University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: RESOURCE ALLOCATION 1

A CASE STUDY OF AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH TO RESOURCE ALLOCATION
AT A SCHOOL FOR AT-RISK AND INCARCERATED STUDENTS IN HAWAII

by

David Shimoda

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

August 2017

Copyright 2017 David Y. Shimoda
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 2

Acknowledgements
The work done in this study is dedicated to the kids of all ages, who like me, are on an
endless quest to learn new things and wake up early everyday excited to play the new Xbox they
got for Christmas. More than anyone my wife and kids will understand this as they endlessly
supported me on this journey that seemed to have no end.
Knowledge without application is a dream.
Application without knowledge is a nightmare.
Play is learning without rules.
I need to acknowledge all my “families” for the love and support they always provide me.
The Trojan family, beginning with the members of my committee who helped me complete this
process Dr. Lawrence Picus, Dr. Alan Green, and Dr. Monique Datta. I am forever grateful to
my dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus who spent an extra two years supporting me through
the process and helped me learn things that have changed the way I will view the world. I am
thankful that I was able to begin and complete my USC experience with a great friend and
teacher, Dr. Monique Datta. I truly appreciate the members of my cohort who spent two years
with me learning together. Especially the ones who spent extra time with me Carrie, John, Dana,
Bernie, and Jackie.
My work family, who include all the people who helped me along the way but especially
three individuals. Monica Mann always checked in to see how I was progressing and how she
could help. Stacey Oshio who not only supported me by providing data and wisdom but also
supported me as a friend. Ellen Nishioka who unselfishly spent countless hours listening,
discussing, teaching, encouraging, and lightening my workload as I worked to complete my
degree.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 3

My parents who chose to give me life and my siblings. All who helped make me who I
am today and had no choice but to love me. All of them provided me with a unique outlook on
life which grounds me and drives the way I react to things. Whether it’s being confident in what
I say, knowing that things could always be done better, making sacrifices, paying attention to
details, knowing that there will never be a better time than now, being able to laugh any time, or
having endless determination are all traits that I inherited from my family. All traits that were
essential to complete this dissertation and traits that have served me well every day.
My wife Cynthia and her family truly chose me when they could have said, “No”. My
in-laws spent and spend countless hours watching and loving our three children. Being able to
return all of what they give seems impossible, but hopefully one day we will be able to return at
least half of what we receive. My wife and I make mistakes together all the time and I make
even more alone, but she never blames me or yells at me. Her words and her actions confirm
that when she said, “yes” she agreed to me then and the future me that would drive many others
crazy. She has given an unconditional love that I only hope that I am repaying as we travel
together on this journey called life. Along with our three children we continue to learn and grow
together as a family. My family made endless sacrifices to help me complete this degree for
which I will never be able to repay, but I will never stop trying.
Fight On!

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 6

List of Figures 7

Abstract 8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 17
Importance of the Study 18
Limitations 19
Delimitations 19
Assumptions 19
Definition of Terms 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth 22
Characteristics of Incarcerated Youth 24
At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth Student Profile 25
Student Achievement for At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth 28
Brief History of Student Achievement 30
Measuring Student Achievement in Hawaii 31
Student Achievement for Aloha School 32
10 Strategies to Improve Student Learning 33
Resource Allocation 34
School Finance 34
Allocated Resources for Aloha School 36
Evidence Based Model 38
Prototypical high school 39
1 Plus 1: 7 Model 47
Summary 48

Chapter Three: Methodology 51
Methodology 51
Research Questions 52
Sample and Population 53
Instrumentation and Data Collection 54
Data Analysis 56

Chapter Four: Results 58
Overview of School 59
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 5

Results for Research Question #1 65
Results for Research Question #2 76
Summary 91

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 95
Summary of Findings 95
Implications 101
Recommendations for Future Research 102
Conclusion 103

References 105

Appendices
Appendix A: 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 112
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form 115
Appendix C: Data Collection Protocol 118
Appendix D: Data Collection Codebook 126
Appendix E: Interview Protocol 134

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 6

List of Tables
Table 1.1: State of Hawaii Department of Education Operating Budget 14
Table 2.1: Aloha School - Strive HI Results 2013-2015 33
Table 2.2: EBM - Adequate Resources for Prototypical High Schools 46
Table 2.3: EBM - Adequate Resources for Alternative High Schools (1+1:7 Model) 48
Table 4.1: Aloha School - Trend Report 2014-2015 63
Table 4.2: Aloha School - Youth Center Average Daily Attendance 64
Table 4.3: Hawaii Department of Education 6 Priority Strategies 66
Table 4.4: Evidence Based Model Comparison - School Characteristics 78
Table 4.5: Personnel Resources - Differences between EBM and Whole School 81
Table 4.6: Personnel Resources - Differences between EBM and Youth Center 82
Table 4.7: Personnel Resources - Differences between EBM and
Youth Correctional Facility 83
Table 4.8: Evidence Based Model Comparison – Dollars per Pupil 88

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 7

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Aloha School - Five Sites 10
Figure 1.2: Strive HI Performance Steps 12
Figure 2.1: Evidence Based Model Explanation 39
Figure 4.1: Aloha School - Maximum Student Capacity 61

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 8

Abstract
This case study compares the actual resource allocation at a public secondary school in Hawaii
for at-risk and incarcerated youth to the resource allocation recommended by the Evidence Based
Model (EBM), which is based on providing adequate levels of funding for all students to have an
equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014). The
purpose of the study is to examine how resources at Aloha School are allocated to improve the
academic achievement of students as research has found that education decreases delinquency
for youth (Blomberg et al., 2011; Foley, 2001) and reduces recidivism (Blomberg et al., 2011).
As a case study, public and interview data were collected then analyzed to describe how
expenditure decisions were made, how funds were utilized, and if resources were adequate to
support strategies to improve student achievement by comparing the actual resource allocation to
the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2014) and Odden’s 10 strategies for Doubling Student Performance
(2009). Findings identified resource allocation gaps in the actual resources allocated at the
school exceeding the EBM recommendations, the use of tutoring strategies and the reliance on
the temporary Priority School funds. The study findings helped the school in Hawaii identify
gaps in resource allocation based on improving student achievement. It also introduces a way for
schools for incarcerated youth nationwide to do the same as education has become a focus with
the release of Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice
Secure Care Settings (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
A cross-national comparison by Hazel in 2008 found that the juvenile correction rate in
the United States was the highest among the world’s advanced nations. The study reported that
336 of every 100,000 youth in the United States were incarcerated. This figure is five times
higher than the rate of youth incarceration in South Africa (69/100,000), the country with the
second highest youth incarceration rate (Hazel, 2008). Not only is the youth incarceration rate
in the United States high, but 60% of the youth offenders will return to court by the time they are
eighteen (Synder & Sickmund, 2006). Being incarcerated as a youth also increases the
probability of incarceration later in life (Aizer & Doyle, 2013). Furthermore, findings by
Farrington, Coid, and Murray (2009) suggest that there is transmission of offending behaviors
between generations which perpetuates the incarceration of youth. Therefore, finding ways to
decrease the number of incarcerated youth in the United States is a problem that needs to be
examined.
Research has shown that educational success helps incarcerated youth successfully
transition back into their communities and reduces recidivism (Feierman, Levick, & Mody,
2009). Foley (2001) found that the intellectual and academic functioning levels of nonrecidivist
students are significantly higher than those of recidivist students. Another study found that
incarcerated youth with high levels of educational achievement and who attend school regularly
are less likely to be rearrested (Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Piquero, & Berk, 2011). Studies linking
academic success to lower youth incarceration rates have stakeholders looking for ways to
improve student achievement for at-risk and incarcerated youth.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 10

Background of the Problem
A 2013 report that focused on improving the juvenile justice system in Hawaii stated that
75% of the incarcerated youth in the state will be re-adjudicated or reconvicted within three
years of being released (Hawaii Juvenile Justice Work Group [HJJWG], 2013). Along with the
high chance of recidivism, it was reported that just under $200,000 a year is spent on each youth
incarcerated at Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility (HYCF), which is $50,000 more than the
national average (Justice Policy Institute [JPI], 2014). Based on these findings Hawaii is looking
for ways to reduce the number of youth being incarcerated at HYCF (HJJWG, 2013).
HYCF is the only publicly funded facility that services incarcerated youth in Hawaii.
The youth incarcerated at HYCF attend Aloha
1
School, the only public school within the Hawaii
Department of Education that services incarcerated students. The school is comprised of five
school sites that are physically separated (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Aloha School - five sites
Source: Hawaii Department of Education (2016b)

1
Aloha is a pseudonym for a school in Hawaii.
Aloha School
Youth Center
"At-Risk" from
the district
Youth Correctional
Facility
"Incarcerated"
Male Female
Detention Home
"Detained"
Kapolei Facility Honolulu Facility
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 11

Two of the five school sites are for incarcerated youths at HYCF, one of the sites for incarcerated
youth is for male offenders and the other site is for female offenders. Two other Aloha School
sites are detention homes (DH) that are for youth who are detained awaiting hearing/trial or
alternative placement into a program. The last Aloha School site is an alternative learning center
(ALC) for at-risk secondary students in the Windward school district. The students attending the
youth center must be severely at-risk to enter the school voluntarily or they can be placed at the
school by the Complex Area Superintendent (Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE], 2016b).
The school has a history of poor student achievement, which is not surprising given its student
population is at-risk and incarcerated.
Poor Academic Achievement for At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth in Hawaii
The mission of Aloha School is to work with each student to help him or her progress
toward a successful transition back into the community (HDOE, 2016e). The transition may
result in the student going to college, finding a job, or being successful at the school they
attended before Aloha School (HDOE, 2016e). However, the school’s history of poor academic
achievement may be contributing to the fact that 75% of the incarcerated youth will be re-
adjudicated or reconvicted within three years of being released (HJJWG, 2013).
In Hawaii, student academic achievement is measured through the use of high stakes
tests. In response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) the Hawaii Department of Education
(HDOE) established the Hawaii Content Performance Standards (HCPS) as the standards that
would guide instruction and the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) as the exam administered to
measure student achievement (Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE], 2016e). In 2010
Hawaii received one of the Race to The Top (RTTT) grants from the United States Department
of Education (USDOE). To meet one of the requirements of the grant, the HDOE developed the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 12

Strive HI accountability system and began the process of replacing the previous NCLB
accountability system in the 2012-2013 school year. The Strive HI system replaced the HCPS
with the Common Core State Standards to guide instruction for English and math then the
Smarter Balanced Assessment in place of the HSA to measure student achievement in the two
content areas (HDOE, 2016i). Science is also included in the Strive HI system to measure
student achievement and continues to use HCPS and HSA in this content area. An examination
of Aloha School’s results based on the Strive HI system will be provided in the student
achievement section found in chapter two. Briefly, based on Strive HI accountability system
Aloha School scored 48 out of 400 possible points in school year 2012-2013 (HDOE, 2016a). A
score that puts Aloha School in the Priority step, which identifies the school as being in the 5%
of Hawaii schools with persistently low student achievement (HDOE, 2016a). Figure 1.1
describes the five Performance Steps in the Strive HI system.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 13

Figure 1.2. Strive HI performance steps
Source: Hawaii Department of Education (2016h)

Resource Allocation
Cost of incarcerating youth. A study conducted in 2010 reported there were 70,792
juveniles detained across the United States, a rate of 2.3 per 1,000 children aged 10-19 (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2013). In 2014 it was reported that the
confinement of youth cost $8-21 billion dollars a year (JPI, 2014). With an average cost of
$407.58 a day, keeping one youth from being incarcerated would save more than $148,766 a
year (JPI, 2014). In addition to the savings of keeping youth from being incarcerated, studies
have reported that incarcerated youth are more likely to enter adult prisons by the age 25 (Aizer
& Doyle, 2013) and offending behaviors have been found to be transmitted between generation
(Farrington, Coid, & Murray, 2009) therefore the financial benefits would also extend to
adulthood and across generations.
Reducing the number of incarcerated youth in Hawaii. In Hawaii there would be a
financial benefit by reducing the number of incarcerated youth as the cost of incarceration is a
little less than $200,000 a year per youth. The HJJWG (2013) report recommended reducing the
number of youth being incarcerated at HYCF by only incarcerating youth for felonies. In the
recommendation the money saved from the reduction in the incarcerated population would then
be reinvested in community based mental health and substance abuse programs for the offenders
that did not commit felonies (HJJWG, 2013). Although the results of the reinvestment of funds
is expected to be beneficial for youth, the reduction in the population of youth at HYCF will
impact the allocation of money by the Hawaii Department of Education to Aloha School as funds
for education have been decreasing.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 14

Funding of education. Since September 2008 nationwide budget reductions have
impacted all aspects of education, including the education of incarcerated youth. Events such as
the Great Recession and the reoccurring conflict over the federal debt ceiling have been seen as
the cause of these reductions (Aiginger, 2010). Multiple key economic indicators such as
employment rates, tax revenue, and GDP, fell to levels unseen for decades during the Great
Recession (Aiginger, 2010; Oliff & Leachman, 2011; Thompson, 2013). As a result more than
two-thirds of the states were providing less funding per student in the 2013-14 school year for K-
12 education than they did in fiscal year 2008 (Leachman & Mai, 2014). Federally, the
discontinuation of emergency relief funds in 2011 and the sequestration of funds going to States
for education have also reduced the money going to schools. The reduction in education budgets
and the benefits of education for incarcerated youth have encouraged states to examine resource
allocation for the education of these youth.
The Hawaii DOE has also felt the result of the budgets being reduced. Between 2008 and
2013 the Hawaii DOE’s annual executive operating budget decreased by $800 million. The table
below illustrates the downward trend in the department’s total executive operating budget
(Hawaii Department of Budget and Finance, 2014):
Table 1.1
Hawaii Department of Budget and Finance
Fiscal Year Total Executive Operating Budget
(dollars in billions)
2008-2009 $2.59
2009-2010 $2.43
2010-2011 $2.46
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 15

2011-2012 $1.8
2012-2013 $1.79
2013-2014 $1.78
Source: Hawaii Department of Budget and Finance Reports
The federal allocations in Hawaii have also decreased. Funds have declined from $379
million in 2010 to $289 million in 2014 (HDOE, 2015). Included in the federal allocations that
have been lost are federal funds from the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 named No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The significance of
these funds for this study is that Title I, Part D of NCLB specifically addresses assuring high
academic levels of achievement for delinquent and neglected youth in institutions, day programs,
and correctional facilities by providing federal funds for the education of these youth (NCLB,
2001).
Aloha School is the only public school in Hawaii that services at-risk, detained, and
incarcerated students so it is designated as a special school within the Hawaii Department of
Education. As a special school the school is not allocated money based on the budget system
that Hawaii uses called Weighted Student Formula (WSF), which allocates funds based the
number of students and type of students enrolled at the school. Instead the money for the school
is allocated as a line item in the State budget (Hawaii Board of Education [HBOE], 2014).
Therefore, the budget of the school needs to be established by the Board of Education and
approved as part the Department of Education budget by the legislature and governor. The
amount budgeted annually to Aloha School has changed very little over the past four years and
only covers personnel and a limited amount for operations to run the school.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 16

The declining national and state budgets for education along with the focus on student
achievement creates a need for the examination of resource allocation for schools. Aloha School
has a history of poor academic achievement, yet the annual funding for personnel and the basic
operations of the school has changed very little over the past four years. Examining how
resources are allocated to increase student achievement would help decision makers ensure that
the school has adequate funds to achieve the school’s mission of providing its students with a
successful transition back into the community while also helping the State achieve the goal of
reducing recidivism.
Statement of the Problem
Hawaii is looking for ways to reduce the 75% recidivism rate for incarcerated youth
(HJJWG, 2013). Studies have found that education decreases delinquency for youth (Blomberg
et al., 2011; Foley, 2001) and reduces recidivism (Blomberg et al., 2011). Aloha School has a
history of poor student academic achievement (HDOE, 2016e). Therefore, examining how
resources are allocated to improve the academic achievement of the students at Aloha School
will provide information that can be used by decision makers for the school.
Another reason to examine how resources are allocated at Aloha School is that over the
past four years funding for personnel and the basic operations of the school has changed very
little. Since the HJJWG report (2013) recommended a reduction in the number of incarcerated
youth, the student population at Aloha School decreased from 123 students in 2012-13 to 72
students in 2014-15 (HDOE, 2016a). With the continued declining enrollment at the school and
the unchanged funding the money allocated to the school is anticipated to decrease. As funding
at the school is expected to decline the school needs to know how it currently allocates resources
to improve student achievement to help with decision making.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 17

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study is to examine how resources are allocated at Aloha School
to improve academic achievement. Publicly available data were collected and analyzed to
compare the resources available at Aloha School to what would be provided by the Evidence
Based Model for a prototypical high school and 1 plus 1: 7 model for an alternative high school
(Odden & Picus, 2014). Interviews with Complex leaders and school level leaders were
conducted to explain how expenditure decisions were made, how funds were utilized, and if
available resources were adequate. The Evidence Based Model (EBM) was used as the
framework for this study as it is based on providing adequate levels of funding for all students to
have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Comparing the differences between actual resource allocation at the school and the resource
allocation recommended by the EBM helped to identify the dissimilarities in how fund are used
to support student achievement. Odden’s 10 strategies for Doubling Student Performance
(2009) was also used to analyze data to determine how many strategies are being employed and
if the resources are distributed sufficiently to support these strategies.
The research questions that guided this study are:
1. How are resources allocated at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth to improve
student achievement?
2. How does resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth compare to
the Evidence-Based Model detailed by Odden and Picus (2014)?
Since the research was limited to the examination of one school and data analyzed were
collected from one school year a case study method was used. This method is appropriate as
Merriam (2009) defines a case study as being an in-depth description and bounded.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 18

Importance of the Study
The purpose of the study was to gather and examine data to identify gaps between the
current resource allocation practices at Aloha School and the resource allocation recommended
by the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014). Reports such as the Guiding Principles
for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings (U.S. Department
of Education [USDOE] & Justice [USDOJ], 2014) and in Hawaii the Hawaii Juvenile Justice
Working group Final Report (HJJWG, 2013) are having schools examine how resources are
being allocated to improve student achievement for incarcerated youth. Since the EBM is based
on providing adequate levels of funding for all students to have an equal opportunity to meet
their state’s performance standards, the comparison provides information that can be used in
discussions when making resource allocation decisions.
The Educational practitioners, policy makers, funders, and researchers can use the
information to improve the quality of education for students at a school for at-risk and
incarcerated youth in Hawaii. All of these stakeholders have important roles in safeguarding that
schools are provided and are allocating resources in a way that ensures every student can meet
the state standards and improve academically through public education. Educational
practitioners will be able to use the findings to discuss how resources may be allocated for at-risk
and incarcerated students to improve student achievement at the school. Policy makers and
funders can to use the findings to make decisions that will influence the resources and practices
at the school. Researchers in education may be able to build on the findings by conducting
research that uses an experimental design to examine resource allocation patterns for other
schools. Improving education for the at-risk and incarcerated students at Aloha School will
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 19

result in more students with high school diplomas and a lower rate of recidivism, which will lead
to a reduction in the long-term cost of incarcerating youth and adults.
Limitations
The study has several limitations associated with the case study method. First, is that the
data from one school will be used, so the findings will not be generalizable to other programs or
to similar schools. Second, the data being examined will be time bound and from only one
school year. Third, the data collected through interviews may be distorted by personal bias, the
mood of the respondent, politics, and rapport with the interviewee. Fourth, documents and
records might be incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, the researcher is on staff at Aloha School
which will provide access to information not otherwise available, but this bias may influence the
analysis of the data.
Delimitations
The small sample size is a delimitation, but it is purposeful as it represents at-risk and
incarcerated youth at the only school for incarcerated youth in Hawaii. Another delimitation is
that the study will only examine programs at the school and will not examine other programs
designed to help these children or programs to prevent them from entering these types of
programs.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made as part of conducting the study:
 Education leaders’ decisions to allocate resources are influenced by their perceptions of
the value and effectiveness of current strategies to help at-risk and incarcerated students.
 Incarcerated and at-risk students failing academically based on student achievement data
is an issue worthy of examination.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 20

 Given enough time, most students can achieve high standards.
 Students attempt to get the best score they can on the assessments used to measure
student achievement.
 Interviewees will provide accurate information.
 Data collected for this study through interviews and online documentation will be true
and reflective of current resource allocation practices at the Aloha School.

Definition of Terms
Alternative school: a classification of alternative learning environments typically located at
separate sites from regular schools that serve the larger student population. This type of school
typically serves students with behavioral problems such as suspended or expelled students,
delinquent teens, high-risk health behaviors, etc.
At-risk student: Students who meet two or more criteria of academic failure or temporary or
permanent withdrawal from school.
Complex Area Superintendent: A complex consist of a high school and all its feeder schools,
which consist of middle or intermediate and elementary schools. A complex area superintendent
is in charge of a group of two to four complexes.
Delinquent Offense - An offenses that would be criminal law violations for adults.
Detention Home: A secured residential facility for youth awaiting court hearings and/or
placement in long-term care facilities and programs.
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): A classification of an employee’s full-time status as a worker.
Incarcerated: To be imprisoned.
Recidivism: A relapse into criminal behavior.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 21

Regular/traditional school: A public elementary or secondary school that does not focus
primarily on vocational, special or alternative education.
Severely at-risk student: A students who meet four or more criteria of academic failure or
temporary or permanent withdrawal from school.
Status Offenses: Behaviors that are law violations for juveniles that would not be violations for
adults such as truancy.
Youth Correctional Facility: Facility for incarcerated youth. The goal of the facility is to return
an economically self-sufficient individual to the community who will be able to immediately join
the work force and become a productive, law-abiding member of society.
Weighted Student Formula (WSF): The system used in Hawaii where money is taken from the
State general fund and the amount of money given to each school based upon each student’s
individual need, in addition to raw enrollment numbers, assuming that students with increased
needs (e. g. IDEA, ELL) have an increased resource allocation need.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 22

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to examine resource allocation at a school for at-risk and
incarcerated students in Hawaii. Based on the review of the literature three topics emerged as
the foundation of the study. The first topic examines the at-risk and incarcerated youth
population. A better understanding of the sample population of the study will be gained by
looking at the public policies that influenced at-risk and incarcerated youth, the characteristics of
these youth in general, and the characteristics of these youth as students in the school. The
second topic briefly looks at how student achievement is measured then examines student
achievement for the at-risk and incarcerated youth at Aloha School. To understand the strategies
that can lead to improved student learning, Allan Odden’s 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (2009) will be introduced as a framework that will be used in this study. The third
topic will examine resource allocation at Aloha School and introduce the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2014) as the framework that will be used to examine resource allocation in this
study.
At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth
Before describing the at-risk and incarcerated youth found in at Aloha School the policies
that influenced this group of youth needs to be examined. Wald and Losen (2003) state, “Adult
prisons and juvenile halls are riddled with children who have traveled through the school-to-
prison pipeline” (p.10). The school to prison pipeline is used to describe the results of the
punitive policies in the criminal justice system and the educational system that led to the more
youth and adults being incarcerated.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 23

War on drugs. In 1982 President Regan made the “War on Drugs” an official federal
policy (Alexander, 2010). The policy endorsed President Nixon’s declaration of illegal drugs as
an enemy. The result of this policy was a focus on punishment rather than treatment. Hatt
(2011) pointed out the severity of the federal law as it denied anyone with a felony drug charge
from receiving college financial aid, section 8 housing, or public assistance for life. The
emphasis on punishment that started with the War on Drugs eventually found its way into
education with the passage of the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994.
Zero tolerance. The passage of the Gun Free Act of 1994 was in response to the
shootings that were happening in schools and marked the beginning of the criminalization of
undesirable behaviors in school known as Zero Tolerance. The Gun Free Schools Act requires
two things. First is a mandatory one year expulsion for the student in possession of a fire-arm.
Second is that the law violating students must be referred to the police (Wilson, 2014). Zero
Tolerance which put the focus on punishing identified student behaviors was expanded by many
state legislatures and school districts to include mandatory expulsions for drugs and alcohol,
fighting, gang membership, threats, and/or swearing (Skiba & Knesting, 2002).
Almost all social policies have unintended consequences (Marx, 1981). The intent of the
War on Drugs and Zero Tolerance was to keep the public safe. However, as a result of these
policies some of the punishment that was formerly dealt with by school principals was now in
the hands of the police and justice system. Students going straight to the police created a climate
of suspension and exclusion (Kupchik, 2012). The policies also enabled teachers with poor
classroom management skills to remove the problem students (Wilson, 2014). The unintended
results of trying to keep the public safe was the School to Prison Pipeline which led to the
increase of incarcerated youth (Wald & Losen, 2003).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 24

An additional unintended consequence of the Zero Tolerance policy came with the
enactment of NCLB in 2001. NCLB held school districts accountable to show growth in student
achievement of all students through the use of standards and assessments (NCLB, 2001).
Although the intent of NCLB was to ensure that no child was left behind academically, the result
was that schools began to teach to the test. Schools also began to refer low-performing students
to alternative schools and General Education Development (GED) programs. By doing this, the
school eliminated these students from their roster. The use of the Zero tolerance policies
expanded the number of arrests and expulsions at schools (Klehr, 2009; Nichols & Berliner,
2007; Ryan, 2004), which was another way to excluded students from student achievement
results. Public policies over the past thirty years have influenced the number of youth and the
type of youth being incarcerated. The next section will examine the characteristics of the youth
being incarcerated.
Characteristics of Incarcerated Youth
Recent attempts to decrease the number of incarcerated youth that was a result of the
School to Prison Pipeline have seen positive outcomes and influenced the characteristics of
youth being incarcerated. The 2010 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP)
reported that incarcerated youth declined by 33% from 1997-2010 and of these youth the number
of status offenders was down by 52% (OJJDP, 2013). The CJRP defines status offenses as
behaviors that would not be law violations for adults such as truancy. The number of youth
incarcerated for status offenses in Hawaii did not follow the national trend since this number has
been small and was consistently under 10% from 2004 to 2013 (HJJWG, 2013).
Hawaii followed the national trend with a 41% decline of incarcerated youth from 2004
to 2013, but the length of stay of Hawaii’s youth was about 5 months longer (HJJWG, 2013). A
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 25

change that did not reflect a national trend was that there was the increase of over 60% in the
number of youth adjudicated for misdemeanors like property, drug, and other nonviolent
offenses. Therefore, the population of incarcerated youth in Hawaii has declined, but stay longer
and majority of the population are misdemeanants (HJJWG, 2013).
The high number of incarcerated youth who are identified as minorities was another
characteristic identified through the literature review. Nationally, the number of minorities
incarcerated is disproportionate at a rate of more than 4.5 times more black youth and 1.8 more
Hispanic youth than white youth incarcerated (OJJDP, 2013). In Hawaii minorities are over 88%
of the incarcerated youth with over 70% of them being Native Hawaiian (HDOE, 2016a).
At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth Student Profile
At-risk and Incarcerated students are educated in alternative education programs or
programs that fall outside the traditional K-12 curriculum (Porowski, O’Connor, & Luo, 2014;
Sable, Plotts, & Mitchell, 2010). A nationwide study by Porowski, O’Connor, and Luo (2014)
conducted to define alternative education identified target population, setting, services, and
structure as the elements that should be included in a definition. This section of the study will
focus on the target population and the characteristics of at-risk and incarcerated students.
The youth center site at Aloha School is an alternative education program for at-risk
students. At-risk students are typically characterized as students who are at risk of educational
failure NCES, 2010). Truancy, poor grades, disruptive behavior, and pregnancy are oftentimes
associated with students who are at risk of educational failure and consequently attend
alternative schools or programs (NCES, 2010). In Hawaii the following criteria are used to
identify students who are at-risk of academic failure and temporary or permanent withdrawal
from school (DataWise Hawaii, 2003; “Programs and Services,” 2007):
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 26

 ten or more unauthorized absences
 two or more courses failed
 one or more grade levels behind
 three or more disciplinary referrals
 adjudicated and involved in the juvenile justice system
 pregnant or parenting
Students who meet two or more criteria are identified as at-risk, and those who meet four or
more criteria are considered severely at-risk. For a student to voluntarily attend the youth center
at Aloha School he or she must be severely at-risk. The other way students are enrolled at the
youth center is that they are disciplinarily transferred to the school by a complex area
superintendent (HDOE, 2016a).
In addition to being considered at-risk students, many of the incarcerated students
throughout the nation will have experienced abuse or neglect, unsafe neighborhood
environments, homelessness and/or involvement in the child welfare system (Leone &
Weinberg, 2012; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010; Toro, Dworsky & Fowler, 2007). A large
percentage of the incarcerated students have disabilities that require special education or related
services (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). These students are also more likely
to have lower grade point averages, lower attendance rates, and more disciplinary actions than
other public school students (Wang, Blomberg & Li, 2005). The data at the four alternative
education sites at Aloha School for incarcerated students are consistent with these nationwide
findings (HDOE, 2016a). From 2011 to 2014 an average of 55% of the school’s students
dropped out of school, the average daily attendance rate was below 80%, more than 52% of the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 27

students received free or reduced-cost lunch, and more than 41% were in special education
programs (HDOE, 2016a).
Other characteristics of incarcerated students throughout the nation are that these youth
score an average of four years below their age equivalent peers on standardized tests in reading
and math (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). Along with being behind in standardized tests the
academic achievement of these students rarely exceed elementary grade levels (Leone &
Weinberg, 2010). The educational and behavioral needs of these youth make it essential that
they receive high-quality educational services (Leone & Weinberg, 2010).
High student mobility is another characteristic common that impedes the learning of
detained and incarcerated students. Youth in detention facilities are incarcerated for an average
of less than 60 days and youth in secured residential facilities typically stay for three to twelve
months (Leone & Wruble. 2015; The Council of State Governments [CSG] Justice Center,
2015). The living environment of the youth and how long they will stay in each place is
determined by the judicial system. According to the Justice Policy Institute (2009) definitions,
detained youth are youth who are being held to ensure their appearance in court and to protect
the community from future offending. Youth in correctional facilities are placed in either
residential placement facilities or secure residential facilities (Justice Policy Institute [JPI],
2009). Residential placement can be secure or a more open setting like group homes or foster
care. Secure residential facilities are for adjudicated youth in the custody of correctional
facilities. The secured residential facilities are also referred to as training schools, residential
confinement facilities, or youth prisons. Data for student mobility at Aloha School found that
less than 50% of the students stayed for the entire school year (HDOE, 2016a). Mobility for the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 28

different types of students at the school is uncertain as the data includes the youth center students
and the HYCF students, but does not include the DH students.
Many factors contribute to the poor achievement of at-risk and incarcerated students this
section presented what was discovered through a review of the literature. The high mobility is a
good example as students that attend Aloha School may not be included in student achievement
results since they do not meet the requirement of enrollment for a full academic year. The next
section will examine student achievement for at-risk and incarcerated youth.
Student Achievement for At-Risk and Incarcerated Youth
A 2016 brief published by the U.S. Department of Education (2016) emphasized the
benefits of education for reducing the number of individuals incarcerated. The brief cites
Lochner and Moretti’s (2004) research that reports a 10% increase in graduation rate may result
in a 9% decline in criminal arrest rates. However, the education of at-risk and incarcerated youth
was influenced by public policies enacted at the national and state levels. The School to Prison
Pipeline represents the enforcement of policies that resulted in a thirty year shift to a punitive
paradigm in the justice and education systems (Wald & Losen, 2003).
To support the delivery of high-quality education for incarcerated youth the report,
Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care
Settings was published (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE] & Justice [USDOJ], 2014).
The report was a collaboration between the USDOE and the U.S. Department of Justice
(USDOJ) in an effort to address research findings that youth incarceration is not meeting the
needs of many youth or improving the safety of their community (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006).
The five guiding principles found in the report represent a joint effort by the USDOE and
USDOJ to shift the punitive mindset that was a result of the War on Drugs and the Zero
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 29

Tolerance policies to the mindset that improves educational outcomes for incarcerated youth.
The Guiding Principles (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014) are:
1. A safe, facility-wide climate that promotes education, provides the conditions for
learning, and encourages the necessary behavioral and social support services that
address the individual needs of all youths, including those with disabilities and English
learners.
2. Necessary funding to support educational opportunities for all youths within long-term
secure care facilities, including those with disabilities and English learners, comparable
to opportunities for peers who are not system-involved.
3. Recruitment, employment, and retention of qualified education staff with skills relevant
in juvenile justice settings who can positively impact long-term student outcomes
through demonstrated abilities to create and sustain effective teaching and learning
environments.
4. Rigorous and relevant curricula aligned with state academic and career and technical
education standards that utilize instructional methods, tools, materials and practices that
promote college- and career-readiness.
5. Formal processes and procedures – through statutes, memoranda of understanding, and
practices – that ensure successful navigation across child-serving systems and smooth
reentry into communities.
The recommendations in the USDOJ and USDOE report are intended to promote the
rehabilitation and redirection of incarcerated youth by addressing their educational and related
needs (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014). If the recommendations are followed and the educational
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 30

outcomes improve then gains in student achievement for at-risk and incarcerated youth should
also be realized. Studies have also found that education will decrease delinquency for youth
(Blomberg et al., 2011; Foley, 2001) and reduce recidivism (Blomberg et al., 2011). Therefore,
following the recommendations of the report should reduce the number of incarcerated youth and
adults as well as improve student achievement.
Brief History of Student Achievement
Education for all students has been a focus of the nation for more than fifty years. This
movement reflects the belief of the early American education reformer Horace Mann who stated,
“Education, then, beyond all other divides of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of
men – the balance wheel of the social machinery” (Mann, 1957, p.87). In 1965 President
Lyndon Johnson used the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 to attach
federal money to the education of disadvantage children, children of low income families,
children of migratory agricultural workers, handicapped, and neglected and delinquent children
(Groen, 2012). The ESEA has been reauthorized several times with changes to improve the
education of the targeted groups of youth. The reauthorization of ESEA in 1994, also known as
the Improving America’s Schools Act, shifted accountability provisions by having schools use a
standards-based curriculum for instruction. In the 2001 reauthorization called No Child Left
Behind introduced accountability measures that were added to the provision of having a
standards-based curriculum (NCLB, 2001). The accountability measures were usually high
stakes test. To ensure that students are making academic progress NCLB disperses funds to the
poorest schools with the lowest student achievement based on the student results of these tests
(Groen, 2012). Student achievement for at-risk and incarcerated youth is also included as a
focus of NCLB as Title I, Part D specifically addresses assuring high academic levels of
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 31

achievement for delinquent and neglected youth in institutions, day programs, and correctional
facilities (NCLB, 2001).
Measuring Student Achievement in Hawaii
The way student achievement is measured in Hawaii has been in transition since the
2012-2013 school year. In the 2012-2013 school year Hawaii began transitioning from the
previous NCLB accountability system to the Hawaii Department of Education’s Strive HI
accountability system. In the Strive HI system science achievement continues to be measured
using the HCPS and HSA. However, in the 2012-2013 school year the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) was adopted to guide instruction in English and math. The assessment
aligned to the CCSS and used to measure student achievement in these areas is the Smarter
Balanced Assessment (SBA). To ease the transition to the SBA as the measure of student
achievement in reading and math, the Hawaii DOE continued to administer the Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA) in 2012-2013. In the 2013-2014 school year a HSA-SBA bridge assessment
was used in place of the HSA alone. The SBA became the sole measure of student achievement
for reading and math in the 2014-2015 school year.
The way the new Strive HI accountability system uses the student achievement results
and other school level data is through the Strive HI Index. The index is a diagnostic tool to give
schools a score between 0 and 400 points that are distributed across the areas of achievement,
growth, readiness, and achievement gaps (HDOE, 2016h). The points are used to place
elementary, middle or intermediate, and high schools in one of five steps; Recognition,
Continuous Improvement, Focus, Priority, and Superintendent’s Zone (HDOE, 2016h). The
steps are used to determine the amount and type of support a school will receive. Based on the
Strive HI index results Aloha School was placed in the Priority step (HDOE, 2016a).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 32

Student Achievement for Aloha School
Hawaii is one of three states where the state education agency oversees education in all
facilities for incarcerated youth (CSG, 2015). The state is also one of 23 states that has students
participate in the state education accountability system and the school obtained nationally
recognized accreditation (CSG, 2015). As there are no national education standards for
incarcerated youth. An examination of how standards from different states may influence the
allocation of resources will be presented in chapter four. However, for this section of the
literature review student achievement at Aloha School will be presented the same way it would
be presented for any school in the state.
The student achievement results for Aloha School are based on data from HYCF and the
youth center. DH is not included in the report since the length of stay for the detained students is
unpredictable, therefore they maintain enrollment at their home school. Based on Strive HI
accountability system the school scored 48 out of 400 possible points in school year 2012-2013
(HDOE, 2016a). This score puts Aloha School in the Priority step, which identifies the school as
being in the 5% of Hawaii schools with persistently low achievement (HDOE, 2016a). The
results found in the school’s 2012-2013 Strive HI report showed that 27% of the students met or
exceeded proficiency on the reading assessment, 8% of the students met or exceeded proficiency
on the math assessment, and 3% of the students met or exceeded proficiency on the science
assessment (HDOE, 2016a). The 2013-2014 school year was the year the HSA-SBA bridge
assessment was administered. This year the student achievement results for the school were 51%
of the students met or exceeded proficiency on the reading assessment, 9% of the students met or
exceeded proficiency on the math assessment, and 5% of the students met or exceeded
proficiency on the science assessment (HDOE, 2016a).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 33

In the 2014-2015 school year scores were expected to be lower since it was the first year
the Smarter Balanced Assessment was administered. The Statewide results for the SBA were
lower than previous years with 48% of the school’s students meeting or exceeding proficiency on
the reading assessment, 41% met or exceeded proficiency on the math assessment, and 42% of
the students met or exceeded proficiency on the science assessment. The scores for Aloha School
were also lower with 17% of the school’s students met or exceeded proficiency on the reading
assessment, 0% met or exceeded proficiency on the math assessment, and 9% of the students met
or exceeded proficiency on the science assessment. The scores continued to reflect the
consistent low student achievement at Aloha School (HDOE, 2016a). The poor student
achievement at the school may result in an unsuccessful transition back to schools within the
Hawaii educational system and the unlikely successful transition back into the community.
Table 2.1
Aloha School - Strive HI Results 2013-2015
Assessment 2012-2013
(HSA)
2013-2014
(HSA/SBA)
2014-2015
(SBA)
Reading 27% 51% 17%
Math 8% 9% 0%
Science 3% 5% 9%
Source: Hawaii Department of Education (2016a)
10 Strategies to Improve Student Learning
Aloha School has history of poor student achievement that may be attributed to any of the
student characteristics of being at-risk or incarcerated such as, being grade levels behind, abused,
or a drug user or the use of strategies to improve student learning. The first research question
focuses on how resources are allocated at the school to improve student achievement. Allan
Odden’s 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (2009) is the framework that will be
used to examine increasing student achievement at Aloha School. The doubling of student
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 34

performance is not limited to a literal doubling of improvement, but rather a term to identify
substantial indisputable gains (Odden, 2009). For example, increasing the percent of students
meeting proficiency from 65% to 90% or a significant number of students within a subgroup
moving from a lower level of proficiency to a higher level. Odden’s (2009) framework is based
upon research conducted at schools and districts that have successfully allocated resources in a
manner that has yielded substantial indisputable gains in student performance. The strategies are
presented in detail in the appendix A and will be used in chapter four to examine how the school
improvement strategies to increase student achievement may be evident at Aloha School.
Resource Allocation
Originally the ESEA funded more than 90% of the school districts to help educate
children from low-income households (DeBray 2006). The intention was to fund as many
districts as possible to ensure all youth were educated. The focus of ESEA was shifted when
NCLB prioritized the distribution of funds to target the poorest schools with the lowest student
achievement to ensure that students are making academic progress (Groen, 2012). The shift in
the way funds were dispersed was important as it lead to discussions about the equitable or
adequate distribution of money for education.
School Finance
The ESEA demonstrates that fiscal equity in education has a long history. Fiscal equity
is the attempt to distribute funds for education equally across states, districts, schools, and
students (Odden & Picus, 2014). As NCLB shifted the focus to student achievement the focus of
school finance also changed. With the focus on student achievement the challenge is to provide
adequate levels of funding for each district/school to ensure each student meets the state
standards (Odden & Picus, 2014). The shift of education focusing on fiscal equity to the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 35

effective use of funds and financial adequacy has made it important for educational leaders to be
knowledgeable about both fiscal equity and financial adequacy (Baker, 2005; Odden, 2003).
Stakeholders in education need to determine academic goals, the amount of funding required to
accomplish those goals, and how to distribute those funds (Odden, 2003). Often both equity and
adequacy objectives are met in one process if adequacy is improved (Baker, 2005; Odden, 2003).
Odden (2003) suggests three strategies to determine financial need and the appropriate revenue
levels for schools:
 Determine the costs of effective programs and strategies
 Apply those costs to an effective school finance structure
 Ensure resources are used to produce desired results
Determining foundation expenditure levels is essential to achieving adequacy (Baker,
2005). Odden and Picus (2014) proposed four approaches to determining these expenditure
levels. One approach identifies districts that have experienced noticeable academic success and
also determines the district’s weighted average per pupil expenditures. Another approach uses
regression analysis with per pupil expenditures as the dependent variable then uses district
characteristics and desired outcomes as the independent variables. Yet another approach calls
upon experts in each level of education (elementary, middle, high, and special needs) to identify
key educational strategies for each level, determine the components of these strategies, and then
calculate the sum for all the components. The last approach is the evidence based approach that
first determines the elements contributing to academic success within a district, then identifies an
adequate expenditure level for these elements, and then determines the total cost. The Evidence
Based Model will be introduced as the framework being used in for this study later in this
section.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 36

Allocated Resources for Aloha School
Hawaii has a system that requires schools report how they are allocating funds to improve
student achievement. The system in Hawaii requires every public school to have an Academic
Plan and a financial plan that uses data to identify areas of focus that the school will address to
improve student achievement (HDOE, 2016d). The 2016-2017 school year Academic Plan for
Aloha School identifies three areas focus to address the school’s history of poor academic
achievement.
The first area of focus is student achievement which distributes funds to support teacher
implementation of standards within all aspects of curriculum, instruction, and assessment using
the Data Team process to support and monitor teacher progress (HDOE, 2016d). The Data Team
process is one of the 6 Priority Strategies that are intended to operationalize Hawaii’s State
Strategic Plan (HDOE, 2016g). The Data Team process has teachers collaborate and share ideas
regarding student performance to improve instruction and increase student achievement (HDOE,
2016g). Aloha School identified student achievement as an area of focus since the data shows
that the students are behind in reading and math skills, deficient in credits necessary to graduate
by one to three or more years, and also score either “Approaching” or Well Below” on the state
standardize test (HDOE, 2016g).
Second area of focus is student engagement. The narrative in the Academic Plan points
to attendance, student mobility, behavioral, and motivational issues as the concerns this area of
focus is intended to address (HDOE, 2016g). The three year desired outcome for this area is to
improve school processes and implement research-based strategies with a focus on inquiry based
multidisciplinary learning in order to increase student engagement and motivation (HDOE,
2016g).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 37

The third area of focus is system support which is intended to be a structured system that
monitors and supports all school processes, programs, and communication to enhance school
improvement efforts (HDOE, 2016g). This section list technology, support of teacher efficacy
efforts, parent and community engagement, additional personnel to support school improvement
initiatives, and the support of non-highly qualified teachers as the activities that will be used to
help the school reach its goals (HDOE, 2016g). This area of focus not only supports the school
improvement efforts found in the other two areas of focus, but also addresses data that show the
lack of parent and community involvement and challenges presented by the physical separation
of the five school sites.
As a Priority School the Academic Plan spans three years so Aloha School has had the
same plan since the 2014-2015 school year. The school then added updates to activities and
funding of the activities for the next two years. In the 2016-2017 plan a budget of about
$828,000 is distributed to student achievement (17%), student engagement (43%), and system
support (40%). At this point it is unclear whether the funds came from the extra money provided
as a Priority School or from the money provided as a line item in the state budget. There are
future issues with both of these funding sources. The school is expected to move out of the
Priority School step and will not get the extra funding once it moves out of this step. The
allocation from the state is expected to decrease as the student enrollment at the school is
declining. Funds may become an issue for the school, but current funding appears to have
helped the school improve in some of the targeted areas of the Academic Plan.
The data for the school shows improvement in attendance, reading achievement, and the
graduation rate over the past two years (HDOE, 2016b). The 2014-2015 Trend Report (HDOE,
2016c) also includes data showing improvement in ninth grade retention, the number of highly-
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 38

qualified teacher, and the number of licensed teachers. Since the 2012-2013 school year the
school has steadily increased the number of points it received using the Strive HI index. In
2014-2015 the school received 124 points (HDOE, 2016a). Many factors may have contributed
to these results, such as the activities found in the Academic Plan, decrease in student enrollment
which allowed teachers smaller class sizes, or additional funds provided as a result of being
identified as a Priority School. Studies that examine the relationship between the improvements
to any of these factors would be beneficial. However, the purpose of this case study is to
compare the resource allocations for Aloha School to the Evidence Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2014) to inform stakeholders of the similarities and dissimilarities between the ways funds
are used to support student achievement.
Evidence Based Model
The resource allocation for Aloha School will be compared to what would be provided by
the Evidence Based Model (EBM) for a prototypical high school and 1 plus 1: 7 model for an
alternative high school (Odden & Picus, 2014). The EBM examines resource allocations based
on providing adequate levels of funding so all students have an equal opportunity to meet their
state’s performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014). This topic is relevant in Hawaii as
funding for education has steadily decreased and Hawaii begins the implementation of the new
Strive HI accountability system which is based on the Common Core State Standards and the
Smarter Balanced Assessment. Odden and Picus (2014) write that only securing enough money
to run a school does not solve the funding issue. Developing a school finance system that is
aligned with evidence-based resource allocation strategies is a challenge. The Evidence Based
Model (EBM) uses research-based evidence to highlight the most effective educational practices
and then allocates resources accordingly (Odden & Picus, 2014). Odden and Picus (2014)
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 39

believe the EBM is the most grounded approach to resource allocation. This section will present
the EBM prototypical high school and the 1 Plus 1:7 model for alternative learning
environments.
The following figure provides a comprehensive visual explanation of the EBM:

Figure 2.1. Evidence-Based Model Explanation
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)
Prototypical high school. School characteristics and personnel resources are two
elements of the prototypical high school in the EBM. The school characteristics include school
configuration, school size, number of teacher workdays, and the percentages of students who are
classified as special education, low-income, English language learner (ELL), and minority. The
characteristics are important as personnel resources are calculated based on the characteristics
related to the student population. The second aspect of the prototypical high school, which is
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence-Based Model:
A Research/Best Practices Approach Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 40

examined in detail below, provides adequacy recommendations for staffing categories and dollar
categories.
Core teachers. In the prototypical regular high school of 600 students there are 24.0 FTE
licensed core subject-specific teachers based upon class sizes of 25 students which is the national
class size average for secondary schools (Odden & Picus, 2014). In high schools, core teachers
would be content area departments such as English/language arts, mathematics, science, and
social studies/history (Odden & Picus, 2014). Special education and bilingual teachers that teach
these subject matters are also included in the 24 teachers.
Specialist and elective teachers. Specialist teachers, including librarians, are licensed to
teach noncore courses such as art, music, and vocational and physical education. Offering
elective courses allow schools to provide core teachers with time to engage in professional
development activities like collaborative planning and curriculum development (Odden & Picus,
2014). Based on the model, an additional 33.33% allocation or 8.0 FTE specialist or elective
teaching positions are allocated to allow the core teachers one period for professional
development in a four block 90-minute period schedule.
Instructional facilitators/mentors. Instructional facilitators/mentors facilitate the
implementation of school initiatives and professional development. The prototypical regular high
school includes 3.0 FTE positions for instructional facilitators and mentors (Odden & Picus,
2014). Teacher mentors, coaches, or curriculum coordinators and technology coordinators
would be included in this category.
Tutors for struggling students. The prototypical regular high school includes 1.0
certified tutor for every 100 students who are eligible to receive free and reduced-price lunch
which comes out to 3.0 tutors for struggling students (Odden & Picus, 2014).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 41

Teachers for ELL students. Bilingual education teachers provide instruction to students
for whom English is not their primary language. The EBM for regular high schools provides an
additional 1.0 FTE teacher position for every 100 ELL students (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Extended day. The prototypical regular high school includes 2.5 FTE to extend the
school day for struggling students. The number of FTE reflects a rate of 1.0 teaching positions
for every 15 students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (Odden & Picus, 2014). The
number is appropriate since research suggests providing services for 50% of the students who are
eligible for free-and-reduced price lunch (Kleiner, Nolin, & Chapman, 2004). The EBM
extended day program would meet 5 days a week for 2.5 to 3.0 hours with each teacher position
equaling 25% of an annual teacher salary (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Summer school. The staffing allocation for summer school is based on the research that
50% of students who are eligible for free-and-reduced price lunch will require summer school
(Capizzano, Adelman, & Stagner, 2002). The prototypical regular high school includes 2.5 FTE
for summer school (Odden & Picus, 2014). The number of FTE for summer school should be
adjusted over time to match the actual number of students who are eligible for free-and-reduced
price lunch (Odden & Picus, 2014). The cost of each FTE summer school teacher position is
equal to 25% of the annual teacher salary, which provides an eight week program for 6 hours per
day (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Teachers for students with learning and mild disabilities. The EBM calls for early and
collaborative intervention together with a census approach to determine resources for special
education students with lower-cost and high-incidence disabilities (Odden & Picus, 2014). The
prototypical high school includes 4 positions for the census funding of special-education teachers
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 42

that provides services at a standard rate for all schools and districts is based on the premise that
the incidence of various categories of disabilities is equal for all schools and districts.
Teachers for students with severe disabilities. For students who are severely
emotionally disturbed (ED), severely mentally and/or physically handicapped, and children with
the spectrum of autism the EBM encourages clustering services to increase cost-effectiveness
where feasible (Odden & Picus, 2014). Another suggestion is that the state reimburses the
districts 100% of costs associated with students who are severely disabled, minus Federal Title
VIB funds.
Substitutes. The Evidence-Based Model recommends allocating for substitutes when
teachers require sick leave for one or two days, long-term illness or pregnancy, or other reasons.
The prototypical regular and alternative high school includes a substitute allocation based upon
5% of all previously discussed teacher positions. (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Pupil support staff. The EBM high school includes 5.4 FTE for pupil support staff
which reflects 1.0 FTE for every 100 students characterized as living in poverty plus 1.0
guidance staff for every 250 students (Odden & Picus, 2008). Personnel for student support
include guidance counselors, social workers, psychologists, and therapists, facilitates the
implementation of the schools’ student support and family outreach strategy (Odden & Picus,
2014).
Other non-instructional aides. To relieve classroom teachers from nonteaching duties
that detract attention from their primary instructional focus the prototypical regular high school
recommends 3.0 FTE aide positions for lunchroom duty and playground supervision (Odden &
Picus, 2014).
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 43

Librarians and media specialists. The EBM recommends that each regular high school
have 2.0 FTE, a librarian and library technician, to operate the library system.
Principal (administrator). The Evidence Based Model strongly recommends each
school site or “school unit” have a principal (Odden & Picus, 2014). The EBM suggests
subdividing schools with large enrollments into separate school units within the site (Odden &
Picus, 2014). For the prototypical regular high school unit with grades from 9-12 and an
enrollment from 150 to 600 students 1.0 FTE licensed principal is recommended. The model
prorates the 1.0 FTE principal position, either up or down by pupil counts, for schools larger than
600 students and smaller than 150 respectively (Odden & Picus, 2014).
School site secretary. The prototypical regular high school allocates 3.0 secretary
positions that can include a 12-month position for the senior secretary and 9-month positions for
clerk/typist staff (Odden & Picus, 2014). Secretarial support provides administrative and clerical
help in the school office with paperwork and other operational tasks.
Professional development. The purpose of professional development is to improve
teachers’ competencies in delivering high quality instruction. The EBM recommends allocating
professional development resources to support the improvement of instruction in core academic
areas including math, science, reading/language arts, and history (Odden & Picus, 2014). The
model separates professional development expenditures into teacher time for professional
development, on-site coaches, collaborative planning time, and training and conference
expenses.
In the EBM, professional development involves time during the summer for intensive
training institutes. The model recommends 10 days dedicated to intensive training before the
start of the school year (Odden & Picus, 2014). The cost of the 10 days of professional
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 44

development is calculated by dividing the average teacher salary by 200 to determine the daily
rate, then multiplying that amount by 10, which is the number of professional development days.
As a result, the average teacher salary changes to also include the 10 days of professional
development.
To help teachers incorporate learning from professional development days and
professional learning the EBM recommends on-site coaching provide support to teachers what
they are learning into their instructional practice. The model suggest 1 coach for every 200
students, which is the same as the 3.0 instructional facilitators/mentors mentioned above for the
prototypical high school of 600 students (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Along with the training provided by professional development and the on-site coaching to
support teachers in the implementation of what was learned the EBM calls for collaborative
planning and preparation periods. The dedicated time blocks will provide teachers with the time
and opportunities during the school day to improve instruction through teacher collaboration and
teacher preparation. The prototypical high school can use the school-level personnel resources
provided for specialist teachers in the EBM to allow for collaborative planning and preparation
periods.
The last component of professional development includes expenses related to the cost of
bringing in trainers, materials, equipment and facilities, travel and transportation, and conference
fees. The prototypical regular and alternative high school includes $50 per pupil for these
professional development expenses (Odden & Picus, 2014). This aspect of professional
development is reflected a dollar category resource allocation in table below.
Technology and equipment. The EBM for the prototypical regular and the alternative
high school includes $250 per pupil for technology to purchase, maintain, and upgrade copiers,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 45

computer hardware and medium-priced software for administrative and financial systems (Odden
& Picus, 2014). The dollar-per-pupil allocation for technology also provides access to distance-
learning and web-based testing programs. Figured in to the allocation is a computer for every
administrator, teacher, and key school-level staff while allowing a computer for every four
students (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Instructional materials. Instructional materials include up-to-date, accurate textbooks
and instructional supplies. Some examples of these types of materials are math manipulatives,
science supplies to demonstrate the relevant application of concepts within regular instruction,
and extra-help supports for struggling students. The EBM for the prototypical regular and the
alternative high school allocates $175 per pupil for instructional materials. From the total
amount $25 per pupil is used for library text and electronic services. The remaining $150 is to
be spent on textbooks and consumable instructional materials to support regular instruction and
extra-help strategies for most non-severe special education students who are covered by special
education funds (Odden & Picus, 2014). The dollar-per-pupil amount for instructional materials
is not adjusted for school or district size based on the assumption that contract decisions occur at
the state level.
Student activities. The Evidence Based Model recommends a $250 dollar-per-pupil
allocation at the prototypical and alternative high school to pay teachers small stipends for
supervising extra-curricular programs such as clubs, sports, and band (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Table 2.1 presents the EBM’s recommendations for adequate resource levels necessary to
implement research-based strategies to improve student performance at prototypical high
schools.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 46

Table 2.2
EBM - Adequate Resources for Prototypical High Schools
School Element Prototypical High School
SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
School configuration 9-12
School size 600
Full-day kindergarten NA
Number of teacher workdays 200 teacher workdays, including 10 days
for intensive training
% disabled 12%
% poverty (free and reduce-price lunch) 50%
% ELL 10%
% minority (non-White) 30%
STAFFING CATEGORY
Core teachers 24
Specialist teachers 8.0 (33% more)
Instructional facilitators/mentors 3.0
Tutors for struggling students 3.0 (one for every 100 poverty students)
Teachers for ELL students 0.60 (Additional 1.0 teachers for every 100
ELL students)
Extended-day 2.5
Summer school 2.5
Learning and mildly disabled students Additional 4.0 professional teacher
positions
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal
funds
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 47

Teachers for gifted students $25/student
Vocational education No extra cost
Substitutes 5% of previous personnel items
Pupil support staff 5.4 (1.0 for every 100 poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250 students)
Non-instructional aides 3.0
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 librarian
1.0 library technician
Principal 1.0
School site secretary 3.0
Dollars per Pupil
Professional development Included above: Instructional coaches,
planning and prep time, 10 summer days
Additional: $50/pupil for other PD
expenses—trainers, conferences, travel,
etc.
Technology $250/pupil
Instructional materials $175/pupil
Student activities $250/pupil
Source: Odden and Picus (2014)
1 Plus 1:7 Model. The data for Aloha School will also be compared to the Evidence
Based Model 1 Plus 1:7 for alternative high schools (Odden & Picus, 2014). The 1 Plus 1:7
model uses components of the prototypical high school model and presents the deviations from
the model to show adequate staffing levels for alternative learning environments. The deviations
are implemented based on enrollment requirements, which varies from state to state. The
alternative high school includes a 1.0 administrator position priced at the level of an assistant
principal. The model recommends 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) position for every 7 alternative
school students to encompass all staff at the site including core teachers, specialist teachers,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 48

instructional facilitators/mentors, tutors for struggling students, teachers for ELL students,
extended day, summer school, teachers for disabled students, substitutes, pupil support staff,
non-instructional aides, librarians, and school site secretary. The alternative high school includes
the same dollar category allocations as the prototypical high school for elements of the education
program including professional development, technology, instructional materials, and student
activities. Table 2.2 shows the Evidence-Based 1 Plus 1:7 Model recommendations for adequate
resource levels necessary to implement research-based strategies to improve student performance
within alternative learning environments.
Table 2.3
EBM - Adequate Resources for Alternative High Schools (1+1:7 Model)
PERSONEL RESOURCES
School Element Alternative High School (1+1:7 Model)
Teaching and support staff (1.0 teachers for every 7 alternative
education students)
Administrator 1.0 (priced at the level of an assistant
principal)

Summary
This literature review examined the current and relevant topics related to examining
resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii. First, the public
policies that influenced at-risk and incarcerated youth, the characteristics of these youth in
general, and the characteristics of these youth as students in the school were provided. The
examination of the public policies revealed a shift to a punitive paradigm which led to the
increase of incarcerated youth (Wald & Losen, 2003). The part of this section found that youth
at Aloha School had characteristics similar to the rest of the nation. The one characteristic stood
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 49

out for Aloha School was that Native Hawaiians were the largest minority race represented at the
school at over 70% (HDOE, 2016a). Finally, as students this group of youth have many
challenges such as poor grades (NCES, 2010), disabilities (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, &
Poirier, 2005), rarely exceeding elementary grade levels (Leone & Weinberg, 2010), and high
mobility (Leone & Wruble. 2015; CSG, 2015). The literature reviewed in this section provided
information to understand the population being studied.
The second topic examined how student achievement is measured then looked at the
student achievement for at-risk and incarcerated youth at Aloha School. NCLB shifted the focus
of education by having states develop accountability systems that measure student achievement
(Groen, 2012). Resources are provided to the poorest schools with the lowest student
achievement based on student achievement results. The student achievement results for Aloha
School identifies the school as being in the 5% of Hawaii schools with persistently low
achievement (HDOE, 2016a). The Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in
Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014) which was a joint effort by the
USDOE and USDOJ reflects the movement towards ensuring that incarcerated youth improve
academically. Therefore, Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Achievement was
presented in this topic as the framework that will be used to examine effective educational
practices at the school for incarcerated and at-risk youth in Hawaii.
Finally, resource allocation for the type of school being studied was covered as research
has shown the benefits of education for incarcerated youth (Blomberg et al., 2011; Foley, 2001).
In this section Aloha School’s focus on student achievement, student engagement, and system
support was provided to present what the school is implementing to improve student
achievement. The Evidence Based Model (EBM) was presented in this section as the framework
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 50

that will be used to examine resource allocations at Aloha School. The EBM is an appropriate
framework since it is based on providing adequate level of funding so all students have an equal
opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014) and research
shows that student achievement can reduce delinquency (Blomberg et al., 2011; Foley, 2001).
As the literature indicates, there is a need to examine effective resource management for schools
with at-risk and incarcerated youth. The focus on improving student achievement for at-risk and
incarcerated youth has led to this need. Aloha School is facing the challenge of trying to help
students who have typically failed in school to meet rigorous academic standards with funding
sources that are uncertain. To explore how this might be accomplished the school needs to know
what educational practices are most effective and how to align their resources with those practices.
The EBM is an effective tool for recommending such alignments. If any gaps are identified by the
data of the EBM then further analysis is needed in order to correct the source of the gap and begin
improvement in that area. The following chapter will address the methodology for conducting the
study at Aloha School.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to compare the resource allocation at a school for at-risk
and incarcerated students to the resource allocation found in the Evidence Based Model (EBM)
(Odden & Picus, 2014). The findings will inform educational practitioners, policy makers,
funders, and researchers of the similarities and dissimilarities of the current resource allocations
at the school and the EBM method of allocating resources to improve student learning. This
chapter provides the methodology, research questions, sample and population, instrumentation,
data collection, and data analysis that were used in this study.
Methodology
The case study method was selected to conduct this study. Merriam (2009) defines a case
study as being an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system. This method is
appropriate since the researcher is a staff member at the school; therefore the misinterpretation of
the data was minimized and information not otherwise available was accessible. The study was
bounded to one school for at-risk and incarcerated students within the Hawaii Department of
Education and the data analyzed were initially collected from the 2014-2015 school year. The
2014-2015 school year was selected because it is the most recent school year that has all the
public data available. This school year is also significant because this is the first year that the
Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) was fully implemented and it was the first year of Aloha
School’s three year Priority School Academic Plan. Therefore, the data from the 2014-2015
school year provided a baseline for the examination of additional data from the 2015-2016
Academic Plan, 2016-2017 Academic Plan and 2015-2016 SBA results that added to the
description of the current resource allocation at Aloha School.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 52

Based on Merriam (2009) the type of case study being conducted was what Stake (2005)
identifies as an instrumental case study or a case study that is conducted to provide insight on an
issue, which for this study is resource allocation to improve the academic achievement of
students at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth. The objective of this study was to use the
EBM to examine the school’s resource allocations based on providing adequate level of funding
to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards.
The study compared differences between actual resource allocation at Aloha School and
the resources recommended by the Evidence Based Model (EBM) for a prototypical high school
and 1 plus 1: 7 model for an alternative high school (Odden & Picus, 2014). The EBM was used
as the framework for this study since it is based on providing adequate levels of funding for all
students to have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards (Odden &
Picus, 2014). Comparing the resource allocation recommended by EBM to the resource
allocation practices at Aloha School helped to identify the similarities and dissimilarities in how
funds are used to support student achievement.
Odden’s 10 strategies for Doubling Student Performance (2009) was also used to analyze
data to determine how many strategies were being employed to improve student achievement
and if the resources were distributed sufficiently to support these strategies. Using this
information was appropriate as Odden (2009) links his strategies to EBM as a way to turn
resource needs into an adequately funded state school finance system.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are:
1. How are resources allocated at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth to improve
student achievement?
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 53

2. How does resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth compare to
the Evidence-Based Model detailed by Odden and Picus (2014)?
Sample and Population
Merriam (2009) makes the distinction that case studies usually have two levels of
sampling. The case to be studied is the first level of sampling and the second level is a sampling
within the case. Aloha School was purposefully selected for this study because it is a school for
at-risk and the only public school in Hawaii for incarcerated students. The publishing of the
Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working group Final Report (2013) indicate that these youth are of
particular interest to educational stakeholders in Hawaii. The interest in incarcerated youth by
stakeholders throughout the nation is also evident with the release of Guiding Principles for
Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings report.
The student population studied is appropriate as leaders look for ways to increase student
achievement for these youth. The school is one of approximately 2,800 residential facilities for
incarcerated youth across the nation (OJJDP, 2011) and the only youth facility in Hawaii. This
population of students is of particular interest to leaders in the justice system since education has
been found to decrease delinquency for youth (Blomberg et al., 2011; Foley, 2001) and reduce
recidivism (Blomberg et al., 2011).
The second level of sampling is the respondents for the study. The Complex Area
Superintendent, School Renewal Specialist for the complex, school Principal, school Vice
Principal and school academic coach were purposefully selected. The five individuals were
identified through the public documents as having knowledge of resource allocation and plans to
improve student achievement at the school.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 54

The sample size for this study is small so the findings are cannot be generalizable.
However, Merriam (2009) writes that the in-depth description found in case studies allow readers
to determine what can apply to their situation. The school is a public school within in the Hawaii
Department of Education that is held to all the accountability measures of any other public
school in the state. As a result the student information is consistent with students across the
state. Therefore within the state the findings will provide information on how a public school
may allocate resources based on providing adequate level of funding so these types of students
have an equal opportunity to meet the state’s performance standards. Nationwide readers may
use the information to examine how resources for the incarcerated youth may be allocated to
improve student achievement.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The study was conducted within a thematic dissertation group in Hawaii from the
University of Southern California’s Rossier’s School of Education consisting of other
researchers collecting data and creating similar studies. To prepare for this study, in December of
2013, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus led a nine-hour training for a thematic dissertation. The training
covered crafting research questions, reviewing dissertations, examining theoretical frameworks,
and establishing thematic group writing teams. The cohort members were permitted to use a
model which provided each researcher the opportunity to independently enter all personnel
resources allocated to school sites they were studying. This process allowed the researchers to
input data into the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014) and generate proposals based
on the model’s recommended resource allocations.
In a case study Merriam (2009) identifies the researcher being the primary instrument of
data collection. The researcher collected data from the publicly available documents containing
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 55

the necessary information to compare current resource allocation of Aloha School with the
resource allocation found in the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2014). Hawaii is data rich, so the public
documents provided multiple years of data on student achievement and resource allocation that is
common for all schools in the Hawaii DOE. The data collection protocol (see Appendix C) was
used to collect data from the School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR), the Trend Report,
the Academic Plan, the Financial Plan, the Strive HI Accountability Report, and the Hawaii DOE
Operating Budget Report. The data collected for the school was then be entered into the Odden
and Picus’ (2014) Evidence-Based Model for comparative results.
Additional data were collected through the narratives in the documents retrieved online
and interviews with Complex Area Superintendent, School Renewal Specialist for the complex,
school Principal, Vice Principal and academic coach. The narratives were used to link
allocations to programs intended to address student achievement and the outcomes of the
programs. The interviews were semi-structured and began with questions from the interview
protocol (see Appendix E) approved by University of Southern California and Hawaii DOE
institutional review boards (IRB). The protocol was used in each of the two thirty minute
interviews that were conducted with the five interviewees identified above. The first interview
validated and provided further insight on the publicly available data collected. The second
interview was to ascertain the respondents’ views as to the adequacy of the resources provided
by the EBM for alternative schools. The interviews were conducted after receiving the informed
consent of each of the respondents. Upon the completion of all interviews, the data were
transcribed and summarized for further analysis.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 56

Data Analysis
According to Merriam (2009) data analysis and data collection in case studies are seen as
an ongoing process that starts simultaneously with the coding or categorizing of the large
amounts of data used to write the in-depth description. Data for this study was collected and
analyzed with the intention of answering each of the research questions for this study. The
Evidence-Based Model (Picus & Odden, 2014) was used as the conceptual model for examining
resources allocated at Aloha School. Merriam (2009) identifies that the limitations of a case
study is reliability and validity linked to the researcher being the primary instrument of data
collection and analysis. In acknowledgement of these limitations publicly available data were
first inputted in to the data collection protocol to limit researcher bias and the interview protocol
was followed when interviews were conducted. The data from the interviews were used to
validate the publicly available data as well as gather additional information from stakeholders.
Data analysis began with the collection of public data available for Aloha School. After
the data were collected using the data collection protocol the data for the school were then
inputted into the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014). The similarities and
dissimilarities between the current resource allocation for the school and the EBM for a
prototypical high school and an alternative school were then compared. Subsequently, interview
data were used to triangulate the data generated through the examination of the documents.
Interview data were then analyzed to provide more information explaining how
expenditures were determined, how they are utilized, if the resources are adequate, and if what
the school would get based on the EBM for alternative schools would be enough. Questions
about Odden’s (2009) 10 strategies were asked to determine which effective strategies are being
employed within the school. The semi-structured interviews allowed the interviewer to follow
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 57

up the questions from the protocol with questions that added detail to the response of the
interviewee which enriched the description of this study.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 58

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine how resources allocation at a school for at-risk
and incarcerated youth compares to the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014). The
Evidence Based Model (EBM) was used as the framework for this study as the school has
consistently poor student achievement and the model is based on providing adequate levels of
funding for all students to have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards
(Odden & Picus, 2014). This chapter provides an analysis of the comparison between actual
resource allocation at the school and the resource allocation recommended by the EBM to
identify the dissimilarities in how funds were used to support student achievement. Since Odden
(2009) links his 10 strategies for Doubling Student Performance to the EBM a comparison to
these strategies was also done to determine how many of the ten are being employed to improve
student achievement and if the resources are distributed sufficiently to support these strategies.
The research questions that guided this study are:
1. How are resources allocated at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth to improve
student achievement?
2. How does resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth compare to
the Evidence-Based Model detailed by Odden and Picus (2014)?
During the data collection it was determined that Aloha School would be best compared
to the Evidence Based Model (EBM) as a whole school, an alternative high school, and a school
for incarcerated youth. The whole school will represent the way the school is set up within the
Hawaii Department of Education as a secondary school that educates at-risk students. The
alternative high school would only use data related to the youth center and not any data from the
detention home or the correctional facilities. This would provide results best aligned to the EBM
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 59

1 plus 1: 7 model for alternative schools as the model was not intended for detained or
incarcerated youth. The school for incarcerated youth would only include data from correctional
facility and research related to these types of schools would be used to extend the EBM 1 plus
1:7 model.
The analysis for the three types of schools will be found within the results for each of the
research questions. This chapter is organized in three parts. First, an overview of Aloha School
is provided with additional information necessary to understand the whole school, alternative
secondary school, and school for incarcerated youth. The second part is a presentation of the
results for both research questions. The third part is a discussion of the results in the form of a
summary.
Overview of School
The original intent of the study was to examine Aloha School as one school for at-risk
youth as it is characterized in the Hawaii Department of Education. As the data from the 2014-
2015 SSIR (HDOE, 2016b) were being collected and analyzed it revealed that there were 42
teacher positions for the 72 students. Further analysis uncovered that the different sites and the
set-up of the facility for incarcerated youth needed to be part of the analysis to better understand
the teacher to student ratio. Based on this information it was determined that more description of
the school was necessary. The overview provides additional information about Aloha School
and the three types of schools essential to understand the results for both research questions in
the study.
School Types
Whole School. The whole school represents the way the school is set up within the
Hawaii Department of Education as a WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges)
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 60

accredited secondary school that services at-risk students (HDOE, 2016f). In chapters one and
two Aloha School was presented as a school in Hawaii that has five physically separated school
sites for three types of students. The students are at-risk students from the Windward district,
detained youth statewide, and incarcerated youth statewide. The school has a history of poor
student achievement and is at the Priority step in the Strive HI accountability system, which
identifies the school as being in the 5% of Hawaii schools with persistently low student
achievement (HDOE, 2016a). Financially, Aloha School is excluded from the Hawaii DOE
Weighted Student Formula (WSF) allocations to schools and is a line item within the State’s
budget. The resource allocated by the State are only for personnel and the basic operations of the
school. The amount allocated to the school has changed very little over the past four years. The
rest of this section will provide additional information that is essential to understand the whole
school as a school type as compared to the alternative school and the school for incarcerated
youth.
The five separate school sites have a maximum capacity of 241 severely at-risk, detained,
or incarcerated students (see Figure 4.1). The Youth Center has a maximum capacity of 120
students and is an alternative learning program for severely at-risk students from the Windward
District in the Hawaii DOE. Like a regular school, students at the youth center attend school
then leave at the end of the day. As the site is on the grounds of the Hawaii Youth Correctional
Facility the youth center students are not allowed to loiter on the private road that leads to the
site and they are not permitted to interact with the incarcerated students. While the youth center
has a history of high mobility the students enrolled here average the longest stays. The length of
stay is a result of the expectation that the students will return back to their school of origin at the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 61

end of the school year and the fact that the school has control of students returning their home
schools (HDOE, 2016f).

Figure 4.1. Aloha School - Maximum Student Capacity.
Source: Hawaii Department of Education (2016f)
The detention homes (DH) and youth correctional facilities provide education for youth
statewide. The two detention home sites have a combined maximum capacity of 66 students (see
Figure 4.1). The DH sites are for youth that have been detained and are awaiting hearing/trial or
alternative placement into a program. The student’s length of stay at the school is controlled by
the juvenile justice system and could be a few days but is rarely longer then a ten week quarter
(HDOE, 2016f). Through the interviews it was learned that some of the teachers at DH are
funded through a separate federal program that is not controlled by the school. Aloha School
does help DH by providing one teacher from the school budget and DH teachers are included in
all of the school’s plans. The students at DH maintain enrollment at their previous school and
are not included in the student achievement data or the enrollment count for Aloha School.
Although DH teachers and students participate in all the school initiatives, given that most of
Aloha School
(241)
Youth Center
"At-Risk" (120)
Youth Correctional
Facility
"Incarcerated" (56)
Tech Ed
Male A Module Female
Male B Module
Male C Module
Detention Home
"Detained" (66)
Kapolei Facility
(54)
Honolulu Facility
(12)
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 62

teachers are not part of the school’s budget and students are not ever enrolled at the school, the
data for DH are only included in the Whole School results.
At the youth correctional facilities (YCF) only one site for males and one site for females
is identified, but there is a third site called Tech Ed that is used for vocational education classes
like woodshop, metals, and graphic design. The site is not included because it does not have any
students living on site. Instead, teachers at Tech Ed have the male and female students rotate
through the site to take classes.
At the identified youth correctional facility sites a maximum capacity 56 male and female
students is provided (HDOE, 2016f). However, the “cottage management” system is used for the
sites. The intention of this rotation system is to prevent youth from the different modules or
“cottages” from crossing paths (HDOE, 2016f). The result of the rotation system is that the three
male modules and the female facility each need a set of teachers. Like DH the length of stay for
students at the YCF is determined by the juvenile courts, so the school does not control the
number of youth incarcerated or the number of modules in use. To meet the YCF requirement of
being able to run at maximum capacity at any time the school must have five sets of teachers.
One set for each of the three male modules, one set for the female facility, and one set for the
Tech Ed site. Although the length of average length of stay of the correctional facility students is
only 7.2 months (HJJWG, 2013) the students are enrolled at Aloha School and student
achievement data are taken for these students.
As a whole school the data from the Trend Report (HDOE, 2016c) reports some
improvement in the performance indicators related student achievement from 2013 to 2015 (see
Table 4.1). Through the interviews it was clear that these improvements along with the
improvements in reading, math, and science (see Table 2.1) where a result of money received as
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 63

a Priority School. All the respondents indicated that the current resources allocated to the school
as a line item in the state budget are inadequate. The money allocated is only enough to have the
personnel to run the school at maximum student capacity and for the basic operations of the
school. A review of the Academic Plan validates the interviews as most, if not all of the funding
for the plan comes from federal funds allocated to priority schools. The way the funds are
allocated to support student achievement will be analyzed in more detail in the results of the
research questions.
Table 4.1
Aloha School - Trend Report 2014-2015
Measure 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Licensed Teachers

87.1% 88.3% 90.4%
Classes taught by
Highly Qualified
Teachers

65% 67% 97%
9
th
Grade Retention
Rate

12.9% 4.3% 0.0%
Dropout Rate %

65.2% 48.7% 53.1%
Graduate On-Time %

17.3% 26.8% 28.1%
Average Daily
Attendance%
81.6% 77.6% 80.1%
Source: Hawaii Department of Education (2016c)
Alternative School. Only information for the youth center site will be included in the
results for the alternative school. As the only site that the school has some control over student
enrollment and the fact that it aligns with what the EBM 1+1:7 considers an alternative school
the determination was made to disaggregate the data, to the extent possible, to reflect this site as
a school by itself. To assist with the disaggregation of the school data the researcher was
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 64

allowed to view and use approved data from the school comprehensive needs assessment (CNA).
As an alternative school the CNA disaggregates data in different ways to identify gaps that will
be addressed in the Academic Plan. An example of disaggregated data linked to student
achievement that makes a difference for the school is the attendance at the youth center. The
data from the Trend Report (HDOE, 2016c) for average daily attendance for the whole school
fluctuates, but when disaggregated attendance at the youth center shows a gradual increase (see
Table 4.2). Attendance data are important for the youth center as this is the only site where, like
a regular school, students are not living on site and most of the students attending school at this
site are enrolled because of attendance problems. Other relevant disaggregated data from that
CNA will be presented for the youth center in the results for the research questions.
Table 4.2
Aloha School - Average Daily Attendance 2012-2015
Measure 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Trend Report
Average Daily
Attendance

81.6% 77.6% 80.1%
Youth Center
Average Daily
Attendance
65% 67% 71%

School for Incarcerated Youth. The determination to separate the school for
incarcerated youth was based on three things. First, the EBM 1 plus 1:7 for alternative schools
was not intended to be used with schools for incarcerated youth. To extend the model applicable
Guiding Principles and the core activities that go along with the five principles (USDOE &
USDOJ, 2014) were aligned the recommendations of EBM. Where possible research that
specifically addresses incarcerated youth was used to extend the model. Second, the enrollment
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 65

of the students is not controlled by the school which makes the students highly mobile. Third, is
the cottage management system which almost dictates the number of teachers that the school
needs to employ in case the modules end up at maximum capacity.
Although the YCF will also be presented as a separate school type, it must be restated
that the school is included in all the student achievement measures and must implement all the
required strategies for improving student achievement like any other school in the state.
Nationally, having incarcerated youth participating in the state accountability system as well as
attending a school that is nationally accredited is not common as it only happens in 23 states
(CSG, 2015). Having the state education agency oversee the education of the incarcerated youth
is even less common as it only happens in three states (CSG, 2015). The determination to
present incarcerated youth as a separate school did take this information into consideration, but
ultimately the personnel allocations forced the separation of the schools.
Results for Research Question #1
Research Question #1: How are resources allocated at a school for at-risk and incarcerated
youth to improve student achievement?
Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was used as the
framework to examine the educational practices used to improve student achievement at Aloha
School. The Hawaii D.O.E. measures for student achievement were also used to analyze this
research question. Since the Hawaii D.O.E. student achievement data reflect the results for
Aloha School the data are presented for the whole school then additional information for the
alternative school and the school for incarcerated youth will be referenced where it is necessary.
A discovery made during the analysis of this research question was the constant reference
to the 6 Priority Strategies within the school Academic Plan. In Hawaii the 6 Priority Strategies
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 66

is the framework that operationalizes the State Strategic Plan. Support to complex areas and
schools is delivered based on this framework (HDOE, 2016g). Table 4.3 presents the 6 Priority
Strategies since a basic understanding of the strategies is necessary to understand the explanation
of the school results relating to Odden’s (2009) ten strategies.
Table 4.3
Hawaii Department of Education 6 Priority Strategies
Priority Strategy Description
Academic Review Teams These teams are charged with planning,
doing, checking (monitoring), and taking
action (next steps) for strategic projects and
initiatives, with regular routines in place that
facilitate dialogue and action around student
outcomes aligned with the Strategic Plan.
These routines are focused on achieving
measurable success.

Common Core

A set of clear and relevant learning standards
in mathematics and English Language Arts to
prepare students for college, career and
community success. Hawaii Common Core
empowers students to think critically and
apply their knowledge to real-world
scenarios.

Comprehensive Student Support System

Implements a proactive student behavior
support system that enables students to reach
their full potential, with a focus on
personalized classroom climate and
instruction, family/community networks,
crisis assistance and a formalized Response to
Intervention (RtI) — screening, progress
monitoring, data-driven decision making and
deployment of supports.

Formative Instruction/Data Teams

Teachers collaborate to share ideas regarding
student performance to improve instruction
and increase achievement. Schools provide
supports and tools to enable this environment.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 67

Educator Effectiveness

Teachers will receive feedback, support, and
evaluation on four components: student
growth, student learning objectives, a student
survey, and classroom observations conducted
by trained evaluators.

Induction & Mentoring

A formal system of identifying and
cultivating mentors who can assist new
teachers, providing professional development
and training for each, and establishing a
framework of support for teachers in their
first three years of practice.
Source: Hawaii Department of Education (2016g)
Data Analysis
Data analysis in the 10 Strategies (2009) refer to the analysis of high stakes assessments
to address student achievement needs. In Hawaii, the results and initial analysis of the high
stakes assessments are posted online for the State, complex areas, complex, and schools through
the Strive HI reports (HDOE, 2016b). The results of the analysis and plan to address identified
student achievement needs at the school level are also public through the online posting of the
Academic Plans (HDOE, 2016d). The process that Title I and priority schools use to analyze the
high stakes data were learned through the interviews. The first step in the process is the school is
required to prepare a comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) that examines demographic,
perceptual, student achievement, and school processes data. In the following steps in the process
the school needs identified are prioritized and addressed in order by the school’s Academic
Review Team (ART). The various created goals created by the ART to address the prioritized
needs are then documented in school Academic Plan. As a Priority School the Academic Plan is
a three year plan that is updated yearly based on the results of the goals of the ART and the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 68

actual funds used. The use of high stakes assessments with incarcerated youth helps to address
one of the core activities in the fourth Guiding Principal (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014).
Ambitious Goals
Establishing ambitious goals is about having aggressive academic goals that appear to be
too high to achieve and that apply to all students. Through informal discussions after the
interviews two of the respondents stated that the State goals were ambitious, especially since the
school is for at-risk and incarcerated youth. The statements are supported since the data
collected for the school do reflect improvement (see Table 2.1 and Table 4.1), but it is far from
the State goals of 90% graduation rate, 95% attendance, 61% proficiency in reading, and 56%
proficiency in math by the 2017-2018 school year. The school Academic Plan provides the
strategies and activities that the school is implementing to address the goals set by the State.
Along with the improvement in student assessment results and the performance indicator linked
to student achievement, the establishment of the dual credit program where youth center students
can take courses and get both high school and community college credits is another example of
the school setting high expectations for its students. For the incarcerated youth setting high
educational expectations that are the same as any student in the state helps address the fourth
Guiding Principal (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014).
Focus on curriculum and instruction
In this strategy the current curriculum and instruction is examined then whatever found to
be outdated is replaced. Odden (2009) stresses that attending to the curriculum and instruction
program is important because this is an area which educators have direct control over. The
adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Aloha School being a Priority School
helped in this area. As CCSS was fully implemented in the 2013-2014 school year the school
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 69

was able to focus on updating all aspects of curriculum and instruction. The Academic Plan
reflects the emphasis placed on curriculum and instruction by identifying student achievement
and student engagement as two of the three areas of focus based on the CNA findings (HDOE,
2016d). To address the focus on student achievement the plan has professional development to
help with the alignment and implementation of the CCSS and other content standards as one of
the strategies. The use of Data Teams, which is one of the state 6 Priority Strategies, is also
found in this focus as it will help teachers collaborate on instructional strategies using common
assessments while examining student work. To address the focus on student engagement the use
of problem-based learning (PBL) is identified. During the interviews PBL was mentioned many
times as a way to give students a hands-on and minds-on approach to learning. In the Academic
Plan the evidence of progress is that teachers will implement integrated PBL lessons into their
individual classrooms (HDOE, 2016d). On the bell schedules there is also a PBL period listed
which is when a group of students and teachers work on a PBL project together. There are other
strategies to address the focus on student achievement and student engagement, but these are the
ones that reflect the updating of curriculum and instruction for the school based on the identified
needs of the school.
Again, for incarcerated youth having the same standards that are used to guide the
curriculum for all students in the state helps address the fourth Guiding Principal (USDOE &
USDOJ, 2014). The focus on student achievement and student engagement also reflects the
needs of these students. One of the core activities from the third Guiding Principal (USDOE &
USDOJ, 2014) is also addressed by the professional development that is provided to the teachers
to help them teach using the standards.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 70

Data-based Decision Making
The focus of the data-based decision making strategy is the aligning of instruction and the
learning targets to address specific learning needs of students along with frequent formative
assessments that provide educators with data of what students know and do not know to allow
for quick responsive instruction. The Academic Plan has curriculum mapping, progress
monitoring, and data teams as activities that address this strategy (HDOE, 2016d). The
curriculum maps are identified as the evidence of progress that the teachers are revising their
curriculum based on the CCSS and the use of PBL which should ensure the alignment of
learning targets with instruction. Progress monitoring will be explained more in the strategy to
support struggling students, but through this process the STAR assessment is administered
quarterly to help provide information on students’ academic progress. The data team process
uses common formative assessments administered at least quarterly to help a team of teachers
collaborate on instructional strategies that will be used to address the needs identified through the
result of the assessments. Student behavior and work submitted is also used to adjust instruction
in the data team process. The activities of curriculum mapping, the use of the STAR assessment
for progress monitoring, and the implementation of data teams appear to address the use of data
to adjust instruction that is the focus of this strategy. The activities that help address the unique
needs of the incarcerated students also help address one of the core activities from the third
Guiding Principal (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014).
Professional Development
The purpose of the professional development strategy is to support teachers in
implementing the new curriculum and strengthen their skills in data-based decision making
based upon frequent use of formative assessments. The Academic Plan list funds being used for
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 71

professional development activities, substitute teachers for professional development, and
consultants for professional development (PD) in the areas of CCSS and content standards, data
teams, and the Educator Effectiveness System activities (HDOE, 2016d). In addition to the
aforementioned areas the CNA also identified Response to Intervention (RtI) and Positive
Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) as being covered during the PD sessions. The CNA
also identifies these areas as having held professional development sessions in the different PD
types. The three PD types found on the CNA are a second teacher prep called a Non-Teaching
Prep (NTP), 21 additional hours at the end of the day based on the teacher contract, and two
Professional Collaboration (PC) days a year. The frequency of the PD types allows for almost
daily PD with NTP, every other week with the 21 additional hours, and once a semester for PC
days. The data for PD that support the activities from the Academic Plan are provided job-
embedded time throughout the year that allows for the ongoing and mandatory training of
teachers with goals that are monitored through the ART process. All the respondents brought up
the extensive and targeted professional development that is being done at the school. The public
data along with the interviewees’ responses stress the important role that professional
development has in preparing teachers to meet the needs of the students. The range of the PD is
from individual teachers mapping curriculum for courses which is later used to collaboratively
align curriculum in content area meetings to formative instructional practices which is supported
through data teams. For the incarcerated youth, the professional development strategy supports
the third Guiding Principle which calls for professional development to meet the specific needs
of these students (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014).

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 72

Use of School Time
This strategy states that schools were able to double student performance by thinking
about time as something that could be reorganized and changed. Through informal discussions
following the interviews it was learned that the school had made many changes in how time at
the school was used to support the activities in the Academic Plan. One of the first things that
was noticed when collecting publicly available documents was that there were four different bell
schedules (HDOE. 2016b). The bell schedules are comparable to any secondary school in the
state and meets the instructional minute requirement mandated by law in Hawaii. The different
bell schedules reflect the fact that the facilities for the incarcerated and detained youth also had
to be in agreement for the school to have these schedules. An interesting difference in the bell
schedules is that all the sites have the core subject taught in the morning, but the youth center or
the alternative school also have a rotating schedule for classes. The rotating class schedule was
initiated so students at the youth center would not miss the same subject if they came to school
tardy.
As mentioned in the previous section on PD time has been built into the school day to
allow teachers to work collaboratively in PBL teams, data teams, or have targeted PD run by the
leaders of ART areas. In discussions after the interviews it was discovered that the time for PD
like NTP was possible because the school must maintain a certain level of staffing based on the
needs of the facility and the number of students is currently low.
Struggling Students
Supporting struggling students through the implementation of extra-help strategies that
provide additional support beyond the regular school day and typical school year is important
because some students require the additional time to achieve proficiency levels of rigorous
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 73

performance standards. The premise of this strategy is that given sufficient time most students
can learn to high standards. The amount of time spent with the students at Aloha School was
found to be increased through small class size. In the interviews it was learned that as an
alternative school the school attempts to follow the best practice for at-risk students by having
classes be a maximum of 12 to 15 students. The enrollment for school year 2014-2015 with 72
students and 42 teachers (HDOE, 2016a) makes it appear that the ratios is 2 student per teacher,
but because of the school set-up with sites and “cottages” the ratio was usually higher. The
school does hold summer school and limited extended day programs but no evidence of tutoring
was found, which is a third strategy for struggling students. However, this may be offset by the
small class size which allows more time with each student and the progress monitoring system
used by the school.
The CNA identified progress monitoring at Aloha School as a system to monitor the
academic and behavioral needs of the all students attending the school. The system uses the
STAR assessment as a universal screener that is administered quarterly to monitor the academic
progress of all students. Since most if not all the students do not meet the standards, the
additional data from the STAR assessments allow educators to develop a better understanding of
the how to help the highly mobile students who are often at least a grade level behind to catch
up. The Academic Plan identifies the behavior management system as the way student behavior
progress will be monitored (HDOE, 2016d). The progress monitoring system has teachers and
counselors using the data from the STAR assessment and behavior management system to
identify and plan to address any student needs that arise during monthly progress monitoring
meetings.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 74

One of the ways to help struggling students that was identified in this strategy that was
not found being done intentionally was the use of tutoring. The strategy recommends a highly
structured program that uses one to one or small groups of no more than five students with
teachers who are trained in specific tutoring strategies that are tightly aligned to the regular
curriculum (Odden, 2009). A specific recommendation that the school may benefit from is that
the teachers be trained to be experts in teaching reading (Odden, 2009).
Professional Learning Communities
Professional learning communities are seen as the way to have a collaborative school
culture (common understanding of goals and process to achieve them), a structure for
collaborative cultures (teams to support collaboration), and distributed leadership. Distributed
leadership is part of the ART process, so the school has teacher leaders who are experts in their
area leading teams of teachers to address the needs of students. For example, the English
department head is the ART leader for CCSS in English. As the ART leader she assesses the
needs, set the goals, establishes the activities in the Academic Plan to reach the goals, and meets
with the principal to report the progress towards the goals. The English department serves as the
team of teachers that collaborates and helps implement the activities and professional
development in the Academic Plan for the whole school in CCSS in English. The way the ART
process is being implemented at the school ensures the implementation of the collaborative
school culture and structure found in the professional learning communities’ strategy.
External Education Community
Research based strategies, best practices, and experts from outside the school should be
sought after to provide the school with the best and most current knowledge and practices to help
with school improvement. Although it appears that the ART process has teacher leaders running
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 75

much of the professional development these leaders also have money for consultants, travel, and
curriculum which indicates that the leaders are being trained and then providing training to the
rest of the staff. Money is allocated for consultants in English and math to which are areas of
need.
Develop Talent and Human Capital
Successful implementation of the other nine evidence-based strategies require human
capital and the investment in acquiring, developing, and retaining talent. This strategy also
supports the third Guiding Principle which focuses on recruitment, employment, and retention of
qualified education staff with skills relevant in juvenile justice settings (USDOE & USDOJ,
2014). The retention of talent appears to be a stable as the public data reports that 24 or more
than half the teachers have more than five years at the school (HDOE, 2016b). The teacher
longevity data along with the activities in the Academic Plan and the improvement in student
achievement (see Table 2.1) and student achievement indicators (see Table 4.1) indicates that the
development of talent is also being addressed. However, the first element of managing human
capital of acquiring talent in all areas at the school is difficult. Through informal discussions
after the interviews it was learned that as a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth getting
teachers to interview for posted positions is problematic. This information added clarity to the
statement made during the interviews that hiring the “right” people for the school was hard. The
feeling from the interviews was a wondering of what the improvements would be if the school
started with highly qualified experienced teachers.
The other aspect of the school linked to human capital is that one of the problems stated
for conducting the study was the expectation that funding to the school is expected to decrease as
the number of incarcerated youth decline. Since the majority of the funding from the State is for
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 76

personnel the number of positions are expected to decrease. Another concern that came out of
the interviews is that Priority school money is being used to fund some positions so if this money
is lost even more positions will be eliminated. Depending on the number of positions eliminated
keeping the “right” staff could be extremely difficult. Another concern about losing staff could
definitely be felt from the respondents as the current staffing also allows for the way the bell
schedule is structured, the additional teacher collaboration time, and additional professional
development time.
Results for Research Question #2
Research Question #2: How does resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated
youth compare to the Evidence-Based Model detailed by Odden and Picus (2014)?
The analysis in for the second research question compares the resource allocation for
Aloha School to what would be provided by the Evidence Based Model (EBM) for a prototypical
high school and 1 plus 1: 7 model for an alternative high school (Odden & Picus, 2014). As
mentioned earlier, during the collection and analysis of the data the determination was made to
present the school as a Whole School, an alternative school or a Youth Center, and a school for
incarcerated youth or a Youth Correctional Facility. During the analysis for this research
question the School Status and Improvement Report (HDOE, 2016b) for 2015-2016 became
available so the data from this report and teacher information gathered from the school website
was used to complete the table that compares the EBM to the school resources. To compare the
data from Aloha School to the two EBM models in this chapter the findings will be separated
into school characteristics, personnel resources, and dollars per pupil which are the elements in
the Evidence Based Model.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 77

The three elements are presented in three parts. The first part is a short description and
information about how the data will be presented in the table. The data to be compared for the
different school types is presented in the second part using a table. The third part of the
presentation of the elements is the analysis of the data.
School Characteristics
The school characteristics include school configuration, school size, number of teacher
workdays, and the percentages of students who are classified as special education, low-income,
English language learner (ELL), and minority. The data found in this section determines the
resources for personnel and per pupil dollars spent. The table below has the title of the school
characteristic in the first column and the data for the different school types in the following five
columns.
Within the School size row the numbers represent the number of students and in the
parentheses is the maximum capacity of the school. Through the interviews it was realized
knowing the maximum capacity is important as the school is expected to be able to run at this
level at any time as students are placed in the school. The Number of teacher workdays row
reflects the data found on the official Hawaii D.O.E calendar and the ten days of professional
development are scattered throughout the school year. The data found in last four rows are the
percentages of students and in parentheses is number of students for each of the characteristic
being presented. The last point about the data presented here before the analysis is that no
student data is included for the detention home sites although personnel and dollar per pupil
resources are expended.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 78

Table 4.4
Evidence Based Model - School Characteristics
School Element
Prototypical High
School
Whole
School Youth Center
Youth
Correctional
Facility
School configuration 9-12 7-12 7-12 7-12
School size 600
74
(241 max)
59
(120 max)
20
(56 max)
Full-day kindergarten NA NA NA NA

Number of teacher
workdays

200 (10 days
intensive training)

190 teacher (10 days PD) for all three school types

% disabled

12%

39% (29)

28%(14)

60%(12)

% poverty (free and
reduced-price lunch)

50%

68% (50)

64%(38)

70%(14)

% ELL

10%

0%

5%(3)

15%(3)

% minority (non-
White)
30% 92% (68) 90%(53) 90%(18)

The low student enrollment is the first observation. Key information that needs to be
included is that the school must be able to run at maximum capacity at any time and the number
in the School size column does not reflect the high mobility of the students. Over 50% of the
students will not be enrolled at the school for the entire year (HDOE, 2016b). The high mobility
influences the materials that are purchased and the delivery of instructions, both of which will be
discussed in later.
Statewide the number of teacher workdays does include ten professional development
days without students like the EBM calls for, but these days are found throughout the year. Six
of the days are teacher work days found at the beginning or ending of quarters. Two days are for
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 79

school planning and collaboration called PC days. One day is for teachers to attend Teachers
Institute day run by the Hawaii State Teachers Association. The final day is six additional hours
is to be used in half-hour blocks that can be added to the end of a school day that the principal
may use for training and meetings. Not listed is the 21 additional hours to be used for job-
embedded professional development that was part of the most recent teacher contract. The
school also has a Non-teaching prep (NTP) which is used for professional development or
teacher collaboration. The number of teacher workdays is 10 days less than the EBM, but the
number of professional development days exceeds the ten days in the model.
Analysis of the data for disabled students, students in poverty, and minority students
reflect that the school is for at-risk students as the percentages for the school exceed the
percentages found in the EBM for the Prototypical High School. Only the ELL student
percentages are below the EBM recommendations for two of the types of schools. The youth
correctional facility school exceeded the EBM percentages in all areas and had the highest
percentages for each of the identified areas for the three school types. As a school for at-risk and
incarcerated youth the data comparison with the EBM presented here is expected. What was
discovered through the interviews was that the school is only allocated money for personnel and
the most basic operations of the school. Basic operations included expenses for toilet paper,
electricity, etc. and does not include instructional material. All the respondents said funds were
inadequate as the Priority School supplemental money was seen as providing most if not all the
money being used to help improve student achievement. The student data presented shows that
the school has many high needs students and based on the criteria of the Hawaii D.O.E. the
school is 100% at-risk students. The student data are important as the next element of EBM
analyzed will be the personnel resources which uses this information to allocate resources.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 80

Personnel Resources
The analysis of personnel resources is based on the school characteristics and provides
adequacy recommendations for staffing categories. There are a few vital pieces of information
that must be acknowledged before moving on to the table and the analysis. As mentioned earlier
the data for the school’s personnel was gathered from the school website for school year 2015-
2016. There were a total of 73 staff members listed all of whom are represented in the Whole
School column. However, how these positions are paid for is unclear. What is known through
the Academic Plan and interviews is that additional positions are being paid for by Priority
school money, detention home money, and special program money. Where possible additional
personnel not funded through the money allocated to the school is identified since the status of
the positions influences the analysis of data.
The Personnel Resource data are presented in separate tables for the Whole School, the
Youth Center, and the Youth Correctional Facility. The columns in each tables display the
School Element data in the first column followed by the data for the EBM Prototypical High
School at maximum capacity for the school type, 1 plus 1:7 model at maximum capacity for the
school type, the school type, then the last two columns are the differences between the school
type and two types of EBM. The Prototypical High School and 1 Plus 1:7 columns represents
the EBM’s recommendations for adequate resource levels necessary to implement research-
based strategies to improve student performance at prototypical high schools. The 1 Plus 1:7
model provides one number for personnel resources that encompasses all staff except the
principal, which is in the Core teachers row. When examining the difference columns a whole
number indicates more than adequate staffing in the element with the number representing the
overage in personnel to the tenth. A minus in front of the number indicates that the staffing in
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 81

this area is inadequate and the number that follows represents the shortage in personnel in the
element to the tenth.
The tables for the Whole School, the Youth Center, and the Youth Correctional Facility
are presented next in succession. The first table represents the comparison for the Whole School
(see Table 4.5) the data for this table came from the 2015-2016 school year.
Table 4.5
Personnel Resources - Differences between EBM and Whole School
Differences
School Element Prototypical
HS at 241
1 Plus 1:7
at 241
Whole
School
Prototypical
HS at 241
1 Plus 1:7
at 241
Core Programs
Core teachers

9.6 34 25 15 -9
Specialist teachers

3.2 0 11 7.8 11
Instructional
facilitators/mentors
1.2 0 2 .8 2
Additional Staff
Tutors for struggling
students

1.6 0 0 -1.6 0
Teachers for ELL
students

0 0 0 0 0
Extended-day

1.3 0 0 -1.3 0
Summer school

1.3 0 0 -1.3 0
Learning and mildly
disabled students

1 FTE
.8 aide
0 5.5 aide -1 FTE
4.7 aide
5.5 aide
Severely disabled
students

0 0 0 0 0
CTE/Vocational
education
$67,500

0

0

-$67,000 0
Other School Level Personnel
Substitutes

NA NA NA NA NA
Pupil support staff

1.9 0 15.5 13.6 15.5
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 82

Non-instructional
Aides

1.2 0 9 7.8 9
Librarians/media
specialists

1 0 1 0 1
Principal

1 1 3 2 2
School site secretary 3 0 1 -2 1

The second table is for the Youth Center (see Table 4.6) the data for this table was
provided at the request of the researcher and represents one day in October 2016.
Table 4.6
Personnel Resources - Differences between EBM and Youth Center
Differences
School Element Prototypical
HS at 120
1 Plus 1:7
at 120
Youth
Center
Prototypical
HS at 120
1 Plus 1:7
at 120
Core Programs
Core teachers

4.8 17.1 11 6.2 -6.1
Specialist teachers

1.6 0 6 5.4 6
Instructional
facilitators/mentors
.6 0 2

1.4 2
Additional Staff
Tutors for struggling
students

.8 0 0 -.8 0
Teachers for ELL
students

.1 0 0 -.1 0
Extended-day

.6 0 0 -.6 0
Summer school

.6 0 0 -.6 0
Learning and mildly
disabled students

.8 FTE and .4
aides
0 2 aides -.8 FTE and
1.6 aides
2 aides
Severely disabled
students

0 0 0 0 0
CTE/Vocational
education
$22,500

0 0 -$22,500 0
Other School Level Personnel
Substitutes NA NA NA NA NA
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 83

Pupil support staff

1.3 0 4.5 3.2 4.5
Non-instructional aides

.6 0 5 4.4 5
Librarians/media
specialists

1 0 1 0 1
Principal

1 1 2 1 1
School site secretary 3 0 1 -2 1

The third table is for the Youth Correctional Facility (see Table 4.7) the data for this table
was provided at the request of the researcher and represents one day in October 2016.
Table 4.7
Personnel Resources - Differences between EBM and Youth Correctional Facility
Differences
School Element Prototypical
HS at 56
1 Plus 1:7
at 56
Youth
Correctional
Facility
Prototypical
HS at 56
1 Plus 1:7
at 56
Core Programs
Core teachers

2.2 8 10 7.8 2
Specialist teachers

.7 0 3 2.3 3
Instructional
facilitators/mentors
.3 0 2

1.7 2
Additional Staff
Tutors for struggling
students

.4 0 0 -.4 0
Teachers for ELL
students

.1 0 0 -.1 0
Extended-day

.3 0 0 -.3 0
Summer school

.3 0 0 -.3 0
Learning and mildly
disabled students

.4 FTE and .2
aides
0 2.5 aides -.4 FTE and
2.3 aides
2.5 aides
Severely disabled
students

0 0 0 0 0
CTE/Vocational
education
$27, 000 0 0

-$27,000 0

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 84

Other School Level Personnel
Substitutes

NA NA NA NA NA
Pupil support staff

.6 0 4.5 3.9 4.5
Non-instructional
aides

.3 0 0 -.3 0
Librarians/media
specialists

1 0 1 0 1
Principal 1 1

2 0 1
School site secretary 3 0 0

-3 0

Core programs. The core programs cover the personnel recommendations for core
teachers, specialist teachers, and instructional coaches. The personnel resource allocations in the
core program exceed the recommendations of both Prototypical High School and 1 Plus 1:7.
The 1 Plus 1:7 model appears to be inadequate for Core teachers, however that is a result the
decision to keep all the teachers for this model in this area. Other considerations for the Core
teachers area are the adjustments for DH teachers and the cottage management system. As
mentioned earlier the DH teachers are included in the count for the Whole School (see Table 4.5),
but no students are included in the demographics. If the six DH teachers were excluded then the
actual number of Core teachers would decrease by four to twenty one. After this adjustment the
actual personnel resources still exceed the recommendations of both Evidence Based Models.
A second adjustment to Core teachers was based on the use of the cottage management
system by the Youth Correctional Facility which dictates that each cottage or module must have
its own set of teachers. To have the Youth Correctional Facility fully staffed with teachers each
cottage would need its own English, math, science, and social studies teacher. For the four
cottages to be fully staffed a total of 16 teachers would be needed. Adding the YCF teachers
increases the number of core teachers to 31 in the Whole School comparison (see Table 4.5) and
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 85

16 teachers in the Youth Correctional Facility comparison (see Table 4.7) as the maximum
capacity of students at YCF would open all four cottages or modules. For the actual resources at
the school, in the 2015-2016 school year only three cottages were in use and one science teacher
was placed at the Tech Ed to service all the cottages so there was a total of ten core teachers.
Through the interviews it was learned that the personnel being maintained to run at
maximum capacity were shifted around to create the non-teacher preparation time which is a
second preparation time that is used for teacher collaboration or professional development.
Specialist teachers for the school types all exceed the recommended EBM allocations. If
the number of Specialist teachers are adjusted to exclude the two DH teachers then there are nine
teachers in this area. After the adjustment the number of teachers still exceed the recommended
allocations of both models. The Specialist teachers at the school primarily teach Career and
Technical Education (CTE). Of the eleven Specialist teachers listed for the Whole School nine
are CTE teachers. Through the interviews it was learned an emphasis was placed on the CTE
program based on recommendations of a U.S. Department of Justice investigation at HYCF.
Therefore, maintaining the CTE program and the teachers associated with the programs is
essential.
The recommended Prototypical High School staffing for Instructional facilitators/
mentors is one coach for every 200 students. The school has one academic coach and one data
coach who services all sites, so exceeds the recommended allocation for both models. Both
positions are listed in this area for all the types of schools. However, even if the Whole School
was at maximum capacity having two coaches exceeds the recommendations for the Prototypical
High School by eight tenths. Examination of the Academic Plan does identify the data coach
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 86

position as being is funded by Priority School money, so the expectation is that this position will
eventually be eliminated, which would leave the school at about the recommended level.
Additional Staff. The additional staff section examines the staff needed to support the
students with extra needs. The only element with staff that exceeds the recommend allocations
in both models and in all the school types is Learning and mildly disabled students. The staff
that exceeds the recommended allocations are aides or what the school identifies as educational
assistants. The staff found in these columns are aides or what the school identifies as educational
assistants. The low enrollment and small class sizes make it necessary for teachers to be able to
fill multiple roles, therefore the special education teachers in this element who are all also core
teachers are not listed here. Likewise, no ELL staff are listed, but there are teachers on staff who
can teach ELL students.
The small class size also seemed to be the reason for not having tutors on campus since
classes may only have 2 students. However, the need for tutors still exists as the EBM tutors
would be trained to help students in reading and it is uncertain if the teachers have been trained
as reading specialist. Extended day for the incarcerated youth is complicated as the facility
would have to agree to allow this to be in the schedule after school hours. On the Youth Center
campus an Extended day has been offered for online credit recovery courses for the past two
years, but educational assistants have been monitoring students so there is no additional staff.
Summer school has been run at all sites for the past three years, but it is uncertain what funds are
being used for the program. In the Academic Plan a little more than $54,000 is allocated for
summer school at DH and the youth center, but whether the funds are for positions or material is
unclear. The lack of personnel in this section is logical with the low enrollment and the staff
having to fill multiple rolls, nevertheless having personnel that fill the various roles is important.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 87

The last element in this section is CTE/Vocational education. The actual school expenditures are
not listed in the table for this element, but in the Academic Plan there is $40,000 Priority School
money allocated to PBL which through the interviews it was learned was used to purchase
equipment and materials for CTE teachers.
Other school level personnel. Other school level personnel include pupil support
professionals, librarians, administrators, and secretaries. Substitutes are included in this element,
however in Hawaii the allocation for substitutes needed for sick leave and personal leave is done
at the department level so it is not part of the school level allocations. Pupil support staff
exceeds the Prototypical High School recommended allocation for the Whole School at
maximum capacity by 13.6. Included in pupil support staff are six counselors, three and a half
part-time teachers, the registrar, special education chair, CTE coordinator, testing coordinator,
and dean of students for the youth center. It was learned that many of the teachers in these
positions were in teaching lines, but as the enrollment decreased the positions became support
positions. The Non-instructional aides also exceed the recommended allocations of the EBM.
The staff in this element includes three clerical staff, a tech coordinator, two custodians who
service the youth center and the youth correctional facilities, two security guards that service the
youth center, and a health aide. The Prototypical High School recommendation for Librarian
and the actual allocation of the school match. To help support the librarian service the four sites
with libraries the half-time aide counted in the Learning and mildly disabled students helps in the
youth correctional facility library. As the school is a stand-alone school, the Principal position is
filled by a regular principal and not filled by an assistant or vice principal as the EBM
recommends. In addition to the principal the school is allocated a vice-principal to help with the
five sites. A second vice-principal located at the youth correctional facility who also helps with
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 88

coaching and training has been added using Priority School funds. The EBM recommends three
secretaries at a Prototypical High School. Aloha School has one School site secretary, but also
has three clerical staff who are included as Non-instructional aides.
Dollars Per Pupil
The dollars per pupil data were collected using the 2016-2017 Academic Plan (HDOE,
2016d). The 2016-17 Academic Plan was used as it is the final year of a three year plan that
began in the 2014-2015 school year. The decision to gather data from this plan was because the
plan included information from all three years that had been updated. The dollar amounts found
in Table 4.6 are the sum of all allocations associated with each of the different areas from the
Academic Plan. In this element only the Whole School data are presented since it cannot be
determined if the school would allocate more or less based on the change in enrollment or if the
school would request more or less funding based on enrollment.
Table 4.8
Evidence Based Model – Dollars per Pupil
School Element Prototypical High
School
Whole School Difference
Professional
Development
$100 $6,611

$6,511
Technology

$250 $1,389 $1139
Instructional Materials $176 $1,436 $1260
Activities

$250 0 -$250
Gifted $25 0 -25

Professional Development. The dollar per pupil spent for professional development
found in the 201-2017 school Academic Plan far exceeded the EBM recommended allocations.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 89

The allocations for PD all come from Priority School funds. Priority School funds provided
$725,789 of the $825,564 used to support the activities meant to address the student
achievement, student engagement, and system of support needs. Professional development was
58% of the allocations in the Academic Plan or a little more than $476,000. The expenditures
for PD found in the Academic Plan aligned with the recommended strategies of the EBM. Part
of the funds were used provide teacher time for professional development by paying for
additional substitute teacher days so regular teachers could attend regular ongoing professional
development that aligned with the goals found in the Academic Plan or to have collaborative
data team, PBL team, or site meeting time. A vice principal position and a coach position to help
provide coaching and training were also purchased using these funds. Consultants who would
provide PD for math, ELA, and teachers of incarcerated youth where also included in allocation
for this area. The EBM also recommends travel expenses for teachers to attend conferences be
included, allocations for these were also found in the Academic Plan. The allocations for
professional development were four times more than what was being expended for the other two
Dollar per Pupil elements of technology and instructional materials. The reasoning behind this
was that the staff needed to be trained then they would be supported with technology and
materials as they implemented what they learned.
Technology. The dollar per pupil allocation for technology at the school is more than
five time greater than the $250 that the EBM for the prototypical regular and the alternative high
school recommends. However, the $100,000 expended for technology came from the Priority
School supplemental money. The way the money is being spent aligns with the
recommendations of the EBM as the allocations found in the Academic Plan are being used to
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 90

upgrade technology for all sites to support teachers and students with the adopted curriculum,
intervention resources, and state assessment requirements.
Instructional materials. The dollar per pupil expense for instructional material exceeds
the EBM recommendations by more than $1200 per pupil. Of the $103,400 allocated in this
area $40,000 was allocated to PBL which aligned to the school focus on student engagement. To
support the implementation of the CCSS $21,000 was spent on English and math. The
remaining funds were spent on college ready, career ready, credit recovery, and intervention
resources, which follows the recommendations of the EBM.
Student activities. Within the Academic Plan no dollar per pupil expenses were found
that aligned with the EBM. Currently the school does not have any extra-curricular programs
that extend beyond the school day, so no money is allocated in this area. The school does have
students who participate in contests like soil judging, BotBall, and science fair. The school uses
its own funds to support these activities. Besides attending classes, the youth correctional
facility and detention home have no regular scheduled student activities outside the school day
that is associated with the school. The facility, as the parent, determines these activities.
Gifted. No dollars per pupil were found for gifted students in the Academic Plan.
Although money was allocated for the dual credit program where students can earn high school
credits as well as community college credits. In the CNA the number of students enrolling and
completing the courses in the program are being monitored.
The dollars per pupil section emphasizes the interview sentiment that the resources
allocated to the school is inadequate. The school is for the students with the most needs,
however most if not all the money found in the Academic Plan is from federal funds with 88% of
that is money being identified as a Priority School funds. As it was pointed out in the interviews,
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 91

if there was no Priority School money then none of the school improvement efforts would exist.
The next section is a summary for this chapter will also examine money allocated to the school
as well as provide an analysis that combines the strengths and gaps of both research questions.
Summary
The analysis of both research questions established that the strengths of Aloha School are
the current ability to purchase resources and the additional time for teachers without students.
The purchasing of resources was supported by the supplemental Priority School funds which
funded most of activities that addressed Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance and also provided the money that exceeded recommended allocations the Dollar
per Pupil section in the second research question. The school was able to purchase resources to
educate incarcerated students using the same curriculum and state accountability system as
students in a traditional school, which is important as it is one of the core activities in the fourth
Guiding Principle (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014). The resources purchased that support student
achievement included new curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development to
support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and STAR assessments to
support struggling students. Curriculum, equipment, and professional development were also
purchased to support PBL which is being implemented to increase student engagement.
The other strength is the additional time without students for teachers. The school uses
the additional time as collaboration time or to provide professional development. Priority School
money is used to fund substitute teachers so teachers can participate in Academic Review Team
meetings, Instructional Leadership Team meetings, and professional development for topics such
as English, math and PBL. The school also created time for teachers without students by
reorganizing the additional staff that is a result of the school having to be able to run at
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 92

maximum capacity and the low student enrollment to provide teachers with an additional non-
teaching period (NTP). The NTP provides extra time for professional development as a whole
school or in teams and teacher collaboration in site teams, PBL team, and data teams.
Three gaps have been identified through the analysis of the research questions. The first
is that the actual resource allocation at the school exceed the recommendations of the EBM for
the Prototypical High School and the 1 Plus 1:7 model. The actual personnel resource allocation
exceeds the models by at least 13 staff members and at most by 44 staff members. The Dollars
per Pupil allocations exceed the EBM recommendations by at least $1,139 and at most $6511.
The excess personnel is a result of the need to be able to run at maximum capacity, the physical
separation of the different sites, DH teachers being included with no students being counted, and
the cottage management system at YCF. However, with the declining enrollment the excess
personnel will need to be addressed. The excess Dollars per Pupil allocations are a result of
Priority School money which is explained in the third gap.
The second gap is the Additional Staff section of the EBM and in particular the resources
for tutoring. Although special education and ELL teachers were found in other positions in the
school and evidence was found for extended school day activities and summer school, no
evidence was found of tutoring being done at the school. Analysis of the first research question
found the lack of tutors as a gap as well. The small class sizes may put teachers in a situation
that seems like tutoring, however Odden (2009) recommends that tutors be trained to be tutors
and reading specialist for secondary teachers. The EBM suggests that the most effective tutoring
would be individual for 20 minutes with tutors spending only half of their time tutoring. No
evidence was found of teachers being trained as tutors, reading specialists, or that individual
tutoring of students exist at the school.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 93

The third gap identified through the public data and the interviews is the heavy reliance
on Priority School money to fund student achievement efforts. Through the Academic Plan
(HDOE, 2016d) 88% of the funding of the plan can from Priority School funding and most of the
remaining 12% was also federal money. Interviews confirmed that money allocated to the
school is sufficient to cover the personnel and the basic operations of the school at a minimum.
This gap is especially important for the incarcerated youth as the second Guiding Principle is
about having a dedicated and appropriate education budget (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014). Analysis
of the first research question found that most of Odden’s (2009) strategies were being addressed
using the Priority School money. The comparison to the EBM for Prototypical High School and
1 Plus 1:7 Model with Aloha School as a Whole School, Youth Center or alternative school, and
Youth Correctional Facility or school for incarcerated youth had all types of schools exceeds the
EBM recommendations for the overall Personnel Resources and Dollars per Pupil. However the
shifting of personnel and staff is complicated by the requirement that the school needs to be able
to run at maximum capacity, the physical separation of sites, the requirements of the cottage
management system, DH not having students included in the School size count, and the reliance
of Priority School funds.
Both the strengths and two of the gaps found are tied to Priority School funds. The
examination of the Academic Plan, student achievement data, and the interviews to answer the
research questions revealed how school leadership has used the Priority School funds and the
staffing situation caused by the need to be able to run at maximum capacity. By strategically
using the additional personnel from Youth Center and Youth Correctional Facility needed to run
at maximum capacity more time was created for professional development and collaboration.
Priority School money provided personnel to help with the professional development and the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 94

resources to support student achievement, student engagement, and system of support which are
the areas of focus on the Academic Plan. The next chapter will examine the implications of
these findings and provide recommendations for future research.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 95

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The discussion of the findings will be presented as a synthesis of the information from all
of the previous chapters based on answering the research questions of the study. The chapter
will be organized with a summary of the information found in the previous chapters, the findings
for the study, the recommendations, and the results of the second interviews in the summary of
findings. The second interviews will be followed by the implications of the findings for the
school as part of the Hawaii Department of Education and a school for incarcerated youth. The
next section is the future research that would extend the study. The last section is the conclusion
where final thoughts about the study will be presented.

Summary of Findings
The four sections found in the summary of finding are the purpose, finding,
recommendations, and second interviews. The section on the purpose will review the
information covered in the first three chapters and the change to the methodology from chapter
four. The findings section will review the findings from chapter four as well as present gaps that
were identified but not presented because they were beyond the scope of the study. The
recommendations will be presented in the third section with the analysis of the second interviews
in the last section.
Purpose
The funding for Aloha School, a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth with a
consistently poor student achievement, is in danger of decreasing as the enrollment is declining
(HDOE, 2016b). The threat of less money being allocated to the school is also influenced by the
Hawaii Juvenile Justice Work Group report (2013) that found that the cost of incarcerating a
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 96

youth in Hawaii is just under $200,000 a year and there is a 75% recidivism rate so more
effective ways to help these youth are being sought. However, research has found that education
decreases delinquency for youth (Blomberg et al., 2011; Foley, 2001) and reduces recidivism
(Blomberg et al., 2011). The delivery of high-quality education for incarcerated youth is also
supported by the Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice
Secure Care Settings document (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014). Therefore, the purpose of this case
study was to provide a detailed description of resource allocation at the school to compare to the
recommendations of the Evidence Based Model which is a model that is based on providing
adequate levels of funding for all students to have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s
performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014). In addition, Odden’s 10 strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (2009) was also used to determine how many strategies are being
employed and if the resources are distributed sufficiently to support these strategies at Aloha
School. The research questions that were used to guide this study are:
 How are resources allocated at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth to improve
student achievement?
 How does resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth compare to
the Evidence-Based Model detailed by Odden and Picus (2014)?
Limitations. The study had several limitations associated with the case study method.
First, is that the data from one school will be used, so the findings will not be generalizable to
other programs or to similar schools. Second, the data being examined was expected to be time
bound from only the 2014-2015 school year, however data for the 2015-2016 school year was
used as it was released during the analysis. Information from the 2016-2017 Academic Plan and
staff list were also used as it provided more detail to help describe the school. Third, the data
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 97

collected through interviews may have been distorted by personal bias, the mood of the
respondent, politics, and rapport with the interviewee. Fourth, documents and records might be
incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, the researcher is on staff at Aloha School which will provide
access to information not otherwise available, but this bias may influence the analysis of the
data. To the extent possible the limitations were addressed through the methodology used to
conduct the study.
Method. An instrumental case study method was selected to answer the research
questions for this study. Merriam (2009) defines an instrumental case study as being an in-depth
description and analysis of a bounded system to provide insight on an issue. This method was
appropriate since resource allocation to improve the academic achievement of students at a
school for at-risk and incarcerated youth was the issue and the researcher is a member on the
staff of the school, therefore the misinterpretation of the data were minimized and information
not otherwise available was accessible. The purposeful selection of Aloha School was found to
be appropriate as it is a school for at-risk and the only public school in Hawaii for incarcerated
students. The sample size is small so the findings are not generalizable even with the two levels
of sampling Merriam (2009) associates with case studies, which in this case was the school and
interviewees associated with the school. However, Merriam (2009) writes that the value can be
realized through the in-depth description found in case studies which allows readers to determine
what can apply to their situation.
Data collection was done through the gathering of publicly available data and two sets of
interviews. The interviews with Complex leaders and school level leaders were conducted to
validate the public data and to determine if what the school would get based on the EBM for
alternative schools would be enough. According to Merriam (2009) data analysis and data
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 98

collection in case studies are seen as an ongoing process that starts simultaneously with the
coding or categorizing of the large amounts of data used to write the in-depth description. A
change that was made during the data analysis was comparing Aloha School to the EBM as a
whole school, alternative school, and a school for incarcerated youth as this would provide the
most useful information. The following findings are based on this methodology.
Findings
Through the analysis of the research questions three common gaps found were presented
in chapter four. The first is that the actual resource allocation at the school exceed the
recommendations of the EBM for the Prototypical High School and the 1 Plus 1:7 model. The
second gap is the use of tutoring strategies at the school as no evidence of teachers being trained
as tutors and reading specialist or evidence of tutoring occurring could be found. The third gap
is that most of the money being used to improve student achievement is from Priority School
money which a temporary funding source.
Two additional gaps need to be acknowledged, but no recommendations will be made as
they are beyond the scope of the study. The first gap is the acquisition of human talent. Through
the interviews it was found that getting new talent to apply, interview, and accept positions at the
school is difficult. Although it appears that all three school types exceed the EBM
recommendations when the school is presented at maximum student capacity where the DH staff
is excluded and the YCF staff is increased to meet the requirements of the cottage management
system the personnel is insufficient for teachers. Therefore, with the low student count the need
is not immediate but the school is looking for new talent. The second gap is the way students are
counted. During the comparison of Aloha School’s actual resources and the EBM the student
count was based on the count used in the SSIR (HDOE, 2016b), which is the count that is used
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 99

for all of the public schools in Hawaii. No adjustment is made for the high mobility of the
students that attend Aloha School and the DH students excluded from the student count. During
the interviews it was also learned that there tends to be an increase in the number of students sent
by schools after the count dates as the Weighted Student Formula (WSF) money for the student
stays at the home school. Though the count may not change the number of personnel it would
change the curriculum, instruction, and assessment of students which would also change the
professional development and acquisition of resources.
Recommendations
The two problems that were identified for this study were the consistently poor student
achievement and the expected decrease in funding at Aloha School. In relation to student
achievement analysis of both research indicate that progress has been made and should continue.
The student achievement results and the student achievement result indicators found in the Trend
Report (HDOE, 2016c) show a growth in many of these areas over the past three years (see
Table 4.1). Based on the school’s Academic Plan (HDOE, 2016d) and interviews the data for
first research question found that all of Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies were being implemented
to some extent. The money Aloha School is allocating for professional development,
instructional materials, and technology exceed the Dollars per Pupil recommendation of the
EBM in the analysis of the second research question. Therefore one recommendation for the
school to address the poor student achievement is to train teachers to be tutors as well as reading
specialists and to secure permanent funds to support the implementation of the student
improvement strategies. Adding the training of teachers to be tutors and reading specialist to the
Academic Plan would provide a way the school to plan for and fund this recommendation.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 100

Securing permanent funds for student achievement is included in the second problem
identified or the expected decrease in funding to the school based on the declining student
enrollment at Aloha School. In addition to the declining enrollment the other problem in funding
identified through the analysis of the research is the reliance on temporary funds. As mentioned
earlier Priority School money funds 88% of efforts to improve student achievement found in the
Academic Plan (HDOE, 2016d). The allocations that the school gets as a line item in the
Department of Education’s budget is only enough for personnel and to run the school so the
reliance on these funds that are meant to be temporary adds to the concern about funds
decreasing.
The recommendation to secure permanent funds that will support student achievement is
for stakeholders to use the comparisons of the school to Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies and the
EBM (Odden & Picus, 2014) done in this study to have discussions on the funding needs of the
school. Along with the discussion of the reliance on temporary funds a discussion will also need
to be had about the staffing at the school. The school needs to be able to run at maximum
capacity, but is there a way that some of the personnel can be used at other schools or in the
complex with the expectation that they will return if needed. A discussion that focuses on the
EBM personnel recommendations and the dependence on the Priority School funds should
provide the starting point that will eventually lead to ensuring the school is appropriately funded.
Second Interviews
The second interviews were conducted to ask the respondents if the resources that the
school would get based on the EBM would be enough. The interviewees were provided a
document with tables for the School Characteristics, Personnel Resource, and Dollars per Pupil.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 101

After an explanation of the tables on the document the respondents were asked if the resources
provided by the EBM would be enough.
After analyzing the second interviews three common responses were found to the
question. The first response was that all the respondents agreed that what the school would get
based on the EBM would not be enough. The response was based on the knowledge that the
school is already short of staff to run at maximum capacity. However, some respondents
acknowledge that the size of staff is unrealistic given the low enrollment at the school. The
second response was that most of the interviewees acknowledge the areas that were found to be
inadequate, like tutoring. Some of them talked about moving personnel around to fill the gaps
citing that the EBM is research based and the resource allocations are proven to work. The third
response was that most of the interviewees acknowledged the more than adequate funding of the
Dollar per Pupil resources and mentioned the reliance supplemental money. The responses in
second interviews reflected the interviewees concern about losing the funding that they are using
to improve student achievement and also an interest in allocating resources based on the EBM
since the model is grounded in research.
Implications
The findings of the study have implications for Aloha School, Hawaii Department of
Education (HDOE) and youth correctional facilities nationwide. The information provided by
the study that compares the actual allocations to the EBM which is based on providing adequate
levels of funding for all students to have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance
standards (Odden & Picus, 2014) is timely for all of three entities. For Aloha School the
information from the study would be used to begin the discussions that would lead to securing
permanent funds that would not only provide the personnel and ability to run the school but also
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 102

support strategies to improve student achievement. In addition to examining the funding for
Aloha School the HDOE or any HDOE school could use the information in the study when
discussing resource allocation for at-risk students. The HDOE could also use the information
when coordinating school needs for incarcerated students with other agencies involved in the
care of these youth. With the release of the Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality
Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014) the information
from the study could benefit youth correctional facilities nationwide as Hawaii is one of three
states where the state education agency oversees education in the facilities and one of 23 states
which has students attend a nationally accredited school that has them participate the state
education accountability system (CSG, 2015). Merriam (2009) stated that as a case study the
results are not generalizable, the value is the in-depth description which allows the readers to
determine what can apply to their situation. The implications for the study are based on the
value the researcher thinks the readers from the identified entities may find.
Recommendations for Future Research
The recommendations for future research come from the results of the study and the
expected needs created by release of two documents. The documents are the Every Student
Succeeds Act (USDOE, 2015) and the Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education
in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings (USDOE & USDOJ, 2014). Both of the documents
place a focus on helping the at-risk and incarcerated youth through education. The focus of the
study is to examine resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated youth to provide
adequate levels of funding for all students to have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s
performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014). Based on the focus on education and student
achievement there are three recommendations for future research. The first two studies would
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 103

address the gaps that were identified but were beyond the scope of this study. The first study
would examine the acquisition of human talent or highly qualified experienced teachers to
alternative schools, schools for incarcerated youth, or schools for detained youth. The second
study would be to determine how highly mobile students should be counted at alternative
schools, schools for incarcerated youth, or schools for detained youth. The third would be a
study that focuses on the best teacher to student ratio along with the best instructional strategies
to improve student achievement for students in an alternative school, a school for incarcerated
youth, or a school for detained youth who are highly mobile. The school and HDOE would
benefit from the three recommendations for future research that would extend the scope of this
study and provide additional information to improve student achievement for at-risk,
incarcerated, and detained youth in Hawaii.
Conclusion
The financial situation and the focus on improving student achievement has Hawaii
looking for ways to determine how resources should be allocated. This case study compared the
resource allocation at Aloha School, which is the only school in Hawaii for incarcerated and
detained youth, to the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014). The comparison was done
as the low student enrollment and the consistently poor student achievement at the school may
result in a decrease in funding for the school. The study found that the actual resource allocation
at the school exceed the recommendations of the EBM for the Prototypical High School and the
1 Plus 1:7 model. The discovery that the funds that the school is allocated is enough to cover
personnel and enough for the basic operation of the school was unexpected. Without the Priority
School money most of the strategies to improve student achievement found in the school’s
Academic Plan would be unfunded. The impression that the school is more than adequately
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 104

funded is based on the need to maintain the personnel necessary run at maximum student
capacity with low student enrollment and the use of temporary funds.
The funding of schools for incarcerated youth was one of the issues that the Guiding
Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings
(USDOE & USDOJ, 2014) focused on. The release of this document that focused on the
importance of education for incarcerated youth and confirmed that incarcerated students should
be provided the same education as their peers was timely. This document along with the
enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (USDOE, 2015) serve as reminders that the
education of the at-risk and incarcerated youth serviced at Aloha School should serve as the
“great equalizer of conditions of men – the balance wheel of the social machinery” (Mann, 1957,
p.87).

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 105

References
Aiginger, K. (2010). The great recession vs. the great depression: Stylized facts on siblings that
were given different foster parents. Economics E-Journal, 4(2010-18), 1-41.
Aizer, A. & Doyle, J.D. Jr. (2013). Juvenile incarceration human capital and future crimes:
Evidence from randomly assigned judges. Retrieved from
http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/aizer_doyle_judges_06242013.pdf
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New
York, NY: The New Press.
Baker, B. D. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of education Finance, 30(3), 259-287.
Blomberg, T.G., Bales, W.D, Mann, K., Piquero, A.R., & Berk, R.A. (2011). Incarceration,
education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 355-365.
DataWise Hawaii. (2003). A report on the strategic review of fourteen student alienation
programs (RS 03-0925). Honolulu: State of Hawaii Department of Education.
DeBray, E.H. (2006). Politics, ideology, and education: Federal policy during the Clinton and
Bush administrations. Teacher College Press: New York.
Farrington, D., Coid, J., & Murray, J. (2009). Family factors in the intergenerational transmission
of offending. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19(2), 109–124.
Feierman, J., Levick, M., & Mody, A. (2009). The school-to-prison pipeline . . . and back:
Obstacles and remedies for the re-enrollment of adjudicated youth. New York School Law
Review, 54. Retrieved from
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/17/49/1001/Feierman%20et%20al%2054.4.pdf
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 106

Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational
programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 248-
259.
Groen, M. (2012). Accountability paradigm in historical perspective. American Educational
History Journal, 39(1), 1-14.
Hatt, B. (2011). Still I rise: Youth caught between the worlds of schools and prisons. Urban
Review, 43, 476-490.
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2015). Financial report: July 1, 2013 – June 1,
2014. Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/Reports/FinRep2013-14.pdf
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016a). Accountability Resource Center Hawaii:
STRIVE HI: School accountability report: School year. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/strivehi/strivehi.html
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016b). Accountability Resource Center Hawaii:
SSIR: School Status Improvement Report: School year. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/ssir/ssir.html
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016c). Accountability Resource Center Hawaii:
Trend report: School year 2014-15. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/trends/trends.html
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016d). School documents online: Academic and
financial plan document. Retrieved from https://iportal.k12.hi.us/SDO/AFPViewP.aspx
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016e). School documents online: Narrative
summary of the academic and financial plan. Retrieved from
https://iportal.k12.hi.us/SDO/AFPViewP.aspx
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 107

Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016f). School finder: School website. Retrieved
from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ParentsAndStudents/EnrollingInSchool/SchoolFinde
r/Pages/home.aspx
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016g). Strategic Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/VisionForSuccess/AdvancingEducation/StrategicPla
n/Pages/
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016h). Strive HI performance system. Retrieved
from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/VisionForSuccess/AdvancingEducation/StriveHIPer
formanceSystem/Pages
Hawaii Department of Education [HDOE]. (2016i). Teaching & learning: Testing. Retrieved
from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/Testing
Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working Group [HJJWG] (2013). Hawaii Juvenile Justice Working
group Final Report. Retrieved from http://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/JJRI-Working-Group-Final-Report-Final.pdf
Hawaii Department of Budget and Finance. (2012). Executive biennium budget fiscal budget
2013-2015: Department of education. Retrieved from http://budget.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/15.-Department-of-Education-FB13-15-PFP.pdf
Hazel, N. (2008). Cross-National Comparison of Youth Justice. London: Youth Justice Board
for England and Wales.
Holman, B. & Ziedenberg. J. (2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating
youth in detention and other secure facilities. Washington DC: Justice Policy Institute.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 108

Retrieved from
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/dangers_of_detention.pdf
Justice Policy Institute [JPI]. (2009). The cost of confinement: Why good juvenile justice policies
make good fiscal sense. Retrieved from
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_ps.pdf
Justice Policy Institute [JPI]. (2011). Education under arrest: The case against police in schools.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
Justice Policy Institute [JPI]. (2014). Sticker shock: Calculating the full price tag for youth
incarceration. Retrieved from
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sticker_shock_final_v2.pd
f
Klehr, D.G. (2009). Addressing the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind and zero
tolerance: Better strategies for safe schools and successful students. Georgetown journal
on poverty, law, & policy, 16, 585-597.
Kleiner, B., Nolin, M.J., & Chapman, C. (2004). Before and After School Care Programs, and
Activities through Eighth Grade: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Leachman, M., & Mai, C. (2014). Most states funding schools less than before the recession.
Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-12-13sfp.pdf
Leone, P., & Weinberg, L. (2102). Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and
youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: Center for
Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ed/edpaper2012.pdf
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 109

Leone, P. & Wruble, P.C. (2015). Education services in juvenile corrections 40 years of litigation
and reform. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(4), 587-604.
Lochner, L. & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison
inmates, arrest, and self-reports. The American Economic Review, 94(1), 155-189.
Mann, H. (1957). The republic and the school: Horace Mann on the education of free man. New
York: Teachers College, Colombia University.
Marx, G.T. (1981). Ironies of social control: Authorities as contributors to deviance through
escalation, nonenforcement and covert facilitation. Social Problems, 28, 221-246.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2010). Alternative schools and programs for
public school students at-risk of educational failure: 2007-08. U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Nichols, S.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts
America’s schools. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. (2009). 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A.R. & Picus, L.O. (2014). School Finance: A Policy Perspective. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 110

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP] (2013). Census of Juveniles in
Residential Placement 2010 Washington, D.C.: OJJDP.
Porowski, A., O’Connor, R., & Luo, J.L. (2014). How do states define alternative education?
(REL 2014-038). Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Programs and Services for Secondary Alienated At-Risk Students. (2007). Retrieved from
http://sssb.k12.hi.us/alienatedatrisk/tableofcontents.htm.
Quinn, M.M., Rutherford, R.B., Leone, P.E., Osher, D.M., & Poirier, J.M. (2005). Youth with
disabilities in juvenile corrections: a national survey. Exceptional Children, 71(3), pp.
339-345.
Ryan, J.E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York
University Law Review, 79, 932-945.
Sable, J., Plotts, C., & Mitchell, L. (2010). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary
and secondary school districts in the United States: 2008-09. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011301.pdf
Sedlak, A.J. &McPherson, K. (2010). Survey of youth in residential placement: Youth needs and
services. Rockville MD: Westat. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/227660.pdf
Skiba, R. (2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Reclaiming children and youth, 22(4), 27-33.
Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzine & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 111

The Council of State Governments [CSG] Justice Center. (2015). Locked out: Improving
Educational and vocational outcomes for incarcerated youth. New York: The Council of
State Governments Justice Center.
Toro, P.A. Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P.J. (2007). Homeless youth in the United States: Recent
research findings and intervention approaches. In D. Dennis, G. Locke, & J. Khadduri
(Eds)., Toward understanding homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homeless
Research, pp. 6-1-6-33. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/report.pdf
U.S. Department of Education [USDOE]. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf
U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], Policy and Program Studies Service. (2016). State and
Local Expenditures on Corrections and Education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf
U.S. Department of Education & Justice [USDOE & USDOJ]. (2014). Guiding principles for
providing high-quality education in juvenile justice secure care settings Washington,
D.C., 2014.
Wald, J., & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New
Directions for Youth Development, 99, 9-15.
Wang, X., Blomberg, T.G., & Li, S. (2005). Comparison of the educational deficiencies of
delinquent and nondelinquent students. Evaluation Review, 29, 291-312.
Wilson, H. (2014). Turning off the school to prison pipeline. Reclaiming children and youth,
23(1) 49-53.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 112

Appendix A
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

1. Data analysis. Analysis of state standardized exam data on student performance is
important for educators to develop an understanding of the performance challenge in their
school. Initial data analysis will identify the overall proficiency levels, inconsistencies in
scores across tests, low performance in key areas within a test, and performance gaps
between low and high achieving students. Analyzing the data in this manner helps create
a sense of urgency within the system to act on behalf of improving student learning.
2. Ambitious goals. Establishing aggressive academic goals that appear to be too high to
achieve and that apply to all students must be put in place regardless of data analysis
findings from the state standardize exam data. The goals should to be considerably
higher than current performance. The strategy of striving toward ambitious learning
goals is a mindset for school personnel to both recognize performance gains and promote
the pursuit of excellence school wide.
3. Focus on curriculum and instruction. In this strategy educator’s focus on curriculum and
instruction by examining what is currently being used and replacing outdated curriculum.
Attending to the curriculum and instruction program is important because this is an area
over which educators have direct control over (Odden, 2009). Educators identify the
important content for students to learn and how they will learn it based on the academic
expectations established for the students.
4. Data-based decision making. Frequent formative end-of-unit assessments should be done
quarterly to provide educators with data that identify exactly what the students know and
do not know, allowing for quick responsive instruction. The alignment between
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 113

instruction and the learning targets gives way to the implementation of strategies to
address specific learning needs of the students.
5. Professional development. The purpose of professional development is to support
teachers in implementing the new curriculum and strengthen their skills in data-based
decision making based upon frequent formative assessments. The training should be
ongoing, intensive, and mandatory. For example, training can be conducted during the
school day (45-60 minutes every day) in small group collaborations or individually with a
coach. In addition to these sessions, summer institutes lasting a minimum of 10 days
may also be conducted.
6. Use of school time. Schools that were able to double student performance approached
time as something that could be reorganized and changed. However, instruction in the
core subjects should be given in protected blocks. Uninterrupted periods of time
designated for basic skills that focus on priorities that would produce positive gains on
student outcomes should also be established. Time for professional development and
teacher collaborative planning time also needs to be scheduled.
7. Struggling students. The implementation of extra-help strategies are important because
some students require additional time beyond what is provided through the regular school
day to achieve proficiency levels of rigorous performance standards. Extra-help
strategies that provide additional support beyond the regular school day and typical
school year include tutoring, extended day programs, and summer school.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 114

8. Professional learning communities. The most effective meeting of these collaborative
groups are when teacher’s schedules have a common time embedded in the school day.
The purposes of these groups are to analyze the different assessment data (unit, quarter,
and state) to identify struggling students. Teachers use this information to develop
standard based curriculum units, and create a common approach to instruction. The hope
is that these professional conversations will lead to instructional leadership roles that will
increase teacher involvement and influence in curriculum and assessment decisions.
9. Instructional leadership and research based strategies. The leadership within a school
consists of many stakeholders including team leaders, coordinators, instructional coaches,
and principals. Multiple teams within a school can be established and organized by
department, grade level, or content area. Using distributive leadership the principal does
not assume all responsibility and new leaders emerge and are prepared for additional
opportunities. The best teachers and leaders need to be involved and problem-solving
together to implement researched based strategies effectively.
10. Develop talent and human capital. Successful implementation of these evidence-based
strategies requires human capital and investments in acquiring, developing, and retaining
talent. The first element of managing human capital is acquiring talent in all areas at the
school. Equally important is talent management which is the ongoing development of
capacity through professional development, mentoring, coaching, evaluation, and
compensation.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 115

Appendix B
Informed Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Pkwy.
Los Angeles, Ca. 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Resource Allocation in a Hawaii School

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by David Y Shimoda, M.Ed., under
the supervision of Lawrence Picus, Ph.D. at the University of Southern California, because you
are a school level leader or the complex area level leader with knowledge of resource allocation
at Olomana School. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and
ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss
participation with your family or friends. You can keep this form for your records.

Your relationship with your school or school district will not be affected whether or not you
participate in this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will focus on resource allocations at Olomana School. The purpose is to identify any
gaps between current allocations, desired allocations, and research-based recommendations for
allocations. Identifying this data will potentially assist the school in allocating its resources more
effectively in order to increase student learning.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in two interviews
lasting no longer than 30 minutes. The interviews will be conducted by the Principal
Investigator at a mutually agreed upon location. The purpose of the first interview is two-fold.
First, is to verify that the publically available data regarding the school’s resources are accurate.
Second, is to discuss what methods and processes were used to determine how the school
resources were allocated (i.e. leadership team, research-based, pressing needs, etc.). The
second interview will be to discuss if the recommended research based resource allocations for
the school would be adequate. The interviews will be recorded with your permission, for the
sole purpose of transcription and accuracy in the data analysis phase of the study.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 116

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no reasonable or foreseeable risks to you or your school by participating in this study.
The majority of the data collected are publicly available and the interview questions are not self-
depriving or incriminating in any manner.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The primary benefit of participating in this study is improved student performance. The results
of this study will indicate areas in which current resource allocations at your school can be
adjusted to improve student learning. The recommendations are based upon a comprehensive
review of current literature and studies across the nation on how to receive a higher return
(student performance) on investment (school resources).

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored electronically on the personal laptop and cellphone of the Principal
Investigator. Both devices are secured by a pass phrase only known to the Principal Investigator.
The data for this study will only be accessible to the Principal Investigator and the Faculty Advisor,
although you may review the audio recording and transcription of your interview if you choose.
All audio recordings will be destroyed upon verification of the transcription. All personal
identifiers will be protected by coding and pseudonyms only known to the Principal Investigator
and Faculty Advisor.

The identifiable data will be destroyed upon completion of the research study and the remaining
(de-identified) data will be retained for future research use. If you do not want your data used
in future studies, you should not participate in this study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the Principal
Investigator David Y Shimoda, via phone at 808-779-4574 or email at dyshimod@usc.edu or the
Faculty Advisor, Lawrence Picus, via phone at 213-740-2175 or email at lpicus@usc.edu

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 117

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-
5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 118

Appendix C
Data Collection Protocol

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number

Address

City State Zip
HI
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

A Case Study of an Evidence-Based Approach to Resource Allocation at a
School for At-Risk and Incarcerated Students in Hawaii

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 119

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 120

District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of At-Risk Students*

Number of ELL/Bilingual Students

Number of High Mobility Students*

Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 121

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular Education)
FTEs

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:
Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 122

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:

NOTES:

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:

Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars:

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 123

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

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

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

Minutes per Week of Summer School
minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks)
weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 124

Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants

$
Administration

Travel

$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities

$
Tuition & Conference Fees

$
Other Professional Development

$
Other Professional Development Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 125

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services Staff:

NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 126

Appendix D
Data Collection Codebook

This Codebook is intended to be used for the research study A Case Study of an
Evidence-Based Approach to Resource Allocation at a School for At-Risk and
Incarcerated Students in Hawaii. It identifies data collection items and their definitions.
This document is organized according to the corresponding Data Collection Protocol
and the web portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

I. School Profile

Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any notations that you
would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will not be used in data analysis.

A. School Name: The school name and contact information are located under the Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned the school.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “HI” is automatically entered.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

II. School Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include the principal and
other school level leaders. Anyone else you interview should also be recorded here. Any notes
you’d like to make about this person (E.g. phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes
sections, as well as what the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State:
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 127

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located. District State ID:
This is the identification number that the state has assigned to the district within which the
school resides.

IV. District Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will include the
superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or director of curriculum and
instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to
make about these individuals (e.g. phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes
sections, as well as what the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

School resource indicators should be collected for the 2014-2015 school year. Enter personal
notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school based on the
School Status Improvement Report minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any pre-kindergarten
programs at the School Status Improvement Report. These students should not be included in
the previous category, Current Student Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at
secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number of students
eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as defined by the federal No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL): Number of enrolled
students who are eligible for the federal free- and reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site visit, number of
students in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services. (This will most likely be a larger number than the
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 128

number of students who are in a self-contained special education classroom.) Does not
include gifted and talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students in the school
with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special
education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are required to be
present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for different amounts of time, report
the average length. (e.g. If the school day begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the
total length of the school day is 405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are present for
instruction. This information should be available from the school bell schedule or a school
staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing periods time from the total minutes in the
school day. This calculation is different from how the state measures the “instructional
day.” (E.g. If the length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes
for lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360 minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended mathematics
instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English, and language
arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing, comprehension) Report an average per
day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day. These include
periods when students are specially grouped for extended science instruction. Report an
average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and history class periods
per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended history or
social studies instruction. Report an average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
during the previous school year (2013-14). Enter “Y” or “N” or “NA.”
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers

The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core academic subjects of
reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science, history/social studies, and foreign language.
In elementary schools, core academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular
education classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core subjects
such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers are also to be included as
core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any other departmentalized school, core
teachers consist of those teachers who are members of the English/language arts, mathematics,
science, social studies, and foreign language departments along with special education or
ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half-time teacher would be
entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms, divide up the FTEs weighted by
students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
corresponding notes fields. Indicate in parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category. Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courteny Cox Arquette (0.33), Matt LeBlanc

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 129

A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the core subjects. The
FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and Foreign Language:
Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who teach the core subjects. The FTEs
should not duplicate those in the grade categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic classes, and usually
provide planning and preparation time for core academic teachers. The teachers should be
entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter
each teacher’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical education
(PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom teachers with planning and preparation
time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide instruction in a subject
area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the school day. This
does not include time spent as an athletic director, which would be captured under the
Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist teacher(s) instruct.

VIII. Library Staff

Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals.
Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or media specialists
who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of strategies designed to
assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to learn a school’s regular curriculum.
The educational strategies that these teachers deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction
of the regular classroom. Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs),
which may include decimals. Volunteers are not included in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers and provide help
to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 130

B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers and provide help
to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-School Suspension
(ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-School Suspension
(ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who provide small groups of
students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide small groups of
students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second language
(ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL) classes who
work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in the gifted
program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for the 2008-09 school
year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide supplemental instructional
assistance to students to learn the school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who provide supplemental
instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s curriculum. (Use this category
sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help classified
staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities): Number of FTE
licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special education classrooms and work with
“severely” disabled students for most or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a
modified version of a school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental disabilities, or a
learning problem. These students generally have “less severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special education teachers
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most or all of the school
day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular classroom teachers
with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental disabilities, or some learning
problem. These students generally have “less severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides who provide
small groups of students in special education with extra help in specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the extended day
program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week that the extended
day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in the teacher
contract.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 131

Y. 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.
Z. 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.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified staff’s role in the
extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day multiplied by the
number of days per week that students attend summer school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of students from the
individual school who are enrolled in the summer school program (a subset of the following
item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the summer school
program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided students with extra
instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who provided students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum during
summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

Included here are instructional staff members that support a school’s instructional program, but
do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member
is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other consultants other
than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included in previous
categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but were not included
in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who replace sick
teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who are participating in
professional development.)

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a school’s staff
and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional development staff should be
entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost figures should be entered as a dollar amount,
both of which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the
FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number of days the
teacher contract specifies for professional development.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 132

B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for substitutes and stipends
that cover teacher time for professional development. For time outside the regular contract
day when students are not present before or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half
days or early release days, the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly
salary times the number of student-free hours used for professional development. For
planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated as the cost of the
portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers’ class during planning time used
for professional development. For other time during the regular school day, including release
time provided by substitutes, cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the
regular school day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the hourly rate that
the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators and coaches.
This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches (though only the FTE for the
specific school should be recorded). Outside consultants who provide coaching should be
captured in an estimated FTE amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training or other
professional development services. If trainers are from the district, convert to a dollar
amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of professional
development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional development activities,
and costs of transportation within the district for professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for professional
development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment needed for professional
development activities, and rental or other costs for facilities used for professional
development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement for college-
based professional development, and fees for conferences related to professional
development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is, and indicate
whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as school
expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services staff should be entered
as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff
member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Guidance: Number of 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 school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve as the parent
advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents to get their children to attend
school.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 133

F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and physical therapists
(PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom aides, Aides who
help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the defining difference is whether the
staff member is supervising students or not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this category
sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member does.

XIII. Administration

This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the administration of a
school. Administrators should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XIV. Class Sizes (This data is NOT being collected)

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other times the
secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are in each classroom (we
don’t want student names). You want a (preferably electronic) copy of the master class schedule
to enter this data. When entering the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class
that is taught at the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus Special
Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections will be displayed
where you can enter the individual class sizes.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION 134

Appendix E
Interview Protocol

Following are open-ended questions intended to capture the differences between actual resource
allocation at the school and the resource allocation recommended by the Evidence Based Model to
identify how funds are used to support student achievement. The questions will be asked in the order that
they appear on this protocol. The answers will be recorded as the interviewee gives them.

Interview #1
I. How are expenditures determined?
• Possible follow-up questions (based on Odden and Picus’ Evidence Based Model):
• How do school characteristics (school configuration, school size, number of
teacher workdays, and the percentages of students who are classified as special
education, low-income, English language learner (ELL), and minority) impact
expenditures?
• How are personnel resources influenced by school characteristics and how does
this impact expenditures?
II. How are expenditures used to support student achievement?
• Possible follow-up questions (based on Odden’s 10 Strategies):
• How are expenditures allocated to support student achievement through:
1. The use of data analysis to identify student and school needs
2. Ambitious goals for students
3. A curriculum and instruction that reflects ambitious goals
4. Using student work data to guide instruction
5. Professional development for teachers that support ambitious goals for
students
6. Using school time to have students focus on core subjects, basic skills
students need, PD time for teachers, and teacher collaboration time
7. Extra help for struggling students that provide extra time (extended day
and summer school)
This is a: Complex leader / School Leader

A CASE STUDY OF AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH TO RESOURCE
ALLOCATION AT A SCHOOL FOR AT-RISK AND INCARCERATED
STUDENTS IN HAWAII
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 135

8. Teacher collaboration time where teachers use student data to guide
instruction
9. Distributed leadership and the use of research based strategies
10. Acquire, develop, and retain personnel which includes ongoing
professional development, mentoring, coaching, evaluation, and
compensation
III. Are the resources adequate?
• Possible follow-up questions:
• If no, what would you change?

Interview #2 – Interviewees will be given the chance to see the resources recommended by the Evidence
Based Model for the school then asked the following question.
IV. Is what the school would get based on the EBM for alternative schools enough?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study compares the actual resource allocation at a public secondary school in Hawaii for at-risk and incarcerated youth to the resource allocation recommended by the Evidence Based Model (EBM), which is based on providing adequate levels of funding for all students to have an equal opportunity to meet their state’s performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2014). The purpose of the study is to examine how resources at Aloha School are allocated to improve the academic achievement of students as research has found that education decreases delinquency for youth (Blomberg et al., 2011

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California elementary schools

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Shimoda, David (author)

Core Title A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/02/2017

Defense Date 04/14/2017

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

Tag at risk youth,evidence based approach,evidence based model,Hawaii,incarcerated juvenile,incarcerated students,incarcerated youth,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Datta, Asoke (committee member), Datta, Monique (committee member), Green, Alan (committee member)

Creator Email dshimoda1@gmail.com,dyshimod@use.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-377925

Unique identifier UC11256153

Identifier etd-ShimodaDav-5361.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-377925 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ShimodaDav-5361.pdf

Dmrecord 377925

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Shimoda, David

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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