University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Lorraine M. Perez

________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Lorraine M. Perez
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends for the sacrifices that
were made by each and every one of you. If not for the support and prayers from all
of you I would never have made it through this process.
Mom
Mom, thank you for being such a great role model. You showed me that a strong
woman can achieve anything that she sets her mind to. I love you!
Eric
I can’t express how much I appreciate you and your patience throughout this entire
process. Thank you for putting so much of what is important to you on hold so that I
could pursue this dream. I love you!!
To My Nieces and Nephews
You guys are my world, and I love you with all my heart. I hope that you know that
everything I do, I do for you. I want to be your constant reminder that anything is
possible. Keep that in mind when making decisions in your life.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia for all his support and guidance
through this process. His patience and encouragement made this a truly valuable
learning experience.
Thank you, Dr. Rudy Castruita, for creating the opportunity to conduct
research in an actual school district setting. This allowed us to put theory into
practice and produce results that are relevant to my personal growth as well as
providing valuable information to the district.
Dr. Love, thank you for making the time to serve on my dissertation
committee. It was really important to me to have the perspective that you bring as a
recent district level administrator.
Thank you, Nisha, for being my partner through this program, from
beginning to end. I could not have asked for a better person to have shared this
experience with me. Good luck and much success in all that you do!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. …ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….…iii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. …v
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………... …vi
Abstract………………………………………………………………………… …vii
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………….…1
Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………………………………….…11
Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………….. …43
Chapter Four: Findings……………………………………………………………51
Chapter Five: Summary……………………………………………………….. …81
References……………………………………………………………………… …90
Appendices
Appendix A: School Expenditure Structure and Resource………………93
Appendix B: Qualitative Interview Protocol…………………………. …95
Appendix C: Data Collection Protocol……………………………….. …97
Appendix D: Data Collection Definitions………………………………100
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: School Resource Indicators…………………………………………37
Table 2.2: School Expenditure Structure…………………………………… …38
Table 2.3: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for Prototypical…… …41
Elementary, Middle and High Schools
Table 3.1: School Achievement Data for Sample Schools…………………. …46
Table 3.2: School Resource Indicators…………………………………………48
Table 4.1: School X’s Achievement Data…………………………………... …55
Table 4.2: School Y’s Achievement Data………………………………….. …58
Table 4.3: School Z’s Achievement Data………………………………………60
Table 4.4: School Resource Indicator for School X……………………………68
Table 4.5: School Resource Indicator for School Y and School Z…………. …69
Table 4.6: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for Prototypical…… …70
Elementary School Compared to School X, School Y, and
School Z
Table 4.7: School Resource Indicator - Specialist and Elective Teachers….. …72
Table 4.8: School Resource Indicator - Professional Development……………74
Table 4.9: School Resource Indicator - Student Services…………………... …74
Table 4.10: School Resource Indicator - Instructional Materials and………... …75
Equipment
Table 4.11: School Resource Indicator – Administration……………………. …76
Table 4.12: School Resource Indicator - Operations and Maintenance……… …77
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: California’s Educational Funding Sources…………………….....…17
Figure 2.2: National School District Expenditure Averages………………… …32
vii
ABSTRACT
This study used a purposeful sample of three southern California elementary
schools that are in a K-12 basic aid school district. These schools are outperforming
similar schools and were studied to determine the instructional strategies and
resource use patterns used to support their continual improvement process. The
methods used to gather the information include interview data, performance data and
information on school level resource use. The Evidence Based Model, developed by
Odden and Picus (2008), which identifies the elements of a school-wide instructional
program that research has shown to be effective in improving student performance,
was used as the framework for analyzing the resource use patterns of the study
schools. The findings indicate that although the resources available to the study
schools were significantly fewer than what the Evidence Based Model suggests, the
improvement strategies showed many commonalities to those suggested in the body
of literature on school improvement. Analysis of the case studies indicates that the
schools used the following improvement strategies that are commonly seen in the
literature on effective schools: identifying performance challenges and setting clear
and concise goals to address the challenges, a common focus on strong instructional
practices and the use of data to make decisions that can inform practice, the use of
collaboration among all stakeholders to improve student achievement, and continued
professional development based on the Professional Learning Communities model.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The economic downturn that has deeply impacted the nation’s economy has
had a significant bearing on California’s educational system. This is particularly true
due to the fact that California’s source of funding for education relies heavily on the
success of our state’s economy (Loeb, Bryk & Hanushek, 2007). During years of
prosperity, educational spending increases and new programs and initiatives are
funded. Rarely is there much effort placed on tracking the effectiveness of programs
and initiatives with longitudinal data. This lack of accountability makes it difficult
during times of financial stress to determine which expenditures have the greatest
impact on student achievement. In this era of academic accountability, it can be
detrimental to make a decision regarding the allocation of resources without fully
understanding the impact on student achievement.
Insight into the history of California’s education finance system will build an
understanding of its evolution. School finance and governance has been in
fluctuation for decades, which has made financial planning for public education
difficult (Loeb, Bryk & Hanushek, 2007). Background on the legislation and
litigation that has shaped the current system will provide insight into California’s
approach to supporting public education. There have been many amendments to the
state’s constitution passed with the intention to support the educational system, but
often these attempts have resulted in the passage of confusing legislation (Loeb,
2
Bryk & Hanushek, 2007). Senate and Assembly bills authored and approved by
voters, have only had yet another bill written in response or in an effort to amend the
previous.
Most schools districts in California receive funding from the state and federal
government, both of which are finding it difficult to create a balanced budget and
fully fund basic services. Districts that do not receive their funding in this traditional
manner, particularly basic aid districts, are also finding it difficult to continue with
business as usual. The recent housing crisis has played a role in the financial
situation that is affecting basic aid districts. Property taxes, which are the primary
support for basic aid districts, have been diminished due to foreclosures and recent
property value reassessments.
The common thread that binds districts together regardless of financial status
is the heightened awareness regarding the state of our schools, particularly the
achievement gap that exists among various student populations. The disparities that
exist are profoundly based on ethnicity, socioeconomics, and language. The No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 has played a major role in drawing attention
to this inequality that exists in education. There has been extensive research
conducted related to factors contributing to the achievement gap and potential
societal impacts, with the overwhelming majority of research being aimed at
identifying approaches or strategies that would positively impact the disadvantaged
subgroups of students (Loeb, Bryk & Hanushek, 2007).
3
The landscape of California’s education system has changed dramatically,
specifically regarding demographics. Over the past twenty years, the number of
white students has decreased as a percentage in comparison to the overall student
population. The Latino population has increased by 187%, comprising almost half
of California’s student population. The African American and Asian American
populations have also increased by 24% and 133%, respectively (Mockler, 2007).
California has developed an extremely ethnically diverse and language diverse
student population.
In the midst of the demographic evolution that was taking place, changes
were taking place at the federal level that would prove to have major implications on
education. The renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
which would be known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, was
enacted with specific federal and state academic accountability expectations. In
1999, California had put into place its own accountability measures that would
include academic content standards and a system to measure student achievement.
The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessments with which student
achievement is measured are directly related to the system that the state utilizes to
provide a deciles ranking of schools. This accountability system, the Academic
Performance Index (API), rates each school based on student performance on the
state content standards. The ranking for schools spans 800 points, from 200 to 1000
points. It is the goal of all schools to be above 800 points and they are able to garner
points by showing student growth based on five proficiency bands; far below basic,
4
below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced. The federal accountability system,
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), does not utilize the same measures and chooses to
focus only on whether or not a student is proficient. According to the federal plan,
there is currently no means of recognizing the growth that has taken place in schools.
Each school is expected to produce a pre-determined percentage of proficient
students in order to meet their annual AYP goal. This percentage is on a steep and
steady incline, with the goal of all students reaching proficient by the 2013-2014
school year.
The background information that will be provided will allow for the
remainder of this study to focus on how to effectively link resources with
instructional practices that will result in high student achievement. The broad
overview of litigation and legislation behind resource allocation and student
achievement provides a better understanding of the potential issues that are looming
due to the financial situation that many districts are facing. The following
components of this chapter will set the foundation for the study with the statement of
the problem. The purpose of the study will be explored completely, as well as
identifying the research questions that guided the study. The chapter will conclude
with the assumptions, delimitations and the definition of the terms that will be
specific to this research.
Statement of the Problem
There is limited information regarding the effective use of resources as a
means to address student achievement. As the expectation for student achievement is
5
on a continual incline the pressure to produce high achieving schools is also
compounded by the financial situation that is plaguing school districts across the
state. The considerations that must be made in determining how to allocate resources
are unprecedented due to the level of accountability that has become a central
component of the American educational system. The level of accountability and
responsibility for student learning that is placed on schools and districts is
misaligned with their reasonable authority in allocating resources to achieve the
goals (Hill, Roza & Harvey, 2008). The challenge that lies before nearly all school
districts is how to effectively use the existing resources to continue to address
student achievement. School districts have made many efforts to match resources
with efforts that would yield high achievement, which have included updating
curriculum, professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators,
as well as parent involvement initiatives. The fact of the matter is that with the
shrinking resources, many districts will no longer be able to devote funds to various
efforts. The expectation will be that they fund the programs and initiatives that yield
the best results as they relate to producing and maintaining high academic
achievement. Districts will need to determine how to align the allocation of resources
to programs and efforts identified as the driving force behind continued improvement
to student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine the practice of effectively linking
resources in order to improve instructional practices that support high levels of
6
student achievement at the school site. This study strives to better inform the field of
education regarding the positive relationships between achievement and expenditures
(Greenwald, Hedges, & Lane, 1996), with a focus on 1) Best practices for improving
student achievement, and 2) The efficient and effective use of limited resources to
support significant gains in student achievement. Determining the most effective
approaches to creating and maintaining high levels of student achievement will help
to inform the decisions made at the district and school site regarding the use of
limited resources.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. What are best practices for improving student achievement?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional plan?
3. How does the availability of resources impact the development and
implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA)?
Importance of the Study
This study examines the current financial structure under which California
school districts operate and analyzes how high levels of student achievement are
addressed within these parameters. It is important that all schools receive the
resources to ensure that students have the opportunity for a quality education that
prepares them to be successful (Rebell, 2008). The study will contribute to a
growing body of literature addressing resource allocation and school district use of
these limited resources to effectively improve student achievement.
7
Limitations
The limitations that exist in this particular study are based on the data
available for analysis in the data collection. The accuracy of the data will be based
on the school and district’s attention to detail in collecting and maintaining data.
Delimitations
The delimitations that exist in this study are based on time constraints and
lack of longitudinal information. The study will be conducted over the 2009-2010
school year and will focus on the resources allocated during this time period. The
findings and recommendations can only be generalized to other schools and districts
with similar demographics and available resources.
Assumptions
It is assumed that in gathering data for this study that all participants provided
accurate information and did so willingly.
Definitions of Terms
Academic Performance Index: The number used to rate schools based on the
performance of a group of students, a school, or a district on California's
standardized tests. Separate API scores are earned by “numerically significant”
student groups, including ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged
students, English learners, and students with disabilities. School's API scores are
used to rank it among the 100 schools of the same type based on students served,
teacher qualifications, and other factors.
8
Accountability: The idea that the responsibility for improving student
achievement should be held by people (e.g., students or teachers) or organizations
(e.g., a school, school district, or state department of education) and is typically tied
to incentives or sanctions.
Achievement gap: The long-standing and considerable difference in
standardized test scores between particular groups of students and other student
groups. The reasons behind the achievement gap are multifaceted. They do to some
degree stem from factors that children bring with them to school. However, other
factors that contribute to the gap stem from students' school experiences (EdSource,
2010).
Adequacy: An approach to school funding that is based on the idea that the
amount of funding schools receive should be based on an estimated cost of achieving
the state's educational goals. This approach attempts to answer two questions: How
much money would be enough to achieve those goals and where would it be best
spent (EdSource, 2010).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Schools and districts must report student
progress toward proficiency standards in English and Mathematics according to the
No Child Left Behind (2001) federal law. Progress is measured according to the
following components: annual measurable objective, percent participation on
standardized tests, academic performance index targets, and graduation rates.
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): The percentage of students that are
recognized as proficient or advanced each year as determined by NCLB.
9
Basic Aid School District: Districts in which local property taxes equal or
exceed the district's revenue limit and are used to fund local education. Prior to 2003,
these districts received an additional $120 per student based on average daily
attendance (ADA) in basic aid which was required in order for the state to meet its
constitutional obligation. The state has since deemed the additional categorical funds
that districts receive to be sufficient in meeting their obligation, while still allowing
basic aid districts to keep their excess property taxes.
California Standardized Tests (CST): Assessments designed to test student
proficiency related to core content areas of English/language arts, mathematics,
history/social science and/or science. These tests make-up the core of California’s
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) and are based on academic
content standards in these subject areas.
Expenditures: Amount of time, money or resources spent by a school or
district on education.
General fund: Funds allocated by the state or federal governments for general
use, with no designation for specific programs or subgroups of students.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Federal law that requires that all students be
proficient on state standardized tests and making annual yearly progress towards
school proficiency goals. It served as the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Single Plan for Student Achievement: Single Plan for Student Achievement
(SPSA) are in the majority of California schools, and are a result of AB 65 (1977).
10
The plan is developed by a school site council which is composed of staff, parents,
and students (high schools only), with a focus on improving the school’s educational
program. There is categorical funding directly associated with SPSA and is used to
fund items (instructional aides, classroom materials, technology, and staff
development) that directly benefit the school site.
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR): A statewide
standards-based testing system that is administered to second- through 11th-grade
public school students. STAR has three elements: 1) California Standards Tests
(CSTs), which are based on the state's academic content standards; 2) California
Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6), a nationally normed,
standardized, multiple-choice, basic-skills test that is given only to third and seventh
graders; and 3) Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS), which is a designated
primary language test. The results for these tests are made public each year and
achievement on certain STAR tests largely determine a school's statewide ranking.
Organization of the Study
Chapter Two of this study provides an overview of the current literature
related to student achievement and resource allocation. Chapter Three explains the
method used in this study and insight is provided regarding instrumentation, as well
as procedures and processes followed to analyze collected data. Chapter Four
discusses the findings of this case study. In Chapter Five, discussion of the findings
and recommendations are made for further research.
11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
School districts are grappling with financial and accountability issues that are
unprecedented. There has been a level of accountability and federal involvement
within education since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) in 1965 (Odden & Picus, 2008). That accountability was taken to another
level with the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the
federal mandates that apply to schools that are not keeping pace with the
expectations. The mandates often translate into costly financial obligations that an
increasingly large number of districts are going to have to contend with as the 2013-
2014 timeline approaches (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). The effort to create a
solution for the achievement gap that faces many schools and districts today have
been further compounded by the lack of financial reliability within our educational
system.
The literature that is reviewed in the following chapter provides foundational
information, which will allow for a focus on how to effectively link resources with
instructional practices that will result in high student achievement. The first section
provides a historical perspective of compensatory education in the United States,
outlining court cases and legislative decisions that served to impact the educational
system. School financing as it specifically relates to California is addressed as well,
highlighting the most recent information regarding harnessing the resources to
12
positively impact student achievement. The second section synthesizes the literature
related to the transition from equity to adequacy and explores various allocation
models that are used in tracking the use of resources. The third section will outline
the various practices that have been identified as proven to positively impact student
achievement. The final section of the literature review will address supporting high
academic achievement through the use of resources and the reallocation of available
resources.
Compensatory Education
The federal government’s involvement in the education of students in the
United States has come in various forms, from judicial to legislative. In 1954 the
federal courts ruled in the Brown v. Board of Education case, which came to be
known as the landmark case that established education as a common good and
abolished school segregation (Lindseth, 2006). It’s important to note another federal
court case, Mendez v. Westminister School District, which was brought in 1946 by
several Mexican- American families in California that challenged racial segregation
in schools. This case set the precedence for racial segregation in schools being
deemed unconstitutional.
Despite the passage of Brown v. Board of Education, segregation did not
simply disappear. There were two additional court cases filed that provided a
strategy for promoting integration through the use of “educational enhancements”
such as additional school funding. Milliken v. Bradley (1977) and Missouri v. Jenkins
(1985) were specifically intended to aid re-integration. The strategy was to attract
13
non-minority students to minority schools and provide these schools with additional
funding as compensation, thus promoting integration. The other perceived benefit
was that the minority students would have high achieving peers with which to model
themselves (Lindseth, 2006). Over the years both of these rulings evolved, but in
1995, Jenkins v. Missouri (Jenkins III), changed the ability of the legislative system
to challenge local and state funding systems based on civil rights and segregation
issues. It became illegal to mandate “educational enhancements” as justification for
promoting diversification and the closing of the achievement gap that existed
between minority students and their peers (Lindseth, 2006).
Historical Perspective of School Financing in California
Insight into the history of the legislation and litigation that has formed
California’s system of financing education will be provided in order to develop a
coherent understanding of the current circumstances. Serrano v. Priest (Lindseth,
2006) was a California court case (1971 and 1977) that attempted to create equality
within the California education system. The basis of the case was that the traditional
means of funding public education via property tax contributed to funding
discrepancies between districts, resulting in the denial of equal opportunity for all
students. This class action lawsuit was reminiscent of the societal struggles of this
era; the discrimination battle and the fundamentality of education (Kauffman, 2004).
In response, Senate Bill 90 (1972) was passed, which was supposed to address the
disparities that existed between high and low wealth districts (Rebell, 2007). The
revenue limit was born from this process, establishing a ceiling on the amount of
14
general fund money each district would receive. Assembly Bill 65 (1977) was
viewed as the long term solution to Serrano v. Priest because its primary outcome
was the reallocation of taxes and the development of School Improvement Plan
(SIP).
In 1978, Proposition 13 was passed by the voters of California as an
amendment to the state’s Constitution. This law limits property taxes to no more than
1% of full assessed value (plus any additional rates approved by local voters, such as
general obligation bonds). The approval of Proposition 13 resulted in a major shift in
responsibility for funding public education from local property taxes to the state
general fund (EdSource, 2010). Prior to 1978, property taxes furnished about two-
thirds of education's revenues. In response to Proposition 13, Assembly Bill 8 (1979)
was enacted, establishing a formula for the allocation of local property taxes to
schools, cities, counties, and special districts. In an attempt to keep government
spending in check, Paul Gann, the co-author of Proposition 13, worked to establish
constitutional spending limits (Proposition 4-Gann Limit). This would prevent
government from essentially spending at a rate faster than inflation and change in
population.
Public education rarely seems to go unscathed by policymakers and a
changing government. The late 1980’s and early 1990’s were no different with the
passage of Proposition 98 and Proposition 111. These voter-approved initiatives
amended the California Constitution to guarantee a minimum amount of funding
each year from property and state taxes for kindergarten through community college
15
education. This guarantee of a minimum funding level is unique to California, and
went so far as to address the funding levels under various economic conditions.
Despite the passage of these propositions, California was still well below the national
average in per-pupil expenditures for the 2004-2005 school year. While the national
average was $8,701, California’s per-pupil spending was $7,905 (Hill, Roza &
Harvey, 2008).
With change in the political climate comes a change in educational
expectations, and the early 1990’s the focus quickly becomes accountability for
education and educators. With every piece of legislation that is introduced, there is a
component of accountability tied to funding that is proposed. For example,
Proposition 98 (EdSource, 2010) mandated that each school in the state provide a
public summary of test scores, dropout rates, teacher qualifications, as well as
various other aspects of their curricular programs through the School Accountability
Report Card (SARC). As a means to avoid bailing school districts out of financial
ruin, as was the case in the early 1980’s, Assembly Bill 1200 was passed in 1991.
This bill defined a system of fiscal accountability for school districts and county
offices of education to prevent bankruptcy by requiring districts to complete
multiyear financial projections.
The last decade saw further changes to education with respect to
requirements for acquiring additional funding and mandates of accountability. In
November 2000, Proposition 39 passed changing the voter-approval threshold from
two-thirds to 55% for local school district general obligation (G.O.) bonds
16
(EdSource, 2010). Added requirements involving financial and performance
accountability measures would be put into place for districts that opted to use the
55% criteria to pass a local bond. The other major development that had huge
implications for California schools was the Williams lawsuit filed in 2000. In 2001,
this became a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of students in public
schools that had been denied the “bare minimum necessities,” such as textbooks,
trained teachers and clean facilities. This lawsuit represented the same underpinning
that had been brought to the forefront by Serrano vs. Priest, that low-income students
and students of color are the most likely to bear the burden of inadequate resources
(Lee & Wong, 2004). The settlement for this case included academic accountability
measures with targeted interventions and additional funding for the lowest-
performing schools (High Priority Schools Grant Program) and approximately $1.2
billion for facility repairs and textbooks.
Current educational financing in California
The economic shortfall that the American people are experiencing is
particularly relevant to the educational system of California because of the means
with which our public schools are funded. While the funds that are distributed to
fund California’s education system are derived from several sources, the majority of
the funding is generated through state sales and income tax (57.8%). The
unemployment rate in California (12.3%) is higher than it has been in recent years
(California Employment Development Department, 2010), which directly impacts
the income tax revenue and indirectly impacts the sales tax revenue that the state is
17
able to generate. It is the charge of the state’s leaders to determine the disbursement
of the state’s contribution to each of the nearly 1000 school district in California. The
remaining portion that is needed to fully fund education consists of local property tax
(21.4%), federal categorical funds (12.3%), local sources such as interest income,
developer fees and parcel tax revenue (6.2%), and from state lottery funds (1.3%)
(EdSource, 2008a). The concern in education becomes one of continuing to support
high academic achievement on a diminishing budget.

Figure 2.1: California’s Educational Funding Sources

Educational Adequacy
In the midst of the efforts to address segregation, a movement was taking
place that focused on equity. While the concern did still exist to have an integrated
18
student population, the attention was about providing equal opportunity for all
students regardless of the wealth and political clout of their neighborhood. This idea
was paramount in the federal court case of Rodriguez v. San Antonio (1973), when
the claim was made that equity should involve leveraging property tax dollars and
redistributing them evenly to ensure that all students had access to the same funding.
This case was not found in favor of the plaintiffs due to the fact that the United
States Constitution does not identify education as a fundamental right. Several law
suits were filed in state courts as a result, since most states recognize the right to a
free and public education (Lindseth, 2006).
Adequacy requires a shift in the approach and practice of school funding
toward directly linking fiscal inputs to educational services, compensation, and
student achievement (Ladd & Hansen, 1999). It is expected that as more funding is
allocated to schools, achievement results will show marked improvement. Priority
needs to be set on aligning state resources with meeting the state standards if
students and schools are going to continue to be held accountable to meet the content
standards. Adequacy is the cost of providing educational programs and services to
all children which creates equal opportunity to achieve high academic standards and
learning goals (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, & Gross, 2003; Baker, 2005, Rebell,
2007).
The challenge of providing every child with an appropriate educational
program has forced policymakers to take a closer look at current educational
funding. Effort is being made to identify the expenditures that are necessary to
19
provide an adequate education for all students to perform at high achievement levels,
including students that may require additional support due to special needs or
language acquisition. It is extremely difficult to adjust for all variables that may
contribute to improving student achievement in a given environment, which makes
the adequacy approach unpredictable (Hanushek, 2006). Despite the drawbacks,
many states and districts are putting forth resources to “cost out” the expenditure
level that would be needed to adequately educate their students (Rebell, 2007). When
determining the resources necessary to adequately fund education at the state level,
district level, or the school site it is recommended that more than one model is
considered. The recommendation will likely be to increase spending, but with
diverse perspectives this will be based on the inputs that are specific to each
situation. The (1) the cost function analysis, (2) the evidence based approach, (3) the
professional judgment approach, and (4) the successful district approach are the four
leading models used to determine the cost to adequately fund student achievement.
Cost Function Analysis. In order to run the Cost Function analysis accurately,
there is a need for detailed data. This has been identified as one of the drawbacks of
using this model, as well as its inability to identify inefficiencies as they relate to
student achievement (Hanushek, 2006). This approach utilizes regression analysis,
with the dependent variable being per pupil expenditures and the independent
variables being district characteristics, desired performance levels, and student
characteristics (Odden, 2003).
20
Evidence- based Model. The model developed by Odden and Picus uses
resource patterns that are based on volumes of research that identify clear strategies
to improve student achievement (Odden, 2003). The school-wide instructional
program is taken into account, with consideration given to school characteristics and
personnel resources. The Evidence Based Model can be utilized to cost out adequacy
down to each element, making it possible to gain information necessary to determine
adequate levels of funding for specific programs and projects. This model establishes
a prototypical school and uses this as the baseline for creating a custom approach to
match the school’s demographic (Odden & Picus, 2008). This model will be
discussed in further detail later in this chapter.
Professional Judgment Panel. The American Institutes for Research (AIR)
used the Professional Judgment Panel (PJP) approach developed by Chambers and
Parrish to cost out the educational adequacy of several states during the 1980’s.
There have been some refinements over the years, and it continues to be recognized
and has been recently used by as many as 14 states. This approach fundamentally
consists of six phases including: (a) the public engagement phase- interested parties
provide input regarding the adequacy goals, (b) the design phase- instructional
programs are designed by panels representing districts with unique needs and
consists of experienced educators and leaders, (c) analysis phase- results are
synthesized, (d) costing out and initial report phase- identified resources are attached
to costs and results are compared by using a different costing out approach for the
same student populations, (e) reviewing phase- report shared from the noneducation
21
perspective during a meeting of stakeholder including PJP members, noneducators,
business leaders, school board members, parents, policy makers, and government
officials, and (f) final report phase- cost estimate for adequate education in each
district in the state (AIR, n.d.).
Successful School Districts. This is an approach that has been utilized by
several states to cost out an adequate education, but does not typically apply to large
urban districts. This method is based on a population that is not very diverse in
regard to demographics, which allows for lower than average per-pupil spending.
The results that are achieved at the cost identified through the Successful School
Districts approach, are not transferrable to district that serve higher percentages of
students living in poverty and English learners. The use of this model is not
generalizable and never identifies the strategies or characteristics that lead to the
success of the districts (Hanushek, 2006).
As the move in education has gone from equity to adequacy, there have been
attempts by many states and districts to determine how to adequately fund the
education that is going to produce a high achieving student population. While at this
time a single approach or answer does not exist, there are resources that can be
utilized to help schools and districts to identify elements that yield the results
necessary in promoting student achievement.
Best Practices for Improving Student Achievement
Accountability has become a major aspect of the American education system,
and continues to present challenges for educators and leaders of urban schools and
22
districts. The people that work in urban schools are being asked to conduct business
in a manner with which they are unfamiliar. They are expected to “engage in
systematic, continuous improvement in the quality of the educational experience of
students and to subject themselves to the discipline of measuring their success by the
metric of students’ academic performance” (Elmore, 2002, p.3). There are plenty of
foundational aspects about the public education system that get in the way of being
able to accomplish these tasks successfully. In large districts it becomes particularly
difficult to create coherent organizations, which is necessary in achieving an
environment that is based on a strong instructional core focused on teaching and
learning (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
The role of public education and the instructional leaders that operate the
school sites are experiencing pressures that did not exist in the past. They are
responsible for creating environments conducive to meeting goals determined by
state and national legislators. The demand for constant and continued school
improvement has required instructional leaders to alter their approach to student
achievement and revamp practices. Site administrators have to utilize techniques and
strategies for implementing new practices that increase student achievement while
continuing to establish a positive and productive work environment for the staff.
Increasingly demanding expectations for student achievement has brought about a
reconceptualization of the role of district and site instructional leaders. According to
Odden (2009) there are very specific actions that need to be taken, particularly by the
leadership of the district or school to develop an environment focused on high
23
achievement. The following sections outline an approach to implementing strategies
for increasing student performance.
Identifying the Performance Challenge and Goal Setting
Accurately identifying the performance challenge may be the most critical
component in the entire process of improving student achievement. When an
organization has recognized that there is a discrepancy between the desired
achievement outcome and the actual outcome, this becomes an opportunity to
analyze and identify the problem that is inhibiting progress (Odden, 2009). Once a
performance goal is identified, then the performance gap diagnosis can begin. The
process, the gap analysis process, can be used to help identify the cause of the gap
between the organizations current performance and the desired performance. There
are three major factors for the existence of performance gaps: knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational barriers. It’s important to keep in mind that the
analysis of individual and team perspectives should be considered in this process
(Clark & Estes, 2002).
The pressure to identify and rectify a performance problem may emanate
from many sources, such as the state accountability reforms, local school board and
community, or from within the school site itself. Regardless of the source, the focus
needs to remain on analyzing the data objectively and ensuring that the curriculum
being used is aligned with standards being tested. This will lay the groundwork for
building a better of dealing with the performance challenge and guide the steps that
will need to be taken next to address the issue (Odden, 2009).
24
Companies and organizations are always striving to make improvements.
While the areas that are targeted for improvement may vary, “research-based
products have a significantly greater chance than other approaches of increasing
performance” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. xv). Before an organization can even begin to
target areas for improvement, it’s critical to review the organization’s goals to ensure
that they are clearly stated and shared among all stakeholders. “Without clear and
specific performance goals, people tend to focus on tasks that help advance their
careers instead of helping the organization achieve its goals” (Clark & Estes, 2002,
p. 23).
Goals need to be set high and with the end in mind, with milestone goals set
to guide progress, as well as acknowledge it, along the way. A culture of low
expectations must not exist, because practices are manifested in low-level curricula
and instructional strategies. According to Johnson (2002), low expectations “can
become accepted, institutionalized practices, to which administrators, teachers,
parents, and students become accustomed” (p. 11). Setting high goals needs to be
relevant for all students, including students of poverty, minority, and non-English
speaking populations. Sharing these goals with the school community will help build
a culture of high academic expectations among teachers, parents, and students alike
(Odden, 2009).
Instructional focus and data
In an effort to provide a clear and concise plan for improvement, the focus
should be on a few key strategies. Given this particular situation, it seems of utmost
25
importance to ensure that essential standards are identified and given their due
attention. Marzano (2003) identifies this as having “the strongest relationship with
student achievement of all school-level factors” (p. 22). The communication
regarding the focus on these essential standards needs to be clear and explicit. The
site and district level administration needs to provide opportunity for mapping and
unpacking of these essential standards, and support for ensuring that all teachers are
successful in addressing the standards. The curriculum used to provide instruction
should be mapped to the standards and the work of aligning assessments to the key
standards is work that can be done collaboratively as a school. The site level
administrator should ensure that adequate time for grade-level collaboration is
allowed, and should also make any adjustments to the structure of the day that would
foster optimal implementation. A clear determination needs to be set on accepting
the information that the data provides and utilize it in creating an action plan.
Presenting the data in a factual way can be helpful in making the need for change
evident and urgent for all involved.
Professional development
In planning effective professional development, several aspects need to be
carefully considered. The need of the participants should be considered, the program
must consist of a purpose and structure, the content needs to be relevant and follow-
ups conducted, and organizational support must exist to aid in successful
implementation (Butler, 1992). It is imperative that district administrators take a
proactive approach to providing teachers in K-12 school districts with worthwhile
26
professional development opportunities. In order to ensure that sound financial
investments are being made regarding teacher training, it is important that research-
based instructional strategies are utilized. Collaboration among administration and
teachers should occur in order to provide full support for implementation of
strategies, resulting in optimal learning for all students. Often, the goal of
professional development is to provide teachers with theory as well as strategies that
will adequately prepare them to meet the needs of the most diverse student
populations. The training should take place over time and include follow-up sessions
for collaboration and implementation opportunities.
There are various approaches to meeting the professional needs of educators,
and most recently professional learning communities have been utilized to provide
development opportunities that are site specific. The outcome goal of these
professional communities would be to create increased reflective dialogue; open
sharing of classroom practices, the development of a common knowledge base for
improvement, and collaboration during the development of new material and
curricula (Tschannen- Moran, 2000).
Collaboration
In the past, the success of schools was determined by factors other than test
scores. In the business of education today, test scores are the bottom line. In adapting
to the changing expectation and circumstances, schools are exploring collaborative
problem solving as a means to becoming a smarter school. A point was made that
outside of the realm of education, intelligent ventures are usually made
27
collaboratively rather than solo (Pea, 1993). It has been suggested that a school can
become smarter by operating as a learning organization, using each individual’s
strategies for learning to gain new knowledge as a whole (Argyris & Schon, 1996).
A learning organization can be described as a unit that works efficiently, adapts to
change, identifies and corrects errors, and is continually improving its effectiveness.
The various levels of collaboration that can be undertaken at a single site can be
simple to extremely complex, depending on how highly structured the involvement
of the stakeholders.
Collaboration between principals and teachers can be considered one of the
most important contributing aspects to a school’s success. In an environment where
teachers take part in the decisions that are made at their sites an administrator needs
to ensure that there is some balance. The best case scenario regarding the
collaboration between teacher and leader results from the interaction between high
participating teachers and their principals. A teacher who does not feel like they are
overwhelmed, or saturated with too much of the decision making responsibility has
the freedom to actively participate and not feel overextended. The morale and
satisfaction on the job tends to be higher for these teachers, and their attitudes toward
their leaders is significantly more positive (Conway, 1984). When a principal leads
effectively to the point of achieving collaboration as a result of their cultural
management, this is an example of effectiveness and an improvement in the general
discourse.
28
The teaching culture has traditionally been defined by individualism and
noninterference, but the effectiveness of this approach to teaching and learning has
been revisited. In recent years, the new orthodoxy on the educational change scene
has been school based teacher collaboration (Hargreaves, A.,1994). Teacher
collaboration can be used to stimulate greater improvements in teaching and
learning, facilitate implementing effective change, and provide possibilities for new
models of professional development based on shared reflection in the workplace
(Lavie, 2006). Community discourses involve teacher collaboration as a component
of the vision of schools as communities. Restructuring discourse base their ideology
on the “new professional” that is self motivated to learn and evolve within an
organization that is on a continual learning pendulum. The approach to teacher
collaboration that involves democratic practices, community participation, and
shared reflection is the critical discourse (Lavie, 2006).
A collaborative working environment needs to stretch beyond the school site
and move toward creating an environment where there is a close working
relationship between school and home, involving all stakeholders and creating the
idea that they have something positive to contribute. Through a collaborative
approach a process of joint planning and problem solving between the family and
school will be fostered, maximizing the resources for children’s learning and social-
emotional development. The roles of the stakeholders would not conform to the
traditional roles previously mentioned, but would be more closely aligned to the
following: educator acting as a professional resource to the family, student taking an
29
active role in family and school activities, family actively participating in family-
school activities and displaying capability to make positive contributions regarding
student’s learning. This type of interaction would foster a cooperative, non-blaming
relationship focused on problem solving. When this type of relationship exists it will
result in a partnership that supports children’s learning and promotes increased
family involvement, resulting in fewer discipline problems and improved academic
performance (Amatea, 2004).
Collaborative cultures can prove to be very powerful in improving student
learning, but in this age of accountability time spent in laying the foundation for such
an environment may seem unwarranted. According to Gruenart,
Collaborative school cultures—schools where teacher development is
facilitated through manual support, joint work, and broad agreement on
educational values—have been presented as the best setting for learning for
both teachers and students. School leaders that shape their cultures to become
more collaborative should reap the benefits of greater teacher performance
and satisfaction and greater student performance (p.43).

The idea of such an environment sounds appealing, but when a principal
thinks about strategies to improve student achievement, building collaborative
cultures may not be on the short list of quick fixes. The process of developing a
culture that is truly collaborative takes time, and the current environment in
education is interested in solutions that are going to produce quick results. Making
concrete correlations between collaborative cultures and student achievement would
help to build stronger support for a principal making these efforts.
30
In a study conducted by Gruenert at 81 schools in Indiana, the overall finding
was that the more collaborative schools did tend to have higher student achievement.
This was true at all levels: elementary, middle and high school. There are several
aspects of collaboration that need to be taken into consideration when identifying
those that are most powerful in advancing student achievement. It may be one or a
combination of these things that proves to be most important in student achievement.
According to this particular study, the factors were collaborative leadership, teacher
collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support and
learning partnership.
Teachers and Leadership
The entire school site would benefit from building an environment which is
safe and fosters the empowerment of all stakeholders. Collaboration between
principals and teachers can be considered one of the most important contributing
aspects to a school’s success (Conway, 1984). Typically in education, leaders try to
solve problems alone. Problem solving together can make schools smarter by
enhancing the cognitive process of the participants as they make decisions regarding
their schools. Organizational learning promotes everyone working together with the
mission in mind.
Effective leadership makes a difference in student learning, in fact Marzano
(2003) claims that leadership is the single most important factor of school reform.
The qualities and objectives of effective leaders have been overshadowed by the
different adjectives used to describe the style of leaders that are believed to have the
31
influence that will directly affect student learning. It needs to be noted that regardless
of the style, “the same two essential objectives are critical to any organizations
effectiveness: helping the organization set a defensible set of directions and
influencing members to move in those directions” (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 6). In order to achieve these objectives, a leader must know the
basics of successful leadership and know the members that are bound for the desired
direction.
Leaders do not achieve success on their own; they must use their leadership
skills effectively to create an atmosphere that will produce the desired outcome. A
leader will provide a sense of focus or vision for an organization, and motivate
people with a goal that is compelling, challenging and achievable. One way to
motivate the group of people that you already have, rather than looking to an outside
source, is to provide them with positive interactions with people in leadership roles.
Sometimes redesigning the organization is necessary in order to assure that the
school and district culture are reflective of the school’s improvement agenda. The
practices that the leaders use do not directly improve student learning, but create the
environment which is conducive for improved learning.
Resource Use
The passage of NCLB has brought about a heightened awareness of the need
to improve student achievement, and this has only been compounded by the
movement toward standards based instruction. Researchers have worked on
identifying how educational dollars should be allocated to impact student
32
performance. Currently, there is a lack of a consistent fiscal reporting method that
can assist policymakers and educators in making informed decisions about the
allocation of resources (Odden & Picus, 2008). The shift towards adequacy over
equity has made the lack of data regarding fiscal accountability evident. There was a
time in education when attention was rarely paid to how the resources were being
utilized, but recent studies have analyzed and even scrutinized whether or not funds
are improving student performance.
Traditionally school districts have spent about 60% of funds on instruction,
eight to ten percent on professional development, nine percent on operations and
maintenance, four to six percent on transportation, four to six percent on food
service, seven percent on site administration, and three percent on district office
administration (Odden, 2007).

Figure 2.2: National School District Expenditure Averages

33
Despite an increase in school funding, student achievement has not significantly
improved. Even after controlling for inflation and rise in student population, there
has still been an increase in expenditure per pupil by three and half percent since
1950 (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). In most schools, less than 50% of the school’s
resources are allocated to core academic areas (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Disproportionate amounts of the funding have been used for non-instructional
purposes or to support students with disabilities, low income students or English
learners (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Despite the fact that support programs have
has shown little impact on student achievement, the money for the support programs
has not diminished. Funding allocated to instruction actually going to core academic
subject instruction has declined significantly in most districts, while allocations
toward non-core or elective courses has seen a continual climb. Beginning in the
1960s, schools funded additional teachers for non-core academic courses to provide
core teachers with planning time (Odden & Picus, 2008). This movement has not
had much affect at the elementary level, but has served to restructure the school day
for high school students. This new structure decreases the amount of time students
spend in core classes. Research cites many inefficient uses of resources, and this is
compounded by the difficulty of measuring how school level expenditures have
increased while student achievement has not. This helps to explain why there has
been minimal growth in student achievement while total expenditures have increased
over time (Odden & Picus, 2008).

34
Evidence Based Model
With the evidence based model, Odden and Picus (2008) recommend that 30
to 40 percent of expenditures go to core classroom teachers, a principal and
professional development. An additional 30 to 40 percent should be spent on
specialist teachers for non-academic courses (electives), for support services, to
assist struggling students, and other instructional supports. The remaining 20 to 30
percent should be used on operational necessities (central office support, personnel
services, maintenance and operations, transportation and food services.
As mentioned previously in the chapter, the evidence based model works
with a prototypical school model which adjusts for school size and demographics.
The prototypical school would have a total of 600 students with an average class size
of 25 students (Odden & Picus, 2008). The model is staffed with 24 full time core
teachers, eight specialist teachers, three instructional facilitators or coaches, and a
technology coordinator. Odden and Picus (2008) have identified the following five
key components of resource use data that must be analyzed to make the correlation
between school level expenditures and student performance:
1. Staffing and expenditure by program: this includes the regular
instructional program, programs for special needs students (English
learners, compensatory, and special education), administration, staff
development and instructional materials
2. Staffing and expenditures by educational strategy: this includes class
size, professional development, resource room, tutoring, etc.
35
3. Staffing and expenditures by content area: mathematics, language arts,
science, social science, foreign language, art, and physical education
4. Interrelationships among the staffing and expenditure patterns
5. Relationship of staffing and expenditure pattern to student performance
Decisions regarding how to effectively use school resources to improve student
performance will be better informed as more data is generated and collected. As
resource tracking models become a consistent part of the way schools do business,
the determination can be made regarding the correlation between student
performance and allocation practices (Odden & Picus, 2008).
When analyzing the specific manner in which school sites are allocating and
spending their money, it is important to have a means of tracking the expenditures
based on instructional and non-instructional elements. Odden et al. (2003) created
the fiscal reporting system which incorporates the following two components: (1)
identifies a set of school resource indicators that provide insight into a school’s
priorities and instructional strategies, and (2) categorizes school expenditure data
according to nine elements that are classified as instructional or non-instructional.
The school resource indicators and expenditures structures are provided in Table 2.1
and Table 2.2.
The school expenditure structure is the second component of the evidence
based model’s framework for tracking school resources. The model introduced by
Odden et al. (2003) is designed in such a manner that all expenditures are classified
into one of the nine categories. The school expenditure structure consists of seven
36
instructional elements and two non-instructional elements and is based on definitions
provided by Odden, et al., (2003). (See following pages, 37-38).
37
Table 2.1: School Resource Indicators

Indicator Definition
School building size Total student enrollment of the school
School unit size
Student enrollment of each instructional unit within a
school (school within a school)
Percent low income
Percent of enrolled students who are eligible for the
federal free and reduced lunch program
Percent special education
Percent of students in the school with an
individualized education program (IEP)
Percent ELL/Bilingual
The number (percent) of students eligible to receive
services through the English as a second language
(ESL) program or bilingual program
Expenditure per pupil
Calculated by dividing the total school operating
expenditures from all funds by the total student
enrollment
Professional development
expenditures per teacher
Calculated by dividing total school expenditures for
professional development by the total number of
licensed teachers
Special academic focus Identifies any academic program focus
Length of instructional day
The number of hours per day that students receive
instruction
Length of class periods The number of minutes per class period
Length of core class
periods
Length of mathematics, English, science, and social
studies classes
Core class size
The average number of students per teacher in
mathematics, English, science and social studies
classes
Non-core class size
The average number of student per teacher of classes
other than mathematics, English, science and social
studies classes
Percent core teachers
The percent of all certificated staff who are
mathematics, English, science or social studies
teachers
38
Table 2.2: School Expenditure Structure

Indicator Definition
Instructional Elements
Core academic teachers The number of full time equivalent (FTE) teachers that
are teaching mathematics, English, science or social
studies
Specialist and elective
teachers
Licensed teachers who provide instruction in non-core
academic classes (physical education, foreign
language, music, vocational education etc)
Extra help Represents teachers who work in the capacity of
helping struggling students or students with special
needs to learn a school’s regular curriculum (includes
tutors, mathematics and English support class teachers,
inclusion teachers, etc)
Professional development The cost of teacher time in professional development
and all the elements of providing professional
development (materials, trainers, transportation,
registration fees, etc)
Other non-classroom
instructional staff
Includes certificated and non-certificated staff that
works in a support role
Instructional materials
and equipment
Supplies needed for all instructional programs
Student support Represents a schools support staff and includes
counselors, psychologists, attendance monitors, parent
liaisons, etc as well as expenditures for athletics and
extra-curricular activities
Non-instructional
Administration Administrators and all support and clerical staff,
equipment, supplies, technology, and discretionary
funds
Operations and
maintenance
Custodial services, maintenance staff, security, food
services, etc.
39
The evidence based model includes resources for extra support and staff for
low income and disadvantaged students. The model funds one credentialed tutor for
every 100 students participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The
credentialed tutors are trained on specific instructional strategies and provide one-on-
one support that is aligned with the regular school curriculum (Odden & Picus,
2008). The model also funds one FTE teacher for every 100 English learner students
to provide additional support classes for English learner students. Preventive
measures are taken to avoid providing additional EL support during the elementary
school years by implementing a high quality preschool program. The instructional
program and English language development program at the preschool level is
focused on laying the foundation for successful elementary experience. The model
also funds programs outside the regular school day for struggling students. The
model funds one teacher for an extended day program for every 15 free and reduced
price lunch students (Odden & Picus, 2008). An extended school year program
(summer school) is funded for 50 percent of the number of students in free or
reduced lunch program. The summer program is recommended to be eight weeks in
length with class sized of 15 students for six hours per day (Odden & Picus, 2008).
For special education students, the model provides funds only for students that are
mild and moderately disabled students.
Professional development strategies are funded at $100 per pupil, and support
a summer institute as well as on-going staff training (Odden & Picus, 2008). An
additional five percent of all teacher resources are used for substitute teachers to
40
allow for teachers to receive on-going professional development (Odden & Picus,
2008). The master schedule is also developed to allow for teacher collaboration
during common preparation periods.
The remaining funding impacting instruction is based on technology and
instructional materials. The model funds technology and equipment at a rate of $250
per student for computers and upgrading and maintaining software and equipment
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Instructional materials are funded at the rate the $25 per
student library books and $150 per student for textbooks and consumables. Table 2.3
provides an overview of how the evidence based model allocates resources in
prototypical elementary, middle and high schools.
This expenditure model has been tested and Odden, et al., (2003) concluded
that it was successful in providing an analysis of how resources were actually used at
the school level. The Evidence Based Model is not used in California, so the schools
in this study will not have the same resource allocation patterns. The school
expenditure structure and resource indicators provide a powerful tool for analyzing
and comparing resource allocation at the school level. By comparing resource
indicators and expenditure elements, a more detailed analysis can be made of how
schools are using their resources on specific strategies and how that impacts student
performance.
41
Table 2.3: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary,
Middle and High Schools

School Element Elementary School Middle School High School
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6-8 9-12
School size 432 450 600
Class Size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
25 25
Number of teacher work days
200 with 10 day
summer training
200 with 10 day
summer training
200 with 10 day
summer training
% of students with disabilities 12% 12% 12%
% of students with free or reduced
lunch
50% 50% 50%
% of English learners 10% 10% 10%
% of minority students 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 24 18 24
Specialist teachers 4.8 3.6 8
Instructional facilitators (coaches) 2.2 2.25 3
Tutors 2.16 2.25 3
Teachers for EL students .43 .45 .60
Extended day 1.8 1.875 2.5
Summer school 1.8 1.875 2.5
Additional School Characteristics
Students with disabilities 3 3 4
Teachers for gifted students $25 per student $25 per student $25 per student
Substitutes 5% of budget 5% of budget 5% of budget
Support staff 2.16 3.25 5.4
Non-instructional aides 2 2 3
Librarians 1 1
1 plus 1 library
tech
Principal 1 1 1
Clerical 2 2 4
Professional Development
See above plus
$100 per pupil
See above plus
$100 per pupil
See above plus
$100 per pupil
Technology $250 per pupil $250 per pupil $250 per pupil
Instructional material $140 per pupil $140 per pupil $175 per pupil
Student activities $200 per pupil $200 per pupil $250 per pupil
(Source Odden & Picus, 2008)
42
Summary
The review of the literature in this section of the study sought to provide
historical perspectives of education, by outlining court cases and legislative decisions
that have impacted the educational system. An overview of the transition in approach
from equity to adequacy was shared along with several allocation models that are
used to track resources. Strategies and practices that have been proven to positively
impact student achievement were explored, and supporting high academic
achievement through the use of resources and the reallocation of available resources
was also addressed. The remainder of this study consists of an overview of the
methods used in Chapter Three regarding instrumentation, as well as the procedures
and processes followed to analyze collected data. The findings of the research
conducted are discussed in Chapter Four. Chapter Five concludes with
recommendations for further research.
43
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine the practice of effectively linking
resources in order to improve instructional practices that support high levels of
student achievement at the school site. This study strives to better inform the field of
education regarding the positive relationships between achievement and expenditures
(Greenwald, Hedges, & Lane, 1996), with a focus on 1) Best practices for improving
student achievement, and 2) The efficient and effective use of limited resources to
support significant gains in student achievement. Determining the most effective
approaches to creating and maintaining high levels of student achievement will help
to inform the decisions made at the district and school site regarding the use of
limited resources.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are best practices for improving student achievement?
2. How are resources used to implement the school instructional
improvement plan?
3. How does the availability of resources impact the development and
implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement?
The first research question described the current improvement strategies in practice
to increase student achievement. It has been difficult to monitor the connection
44
between resource allocation and school improvement. Although all schools have
identified goals, it becomes difficult to clearly and specifically link school spending
directly to the attainment of the goals. The second research question provides insight
on how school sites actually allocate their resources to improve student achievement.
With the shift towards accountability and adequacy, it is important to analyze how
schools allocate resources to implement their improvement strategies and how they
monitor the resulting impact of student achievement. Finally, the third research
question provides critical information to schools, districts, and policymakers around
improving student achievement using resources in the most effective way. Given the
current context of California’s budget and the cuts in educational funding,
stakeholders can use this research to determine more effective ways to allocate
resources to improve student achievement.
Design Summary
This is a mixed methods study, collecting data both quantitatively and
qualitatively. Quantitative data associated with school allocation of current
resources and student achievement was collected to determine how personnel and
other resources are allocated to support the instructional improvement plan.
Qualitative data providing information about the schools instructional plan was
collected through interviews with school and district personnel. Interviews with
open-ended questions were used to focus on understanding the school’s instructional
plan and how that plan was implemented. The use of the mixed methods approach
including interviews and collection of multiple types of data allows stakeholders to
45
link instructional improvement strategies and resource allocation practices to make
improvements in student learning.
Participation and Setting
The focus of this study is an analysis of resource allocation toward identified
improvement strategies at the school site level of three California elementary
schools. The sample of elementary schools was drawn from XYZ Unified School
District in southern California. XYZ Unified schools accommodate more than
10,000 students. This District is comprised of nine elementary schools, three middle
schools, and one comprehensive high school. This study focuses on three
elementary schools. XYZ Unified is a basic aid district which means the property
tax exceeds the revenue limit, so the state provides no additional state aid. XYZ
District has no control over the revenues it receives from property tax from year to
year. The District’s income is determined by the growth and decline of property tax
revenues and not by the population served. At times, this may mean serving more
students although revenue is decreasing. Since basic aid districts receive funding
directly from local property tax, and schools are a major factor in determining the
local property tax values, the link between the local community and its schools is
strengthened which allows tax payers to hold their schools more accountable for the
quality of educational services they provide.
The three elementary schools were a non-random sample and were chosen to
support the study’s goal of understanding what schools are doing to impact student
performance and to examine what these schools could be doing differently to
46
increase student performance. Table 3.1 displays each school’s overall API scores,
similar schools rankings, and percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient
in mathematics and English-Language Arts from 2007-2009.

Table 3.1: School Achievement Data for Sample Schools

Year
#
Tested API
Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient or
Advanced in
English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Math
School X
2007 331 810 7 9 53 76
2008 346 822 7 7 56 71
2009 393 841 8 8 64 75
School Y
2007 428 939 10 10 85 89
2008 308 925 10 7 84 87
2009 300 939 10 8 90 87
School Z
2007 537 913 10 3 80 83
2008 566 947 10 8 85 90
2009 563 970 10 9 93 96

Instruments and Data Collection
Information was gathered through interviews and document reviews to
evaluate school-level resource allocated based on the evidence based model. This
framework includes school characteristics, non-fiscal resource patterns, staffing
allocation, and various types of support for students. The complete School
Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators (Appendix A) includes all the
47
elements of the framework developed by Odden et al. (2003), which is the protocol
for this study.
The interview protocol (Appendix B) is an open-ended format. The objective
of the interview questions focused on gathering factual information about the
instructional strategies and allocation of school resources at each school. An
additional interview was conducted with the Business Manager of XYZ Unified
School District to gather factual information about resource allocation and
instructional improvement strategies at the district level. The general interview
categories for the qualitative data collection include:
• Curriculum and Instruction: curriculum used, content focus, assessment
strategies, instructional strategies
• Resources: class size reduction, professional development, intervention,
technology
• Nature of School Improvement: school, district, or state driven
• Instructional Leadership: type of instructional leadership
• Accountability: accountability in program, monitoring of progress
The quantitative data to be collected at each school site is based on the
School Resource Indicators (table 3.2) developed by Odden et al (2003). These
indicators provide basic information about the school and what resources are
available and were described in chapter 2.
48
Table 3.2: School Resource Indicators

Indicator Definition
School building size Total student enrollment of the school
School unit size
Student enrollment of each instructional unit
within a school (school within a school)
Percent low income
Percent of enrolled students who are eligible for
the federal free and reduced lunch program
Percent special education
Percent of students in the school with an
individualized education program (IEP)
Percent ESL/Bilingual
The number (percent) of students eligible to
receive services through the English as a second
language (ESL) program or bilingual program
Expenditure per pupil
Calculated by dividing the total school operating
expenditures from all funds by the total student
enrollment
Professional development
expenditures per teacher
Calculated by dividing total school expenditures
for professional development by the total number
of licensed teachers
Special academic focus Identifies any academic program focus
Length of instructional day
The number of hours per day that students receive
instruction
Length of class periods The number of minutes per class period
Length of core class periods
Length of mathematics, English, science, and
social studies classes
Core class size
The average number of students per teacher in
mathematics, English, science and social studies
classes
Non-core class size
The average number of student per teacher of
classes other than mathematics, English, science
and social studies classes
Percent core teachers
The percent of all certificated staff who are
mathematics, English, science or social studies
teachers
49
The Data Collection Protocol (Appendix C) includes 13 categories of
information and school resources. Appendix D provides definitions of each data
item to be analyzed.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The quantitative data provides insight on each school’s resources and how
those resources are allocated, using the evidence based model. The interview
protocol gives detailed information of the school’s instructional goals and the use of
resources as reflected in those goals. Both sets of data was sorted and categorized
based on the templates for the protocol to reflect general trends from the data. The
evidence-based model provides consistent criteria from which to examine and
categorize the data for analysis. Along with this, student performance data was also
analyzed. The next step of the analysis was to compare the school resource indicators
to find commonalities and areas of difference among the three elementary schools.
How each school uses their resources is the primary concern of the study. In depth
reporting occurred on how expenditure structures are similar among schools and how
expenditures align with the school’s instructional goals. As state funding declines,
the decisions school leaders need to make about instructional priorities was
discussed.
Summary
The methodology of this research study is to provide a school level analysis
of resource allocation in relation to research-based recommendation for high
achieving schools. The specific goals of this study aim to develop a better
50
understanding of what resources schools use to improve learning and the link
between resources and student performance. To do this, a mixed method approach of
qualitative and quantitative data was used. Interviews with school site officials and
data regarding school resources were analyzed. The next chapter presents the results
of the qualitative and quantitative data and discuss the findings.
51
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
The financial situation that our nation is facing is not expected to improve
dramatically in the near future. The harsh reality is that education is going to be
expected to continue to prepare our students to compete in a global economy while
operating on a budget that cannot sustain that endeavor. There are very clear
obstacles that exist for education in the United States, which will require researchers
and policy makers to find some common ground (Loeb, Bryk & Hanushek, 2007).
Using a funding model that has been unchanged for decades to fund an ever-
changing system has proven problematic. The expectations and accountability within
the educational system have evolved substantially in an effort to meet the needs of a
student population that is demographically diverse (Hill, Roza & Harvey, 2008).
Meeting the needs of this evolving population has resulted in a slow and arduous
philosophical and theoretical mind shift from the teaching perspective, but the
funding perspective has remained unaffected. This study has aimed at bringing to the
forefront strategies that will improve student achievement and aligning the resources
to support an effective educational system for future students.
The entire foundation for this study has been driven by several questions. The
first research question was posed to identify and describe the current improvement
strategies utilized to increase student achievement. Although all schools have
identified goals, the connection between resource allocation and school improvement
52
is not always clearly defined. With the increased awareness of accountability and
adequacy, the second research question provides insight regarding how school sites
allocate their resources to improve student achievement. Finally, the third research
question is designed to provide broad scale information to decision makers on
various levels regarding adequate resource allocation and the impact on student
achievement.
The following are the research questions that have guided this study:
1. What are best practices for improving student achievement?
2. How are resources used to implement the school instructional
improvement plan?
3. How does the availability of resources impact the development and
implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement?
The study was conducted through the use of a mixed methods approach,
collecting information from the qualitative and quantitative perspective. Open-ended
interview questions were used to gain insight into the practices used to improve
student achievement at the individual school sites. Multiple hard data sources were
used to track and analyze the resource allocation practices as well as provide further
insight into the student achievement practices.
Study Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
The schools that are depicted in this study represent the diversity that exists
in this southern California school district, as well as a sample of the cross-section
that is present at each school site. Eleven sites have been recognized as California
53
Distinguished Schools, and as a district 2.7% of the teaching staff has earned
National Board Certification (NBC). A teacher who earns this advanced teaching
credential is recognized for their effective and accomplished teaching skills
(National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2010). The district’s high
school graduation rate is approximately 95%, with as many as 90% of the graduates
pursuing higher education.
There are many aspects that make each school unique; such as the size of the
school, special academic and instructional programs that are offered, and the ethnic,
socioeconomic, and language demographics. The student population of the
elementary schools range from approximately 280 students to 840 students. The
district offers an authorized International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Program
School which is open to students throughout the district, as well as traditional
elementary schools which serve students in their immediate surrounding
neighborhoods. The demographics that make up each school also varies widely, from
schools that have low percentage of ethnic minorities to schools in which the ethnic
minorities constitute the majority of the student population. The district’s overall
distribution of ethnicity is White 61%, Hispanic 23%, Asian 6%, African-American
2%, Filipino 1%, Native American <1%, Pacific Islander <1%, Multiple/No
Response 6%. The diversity is further compounded by the multiple languages that
are represented within the student population with nearly 9% being classified as
English Learners. The socioeconomic differences among the schools in this southern
California school district also vary as indicated by the low-income indicators and the
54
eligibility for free and reduced meals. The low-income indicators range from 8% to
49%, while the percent eligible for free/reduced meals is 21.9%.
School X
School X is an elementary school that serves approximately 700 students in
grades Kindergarten through 5
th
grade. It hosts an International Baccalaureate (IB)
program which takes a global approach to learning from an inquiry perspective. The
program provides students with many opportunities for well-rounded development,
through the offering of foreign language, arts, and technology. Service learning
projects are a fundamental aspect of the educational experience that is created for
students at School X, and has afforded them the opportunity to participate in projects
that impact communities around the globe.
This school’s demographic is comprised of slightly more than 50%
Hispanic/Latino students. The remainder of the school population is 42%
White/European American, 3% Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 1% African
American. The data regarding the family income of the students that attend this
school indicates that 49% of the families earn less than $40,793 per year, based on
eligibility for the free and reduced meal plan. This school receives Title I federal
funding for all students, as well as additional funding from Targeted Intervention and
Improvement Grant (TIIG), Schoolwide Improvement Program (SIP), and a 21
st

Century grant. These funds support teacher specialists, tutors, bilingual staff,
materials to support instruction, and technology.
55
X Elementary has shown consistent progress over the past four years as
indicated by the California Standards Test (CST). Their Academic Performance
Index (API) ranking has continued to increase, from 810 to 854 during that time
span. The percentage of students proficient or higher in Language Arts has seen a
10% increase over the years, beginning with 53% during the 2006-2007 school year
to 63% during the 2009-2010 testing cycle. The Math results do not reflect the same
results, but they have maintained 70% of the students scoring proficient or above.
The fluctuation has ranged from 71% to 76% over the past four years, with the last
testing results indicating 74% of students achieving proficient or advanced
proficient. The chart below also provides information regarding the schools rank and
status as they compare to similar schools.

Table 4.1: School X’s Achievement Data

School
Year # Tested API Rank
Similar
Schools % ELA % Math
2006-2007 331 810 7 9 53 76
2007-2008 346 822 7 7 56 71
2008-2009 393 841 8 8 64 75
2009-2010 416 854 8 8 63 74
56
School Y
Y Elementary School is home to approximately 500 students, kindergarten
through 5
th
grade. This school approaches educating students from a holistic
approach and puts a heavy emphasis on collaboration between all stakeholders.
Professional learning communities are the cornerstone of the collaborative work that
is conducted here to ensure that all classrooms implement a viable curriculum. Many
aspects of the teaching profession are practiced and perfected through this approach,
working together to seek best practices, hone those practices, improve the
collaborative process, and reflect on student academic results. Technology is a
valued part of the instructional program at Y elemetary, and is incorporated into the
teacher’s daily lesson plans. The academic program is based on a system of targeted
and specific instruction in which formative and summative assessments play an
important role. Teachers monitor student progress through the use of assessments, as
well as utilize the assessment results to inform their instructional decisions. The data
provides the opportunity for teachers to collaborate regarding differentiating
instructional for all students, particularly special populations such as students that are
at-risk and GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) students.
The students on this campus benefit from having many positive role models
and, and from adults that take an active role in ensuring student success. Parent
volunteers take an active role in supporting the academic goals on campus in
numerous ways. It is not uncommon to find parent volunteers on campus daily,
57
leading literature discussion groups, helping students with math facts, reading with
students, and preparing materials for lessons in the classrooms.
This school’s demographic is comprised of predominantly White/European
American students. The remainder of the school population is 13% Hispanic/Latino,
8% Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 1% African American. The data regarding
the family income of the students that attend this school indicates that 8% of the
families earn less than $40,793 per year based on eligibility for the free and reduced
meal plan. It is reported that parents of students that attend this school have a college
degree completion rate of 73%. Any additional funding that this school receives is
generated through the PTA (Parent-Teacher Association), grants that teachers
pursue, or other community partnerships. The monies that are raised have gone
toward enrichment programs such as: hands-on science exploration, physical fitness
equipment, art, and other activities.
Y Elementary has showed some gains, but inconsistently over the past four
years as indicated by the California Standards Test (CST). Their Academic
Performance Index (API) ranking has fluctuated from year to year between 939 and
924. The percentage of students proficient or higher in Language Arts has seen a 5%
increase at times, but has actually seen an overall 1% decrease over the past several
years. The Math results reflect similar results, with an overall decrease of 5% in
students scoring proficient or above. The scores ranged from 89% to 82%, with the
last testing results indicating 82% of students achieving proficient or advanced
proficient. Despite these facts, this school has remained a high performing school
58
and continues to perform well above the state average. The chart below also provides
information regarding the schools rank and status as they compare to similar schools.
Y Elementary has been able to maintain its ranking of 10 based on overall academic
achievement of the school, but the manner in which it compares to similar
performing schools in its classification has decreased from 10 to 8.

Table 4.2: School Y’s Achievement Data

School
Year # Tested API Rank
Similar
Schools % ELA % Math
2007 428 939 10 10 85 89
2008 308 925 10 7 84 87
2009 300 939 10 8 90 87
2010 328 924 10 8 84 82

School Z
Z is a Kindergarten through 5
th
grade elementary school that serves
approximately 844 students. This school has a determined focus on ensuring that
each student demonstrates significant academic progress. Parents and community are
involved at the school site, providing instructional as well as financial support. The
parent groups have volunteered more than 20,000 hours in effort to support student
achievement and other campus activities. The funds that are raised by these groups
59
have funded visual and performing arts programs, field trips, and improvements for
existing programs and facilities.
This school’s demographic is predominantly White/European American,
comprising 80% of the student population. The remainder of the school population is
9% Hispanic/Latino, 11% Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 1% African
American. The data regarding the family income of the students that attend this
school indicates that 8% of the families earn less than $40,793 per year based on
eligibility for the free and reduced meal plan. It is also reported that parents of
students that attend this school have a college degree completion rate of 84%. This
school is only eligible for limited additional state or federal funding, and also
receives additional financial support from various parent groups. The funds raised by
these groups support assemblies, field trips, performing arts programs, as well as
tutoring for students that are not performing at grade level.
Z Elementary has showed considerable gains over the past four years as
indicated by the California Standards Test (CST). Their Academic Performance
Index (API) ranking has increased substantially, from 913 to 971 during that time.
The percentage of students proficient or above in Language Arts has seen an almost
13% increase over the years, beginning with 80% during the 2006-2007 school year
to 92.5% during the 2009-2010 testing cycle. The Math results have also continued
to show impressive gains with a 12.8% increase between the 2006-2007 and 2009-
2010 school years. The chart below also provides information regarding the schools
rank and status as they compare to similar schools.
60
Table 4.3: School Z’s Achievement Data

School
Year # Tested API Rank
Similar
Schools % ELA % Math
2007 537 913 10 3 80 83
2008 566 947 10 8 85 90
2009 563 970 10 9 93 96
2010 565 971 10 9 92.5 95.8

What are the Best Practices for Improving Student Achievement?
According to research conducted in the field of education and subsequent
published literature, there are clear practices and strategies that can be implemented
at school sites to raise student achievement. It becomes the role of the school district
as well as that of the school site to determine which strategies or practices will be
implemented. Many factors are considered when decisions are made to adopt a
particular approach to addressing student achievement. It is important that the
stakeholders that are responsible for this decision making have a clear understanding
of the obstacles that may impede achievement. Student demographics, teacher
preparation, curricular alignment to state standards, as well as many other factors
need to be taken into account when developing a plan designed to address and
improve the achievement of students. The following information has been gathered
through the analysis of multiple data sources (School Accountability Report Cards,
Single Plan for Student Achievement, and budget documents) as well as the
61
responses provided from the Interview Protocol (Appendix B). The aspects that will
be considered in relation to the three school sites that were included in this study are:
performance challenges and goal setting, instructional focus and data, professional
development and collaboration.
Performance Challenges and Goal Setting
Identifying performance challenges and setting goals is a foundational piece
for any school to ensure student success. The performance challenges that have
historically presented themselves at each of the schools included in this study were
attended to through goal setting. In each case, there were specific student groups that
had been identified as being at-risk or experiencing difficulty with achieving
proficiency regarding grade-level English language arts and math standards.
Performance challenges were set specifically for these students, identifying strategies
that would be used to address their needs.
Each elementary school has clearly identified academic goals that are
typically outlined and described in the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).
The involvement of the School Site Council (SSC) in analyzing data and developing
goals that will ensure student success is mentioned in all three plans. One school set
goals that are reflective of the state’s minimum expectancy (56.8%) as it pertains to
the percentage of students that are required to score proficient or above on the
California Standards Test (CST). Each year the percentage of students that are
expected to score proficient or above has increased, requiring schools to raise the bar
for student achievement related to English Language Arts and Math. School X’s
62
goals all addressed the academic component for students, while the other two schools
identified goals that addressed technology and health as well. These two schools also
set goals that were significantly above the minimum state proficiency requirement of
56.8%. One school determined that at least 80% of their students that constitute their
English learner group and students with special needs population would accomplish
the level of proficient or advanced proficient on the 2009-2010 California Standards
Test (CST).
Instructional Focus and Data
There is very prominent and clear evidence that all schools are focused on
instruction and individualizing the instruction to meet the needs of the students.
Improving existing instructional practices is a continued focus for the leadership and
staff at each of the three schools. The manner in which they approach the
improvement process does vary, but each with some level of collaboration at the
focal point.
School Y has identified flexible grouping as a means to best meet their
students’ needs. They group students according to assessment results that are
implemented regularly throughout the school year. This enables teachers to work
together to meet the needs of every student academically. This strategy is
implemented across grade-levels consistently using pre-assessments at the beginning
of each unit of instruction. The information gathered helps determine student
placement in the appropriate class. There are interventions and/or
enrichment/extensions offered for the students showing a need for more support and
63
for those students showing mastery of the standards. The use of a multi-modality
approach is used in teaching these groups, realizing that one size does not fit all. The
teachers implement a wide-variety of instructional strategies, including increased use
of art, music, technology, kinesthetic movement in the classrooms. This is designed
to motivate and engage students based on appealing to their preferred learning style.
School X had identified the learner center instructional model as a strategy that
would be used in all classrooms. This type of approach to teaching and learning
creates an environment in which the need of each student is a priority. The
importance of this effort was a clear priority, and further supported with the
employment of certificated tutors which allowed for intensive small group
instruction.
The use of assessments and the data that they provide is a regular occurrence
at each of the sites. There is evidence that it is used more in-depth at one site in
particular; it is a regular practice for it to drive the instruction. The information
provided through these assessments informs the instructional decisions that are made
for each child. Through the use of DataDirector, local benchmark assessments are
analyzed and teachers are able to identify gaps in learning and/or mastery of
standards. This allows teachers to provide students with interventions and extensions
that are targeted and purposeful.
Professional Development
The professional development that is utilized at each school site varies
widely, and this variance can be directly related to the fact that each school site’s
64
needs are different. The most effective professional development should be designed
and planned with the site needs in mind. There are several other aspects that ensure
that any professional development that is implemented will have a high success rate
and they include considering the needs of the participants, relevant content,
organizational support, and consistent follow-up (Butler, 1992).
The use of technology in the educational setting has changed many of the
practices and strategies that are used in the classrooms. This fairly new medium for
delivering and enhancing instruction has resulted in the need for many school staffs
to pursue technology as a topic for professional development. Each school that was
included in this study had identified an area under the technology umbrella to
develop further as a staff. They not only identified areas for improvement, but most
importantly they also attached dedicated monies from budgets to these goals. The
topics ranged from training and support for building websites to software training
that is designed to aid students with increasing English language arts and math skills.
One school site had a succinct and well planned professional development
plan. They had identified differentiation of instruction as an area of need for the
staff, which would also directly affect student learning. The decision had been made
previously to address differentiating instruction, but because it was determined that
there was still work to be done this continued to be the focal point for professional
development. The goal was to ensure 100% student engagement through
differentiated instructional strategies, and this resulted in the staff receiving further
training in engagement strategies and implementing the techniques.
65
The teacher evaluation process was also addressed by one of the school sites
as a means for professional development. The teacher evaluation process at this
school includes on-going reflective conversations based on information that is
gathered during daily walk-throughs and formal observations. The California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) have been used as the framework for
these conversations.
Collaboration
Collaboration has become an important component in the educational system,
and is used as means to improve teaching and learning, facilitate change, and as a
form of professional development (Lavie, 2006). At a school site collaboration can
occur on many levels and can include various stakeholders. It has become common
for teachers to collaborate and for collaborative efforts to also include other staff
members that are employed at the school site. Some of the schools in this study have
taken it a step further and have conducted meaningful collaboration that is inclusive
of parents and other community members.
Each school identified various ways in which collaboration takes place on
their campuses. One of the most popular collaboration models is the Professional
Learning Communities (PLC), simply because it combines teacher collaboration and
professional development that typically relates to instructional improvement
practices that effectively impact student achievement. All three schools used the
professional learning community model in some way, only with the topics that were
being addressed varying. One school was addressing technology and the effective
66
implementation of various technology components. Another school had just begun
implementing a new supplemental math program and was using the professional
learning community model to address the professional development component that
would be necessary for a successful implementation. Collaboration that has occurred
at these school sites has not been completely centered on professional learning
communities, but has included other efforts. Grade level collaborative planning was
evident at each site, but was enhanced on some campuses with collaborative vertical
grade level planning also. The use of regular conferences between principal and
teacher also brought another perspective to the collaborative process. One principal
noted that collaboration had resulted in a noted change in the staff, noting that the
professionalism of the staff is seen in their complete focus on continued student
achievement during working lunches, Thursday grade level team meetings, and
quarterly conferences.
The collaboration that has taken place among the school community has
included topics from decision making regarding budget to fundraising to student
achievement. Each school had some level of parent involvement and collaboration
centered on fund raising, but two schools in particular had worked with their parent
groups to raise considerable amounts of money. All schools involved the various
stakeholders from the greater school community in the decision making that is
required through the School Site Council (SSC). The collaboration between school
and parents was a little more intricate at two of the school sites. At these sites, there
were parent groups that were involved with the instruction provided for students,
67
resulting in a higher level of collaboration. The instruction that the parents provided
ranged from math, health and fitness, technology, and the arts.
How are Resources Used to Implement the
School Instructional Improvement Plan?
The budgetary resources that these schools had available differ from that of
most public elementary schools simply because they are in a basic aid district. This
district and these schools rely on the local property taxes to fund local education. The
Evidence Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) will be used to
measure the adequacy with which the schools are funded. The effective use of the
resources and expenditures will be compared to that of the model.
One of the three schools received additional federal and state funding. The
federal funding that this school received is Title I funding, which was developed to
ensure that all students have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a
high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on State academic
achievement standards and state academic assessments. Title I is allocated to schools
based on the percentage of student receiving free/reduced lunch. Schools with a
percentage of at least 40% are eligible for a school-wide program. The state funding
that this school received was from the Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant
(TIIG) and Schoolwide Improvement Program (SIP). These additional monies have
been used in a variety of ways, ultimately with the goal of improving student
achievement.
68
Table 4.4: School Resource Indicator for School X

Indicator School X
School building size 693 students
Percent low income 49%
Percent special education 11%
Percent ELL (English Language
Learner)
26%
Professional development expenditures
per teacher
$6613.96
Special academic focus International Baccalaureate (IB)
Primary Years Program
Length of instructional day Kindergarten- 4.5 hours
1
st
- 6
th
grade- 6.5 hours
Core class size 22 students
Non-core class size 26 students
Percent core teachers 91%

The other two schools, School Y and School Z, do not receive any additional
funding from federal sources. However, each school does receive additional state
funding via the Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG) funds. They have
been able to secure additional funds to support special programs and activities
through grants and community partnerships. School Y and Z both received funding
from the local education foundation ranging from approximately $7000 to $10,000.
Some of the additional monies come in the form of grants, which are applied for by
teachers. They are often provided to support specific programs, such as music and art
programs. Both schools have very active Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) that has
69
member volunteers that have contributed over 20,000 volunteer hours. They have
also raised considerable amounts of money to support the educational programs on
campus.

Table 4.5: School Resource Indicator for School Y and School Z

Indicator School Y School Z
School building size 495 844
Percent low income 8% 8%
Percent special education 7.5% 5%
Percent ELL (English
Language Learner)
2% 7%
Professional development
expenditures per teacher
$67.39 $58.82
Special academic focus N/A N/A
Length of instructional day Kindergarten- 3.5 hours
1
st
- 6
th
grade- 6.5 hours
Kindergarten- 3.5 hours
1
st
- 6
th
grade- 6.5 hours
Core class size 22 students 25 students
Non-core class size 26 students 27 students
Percent core teachers 95% 95%

According to the Odden and Picus (2008) Evidence Based Model, there are
recommendations regarding resources for a prototypically elementary school. The
following table provides an overview regarding how these schools compare to the
Evidence Based Model’s suggestions.
70
Table 4.6: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary
School Compared to School X, School Y, and School Z

School Element
Elementary
School School X School Y School Z
School
Characteristics

School
configuration
K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5
School size 432 693 495 844
Class Size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 25
4-5: 32
K-3: 23
4-5: 34
K-3: 25.5
4-5: 32
Number of teacher
work days
200 with 10 day
summer training
183 183 183
% of students with
disabilities
12% 11% 7.5% 5%
% of students with
free or reduced
lunch
50% 49% 8% 8%
% of English
learners
10% 26% 2% 7%
% of minority
students
30% 58% 22% 21%
Personnel
Resources

Core teachers 24 32 23 34
Specialist teachers 4.8 4 3 3
Instructional
facilitators
(coaches)
2.2 1 0 0
Tutors 2.16 3 2 2
Teachers for EL
students
.43 ..33 .10 .10
Extended day 1.8 0 0 0
Summer school 1.8 0 0 0
(Source Odden & Picus, 2008)
71
The Evidence Based Model also consists of a suggested school expenditure
structure, which outlines the categories that can be used to classify expenditures.
There are two categories (Instructional and Non-Instructional) with eight sub-
categories (core academic teachers, specialist and elective teachers, extra
support/help, professional development, other non-classroom instructional staff,
instructional materials and equipment, administration, and operations and
maintenance). The category that addresses instruction provides detailed insight into
how each of these schools utilizes their resources to meet the teaching needs of their
teachers and the learning needs of their students. The non-instructional category
explores the various other roles that exist within the school system to provide the
additional support that it takes to simply keep a school running.
In the elementary school setting, all teachers serve as core academic teachers.
It is each general education teacher’s responsibility to provide instruction in English
language arts, math, social studies/history, and science. While the manner in which
students receive this instruction may be different, they ultimately receive this
instruction from their classroom teacher or possibly by another general education
teacher that teaches that same grade level. The specialist teachers that exist within a
district, if any, are often reflective of the district’s priorities. For example, if a district
adopts a specialized health and fitness program, then the specialist teachers will more
than likely be hired to support that program. Some schools in this district have placed
an importance on various programs, and have even raised the funds to support the
personnel necessary to effectively run these programs. At School X they have a
72
Literacy Specialist, an English Learner Specialist, and an International Baccalaureate
(IB) coordinator. The other two schools have placed a strong emphasis on
developing a well rounded student and have put their available resources to work in
the areas of art, music, and physical education.

Table 4.7: School Resource Indicator - Specialist and Elective Teachers

FTEs
Specialist/Elective Teachers School X School Y School Z
Arts 0.2 0.2 0.2
Music 1.2 0.15 0.50
Physical education 0.25 0.20 0.25
Drama 0.05 0 0.15
Technology 0.1 0 0.50
Other specialist or elective teachers 2.8 0 0

The category that includes those positions and expenditures that are classified
as extra support and help are typically relevant to schools that have large English
Learner populations and a significant number of students with disabilities. In this
case, School Y and School Z do not have more than 7.5% student with disabilities
and English Learners constitute 7% or less of their school populations. School X did
use some of their resources to support student achievement in this manner, being that
they have 11% of their students classified as student with disabilities and the English
Learners are 26% of their student population.
73
Professional development can vary greatly from school to school, and will
reflect the goals of each specific site. The three sites that were involved in this study
are clearly working with very different available resources. School X is a Title I
school, thus having the resources available to pursue various professional
development opportunities more aggressively. It is important to note that this school
is also the International Baccalaureate (IB) school and is required to participate in
certain professional development in order to maintain in good standing. This does
not mean that the other two sites do not value professional development or the
opportunity for their teachers to continue to improve. The information that was
gathered via the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), the School
Accountability Report Card (SARC), and the interview protocol indicate that
professional development is occurring. The focus for these schools happens to be a
little different, and reflects the use of the Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
as the vehicle for most of the professional development. These schools are using the
experts that they have on their campus and collaboration to propel their growth as
professionals.
Many of the positions that are considered student service positions can be
found more readily at the high school level. At the elementary school level, it is
usually the responsibility of the district office to provide this additional support by
employing someone that may provide service to several school sites. In this
particular case, the elementary schools are provided with student service support
based on the site’s specific needs.
74
Table 4.8: School Resource Indicator - Professional Development

FTEs or Dollars ($)
Professional Development School X School Y School Z
Number of professional
development days
2 2 2
Substitutes and stipends $17491 $0 $6450
Instructional facilitators/coaches $150761 $0 $0
Trainers/Consultants $0 $0 $0
Travel $10000 $0 $0
Materials, equipment, and
facilities
$29895 $300 $500
Conference registration fees 3500 $1250 $1500
Other professional development $0 $0 $0

Table 4.9: School Resource Indicator - Student Services

FTEs
Student Services School X School Y School Z
Guidance counselor n/a n/a n/a
Attendance/dropout n/a n/a n/a
Social workers 0.08 0.07 0.07
Nurse 0.08 0.08 0.08
Parent liaison/community
representative
0.75 0 0
Psychologist 1 0 0
Speech/OT/PT 1.08 1 0.08
Health assistant 0 0 0
Non-teaching paraprofessionals 0 0 0
75
Instructional materials can encompass a wide array of spending, but with
School Y and School Z most of the monies spent were to maintain programs and
services that already exist on their campuses. This includes subscriptions for
ConnectEd, BrainPop, and Reading Counts. ConnectEd is the system that enables
schools to automatically generate calls to their school community, and BrainPop and
Reading Counts are web-based programs that can be used as instructional tools.
School X’s spending is reflective of their participation as an International
Baccalaureate (IB) school, as well as the regular spending to support existing
improvement efforts.

Table 4.10: School Resource Indicator - Instructional Materials and Equipment

Dollars ($)
Instructional materials and
equipment School X School Y School Z
Computers/ Hardware 2650 10000 13500
Software 10233 6000 5600
Educational subscriptions 8239 3500 4300
Materials for special programs 19662 400 2800
Home-school connections 2826 1600 1600

Administrators may fall into the category of non-instructional, but in schools
today they are expected to serve as instructional leaders. There is some evidence
from the document analysis as well from the interview protocol that it is not
uncommon for a principal to actually serve in a role of instruction provider. The
76
administrator at each of these campuses is deeply involved with the academics and
instruction provided on their campus, from visiting the classrooms on a daily basis to
participating in on-going professional development.

Table 4.11: School Resource Indicator - Administration

FTEs
Administration School X School Y School Z
Principal 1 1 1
Assistant Principal 0 0 0

While the positions that are classified as operations and maintenance do not
directly contribute to the instruction that takes place at a school site, they are some of
the most crucial positions on campus. The job that the operations and maintenance
staff does keeps the school running smoothly, and allow for the focus to remain on
instruction. If administrators and teachers were pre-occupied with worrying about
safety and cleanliness of the school site, they would be unable to attend to the
difficult work of providing rigorous instruction.
77
Table 4.12: School Resource Indicator - Operations and Maintenance

FTEs
Operations and Maintenance School X School Y School Z
Secretary 1 1 1
Clerical staff 2 1 2.5
Technology coordinator 0.5 0 0.5
Security 0 0 0
Custodians 3 2.5 3

How Does the Availability of Resources Impact the Development and
Implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement?
The schools that were represented in this study all compare differently to the
Evidence Based Model, but ultimately none of the schools had the financial
resources to implement a comparative implementation plan at their school sites.
According to some aspects of the resource indicator (Table 4.6), School Y and
School Z were aligned with the prototypical elementary school. When it came to the
suggested expenditures, there wasn’t a single school that had the funding to provide
the adequate resources as outlined in the Evidence Based Model. Despite the fact
that these schools were not adequately funded according to this model, all three have
continued to see student achievement improve over the past several years.
The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is used to drive the
improvement plan of schools across the state of California. When these plans are
developed the goals are not typically created in isolation, but rather through a
78
collaborative effort between stakeholders. At these three schools there is data
analysis involved and true reflection on the needs of their students. The unique and
specialized needs of the varying populations are evident when reviewing each
school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Each school identified two to
three goals that were to be address based on previous collection and analysis of data.
The goals are concise and each subsequent action is clearly defined, matching
personnel that will be responsible, funding that will support the effort, and a time
frame for the expected outcome. This allows for all available resources, no matter
how limited, to be aligned in support of these very concentrated and specific student
achievement goals.
The impact of limited available resources has also been combated at these
schools through building strong community partnerships. The communities that
support these schools have made a significant contribution to the overall and
continued success of School X, School Y, and School Z. The fundraising efforts
have been able to support personnel that are deemed valuable to meeting the goals
outlined in the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Some of these funds
have paid for certificated tutors, music and art teachers, as well as other programs.
When fundraising wasn’t enough, they often rolled up their sleeves and took on the
task of working with students themselves. This additional help came in the form of
parent volunteers as well as community partners.
The last piece that propelled the implementation of the Single Plan for
Student Achievement (SPSA) was the high expectations and accountability that
79
exists in this district, despite not having the ideal amount of resources. Each
administrator was required to submit an end of the year report to the Board outlining
the progress made toward achieving each goal outlined in their plan. This requires
that the entire school be aware of the goals and a collaborative effort made to achieve
the goals.
Summary
The information that was used to draw conclusions and determine findings
for the research questions that drove this study were based on the data provided from
multiple sources. Analysis of documents such as the Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA), School Accountability Report Card (SARC), and principal’s
end of the year reports were used to gather information regarding the school goals
and allocation of funds to support those goals. The documents were reviewed
thoroughly in order to create an understanding of each individual school and any
special programs that are currently in place. A side by side comparison of each
school’s resource allocation was conducted in relationship to the Evidence Based
Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008), which provided a lens through which to
measure each school against the EBM’s prototypical elementary school. Lastly, the
Interview Protocol (Appendix B) was used to gain specific input regarding each
school site and special programs. The responses provided the descriptive aspects that
can’t readily be gleaned from quantitative or hard data.
The schools in this district were all using the best practices to improve
student achievement to some degree. In some respects, they had delved deeper into
80
certain practices and identified aspects that really worked for their individual school
sites and had developed them further. While current resource allocation did not align
with the suggestions provided by the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008),
each of these schools were using their resources in a way that supported continued
increased student achievement. The effective and successful implementation of the
Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) did not seem to be hindered by limited
funding, even for the two schools that did not receive Title I funding. Overall the
schools in this district have continued to show academic gains despite the change in
monetary resources available to support student achievement.
81
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY
Introduction
The research that was conducted during this study was made possible through
the unique partnership between the University of Southern California and this
particular southern California school district. The relationship between the professors
that served as the Dissertation Chairs and the Superintendent of the school district
allowed for candid conversations regarding the needs of the district as it related to
possible research topics for the cohort. As researchers, we were invited to meet with
the Superintendent as well as the Assistant Superintendent to gain first-hand
information and direction as it pertained to our topics of study. At that time we were
put in contact with the representatives that would serve as a resource during the data
collection process. The willingness on behalf of the district to provide information
and support made this a mutually beneficial partnership.
The study conducted sought to examine the practice of effectively aligning
resources in order to improve instructional practices that result in high levels of
student achievement. The endeavor was to better inform the educational system
regarding the relationship between achievement and expenditures (Greenwald,
Hedges, & Lane, 1996), with a focus on 1) Best practices for improving student
achievement, and 2) The efficient and effective use of limited resources to support
significant gains in student achievement. Identifying the most effective approach to
82
creating and maintaining increased student achievement will help to inform the
decisions made regarding the use of the continually limited resources.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are best practices for improving student achievement?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional plan?
3. How does the availability of resources impact the development and
implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA)?
A mixed methods approach was used for gathering the information for this
study. The quantitative data was gathered via multiple information sources, such as
the district budget, Student Accountability Report Cards (SARC), and Single Plan
for Student Achievement (SPSA). The qualitative data was gathered through the use
of the Interview Protocol (Appendix B). The information that was obtained during
the data collection process is assumed to be true and factual.
Summary of Findings
What are Best Practices for Improving Student Achievement?
The schools that were part of this study demonstrated that they were
effectively implementing the best practices to positively impact student achievement
that had been identified and recommended by current research. The strategies that
were explored and the center of focus for this study were, addressing performance
challenges and goal setting, instructional focus and data, professional development,
and collaboration. The level and rigor with which each of these strategies is in place
at each site does vary.
83
Performance challenges and goal setting
Goal setting is a foundational and core expectation in this district, and proves
to be an important function of the accountability for all schools. Each school is
required to identify and outline their specific goals based on the performance data.
The results from the California Standards Test (CST) were used to recognize the
necessary areas of improvement for all schools. The further in-depth analysis of the
state data as well as other data sources were used to identify performance challenges,
special student populations are specifically addressed through this goal setting
process also. The performance challenges and subsequent goals did not strictly
address academics but were designed to address all aspects of developing a well-
rounded student. The aspect of goal setting that took these schools and district to the
next level was the reflecting and reporting of progress made toward these goals in
the required end of the year report.
Instructional focus and data
The instructional program at each of these schools is tailored to meet the
needs of the student populations that they serve. The instructional focus varies at
each school site, with the foundational instructional focus set on developing grade
level proficiency in the core subject areas. Data collection and analysis is an effort
that is expected at the district level, and supported through the use of DataDirector.
There is clear evidence that data is a regular component of the instructional program
at School X, School Y, and School Z. The data is used as a tool with which to gauge
84
the effectiveness of current strategies and to further guide the professional
development offered to staff and support personnel.
Professional development
Providing opportunities for professional growth is an important aspect of the
culture at each of these school sites. The professional development offered at each
site is significantly different based on the goals and demographics of the school sites.
The school that had money to support growth and development opportunities from
outside agencies and organizations used this resource wisely, by sending several
teachers that could come back and serve as the trainers to the rest of the staff. The
other two schools were still very actively providing opportunities for their staffs,
typically via the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLC). This approach to
providing professional development allowed these schools to use their own teacher
experts to help develop and refine teaching practices.
Collaboration
While each site does have some level of collaboration, there were some
school sites that used a collaborative model as the cornerstone of daily operations.
There was clear evidence of collaboration occurring based on student achievement
amongst principal and teachers, teacher to teacher, and the school with the greater
school community. The schools that have implemented the use of the Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) have reaped the benefits of having a model that boosts
collaboration among all stakeholders. It also provides a vehicle with which to
address the professional development component. The implementation of this model
85
has proved to be a positive contributing factor to the overall student achievement and
culture of the school community.
How are Resources Used to Implement School’s Instructional Plan?
The resources that were used to implement each school’s instructional
improvement plan were based on the priorities of the school site. School X spent a
great deal of their available budget on personnel that serves in the coaching capacity
and professional development. Some of the positions and efforts are required due to
the fact that this school is a recognized International Baccalaureate (IB) school. The
professional development spending constitutes almost half of the federal and state
funds that this school receives. There were a total of two official professional
development days, with on-going opportunities throughout the school year. Some of
the spending was used to provide substitutes for the additional professional
development opportunities.
School Y and School Z spent most of their available funds on supporting and
promoting the opportunities for their students to develop holistically. This
specifically meant that their funds went to employ art, music, drama, technology, and
physical education teachers. The other area that School Y and School Z infused their
spending into was instructional supplies, which primarily focused on technology
infused instructional materials. This money went to support web-based reading
programs and other programs that are designed to enhance instructional practices,
such as BrainPop and Reading Counts.
86
How Does the Availability of Resources Impact the Development and
Implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement?
At these school sites, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) was
used as the road map to drive the improvement plan. The plans were developed
through a collaborative effort between stakeholders to address existing performance
challenges and school wide goals. The needs of the varying populations that are
served at the schools are addressed in each school’s Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA). The goals were clearly defined and concise, identifying the
personnel and funding that will support the effort. Although resources were limited,
and at some school sites extremely limited, aligning the resources to support the very
concentrated and specific student achievement goals allowed for the systematic
improvement efforts to run smoothly. There were several outside factors that also
contributed to each school’s ability to withstand the dwindling budget and continue
to show academic gains. The relationships that existed between the school and the
greater community were instrumental in combating the effects of limited resources.
In some case, the community partnerships provided substantial amounts of funding
that were used to help address specific site level goals. There was also a degree of
instructional support provided from parents and other community members. The
social network that existed amongst the school community resulted in after school
tutoring and other academic support being provided by parents and people in the
community. While School X did have a budget that was much more robust than the
other two schools in this study, and the monies spent were just as aligned to the
87
academic and site level goals as the other two schools. All of these combined efforts
were able to offset the impact of limited resources on student achievement.
Implications for Practice
The budgetary constraints that have resulted from the economic downturn in
our nation, and particularly in the state of California seem to have done little to stifle
the student achievement in this district. There have been several aspects that have
contributed to the high levels of student achievement and the ability to promote
continued growth. The most important aspect has been the manner in which
resources are distributed. While the resources are limited, they continue to be
focused on supporting strong instructional practices. In most instances the bulk of the
resources are not spent on additional personnel, but rather ensuring that the existing
personnel are continuing to refine their craft.
The other aspect that contributed to combating the tightening of the belt for
educational spending was the community partnerships that were created at each
school site. The outreach that was made to the community and the way in which they
harnessed the community volunteerism was unique. While the fundraising
partnerships that were developed and fostered were important, the most impactful
partnership was the human partnership. Parents and community members took time
to spend with students to help them in various ways, from tutoring to serving as an
instructor for specialized programs focused on science, math, and the arts. The
impact of these relationships will be much more long lasting than the monetary
contributions, even though the monetary cannot be overlooked. This approach may
88
be something that other school districts may consider and put energy into creating
based on the positive impacts that it has had in this district.
Recommendations for Future Research
When a decision is made to conduct research in an area of study, previous
studies typically bear some importance. Hopefully future researchers will find this
topic relevant and continue to build upon this body of research as well as develop
further related findings. Unless some drastic changes occur regarding state budgets
and the monies that are allocated to school districts, it seems like the manner in
which resources are allocated to support student achievement will continue to be
important.
The first recommendation is that a similar study be conducted to include all
of the secondary schools, and at least seven elementary schools in this district.
Expanding the study will provide the opportunity to analyze the support provided to
the statistically significant sub-groups that exist within the district. This will broaden
the scope of the study, and either solidify or dissolve the current findings.
The second recommendation would be to conduct a similar study in a school
district that is a non-basic aid district. This would allow for the study and its findings
to be relevant to a larger percentage of schools in California. It could provide
important information for district level decision making, as well as direction for
school sites and the strategies that would benefit from financial support.
The last recommendation is that a more in-depth evaluation be pursued of the
factors that consistently contribute to increased student achievement. This may
89
require a similar study to take place across several school districts with varying
student populations and achievement records. A study of this scale will provide
findings that can be generalized to inform many school sites and benefit student
achievement on a large scale.
Conclusion
This study was pursued in order to shed light on very real obstacles that many
districts and schools are facing. The goal was to identify how student achievement
can still be accomplished despite the fact that monies to support these efforts are
deteriorating. It was determined that while having an ample amount of funding to
support student achievement would be great, but student achievement does not have
to suffer when we are forced to scale back. The schools in this study didn’t compare
to the prototypical elementary school in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) as it related to resource availability, but they each were able to continue to
promote student achievement as measured by the California Standards Test (CST).
The schools focused on professional development through the use of Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) as well as other methods to ensure that teacher growth
positively impacted student achievement. The development and implementation of
the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) was not negatively impacted by the
budget situation, but offered an opportunity to refocus goals and realign
disbursements to support student achievement.
90
REFERENCES
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3),
259-287.

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R. & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

EdSource. (2004, May). Rethinking how California funds it schools. Retrieved
March 8, 2010 from www.californiaschoolfinance.org

EdSource. (2005, November). How California ranks: A national perspective.
Retrieved March 12, 2010 from www.californiaschoolfinance.org

EdSource. (2006, October). Proposition 98 guarantees a minimum level of funding
for public schools. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from
www.californiaschoolfinance.org

EdSource. (2008, September). How California compares: Demographics,
resources, and student achievement. Retrieved March 12, 2010 from
www.californiaschoolfinance.org

EdSource. (2009, January). The basics of California’s school finance system.
Retrieved April 15, 2010 from www.californiaschoolfinance.org

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Gusky, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How school lawsuits exploit judges’ good
intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Education Next Books.

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in
the US school spending. Journal of Human Resources 32(1), 35-68.

91
Johnson, R. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

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.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Miles, K. (2000). Critical issue: Rethinking the use of educational resources to
support higher student achievement. North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Miles, K. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2010). What is national board
certification? Retrieved December 21, 2010 from www.nbpts.org.

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.

Odden, A. (February, 2007). Redesigning school finance systems: Lessons from
CPRE research. (CPRE Policy Brief RB-50).

Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M. & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of
Education Finance 28(3), 323-256.

Odden, A. & Picus L. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
edition).
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public education, and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher
College Record 109(6) ID Number 12743, Available at www.tcrecord.org

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
92
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Timar, T. (2006). How California funds K-12 education. Stanford University, CA.:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. Retrieved April 15,
2010 from cap-ed.ucdavis.edu/publications.
93
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE AND RESOURCE
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL
Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Core Class Periods
Core Class Size
Non-Core Class Size
Percent Core Teachers
Core: math, ELA, science and social
studies

School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
-Math
-ELA
-Science
-Social Studies
2. Specialist and Elective
Teachers
-Arts, music, physical education,
etc
-Vocational
-Driver’s education
-Librarians
3. Extra Support/Help
-Tutors
-Resource rooms (pull-out
programs)
-Inclusion teachers
-ESL classes
-Special Education self-contained
classes
-Extended day or summer school
4. Professional Development
-Teacher time (stipends and
substitutes)
-Trainers and coaches
5. Other non-classroom
instructional staff
-Coordinators
-Instructional aides
6. Instructional materials
and equipment
-Supplies, materials, and
equipment
-Computers (hardware,
software)
7. Student Support
-Counselors
-Nurses
-Psychologists
-Social workers
-Extra-curricular
-Athletics
94
-Administration
-Materials, equipment, and
facilities
-Travel and transportation
-Conference fees
Non-
Instructional
1. Administration 2. Operations and
maintenance
-Custodial
-Utilities
-Security
-Food Services
95
APPENDIX B
QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
The following are open-ended questions to capture a school’s strategies for
improving student performance.

Curriculum and Instruction
I. Tell me about how your school improved student performance.
a. What were the curriculum and instructional components of your
strategy for improvement?
i. What content area did your improvement focus on?
ii. What curricula have you used for your instructional
improvement effort?
1. Is it aligned to the state content standards?
2. How do you know it is aligned?
iii. Have assessments been used as part of your instructional
improvement effort?
1. If so, what types of assessments have been integral?
2. How often are those assessments used?
3. What actions were taken with the data results?
iv. What types of instructional strategies have been implemented
as part of your reform efforts?
1. Were teachers trained on the instructional strategies?
2. How did you know the instructional strategies were
being implemented?
Resources
II. What were the resources allocated to this strategy?
a. Was class size reduction a focus?
i. If so, what reduction strategy did you implement?
b. Was professional development a focus?
i. If so, when are professional development days scheduled?
ii. What is the focus of professional development?
iii. Do you have instructional coaches in the school? Were there
enough coaches?
c. Was intervention a focus?
i. If so, what intervention strategies were implemented?
(Tutoring, ESY, extended day, master schedule)
d. Was technology a focus?
i. If so, what types of resources were allocated to technology?
96
Nature of School Improvement Efforts
III. Was the instructional improvement effort a collaborative process?
a. If so, what was the role of the school site?
b. If so, what was the role of the district office?

Instructional Leadership
IV. What type of instructional leadership was present?

Accountability
V. What type of accountability was built into the instructional improvement
plan?
97
APPENDIX C
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name

Address

Phone Fax

Website

Contact Person Email

Notes

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
Number of ELL students
Number of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch

Total number of special education students (IEPs
and 504 plans)

Number of special education students (self-
contained class)

Total length of the school day
Length of the instructional day
Length of mathematics class
Length of ELA class
Length of science class
Length of social studies class
Length of foreign language class
Core Academic Teachers FTEs
Mathematics
ELA
Science
Social studies
Foreign language
98
Specialist/Elective Teachers FTEs
Arts
Music
Physical education
Drama
Technology
Other specialist or elective teachers
Description of other specialist or elective
teachers

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library media specialist
Library aide
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified teacher tutors
Non-certified tutors
Title I aides
ELL class teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted program teachers
Gifted program funds
Other extra help teachers
Other extra help classified staff
Extra Help II FTEs
Special education teacher (severely disabled)
Special education inclusion teachers
Special education resource teachers
Special education paraeducators (severely
disabled)

Special education inclusion paraeducators
Special education resource room paraeducators
Extra Help III
Number of extended day students
Minutes per week of extended day program Minutes
Teacher contract minutes per week Minutes
Extended day teachers
Extended day classified staff
Minutes per week of summer school Minutes
Length of session (# of weeks) Weeks
Number of students enrolled in summer school
Summer school teachers
99
Summer school classified staff
Other Instructional Staff FTEs or Dollars ($)
Consultants
Other teachers
Other instructional paraeducators
Funds for daily substitutes
Professional Development FTEs or Dollars ($)
Number of professional development days
Substitutes and stipends
Instructional facilitators/coaches
Trainers/Consultants
Travel
Materials, equipment, and facilities
Conference registration fees
Other professional development
Student Services FTEs
Guidance counselor
Attendance/dropout
Social workers
Nurse
Parent liaison/community representative
Psychologist
Speech/OT/PT
Health assistant
Non-teaching aides
Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology coordinator
Security
Custodians
Average Class Size
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
100
APPENDIX D
DATA COLLECTION DEFINITIONS
School Profile

A. School name: official school name
B. Address: street address, city, and zip code of school
C. Phone: main office phone number of school
D. Fax: main office fax number of school
E. Website: official school website address
F. Contact Person: main contact at school site
G. Email: email address of contact person
H. Notes: additional notations

School Resource Indicators

A. Current student enrollment: number of students enrolled at the school based
on 2009 CBEDs data
B. Number of ELL students: number of students eligible for services as ELL
C. Number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch: number of enrolled
students who are eligible for the federal free and reduced priced lunch
D. Total number of special education students: number of students in the school
with an IEP indicating their eligibility for special education services
E. Number of special education students (self contained): number of students in
the school with an IEP indicating their eligibility for special education
services
F. Total length of the school day: number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school
G. Length of the instructional day: number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction (subtract nutrition, lunch, passing periods)
H. Length of mathematics class: number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day
I. Length of ELA class: number of minutes of ELA class periods per day
J. Length of science class: number of minutes of science class periods per day
K. Length of social studies class: number of minutes of social studies class
periods per day
L. Length of foreign language class: number of minutes of foreign language
class periods per day
101
Core Academic Teachers

A. Mathematics: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers
who teach mathematics
B. ELA: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers who
teach ELA
C. Science: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers who
teach science
D. Social studies: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject
teachers who teach social studies
E. Foreign language: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject
teachers who teach foreign language

Specialist/Elective teachers: teachers who teach non-core academic classes

A. Arts: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers who
teach art
B. Music: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers who
teach music
C. Physical education: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject
teachers who teach physical education
D. Drama: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers who
teach drama
E. Technology: number of full time equivalent (FTE) licensed subject teachers
who teach technology
F. Other specialist or elective teachers: number of full time equivalent (FTE)
licensed subject teachers who are not specifically listed above
F. Description: indicate the subject area that the “other” specialist teacher(s)
instruct

Library Staff

A. Librarian/library media specialist: number of FTE licenses librarians or
medial specialist who instruct students
B. Library aide: number of FTE library aides who help instruct students
102
Extra Help Staff: supplemental to the instruction in the regular classroom

A. Tutors: number of FTE tutors to help students one-on-one or in small group
B. Title I aides: number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
groups of students with extra help
C. ELL class teachers: number of FTE licensed teachers of ESL classes who
work with non-English speaking students to teach them English
D. Aides for ELL: number of FTE aides of ESL classes who work with non-
English speaking students to teach them English
E. Gifted program teachers: number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program
F. Gifted program funds: dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for the
2009-2010 school year
G. Other extra help teachers: number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s core
curriculum
H. Other extra help classified staff: number of FTE classified staff who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s core
curriculum
I. Special education teacher (severely disabled): number of FTE licensed
teachers who teach in self-contained special education classrooms and work
with “severely” disabled students
J. Special education inclusion teachers: number of FTE licensed teachers who
assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have
learning disabilities
K. Special education resource teachers: number of FTE licensed teachers who
provide small groups of special education students with extra help
L. Special education aides (severely disabled): number of FTE aides who assist
in self-contained special education classrooms and work with “severely”
disabled students
M. Special education inclusion aides: number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have learning
disabilities
N. Special education resource room aides: number of FTE aides who provide
small groups of special education students with extra help
O. Number of extended day students: number of students who participate in the
extended day program
P. Minutes per week of extended day program: number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered
Q. Teacher contract minutes per week: number of work minutes per week in the
teacher contract
103
R. Extended day teachers: number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school
S. Extended day classified staff: number of FTE staff who provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school
T. Minutes per week of summer school: number of minutes per week that
students attend summer school
U. Length of session (# of weeks): number of weeks that summer school is in
session
V. Number of students enrolled in summer school: number of students enrolled
in summer school
W. Summer school teachers: number of FTE teachers who worked summer
school
X. Summer school classified staff: number of FTE staff who worked summer
school

Other Instructional Services
A. Consultants: dollar amount for all consultants other than professional
development contract services
B. Other teachers: number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in the above categories
C. Other instructional aides: number of FTE aides who instruct, but were not
included in the above categories
D. Funds for daily substitutes: daily rate for certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers

Professional Development

A. Number of professional development days: number of days the teacher
contract specifies for professional development
B. Substitute and stipends: dollar amount budgeted for substitutes and stipends
that cover teacher time for professional development
C. Instructional facilitators/coaches: number for FTE instructional facilitators or
coaches
D. Trainers/consultants: dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services
E. Travel: dollar amount of the costs of travel for off-site professional
development
F. Materials, equipment, and facilities: dollar amount for professional
development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment needed for
professional development, and rental or other costs for facilities
104
G. Conference registration fees: dollar amount for fees for conferences related
to professional development
H. Other professional development: either FTE or dollar amount for other
professional development not included in the above categories

Student Services

A. Guidance counselor: number for FTE licensed guidance counselors
B. Attendance/dropout: number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts
C. Social workers: number of FTE licensed social workers
D. Nurse: number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent liaison/community representative: number of FTE staff members who
serve as parent liaison/community representative
F. Psychologist: number of FTE licensed school psychologist
G. Speech/OT/PT: number of licenses speech, occupational, and physical
therapists who provide services to students at the school site
H. Health assistant: number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: number of FTE non-teaching aides

Administration

A. Principal: number of FTE licensed principals
B. Assistant principal: number of FTE licensed assistant principals
C. Secretary: number of FTE secretaries
D. Clerical staff: number of FTE clerical staff
E. Technology coordinator: number of FTE technology coordinators
F. Security: number of FTE security staff
G. Custodians: number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

Average Class Size
A. K-3 15 students per teacher
B. 4-6 25 students per teacher

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study used a purposeful sample of three southern California elementary schools that are in a K-12 basic aid school district. These schools are outperforming similar schools and were studied to determine the instructional strategies and resource use patterns used to support their continual improvement process. The methods used to gather the information include interview data, performance data and information on school level resource use. The Evidence Based Model, developed by Odden and Picus (2008), which identifies the elements of a school-wide instructional program that research has shown to be effective in improving student performance,was used as the framework for analyzing the resource use patterns of the study schools. The findings indicate that although the resources available to the study schools were significantly fewer than what the Evidence Based Model suggests, the improvement strategies showed many commonalities to those suggested in the body of literature on school improvement. Analysis of the case studies indicates that the schools used the following improvement strategies that are commonly seen in the literature on effective schools: identifying performance challenges and setting clear and concise goals to address the challenges, a common focus on strong instructional practices and the use of data to make decisions that can inform practice, the use of collaboration among all stakeholders to improve student achievement, and continued professional development based on the Professional Learning Communities model.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Allocation of resources to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions

PDF

Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Leading the way: the effective implementation of reform strategies and best practices to improve student achievement in math

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Perez, Lorraine M. (author)

Core Title Resource allocation to improve student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/12/2011

Defense Date 03/01/2011

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

Tag accountability,best practices,California school finance,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,student achievement

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro (committee chair), Love, Laurie (committee member)

Creator Email Lomora77@msn.com,Lorrainp@USC.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3738

Unique identifier UC1206419

Identifier etd-Perez-4501 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-444347 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3738 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Perez-4501.pdf

Dmrecord 444347

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Perez, Lorraine M.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu