;
while WXY Preparatory High School gained 49 points (see Table 3). Promising Future School
District has increased their API score by an average of 50 points over the past three school years,
but has still not met AYP as a district (see Table 3). Though these two high schools are unique
in that they have a network partnership with Changing Lives Unified School District (CLUSD)
and Promising Future School District, when addressing district wide AYP, their test scores are
included in the CLUSD student populations.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 63 
 
Table 3
Student Achievement Data for High Schools in Promising Future School District
High School #
MNO High
School
WXY High School Average All
Schools
2012 Met AYP? N N N
API 2010 542 583 562.5
API 2011 572 634 603
API 2012 593 632 612.5
3 Year Change +51 +49 +50
African American +54 +69 +61.5
Hispanic +51 +46 +48.5
English Learners +43 +37 +40
Students with
Disabilities
+47 +29 +38
3 Year Growth
Over Time:
Subgroups
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
+53 +49 +51

Funding conditions. The network partnership that was created by CLUSD and
Promising Future School District was instrumental in retaining staff members despite hundreds
of millions of dollars cut each year since the 2007-2008 school years. The majority of reduction
in force (RIF) impacted probationary and permanent multiple credentialed teachers. High
schools within the larger district were impacted but minimally in comparison to elementary
schools. CLUSD was able to rescind RIF notices of a significant number of secondary teachers
impacted. In Promising Future School District, MNO High School staffed veteran teachers who
were unaffected by layoffs. Despite the lack of seniority of novice teachers, WXY Preparatory
was able to retain all their staff as a result of QEIA funding and autonomy in decision-making
created by the network partnership.
Research Question #1: What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve
student achievement for students at the two high schools?
This section of the study revisits the research-based strategies that were reviewed in
chapter two. Each of these strategies has been found instrumental in improving student
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 64 
 
achievement within the Promising Future School District. The correlation between each strategy
and related human resource allocation practices is described; and a detailed explanation of how
the school district is using these strategies is further clarified. This section will also explain how
Promising Future School District is aware of the gaps within the implemented strategies.
Professional development. Research shows that there is a link between professional
development and increased student achievement. The purpose of professional development is to
improve the quality of teacher instruction. In order for professional development to increase
student achievement, it is imperative that the strategies that schools are trying to implement are
content related, based on the analysis of data (both formative and summative), research-based,
and enforced school wide by administrators and instructional coaches. Successful professional
development requires teachers to devote several years to the program. This also suggests that
there must be a high priority for the need of professional development. Districts and schools
must be willing to devote time and be willing to provide funding to teachers. Also, it is vital that
schools expect that teachers implement what is being taught in professional development, and
that ongoing support is provided to ensure that new pedagogy is done correctly within the
classrooms. Teachers who face difficulties in implementing the new strategies should be able to
work with instructional coaches who would mentor, teach demonstration lessons, and co-teach to
reinforce newly taught strategies.
The sample district’s professional development strategy is consistent among the two high
schools. Both schools have an early release day for students on Tuesday, and teachers are
required to devote an hour and a half to professional development. In addition to weekly
professional development during the school year and during the summer time, all teachers are
required to participate in a two week, paid professional development as well. Professional
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 65 
 
development at the high school level within the sample district is conducted in two ways, either
by department, or within Small Learning Communities (SLCs). Both high schools focus on
limited and specific professional development initiatives, and then use a walk-through tool that
addresses the level of implementation of that focus area. This strategy also provides teachers
with feedback regarding the strengths and weaknesses observed during that single observation.
Within the walk-through observations, administrators can ask teachers questions regarding their
use of the strategy and to gain further clarification on the pedagogy received in the class.
During the observation protocol, either the Principal or the Instructional Specialist, who
functions as an Assistant Principal, is the person in charge of visiting each classroom and
ensuring that teachers are implementing new strategies learned during professional development.
These observations are not evaluative in nature, but teachers will be given support if they are not
implementing strategies correctly. Instructional Specialists will provide teachers with
demonstration lessons, and will also require teachers to visit their colleagues’ classrooms to
promote peer-to-peer observations. Also, in the beginning of professional development, teachers
within departments rotate in the sharing of best practices to demonstrate the strengths of the
strategies implemented. During this time, they are also able to share modifications that should
be made for future practices to improve student understanding and achievement.
One example of the sample district’s room for growth relates to inconsistency of regular
classroom observations. This creates uncertainty as to whether or not teachers are following
through on the implementation of professional development strategies. Instructional Specialists
within the sample district are required to observe two classes per day, but there are times when
they are unable to do so because of other unexpected events that occur on campus. As a result,
there is not reliable data about how often teachers are using these strategies on a regular basis. If
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 66 
 
all Instructional Specialists were more consistent in their classroom observations, there could be
a more comprehensive analysis of the number of teachers using new strategies and how often
they use them.
Also, both high schools within the sample district have one instructional coach. This
instructional coach is not an expert in all content areas and is therefore not able to provide
teachers with content-specific feedback. He/she would only be able to facilitate demonstration
lessons and co-teach with colleagues within his/her subject matter credential. This can create
conflict within a school site, because while Instructional Specialists are supposed to be providing
non-evaluative feedback, they are, nonetheless, administrators overlooking the teachers they are
observing. This mixing of administrative roles causes unease for teachers. The lack of
instructional coaches in content specific areas prevents the ongoing support and needs of the
teachers.
Teacher collaboration. Another research-based strategy that suggests an increase in
student achievement is the presence of teacher collaboration or Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs). The idea of a PLC is to focus on learning, collaboration, and results.
Within each of these three ideals, PLCs value that students are being taught and emphasize that
students are learning. Schools and staff members collaborate to analyze best practices that allow
for student learning to occur. This involves a multi-pronged process. First, the staff must assess
the pragmatics of adopting these best practices; they must achieve buy-in from colleagues and
other staff members. That is, they must commit to one another and to the school that they are
willing to work collaboratively to achieve these high levels of learning. Finally, strategies must
be devised that will ensure accurate monitoring of progress within the school. Meaningful
collaboration can positively affect a school using a systemic approach that allows teachers to
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 67 
 
work together and collaborate on practices that can improve student learning. In order for all
teachers to participate, every member must be a part of a team and this team must meet regularly
throughout the school year. Finally, focusing on results involves the use of data to inform future
practices. By creating common formative assessments, teachers will get a better understanding
of student learning, and can use the data to create adequate interventions to develop growth and
understanding in areas where students are struggling. The use of PLC’s allows teachers to work
with their collaborative team to come up with solutions, and find materials and strategies that
will increase student learning.
The sample district places a significant emphasis on PLCs and encourages teachers to
collaborate with one another. During professional development over the summer and on
Tuesdays, teachers work with colleagues within their content area, and once a month teacher’s
work within their SLCs. In content area meetings, teachers work collaboratively with colleagues
within the same grade level for common planning. During planning time over the summer,
teachers work on a “year at a glance.” The purpose of the “year at a glance” is that all teachers
teaching the same content are required to focus on particular standards that will be taught every
week for the entire school year. At professional development meetings on Tuesdays, teachers
create common assessments for the standards scheduled in the “year at a glance.” Common
assessments provide teachers with reliability and validity data of the test measure itself, and
therefore a better understanding of those content standards being mastered and those creating
challenges for the students. By giving the school-site a comprehensive understanding of student
strengths and weaknesses, PLCs can work together at sharing best practices and strategies to
close achievement gaps within the classroom. PLCs in this sample district place an emphasis on
the fact that all students learn differently. They also take into consideration that all teachers
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 68 
 
teach differently, but if they share best practices, they can develop and implement successful
strategies that will increase student learning.
Once a school has PLCs in place, has created a model for collaboration, determined and
implemented best practices, and developed common assessments, the task becomes one of
determining what has and has not worked for the schools in the sample district.
Consistently, data indicates that room for improvement lies in the areas of motivating all
teachers to participate in PLCs and in securing teacher buy-in for administering common
assessments. A majority of teachers at the two high schools participate and see benefits of PLCs.
During professional development, they acknowledge that they gain insight from their colleagues
when they share best practices, and some incorporate what they have learned within their own
pedagogy. However, in this sample district, MNO High School has had resistant teachers—
mostly veteran teachers—who feel as though their practices do not need to be altered. While
they are present at professional development as a requirement by the school and district, they do
not participate or implement new strategies within their own classes. Since assessment results
have been a serious problem for these schools for years, Promising Future School District must
find ways of communicating to these teachers in particular that the restructuring is school-wide,
and must include buy-in from every teacher, because what has been done in the past has not been
working.
The goal of common assessments is to give departments and PLCs a better understanding
of learning challenges for students. Nevertheless, some teachers feel that common assessments
waste time and that students are over-tested. Teachers within Promising Future School District
are required to give common assessments, but the data may be skewed because not all teachers
input accurate data in fear that their colleagues will scrutinize their scores. Instead of using
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 69 
 
common assessments to make informed instructional decisions based on the data, teachers are
reluctant to publicize their scores.
Successful school restructuring. In order for schools to be successfully restructured,
there needs to be significant emphasis on student learning, authentic pedagogy, school
organizational capacity, and external support. Curriculum, instruction, assessment, scheduling,
staff development, hiring, and student advising for all the core activities of the school must be
aligned and directed toward the vision of student learning. There must be a vision for high
quality education. Teachers must teach according to the vision of the school and find techniques
that promote high qualities of learning for their students. This means that teachers must be
competent in a variety of instructional methodologies in order to address varying student
learning needs. Additionally, teachers must be able to facilitate peer questioning and answering
interactions, and adapt formative and summative assessments to reflect these changes in how the
curriculum is presented. This promotes equity of access to all students regardless of background.
Most effective schools that were restructured from low to high performing created professional
communities in which teachers were able to collaborate and share best practices, which in turn
would allow strategies to emerge that most support student learning. Finally, schools must have
a network of support. Ongoing expectations from districts, schools, and parents, as well as
mandates from both state and federal agencies must be accompanied by necessary and sufficient
financial and technical support for schools.
One striking difference between the two high schools within the sample district has to do
with longevity. MNO High School has been in existence for over a hundred years with CLUSD
and due to insignificant gains in API score, was added to the network partnership in 2008,
whereas XYZ High School has only been open for six years. MNO High School staff comprised
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 70 
 
primarily of veteran teachers. Under the School Improvement Grant (SIG), the school was
required to add an extra thirty paid minutes to the school day to provide intervention or
enrichment based on the student needs. Additionally, MNO was also able to completely
restructure the campus and staff. During the 2011-2012 school years, all staff members had to
reapply for their jobs if they wished to continue working there for the 2012-2013 school years.
Keeping in mind the emphasis on student learning and effective teaching, Promising Future
School District hired new teachers, counselors and support personnel on their staff. The
superintendent and assistant superintendent of Promising Future School District sat in with the
administrative team during a rigorous interview process. They selected teachers who believed in
and embodied the vision of their district: to prepare every child in one community to be college
and career ready, healthy and successful in life. Under SIG, school personnel were required to
attend an intensive paid professional development over the summer demonstrating the expected
norms of the school. These norms included year at a glance, white board configurations,
interactive notebooks, and common assessments that would be required at all grade levels and in
all content areas. As each administrator oversaw a content area, he/she was required to work
closely with teachers in creating expectations and norms within that PLC.
At WXY Preparatory High School, a significant number of novice teachers were hired.
Many teachers were hired from the Teacher Education Program (TEP) offered at the University
of California at Los Angeles. Many teachers were hired from this program partly because the
mission of TEP emphasized rigorous culturally rich pedagogy, and promoted equity and access
for all students. By hiring a younger staff, Promising Future School District believed that
teachers would embody the goals and pedagogical practices that would align to the vision of the
school and district. TEP also put a heavy emphasis on cultural pedagogy, implementation of
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 71 
 
socio-cultural theory within the classroom and school site, and collaboration through the cohort
model. Although many of the teachers hired were first and second year teachers, they were able
to develop strong PLCs by sharing best practices and working together to ensure students were
learning. Not only were these teachers receiving guidance by their administration and colleagues
who were TEP alumni, but also the TEP faculty advisors supported new teachers.
This high school also received additional funding through the Quality Education
Investment Act (QEIA). The purpose of the QEIA program is to ensure that schools would
implement class size reduction (CSR), improve professional development delivered to both
teachers and administrators, provide students with teachers who were highly qualified, and
decrease the student-to-counselor ratio. Through QEIA, teachers are able to work with students
in smaller class sizes and tailor their instruction to the specific needs of their students in hopes of
increasing overall achievement.
School restructuring efforts are highly prioritized in Promising Future School District but
the sample school district feels there is still room for even more growth. Both schools are
receiving additional funding through the SIG and QEIA to increase student achievement. During
the extended thirty minute day under SIG, teachers should maximize the opportunity to provide
an intensive intervention or enrichment program to increase performance. Although the school
has been newly staffed and PLCs need to be further established, the use of those thirty minutes is
critical in increasing academic achievement. During professional development, school site
administrators should facilitate professional development and share expectations of the extended
day. Teachers should be required to share best practices during that time to strategize ways to
differentiate instruction in order for all students to be successful. Also, the need exists for
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 72 
 
administrators to be visiting classrooms more often to ensure that teachers are utilizing the extra
time in a way that benefits the needs of the students.
Research Question #2: How are human resources allocated across Promising Future High
Schools?
This section of the chapter identifies how human resources are dispersed across the two
high schools in the sample district. Staffing trends are determined for management, certificated
teaching staff, certificated staff providing specialized services, pupil support, and classified staff.
Definitions are provided for each individual position as characterized by the Evidence-based
model (EBM) (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010) and, in cases where the sample district utilizes or
defines positions differently than the EBM, an explanation is also provided.
Management. Management consists of each school’s principal and assistant principals.
Principals are responsible for running the school and assistant principals support the principal by
overseeing various school site responsibilities, disciplining students, and monitoring instruction.
Promising Future School District utilizes APs to supervise counseling, and any management
personnel who oversee instruction are referred to as “Instructional Specialists.” Their role is to
oversee departments and be the administrator in charge of a particular SLC. The sample district
has two high school principals and 11 high school assistant principals. Every high school has
one principal and assistant principals are allocated based on enrollment. The average ratio of
students to assistant principals in the sample district is 500 to one (see Table 4).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 73 
 
Table 4
Management Staff
High School Enrollment Principals
Assistant
Principals
MNO High
School
1752 1.00 6.00
WXY
Preparatory
High School
2347 1.00 5.00
Total 4099 2.00 11.00
Average per
Site
2049.5 1.00 5.5
Student Ratio N/A 2050 : 1 372 : 1

Certificated teaching staff. This section discusses findings relevant to the categories of
core teachers, specialist teachers, special education teachers, and English learner teachers.
Core teachers. Core teachers are those who teach in the academic areas of math, English
language arts, social studies, science, and world languages. Teachers at the high school level
often teach more than one subject, and it is not uncommon for a teacher’s caseload to consist of
both core and non-core (such as elective or co-curricular) courses. During the data collection
phase of this study, cases like these were counted as portions of a whole. For example, a teacher
who teaches English language arts for eighty percent of her day and coaches a leadership elective
for twenty percent is counted as eight tenths of a core teaching position and two tenths as a
specialist.
The sample district has an average of 60.5 core teachers within its two high schools, with
a ratio of approximately one core teacher for every 34 students (see Table 5). One hour of time
is built into each core teacher’s schedule daily for the purposes of preparation and instructional
planning. Core teachers make up 67.4% of certificated teaching staff in the sample district (see
Table 5).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 74 
 
Specialist teachers. Specialist teachers are those who teach courses outside of the five
core subject areas. These teachers are generally referred to as elective teachers, and they teach
courses in the areas of art, music, physical education, career-technical education, or co-curricular
activities. The sample district has 32 specialist teachers in the two high schools, with an average
ratio of 128 students to every specialist teacher (see Table 5). Specialists make up 17.8% of the
certificated teaching staff in the sample district and similar to core teachers, they receive an
average of one hour of preparation time per day (see Table 5).
Special education teachers. Special education teachers are those who teach students
with documented disabilities and provide accommodations and modifications for students based
on their Individual Education Plans (IEPs). These teachers are often assisted by instructional
aides who can work one-on-one with students or with students in small groups as warranted. In
the sample district, there are 22 special education teachers at the high school level. For every
one special education teacher there are 14.1 special education students (see Table 5).
Unlike core and specialist teachers, special education teachers receive double the amount
of preparation and planning time. They average two hours of release time per day, and the
district’s rationale for this additional time is to provide ample opportunity for holding meetings
with parents, completing paperwork, and monitoring caseloads of students. In the sample
district, special education teachers make up 12.3% of all teachers (see Table 5).
English learner teachers. English learner (EL) teachers are those who provide
instruction in English as a second language. EL teachers are often assisted by instructional aides
who can provide translation of content to students in large and small groups. In the sample
district, there are four EL teachers at the high school level. In terms of student-teacher ratio,
there are 375 EL students to every EL teacher (see Table 5). Like core and specialist teachers,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 75 
 
EL teachers receive an average of one hour of preparation and planning time per day, with the
exception of one EL coordinating teacher at each school site who receives an additional three
hours per day for running the school’s EL program. EL teachers make up 2.5% of the district’s
overall high school teaching staff (see Table 5).
Table 5
Certificated Teaching Staff
High School Core Specialist Special Ed EL
MNO High
School 52.00 14.00 18.00 2.50
WXY
Preparatory
High School 69.00 18.00 4.00 2.00
Total 121.00 32.00 22.00 4.5
% of Teaching
Staff 67.4% 17.8% 12.3% 2.5%
Average per
Site 60.5 16 11 2.25
Student Ratio 34 : 1 128 : 1 14: 1 375 : 1

Certificated staff providing adjunct or specialized services. This section provides
information on certificated staff that supports students’ academic achievement by providing
services outside of the traditional classroom instruction. These teachers include instructional
coaches, academic extra-help staff, librarians, and extended day and summer school staff.
Instructional coaches. Instructional coaches provide in-class coaching to teachers who
need support implementing professional development strategies. These coaches can model
lessons, observe teachers and provide feedback, or co-teach with colleagues. The primary
purpose of this assistance is to incorporate new instructional strategies demonstrated in
professional development and provide ongoing support to teachers that need additional support
in a non-evaluative manner. The sample district makes little use of instructional coaches.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 76 
 
District-wide there are only two instructional coach positions at the high school level. The ratio
of instructional coaches to students is 2,050 to 1 and the ratio of instructional coaches to teachers
is 90 to 1 (see Table 6).
Academic extra help staff. Academic extra help staff consists of those teachers who
function as tutors, intervention specialists, or reading teachers for struggling students. Instead of
teaching traditional classes during the school day, they work with students one-on-one or in
small groups to remediate gaps in their learning. Academic extra help staff members often
execute their work through a pull-out model where students are removed from their general
program to receive targeted instruction, and then promptly returned to their regular schedule.
The sample district has three academic extra help staff members district-wide at the high
school level, which averages out to approximately one full time staff member providing these
services at each high school, or one for every 1,366 students (see Table 6). The most common
intervention provided by this type of staff in the sample district for English Learners and Special
Education students. In the sample school district, the categorical coordinator is in charge of two
tasks during the day. His/her first duty that takes fifty percent of the day is as a Title I
coordinator—the person in charge of the Title I budget at the school site. The remainder of their
schedule is to serve as the English Learner Coordinator (EL coordinator). Within this position,
the EL coordinator should spend fifty percent of his day working with students in small groups
and focus on student reclassification from the English Learner program into core curricular
courses. Despite the amount of time that should be spent in the classroom, the EL coordinator
spends the majority of time fulfilling Title I coordinator responsibilities.
Librarians. Librarians are certificated staff members who are assigned to maintain and
facilitate the functioning of the school’s library. They maintain the school’s card cataloguing
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 77 
 
system and train teachers and students on library research techniques. In the sample district,
there are no librarians district-wide at the high school level because librarian positions have been
cut (see Table 6).
Extended day and summer school staff. Extended day teachers are those who teach
programs or tutor after school in order to provide additional academic support to struggling
students. Summer school teachers are those who do the same but do so in the summer months
when the school year has ended. In the sample district, high school summer school was
cancelled due to budget cuts within the district; however MNO High School was able to provide
students with summer school through the SIG. The sample district typically offers summer
school for intervention and remediation purposes to gain credits as well as for providing students
with enrichment to move ahead. The sample school district has embedded an additional period
during the regular school day for students to receive an intervention period to increase student
achievement. At one of the two high schools, SIG has required that the school site extend its day
by thirty minutes for additional intervention and enrichment. The district employs 102 extended
day staff members, who include all certificated management, teaching and counseling
personnel—with a ratio of 46 students per one teacher (see Table 6). The cost of the extended
day staff members is equivalent to 23 full time employees per year.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 78 
 
Table 6
Certificated Staffing: Adjunct or Specialized Services
High School
Instructiona
l Coaches
Extra Help
Staff Librarians
Extended
Day
Summer
School
MNO High
School 1.00 1.50 0.00 102.00 24.00
WXY
Preparatory
High School 1.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.0 3.00 0.00 102.00 24.00
Average
per Site 1.00 1.5 0.00 51 12.00
Student
Ratio 2050 : 1 1366 : 1 N/A 40 : 1 171 : 1

Certificated pupil support staff. This section reports staffing data at the sample district
for certificated positions that provide non-academic support for students. Within this category
are included school nurses, guidance counselors, and school psychologists.
School nurses. Nurses provide health services to students who are sick or injured and
need immediate health care. The sample district has one full time nurse at each high school (see
Table 7). The nurse completes paerwork, ensures that students with special cases are being cared
for appropriately, provides recommendations on specific student cases, and addresses areas of
concern in conjunction with the guidance counselors and school psychologists.
Guidance counselors and school psychologists. Guidance counselors are certificated
staff members who provide socio-emotional, academic, and career and college counseling.
School psychologists also provide socio-emotional counseling in some cases, but their main
function in the sample district is to provide eligibility testing and consultation for special
education services. There are 14 counselors and school psychologists within the sample district,
which is an average of one for every 586 students (see Table 7).
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 79 
 
Table 7
Pupil Support Staff
High School Nurses Guidance/ Psych
MNO High School 1.00 6.00
WXY Preparatory
High School 1.00 8.00
Total 2.00 14.00
Average per Site 1.00 7.00
Student Ratio 2050 : 1 586 : 1

Classified staff. This section reports staffing data for classified personnel in the sample
district. Staff members in this group include instructional aides, special education aides,
supervisory aides, library technicians and paraprofessionals, and secretaries and clerks.
Instructional aides. Instructional aides assist teachers in working with large groups,
small groups, or individual students in either regular classes or classes for English learners. In
the sample district, instructional aides are only utilized while working with English Learners.
MNO High school hosts a smaller population of English Learners – there are only 3 at the school
site. Across the two high schools in the sample district, there are 14 instructional aides.
Special education aides. Special education aides are similar to instructional aides in that
they provide services for large groups, small groups or individual students, but are utilized
exclusively in special education classes. The sample district employs 40 special education aides
across its two high schools. With 241 special education students in the district at the high school
level, the student to aide ratio is one aide for every 8 special education students (see Table 8).
Supervisory aides. Supervisory aides are those who provide campus supervision during
non-instructional times such as before and after school, nutrition, lunch, passing periods. The
sample district refers to supervisory aides as campus security. They work closely with the
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 80 
 
administrative staff and campus police to monitor student behavior and ensure safety on the
school campus. The sample district utilizes 23 campus security members across the two high
schools. The ratio of campus security is one to every 178 students (see Table 8).
Library technicians and paraprofessionals. Library technicians are those who keep the
school library running by maintaining the library’s technological equipment, while library
paraprofessionals are those who perform general library upkeep tasks including checking books
in and out to students and staff. The sample district does not hire any library technicians. In
addition, the sample district employs two individuals as library paraprofessionals who are
responsible for the upkeep of the library, checking books in and out, and providing students a
place to work during their nutrition and lunch breaks across the two high schools (see Table 8).
Secretaries and clerks. Secretaries and clerks perform administrative duties to assist in
school operational tasks. This includes positions such as the school secretary, but within the
sample district it also includes those who work in special departments such as attendance offices
and special education offices. The sample district employs 11 secretaries and clerks across its
two high schools.
Table 8
Classified Staff
High
School Aides
Special
Ed
Aides Supervisory
Library
Tech.
Library
Paraprof.
Secretaries/
Clerks
MNO High
School 3.00 18.00 14.00 0.00 1.00 5.00
WXY
Preparatory
High
School 11.00 22.00 9.00 0.00 1.00 6.00
Total 14.00 40.00 23.00 0.00 2.00 11.00
Average
per Site 7.00 20.00 11.50 0.00 1.0 5.5
Student
Ratio 293 : 1 8 : 1 178 : 1 4099 : 1 2050 : 1 373: 1
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 81 
 

Research Question #3: Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices
in Promising Future High Schools and what the research suggests is most effective?
This section of the chapter identifies both negative and positive gaps between Promising
Future School District’s current resource allocation patterns, its desired allocations, and the
research-based allocation strategies proposed by the Evidence-based Model (Odden, Picus, &
Goetz, 2010). The first gaps described will include the negative gaps. The negative gaps
address the differences between the additional staffing proposed by the EBM and what the
sample district actually has. Then, the study will address the positive gaps. The positive gaps
suggest that the sample district has overstaffed in comparison to the EBM’s recommendations
(see Table 9). Clarke and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework will be used to determine the
potential attributes that may cause the knowledge, motivational or organizational barriers that
may hinder the sample districts use of research-based allocation strategy suggested by the EBM.
Negative gaps: Current allocations compared to EBM. This section of the study
indicates the negative gaps between the sample districts’ current resource allocation and the
research-based allocation strategies suggested by the EBM. Prior to highlighting the gaps in
personnel within the sample district, it is imperative to illuminate the significant gaps in per pupil
spending as a result of state budget cuts. Based on calculations from 2005-2006, in order to
successfully implement the EBM, the state of California would need to increase per pupil
spending by $2184 (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010). However, with the fiscal crisis worsening,
California would need to increase its per pupil spending by even more.
Certificated teachers. The sample school district currently employs fewer certificated
teachers than recommended by the EBM. The data suggests that core teachers, specialist
teachers, special education teachers, and English language learner teachers are all facing a gap.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 82 
 
The EBM recommends that there should be 164 core teachers; however the sample district only
employs 121 (see Table 4.8). This causes a shortage of 43 teachers needed to instruct in the core
courses, including ELA, Math, Science, History, and Foreign Language. The EBM proposes that
there be 54.1 specialist teachers who would be responsible for teaching electives and physical
education within the district, but currently the sample district only has 32, leaving a gap of 22.1.
Within the sample district, there are 22 Special Education teachers while the EBM proposes
27.3, leaving a gap of 5.3 teachers. Finally, the EBM suggests that there be 17 EL teachers,
while the district only employs 4.5, leaving a gap of 12.5 teachers (see Table 9).
The sample district contractually requires that the student to teacher ratio at the high
school level be 29 students to every one teacher within core classes. WXY Preparatory High
School, however, is required to keep class sizes even lower as a result of QEIA funding. School
wide, they are required to have a class size average of 27 students to every one teacher, assuming
that core classes are smaller in size, and elective classes are larger. The most significant gap is
with core and specialist teachers and instructional coaches. MNO High School is not a QEIA
funded school. While they had the funding at one point, school personnel were unable to
maintain the requirements held by QEIA. Funding was revoked and class sizes increased.
As a result of low per pupil funding in California and at one of the high schools within
the sample district, there is no way to fully close either of these gaps. In terms of Clarke and
Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework, the shortage of specialist teachers is an organizational
barrier. Since data is a determining factor of a school’s and district’s overall performance, less
of an emphasis is placed on the arts and other electives.
Certificated staff providing adjunct or specialized services. There are also sizable gaps
between the number of teachers presently working in non-traditional roles in the sample district
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 83 
 
and those numbers proposed by the evidence-based model. In particular, the EBM calls for more
instructional coaches, academic extra help staff, and extended day and summer school staff than
what the district currently funds.
Instructional coaches are those who support the implementation of new instructional
strategies by modeling, team-teaching, and providing feedback. Currently the sample district
only funds two instructional coaches across all school sites in the study, leaving a gap of 18.5
coaches district wide (see Table 9). The intention was that Instructional coaches would serve as
an integral part of a school campus. But because of budgetary cuts, coaching positions were
determined by the School Site Council, (SSC), which would decide whether the campus wanted
to purchase this position. As a result, this position has been cut. The district does, however, pay
for Title 3 coaches. Title 3 coaches are designated to work with Long Term English Learners
(LTELs) and teachers to promote reclassification from LTEL status. When addressing the Clark
and Estes (2002) gap analysis framework, the school is aware that an organizational gap exists
regarding instructional coaches. Within the sample district, instructional coaches are expert
teachers that facilitate professional development. They are responsible for observing classrooms
and providing teachers with ongoing feedback about their practices. However, within the sample
district, instructional coaches have been found ineffective by their colleagues as their role has not
been clearly defined or monitored by their administrators. Because instructional coaches are not
superior to teachers—they hold the same credentials—teachers do not accord them the same
authority that they do administrators who are in charge of evaluation.
Academic extra help staff consists of those teachers who function as tutors, intervention
specialists, or reading teachers for struggling students. Instead of teaching traditional classes
during the school day, they work with students one-on-one or in small groups to remediate gaps
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 84 
 
in their learning. This category also shows 36.4 gap between the EBM’s recommendations and
the sample district’s allocations of academic extra help staff. While the district funds three
positions, the EBM proposes staffing of 39.4 based on the sample district’s size (see Table 9).
The EL coordinator and the Bridge coordinator are the only academic support staff at the school.
The school does not have enough funding to hire additional out-of-classroom support.
Finally, the district funds 23 extended day and summer school staff. The district
completely eliminated summer school, but through the SIG grant, MNO High School was able to
keep a summer school. Their whole instructional certificated staff and management team were
required to work an additional 30 minutes, extending the school day for the students to provide
additional intervention. Unfortunately, WXY Preparatory High School does not have this same
grant that enables an extended learning day for the students. This is an organizational barrier as
the lack of financial resources prevents the staff from being able to have an extended day.
Pupil support staff. The final gap that is detrimental to the sample district is with non-
academic pupil support staff. Pupil support staff include guidance counselors, school
psychologists and nurses. The district employs 18 pupil support staff, while the desired number
advised by the EBM is 45.3, leaving a 27.3 deficit (see Table 9). Using the Clark and Estes
(2002) framework, the cause of this gap is a knowledge barrier. While the district highly regards
pupil support staff and understands that they are vital in assuring the well-being of the students,
the sample school district works with several outside resources that provide students with
additional support. These outside resources often are available free of charge for students, since
the vast majority of this campus population is categorized as low-socioeconomic group. Also,
both sample schools are in close proximity to major colleges. College students seeking internship
hours are also frequently available to work with students. Although the sample district may be
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 85 
 
utilizing outside resources to provide pupil support staff, these volunteers are not able to provide
support that may be needed immediately and/or ongoingly by students. Also, although interns
may be able to provide students with guidance and emotional support, without proper training,
their assistance may be ineffective.
Positive Gaps: Current allocations compared to EBM. This section of the study will
highlight the positive gaps where the sample district funds more positions than the recommended
amount suggested by the Evidenced-based model. These positive gaps play a significant role in
this study because they provide insight into the positions that are valued by the sample district.
Acknowledging that there are positive gaps can lead to funding possibilities that could
compensate for the negative gaps addressed in the previous section. The areas of positive gaps
include assistant principals and special education instructional aides.
Assistant principals. In the sample district, Assistant Principals are referred to as
Instructional Specialists. These administrators are responsible for overlooking a particular Small
Learning Community and are hired based on their expertise in a specific content area. The
sample district regards it as essential for evaluators to be knowledgeable of the content areas that
their certificated staff members teach. This way, instructional specialists will be able to mentor,
coach, provide feedback and then evaluate teachers based on the support they have given them.
The sample district currently employs 11 instructional specialists. The EBM
recommends that they only employ 6.8, leaving a positive gap of 4.2 (see Table 9). While this
does suggest that the sample district values school leadership, this is an organizational and
motivational barrier. The organization feels a significant amount of pressure to increase student
achievement in order to maintain QEIA and SIG funding. By funding more administrators, they
can use the expertise of the instructional specialist in content specific areas to guide teachers into
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 86 
 
more effective instructional models. This is also a motivational barrier, as school site council
(SSC) oversees the budget and decides which positions are of greatest value to the school.
Instead of funding instructional coaches, the SSC within the sample district places a higher value
on Instructional Specialists as they feel they can be held to higher levels of accountability.
Special education and instructional aides. Special education aides provide services for
large groups, small groups, or individual students, but are utilized exclusively in special
education classes. The sample district employs 40 special education aides across its two high
schools while the EBM recommends 13.7, leaving a positive gap of 26.3 (see Table 9). The
large positive gap suggests a greater necessity for support personnel for the special education
population because of their learning abilities, knowledge, and skill levels. Depending upon
statements of need delineated by the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), the district may be
assigning one-on-one aides to students with specified needs for services. The district also might
be over-assigning the amount of assistance that the students are receiving, which might hinder
students’ access to the least restrictive environment. The sample district might also fear legal
ramifications if maximum support is not provided to the students, and they therefore act with
extreme caution. They may not have fully evaluated how schools can function with fewer
special education instructional aides staffed.
The sample district also currently employs 14 instructional aides that provide support in
classes for English Learners. The EBM suggests that there are no instructional aides in the class.
The sample district values instructional aides because they feel English Learners may need
additional support and one on one services depending on their needs. Their scores are included
in API and English Learners are also required to meet AYP targets.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 87 
 
Table 9
Total Human Resource Allocation Gaps
Positon Counts
Title Current Desired EB
Current
-
Desired
Current
-
EB

Principals 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Assistant principals 11.0 6.8 6.8 4.2 4.2
Instructional coaches 2.0 20.5 20.5 (18.5) (18.5)
Core teachers 121.0 164.0 164.0 (43.0) (43.0)
Specialist teachers 32.0 54.1 54.1 (22.1) (22.1)
SPED teachers 22.0 27.3 27.3 (5.3) (5.3)
ELL teachers 4.5 17.0 17.0 (12.5) (12.5)
Academic extra help staff 3.0 39.4 39.4 (36.4) (36.4)
Non-academic pupil support 14.0 55.8 55.8 (41.8) (41.8)
Nurses 2.0 5.5 5.5 (3.5) (3.5)
Extended day / summer school
staff 23.0 65.7 65.7 (42.7) (42.7)
Instructional aides 14.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 14.0
Supervisory aides 23.0 20.5 20.5 2.5 2.5
SPED aides 40.0 13.7 13.7 26.3 26.3
Librarians 0.0 2.0 2.0 (2.0) (2.0)
Library technicians 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Library paraprofessionals 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
Secretaries / clerks 11.0 20.5 20.5 (9.5) (9.5)

Question #4: How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies
that improve student achievement for students in Promising Future High Schools?
This section suggests potential tradeoffs that could minimize gaps in the district’s current
allocation practices as illuminated by the EBM. Within this section will be strategies to
implement tradeoffs without additional district spending. The tradeoffs that are recommended
are essential to help increase student achievement. In order to close gaps, it is imperative to
provide students with the best possible instruction within the core subjects. Next, it is necessary
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 88 
 
to provide students who are struggling with the proper supports to meet achievement
expectations.
Tradeoffs to increase student achievement. In order to increase student achievement
and reallocate personnel to increase achievement, there must be an examination of the negative
gaps in sample districts current allocation methods in comparison to the EBM. It is apparent that
there is a shortage of teachers within the core subject areas, EL teachers, and instructional
coaches. Reallocating resources to increase the number of teachers would allow for smaller class
sizes that could provide students a more intimate learning environment. Reallocating resources
to buy more instructional coaches can provide teachers with ongoing support when trying to
implement new strategies within the classroom. This section proposes that resources be drawn
from positive gaps between the EBM’s recommendations and current allocations in the sample
district, and reallocated toward these staff.
More core teachers. Currently, the sample district is facing a significant gap in the
number of core teachers. There is a deficit of 43 core teachers and to compensate for this deficit,
it is possible to cut positions where there are positive gaps. The sample district is overspending
on Assistant Principals, Instructional Aides, Supervisory Aides and Special Education Aides. By
cutting 4.2 instructional specialists, and 14 instructional aides, we can hire an additional 9.7 core
teachers. WXY Preparatory High School currently has QEIA funding that promotes class size
reduction. In this case, these 10 teachers could all be sent to MNO High School. Because MNO
High School currently also has the SIG, the districts priority should be to close the performance
gap at that school. By promoting smaller class sizes within core instructional classes, the
students at MNO High School can get a more individualized instructional program at their
school.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 89 
 
More instructional coaches. If the previous tradeoff occurs, the sample district is still
able to cut Supervisory Aides and Special Education Aides. By making these cuts, the sample
district is able to purchase 8.8 instructional coaches. At the present time, each school employs
one instructional coach. By hiring additional coaches, the sample district has the potential to hire
an instructional coach in each of the core subject areas. This will allow each coach to work with
a particular department and create a schedule of when he/she can guide and assist teachers.
While coaches undertake a variety of duties, these newly hired coaches can also assist by
supporting struggling students. Because coaches are credentialed and are considered experts in
their content area, they may be able to work with students in small groups during class time. The
sample district does not have enough funding to buy more positions. Schools within this sample
district use their own teachers to provide support for struggling students. It is imperative that
teachers within the school also get support from instructional coaches while implementing new
strategies within the class; but as teachers become more confident and more effective in the
classroom they can spend more time working with struggling students.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 90 
 
Chapter Five: Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how educational personnel could best be
allocated to ensure that student achievement is maximized, given the current economic climate
and the rigorous expectations placed on educators. This study examined two Los Angeles
secondary schools with similar student populations in similar urban neighborhoods. Using the
Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model, the schools were compared for their use of personnel
and resultant student achievement. By determining both the positive and negative gaps of
current human resource allocation practices, the study suggested potential tradeoffs to ensure that
students within the district could increase their levels of achievement. The study also addressed
the causes for the gaps by using the Clark and Estes (2002) framework.
The Sample
The sample district is one that serves 6,500 students in an urban community in Southern
California. This study focused on the district’s two high schools. In terms of demographics,
80% of the students are Latino and the other 20% are African American. Within the two high
schools, 96.1% of the students are on free and reduced lunch. In terms of student achievement,
the high schools averaged an Annual Performance Index (API) of 612.5.
Limitations
The limitation of this study included the size of sample district. This sample district has
three schools, and of those three, only the two high schools were studied. Also, this study
focused on two urban high schools serving minority students. The data were collected over a
one-year period and the researcher was not able to control for factors of willingness of the
participants or preconceived biases about funding, resource allocation and student achievement
within the organization.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 91 
 
Summary of Findings
This study identified ways that the sample district could increase student achievement by
addressing best practices for increasing performance levels and addressing the gaps in personnel
allocation. This section will provide a summary of findings for the research questions.
Research Question #1: What research-based human resource allocation strategies
improve student achievement for students at the two high schools? The research focused on
three principles in order to increase student achievement. They consisted of professional
development, the use of professional learning communities, and successful school restructuring.
Professional development. The sample school district values professional development.
Each year, the sample district allows for two weeks of paid professional development before the
school year begins and has weekly professional development embedded into the work day on
Tuesday. Professional development is either held by content area or by SLCs. During this time,
colleagues are able to share best practices and learn new instructional strategies to implement
within the class. While the faculty meets regularly, there is still room for growth. The
administrative team does not get the opportunity to observe classes as frequently as they would
like, and with the lack of instructional coaches, observations by administrators, although non-
evaluative seem evaluative in nature. There is not enough time to provide ongoing feedback for
the implemented strategies due to lack of personnel.
Professional learning communities. Working in Professional learning communities is
heavily emphasized by the sample district. Teachers get to meet with their PLCs by subject
matter department or SLCs. Teachers work together to share best practices, plan, and
collaborate. The sample district has room to improve in their use of PLCs. While the majority
of teachers are open minded and willing to share and implement new ideas in the classroom,
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 92 
 
some teachers are reluctant to be active participants in their PLCs. Getting a higher number of
participants with buy-in could lead to higher levels of learning for students.
Successful school restructuring. Both high schools in the sample district have spent a
significant amount of time ensuring that the staff complies with school-wide expectations. The
use of a white board configuration, year at a glance, interactive notebooks and common
assessments are used to set norms for both teachers and students at the school. The sample
district needs to work on assuring the ongoing use of the school-wide expectations.
Administration is unable to consistently visit classrooms due to other responsibilities and the
lack of coaches prevents the support needed to promote going school restructuring.
Research Question #2: How are human resources allocated across Promising Future
School District high schools? Human resource allocation data from Promising Future School
District were collected and input into the Staff Input Tab of the school simulation model. The
data included the number of certificated and classified staff members in Promising Future School
District. Based on the simulation, there were gaps between the district’s current human resource
allocation practices and the recommendations of the EBM. Due to the fiscal crisis, California is
currently one of the lowest per pupil funding states, which contributes to the lack of personnel in
the district. These gaps were identified and the causes were addressed in research question three.
Research Question #3: Is there a gap between current human resource allocation
practices in Promising Future High Schools and what the research suggests is most
effective? Findings from the data revealed that there were significant gaps between current
resource allocations in Promising Future School District and the Evidence-Based Model (EBM).
The primary cause of gaps can be attributed to funding levels in California. These gaps between
the sample district of and the Evidence-Based Model in human resource allocations were
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 93 
 
identified and analyzed. Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis provided the framework for
identifying the causes of these gaps. The positive gaps that were determined by the EBM
allowed for reallocation of personnel where negative gaps existed. Research question four
addresses how tradeoffs could be made with the intentions of increasing student achievement.
Research Question #4: How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to
align with strategies that improve student achievement for students in Promising Future
High School? Despite the significant number of negative gaps found in the study, Promising
Future School District did reveal some positive gaps, where personnel were overstaffed. In order
to increase student achievement, the researcher sought to decrease the negative gaps by
eliminating positions that exceeded staffing recommendations based on the EBM.
Promising Future School District suffers from severe shortages in teachers within the
core subject areas, EL teachers, and instructional coaches. The sample district is currently
overspending on Assistant Principals, Instructional Aides, Supervisory Aides and Special
Education Aides. By eliminating these positions, the district could reallocate personnel to
increase the number of teachers and instructional coaches. Increasing the number of core
teachers would allow for class size reduction, and an intimate learning environment. Adding
instructional coaches would increase teacher capacity through ongoing feedback of
implementing new strategies within the classroom.
Implications for Practice
Implications for the sample district. Dwindling financial resources can impact
performance outcomes in education. Promising Future School District is unique due to increased
funding through the means of QEIA and SIG. These additional funds have allowed the two high
schools to reduce class sizes, restructure the school staff, increase the instructional time for
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 94 
 
students, and provide teachers with professional development that can enhance pedagogy and
student learning.
Promising Future School District can choose to use the information presented in this
study to increase student achievement outcomes. First, this study provided research-based
practices that can improve student achievement. Secondly, this study addressed the positive and
negative gaps of personnel within the sample district through the use of the Evidence-Based
Model. By assessing the achievement needs of the school, the Promising Future School District
can reallocate positions to strategically increase achievement. While the tradeoffs recommended
do not close all the gaps in personnel, they narrow the gaps where student learning occurs.
Finally, as the fiscal conditions improve in the state of California, the sample district can use the
Evidence-Based Model and determine how personnel can be allocated to meet the achievement
expectations of the students.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on the human resource patterns at a smaller transformation district at
the secondary level. Data was collected at two high schools that are considered low-performing.
In the future, it would be beneficial to compare the human resource allocation between low-
performing schools and high-performing schools. The achievement gap is a troubling issue that
affects low-socioeconomic students—those addressed in this study. However, these schools
receive additional funding in efforts to increase achievement. By comparing personnel
allocation and research-based strategies that improve achievement at high performing schools,
low performing schools could work with district officials in implementing those strategies
effectively. Another recommendation that the researcher would suggest, is conducting the study
over a longer period of time. Within the sample district MNO High School was recently
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 95 
 
restructured and a new staff was hired. By monitoring achievement for a five year span after
restructuring, there would be a more comprehensive understanding of its effectiveness.
Summary
Achievement expectations continue to grow in the nation while the fiscal crisis continues
to encumber money spent on education. In order to increase the levels of performance during
trying times, it is imperative to address the gaps in personnel. The Evidence-based Model
provides a framework that allows school districts to assess their current human resource
allocation practices and compare it to a research-based method that supports student
performance. This study has highlighted the human resource allocation patterns in a small urban
district in California that is undergoing transformation in efforts to increase achievement. This
study benefits the district by proposing ways that personnel can be reallocated to support student
learning. By implementing the proposed tradeoffs suggested in the study, class sizes could
decrease and teachers could improve their practice through ongoing feedback provided by
instructional coaches. While the sample district serves a small urban neighborhood through the
network partnership, schools within the larger district could also gain insight on ways to increase
achievement through personnel reallocation. The primary mission of schools is to ensure that
students are learning and performing at optimal levels. To provide students with a successful
learning environment, school districts must address the learning needs of the students and
staffing needs of the school.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 96 
 
References
American Association of School Administrators. (2009). Looking back, looking forward: How
the economic downturn continues to impact school districts. Arlington, VA: Author.
Augenblick, John. (1997). Recommendations for a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments
to the Base Figure for Use in a New School Finance System in Ohio. Columbus, OH:
Ohio Department of Education.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Clark, R,. Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right
Performance Solutions. Center for Effective Performance.
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges’ Good
Intentions and Harm our Children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press. Available at
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/4284872.html
Kerr, K., Marsh, J., Ikemoto, G., Darlike, H., Barney, H. (2006) Strategies to Promote Data Use
for Instructional Improvement: Actions, Outcomes, and Lessons from Three Urban
Districts. American Journal of Education. The Universtiy of Chicago.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 97 
 
Ladd, H. & Hansen, J. (1999). Making money matter. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Loeb, S. (2007). Getting down to facts: School finance and governance in California. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., Rotherham, A. (2010). Conflicting Mission and Unclear
Results. Bellwether Education Partners.
Miles, K. H. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study of teacher allocation
in Boston public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(4), 476–493.
Miles, K. H. (1998). Freeing school resources for learning: The “missing piece” in making
accountability meaningful. District Issues Brief. Arlington, VA: New American Schools.
Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://www.naschools.org/uploadedfiles/freeing-
school.pdf
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.
National Governors Association. (2013). Closing the Achievement Gap. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.subnet.nga.org/educlear/achievement/
National Governors Association. (2013). Turning around low performing schools. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-
practices/center-issues/page-edu-issues/col2-content/main-content-list/turning-around-
low-performing-sc.html
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 98 
 
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public
and educators. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for
Education Research, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Odden, A (2009). 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2),
120-125.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., et al. (2005). An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in
Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Legislature. Report available at
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2006/interim/schoolfinance/Recalibration/WY%20RecaFinal.pdf
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
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., Goetz, M., Picus, L. (2007). Paying for School Finance Adequacy with the National
Average Expenditure Per Pupul. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://www.naschools.org/uploadedfiles/freeing-
school.pdf
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative and evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 99 
 
Renick, L. B., Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning Organizations for Sustainable Education Reform.
Vol. 127, No. 4, Education Yesterday, Education Tomorrow (Fall, 1998), pp. 89-118.
Published by: The MIT Press.
Resnick, L. B. (1995). From aptitude to effort: A new foundation for our schools. Journal of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 124(4), 55-62. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from
http://www.instituteforlearning.org/media/docs/AppitudeToEffort.pdf.
Shambaugh, L., Kitmitto, S., Parrish, T., Arellanes, M., Nakashima, N. (2011). California’s K-
12 Education System During a Fiscal Crisis. American Institute for Research.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Yeagley, Raymond (December 2003). The demands of data under NCLB: Procrastinating your
collection and compilation could lead to a district’s doom. The School Administrator.
Retrieved from
http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8920&terms=NCLB+demands

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study analyzed resource allocation practices of the high schools in one urban district in Southern California. Using the Evidence-based Model (EBM) as a framework, this study compared current personnel allocation practices with the EBM to determine whether the district could reallocate personnel to support student achievement. Using the gap analysis, the study determined gaps in the district’s current resource allocation patterns, its desired patterns, and those patterns recommended by the EBM. Findings revealed that the district is understaffed in comparison to the EBM and that the funding conditions in the state of California hinder the ability to resolve all the gaps in personnel. Instead, the study made recommendations to alleviate the gaps by decreasing positions that were overstaffed to help fund additional positions that were understaffed—with the intent to increase student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in three charter middle schools in relation to student achievement improvement strategies

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of the Local Control Funding Formula on schools within a rural mid-sized California school district

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Potnis, Dipali (author)

Core Title Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/29/2013

Defense Date 05/06/2013

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

Tag Education,education finance,education leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Morgan, Helen F. (committee member)

Creator Email dipalipotnis@gmail.com,dpotnis@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-302973

Unique identifier UC11294024

Identifier etd-PotnisDipa-1863.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-302973 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PotnisDipa-1863-1.pdf

Dmrecord 302973

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Potnis, Dipali

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