University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES AND EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY:
AN EXAMINATION OF AN ACADEMIC & FINANCIAL PLAN USED TO
ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO STRATEGIES THAT PROMOTE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT IN HAWAII

by

Bernie Tyrell

________________________________________________________________

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 2012

Copyright 2012 Bernie Tyrell
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family. First and foremost, I would like to
thank my grandmother Lote and grandfather Uati Suafoa, who laid the foundation of
strong work ethic and persistance in the pursuit of one’s dreams. To my parents
Etuale and Connie, who instilled in me the value of education and giving back to the
community as a public school administrator. To my sister Samara, who is my
inspiration and confidant, and my nephews Toma and Tuite’e, who I strive to set a
good example for.
To my husband Julian, who stood by me unconditionally for the three years
of the doctoral program and sacrificed countless hours to ensure our family remained
intact. Julian, you never skipped a beat when it came to running the household and
caring for our kids. Without your help I would not have had the energy nor the focus
to make it this far. You are truly my rock.
Finally to my sons, Te Kanaelauvaka and Kanivaloaloahulitepakihamoa, this
journey was really for you so that you may one day realize your dreams and know
that you can accomplish anything you put your mind to. As I pass the torch on to
you, my hope is that you will use my accomplishments as a stepping stone and take it
one step further for your family.
Julian, Nae and Niva — you are my EVERYTHING!

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures vi
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
Chapter 3: Methodology 57
Chapter 4: Findings 62
Chapter 5: Discussion 120
References 133
Appendices 137
Appendix A: IRB Approval 137
Appendix B: Agreement to Participate in Research 138
Appendix C: Quantitative Data Collection Protocol 140
Appendix D: Qualitative Data Collection Protocol 151
Appendix E: Data Collection Code Book 155
Appendix F: School Visit Interview Dates 174
Appendix G: Case Study 1: School A (SA) 175
Appendix H: Case Study 2: School B (SB) 205
Appendix I: Case Study 3: School C (SC) 239
Appendix J: Case Study 4: School D (SD) 265
Appendix K: Case Study 5: School E (SE) 291
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Student Enrollment of Sample Schools 63
Table 4.2: Implementation of Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance 100
Table 4.3: Comparison of Class Sizes in the EVM vs. Sample Schools 102
Table 4.4: Resource Allocation According to EBM vs. Actual Resource 104
Allocation at Sample Schools
Table 4.5: Sample Schools Resource Allocation in the Ac/FP 110
Table 5.1: Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 131
Crosswalked with the Prioritized Goals in Hawaii’s Academic &
Financial Plan
Table A.1: Comparison of Student Profiles in SA, Complex, and Public 176
Schools in the State of Hawaii
Table A.2: SA Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student 192
Performance
Table A.3: School Profile Comparison: SA and Evidence Based Model 193
(EBM) School
Table A.4: Resource Comparison: SA and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for 194
Adequate School Resources
Table B.1: Comparison of Student Profiles in SB, Kahuku Complex, and 207
Public Schools in the State of Hawaii
Table B.2: NCLB Status of SB from 2004-2011 209
Table B.3: SB Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student 227
Performance
Table B.4: School Profile Comparison: SB and Evidence Based Model 228
(EBM) School
Table B.5: Resource Comparison: SA and Evidence Based Model (EBM) 229
for Adequate School Resources
v
Table C.1: Comparison of Student Profiles in SC, Complex, and Public 241
Schools in the State of Hawaii
Table C.2: NCLB Status of SC from 2004-2011 242
Table C.3: SC Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student 255
Performance
Table C.4: School Profile Comparison: SC and Evidence Based Model 256
(EBM) School
Table C.5: Resource Comparison: SC and Evidence Based Model (EBM) 257
for Adequate School Resources
Table D.1: Comparison of Student Profiles in SD, Complex, and Public 267
Schools in the State of Hawaii
Table D.2: NCLB Status of SD from 2004-2011 269
Table D.3: SD Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student 280
Performance
Table D.4: School Profile Comparison: SD and Evidence Based Model 281
(EBM) School
Table D.5: Resource Comparison: SD and Evidence Based Model (EBM) 282
for Adequate School Resources
Table E.1: Comparison of Student Profiles in SE, Complex, and Public 293
Schools in the State of Hawaii
Table E.2: SE Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student 309
Performance
Table E.3: School Profile Comparison: SE and Evidence Based Model 310
(EBM) School
Table E.4: Resource Comparison: SE and Evidence Based Model (EBM) 311
for Adequate School Resources
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Ethnic distribution in sample schools 64
Figure 4.2 Percentage of ELL, Sped, and FRPL students enrolled in the 65
sample schools
Figure 4.3. Reading AYP schoolwide change in sample schools 66
Figure 4.4. Reading AYP change for Asian/Pacific Islander (API) students 67
Figure 4.5. Reading AYP change for disadvantaged students 68
Figure 4.6. Reading AYP change for Sped students 69
Figure 4.7. Reading AYP change for ELL students 69
Figure 4.8. Reading AYP change for all subgroups in sample schools 71
Figure 4.9. Math AYP schoolwide change in sample schools 71
Figure 4.10. Math AYP change for Asian/Pacific Islanders (API) 72
Figure 4.11. Math AYP change for disadvantaged students 73
Figure 4.12. Math AYP change for Sped students 74
Figure 4.13. Math AYP change for ELL students 75
Figure 4.14. Math AYP Change for all subgroups in sample schools 76
Figure A.1. Ethnic breakdown of School A in SY 2010-2011 175
Figure A.2. School A HSA longitudinal reading results 178
Figure A.3. School A HSA longitudinal math results 179
Figure A.4. School A HSA student achievement results in reading by 180
subgroup & year
Figure A.5. School A HSA longitudinal student achievement results in 181
math by subgroup & year
vii
Figure B.1. Ethnic breakdown of School B in SY 2010-2011 206
Figure B.2. School B HSA longitudinal reading results 210
Figure B.3. School B HSA longitudinal math results 211
Figure B.4. School B HSA student achievement results in reading by 212
subgroup & year
Figure B.5. School B HSA longitudinal student achievement results in 213
math by subgroup & year
Figure C.1. Ethnic breakdown of School C in SY 2010-2011 240
Figure C.2. School C HSA longitudinal reading results 243
Figure C.3. School C HSA longitudinal math results 244
Figure C.4. School C HSA student achievement results in reading by 245
subgroup & year
Figure C.5. School C HSA longitudinal student achievement results in 246
math by subgroup & year
Figure D.1. Ethnic breakdown of School D in SY 2010-2011 266
Figure D.2. School D HSA longitudinal reading results 270
Figure D.3. School D HSA longitudinal math results 271
Figure D.4. School D HSA student achievement results in reading by 272
subgroup & year
Figure D.5. School D HSA longitudinal student achievement results in 273
math by subgroup & year
Figure E.1. Ethnic breakdown of School E in SY 2010-2011 292
Figure E.2. School E HSA longitudinal reading results 295
Figure E.3. School E HSA longitudinal math results 296
viii
Figure E.4. School E HSA student achievement results in reading by 297
subgroup & year
Figure E.5. School E HSA longitudinal student achievement results in 298
math by subgroup & year
ix
ABSTRACT
The Academic/Financial Plan (Ac/FP) is an annual school plan that is
designed to improve performance, documenting school goals, priorities, programs,
activities, and the funds designated to accomplish them. Unfortunately, there seems
to be a lack of understanding about how the Ac/FP is used by principals in Hawaii to
determine resource allocation with a focus on improving student achievement. This
study uses Odden’s (2009) Evidenced-based Model as a framework to align
resources in the Ac/FP, with research-based strategies that are effective in meeting
student achievement outcomes.
This study also investigates five elementary Ac/FPs and examines the links
between resource allocation and student achievement and focuses on how principals
can use an Evidence-Based framework to effectively link resources to meet the
school’s vision and mission as described in the Ac/FP.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
As Federal compliance initiatives push states to provide all students with an
adequate education, school finance adequacy, accountability, and standards-based
reform, emerge as priorities in ensuring all students achieve at high levels. Large-
scale change is occurring as states transfer decision making to the school-level.
Principals are now accountable for restructuring schools and deciding how resources
will be allocated to improve student performance. The nation’s imperative is to
double or triple productivity with more students achieving at high standards in a
short amount of time with no more than a 25% increase in resources, per pupil
nationwide to do so in the next 10 years (Odden & Archibald, 2000).
Schools are the focus of accountability, determining how adequacy will be
addressed so that all resources are allocated in the most effective and efficient
manner with the goal of enhancing student achievement. One challenge of
instituting dramatic school reform is clearly defining how policy makers, district
administrators, principals, and teachers will support one another in making important
decisions about aligning resources to support school improvement initiatives.
Background of the Problem
Finding the resources to provide an adequate education so that all students
can achieve performance outcomes is an underlying issue of nationwide reform.
Historically, many states have relied on school funding litigation to decide how to
address issues of adequacy at the school level. In 1954, the landmark civil rights

2
case, Brown v. Board of Education sparked political and legal policy changes in
response to the Court’s ruling that the segregation of Black and Hispanic students
was unconstitutional. In an effort to address barriers such as lack of equal education
opportunity, inequitable systems of educational finance, and local control of school
funding through property taxes, the educational policies that followed Brown’s ruling
encouraged the provision of adequate resources for large numbers of poor and
minority students who were still attending segregated schools (Rebell, 2002).
Later, in a 1973 ruling, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez,
the US Supreme Court declared that education was not a fundamental interest under
the federal constitution. This lead to an increase in plaintiffs seeking remedies
through state courts regarding individual state education finance systems (Rebell,
2002). Under state educational clauses, litigation in 44 of 50 states determined the
financial basis for how each state ensured a student’s constitutional right to an
adequate education. Educators and policy makers struggled to determine how much
it takes to adequately meet the needs of all children? During the 1980’s many of the
plaintiffs’ cases were won because of the difficulty state courts faced in finding a
model to address funding inequities (Rebell, 2002).
Federal policy makers have emphasized that student achievement levels are
too low and student performance levels have emerged as the forefront of education
reform. Federal policy has mandated that schools strive to ensure that performance
levels among all students be raised thru a standards-and-accountability framework
(Odden & Archibald, 2000).

3
A Nation at Risk (1983) spurred education reform after releasing a document
that outlined the nation’s imperative to improve student performance through
curriculum mastery of standards and alignment of high school curriculum with
college entrance requirements and completion rates. The National Commission on
Excellence in Education (NCEE) presented a report on the quality of education in
America and addressed what the commission described as an erosion of the
educational expectations caused by society’s sense of mediocrity towards student
outcomes in public, private, and higher education institutions (A Nation at Risk,
1983). The NCEE reported that from the 1960 to 1980 nationwide achievement rates
had declined in literacy, science, and math and pale in comparison to globally
competitive nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany. The report touted
that the nation was at risk in an “information age” when schools need to arm students
with the knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligence to be competitive
in a global society.
Further outlining standards-based reform efforts is the federally mandated No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. According to NCLB (2002), Public law
107-110 was enacted to ensure all children have access to a “high quality” education,
placing an emphasis on closing the achievement gap among high achieving and low
achieving students, and creating greater accountability requiring that disadvantaged
and minority students, English language learners, and students with disabilities
maintain proficiency on academic assessments. NCLB amended the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 to increase accountability among states

4
and provide a more consistent means to measure student performance using common
expectations for student performance (NCLB, 2002).
In an effort to encourage states to participate in nationwide standards-based
reform, the federal government has increased incentives through the competitive
Race To the Top (RTTT) program. Designed to incentivize excellence, drive reform,
and promote the adoption and use of effective policies and practices, (RTTT) an
Obama administration initiative to improve education offered $4.35 billion to states
through a competitive process.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education awarded federal stimulus funds to
12 states. The RTTT program is authorized under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a competitive grant program which
encourages and rewards states that are implementing significant reforms in the four
education areas: enhancing standards and assessments, improving the collection and
use of data, increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher
distribution, and turning around struggling schools (www.ed.gov, March 4, 2011).
Phase 1 RTTT winners were Delaware receiving $100 million and Tennessee
receiving $500 million. In June of 2010, Phase 2 of the competition drew
applications from 35 states and the District of Columbia. In September of 2010,
Phase 2 winners were Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. Hawaii, a
winner of the Phase 2 application will receive $75 million over a four year period for
systemic, bold education reform.

5
Hawaii Finance
To date, Hawaii has the nation’s only statewide school district. More than a
quarter of the state’s general fund budget goes to the state Department of Education.
Hawaii does not rely on local property taxes as a source of revenue for schools.
Rather, public schools receive funding from state and federal resources. General
appropriations for 2010 declined due to budget reductions in the 2009 session of the
Hawaii State Legislature. In addition, beginning in 2010, $6.44 million of
appropriations for DOE-related retirement benefit payments, health premium
payments, and debt service payments were transferred to the State of Hawaii
Department of Budget & Finance. The amounts have been included in the 2010
appropriated funds and represent the total cost of public education (Superintendent’s
21
st
Annual Report, 2010). Federal appropriations increased in 2010 mainly due to
appropriations for ARRA awards.
Public Education Reform in Hawaii
The call for public education reform in Hawaii resulted from the U.S. decline
in global rankings for college students at a national level and has defined how
Hawaii has attempted to reform education since 2001. Hawaii developed an
accountability framework to ensure schools operated effectively in helping students
meet rigorous standards. The framework was a result of the Federal NCLB Act of
2001, the State’s Act 238 (Session Laws of Hawaii, 2000) and the Department of
Education’s (DOE) Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) 2003. Hawaii legislation
began to focus on improving the accountability of public education in measuring and

6
reporting student achievement of content and performance standards statewide. The
DOE’s SIP 2003 also set clear classroom expectations for standards-based education
for every child in Hawaii in three areas: standards-based education, sustaining a
culture for lifelong learning, and continuous improvement of the system (HI
Superintendent’s Strategic Plan, 2011).
Hawaii legislators passed the Reinventing Education Act (REA) of 2004, also
known as Act 51. Act 51 resulted in implementation of the weighted student formula
and School Community Councils (SCCs), a single statewide school calendar, and the
transfer of repair and maintenance, buildings, and human resource functions to the
DOE. Act 51 gave principals and school communities more authority in deciding
how to improve student achievement at the school level. While increased decision-
making at the school level allowed schools to acquire resources more quickly,
decision-making implied that the school would be held accountable for achieving
higher standards. Act 51 did not address adequacy of funding, nor did it improve
curriculum and instruction (Informational Briefing DOE Act 51 & WSF, 2007).
REA did include a fair and equitable way to distribute funds for school budgets
through the Weighted Student Formula (WSF). The amount of money allocated to
schools was based on individual need, not enrollment; meaning students with more
needs would receive more resources. WSF would allow funding to follow students
to whichever schools they attend, equalizing opportunities at the student level.
In 2010, President Obama dedicated $2 billion in additional funding to
education in his State of the Union address, with expectations that the U.S. must “out

7
educate and out-innovate” the rest of the world (www.whitehouse.gov, May 7, 2011).
In taking a closer look, $1.2 billion of the $2 billion is to be used as part of the
president’s competitive grant programs, one of which is Race to the Top (RTTT)
(Tirozzzi, 2011). RTTT places accountability on states to ensure college and career
ready students who participate as a citizen in a global society.
Tirozzi (2011) argues that unequal funding through competitive programs
like RTTT neglect the needs of schools servicing populations with Title I, special
needs, and career and technical education programs, continuing to place them at a
disadvantage. So far, only 12 states were awarded RTTT grant money, further
creating inequity among states.
The June 2010, Phase 2 Application of Race to the Top (RTTT), is a
federally inspired educational reform initiative that will be funded by $75 million
over 4 years in the state of Hawaii. The goal of RTTT is to ensure all students
receive equal opportunity to pursue post-secondary options, therefore strengthening
the economic future and quality of life in Hawaii (RTTT Executive Summary, 2010).
Compliance with RTTT ensures that by 2018 all students will be proficient in
reading and math. Data in Hawaii’s RTTT application provided evidence that
compliance with NCLB has shown some progress in reading and math; however
schools continue to struggle to meet annual yearly progress (AYP) as the
benchmarks increase.
RTTT also sets specific criteria for raising high school and college graduate
rates, decreasing the achievement gaps among all groups on the Hawaii State

8
Assessment, and mandates that by 2011, all teachers attain a status of “highly
qualified” in Title I schools.
Economic Instability in Hawaii
Due to fiscal restraints in the state of Hawaii, during the school years 2009-
2010 and 2010-2011, the state Department of Education (DOE) faced budget cuts of
$473.7 million for non-charter schools (http://doe.k12.hi.us, 4/22/2011). In 2009, the
state enacted furloughs to assist the department in addressing its budget shortfalls by
reducing labor costs leaving Hawaii’s 177,000 public school students with 163
instructional days, compared with 180 in most districts in the US. Seventeen
furlough days were added to the school year 2009-10.
During the 2010 legislative session, student and employee furloughs united
the community to take action and make education a priority in the state. At the end
of the year, an agreement was reached to end furloughs. As a result, Act 143, SLH
2010, appropriated $67million from the Hurricane Relief Fund to restore 11 furlough
days for all DOE employees for the 2010-11school year (http://lilinote.k12.hi.us,
4/2/2011).
Hawaii’s Demographics
According to the Superintendant’s 21
st
annual report (2010), public school
enrollment has increased from 177, 871 (2008-09) to 178, 649 (2009-10) students,
and 55% of Hawaii’s students are constituted as special needs as classified by 5
categories: Economically Disadvantaged, Special Education, English Language
Learners (ELL), Section 504, or a combination of Multiple Special Needs.

9
In Hawaii more than 80,000 public school students live at or below 185
percent of the federal poverty level, according to the U.S. Department of Education
(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleIparta/index.html, 1/15/2011). The total number
of Hawaii public schools eligible for Title I money has increased to 186 from 161 in
2008. Title I money is given to schools where children living in households at or
below 185 percent of the federal poverty level exceed 40 percent of total enrollment.
In Hawaii, that means a family of four earning no more than $46,916. Nearly 47
percent of all Hawaii public school kids qualify for free or reduced cost lunches, a
key indicator of poverty. Title I is designed to help students served by the program
to achieve proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards. Title I
schools with percentages of low income students of at least 40 percent may use Title
I funds, along with other Federal, State, and local funds, to operate a “school wide
program” to upgrade the instructional program for the whole school.
The challenge of education reform in Hawaii public schools is closing the
achievement gap among a growing special needs population as targeted by federal
accountability goals. Allocating adequate resources to provide equitable
opportunities for the special needs population is a state and national challenge.
Statement of the Problem
Public school principals in the state of Hawaii have become the focal point of
accountability for meeting the federal mandates of NCLB and RTTT initiatives. The
accountability tool used by principals to document compliance with the Department
of Education’s SIP is called the Academic/Financial Plan (Ac/FP). The Ac/FP is an

10
annual school plan that is designed to improve performance, documenting school
goals, priorities, programs, activities, and the funds designated to accomplish them.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of understanding about how the Ac/FP is
used by schools in Hawaii to determine resource allocation with a focus on
improving student achievement. Further research is needed to produce a framework
that aligns resources in the Ac/FP, with research-based strategies that are effective in
meeting student achievement outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
This study will use the Evidence-Based Model as a framework for creating a
tool that will assist principals in allocating resources to strategies that are effective in
raising student achievement (Odden, 2009). The Evidenced-Based Model provides
10 targeted research-based strategies that will be cross-walked with the 3 broad
priorities outlined in the State of Hawaii’s Ac/FP framework. The Ac/FP will be
used to demonstrate how the current framework is used to allocate resources to meet
the state of Hawaii’ strategic plan and federal compliance initiatives. The Ac/FP will
be assessed according to how accurately the resources are aligned with the
Evidenced-Based Model approach, resulting in a new Ac/FP framework that is cross
walked with the Evidenced-based Model. The new Ac/FP using the Evidenced-
based model will help provide an example of a tool that will empower Hawaii
principals in meeting student learning outcomes by making informed, research-based
decisions about resource allocation.

11
This study investigates five elementary Ac/FPs and examines the links
between resource allocation and student achievement. This study will answer the
following questions:
1. What is the school’s instructional vision and how does it align resources
to meet that vision within the framework of the Hawaii strategic plan?
2. How can principals use an Evidence-based model as a guide to effectively
align resources to strategies that work in raising student achievement?
3. In a time of state budgetary cuts, how can an Evidenced-Based Model
assist principals in more effectively prioritizing resource allocation needs?
4. How can an Evidence-Based framework help Principals statewide to
effectively link resources to meet the school’s vision and mission as
described in the Ac/FP?
Significance of the Study
High-stakes accountability through standards-based reform and competition
in a global economy has drastically shifted the principal’s role from “operations
manager” to “educational leader.” Ultimately, it is the Principal who carries the
weight of ensuring school success and individual student achievement. As public
schools in Hawaii face the challenge of increased accountability measures thru
NCLB and RTTT, educational leaders in Hawaii will have to develop a
comprehensive understanding of school and classroom practices that contribute to
student achievement and provide adequate resources during an economic decline.

12
In 2010, 55% of Hawaii’s public school students comprised the category of
special needs – economically disadvantaged, ELL, Special Education, Section 504,
and Multiple Special Needs, while in 2011, 44% of Hawaii public schools achieved
NCLB status of “In Good Standing,” (Superintendent’s 21
st
Annual Report, 2010).
By 2014, all Hawaii schools are to meet 100% student proficiency as mandated by
NCLB. This study will assist principals in meeting state accountability measures by
examining what they will need to know and be able to do to prepare an effective
Ac/FP.
How schools determine instructional needs of all students to meet high
standards within the school will dictate how schools are structured and the systems
that manage it. Principals have to provide a coherent rationale to stakeholders and
justify how resources are allocated within a school. It is important that principals
have a research-based framework to align reform efforts with strategies that work
and ensure all students within the state of Hawaii have access to the resources they
need to meet student outcomes.
The current Hawaii Ac/FP is a lengthy compliance document suggesting
three very broad categories for school wide improvement. Principals are unclear
about how to use the document throughout the year to create and sustain
transformational change. This study will integrate the Evidenced-based model as a
guide in helping principals find ways to complete a more comprehensive Ac/FP that
reflects each school’s unique vision for school wide improvement and learning. A
more comprehensive, hopefully simpler Ac/FP using the Evidenced-based model and

13
Odden’s 10 strategies for resource allocation will help principals use the tool to
communicate specifically how the school will be held accountable for meeting
student achievement outcomes. Implementing research-based strategies into an
Ac/FP would provide guidance for principals and schools in monitoring and
reflecting on student achievement, providing student support, and improving the
system from year to year.
Standards-based reform explicitly implies that individual schools will be held
as the unit of accountability. In doing so, standards-based reform identifies school
leadership as the determinant of large-scale improvement. Elmore (2000) suggests
that school leaders should focus on instructional improvement and define everything
else as contributing to it. Creating a common framework for principals to deal with
the existing economic barriers and accountability issues will help prepare school
leaders to meet the challenges of creating an effective Ac/FP, allowing schools to
provided adequate resources so that all students can achieve learning outcomes. This
study will focus on redesigning the Ac/FP process to provide principals with the core
knowledge and skills they need to produce an Ac/FP that will help create a high
performing school.
In addition to establishing a common framework, the importance of modeling
collective leadership among principals will help improve the culture of the
organizational structure, acting as a natural support in helping principals complete
the accountability task or Ac/FP. How principals go about completing the Ac/FP and
the thought process or decisions behind why they allocate resources the way they do

14
will affect student achievement outcomes across each complex. As one of five
elementary schools feeding into one Middle/High School, the goal of Principals as
mandated by the Superintendent in the Ac/FP plan is one in the same: to assure all
students graduate college and career ready thru effective use of standards-based
education.
Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond (2001) suggest that enacting collective
leadership utilizes the expertise of all members allowing the task to be distributed
across multiple leaders in the group. Building systems that emphasize collective or
distributed leadership allow the group to work effectively by moving past individual
knowledge and considering what the leaders know and do together, resulting in
stronger more cohesive planning and support, where leadership is “co-enacted” or
“stretched-over” the work of many leaders (Spillane et al., 2001). Using a
distributive leadership frame helps redefine leadership practices allowing principals
to reflect and think about their practice and how the tools used within the educational
environment enable or constrain leadership activity (Spillane et al., 2001, p. 27)
Methodology
In an effort to study the process of allocating resources using the Hawaii
Ac/FP, this study will use the current Ac/FPs of five elementary schools and cross
walk it with the Evidenced-based model. To answer the research questions, the
study will focus on aligning the Ac/FP to the strategies that work in the Evidenced
Based model.

15
Assumptions
The assumptions in the study are as follows:
1. The Evidenced-based model can be cross-walked with the Ac/FP tool.
2. Data exist to conduct the analysis of the Ac/FP.
3. Odden’s 10 steps represent one reasonable approach to improving student
performance.
4. Improving the usefulness of the Ac/FP for principals is a useful thing to
do.
Limitations
The first limitation in this study is the lack of understanding or experience the
principal may have in using the current Ac/FP process. The second limitation is a
lack of training the principal received regarding the skills and knowledge needed to
understand the challenges of successfully redesigning a school meet student
achievement outcomes. Third, due to declining economy the principal may not have
access to all resources needed to effectively allocate resources to strategies that work
in the Evidenced-based model and may have to prioritize initiatives within the
school’s instructional vision. The State’s financial condition has been vulnerable to
natural disasters and world events. As a result, the DOE will be faced with further
reductions in budgets and resources. Yet, there is heightened expectation for
improved student achievement and services, necessitating the DOE to do more with
less. Limitations in decision-making may also impact the implementation of the
Principal’s instructional vision. If the goal of the Ac/FP is improved student

16
performance and continuous improvement of the system, the decision-making
authority of the Principal to access resources and ensure that resources are used as
intended, is key. Factors, such as changing Federal, State, and District initiative may
have adverse affects on the Principal’s authority to follow thru with the goals in the
Ac/FP.
Limitations of this study include:
1. The lack of understanding or experience the principal may have in using
the current Ac/FP process.
2. The lack of training the principal received regarding the skills and
knowledge needed to understand the challenges of successfully
redesigning a school meet student achievement outcomes.
3. The principal may not have access to all resources needed to effectively
allocate resources to strategies that work in the Evidenced-based model
and may have to prioritize initiatives within the school’s instructional
vision. Hawaii’s current finance policy of the weighted student formula
(WSF) limits the full application of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
that is utilized in this comparison study.
4. Participation of schools only on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.
5. Schools were not chosen randomly, rather within in the Windward
District, which therefore may not be generalized across other districts or
schools.

17
6. Interviews were conducted with participating school principals and their
recommended support staff only.
7. The full extent of the data collected for this study is limited to the
availability of accurate and detailed records maintained by individual
school sites.
Delimitations
Delimitations of this study include:
1. Researcher is not able to control for the willingness of participants or
personal biases during interviews.
2. The small and limited purposeful sample of Oahu schools within the
Windward District do not allow for results to be generalized to other
Hawaii public schools.
3. Data collection was limited to the resource allocations of the current
2011-2012 school year.
Definition of Terms
Academic/Financial Plan (Ac/FP) — An annual school plan that is designed
to improve performance, documenting school goals, priorities, programs, activities,
and the funds designated to accomplish them.
Act 51 or The Reinventing Education Act (REA) of 2004 — Aims to
implement comprehensive education reform in Hawaii's public schools enacted by
the Legislature of the State of Hawaii.

18
Adequacy — Framed and interpreted within each individual state
constitution, adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that
would allow each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational
programs so that each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the
state’s education performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus,
2008).
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) — On February
17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), historic legislation designed to stimulate the
economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education.
The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in
innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students,
long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and
effectiveness.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — A landmark legal decision by the
United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate schools
based on race unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Hawaii Department of Education’s Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) —
2011-2018 Strategic Plan will serve as a living document over a seven-year period in
building a world-class education system to ensure that all students demonstrate
readiness for college, career, and citizenship in a global society.

19
English Language Learner (ELL) — Indicates a person who has a first
language other than English and is in the process of acquiring English.
Equity — Within education, the term is used to measure (1) horizontal equity,
or the equal access of education from individual to individual; and (2) vertical
equity, or the appropriate treatment of each individual based on their unique needs
(Bhatt & Wraight, 2009).
Evidence Based Model — An educational funding approach based on
identifying individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that
research has shown to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 — Also referred to as the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), affects education from
kindergarten through high school by (a) requiring accountability for results in
schools, (b) providing more choices for parents, (c) giving greater local control and
flexibility, and (c) emphasizing adoption of evidence-based practices.
Rodriguez v. San Antonio (1973) — A pivotal case heard by the United States
Supreme that determined that Texas’ school-financing system based on local
property taxes did not violate the equal protection clause. The ruling further clarified
that education is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, but
was a responsibility left to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
Race To The Top (RTTT) — The ARRA provides $4.35 billion for the Race
to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward
States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform.

20
Weighted Student Formula (WSF) — The amount of money given to schools
was based on individual need, not enrollment; meaning students with more needs
would receive more resources.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One provides a summary of the relevance of the current study of
educational reform and adequacy. Chapter Two discusses the literature involved in
federal policy reform, school finance, student achievement, adequacy and research-
based strategies for improving schools. Chapter Three outlines the study design,
research questions, instrumentation, data collection and an analysis of the data.
Chapter Four discusses the findings, and provides answers to the four research
questions used to guide this study. Chapter Five provides a summary of the findings,
limitations of the study, recommendations for future research and a conclusion to the
study.

21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Federal reform initiatives and state accountability measures have placed the
responsibility of school improvement and increased student achievement squarely on
the shoulders of administrative leaders. In order to meet NCLB mandates, school
leaders must produce high levels of learning a short amount of time. School reform
and “transformational change” has become a leadership challenge at a time when
educational leaders are not sure how to bring about such a transformation on a broad
scale (Elmore, 1999; McGowan & Miller, 2001). Principals must possess the
knowledge and skills to carefully examine the ways in which resources are used at
the school level to improve performance for all students. Deciding how much it will
cost to meet NCLB and RTTT initiatives has caused a shift from educational equity
to adequacy. Whereas equity was used to address the achievement gap by providing
equal access to an education, current educational demands call for adequacy to
determine the amount of funding needed to produce high levels of learning for all
students (Odden, 2003). Principals are required to address issues of adequacy by
allocating resources efficiently and effectively throughout the school in order to
deliver an adequate education for every child and meet the intense accountability
mandates of NCLB.
The current review will explore educational adequacy, Hawaii school
finance, as well as school resource allocation strategies as they relate to providing an

22
adequate education for all students. To facilitate this review of the literature, five key
areas have been identified:
1. An examination of current educational adequacy models;
2. An examination of Hawaii School Finance;
3. An examination of the history and development of the Hawaii school
improvement process and Ac/FP framework, including how the tool is
currently used and challenges in implementation;
4. An examination of the theoretical basis of the Evidence-Based Model of
educational adequacy, as well as the recommended resource allocations
for providing an adequate education;
5. An examination of how the Ac/FP can be used strategically to allocate
resources in a manner such as the Evidenced-based model.
Educational Adequacy Models
Today the prominent school finance issue in most states is whether there is
adequate funding for districts and schools to help students meet the rigors of
standards-based education reform (Odden & Picus, 2008). School-finance cases
have brought suits to courts on behalf of children in districts that felt the legislature
had not met their constitutional obligation in sufficiently fund schools to meet the
accountability mandates of NCLB. Courts have acted as the decision makers in
determining the degree to which resources should be allocated. Both research and
policy have failed to explain an impartial way of determining what resources are
needed to produce and “adequate” level of student achievement. Based on the

23
research, there is no predictable correlation between the level of resource allocation
and student achievement. In a meta-analysis done by Hanushek (1997), 400 separate
studies were reviewed in which no strong relationship in the variation of resources
and student performance was evident. Hanushek concluded that the total effect size
was not significant enough to show that additional resources boosted student
performance and that the increase in student performance may be contributed to
other factors such as parent involvement. He suggested that there were large
differences among teachers and schools, and the differences were not impacted by
salaries or resources allocated to programs. Hanushek stresses that incentives should
reinforce improving student performance and recognizing differences in students,
teachers, and schools, rather than simply adding resources to schools which policy
tends to focus on in an effort to address issues of adequacy and improved student
performance (Hanushek, 1997).
Courts and legislatures have attempted to establish the level of funding it
would take to adequately achieve the state standards. Applying a costing-out
approach to adequacy as a measure to determine adequate funding has been an issue
of controversy as it does not use a scientifically valid method to show how a change
in resources affects student performance (Hanushek, 2006). As a result, the courts
have used money to resolve issues of adequacy. Courts have struggled to provide a
consistent measure of how much money it takes to provide an adequate education.
As a result, courts have deferred the decision making to state legislators who often

24
rely on outside consultants who have provided models without empirical evidence
linking adequacy of resources to student achievement (Hanushek, 2006).
The nationwide focus on accountability has increased the pressure on states,
more significantly on schools to address the issue of adequacy thru school finance.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different adequacy models is
important in designing an adequate school finance system. States are required to
define how much an adequate education costs and the impact on spending for an
“average” child and make adjustments for students with special needs. Four
methods used to determine adequate expenditure levels are the: 1) successful district
approach, 2) cost function approach, 3) professional judgment approach, and 4)
evidence-based approach (Odden, 2003; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Used in Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi and Ohio, the successful district
approach identifies districts that have been successful in achieving student outcomes
by meeting performance benchmarks and then sets the adequacy level at the
weighted average of the expenditure per pupil of those districts. Criticism of this
approach is that adequacy expenditure level is hard to translate to the needs of urban
districts and small rural districts (Odden, 2003).
The cost function approach employs regression analysis with expenditure per
pupil as the dependent variable and student/district characteristics or desired
performance levels as the independent variable. The model sets an average
expenditure level for the average district and then provides adjustments based upon
pupil needs. The cost function approach is a model used to answer the following

25
questions: what constitutes a quality education, what it will cost to fund an adequate
education for every child, and how to allocate resources to improve student
achievement? Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) suggest that one challenge of using the
Cost Function Approach is that it is difficult to explain to policy makers and the
public how money alone helps schools effectively allocate resources to strategies that
work because there is no significant causal relationship between student performance
and spending. The similar schools and cost function approach fail to indicate which
educational strategies will produce the desired performance levels (Odden, 2003).
The approach has formed the basis of estimating school resource needs in Texas.
Used in Kansas, Maryland, Oregon, and Wyoming, the professional judgment
approach asks a group of educational experts to identify effective educational
strategies for elementary, middle and high schools and for special needs students.
The experts delineate the ingredients required for each, assign a price tag to each
ingredient and calculate the total amount of spending. This strategy can be adjusted
for differences in price points due to geographical regions, district size, differences
in student needs and more. The advantage of this approach is that it identifies what
is required to produce the desired student outcomes. The disadvantage of this
approach is that other than professional judgment, the strategies are not linked to
actual performance levels and experts’ judgments vary both within regions of the
state and across states (Odden, 2003).
The evidence-based approach identifies a set of strategies that are required to
deliver a high quality, comprehensive instructional program throughout the school

26
for all students. The strategies are based upon proven research strategies and
determine an adequate expenditure level by assigning a process to each ingredient
and aggregating to a total cost. The approach uses strategies of comprehensive
school design models.
Most of the models require substantial increases in education funding, no one
approach is used predominantly throughout the country and each produces different
dollar amounts (Odden, 2003). Picus (2004) advocates for the use of the Evidenced-
based model stating that the approach relies on programs in schools that have been
proven successful in improving learning. He notes that once resources are identified
they are subject to the “professional judgment” of officials in the state to validate
their research-based recommendations. The Evidence-based approach is used to
fund schools in Wyoming, Arkansas, Ohio and North Dakota.
On the other hand, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) criticized the Evidenced-
based approach arguing that consultants review available research and select studies
at their discretion as related to programs and services considered necessary for a
model school, then price out the cost. Consultants are able to quantify the
effectiveness of each program by calculating the impact of program implementation
on student achievement. Hanushek and Lindseth calculated the combined effect of
student achievement over a year and argued that creating packaged programs using
the “selected” studies were biased, allowing consultants to report unrealistic gains in
student performance after a single year of implementation. In order for the evidence-
based method to work state legislatures and school districts have to implement the

27
resource allocation plan with fidelity and adhere to the financial recommendations of
the consultants. Furthermore, they argued that all of the programs need to be
implemented instead of focusing on programs that yield high achievement per dollar
invested.
Hawaii Finance
Hawaii only has one school district with approximately 180,000 students. In
2004, legislators passed the Reinventing Education Act, forcing an overhaul on
education funding. A review of WSF in Hawaii completed by Baker & Thomas
(2006), suggests that there was no sufficient research to determine exactly how the
decentralization of budget control will effect student outcomes and school quality.
From the analyses of WSF, they concluded that Hawaii was making a move towards
a more rational, needs-based distribution of financial resources among schools.
However, the phase-in process was stifling the intent of the program. Baker,
reported that the system didn’t assign large enough weights for “high needs”
students. According to the report, Hawaii allocated an additional $429 for
economically disadvantaged students, while other studies in the reports suggested
that $1,160 to $2,830 were need to make significant improvements in schools (Baker
& Thomas, 2006).
Principals control about two-thirds of the money that comes into their
schools. According to HRS Section 302A-1301(b), principals have control over
spending 70% of the appropriation in the DOE’s operating budget. Another 22
percent is spent by the central department to pay for transportation, food services,

28
and utilities. Other funding is mandated to support categorical programs such as
ROTC, vocational education, and Hawaiian Immersion, and athletics. Although
more than 70% of the education budget will be spent at the schools, it doesn’t
necessarily mean principals have total control. Fiscal autonomy for principals seems
to be limited, under these mandates, principals may face restrictions such as cutting
positions or replacing tenured teachers. Facing tight budget restrictions, other
principals will have to make decisions such as cutting back on office personnel in
order to hire more teachers.
Salaries of Hawaii DOE employees – excluding fringe benefits account for
$1.2 billion or 68 percent of the budget. Non-salary expenses account for the
remaining $559 million. The rest of the budget is summarized by programs and
services (www.civilbeat.org, 6/6/2011):
• 36% WSF;
• 6% Categorical programs (ROTC, athletics, Hawaiian Immersion
Programs);
• 15% Federal Programs (Title I, NCLB, vocational education);
• 23% Special Education Programs;
• 14% food services, student transportation, and utility costs.
In 2006, Hawaii became the first state to use a student-based budgeting
system called Weighted Student Funding (WSF) statewide. The program is designed
to ensure that money for education is spread equitably among its 287 schools. WSF
is based on three principles: funding follows each child in each school; per-student

29
funding is based on the child’s needs (i.e. economically disadvantaged, ELL),
carrying bigger “weights”; principals control educational expenditures of their
school. In Hawaii the base amount per student is approximately $4,292 under WSF
(stateline.org, 6/6/2011). The weights include an additional $429 for poor students,
$809 for ELLs, and $107 for transient students, such as military personnel.
In theory, the formula is designed to ensure each school can take care of
every student’s needs. In practice it has run into some challenges. Some schools
have complained the formula has actually reduced their budgets, forcing schools to
cut personnel or programs. Hawaii’s initial WSF plan didn’t include a base amount
to ensure adequate operation. In 2006, to remedy the shortfalls, the legislature
appropriated $20 million to cover school deficits. Under the previous system, Hawaii
DOE controlled the school’s budget and the hiring of staff was dependent on the
enrollment of the school.
A committee meets once a year to discuss specific characteristics of schools,
staffs, and students. Each characteristic is assigned a particular weight that would
account for any additional costs of education those students. The weights establish a
funding formula that is applied to the make-up of each of Hawaii’s schools. Hawaii
with only one district is not funded by local funding, local communities do not have
a lot of control over financing their schools.
In addition to WSF, Hawaii schools will receive an additional $75 million
from the Federal government over the next four years as a Phase 2 RTTT recipient in
2010.

30
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, per pupil expenditures increased from
$8,997 to $11,060 in 2007. The percent of State and local expenditures for public
education (per capita) were 18.5% in 2005 and 19/7% in 2006. Hawaii’s 2007 per
pupil expenditure increased by 12% compared to 2006, and increased by 23%
compared to 2005. In 2005 and 2006 Hawaii ranked last and fourth to last
respectively in the proportion it spends on education (NCES, 2010). Hawaii has
moved from 14% of public expenditures in 1995 to 20% in 2006. The U.S average
remained stable at about 23-24% during this period. Hawaii still spends less on
education than the national average (NCES, 2009). Hawaii ranked 47
th
in the
percent of state and local expenditures for public education in the nation.
Focus on Learning: The Hawaii School Improvement Process
In the state of Hawaii, it is the Principal’s responsibility to create an Ac/FP
explaining how to allocate resources and align school reform with school finance
adequacy strategies that work. To ensure student achievement, the Hawaii DOE has
mandated that all public schools use a systematic improvement process. The process
leads to the development of a three year School Strategic Plan (SSP) that is aligned
with State and Complex Area goals and objectives. To operationalize actions in the
SSP, a one year Ac/FP details specific activities and timelines, and assigns resources
necessary for implementation. The school improvement process also includes a
comprehensive needs assessment of performance and student data, the inclusion of
stakeholders, and requires an annual update of the SSP and the Ac/FP. An approved
Ac/FP also acts a “compliance document” for Title I schools, indicating what the

31
school has determined based on the comprehensive needs assessment and what
strategic actions and enabling activities will be supported with Title I funds.
Hawaii Board of Education Policy 2710, Accreditation of Schools, requires
all secondary schools (middle & high school) to engage in the accreditation process
otherwise known as the Focus on Learning (FOL) process as a vehicle for systematic
school improvement. The accreditation body used to accredit schools in Hawaii is
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Through FOL a school
fulfills the requirements for accreditation. This process forms the basis for the
School Strategic Plan and the annual Academic and Financial Plan both of which are
mandated by Act 51, 2004 Session Laws of Hawaii. The accreditation process
requires the school to take a critical look at itself to determine the extent to which it
meets the DOE/WASC FOL Schoolwide criteria: Organization (Vision, Mission,
Culture, Governance and Leadership, Staff, Resources), Standards-based student
learning (Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Accountability), and Quality
Student Support. It is important to note that elementary schools do not participate in
the WASC accreditation process.
School Strategic Plan
The School Strategic Plan (SSP) supports the State Strategic Plan. The SSP
provides a framework for schools to work in unison with other schools, the complex,
and State offices to improve student achievement through standards-based education,
provide comprehensive student support for all students, and continuously improve
performance and quality. The three year SSP includes prioritized strategic actions

32
the school will implement to achieve the strategic goals. These actions are based on
priorities identified as a result of the comprehensive needs assessment conducted at
each school.
Development of the Academic and Financial Plan
The Ac/FP is an annual plan aligned with the three-year School Strategic
Plan. The Ac/FP provides a single, comprehensive school plan that aligns the
school’s available resources to ongoing instructional and student support activities,
strategic actions to improve operations, management, and support services required
for students to achieve proficiency in the Hawaii Content Performance Standards
(HCPS) III and the General Learner Outcomes (GLOs). In 2006-07, the Hawaii
received USDE approval to implement a single school improvement plan for schools
with a Title I and NCLB status. Consequently, the Strategic Plan and Ac/FP
incorporate the components of the Title I Schoolwide, Targeted Assistance,
Intervention, and Restructuring Plans.
The Ac/FP is developed by the school principal, reviewed by the School
Community Council and approved by the Complex Area Superintendent. The Ac/FP
requires the collection and analysis of student and school performance data, setting
priorities for program improvement, rigorous use of effective solution strategies,
research-based practices, clear linkages between activities and resource use, and
ongoing monitoring of results (Framework for School Improvement, 2009). The
plan is developed in a manner consistent with collective bargaining agreements and

33
accounts for all funds expended at the school which includes WSF, categorical,
federal, and trust funds.
The Ac/FP is a document produced through the application of a school
improvement process. The DOE/WASC Joint Process Guide outlines the process of
identifying performance gaps, hypothesizing the root cause, determining an
intervention plan, and monitoring the results. Schools develop their plans in the fall
prior to the school year of implementation and submit them for approval by the last
day of school prior to the winter break. Principals work with other school
community leaders to develop their draft Ac/FP. Principals share the draft plans
with the school community and after revisions present it to the SCC. Following the
SCC review, the plan is sent to the Complex Area Superintendent for approval (Act
51, Part V, Section 25). The release of student performance data and summary
progress reports from the previous school year prior to the start of the new school
year prompts a review of the plan prior to full scale implementation.
The Ac/FP is to be used as a tool to empower the principal in meeting
accountability measures and increasing transparency. Principals face several issues
that create challenges in creating a useful Ac/FP. As stated above, Ac/FP plans are
completed by December of the previous year resulting in the use of outdated student
achievement data which may affect decisions in efficient and effective allocation of
resources for the upcoming school year. In addition, all funding through WSF must
be encumbered by the end of June with the state allowing a maximum of 5-7%
carryover to provide a buffer for the following year. For the new school year, WSF

34
is dependent on a projected school count. If the school does not meet the projected
school count estimated by enrollment of the previous school year, the school must
pay back the WSF funding. Last minute changes in funding also present a challenge
in the implementation phase of the Ac/FP.
Principals also have to face the reality that they do not have control over the
amount of funding provided and taken away from the school as Hawaii struggles to
cover the State’s economic deficit. Principals are often left to prioritize which
programs will be funded and cut from year to year. Without an evidenced-based
framework, various individuals or groups struggle for power and try to advance
special interests. Having a common framework will allow principals to manage
change using proactive strategies and adapt their Ac/FP during a time of economic
decline rather than being reactive to sometimes unpredictable budget restraints.
Another issue is that the accreditation process, which involves a structured
comprehensive needs assessment, is only required by secondary schools. Elementary
schools who do not participate in the formalized FOL process, must comply with the
mandate of completing the Ac/FP tool on their own without the recommendations
from a visiting WASC committee. The Ac/FP process further requires the approval
of the SCC and the Complex Area Superintendent. All role groups may not interpret
the priorities in the Ac/FP the same as they may have divergent interests. Outside
stakeholders in the SCC use their “professional judgment” to help define the
enabling activities used to meet Ac/FP goals based on their perceptions of what is
working and not working within the school. Without a common framework that

35
defines best practice in allocating resources decisions may be made that are not in
line with the schools’ student learning outcomes.
The existing Ac/FP framework is based on the WASC accreditation process
designed to meet state compliance and accountability mandates with very broad
components. The framework fails to provide specific strategies on how to allocate
and monitor resources to meet high standards for student achievement. Using an
Evidence-based model allows principals to create a well defined Ac/FP which is
more effective than just adding resources randomly to the Ac/FP.
Ramaley (2002) suggests that transformational change occurs when the
impacts of change are pervasive throughout the school, changing the culture and
behaviors of individuals. A holistic approach in analyzing the Ac/FP needs to be
taken so that so that the entire institution may focus on school wide improvement
and student achievement. Communication and implementation of a well devised
Ac/FP will discourage change from occurring in random pockets throughout the
organization. In order to create transformational change leaders must have a clear
and compelling model for change and plan of action that will make change possible
(Ramaley, 2002). An evidenced-based approach would allow resources to be
allocated in a targeted and purposeful manner.
There is a need for the Hawaii school improvement process to be aligned to
with research-based strategies that work. Currently, principals are working in
isolation under an enormous amount of pressure to comply with NCLB and RTTT
mandates to create a comprehensive plan that will continuously improve the

36
organization and increase performance annually. Alignment to the Evidenced-based
model will stream line the Ac/FP making it a more meaningful process so that
principals are working smarter not harder. Principals need a tool that will help
determine how to create a seamless plan that builds continuity from year to year.
Principals must also decide what action they will take when change occurs in the
resources or funding allocated to the school. To make effective decisions about
resource allocation, a solid framework is needed to empower a Principal in guiding a
discussion with stakeholder so that the prioritization of resources is transparent and
in line with best practice and the vision of the school.
The Evidenced-Based Model
The evidence-based approach to educational adequacy is a framework for
school improvement and identifies best practices that have increased student
performance based on research. Each of these essential elements is identified and a
cost is applied to each element (Odden & Picus, 2008). Some critics argue that an
adequacy model cannot provide the exact amount needed to ensure student success at
a proficient level (Hanushek, 2006; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). However, Odden
et al. (2008) explain that the evidence-based model is not a prescription, but instead a
framework to help schools examine how resources can be more effectively allocated
to meet student achievement outcomes. The evidence-based model can be adjusted to
meet the differentiated needs of schools. The framework takes into account student
population and the amount of students who may need extra supports such as special
needs students, and ELLs. The evidence-based model has successfully been used in

37
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky
due to its close alignment to research-proven strategies for school reform (Odden et
al., 2008).
Odden (2009) examined the allocation of resources at several schools across
the U.S. that had doubled or nearly doubled their students’ performance. Odden &
Archibald (2009) reported finding several commonalities between resource
allocation and best practices across the schools. Based on this research they
developed ten strategies for doubling student performance using the Evidence-Based
Model approach and developed an adequacy model that would help schools better
define the answer to, “How much will it cost?” (Odden, 2009).
The Evidence-Based Model provides a framework as a starting point for
schools that can be adjusted depending on the type of school (elementary, middle, or
high school) and student population. It also clarifies the importance of schools using
data on student learning to identify learning needs of the school’s student population.
In order to improve student performance money needs to be allocated more
effectively, clearly focused on best practices directly connected to better student
learning outcomes.
It is important for school administrators to understand how their current funds
are being spent by closely examining the resource allocations that exist within a
school to ensure they are being used effectively. If more funds are deemed necessary
according to the Evidence-Based Model, there is a starting point for district and

38
school administrator to understand specifically where more resources are needed,
and how much it will cost to add resources.
Conduct a Needs Assessment
Effective leadership is an important component in setting the stage for school
wide improvement. McGowan and Miller (2001) argue that effective leadership is
more critical than ever, helping people cope with change, set direction, deflect fear
and criticism, engage all stakeholders and inspire people to construct more effective
strategies for school reform. A comprehensive needs assessment sets the road map
or “big picture” of what the school has achieved and helps define new targets for
school wide an improvement. An effective leader recognizes that the school’s
assessment may be used tool to help recognize when the institution is not adequately
serving its purpose and major adaptive change is required in order for the
organization to move forward (Bolman & Deal, 1994).
Conducting a needs assessment requires establishing a vision in which the
principal sets the “pre-conditions” for improvement in classrooms, sets the direction,
and develops commitment (Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
The process of improving results within a school involves an examination of
the current performance results and the school’s desire performance outcomes.
Typically, schools rely on performance data such as state assessments as a “macro”
map or starting point in initiating schoolwide conversation about the achievement
gap as a whole and among defined subgroups with the purpose of teasing out overall
strengths and weaknesses (Odden, 2009).

39
Linn (2005) suggests that implications of using high stakes assessments to
measure student achievement have filtered into classroom practices. High stakes
assessments combined with unrealistic performance targets has overshadowed the
importance of creating a variety of assessments to measure what students know and
are able to do. According to Shavelson and Huang (2003) schools need to look at the
results of assessments and determine if the results are aligned with the school’s
mission and general learner outcomes. In order to change teacher behavior, the
school needs to look at the results of high stakes tests and determine how to adapt
teaching methods to improve student learning. Schools need to decide if what they
teach and measure is a true representation of what they value as a school.
A comprehensive needs assessment also allows the school to develop an
institutional practice among faculty members to examine the academic progress of
underserved groups. According to Bensimon (2005), establishing equitable
outcomes is achieved through the evaluation of the cognitive frames of individuals
within an institution–their attitudes, beliefs, values, and actions – which determines
how staff make sense of student performance within the organization. Participation
in this process of identifying and understanding patterns of low student achievement
among underserved populations is especially important in Hawaii. Identifying the
needs of all students representing the school population will help develop a plan in
which resources may be distributed in an equitable and adequate manner to address
the achievement gap. Conducting a needs assessment requires taking the time for

40
reflection about ourselves as professionals and our strengths and weaknesses as a
school.
Set Higher Goals
According to the Evidenced-Based Model (Odden, 2009), defining the
instructional vision and committing to it school wide sets the tone for the school.
Hallinger and Heck (2002), emphasize vision as the key in transformational
leadership. Transformational leadership is defined as the manner by which a leader
profoundly influences a constituency. The principal works with constituencies to
define and create the structure that will enable the school to carry out the
instructional vision. Clearly articulated values embedded in a vision enable leaders
and schools to be more effective problem solvers. Leaders are able to reflect on the
values and morals they hold most important and tease out the important details
hidden in tough problems. As educational reform efforts thru NCLB and RTTT spark
new initiatives that will result in immediate changes in the educational system,
principals will need to practice “visioning” or understanding emerging changes in
the environment, embracing new ways of thinking, and looking ahead to identify
new opportunities for the school (Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
Setting higher goals for student achievement means discarding old systems
and practices that did not improve student learning outcomes and adopting new
practices that will create transformational change. A tension exists in the
accountability and autonomy of schools. According to NCLB the quality of an
education is measured by standardized tests and teacher quality has changed with a

41
focus on performance-based accountability. Schools, more specifically principals
must shift leadership roles from manager to educational leader in order to create a
culture that will allow schools to meet reform expectations. At a time when the
nation is becoming more centralized in adopting national common core standards
and accountability systems, individual schools are struggling to maintain autonomy
in addressing of their unique student populations and meeting their school’s vision.
Elmore, (2005) suggests that federal and state performance-based
accountability systems were established as attempts to “influence” accountability not
“create” it. He encourages principals to focus on encouraging internal accountability
within the organization through examination of one’s own conceptual beliefs of
accountability. For example: individual responsibility or to who, for what, and how
am I accountable; collective expectations or norms and values that define the
organization; and collective expectation or formal mechanisms by what teachers
account for what they do. Schools with greater internal accountability are better able
to deal with the external pressures because they develop their own measures of
addressing curriculum, performance, and instructional problems in ways that are
consistent with the school’s core values. Elmore establishes that collective
expectations lead to “collective agency” or “locus of control” which influences the
culture of the organization. Adopting the belief among staff that “success is a sum of
the work of its individuals,” creates a cultural shift in the degree to which the
organization believes it has an influence on student learning and internalizes
responsibility for improving student achievement (Elmore, 2005). In this capacity,

42
organizations are more apt in dealing with external pressures by exercising control
over their practice and adopting new methods in response to organizational
expectations.
When the vision of what could be is set, motivating the staff to move forward
in a shared quest is developed through a shared mission. Odden (2009) suggests
setting higher goals beyond the annual productivity benchmarks established by
NCLB, and going beyond to “accomplish something special” as a school. Setting
ambitious goals means more than targeting students that fail to meet proficiency
standards. Instead schoolwide improvement focuses on large, long-term student
performance gains for all students. Teachers embrace high expectations for learning
and sustaining performance improvement over several years. Many schools struggle
with defining high goals because the majority of the student population comes from
poverty and minority backgrounds (Odden, 2009). High performing schools are able
to make a paradigm shift from deficit to dynamic thinking by adopting the
philosophy that teachers make a difference in student achievement, in other words if
students fail, teachers have failed. High performance regardless of socio-
demographic conditions- low income and minority- is evident in Reeve’s study
(2003) of 90-90-90 schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These schools were comprised
of 90% of students at or above the state proficiency standard, 90% or more eligible
for free and reduced lunch, and 90% from minority backgrounds. Staffs within 90-
90-90 schools perpetuate the belief that they can make an enormous contribution to
the achievement of students from underserved populations. Effective teaching and

43
leadership have made a difference in schools categorized as 90-90-90 and leaders
have made it clear that what determines a school’s success is teaching quality not
poverty.
According to Black and Williams (1998), greater emphasis should be placed
on examining teacher and student interactions in the classroom. For example,
student achievement gaps can be closed by focusing on the learning process: setting
clear learning objectives, measuring student performance on an on-going basis, and
providing explicit feedback to build the skills necessary to achieve objectives. When
teachers adopt the belief that a student’s ability is determined by skills that can be
learned rather than a “fixed IQ,” students are more likely to focus on their behaviors
and develop the habits which enable them to take responsibility for their own
learning (Black & Williams, p. 9).
Adopt a New Curriculum & Create a New Instructional Vision
Students need a rigorous curriculum that will prepare them to meet the
demands of becoming college and career ready in the 21
st
century. To help students
meet high standards as measured by performance assessments, teachers must use a
curriculum that engages students and challenges them to understand concepts deeply,
find and integrate information, assemble evidence, weigh ideas, and develop skills of
analysis and expression (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Schools must also redefine
agreed upon instructional practices that will compliment the delivery of the new
curriculum (Odden, 2009).

44
Adopting a new curriculum also changes the instructional vision. High
performing school in Odden’s (2009) study literally threw out the old curriculum and
selected new curriculum based on their new view of effective instructional practice.
For example, the Madison, Wisconsin schools district identified that reading
strategies and textbooks varied from school to school resulting in a disjointed
approach to reading instruction and was no longer appropriate in meeting the needs
of an increasingly diverse and mobile population.
Instead of adopting a new textbook, Madison created its own reading
program stressing the balance of comprehension, reading, and phonics which
provided explicit guidance for reading strategies. Teachers were able to keep a
running record of student performance based on teacher made formative assessments
(Odden, 2009).
In Kennewick, Washington leadership promotes accountability through
“learning walks” or classroom observation. Teachers focus on developing lesson
plans that set clear objectives for mastering the curriculum. Teachers describe how
students will demonstrate that they have met the learning objective and the Principal
will observe whether a teacher’s questions, activities, and responses align to the
lesson objective, whether student understood the purpose, and was able to meet the
objective. Kennewick created a process of planning, coaching, and reflective
conversation. Teachers were accountable for the implementation of agreed upon
instructional practices and leadership held them accountable by using the strategy of
learning walks to reinforce the schools new instruction vision (Odden, 2009).

45
Commit to Data-Based Decision Making
Successful schools commit to data-based decision making to inform
instruction and meet the needs of all learners and have adopted a shared commitment
to collaboration. Effective leaders establish a systematic process and clear strategies
for achieving the vision and goals. There are mechanisms in place for monitoring
progress, promoting organizational learning and making modifications to the plan.
There is a shared commitment to collaboration (McGowan & Miller, 2001).
Benchmark and formative assessments are essential pieces of performance
data that provide detailed information about individual student achievement and help
inform instructional practice. Odden (2009) suggests that high performing schools
that include on-going formative assessment are more capable of providing targeted
instruction tailored to meet the differentiated needs of students, allowing teachers to
craft an instructional approach based on what student do and do not know. A
collaborative analysis of grade level data also allowed teachers to build a culture of
high expectations for all students because they viewed all grade level students as
their own.
High performing schools concentrate on the quality of interactions between
teachers and students and understand that formative assessment is an essential
component of classroom work and can raise the bar for student achievement. When
leaders place a laser light focus on what teachers and students are doing in the
classroom and use student achievement data as a measure of accountability, they are

46
in a better position to measure the effectiveness of resources (inputs) and student
learning outcomes (outputs) (Black & Williams, 1996).
A good teacher constantly reflects on how to improve the quality of learning
going on in the classroom. A crucial aspect of teaching and lesson design is taking
into consideration how the learner cognitively processes information and the most
effective ways to promote student learning. Research conducted on novice and
intermediate learners using strong, directed instructional guidance (Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006) and formative feedback (Shute, 2008) suggest that the use of
these strategies help support transfer and retention of information from working
memory to long-term memory.
Through strong, directed instructional guidance and immediate feedback an
instructor may create a more effective learning environment by reducing the level of
stress and uncertainty of the learner, thereby decreasing cognitive load. When a
teacher is prepared and clearly states what students should know and be able to do by
the end of the lesson, the teacher is better able to eliminate the extraneous
information that is distracting to learners. Implementing guided practices such as
scaffolding concepts, modeling instruction, worked examples, and providing explicit
feedback should be evident in every lesson and enables the learner to make
connections between concepts and develop a schema. “Feedback lacking in
specificity may lead to uncertainty about how to respond to feedback and may
require greater information-processing activity on the part of the
learner…uncertainty and cognitive load can lead to lower levels of learning” (Shute,

47
2008, p. 157). Shute (2008) emphasizes that feedback targeted on learning rather
than performance may also serve as a tool in motivating the learner and a powerful
mechanism in providing cognitive support. “Goal-orientation feedback can modify a
learner’s view of intelligence by helping the learner see that (a) ability and skill can
be learned thru practice, (b) effort is critical to increasing this skill, and (c) mistakes
are part of the skill acquisition process” (Shute, 2008, p. 162).
As an institution we have a responsibility to make decisions based on data
and research regarding best practices, all the while keeping in mind what is best for
students. Effective schools advocate the importance of posting clear learning
objectives in the classroom, providing the professional development which allows
teachers to integrate best practices into lesson planning, and holding teachers
accountable for school wide initiatives.
When instruction has a purpose that is clear to the teacher and the student,
more meaningful learning occurs. Setting clear learning objectives helps a teacher
narrow the focus and emphasize key concepts and reduces cognitive overload.
Reducing extraneous information allows students to identify main ideas and link new
concepts to background knowledge and past learning.
Invest in On-Going Professional Development & Create Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs)
In order for teachers to become skilled in analyzing assessment data, on-
going professional development should be the core of improving performance within
the school. Professional development strategies in schools that doubled performance

48
involved restructuring the day to embed common collaboration time or pupil free
time as part of the work expectations for teachers. The primary focus of professional
collaboration should be on linking learning directly to the school’s curriculum
(Odden, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2002). Professional development is effective
when it produces a change in teachers’ classroom based instructional practice and is
linked to improvements in student learning (Odden, 2009).
Effective leaders create an environment for change. Establishing PLCs
within an institution causes a shift in fundamental purpose, from a focus on teaching
to a focus on learning. PLCs create a cultural shift that emphasizes what students
have learned, how they demonstrate proficiency, and building shared knowledge
regarding curriculum. Teachers shift from working in isolation to collaboration.
PLCs help to promote a culture of committing to a common vision and framing
collective attitudes that lead to action and holding one another accountable. A shift
occurs from an external focus on issues outside the school to an internal focus on
steps the staff can take to improve the school. PLCs help to create a picture of what
quality instruction looks like (DuFour et al., 2006).
Professional development strategies in schools that doubled performance
involved restructuring the day to embed common collaboration time or pupil free
time as part of the work expectations for teachers. The primary focus of professional
collaboration should be on linking learning directly to the school’s curriculum
(Odden, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2002). In order for teachers to become skilled in
analyzing assessment data, on-going professional development should be the core of

49
improving performance within the school. Professional development is effective
when it produces a change in teachers’ classroom based instructional practice and is
linked to improvements in student learning (Odden, 2009; Kirkpatrick, 2006).
An effective leader understands the importance of engaging professionals in
meaningful tasks and providing the conditions where a collaborative culture is
nurtured. Teachers have the most power when it comes to creating change because
they have a strong influence in the classroom and credibility with their colleagues
(Urbanski & Nikolau, 1997). Building teacher leadership capacity is essential in the
process of school reform and building a learner centered culture. Seeking collective
leadership by promoting teachers as leaders helps to provide the capacity for school
reform. Establishing PLCs helps to build a shared knowledge base assisting teachers
in addressing issues such as how to teach all students effectively, how learning
occurs, and how children develop (Urbanski & Nickolau, 1997). PLCs contribute to
the Ac/FP or EB model by targeting rigorous standards based instruction and allow
teachers to reflect on the impact of their teaching in order to adjust instruction to
meet the needs of the learners (Darling-Hammond, 1994).
According to Bensimon (2004), educators need to first become aware that
there is an achievement gap. Second, teachers need to be involved in a process that
allows them to interpret the meaning of the gap, allowing teachers to reflect on their
practices. Participating in data analysis allows teachers to reflect on their own
attitudes and perspectives. Actively involving teachers in finding solutions to
problems may encourage change. Data analysis acts as an intervention tool, a

50
catalyst for change; it allows educators to “reflect on how their own practices might
be contributing to the problem (Bensimon, 2004).”
Engaging teachers in Professional Learning also aligns with Clark and Estes’
(2001) motivational index:
1. Active Choice — teachers are actively involved in seeking out data that
will support the problem and come up with unique solutions to the
problem.
2. Mental Effort — teachers work collaboratively to share the responsibility
of improving school wide initiatives and creating a shared plan.
3. Persistence — teachers work out a plan supported by data driven decision
making for implementing and monitoring the plan.
To avoid fragmentation, school wide improvement efforts involve providing
the time within the school day to evaluate curriculum, develop lesson plans, examine
student work, and develop a collective perspective on agreed upon teaching
pedagogy to address differentiated learners (Darling-Hammond, 2002). PLCs help
create the culture where professional learning can take place. Effective schools
make a commitment to providing the time and resources for collaboration and on-
going professional development. Quality teaching is sustained within a school by
sharing expertise, reflection on practice and student learning, and developing new
teaching methods.
Kirkpatrick (2006) describes the four levels of evaluating the success of
professional development: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results –to effectively

51
measure behavior change within an organization and stresses the importance of
measuring knowledge, skills, and attitudes on a before-and-after basis (Kirkpatrick,
2006). For example, giving a pre and post-test allows leadership to understand if new
knowledge and skills were acquired during the training. The difference between the
pre and post test results measure what trainees have learned. Kirkpatrick suggests
that when trainees react positively to the training program, chances of learning are
improved and they are eager to learn new knowledge and skills (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Kirkpatrick gives sensible advice about getting leaders to reflect on the
resources that the organization has and how much of the budget and man power can
be dedicated to evaluating programs. He also suggests building leadership capacity
among employees so accountability is shared, therefore creating “buy in.” The most
important idea that Kirkpatrick shares is having the patience within the organization
to let new programs develop and allow for behavior change to take place.
Focus Class Time More Effectively
Careful analysis of how schools use the valuable resource of time can help
create an environment for school success. Odden (2009) suggests protecting
instructional time for core subjects such as reading and math and minimizing
disruptions; extending time to 90 minute blocks for reading and math, and ensuring
that students are engaged in bell to bell instruction to ensure time is used effectively
by staff.
Other strategies involved extending learning time for students who are
struggling either during or after school which allow students to participate in more

52
individualized support through tutoring. Odden also suggest lowering the class size
in grades K-3 to a ration of 15 to 1. In high school, preserving instructional minutes
in the core subjects of reading and math or extending these periods so that time in
these classes are not sacrificed to elective classes. Keeping high school schedules to
6 periods a day when not extending the school day also lowered costs and allowed
for efficient use of resources. Using time more strategically allowed schools to
create many strategies for teachers to find time within the school day to collaborate
on curriculum and instruction (Odden, 2009).
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
In schools studied by Odden (2009) and associates, some schools provided
more instructional time for struggling students during the afternoon while other
students participated in elective classes. Other strategies used by schools with
steadily increasing achievement included four tiers of interventions; the first being
the provision of high quality instruction to all students (Odden, 2009). The second
tier is to provide interventions within the regular classroom guided by formative
assessments. Classroom interventions can include the use of individual or small-
group instruction (maximum of five students), and/or tutoring by a licensed teacher.
In some cases an additional teacher co-teaches with a regular classroom teacher in
order to provide extra supports to students with learning needs that require
continuous assistance. The third tier includes extended time in the form of an
extended day for those students with learning needs that require more support. The

53
final stage, if needed, is to provide students with identified disabilities with a
program that is geared to their specific disability (Odden, 2009).
Providing tutoring as an intervention is another highly effective strategy for
struggling students because it provides an immediate intervention in addressing the
learning challenge the support is aligned with the classroom instruction (Odden,
2009). According to Odden’s research, one full-time tutor could tutor 18 students
per day on a one-to-one basis. Four positions would allow 72 students per day.
Effective tutoring is delivered to students on an as-needed basis and determined by
formative assessment and based on the students’ progress made toward learning
outcomes. Effect delivery of this strategy is not intended to be a permanent
intervention for a struggling student. Once a student attains proficiency in a
benchmark, the student is cycled back into the classroom (Odden, 2009).
Schools offering extended learning opportunities for struggling students may
also budget resources to provide time outside the regular school year such as summer
school or during extended calendar breaks, extended-day or after school programs
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Empower Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement
The goal of education is to improve the quality of teaching and learning in
classrooms. On a road towards school improvement schools may face a fork in the
road. According to Goldberg & Morrison (2003) schools usually adopt one of two
strategies. The first promotes change from within, or the “re-culturing” of a school.
Re-culturing is creating strong, nurturing relationships among students, teachers,

54
administration, parents, and community. Schools that adopt re-culturing method
strive to strengthen collaborative relationships and trust among the school, outside
individuals, and organizations in an effort to build social capital in the school
community.
The second strategy requires the school to be seen as an organization or
business. The school is “re-organized” or “re-structured” in which school
improvement is measured by standards-based tests, teacher standards, and a system
of accountability. The ultimate goal of re-structuring is to increase academic
performance. Schools invest in the growing skills and knowledge of its members
and the community in an effort to build human capital among all stakeholders.
What the two strategies have in common is that they encourage schools to
focus on collaboration, implementing research-based best practices and assessment
programs, and decentralizing decision making. Goldberg and Morrison emphasize
that effective leaders will implement the two strategies in unison to build consensus
among leadership, define a common mission, and improve accountability.
The authors discuss three types of accountability: bureaucratic, professional,
and community. Bureaucratic accountability is typically found in large organizations
with “top-down” leadership and “bottom- up” reporting (Goldberg & Morrison, p.
62). The locus of control is external with hierarchical rules, roles and regulations.
The system as a whole is accountable for the outcomes. Professional accountability
is measured by the professional behavior guided by a body of knowledge or set of
rules and the locus of control is from within (Goldberg & Morrison, p. 64).

55
Community accountability is voluntary and generally built on the open flow of
information shared between stakeholders (Goldberg & Morrison, p. 66). The locus
of control is internal to the school and the school and community are accountable to
one another.
The “Achilles heel” of bureaucratic accountability is the implementation of
broad or general practices or policies that may not be applicable to the unique needs
of schools or organizations (Goldberg & Morrison, p. 69). Effective leaders
understand the importance of bureaucratic accountability and know how to balance it
with Professional and Community Accountability. Effective leaders always
remember their mission and understand the needs of the community they serve.
Courageous leaders use professional knowledge and decide when it is appropriate to
deviate from bureaucratic rules and regulations because they are doing more harm
than good.
Take Advantage of External Expertise
Odden (2009) added the use of best practices to his ten strategies for
improving student performance because the strategy is often underused as a strategy
for improving student learning. Schools that were able to double performance did so
by seeking out evidence from research, advice from experts and other practitioners,
and worked in teams to produce significant gains in student achievement (Odden,
2009). Marzano (2003) explains that effective teachers not only use more effective
instructional strategies during their instruction, they have more instructional
strategies to use in their bag of tricks.

56
Conclusion
This study will use Odden et al.’s (2008) allocation of resources framework
to examine how schools are using their resources in a strategic way to improve
student achievement. The Evidence Based Model offers a research-based point of
comparison when looking at an elementary school Ac/FP. The interest of the study is
in comparing the resource allocation framework that the Hawaii Department of
Education uses with those outlined above in the Evidence Based Model. This
comparison will provide not only a comparison of resources, but also a comparison
of recommended best practices in Hawaii, all of which have proven efficacy in
improving student achievement that can be used to obtain desired educational
outcomes (Odden, 2003). The “best practices” used in the Evidence-Based Model
have been cited as key elements in numerous studies on education (Bensimon, 2005;
Darling-Hammond, 2002; Elmore, 2000; Odden, 2009; Reeves, 2003). The next
chapter explains the methodology of the study including the research questions and
the sample selection.

57
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Implications
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence Based Model (EBM) on resource
allocation, and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
will be used as conceptual frameworks for data collection and analysis. Both the
EBM and ten strategies provide legislators, researchers, and practitioners with
specific recommendations for how resources can be used at the site level to bring
about improvements in student outcomes (Odden & Archibald, 2009). In addition,
the EBM and Ten Strategies were used as frameworks to compare the resource
allocation methods and school-wide educational strategies employed within an
Ac/FP to improve student achievement.
This chapter provides an outline of the methodology of the current study
consisting of the research questions, research design, sample, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis process. The Evidenced-Based Model provides 10
targeted research-based strategies that will be cross-walked with the 3 broad
priorities outlined in the State of Hawaii’s Ac/FP framework. Adhering to the 10
steps and resource allocation strategies implemented in the Evidence-based Model
will provide more direction for Principals. A completed elementary school Ac/FP
will be used to demonstrate how the current framework is used to allocate resources
to meet Hawaii’s strategic plan and federal compliance initiatives. This study will
show how the ten strategies will be reported within the Ac/FP framework. The

58
completed Ac/FP will be assessed according to how accurately the resources are
aligned with the Evidenced-Based Model approach, resulting in a new Ac/FP
framework that is cross walked with the Evidenced-based Model. The new Ac/FP
using the Evidenced-based model will help provide an example of a tool that will
empower Hawaii principals in meeting student learning outcomes by making
informed, research-based decisions about resource allocation. The Ac/FP will
become a tool that is more useful to principals in planning and assessing progress
made towards the school’s vision as well as revealing how a principal links resources
to strategies that have worked in improving student achievement and schoolwide
improvement.
Research Questions
This study will answer the following questions:
1. What is the school’s instructional vision and how does it align resources
to meet that vision within the framework of the Hawaii strategic plan?
2. How can principals use an Evidence-based model as a guide to effectively
align resources to strategies that work in raising student achievement?
3. In a time of economic decline and state budgetary cuts, how can an
Evidenced-Based Model assist principals in more effectively prioritizing
resource allocation needs?
4. How can an Evidence-Based framework help Principals statewide to
effectively link resources to meet the school’s vision and mission as
described in the Ac/FP?

59
Research Design
This study will use the sample of five elementary schools Ac/FP’s and cross-
walk them with the Evidence-based model. This study will employ a multiple
methods design consisting of both qualitative and quantitative data. Patton (2002)
explains that using a multiple methods approach can increase the methodological
rigor of a study.
The case study of one site will be conducted providing the necessary data
analysis needed to determine how a principal uses the Ac/FP form to effectively
allocate resources to improve student achievement. The results of the study provide
data on how elementary school principals use the form as a strategic resource
allocation tool and the implications this process has for school level budgets.
The use of a multiple methods approach will provide the necessary data on
the strategies a principal will use to meet the priorities in the states strategic plan and
provide information on the reasoning behind each resource allocation decision or
strategy selected.
Population and Sample
The study used a sample of five public elementary schools in a rural Complex
in the Windward District of Oahu, Hawaii. The school in this sample are traditional
public schools serving students from Pre-K to 6
th
grade with varying demographics.
All of the sample schools have met or exceeded AYP benchmarks for Reading and
Math and have a status of “In Good Standing.”

60
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The use of Odden and Picus’ EBM, Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance will be used for comparison with the school’s
instructional vision and strategies. This study will compare the Evidence-based
Model resource allocation strategies to the resources available at an elementary
school. This will be done using a matrix that shows what the EB Model generates in
terms of resources, what the school actually has, and the differences between the
two. The information will then be used to help prioritize resource allocations within
the framework of the instructional vision of the school and the Ac/FP.
Data Analysis
The EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Achievement will be used as a conceptual framework for
analyzing the school level allocation of resources to improve student achievement.
The examination of the school’s allocation methods of school resources and the
analyzing of the school’s instructional vision and strategies will be completed to
better understand how schools used resources to improve student achievement.
With the reduction in resources at the state level, the next few years could
prove to be some of the most challenging for education for Hawaii. The appropriate
and responsible use of school resources will be key to Hawaii’s success in improving
educational outcomes. This study will use the EBM to help make tough decisions
when resources are scarce or not adequate enough to meet the initial Ac/FP. The
information gleaned from this study adds to the literature on the EBM, and provide

61
practitioners with a better understanding of how resources can be used to influence
school reform efforts.

62
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This study was conducted to examine how principals use the academic and
financial plan to implement research-based instructional strategies and allocate
resources to improve student achievement in schools. Because the study was limited
to rural schools in a single complex area, an additional point of emphasis will be on
the unique resource allocation challenges and opportunities such organization
presents. The chapter is a synthesis of the findings from five case studies of schools
located in the Windward District of Oahu, Hawaii and detailed in Appendices A-E.
Each of the schools is unique in their demographic composition and recent academic
performance, with a few of the schools experiencing significant gains in student
achievement outcomes, and others experiencing a decline or lack of growth in
performance. In detailing the findings, the chapter is organized to: first, present a
summary of the sample school profiles; second, review and compare each school’s
performance schoolwide and across subgroups on state assessments; third, evaluate
each school’s implementation of instructional strategies to improve student
performance; fourth, examine the resource allocation at each site and how it
compares to the recommendations outlined in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM);
fifth, determine how the allocation and use of resources changed in response to
recent budget adjustments using the Academic Financial Plan.

63
School Profiles
As described earlier, all schools in the sample are rural elementary schools
located in the Windward District of Oahu. However, the populations of the schools
vary substantially in size with one district at the time of the study enrolling only 130
students and another with an enrollment of 630 students. Table 4.1 displays the
enrollment information for all of the schools in the sample.

Table 4.1
Student Enrollment of Sample Schools
School A School B School C School D School E
Student
Enrollment
630 280 485 130 450

The student demographic composition of the schools is fairly consistent in
terms of ethnicity, with the Native Hawaiian and White subgroups representing the
majority of students at every site except two; School A’s percentage of students from
the Samoan subgroup is equivalent to its White subgroup and School C has a higher
Samoan population as the second largest population. As Figure 4.1 details, the
percentage of Native Hawaiian and White students varies significantly from school
to school with two schools having a significantly higher percentage of Native
Hawaiians enrolled (School B & D), one school with the top three subgroups Native

64
Hawaiian, White, and Samoan evenly balanced (School A), one school with a very
diverse population in which a large percentage of the population is represented by
All Other subgroups (School C), and one school with a substantial majority of White
students (School E).

Figure 4.1. Ethnic distribution in sample schools

The sample schools also feature a wide range of students qualifying for
English Language Learner (ELL), Special Education (Sped), and Free and Reduced
Priced Lunch (FRPL) services in the percentage of total enrollment that each group
represents. In examining the percentages of the three groups in each school
compared to the EBM prototype school all of the schools have a low representation

65
of students in the ELL category falling slightly below the percentage comparison in
the EBM comparison school given their location in a rural, agriculturally based
setting. All schools with the exception of School E have a higher percentage of
students that qualify for FRPL, more than half of their total student population, with
School B having the largest representation among the sample. School B is also the
only school exceeding the EBM school in the percent of students in the Sped
subgroup. All other schools have a lower percentage of students qualifying for Sped
services as compared to the EBM. Figure 4.2 displays the percentage of the three
subgroups’ enrollments across all schools in the sample as well as their set
percentages in the Evidenced-Based Model (EBM) prototype school.

Figure 4.2. Percentage of ELL, Sped, and FRPL students enrolled in the sample
schools

66
Achievement Data
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). As displayed in Figure 4.3, the school’s
performance as measured by the AYP report in Reading shows that School A and
School C make the largest gains of 23% and 22% respectively in the percentage of
students meeting and exceeding proficiency. One site, School D makes a gain of
15%, while School B and School E show minimal gains of 5%.

Figure 4.3. Reading AYP schoolwide change in sample schools

When examining reading data by percentage of students proficient by
subgroups, the AYP report in reading provides another perspective on the
improvement efforts made to close the achievement gap at all schools. Figure 4.4

67
displays the change in Reading AYP for Asian Pacific Islanders with the group
realizing the highest gains in School A at 25% and School B at 24% and increases in
growth in School D at 14%, and Schools B and E at 7%. The State of Hawaii does
not disaggregate data to reflect academic progress of the Native Hawaiian subgroup
as illustrated in Figure 4.1 and, rather lumps all Pacific Islanders into the API
category when reporting AYP progress on the Hawaii State Assessment.

Figure 4.4. Reading AYP change for Asian/Pacific Islander (API) students

Figure 4.5 displays the change in Reading AYP for Disadvantaged students
where students in the subgroup attained gains in every school in the sample. The
largest gains were among School A at 30% and School C at 21%. School B had a

68
gain of 11% along with School E at 14%. School D had attained a slight increase of
1%.

Figure 4.5. Reading AYP change for disadvantaged students

The change in Reading AYP for Sped students as shared in Figure 4.6 reveal
that the highest gains were made at School C demonstrating growth of 27%, and
School E at 32%. School A shows the greatest decline in growth within this
subgroup in which performance drops by 33% as well as School B whose
performance decreased by 3%. School D is the only school in the sample that does
not have forty or more students in the Sped population to qualify as a subgroup on
the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA).

69

Figure 4.6. Reading AYP change for Sped students

Figure 4.7. Reading AYP change for ELL students

70
While Schools B, D, and E do not have enough of an ELL population to
qualify as a subgroup on the HSA School C is the only school displaying a growth of
12% and School A dropping in performance by 16%. Figure 4.7 displays the
Reading AYP change for ELL students.
Figure 4.8 displays the total change in Reading AYP for all subgroups at the
sample schools in a five year span. Only three schools, School C, D, and E in the
sample show gains among all subgroups with the most significant gains made at
School C. Two of the schools, School A and B demonstrated a decrease in growth in
Sped. ELL performance in School A also declines. The decline in performance in
School A and B further widens the achievement gap in reading among the Sped and
ELL subgroups. Interestingly, School A also shows the greatest growth within the
Disadvantaged subgroup as compared to the other four schools in the sample.
Detailed results for each subgroup along with an analysis of each school’s progress
in closing the achievement gap are presented in the case studies found in Appendices
(A-E).
As displayed in Figure 4.9, the schools’ performance as measured by the
AYP report in Mathematics shows significant gains in School A at 28%, School B at
22%, and School C at 30% in the percentage of students meeting with proficiency or
exceeds. Meanwhile, School D and E also show gains of 13% and 4% respectively.

71

Figure 4.8. Reading AYP change for all subgroups in sample schools

Figure 4.9. Math AYP schoolwide change in sample schools

72
Similar to Language Arts, Math AYP results broken down by subgroups
offers a more in depth perspective of school improvement efforts to target groups of
traditionally struggling students. The Math AYP report provides an inside
perspective into the progress each school is making to close the achievement gap
among these populations over a five year span. Figure 4.10 displays the change in
Math AYP for Asian/Pacific Islanders in which all schools except School E
demonstrate growth. School A, B, and C made significant gains of approximately
30%. School D increased scores by 13%. School E declined in performance by 2%.

Figure 4.10. Math AYP change for Asian/Pacific Islanders (API)

73
The change in Math AYP for Disadvantaged students as presented in Figure
4.11 display gains that are similar to those made by the API group, with Sped
students in Schools A,B,and C showing gains of approximately 25-30%, and School
D increasing performance by 10%. School E also shows growth of 4%.

Figure 4.11. Math AYP change for disadvantaged students

As in Language Arts, School D has not had a Sped subgroup represented on
the AYP report in the last four years. School B shows a gain of 3% over the last four
years and no subgroup represented on the AYP report the fifth year. School E
demonstrated the highest growth of 30%, while School A displayed a fall of 14%.
School C showed a slight increase of 2%.

74

Figure 4.12. Math AYP change for Sped students

As in Reading, Figure 4.13 presents the change in Math AYP for ELLs.
Schools B, D, and E did not have an ELL subgroup represented on the Math AYP
report. School C exhibits a sharp incline of growth at 31% and School A declines by
6%.

75

Figure 4.13. Math AYP change for ELL students

Figure 4.14 displays the Math AYP change for all subgroup over a five year
period. Schools A, B, and C show greater gains in growth among the API and
Disadvantaged subgroups with School C the most consistent in displaying growth
among all subgroups. As in reading, inconsistent growth and minimal gains among
the ELL and Sped populations in math seem to drive the achievement gap wider
among these subgroups. Detailed results for each subgroup along with an analysis of
each school’s progress in closing the achievement gap are presented in the case
studies found in Appendices (A-E).

76

Figure 4.14. Math AYP Change for all subgroups in sample schools

As the achievement data displayed above reveals, each of the schools are at
distinctive stages in their improvement efforts. Some sites such as School C have
shown consistent growth overall in reading and math, and across all subgroups over
five years. Meanwhile, others such as Schools A, B, and E show that increasing
student achievement in reading and math among the traditionally struggling
populations has been a challenge from year to year. School D which only has 3 of
the 5 subgroups counting towards AYP has made gains as well, although on a much
smaller scale. Notably, all of the sample schools show inconsistent growth across
both content areas, and within each subgroup over the past five years.

77
The following section addresses another facet in the schools’ improvement
efforts by presenting a set of instructional strategies that research has shown increase
student achievement and then evaluating the extent to which each school has
implemented these strategies.
Findings
Question #1: What is the school’s instructional vision and how does it align to
resources to meet that vision within the framework of the Hawaii strategic plan?
A comprehensive plan to enhance student performance was developed by
Allan Odden, who aggregated research from an extensive range of sources including
the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE ) as part of school finance
adequacy analyses, in addition to studies and best practices published by other
practitioners and academic researchers (Odden, 2009). Details of the diverse studies
varied in terms of school size, metropolitan or geographic location, and the socio-
demographic status of students, the outcome of the synthesis was the identification of
a consistent set of strategies that schools and districts have utilized to produce
substantial growth in student performance (Odden, 2009).
The following ten strategies will be used as a systematic framework in
assessing the various schools’ educational efforts and how they relate to improving
student achievement.
Analyzing the data and understanding the performance challenge. All of
the principals in the sample were very familiar with their respective AYP
performance in reading and math on the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA). All

78
principals stated that reading and math were the content focus for the instructional
improvement process due to the high stakes testing and accountability for meeting
AYP benchmarks. All schools stated that schoolwide initiatives were top down from
either the Superintendent (State) or Complex Area Superintendant (District). All
principals relied heavily on District funded resources for professional development.
All principals relied on a reform agent (WESTED) to provide a framework to
address the school improvement process and used walkthrough data to analyze best
practice and teacher pedagogy in the classroom. All principals expressed that
results from the HSA as well as the walkthrough protocol were used in the school
improvement process and to develop teacher and student outcomes within their
respective Academic & Financial Plans (Ac/FP). All principals expressed that
securing accurate data has been problematic and truly pinpointing the performance
challenge has been frustrating because the data provided by the state is limited and
often dated. Several schools B, D, and E, used a collaborative process in which
teachers analyzed data in PLCs during faculty meetings and parents and community
members analyzed data in their School Community Councils (SCCs). Principals in
Schools B, D, and E incorporated the feedback discussed during collaboration into
their Ac/FPs. School B was the only school that created an actual task force
involving all stakeholders; staff, community & business partners, students and
parents in a more intensive process of data analysis and shared decision making. The
principal of School B stated, “When there is feedback from all role groups as the
final draft is developed there are no surprises.” In a time of budgetary cuts the

79
principal of School B agreed that the Ac/FP helped him to prioritize resource
allocation needs. He explained that “the Ac/FP process forces us to do a
Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA), identify strategies, and prioritize actions,
and everything funded is a prioritized action.” In the case of Schools A and C data
was analyzed independently by the principals and the school’s Ac/FP in was created
autonomously. Although the principal of School A expressed the need to use data
teams in the future to analyze student performance, he stated that he only shared the
budget because “the process was too time consuming.”
In summary, all sites except School B are working towards providing the
instructional leadership to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the
performance challenges facing their schools. All of the principals expressed their
own understanding of students’ achievement scores on the HSA, however were not
strong in leading collaborative efforts with the school community as a whole in
conducting a Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA). School B seemed to be the
most knowledgeable of their sites challenges and initiated the most thorough plan in
address its challenges. After examining each school’s AYP results over the past five
years, it is clear that the sites that have consistently used the tactics detailed in Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) research have shown the most improvement in student
achievement.

80
Question #2: How can principals use an Evidence-based model as a guide to
effectively align resources to strategies that work in raising student achievement?
All principals expressed frustration that they were using the previous year’s
data to make decisions about resource allocation. Odden’s Ten Strategies provided a
more explicit approach to identifying how to address each goal in the Ac/FP.
According to the EBM comparisons each principal interpreted the Ac/FP prioritized
goals differently and allocation of resources was concentrated in Goal 1 – Standards-
based Instruction. Schools exceeded recommended levels for class size,
administrative support and Sped teachers, and were well below for specialist teachers
and instructional facilitators for struggling students, and funding for PD, technology,
and instructional materials.
Setting ambitious goals. After completing a CNA and identifying the
performance challenges, successful schools must set ambitious goals that include
students from all subgroups (Odden, 2009). Only the principals of School D and E
established a schoolwide goal for increasing student achievement in reading and
math. Schools A, B, and C discussed that much of the schools’ improvement efforts
are based on the achievement goals that were set by the Superintendent. Schools A,
B, and C conform to State and District goals of 86% of students proficient in reading
and 82% in math as outlined in the Superintendent’s Implementation Plan (SIP).
School D set goals for 80% of students proficient in reading and 70% proficient in
math well below the State’s recommendations, yet higher than the AYP benchmarks.
The principal also stated that she meets with each student in the testing grades to set

81
goals on the HSA. The principal of School C meets with grade level teachers to
discuss students’ scores after each round of testing during HSA, progress or lack of
progress made towards AYP benchmarks, and next steps. School E has a very broad
vision is that 100% of students will be proficient. In all cases, only School C
discussed a targeted plan to address the under-represented populations such as Sped
and ELL that have been inconsistent in meeting proficiency on the HSA.
Implementation of the strategy was less evident among most schools in which
principals spoke in general terms regarding specific achievement goals and targeted
plans for disaggregated groups of students. This is not surprising considering that
the majority of the sample schools did not complete a CNA. Finally, the sample
school’s performance on the HSA over the past five years substantiates Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) work concerning the importance of setting ambitious goals for
improvement. Student performance across all subgroups in the content areas of
reading and math reveal an inconsistent growth pattern among all schools in the
sample.
Implementing an effective curriculum & instructional program. Odden
(2009) found that high performing schools adopted new curriculum and instructional
approaches as part of their strategies to dramatically improve student achievement.
In the sample schools, this was the most challenging of the instructional
strategies to implement as four of the five principals were newly hired and three of
the four adopted the old curriculum for reading and the District mandated curriculum
for math. By far the greatest concern for all of the sample schools was establishing

82
whether or not teachers were teaching curriculum with fidelity. The principal of
School A stated that as a newly hired principal he “inherited” the SFA reading
curriculum and spent this year reinforcing the importance of finally teaching the
curriculum with fidelity to establish a baseline for whether or not the curriculum has
been effective in meeting the needs of all students. School B, the only school
completing a CNA, readjusted its curriculum to incorporate reading and writing
across all grades with an emphasis on fluency and comprehension in grades K-3. As
a staff, School B collaborated as a faculty reviewing different curriculum and
building consensus on the Trophies curriculum.
In Math, two schools, School A and E, are currently using two different sets
of curricula to address the State’s shift to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
in grades K-2. School E is also following this same trend creating a dilemma in the
transition from grade 2 to 3. In School A and E, teachers are using the GoMath
curriculum aligned to the CCSS in grades K-2 and the District mandated curriculum
Everyday Math (EM) aligned to the Hawaii Content Performance Standards III
(HCPSIII) in grade 3-6. Schools A, B, C, and E principals have expressed teacher
dissatisfaction with Everyday Math as a factor contributing to lack of fidelity in
teaching the curriculum and allow teachers to supplement the curriculum as they see
fit. As part of their school wide professional development efforts, School D
developed a Common Core State Standard pacing guide which is aligned to the
Every Day Math program in grades K through 4. Principals of School C and E
provided an incentive for teachers in the form of stipends or substitute days to align

83
pacing guides in reading and math to the standards. As part of their school wide
professional development efforts, SD developed a Common Core State Standard
pacing guide which is aligned to the Every Day Math program in grades K through 4.
Using substitute days, the principal of School C had teachers work with the textbook
companies and complete a correlation guide for each program and mapped out
alignment. Where teachers identified gaps, they were allowed to supplement the
curriculum with the Pearson program for Trophies and use the State’s on-line
standards based tool kit.
Further complicating curricular decisions is the State’s adoption of the CCSS
in which schools are not permitted to purchase new curriculum until the State comes
out with a list of recommended texts. As a result, the principal of School C admitted
that staffs use EM as a resource because it doesn’t align with standards, so the
principal emphasizes with teachers to rely on the standards as the goal and to
supplement with various resources. The principal of School E expressed that
providing instructional leadership has been difficult with two different math
curricula in the lower and upper elementary. With the State’s directive preventing
schools from adopting new curriculum and the District’s CCSS rollout only focusing
on K-2, professional development has been very choppy. Using two curricula for
Math has also made teaching with fidelity challenging.
In summary, effectively implementing this strategy across all sites has been
challenging. The lack of fidelity in implementing an effective curriculum and the
State’s roll out of the CCSS for only grades K-2 has created road blocks in allowing

84
principals to provide the instructional leadership to initiate the changes required to
promote the school improvement process resulting in inconsistent growth patterns in
student performance among all sample schools in reading and math.
Data-based decision making. The goal of data analysis is to develop a
culture of inquiry, to learn how to analyze data in a way to improve instruction and
increase student learning. According to Boudett et al. (2005), an effective school are
a team of skilled educators working together to implement a coherent instructional
plan, to identify the learning needs of every student, and to meet those needs.
In evaluating the sample school’s use of data from assessments to drive
instructional decisions all schools in the sample relied on formative assessments to
guide instruction. Schools B and C stated that assessments have been an integral part
of the improvement process. School B uses Data for School Improvement (DSI) an
on-line DOE developed program which allows schools to create formative
assessments tied to the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards (HCPS) to
differentiate and drive the curriculum, instruction, and assessments. Although
students made progress, the CNA conducted by the school’s leadership team
indicated the need to continue to utilize a formal system to track individual student
achievement in reading and math as well as initiate supports and interventions for
those who were well-below proficiency, approaching proficiency, and exceeding
proficiency to meet the needs of all learners.
Stipend and substitute days provided by the principal of School C allow
grade levels the time to sit down and create assessments, map out when assessments

85
were given, opportunities for teachers to grade collaboratively and record data.
Teachers have a choice in what type of assessments to use in the reading curriculum
either the Trophies’ end of selection test as a summative assessing a standard in the
theme; or an end of chapter test to address a taxonomic level, with an emphasis on
rigor and developing a level 3 or 4 response. Students in grade levels where teachers
are consistent in collaborating and analyzing student work have shown progress.
Because reading groups are fluid, and students can go in and out depending on their
needs the principal of School D conducts monthly data team meetings to focus on
language arts and math and all teachers participate in collaborative study groups to
analyze student data.
At School E, teachers participate in the collaborative analysis of student work,
discuss student achievement on quarterly common grade level assessments, and post
results of summative assessments on a K-6 data wall. Administration and the
curriculum coordinator meet with each grade level at School E to review student
progress and plan next steps for each quarter with an emphasis on targeted
interventions for all students who fail to meet proficiency. The principal of School E
is a first year principal and has established the philosophy of building a “data culture”
one that was non-existent in previous years. School E, although it has met AYP
every year has shown the least amount of growth in the areas of reading and math as
compared to all of the schools in the sample. School A admits that they there needs
to be more of a focus on the implementation of data teams within the school.

86
Data teams were implemented and all schools to varying degrees with the
exception of School D, who instead provided a curriculum coordinator to support
teachers with the data analysis. However, the specific process used to set goals,
develop common assessments, and analyze student achievement data on formative
and summative assessments was not identified or discussed by any in any of the
schools with the exception of School B.
In general, all of the schools in the sample face the ongoing challenge of
establishing a systematic way of analyzing data to effectively make accurate
decisions that will impact student performance. All schools have made significant
gains with specific subgroups in either reading or math, but have been inconsistent in
raising student performance among all subgroups as a whole.
Question #3: In a time of state budgetary cuts, how can an Evidenced-based
Model assist principals in more effectively prioritizing resource allocation needs?
The current Ac/FP process demands that principals create a plan knowing
that the school may not receive adequate funding to accomplish the task. Schools
that implemented Odden’s Ten Strategies were able to prioritize their actions to
focus on student achievement in core subject areas and provide targeted interventions
for struggling learners. Schools that were strong in creating a culture of
collaboration looked within to strengthen PD opportunities, PLCs, effective use of
time, and created opportunities for targeted subgroups of students. Principals who
used Odden’s strategies found it easier to communicate school wide initiatives and
needs to various stakeholders, to build a network of support. Aligning to a

87
researched based framework would also help principals balance resources to meet
the three goals in the Ac/FP. In all schools principals allocated 75% or more of their
budget to Goal 1.
Ongoing professional development (PD). In high performing schools
professional development is embedded in the school day at the school site as teachers
align lessons to grade level standards, developing formative assessments, and
participate in the collaborative analysis of student work an indicator of high quality
instruction and student achievement (Odden, 2009).
Contradictory to best practice and the recommendations above all of the
schools in the sample struggled to provide ongoing PD opportunities for staff due to
the lack of resources and funding. As part of the Hawaii State Teacher’s
Association’s (HSTA) contract, all professional development and in-service days
were eliminated from the 2010-12 official school calendar. All of the principals
stated that they relied exclusively on District funded opportunities for PD and that
the opportunities were open only to a limited number of staff from each school. PD
offered by the District supported State and District initiatives decided by the
Complex Area Superintendent rather than allowing opportunities to be driven by the
needs of the sample schools.
School A built in three substitute days to provide training on WestEd
initiatives as well as SFA. Funding for these opportunities was provided through
Title I. The principal stated that the challenge of providing effective PD
opportunities for staff is the limited budget to sustain PD over time and the limited

88
time to develop a deep understanding of the content. The principal expressed that
the short amount of time after school on a Wednesday only allows the consultants to
“gloss over the content.” School B uses its Leadership Team (LTs) to elicit and
provide support and build capacity among the staff. The principal makes a
purposeful effort to attend the LTs and works collaboratively in addressing the needs
of teachers. The principal will follow up with the curriculum coordinator to illicit
experienced “master teachers” to PD on various topics during faculty meetings. By
encouraging collaboration between administrators, support staff, and teachers in LTs,
PD becomes teacher-led as determined by the staff. Learning Teams meet three
times a month after school on Wednesdays.
School B used Title I funds to provide teachers with substitutes to attend
professional development on campus during the school day. Due to lack of funding,
School B had to use creative strategies such as half day substitutes or scheduling PD
after school on Wednesdays. Due to its high percentage of Native Hawaiians,
School B also receives assistance from a non-profit organization Kamehameha
Schools to provide PD in literacy.
The principal of School C stated that alternative options for PD are offered by
other elementary schools in the complex that pay and invite School C. The principal
would like an Academic Coach to help support the school improvement effort but
stated that she can’t afford one. Wednesday staff meetings are also available for PD
to occur, however, the principal is unable to afford to pay for PD due to lack of funds.

89
School D purchased PD as part of the SFA package. An SFA representative
visits School D four times a year to perform walkthroughs and analyze reading data.
The representative observes every reading class and provides feedback to every
teacher. Wednesday staff meetings are also available for PD, however like School C,
the principal is unable to afford to pay for it due to lack of funds. The principal has
provided some information on the WestEd framework, reading, and walkthrough
data, but admits that it hasn’t been enough to make the framework clear to teachers
and the school community.
Because the District funded opportunities are open only to a few teachers at a
time, School E relies on teacher leaders to bring information back to its staff and
share during faculty meetings. The principal admits that training the trainer
approach to providing PD has not been effective. Teachers often express that they
are not confident in the new content and need more time to process the new
initiatives. Grade level PLTs in grades K-2 have also expressed that they have spent
the majority of their meetings aligning to the new CCSS and have not had the time to
drill down to individual student progress and have meaningful conversations around
student achievement and improving instructional delivery of their lessons.
In summary, all principals expressed the need for consistent ongoing PD to
support the school improvement process as well as additional time and resources to
build capacity in their schools. School B made a purposeful effort in adjusting its
resources of time and personnel to allow teachers to collaborate with grade level
teachers and embed professional development within the school day. All other

90
schools were unsuccessful in implementing effective staff development as they
lacked the personnel and other resources such as time outlined by Odden (2009).
Using time efficiently and effectively. The sixth step for schools that
improved performance was creating a more efficient schedule by modifying the way
the school used instructional time during the school day (Odden, 2009). There is a
growing realization that the conventional school day and year – approximately six
hours, 180 days – may simply not be enough, especially for children with few
learning or enrichment opportunities outside school. According to DeVita (2011),
the traditional school calendar has remained unchanged since well before the
publication of A Nation at Risk almost 30 years ago, despite growing evidence that it
is insufficient to meet the needs of many poor kids.
For several schools, modifying the school’s schedule was the easiest of the
strategies to implement. All schools except School E had designated 90 minute
blocks for reading and math across all grades. Schools A, C, and D all ability group
in reading and provided additional support personnel (curriculum coordinators,
specialist teachers (ELL/Sped), and part-time teachers) to target lower achieving
groups creating smaller class sizes or lower student to teacher ratios. School A & B
offers reading and math in the morning and electives in the afternoon creating pupil-
free time for teachers so that they may collaborate in PLCs.
School C implements more “school wide” versus grade level activities so that
school improvement efforts are not compromised. For example, instead of every
class or grade level planning isolated activities or celebrations occurring throughout

91
the day, the principal initiates one school wide assembly or fair that would take place
in the afternoon so that reading and math instruction remain uninterrupted.
The principal of School E found that its traditional bell schedule had been a
barrier in using the resources of time and personnel more efficiently in assisting
struggling learners. Traditionally, teachers at School E were allowed to choose when
they want to teach reading and math. Reading and math instruction varied from
grade level to grade level, teacher to teacher, and day to day. The chaotic schedule
hindered Special Education, ELL teachers and educational assistants from providing
the required number of service minutes to children receiving special education
supports in an inclusive setting. Students were often pulled into resource classes for
reading and math and did not have access to the core instruction with the general
education teacher. The principal also used the elective periods throughout the day to
create pupil-free time for teachers to collaborate in PLCs.
Providing interventions for struggling students. The resource of time in
Odden’s (2009) seventh step is applied to providing additional instructional
opportunities to struggling students.
Due to budget cuts over time, all the Title I schools receiving additional
funding have lost resources such as personnel and programs which provided targeted
interventions during and after school for specific subgroups failing to meet
proficiency. In the past Schools A, B, C, and D all offered extended learning
opportunities for students during the summer in reading and math, free to students
who were identified as non-proficient. The same schools received funding to

92
provide three weeks of summer school for students entering Kindergarten as part of a
Pre-K to Kindergarten transition program. These programs were cut due to
budgetary cuts and lack of funding.
School A partnered with a nearby university to offer students a quiet place for
study hall on campus after school. With volunteers, parents, and college students,
School A offers grades 3-6 tutoring after school. Tutoring is offered to students who
did not meet proficiency in the testing grades 3-6. Next year the school will expand
and hire more PTTs to tutor after school. At School B, students receiving Sped
services needing an inclusion setting are enrolled with a privately funded pre-school
called Headstart housed on its campus.
School B also houses a Hawaiian Immersion Charter school which services
pre-school students. During SY2010-2011 teachers provided targeted interventions
during the last half of the 3
rd
quarter for students in grades 3-6 who were not meeting
proficiency after the 2
nd
round of the on-line HSA test. Small groups taught by the
most skilled teachers provided students a double-dose of instruction in reading and
math. The principal stated that using this strategy was effective and students
performed better on the last round of the HSA. Lack of funding has prevented SB
from continuing the implementation of small groups this year. Students receiving
ELL services are supported by a PTT during pull out sessions. Due to lack of
funding SB was not able to purchase a half-time teacher.
School C offers intervention reading and math classes during the day with an
adult during the 90 minute blocks in which an adult works with a small group of 2-4

93
students. School C also offers on-line tutorials using ACHIEVE 3000 and SOARS
for reading, IXCEL in math, and Discovery Ed all paid for by State as does School A,
C, D, and E. ELLs are serviced through a half-time teacher and a PTT in the general
education setting with minimal pullout. Individual support is offered as needed in
the afternoons Students at School C receiving Sped services also have access to an
extra session reading for 30 minutes in the afternoon using the Orton Gillingham
reading intervention strategies. Extended day opportunities such as tutoring
afterschool are only provided to the Sped population through their IEPs. The
principal stated that because the school met AYP they received less funding and
could not sustain the interventions.
School D, the smallest school in the sample does not have an ELL teacher
due to the small population of ELLs. ELL students are fully immersed in the general
classes and SD has been very successful using a reading program that is language
rich. Due to the small size of the school, teachers are able to individualize tutoring
needs for targeted students throughout the day as needed.
Finding time within in the school day at School E to offer interventions
without having students miss core instruction was non-existent. The principal
worked with the curriculum coordinator to offer interventions before and after school,
however not all students needing the support were able to attend. The principal was
spending more money on hiring additional personnel such as part-time teachers to
tutor during random times throughout the day to provide access to the reading and
math supports. Currently, the staff at School E is working on revising the current bell

94
schedule to align with the RTI framework allowing additional time within the school
day to accommodate the learning needs of its diverse population. The bell schedule
will be focused on: providing all students access to rigorous standards based
instruction with a highly qualified teacher, allowing any student who is non-
proficient in reading and math access to additional supports, implementation of a
reading and math intervention block, character education lessons, and time for grade
level articulation.
In summary, all of the schools provided some type of intervention during the
school day for struggling learners. Based on the principal’s responses, the degree of
satisfaction in the extended learning opportunities offered within their school varied.
All of the principals expressed their frustration in the loss of programs and personnel
due to budget cuts. All of the schools currently rely on State or District funded
interventions such as access to web-based supplementary programs in reading and
math. As far as building in extended time within the school day only School A was
successful in incorporating a consistent , structured reading intervention program for
non-proficient students. School A was the only school offering extended learning
opportunities beyond the school day for students non-proficient in reading and math
grades 3-6. In the case of School C, the only school able to effectively implement
the strategy during the day in reading, saw overall performance in reading improve
in every subgroup.
Creating collaborative cultures and distributive leadership. A school
leader has the responsibility of creating opportunities for teachers to provide input.

95
In high performing schools, teachers share the responsibility of design and
implementation of important decisions and policies. A school’s success is dependent
on the extent to which teachers participate in all aspects of the school’s functioning,
share a coherent sense of direction, and acknowledge the wider school community
(Marzano et al., 2005).
Reinforcing a collaborative and professional school culture is commonly
referred to as a professional learning community (PLC) today. Teachers working
collaboratively are more effective than teachers working in isolation. In all cases,
principal’s made the effort to involve teachers in the PLC process and used the
PLC’s in some shape or form as forums for teachers to collaborate on pedagogy,
common grade level assessments, and data analysis. At School A, the principal
expressed the need to focus on further implementation of grade level data teams to
sustain culture of collaboration and needed to model the process for more effective
implementation. The improvement effort of School A is largely dictated by the
Superintendant’s Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP).
In the case of School B, the principal actively stresses the importance of the
observation tool by providing in-service opportunities for teachers to teach different
components. The principal consciously works with the staff to identify the
“teachable moments” during classroom instruction and provides examples in staff
meetings, stressing that administration is open to suggestions, that “open dialogue is
key for our school.” He also explained that, “being at the data team meetings as part
of the team is important for instructional leadership. The principal also believes in

96
coaching teachers immediately following an observation. He stated that, “we don’t
do written feedback, we (admin) prefer face to face.” At School B, teachers dictate
professional development needs based on the feedback from their PLCs which they
referred to as Learning Teams.
School C was the only school in which the principal stated the need to build
in more collaboration time for teachers, however due to lack of funding the school
could not afford additional positions to allow teachers time during the day to meet.
School C took less initiative in enforcing accountability among staff to meet in PLCS
on a regular basis.
Communication at School D is described by the principal as “fluid.” The
principal described SD is too small of a school to be one way or the other.
Instructional leadership is provided mostly by both the principal and curriculum
coordinator. School D also encourages teachers to take on leadership roles to
facilitate professional development in the area of curriculum alignment and
standards-based instruction. Top down initiatives are communicated to staff by the
principal, however the principal encourages teachers to advocate for their own ideas
for school improvement.
The principal works with the curriculum coordinator to ensure there is
communication between grade levels regarding the use of curriculum to meet the
grade level standards. With the implementation of PLTs and the constant need for
data to inform instruction and measure individual student progress, the principal
would like to transform the role of the curriculum coordinator to an academic coach

97
to help organize PLTs and provide a more research- based framework to set common
assessment goals for each grade level. School E also has a Vice-Principal who leads
the Positive Behavior Support Committee and the Character Education initiative, and
is also responsible for conducting walkthroughs for grades 3-6. The Vice-Principal
also provides leadership in updating the data wall, attending and providing feedback
during quarterly PLT meetings.
Inspiring a professional organization. The school leader must provide
intellectual stimulation ensuring teachers are aware of the most current theories and
practices regarding effective schooling and makes discussions of those theories and
practices a regular aspect of the schools culture (Marzano et al., 2005).
All of the schools in the sample rely on the WestEd consulting company to
provide the framework for school improvement as dictated by the District. The
principal of School A stated that the SIP details the focus for improvements and the
complex and school have to align to reach the goals. The principal feels that every
school is different and has access to different resources, and students’ needs
according to the data are unique he is held to the Complex Area Superintendant’s
(CAS) complex initiatives that are top down and non-negotiable.
School B has also adopted the WestEd framework of effective teaching and
uses the Teach for Success walkthrough tool to define indicators of best practice in
the classroom. During the Learning Teams the principal also refers to the indicators
of best practice within the observation tool. The Curriculum Coordinator also
participates in classroom observations and participates in peer coaching. The

98
principal explains to the staff that the observation tool reinforces research-based
practices proven to increase student achievement and reiterates that his instructional
vision is centered on effective teaching and, “what will have the most impact on
students and what making decisions around what is in the best interest of students.”
The instructional vision for the improvement effort at School C was principal
driven. The principal stated that she has been re-enforcing the concept of co–
teaching for the last 5 years, and that the District started only three years ago. The
principal stated that, “training is finally matching up with what we already have in
place, RTI – already had something in place for all students with different abilities.”
The principal builds accountability into the vision by analyzing HSA test scores after
every round of testing. The principal also conducts regular grade checks in every
class and lists students not proficient. Grade level teams sit with the principal to
explain what they are doing to help each underperforming student. The principal will
also review the observation data gathered during weekly walkthroughs.
The principal of School D also implements the West Ed walkthrough
protocol and stated that funding for a math curriculum coordinator would be a
needed resource that would help expand School D’s instructional improvement
efforts. Schools A and D expressed the need for more collaboration between the
elementary schools and the intermediate and high school to help students meet the
expectations within the K-12 construct and transitioning with the needed skills in
math. School E expressed the need for alignment of professional development
among State, District, and school to meet the Superintendent and Race To The Top

99
initiatives. The principal expressed frustration with the ability to sustain PD
throughout the year for staff and the lack of non-instructional or non-pupil days to do
so.
Addressing talent and human capital issues. The final recommendation to
schools and districts looking to significantly increase student performance focuses on
investing in talent and human capital, addressing a wide range of issues such as
talent recruitment, development and management (Odden, 2009).
The implementation of this strategy was the only strategy principals did not
highlight as a contributing factor in the school improvement process. The principal
of School A, the largest school in the complex mentioned eliminating positions that
were ineffective, but were not at any risk of budget cuts and the School D the
smallest school struggled to allocate adequate funding to accommodate an adequate
number of teaching positions. School E has retained many highly qualified
experienced teachers and because the school population continues to grow, the
school is not in any threat of budget cuts or displacing teachers. Although all of the
schools in the sample were in a rural area, none of the school’s expressed difficulty
in recruiting highly qualified personnel. In fact, all of the schools benefit from a
partnership with a nearby university who has student teachers placed in every school.
The primary concern that schools in the complex face is teacher retention rates due
to budget cuts due to a decrease in student enrollment and monies allocated through
weighted student formula. All of the schools, except School E, which saw an

100
increase in enrollment, lost funding. It was clear that this strategy was the most
neglected.
Table 4.2 summarizes the implementation of the ten strategies in the various
sample schools and whether the school implemented the strategy in the strong to
average range. Absence of the check indicates that the school employed weak or no
implementation of the strategy.

Table 4.2
Implementation of Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance

10 Strategies to Double Student
Performance
School
A
School
B
School
C
School
D
School
E
Analyzing the data & Understanding the
Performance Challenge
√ √ √ √
Setting Ambitious Goals √
Implementing an Effective Curriculum
& Instructional Program
√ √
Data-Based Decision Making √ √ √ √
Ongoing Professional Development √ √
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively √ √ √ √
Providing Interventions for Struggling
Students
√ √ √ √ √
Creating Collaborative Cultures &
Distributive Leadership
√ √ √
Inspiring a Professional Organization √ √ √ √ √
Addressing Talent & Human Capital
Issues
√

101
Question #4: How can an Evidence-Based framework help Principals statewide
to effectively link resources to meet the school’s vision and mission as described
in the Ac/FP?
Comparison of school resources to the Evidence-Based model. Each
school’s resource allocation decisions were analyzed and compared to the guidelines
established in the Evidence-Based Model. Odden and Picus (2008) refined the
model by developing resource-based expenditure structures for model elementary,
middle, and high schools which can then be adjusted to reflect the unique needs of a
district or school’s student demographics. Due to the complexity of the 5 elementary
schools described in the sample, the adaptability of the Evidence-Based Model
provides an essential component of the analysis.
Reducing class size is a resource allocation strategy that is used to increase
student performance, however, it may be the most costly in terms of finding
additional facilities and personnel. Core class sizes with 15 students are
recommended for kindergarten through third grade and 25 students for grades 4-12
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Core is defined as the regular classroom teacher in
elementary schools, the ratios produce an average class size of 18. As displayed
below, Table 4.3 indicates all of the schools in the sample exceed the
recommendation for kindergarten through third grade. Three of the 5 schools,
School A, B, And E closely align with the recommendation for grades four through
six. However, School B slightly exceeds the student-teacher ratio and School D falls
slightly below. It is important to note that School B has one combo class for grades

102
five and six and School D the school with the smallest population only has one class
per grade level. School E has seen a recent influx of students over the last two years
and the increase in class sizes runs parallel to the trend.

Table 4.3
Comparison of Class Sizes in the EVM vs. Sample Schools
Grade
Range EBM School A School B School C School D School E
K-3 15 23 20 20 20 21
4-6 25 21 30 25 20 27

After evaluating class sizes in the five elementary schools, an assessment of
additional resource allocations is further displayed in Table 4.4, where in many of
the categories the sample schools fall short of the amount recommended by the EBM.
All of the schools in the sample except School D, exceed the recommended
levels for administrative support. All of the schools are well below the EBM
recommended levels for FTE core and specialist teachers except School B and D, the
smallest schools in the sample. Interestingly School B has 8 FTE Specialists while
the EBM resources 2.4; and School D has 1.2 FTE Specialist positions while the
EBM resources 1.5. All of the sample schools’ instructional facilitator allocations
are well below the EBM with the exception of School D and E who exceed the EBM.
Only School E provides tutors for struggling students as suggested in the EBM,

103
however still fall below the EBM allocation. Schools B and C are the only schools
providing FTE positions for the ELL subgroup in which School B surpasses the
proposed EBM allocation by 1.5 FTE and School C is short by .9 FTE position. All
of the schools are lower than the EBM in terms of providing Extended Day support
for students. Only School A and E positions to help struggling student, yet still fell
short of the EBM. Only School B affords 2 FTEs for Summer School, the rest of the
schools did not allocate any personnel in the comparison due to lack of funding to
support supplemental programs beyond the traditional academic year.
All of the schools are greater than the EBM allocations for FTE Special
Education positions except School A whose staffing was equivalent to the model.
School B, one of the smallest schools in the sample and occupying the largest
subgroup of Sped has the highest allocation of Sped positions at 4.5 FTEs greater
than the EBM. It is important to note that special education positions are allocated
by the District and not funded through weighted student formula. The number of
positions allocated is based on the percent of students receiving special education
services at the school.
Schools A, B, D, and E over staff pupil support and library/media FTE
positions. School E, the only school with a GATE program, provided per pupil
funding that exceeded the EBM. Per pupil resource allocations to support items such
as technology, professional development, instructional materials, and student
activities are also grossly underfunded in the sample schools compared to the
amounts recommended in the EBM.

104
Table 4.4
Resource Allocation According to EBM vs. Actual Resource Allocation at Sample Schools
School A School B School C School D School E
EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Principals 1 2 1 2 1.5 2 1 1 1 2
Secretary/ Clerical 3 3 1.5 2 3 2 1.25 1.5 2 3
Core Teachers FTE 36 30 12 13 36 28 6 7 24 21
Specialist Teachers FTE 7 2.3 2.4 8 7 1 1.2 1.5 4.8 3.5
Instructional
Facilitators/ Mentors
3.3 1.5 1.1 .5 3.3 1.5 .55 3 2.2 3
Tutors for Struggling
Students
4.3 0 1.08 0 4.3 0 .54 0 2.16 1
Teachers for EL
Students
2.36 0 .02 1.5 2.36 1.5 0.1 0 .43 0
Extended Day FTE 2.7 2 0.9 0 2.7 0 0.45 0 1.8 1
Summer School FTE 2.7 0 0.9 2 2.7 0 0.45 0 1.8 0
Learning & Mild
Disabled Student FTE
3 3 1.5 6 3 4 .75 3 3 5

105
Table 4.4, continued
School A School B School C School D School E
EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Substitutes $ $78,282
$11,000 or
$17/ pupil
$29,355 $0 $60,109 $0 $22,366
$1,500 or
$12/ pupil
$53,120
$3,000 or
$7/ pupil
Pupil Support Staff FTE 4.3 5 0.65 3.5 4.3 1.5 0.33 1 2.16 5
Non-Instructional Aides
FTE
3 0 2 3.5 3 0 0.67 0 2 0
Librarians/ FTE Media
Specialists
1.5 2 0.5 2 1.5 .5 0.25 1 1 1
Resources ($) for gifted
students
$15,750 $0 $25/ pupil $0 $25/ pupil $0 $25/ pupil $0 $25/ pupil
$6,000 or
$50/ pupil
Technology $ Per pupil $157,500
$35,000 or
$116/ pupil
$250/ pupil $0 $250/ pupil $0
$250/
pupil
$0
$250/
pupil
$6,750 or
$15/ pupil
Instructional Materials $ per
pupil
$88,200
$3600 or
$17/ pupil
$140/ pupil
$7,000 or
$25/ pupil
$140/ pupil
$12,610 or
$26/ pupil
$140/
pupil
$0
$140/
pupil
$18,000 or
40/ pupil
Student Activities $ per
pupil
$126,000
$3,000 or
$5/pupil
$200/pupil $0/pupil $200/ pupil
$3,000 or
$5/pupil
$200/
pupil
$0
$200/
pupil
$0
Professional Development $
per pupil
$63,000
$7,500 or
$12/pupil
$100/pupil
$15,000 or
$54/pupil
$100/ pupil
$19,000 or
$12/ pupil
$100/
pupil
$11,020 or
$85/ pupil
$100/
pupil
$10,000
$22/ Pupil
Note: School E is the only school with a Gifted & Talented Program.
Schools A & E were the only schools providing extended-day programs.
Learning & Disabled FTE positions are staffed by the District.

106

In addition to the discrepancies described at the school level between the
EMB and the sample schools, leaders of Schools B, C, and D who are also Title I
schools, endured a number of budget reductions due to the economic down turn in
Hawaii and were facing more. The impact of these cuts is discussed in the following
section.
Impact of budget reductions. As a result of significant reductions made to
education at the state and district levels in Hawaii, principals of several of the sample
schools expressed their concern in effectively allocating resources to programs once
funded to provide the supports necessary to provide targeted interventions to
struggling students. All principals expressed frustration in the inability of the school
to incorporate the adequate staffing and programming into their Academic/Financial
Plans (Ac/FPs) allowing students to attend extended day opportunities such as after
school tutoring and summer school for subgroups that typically struggle. Schools A,
B, C, and D relied on federal and state funding to provide free summer school
programs and transportation for students failing to meet proficiency on the HSA.
The same schools would also provide summer transition programs for pre-schoolers
who were enrolling as kindergarteners. In the last two years, all schools have cut
personnel such as part-time teachers who provided tutoring services during and after
school from their Ac/FPs for ELL or Disadvantaged subgroups. In Schools B, C,
and D, school leaders expressed the wish to hire academic coaches to support the

107
continuous improvement of systems such as the implementation of data teams and
formative assessment initiative to close the achievement gap and drive instruction.
Another area of contention for all principals as an outcome of budget cuts
was the lack of pupil-free time for teachers to participate in professional
development opportunities. All school expressed that the only time available for PD
was after school on Wednesdays during faculty meeting time, usually an hour and a
half. The State’s initiation of furloughs and elimination of teacher waiver days from
the official school calendar eliminated PD opportunities from the official school
calendar.
Lastly, budget reductions have resulted in a lack of funding to provide
sustained PD throughout the year to support school’s efforts in closing the
achievement gap. All of the sample schools relied heavily on the District to provide
PD, however, opportunities offered by the District were only made available for a
select few teachers and were one-time workshops made possible through Title IIA or
ARRA stimulus funding. The District was unable to provide sufficient PD for all
teachers as a result of insufficient funding available for schools to provide substitutes
during the instructional day.
Resource allocation and Hawaii’s academic/financial plan. The focus of
Ac/FP is based on goals outlined in the Superintendent’s Strategic Implementation
Plan (SIP): 1) Assure all students graduate college and career ready through effective
use of standards-based education, 2) Ensure and sustain a rich environment and

108
culture for lifelong learners, and 3) Continuously improve the effectiveness,
efficiency, and responsiveness of the educational system.
In all schools, the highest percent of funding is allocated to support Goal #1:
Standards-based Education. Approximately 75% or more of all school budgets were
used to support basic programming needs including teachers’ salaries, instructional
materials, equipment, and supplies. All principals allocated resources to each SIP
initiative in the Ac/FP differently based on their own interpretation of the goal.
School A funded one and a half curriculum coordinator positions to support
curriculum initiatives as well as part-time teacher to monitor and coordinate its after
school tutoring program. Schools B, C also incorporated classroom support
personnel, office supplies, building supplies, and maintenance costs into this figure.
School D allocated funding to support training and release time in the form of
substitute teachers for the implementation of PLCs. School E included five part-time
teachers and one paraprofessional tutor to provide students in regular classrooms
with direct instruction to support the general education teachers.
Resources allocated to Goal #2: Quality Student Support also varied
according to the needs of schools. Schools A, B, C, and E allocated the budget to
provide additional support personnel including student services coordinator, clerks,
counselors, and a health aide. School B included computer equipment/supplies.
School D reserved funding in this category to fund the reading curriculum as well as
progress monitoring assessments such as DIBELS for every student.

109
The amount of funding to support Goal #3: Continuous Improvement of the
System was the lowest. While Schools C and E negated to allocate any funding to
this goal, Schools A, B, and D used funding to support additional teaching personnel,
academic coaches, and professional development to support PLCs.
Additional funding is allocated to sustain school operations, and in Schools B,
C, and E this category received the second largest percent of funding in the Ac/FP.
Aside from funding casual payroll - classroom cleaners/lunch supervisors, and office
supplies and maintenance contracts - Schools B, C and E, used funding to support
administrative personnel, clerks, and full-time custodians. Table 4.5 outlines the
Sample Schools resource allocation in the Ac/FP. The descriptors used for each goal
in the Ac/FP were interpreted differently by each principal, which may offer insight
into the disparities in the percent of dollars allocated to each goal. In all schools,
except School D, the least amount of funding was allocated to continuously
improving the system.

110
Table 4.5
Sample Schools Resource Allocation in the Ac/FP
School A School B School C School D School E
Ac/FP Resource
Allocation
Dollar
Amount
% of
budget
Dollar
Amount
% of
budget
Dollar
Amount
% of
budget
Dollar
Amount
% of
budget
Dollar
Amount
% of
budget
Goal #1: Standard-
based Education
$2,621,936.00 93% $1,842,667 74% $2,100,158.00 79% $707,383 62% $1,781,410 77%
Goal #2: Quality
Student Support
$150,370 5% $214,676 8% $134,134.00 5% $144,671 13% $107,637 5%
Goal #3: Continuous
Improvement of the
System
$18,630 < 1% $55,916 2% $0 0% $27,958 2% $0 0%
School Operations $72,116 2% $365,175 14% $418,405.00 16% $2,500 < 1% $438,968 18%

111
Use of the Hawaii’s Academic/Financial Plan to Allocate Resources
This section will explore how principals are currently using the Hawaii
Ac/FP to align resources in the Ac/FP to meet the schools instructional vision.
Training or experience in the Ac/FP process. Of the five sample schools,
four of the principals were hired within the last 3 years and all admitted that they
received no training until this year in which they were provided with 2 mandatory
sessions followed by an optional session as needed. All of the principals, including
the most tenured principal of eight years in School C admitted that they relied on “on
the job training” or dialogue with other new principals in the complex to complete
the Ac/FP. In the past, the principal of School A expressed that he relied on the
former Ac/FP to set goals for the next year. School leaders also admitted that they
had no previous experience writing the Ac/FP as Vice-Principals. In cases where the
former principal retired midyear in the complex, principals of Schools A, B, and D
were promoted as Temporary-Assignment (TA) principals during their tenure as
Vice-Principals and were not trained. Two of the three TA principals that were hired
explained that the Ac/FP was not completed by the deadline and they were
responsible for finishing it.
Communicating improvement efforts using the Ac/FP. All of the sample
schools in the District are responsible for using the Ac/FP as an accountability tool in
reporting quarterly progress made towards State and District initiatives. All of the
schools reported using the Academic and Financial Plan to coordinate all funds
allocated to the school to ensure goals and objectives for student achievement are

112
aligned. All of the resources in the sample schools are expected to support the
prioritized goals as shown in Table 4.5 above. All principals explained that positions
and resources have been focused towards standards-based learning and improved
student achievement regardless of the funding source.
Use of the Ac/FP to prioritize resource allocation needs during a time of
budgetary cuts. In a time of budgetary cuts principals of School A, B, and C agreed
that the Ac/FP helped their schools to prioritize resource allocation needs. School B
uses the Ac/FP to identify the “big bang” actions that the school will focus on to
increase student achievement. The principal explained that supplemental requests or
“wish list” items or programs are supported by Title I funding and are not prioritized.
All schools except School E are designated Title 1 schools. Title 1 federal funds are
used to supplement existing programs and personnel, support parent involvement
activities, provide professional development for faculty, and assist all students,
especially those who are furthest from proficiency. In the case of supplemental
requests administration has the flexibility to make decisions on how the funding will
be used to support the school’s needs. All schools stated that during a time of
budgetary cuts the Ac/Fn has forced schools to downsize positions and make
adjustments in the types of programs offered with an emphasis on reading and math
instruction.
The Ac/FP is also an accountability piece that all principals in the sample use
as a tool when communicating school wide initiatives to various stakeholders.
Depending on the role group, the principal of School E has stated that stakeholders

113
often come to meetings with their own agendas; a clear Ac/FP assists the principal in
navigating through the decision making process and remaining focused on the
school’s vision. School E felt that the Ac/FP could be a more useful tool if it
incorporated a research-based framework which cited the rationale behind the
Superintendent’s statewide initiatives that include closing the achievement gap using
data teams and formative assessment. The principal stated that:
It would be helpful if the strategies for improving student achievement were
listed under each category so that principals could begin analyzing what
resources they would need in order to sustain structures like PLCs for
collaboration, data or technology to enhance formative assessment and data
analysis, and professional development to improve instructional practices.
Aligning to a researched based framework would also help principals balance
resources to meet the three goals in the Ac/FP.

In all schools principals allocated the majority of their budget to Goal 1: Ensuring
students are college and career ready through standards based education and very
little resources to Goal 3: Continuous improvement of the system.
Improving the Ac/FP to make it a more useful tool in linking resources to
student performance. As school leaders reflected on their Ac/FPs, the sample
schools shared their opinions on how the Ac/FP form and process could be improved
to make it a more useful tool in linking resources to student performance. As far as
the process of completing the Ac/FP, all schools recommended that the Ac/FP be
completed in the second semester because schools were still in the process of
evaluating their current plan and had limited data to effectively create a new plan.
All principals argued that the process would be more valuable if done later in the
year. School B complained that, “We’re doing a plan a year in advance when we

114
haven’t finished a year we’re already in. We only have one quarter of data to use to
write the new plan. For next year’s plan we’re using last year’s data because we’re
doing plan too early.”
The principal of School B stated that additional resources would be needed to
expand efforts in closing the achievement gap. He stated that School B would not
have been able to meet AYP as quickly in the last two years without the funding of
the curriculum coordinator, reading specialist, and specialist teachers who teach in
the afternoon allowing core teachers pupil-free time to collaborate in PLCs. The
principal stated that he is worried about sustaining all of the progress the school has
made over the last three years.
Because the process to complete the plan was so time consuming, the
principal of School A only presented how the money would be budgeted to fund
personnel and school initiatives. The principal stated that money hasn’t been a
problem due to an unchanged enrollment which has stabilized funding through
Weighted Student Formula. The allocation of teacher positions has been consistent
from year to year with no cuts, so it hasn’t been an issue with teachers. The principal
of School C also admitted that due to time constraints she completes the goals in the
Academic Plan in isolation and that teachers only worry about job security and the
allocation of supply money from year to year.
In School D, the Ac/FP process demands that the school create a plan for
students and teachers knowing that the school will not receive adequate funding to
accomplish the task. The principal stated the DOE has eliminated the “loss threshold”

115
for small schools in the weighted student formula. School D’s population is so small
they do not generate enough money to fund the initiatives for the following year’s
plan. As a result, staffing is compromised every year and positions are usually cut
due to lack of funding. Using the current process, the principal stated that “nothing
was funded, so I can’t write a plan with no money!” The principal requested that the
state “change the budget to include base funding with mandatory positions” that
would allow small schools to fund a teacher in every grade level.
The principal of School E felt the most challenging part of the process was
creating an Ac/FP using a “projected” sum of money based on a “projected”
enrollment for the following year. Allocating resources was difficult without current
student achievement data and a clear picture of where the school was in the
improvement process. School E was in the early stages of gathering data to assess
students’ needs. The principal stated, “completing the Ac/FP so early in the year
made it difficult for a first year principal to assess where resources should be
allocated because I was still assessing which programs were effective and which
weren’t, which programs to sustain and which to cut out.” As in the case of Schools
A, B, and D, the principal of School E stated that the current plan was developed by
the former principal and was not aligned with the new state and district initiatives.
With state and district initiatives changing every year in the last three years, and the
Ac/FP process only expecting principals to plan one year ahead there is often no
emphasis on establishing continuity year to year.

116
Conclusion
All schools in the sample are rural schools in the Windward District of Oahu
and vary substantially in size with one school enrolling 130 students while another
had an enrollment of 630. The student demographic composition of the schools is
very diverse in terms of ethnicity, with the Native Hawaiian and White subgroups
representing the majority of students at every site with the exception of one, the
percentage of Native Hawaiian and White students varies significantly from school
to school. The sample schools also feature a wide range of English Language
Learner (ELL), Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) or Disadvantaged, and
Special Education (Sped) students in terms of the percentage of the total enrollment
that each group represents. In examining the percentages of the three groups in each
school compared to the EBM prototype school, one school site had slightly more
Sped students than the prototype, four sites had significantly more Disadvantaged
students than the EBM, and all sites had lower percentages of ELLs.
In comparing each schools’ resources with the allocation specified by the
EBM, it is clear that three of the sites were understaffed in terms of core teachers and
two were adequately staffed. Administrative positions exceeded the EBM
recommendation in all sites except one. Another significant area in which all of the
schools in the sample had more staff than the EBM is the number of teachers
allocated to instruct Learning and Mild Disabled students. Other resource areas such
as the number of tutors for struggling students, and Extended Day and Summer
School staffing was far below or non-existent as compared to what was funded in the

117
EBM. Also dramatically underfunded in the sample schools as compared to the
amounts recommended in the EBM were the per pupil resource allocations to
support items such as technology, professional development, instructional materials,
and student activities.
The extreme lack of resources in some sites has not prevented most of the
schools from implementing many research-based instructional strategies to improve
student achievement. To a certain degree, the sample schools have worked to
analyzed their performance challenges and achievement data, and utilize data from a
range of formative and summative assessments in their decision making. The most
prevalent instructional strategy used by the sites in their attempts to increase student
achievement was manipulating their schedules to effectively use time to strengthen
PLCs and create educational opportunities for students. All schools were flexible in
adjusting their schedules to increase the efficiency of their instructional delivery as
they focused on reading and math.
Use of other strategies outlined by Odden (2009) determined as crucial to
dramatically improving student performance are also evident in the sample schools,
yet were not used as consistently across all sites in their implementation. Several
sites emphasized collaborative cultures and distributive leadership with school
leaders implementing innovative structures within the school to encourage
professional organizations. Despite budget cuts, a few sites sustained interventions
for struggling students and staff development opportunities.

118
It is clear that a logical progression exists in the implementation of Odden’s
ten steps. It was evident that schools lacking a clear understanding of the
performance challenge were also lacking ambitious goals, and relied heavily on the
District to set goals for the instructional vision and dictate professional development
opportunities. In turn, these same schools fell short of inspiring culture of
collaboration and building talent and human capital within the organization.
Overall, sites that executed the greatest number of strategies, such as School
B and C, realized the greatest growth in HSA scores over the five year period
analyzed. The significant progress the two schools have attained over the years
demonstrates the outcomes that are achievable through the implementation of a
strategic instructional vision that is aligned with effective use of the school’s
resources.
In terms of principals’ use of the Ac/FP to effectively allocate resources to
strategies known to improve student achievement, all of the sites indicated that they
use the Ac/FP as a tool to monitor and report to the community progress made
towards State and District initiatives. Principals also stated that the Ac/FP is used as
and accountability piece in ensuring all funding sources are aligned with the
Superintendent’s Strategic Implementation Plan. Admittedly, principals stated that
the Ac/FP would be a more meaningful tool if they began the process later in the
year allowing schools to collect more accurate data on school improvement goals.
After analyzing resource allocation trends among the sample schools, all principals
divulged that due to lack of training and prior experience they were “self taught”

119
when it came to learning the Ac/FP process. All principals allocated resources in the
Ac/FP differently based on their own interpretation of what should be funded in each
goal. Several schools stated that they struggled with the unknowns of what would be
funded from year to year. Principals of School B and D expressed fear in not
knowing if they would be able to sustain the progress they made over the last three
years due to budget cuts. Subjective decision making and the lack of continuity
regarding principals’ decisions in what is funded in the Ac/FP from one year to the
next suggests that there is a need to provide a research-based framework to guide
principals though the Ac/FP process.
Using a framework to assist principals in making resource allocation
decisions will help schools understand how current resources are being utilized so
they can make informed, research-based decisions about resource allocation.
Ensuring that adequate resources are available to sustain each school’s improvement
process over time will in turn support schools in meeting student learning outcomes.
Providing a research-based model such as the EBM that aligns the strategies to each
of the three prioritized goals in the Ac/FP may help create a more meaningful
process while enabling school leaders to use the precious resource of time more
efficiently.

120
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Background
High-stakes accountability through standards-based reform and competition
in a global economy has drastically shifted the principal’s role from “operations
manager” to “educational leader.” Ultimately, it is the principal who carries the
responsibility of ensuring school success and individual student achievement. As
public schools in Hawaii face the challenge of increased accountability measures
thru NCLB and RTTT, educational leaders in Hawaii will have to develop a
comprehensive understanding of school and classroom practices that contribute to
student achievement and provide adequate resources during state budgetary cuts.
How schools determine instructional needs of all students to meet high
standards within the school will dictate how schools are structured and the systems
that manage it. Principals have to provide a coherent rationale to stakeholders and
justify how resources are allocated within a school. It is important that principals
have a research-based framework to align reform efforts with strategies that work
such as the Evidenced-based Model and ensure all students within the state of
Hawaii have access to the resources they need to meet student outcomes.
This study uses the Evidence-Based Model as a framework for creating a tool
that will assist principals in allocating resources to strategies that are effective in
raising student achievement (Odden, 2009). The Evidenced-Based Model provides
10 targeted research-based strategies that are cross-walked with the 3 broad priorities

121
outlined in the State of Hawaii’s Ac/FP framework. Aligning the Ac/FP to strategies
outlined in the Evidenced-based model will help provide an example of a tool that
will empower Hawaii principals in meeting student learning outcomes by making
informed, research-based decisions about resource allocation.
This study investigates five elementary Ac/FPs and examines the links
between resource allocation and student achievement. It answers the following
questions:
1. What is the school’s instructional vision and how does it align resources
to meet that vision within the framework of the Hawaii strategic plan?
2. How can principals use an Evidence-based model as a guide to effectively
align resources to strategies that work in raising student achievement?
3. In a time of state budgetary cuts, how can an Evidenced-Based Model
assist principals in more effectively prioritizing resource allocation needs?
4. How can an Evidence-Based framework help Principals statewide to
effectively link resources to meet the school’s vision and mission as
described in the Ac/FP?
The evidence-based approach identifies a set of strategies that are required to
deliver a high quality, comprehensive instructional program throughout the school
for all students. The strategies are based upon proven research strategies and
determine an adequate expenditure level by assigning a process to each ingredient
and aggregating to a total cost. The approach uses strategies of comprehensive
school design models. The evidence-based approach to educational adequacy is a

122
framework for school improvement and identifies best practices that have increased
student performance based on research. Each of these essential elements is identified
and a cost is applied to each element (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Odden et al. (2008) explain that the evidence-based model is not a
prescription, but instead a framework to help schools examine how resources can be
more effectively allocated to meet student achievement outcomes. The evidence-
based model can be adjusted to meet the differentiated needs of schools. The
framework takes into account student population and the amount of students who
may need extra supports such as special needs students, and ELLs. The evidence-
based model has successfully been used in Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming,
Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky due to its close alignment to
research-proven strategies for school reform (Odden et al., 2008).
The Evidence-Based Model provides a framework as a starting point for
schools that can be adjusted depending on the type of school (elementary, middle, or
high school) and student population. It also clarifies the importance of schools using
data on student learning to identify learning needs of the school’s student population.
In order to improve student performance money needs to be allocated more
effectively, clearly focused on best practices directly connected to better student
learning outcomes.
It is important for school administrators to understand how their current funds
are being spent by closely examining the resource allocations that exist within a
school to ensure they are being used effectively. If more funds are deemed necessary

123
according to the Evidence-Based Model, there is a starting point for district and
school administrators to understand specifically where more resources are needed,
and how much it will cost to add resources.
This study was based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the existing
literature as well as five case studies of rural elementary schools in a single complex
located in the Windward District of Oahu. Each of the five schools is unique in terms
of their demographic composition and academic performance, with a few of the
schools experiencing significant gains in student outcomes and others experiencing
no growth or a regression in their scores. Schoolwide performance was also broken
down in each case study through an examination of each subgroups academic
progress further identifying each site’s advancement in addressing the achievement
gap. Finally, through interviews with site principals, each school’s implementation
of instructional strategies, resource allocations as described in their Academic and
Financial Plans, and the adjustments they made in the Evidence-Based Model and
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. The following
sections in this chapter present a discussion of the study’s finding, implications for
practice and policy, and recommendations for additional research.
The findings of this study indicate that none of the five schools in the sample
had the resources the EBM recommended and that implementation of the
instructional strategies to improve student achievement varied among schools.
However, the findings indicate that schools that aligned the closest to the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) also displayed the most

124
significant increases in student achievement. Of the four sites that inconsistently
incorporated varying degrees of the strategies, two schools integrating the least
strategies, demonstrated a regression of growth among targeted subgroups as in the
case of School A, or no growth as in the case of School E as reflected in longitudinal
AYP scores for reading and math. In analyzing the application of Odden’s (2009)
ten strategies across the sample schools, the following emerged as five fundamental
components in many of the school’s improvement plans.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
All of the principals in the sample spent time analyzing their school’s HSA
performance data and were working with their School Community Councils and
faculty to clarify its meaning. All of the sites shared the data with the school
community during Open House as well as opening the school year with a faculty
meeting to discuss assessment data. All principals accepted the responsibility of
leading the process of data analysis with staff and discussing implications as they
align with the schools’ vision and mission statements.
The principals at School B and C appeared to have the best understanding of
the challenges their schools are enduring. Finally, as is the case with Schools B and
C, sites that regularly implemented the strategies outlined in Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) research, had experienced the most growth in student achievement.
Data-Based Decision Making
By examining the sample school’s use of data from summative and formative
assessment to drive instructional decisions, four of the schools consistently

125
implemented this strategy. Data teams were implemented in all schools to varying
degrees with the exception of School D that instead provided a curriculum
coordinator to support teachers with the data analysis. However, the specific process
used to set goals, develop common assessments, and analyze student achievement
data on formative and summative assessments was not identified or discussed by any
of the schools with the exception of School B.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
All of the sample schools developed many innovative approaches outlined by
Odden (2009) and manipulated their schedules in such a way that instructional time
was maximized. All schools initiated designated 90 minute blocks which were
uninterrupted for reading and math. School A partnered with the local university and
community volunteers to provide free tutoring beyond the school day for struggling
students. School B, C, and D built time into the school day to provide tutoring in
reading and math. Schools B and E used non-core classes to provide extra time for
staff to collaborate in PLCs during the school day.
Despite budget cuts, sites continued to create and sustain interventions for
struggling subgroups by working with community partners and using existing
personnel. Schools also found ways to provide meaningful professional
development opportunities for teachers using PLCs as the forum for collaboration.
Building a culture of collaboration and distributive leadership emerged as another
strategy that was strengthened by the process of using time effectively to create
opportunities for teachers to collaborate. Principals that implemented PLCs

126
effectively within their sites also emphasized the importance of building capacity
through shared decision making. School B was the strongest in promoting teacher
leadership in which administration worked side by side with teachers, listened to
concerns in PLCs, and encouraged teachers to suggest areas for improvement
allowing master teachers to share interventions with staff during faculty meetings.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
As a direct result of using time more efficiently and effectively, schools
provided opportunities for struggling students to access additional supports during
and after school. Schools that were the most successful in using this strategy and
displayed the greatest growth among typically struggling populations were Schools
B and C.
Although all of the principals expressed their frustration in the loss of
programs and personnel due to budget cuts, all sites implemented interventions for
non-proficient students by partnering with other sectors of the community. For
example, School A partnered with a nearby university to offer students a quiet place
for study hall on campus after school. School B partnered with a Hawaiian
immersion charter school to provide opportunities for incoming kindergarteners as
well as the private school, Kamehameha Schools, which provided free professional
development for staff and instruction in reading which targeted struggling
populations such as the Native Hawaiian and Disadvantaged subgroups. School E
provided access to technology and on-line programs to students in the disadvantaged
subgroup, many of which attend the State funded after school child care program.

127
All of the schools applied for ARRA funded interventions such as access to web-
based supplementary programs in reading and math which are integrated into
programs offered during and after school.
All schools in the sample relied heavily on institutions of higher education,
community partnerships and volunteers, or non-profit organizations to support their
initiatives of ensuring students are college and career ready in the 21
st
century. Now
more than ever, school leaders have to be instructional leaders, they have to bridge
different sectors and build a shared vision (DeVita, 2011). All of the principals
collected and accessed reliable data to create the same shared understanding among
stakeholders regarding the communities and populations that they served. Principals
in many of the schools possessed the aptitude to gather the community’s resources,
collaborate on what was in the best interest of students, and work with community
partners to share information so that they were not duplicating one another’s efforts.
Inspiring a Professional Organization
All of the schools in the sample adopted the WestEd framework of effective
teaching and use a walkthrough tool to define indicators of best practice in the
classroom. All principals shared that they typically refer to the indicators of best
practice within the observation tool during classroom observations, PLCs, and
faculty meetings and have discussed with their respective school communities the
importance of providing high quality instruction and its direct impact on student
learning outcomes. All of the schools faced barriers in sustaining on-going
professional development opportunities, yet several schools have found ways to use

128
collaboration during PLCs to create unique staff development opportunities within
the school while strengthening teacher sharing and leadership.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The results of this study provide school leaders and districts with information
on how to allocate resources to efficiently build human capital, provide high quality
instruction to meet the diverse needs of students, and incorporate research-based
activities that promote effective instruction. In a time of budgetary restraints, the
study also offers insight in the allocation decisions made by principals to drive the
school improvement process. Additionally, the study presents a unique set of data in
regard to the challenges and opportunities facing districts located in rural areas. The
study advocates for site-based management and decision making among the five
schools in the sample which comprise a single complex within a larger district.
Moreover, principals in rural districts and schools that are facing budget cuts and
resource limitations would be wise in implementing the following instructional
strategies in their improvement efforts: analyzing the data and understanding the
performance problem, data-based decision making, using time efficiently and
effectively, providing interventions for struggling students, and inspiring a
professional organization. Strategies that did not require additional resources and
could easily be implemented by all of the schools, despite differences in
demographics, were: setting ambitious goals and creating collaborative cultures and
distributive leadership. Each strategy seemed to build upon and compliment the next.
It seemed that among all of the rural schools, as one strategy strengthened another

129
emerged as a natural progression throughout the school improvement process. As
resources allocated through weighted student formula decreased year to year for
many of the schools in the sample, the change triggered sites to look within the
school to sustain strategies suggested by Odden (2009) such as ongoing professional
development and interventions for struggling students. In implementing these
practices, school leaders need to exercise diligence in closing the achievement gap
and monitoring overall student performance as well as performance by subgroups.
The study indicated the achievement gap was closing in a few of the sites due to the
implementation of the improvement strategies outlined by Odden (2009). Principals
must also closely analyze growth among all subgroups and content areas to ensure all
students are making adequate progress and no subgroup is left behind. The study
suggests that school leaders of sites demonstrating a lack of growth need access to
accurate, real time data and a systematic process that involves teachers in data
analysis so that they may make timely decisions about how they will address the
needs of struggling learners.
School leaders play a crucial role in setting high standards for student
performance in schools. These high standards, however, must be translated into
ambitious academic content represented in the curriculum students experience
(Goldring et al., 2007). In this study, school leaders understood the importance of a
rigorous curriculum offered by teachers and experienced by students, and the effects
of an effective curriculum on gains in student achievement. Principals were attentive
in establishing adequate opportunities for all students to experience a rigorous

130
curriculum in each core academic subject regardless of a student’s race, sex, SES
background, first language, or disability. In all sites, instructional leaders worked
with their teachers to insure that the content of instruction was rigorous and aligned
to the school’s instructional vision. Many of the school leaders were newly hired
principals within the last three years three of which inherited their reading
curriculum and all of which were mandated to use the district initiated math
curriculum. The lack of consistency displayed by student achievement results in
reading and math over five years in all of the sample schools may suggest the need
for current, up-to-date instructional materials as paramount. Also, results indicate
the importance of collective buy in among staff as schools collaborate on which
curriculum will best align with the school’s improvement efforts. As a result, many
principals were unsure about implementation of curriculum with fidelity and the
consistency and alignment of standards as the District makes the shift from the
Hawaii Content Performance Standards III to the Common Core State Standards.
Finally, in an examination of how principals used the Academic and
Financial Plan (Ac/FP) as a tool to effectively allocate resources to improve student
performance, the research indicates that many principals allocated the majority of
funding to provide resources to support standards-based instruction in the classroom.
The least amount of resources in the Ac/FP were assigned to continuously improving
the system and providing quality student support. To resolve the issue of inadequate
distribution of resources made by principals across all sites, Odden’s ten strategies
could easily be cross walked with the Ac/FP in such a way that they would

131
complement each prioritized goal. Table 4.6 identifies how Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance may be cross walked with the
prioritized goals in Hawaii’s Academic & Financial Plan.

Table 5.1
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance Crosswalked with
the Prioritized Goals in Hawaii’s Academic & Financial Plan
Goal #1:
Standards-
based
Instruction
Goal #2:
Quality
Student
Support
Goal #3:
Continuous
Improvement
of the System
Analyzing the data & Understanding the
Performance Challenge
√
Setting Ambitious Goals √
Implementing an Effective Curriculum &
Instructional Program
√
Data-Based Decision Making √
Ongoing Professional Development √
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively √
Providing Interventions for Struggling
Students
√
Creating Collaborative Cultures &
Distributive Leadership
√
Inspiring a Professional Organization √
Addressing Talent & Human Capital Issues √

132
In an analysis of each sites Ac/FP breakdown, the findings of the study
suggest that aligning Odden’s (2009) ten research-based strategies to the Ac/FP
would equip principals with a more useful tool in preparing a plan that would afford
schools an adequate combination of resources needed to successfully meet their
instructional vision.
Recommendations for Additional Research
This study adds to the body of research on school-level resource allocation
strategies to improve student achievement. The focus of the study was on five rural
elementary schools within a District. It would be useful for future research to
examine the resource allocation of principals using a research-based framework to
guide the schools efforts in closing the achievement gap. Such a study would allow
the researcher to observe whether aligning the Ac/FP to a framework such as the
EBM would enable principals to more accurately provide resources to targeted
subgroups of struggling students and examine patterns of growth from year to year.
Further research in the area of resource allocation by principals using the Ac/FP as a
tool would provide policymakers and practitioners with needed information in the
usefulness of the tool as an accountability piece in guiding the school improvement
process.

133
REFERENCES
Act 51: Reinventing Education Act of 2004 as amended by HB2002, HD2, SD1, CD.
The Senate 22
nd
Legislature, 2004 State of Hawaii S.B. NO. 3228

Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in
school funding. The Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.

Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education,
131, 99-111.

Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related
to state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational
Laboratory Midwest at Learning Point Associates.

Black, P., & William, D. (1998, Oct.). Inside the black box: Raising standards
through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for Leadership: Another Search Party’s
Report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.

Boudett, K. City, E., & Murnane, R. (2005). Data Wise: A Step-by-Step Guide to
Using Assessment Results to Improve Teaching and Learning.
Massachusetts, Harvard Education Press.

Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning Research into Results: A guide to Selecting
the Right Performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Teacher leadership for creating innovative schools. In
E. Meyers & P. McIsaac (Eds), How teachers are changing schools (pp. 7-
11). New York: IMPACT II.

Darling-Hammond, L., Alexander, M., & Price, D. (2002). Redesigning high
schools: What matters and what works. 10 features of good small schools.
Stanford, CA: School Redesign Network, Stanford University.

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

134
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. The Albert
Shanker Institute, Winter.

Elmore, R. (2005). Accountable Leadership. The Educational Forum. Volume 69.

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons
from comprehensive school reforms (pp.57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Goldring, E.(2007). Assessing Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to
Research, Professional Standards, and Current Practices, Prepared for the
Wallace Foundation Grant on Leadership Assessment.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role
of vision, mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K.
Leithwood and P. Hallinger & Colleagues, (Eds.). The handbook of
educational leadership and administration (2nd ed.).Dordrecht, South Africa:
Kluwer.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student
performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2),
141-164.

Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Science violated: Spending projections and the "costing
out" of an adequate education. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How
school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our children
(pp. 257-312). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses : solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public
schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hawaii’s Race To The Top Executive Summary. State of Hawaii Department of
Education, June 2010.

Hawaii Superintendent’s Strategic Plan. State Department of Education Office of the
Superintendent, RS11-0712, January 2011.

Informational Briefing DOE Act 51 & WSF, 2007, Patricia Hamamoto
Superintendent Power Point Presentation. Hawaii State Department of
Education, March 21, 2007.

135
Inouye, D. (2011, May 6). Dan Inouye News. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from
http://inouye.senate.gov/Press/050611pr01.cfm

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven Keys to Unlock the four Levels of Evaluation.
Performance Improvement, 45(7), 5-8.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Linn, R. L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University
of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.

Marzano R., Waters T., & McNulty B (2005). School Leadership that Works.
Alexandria, VA. ASCD

McGowan, P. & Miller, J. (2001). The School Administrator Web Edition

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the Nation
and the Secretary of Education United States Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Retrieved April 2, 2011, from
http://nces.ed.gov

The National Commission on Excellence in Education, April 1983.

No Child Left Behind. PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1425

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). The Dynamics of School Resource Allocation.

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

Odden, A. R. (2009). 10 Strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Aportela, A., Archibald, S. (2008). Funding
Schools Adequately in North Dakota: Resources to Double Student
Performance. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.

136
Overcoming Challenges 2010 Superintendent’s 21
st
Annual Report. State
Department of Education. Systems Accountability Office, February, 2011.

Picus, L. (2004). School Finance Adequacy: Implications for School Principals.
NASSP Bulletin (88)3.

Race To The Top (2011). Retrieved March 4, 2011, from www.ed.gov.

Rebell, M. (2002). Educational Adequacy, Democracy, and the Courts. Achieving
Educational Standards for All Conference Summary Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. National Research Council, pp. 218-267.

Reeves, D.B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90/ and
beyond. Center for Performance Assessment.

Remarks by the President in State of Union Address. Retrieved May 7, 2011 from
www.whitehouse.gov,

Shavelson, R. J., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly. Change, 35(1), 10-20.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research,
78 153-189.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school
leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher,
30(3), 23-28.

Statement by Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi on Governor Neil Abercrombie’s
release of $67M in Hurricane Relief Funds. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from,
http://lilinote.k12.hi.us.

SY 2009-2010 Framework for School Improvement, Tab 3, Tab 15: Appendix pgs. 2-
9.

Tirozzi, G. Funding in All the Wrong Places. News Leader. NASSP leading schools,
March 2011.

Urbanski, A. , and Nickolaou, M. (1997). Reflections on Teachers as Leaders.
Educational Policy, 11(2), 243-254.

The Wallace Foundation. Reimagining the School Day: More time for learning. A
Wallace Foundation National Forum, May 16-17, 2011

137
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099

Exempt Review
Date: Nov 11, 2011, 03:35pm
Principal Investigator: Bernadette Tyrell
Faculty Advisor: Lawrence Picus
Co-Investigators:
Project Title: RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES AND
EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY
USC UPIRB # UP-11-00472
The iStar application and attachments were reviewed by UPIRB staff on 11/11/2011.
The project was APPROVED.
Based on the information provided for review, this study meets the requirements
outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b)(1) (2) & (4) and qualifies for exemption from IRB
review. The study is not subject to further IRB review. IRB exemption of this study
was granted on 11/11/2011

The following materials were reviewed and approved by the designee:
Certified Information Sheet, dated 11-11-2011

Minor revisions were made to the consent document by the IRB Administrator
(IRBA). The IRBA revised consent document has been uploaded into section 29.1.1.
Please use the IRBA revised document if an amendment is submitted and future
revisions are required.

To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in the
study workspace. These are also available under the “Documents” tab.

Researchers are reminded that some site/schools require permission to conduct
research even if the research is exempt from IRB review.

Sincerely,
RoseAnn Fleming, CIP

138
APPENDIX B
AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Agreement to Participate in Research
The research study is being conducted as a component of a dissertation for a doctoral
degree. The purpose of the study is to analyze how Hawaii principals make decisions
about resource allocation while completing the academic and financial plan. Using
the Evidenced-based Model as a researched-based framework, a revised or “new”
academic and financial plan will be created to assist principals in meeting student
learning outcomes by making informed, research-based decisions about resource
allocation. Participation in the project will consist of an interview with the
investigator. Interview questions will focus on how resources are allocated to
support all students. Interviews will be conducted with school and district leaders
(e.g. principals, site coordinators) who make resource decisions and oversee the
implementation of extra help strategies. Data from the interview will be summarized
into broad categories. No personal identifying information will be included in the
research results. The interview should take no longer than 60 minutes.

The investigator believes there is little or no risk to participating in this research
study. However, there may be a small risk that you will experience psychological
discomfort as you participate in the interview. Participating in this study may be of
no direct benefit to you. However, results from the study will provide educational
practitioners with findings to promote adequacy of resources in schools.

Research data will be confidential to the extent allowed by law. Agencies with
research oversight, such as the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
at the University of Southern California, have the authority to review research data.
All research records will be stored in a locked, password protected file in the primary
investigator’s office for the duration of the research project. Audio tapes will be
destroyed immediately following transcription. All other research records will be
destroyed upon completion of the project. Participation in this research project is
completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw from participation at any time with
no penalty, or loss of benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled.

139
If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the researcher, Bernie
Tyrell at (808) 585-1754, or bernadette_tyrell@notes.k12.hi.us. You may also
contact the doctoral committee chair, Lawrence Picus at (213) 740-2175 or
lpicus@usc.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research
participant, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board at (213)
821-5276 or upirb@usc.edu.

Participant:
I have read and understand the above information, and agree to participate in this
research project.

_________________________________
Name (printed)

_________________________________ ____________
Signature Date

140
APPENDIX C
QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number
Address
City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES

School Contact (1)
Title Principal
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

141
School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

School Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

District Profile
District Name
District State ID

142
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:

District Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

143
School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
Grade Span
Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students
Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
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

144
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular Education)
FTEs
Kindergarten (Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:

145
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
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:

NOTES:

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

146
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:

147
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

148
Summer School Classified Staff
NOTES:

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 $

149
Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

Student Services FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
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:

150
Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special
Education

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6

151
APPENDIX D
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Principal Interview Questions
Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?
1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional
improvement effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math,
etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent
review for alignment).
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective
teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Hawaii standards or the Danielson/West Ed Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a
part of your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction,

152
differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading
instruction)
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
• How did you know that the instructional strategies were
being implemented?
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?
1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids?
Staffing ratios? Eligibility?
2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?
3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading
only with 15)
4. Professional Development
• When are the professional development days scheduled for?
(E.g. Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there
enough coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford
it?).

153
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium
groups (3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes &
Number of times per week), Academic focus, Who
instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day,
Number weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides),
Who participates
• ELL –
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology
• Online programs?
C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?
D. What type of instructional leadership was present?
E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g.
School Board report which helped solidify focus)
F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand
your efforts?

154
G. Describe the training or experience you have had in the Ac/FP
process.
• Professional Development or training received, years of
experience writing plans.
H. How do you use the Ac/FP to communicate how the school will meet
school improvement efforts?
I. How often to you reflect on or monitor the effectiveness of your
Ac/FP?
J. In a time of budgetary cuts how has the Ac/FP helped you to
prioritize resource allocation needs?
K. How could the Ac/FP form and process be improved to make it a
more useful tool to link resources to student performance?

155
APPENDIX E
DATA COLLECTION CODE BOOK
This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School
Resource Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. 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: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for
which you are responsible. 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. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for
you.
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: “CA” is automatically entered for you.
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

156
II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will
include the principal, and most likely the secretary. 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

157
III. District Profile
A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
B. 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

158
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 2009-2010 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
on the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in
any pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit.
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

159
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 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

160
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 (2007-08). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”
O. API

161
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

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.

162
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.

163
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. Do not include volunteers 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.
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.

164
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

165
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.

166
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.
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.

167
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.

168
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.

169
A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract:
Number of days the teacher contract specifies for professional
development.
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

170
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.

171
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.
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.)

172
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

173
XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and
high schools.)
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.

174
APPENDIX F
SCHOOL VISIT INTERVIEW DATES

School 1 School A January 7, 2012
School 2 School B January 7, 2012
School 3 School C January 5, 2012
School 4 School D January 23, 2012
School 5 School E January 23, 2012

175
APPENDIX G
CASE STUDY 1: SCHOOL A (SA)
School Profile
Established in 1927, SA is located on the North Shore of the island of Oahu
and is one of six rural public schools that make up the complex in the Windward
District. The complex is comprised of 5 elementary schools Pre-K through grade six
which feed into the intermediate and high school that serves grades seven to twelve.
The total K-12 student population of the complex is approximately 3,500 students.
SA is comprised of 630 students. The Native Hawaiian population is 30% of the
school’s enrollment, with the White and Samoan student populations tied as the
second largest at 25% each of the school’s population. Figure A.1 illustrates the
ethnic breakdown of School A.

Figure A.1. Ethnic breakdown of School A in SY 2010-2011

176
The percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch at SA is 59%.
The percent of students receiving Special Education services is 7% as well as the
percent of students with limited English proficiency at 7%. Within the complex, the
percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is 54%. The percent of
students receiving Special Education services is 11% and the percent of students
with limited English proficiency at 5%. In the State of Hawaii, the percent of
students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is 47%. The percent of students
receiving Special Education services is 10% as well as the percent of students with
limited English proficiency at 10%.

Table A.1
Comparison of Student Profiles in SA, Complex, and Public Schools in the State of
Hawaii
SA Complex State
Number of Students 631 3,481 170,000
Number SPED 46 365 17,089
Percent SPED 7% 11% 10%
Number ELL 41 171 17,134
Percent ELL 7% 5% 10%
Number FRPL 375 1,871 80,374
Percent FRPL 59% 54% 47%
*State of Hawaii DOE Trend Report 2010-2011

177
Of the 5 elementary schools in the complex, 4 schools have attained the
NCLB status of “In Good Standing, Unconditional,” and one with a status of “In
Good Standing, Pending.” Three of the five elementary schools qualify as Title I
schools. SA is one of the Title I schools that has attained the status of “In Good
Standing, Unconditional.”
An analysis of the 2010-2011 Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) data indicates
that SA exceeded the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) benchmarks of 72% in reading and 64% in math by scoring 81% and 78%
respectively. SA did not meet AYP in SY2005-06 and SY2006-07 and moved from
the status of “In Good Standing, Pending” in 2005-06 to “School Improvement Year
1” in SY2006-07 and SY2007-08. Since SY2008-09, SA has maintained the NCLB
status “In Good Standing, Unconditional” for the last four years and have exceeded
the HSA objectives in the overall percent of students meeting with proficiency in
reading and math from 2006-2011.
Figure A.2 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in reading. Although the HSA began in 2003-04, new assessments
were given in 2006-07 and results were not directly comparable with prior years.
Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives for reading in blue,
indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet every year, and the percent
of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red, grades 3-6.

178

Figure A.2. School A HSA longitudinal reading results

Figure A.3 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in math. Although the HSA began in 2003-04, new assessments were
given in 2006-07 and results were not directly comparable with prior years. Shown
below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives for math in blue, indicating
the proficiency levels that students must meet every year, and the percent of students
meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red, grades 3-6.

179

Figure A.3. School A HSA longitudinal math results

Figure A.4 below shows an analysis of student achievement results by
subgroup indicating that while the White subgroup continues to achieve the highest
results on the HSA, the most impressive signs of growth were among the
Asian/Pacific Islander and Disadvantaged subgroups in reading and math. The
achievement gap continues to be the greatest in reading and math among students
receiving Special Education and ELL services. Longitudinal results from SY2006-
2011 reveal that the two subgroups have failed to meet AYP. After 4 years of
declining performance in reading and math, student achievement results in SY2010-
11 slightly increased among the Sped subgroup with 20% of the SPED population
met proficiency in reading, and 24% in math. Achievement results among the ELL
subgroup in reading revealed an upward trend from SY2006-10. In SY2009-2010,

180
the ELL subgroup met AYP in reading and then 2010-11 results show a sharp
decrease in the number of students who met proficiency in which performance
dropped from 49% to 14% in reading. When asked about the sharp decline in ELL
performance, the principal explained that the former ELL teacher retired in 2009-10
and a new teacher was hired in 2010-2011. The principal stated that the relationship
between the new ELL teacher and the core teachers was strained. The ELL teacher
did not foster communication with the core teachers and core teachers were reluctant
to work with the ELL teacher. Performance in math remained stable among the ELL
subgroup at 29%. The percent of students receiving ELL services also declined from
SY2008-09 at 7% to 5% in SY2010-11.

Figure A.4. School A HSA student achievement results in reading by subgroup &
year

181
Figure A.4. illustrates longitudinal student achievement results in reading as
proficiency by subgroups. Figure A.5 illustrates longitudinal student achievement
results in math as proficiency by subgroups.

Figure A.5. School A HSA longitudinal student achievement results in math by
subgroup & year

SA is committed to increase the number of students that meet proficiency in
reading and math, and address the whole student through health, nutrition, physical
education, music, and art. Standards based curriculum in reading, math, and science,
instruction and quarterly assessments are the focus in preparing students in grades
three through six for the HSA in SY2011-2012. SA will make a concentrated effort
to ensure students receiving Sped and ELL services are provided access to the core

182
curriculum with a highly qualified teacher with and resource teachers who provide
support within the general education setting.
Efforts to Improve Instruction at SA Elementary School
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at SA Elementary School. The structured interview protocol
that guided data collection also frames the case study. Elementary school principals
responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions regarding their 2011-
2012 school improvement plans and strategies. Principals’ responses provided
quantitative resource data for comparison with the Evidence Based Model and told
the story of how and why the school utilizes its resources toward instructional and
academic improvement. The story of the school’s improvement process is as
follows.
Instructional Improvement Process
In 2009, the former principal of SA was replaced with a temporary assigned
(TA) principal. The TA principal was a former Vice Principal at a high school
within the district and became officially certified as an administrator and was hired
as SA’s permanent principal in SY2010-2011. The principal is currently in his 3
rd

year of service at SA. In SY2011-12 he had surveyed the community and staff on
the relevancy of the school’s existing vision statement, “Learning Today – Leading
Tomorrow.” Although the community and staff were satisfied and saw no need for a
change, the principal realized that the current vision and mission for the school was
not aligned to the state’s strategic plan. All public schools in the state of Hawaii

183
must incorporate a statement that references the first goal in the Superintendant’s SIP,
“ensure that all students are college and career ready,” into the vision and mission.
Beginning in SY2011-2012 SA’s new vision and mission must be reflected in the
narrative summary of the Ac/FP. The principal expressed that he felt SA’s vision
statement was generic and needed to be revised to meet the Superintendant’s
directive.
Reading and math were the content focus for the instructional improvement
process due to the high stakes testing and accountability for meeting AYP
benchmarks. SA balances the core curriculum with electives such as PE and music.
Curriculum at SA encompasses the importance of health and fitness with an
emphasis on physical fitness. Through a partnership between the Department of
Health and the University of Hawaii Manoa in SY 2009-10, SA implemented the
Health Smart nutrition and health curriculums. SA is identified as a Model School
for physical and health education. Teachers implement the SPARK and Take 10
physical education curriculum across all grades. The principal actively works with
district personnel to sustain professional development in PE and SA is a model
school for PE in the District.
Implementing a Research-based Curriculum
SA has implemented the Success For All (SFA) reading program since
SY2003-04. SFA is a research-based comprehensive reading approach designed to
have students read at grade level. The principal stated that he “inherited” SFA and
that in SY2011-12 teachers attended a couple of trainings provided by the District

184
focused on aligning SFA to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Teachers
and part-time teachers take an active role in student ability-grouped SFA placements
throughout the grade levels. SFA is mandatory 90 minutes a day. As a staff
teachers also requested to build in 15 minutes to the language arts block to focus on
writing.
The principal stated that teachers like the SFA program because it is scripted
and grouping makes the student to teacher ratio smaller at 20:1 as compared to
elective classes offered in the afternoon in which average class size increases to 26:1.
In an effort to keep the student teacher ratio lower when using the strategy of ability
grouping, SA enlisted part-time teachers to assist with instruction during SFA.
When reflecting on the effectiveness of ability grouping, the principal stated that “the
downside of ability grouping is that students can move two to three grade levels and
4
th
grader could be in a reading group with 5
th
and 6
th
graders.” The principal stated
that “teachers felt that the mixed grade level grouping was affecting the students’
self-esteem because students in the lower grades were in groups with students from
the upper grades.” As a result, teachers adjusted the SFA curriculum to ability group
within the grade level with PTTs providing instruction to the higher performing
students.
SA implements the complex adopted Houghton Mifflin Every Day Math
(EDM) curriculum across all grades and supplements with GO Math in grades K-2 in
an effort to align to the CCSS. Weekly formative assessments identify student needs,
target and measure student success. Designated math blocks are incorporated into

185
each grade level. In grades 1-2 the block is 60 minutes, grades 3-5 is 90 minutes,
and grade 6 is 75 minutes.
The Kahuku Complex contracted the WestED consulting company to reform
underperforming schools in the Kahuku Complex. WestEd consultants have worked
with schools within the complex for a number of years focusing on observing
classroom instruction and using observation data to determine areas for improving
lesson design. SA has adopted the WestEd framework of effective teaching and uses
the Teach for Success walkthrough tool to define indicators of best practice in the
classroom. The principal explained that he tries to review the observation protocol
with the staff. He admitted that the TA Vice Principal did not understand how to
interpret the protocol, even as a teacher. The principal expressed that, “we may be
going through the motions and we’re still working on the walkthroughs.” He stated
that he asks himself, “How do I know that teachers understand the tool? Only a
handful asked me to sit down and go through the feedback.” The principal stated
that unless teachers are being evaluated they don’t want to go over the feedback.
The principal of SA continues to work with teachers in building a common
understanding of the walkthrough tool, posting measurable objectives, formatively
assessing students, and checking for understanding. As part of the state’s SIP, SA is
slowly rolling out data teams to prevent teachers from working in isolation. The
principal has also provided substitutes who rotate into classrooms allowing teachers
opportunities within the school day for peer observation. During peer observations

186
teachers observe their colleagues and focus on identifying key indicators of best
practice within the classroom.
The principal stated that his instructional vision for improvement is dictated
by state and complex initiatives to close the achievement gap. The principal stated
that the focus will continue to be on data analysis through the implementation of data
teams, the needs of SA, and what is in the best interest of students.
Assessment & Data Analysis
Assessments such as GATES is used for SFA and placement of students in
ability groups. Groups are rotated every quarter. The Every Day Math curriculum
incorporates weekly assessments and a Math coordinator provides support to
teachers to help analyze grade results of summative and diagnostic assessments.
This year the principal has emphasized more formative assessments in grade levels
to help guide instruction whereas in the past teachers relied heavily on summative
assessments. Within data teams teachers examine student achievement data and
discuss best practice within their grade levels.
The principal expressed the need to continue to emphasize with teachers the
importance of implementing the reading and math curriculum with fidelity. The
principal explained that in the past teachers modified the curriculum to accommodate
their preference of ability grouping for reading within grade levels and also failed to
implement the curriculum for the recommended number of minutes – 90 minutes for
the language arts block and 60 – 90 minutes, depending on the grade level, for the
math block. This year during a faculty meeting the principal used the metaphor of

187
“buying a BMW and repairing it with Honda parts,” to explain to teachers how a
lack of fidelity in implementing the curriculum hindered SA’s efforts in making
progress towards student achievement goals and gauging whether or not the language
arts and math curriculum were effective. The principal stated that “we are trying to
follow programs with fidelity, we’re moving towards the recommended minutes, but
we’re doing a hybrid, we need to follow the program to what it was designed for, not
modify it to fit us!” When referring to instructional practices among teachers, the
principal emphasized that each teacher needed to teach the curriculum with fidelity
rather than insist that SA adopt a new program.
Professional Development & Coaching
As part of the Hawaii State Teacher’s Association’s (HSTA) contract, all
professional development and in-service days were eliminated from the 2011-12
official school calendar. SA uses two hours after school on Wednesdays to provide
professional development opportunities for teachers. SA built in three substitute
days to provide training on WestEd initiatives as well as SFA. Funding for these
opportunities was provided through Title I. The principal stated that the challenge of
providing effective professional development opportunities for staff is the limited
budget to sustain professional development over time and the limited time to develop
a deep understanding of the content. The principal expressed that the short amount
of time after school on a Wednesday only allows the consultants to “gloss over the
content.” Next year SA will use half day subs to work with targeting specific grade
levels. Professional development was also offered on Saturdays with a focus on

188
nutrition and PE. Teachers went to Kapiolani Community College to learn healthy
recipes and worked with the 5
th
grade to teach students to teach parents cooking tips
for a healthier lifestyle. Currently, the community surrounding SA has the second
highest rate of diabetes in the state.
SA has one full-time curriculum coordinator in math and science and a half-
time curriculum coordinator for language arts. The role of the curriculum
coordinators is to assist teachers in developing formative assessments and analyzing
data, perform classroom observations, and coordinate after school tutoring for
struggling students. One barrier impacting effective coordination in language arts
was that the half-time coordinator was moved into the position because she was an
ineffective teacher. The principal stated that teachers did not respond to the half-
time coordinator during walkthroughs because they did not respect her. Next year
the principal plans to eliminate the half time position and move this teacher back into
the classroom as a full-time teacher. The math and science coordinator has a
staggered start time and works from 10am to 4pm in order to coordinate the after
school tutoring program. PTTs are also hired after school tutor students in reading
and math.
Help for Struggling Students
Beginning in 2011-12 all schools in the Kahuku Complex were directed to
implement the WestEd framework for the Response to Intervention (RTI) model to
meet the needs of all students through differentiation. In the past, extended learning
opportunities over the summer were provided to students who failed to meet

189
proficiency on the HSA in grades 3-6. Part-time teachers and certified teachers were
hired using Title I monies to provide instruction in language arts and math. PE was
also offered as a rotating block and taught by district personnel and a PE teacher
from the local intermediate school.
English language learners are supported during the school day by a full-time
ELL teacher and PTT. ELL teachers provide targeted support during the day during
the language arts blocks and ability groups as described above.
Parent & Community Involvement
SA is situated below the Brigham Young University of Hawaii (BYUH)
Campus and Temple, and works with the university as a partner in education. SA
has community and parental support as evidenced by the Parent Teacher Community
Organization (PTCO) which sponsors school wide fundraising activities, campus
improvements and beautification projects, volunteers in the classroom and
chaperones for excursions, and assistance with school wide performances. SA
embraces the community’s emphasis on high moral and ethical standards, the
protectiveness and support of family, perseverance, and pursuit of higher education.
SA partnered with BYUH to offer students a quiet place for study hall on
campus after school. With volunteers, parents, and BYU students SA offers grades 3
and 4 tutoring on Mondays and Wednesdays, and grades 5 and 6 tutoring on
Tuesdays and Thursdays. Tutoring is offered to students who did not meet
proficiency in the testing grades 3-6. Next year SA will expand and hire more PTTs
to tutor after school. Tutoring groups are comprised of no more than 20 students per

190
grade level, groups work in stations in which students participate in the ACHIEVE
3000/Kid Bizz on-line reading program, IXCEL on-line math program, and math and
reading individualized support.
Instructional Leadership as a Foundation for Change
The principal at SA admits that the improvement effort is largely dictated by
the Superintendant’s Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP). When asked to explain
the instructional vision for the improvement effort, the principal stated, “I have no
ideas, tell me what I need to do and I’ll follow it. If data teams are the thing,
whatever the boss tells me. They (WestED) are supposed to know.” The principal
stated that the SIP details the focus for improvements and the complex and school
have to align to reach the goals. The principal feels that every school is different and
has access to different resources, and students’ needs according to the data are
unique. The principal is also held to the Complex Area Superintendant’s (CAS)
complex initiatives that are top down and non-negotiable. The principal stated that
he provides the instructional leadership and uses the Ac/Fn to meet the goals within
the SIP. The principal continues to work with teachers to build collaboration within
grade levels. Data teams have become an important vehicle in building capacity,
reflecting on practice, and working with peers to motivate one another.
The principal shares progress made towards the outcomes in the Ac/Fn
quarterly. He admits, “if outcomes are not met there is no accountability, no
consequence.” Historically, teachers have played the “blame game” regarding

191
students’ lack of progress. The principal plans to use data teams to focus on
instruction and reflect on student achievement goals.
Table A.2 illustrates how SA implements the 10 steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance. Based on the story of SA’s school
improvement efforts, SA implemented 5 of Odden’s (2009) ten effective strategies in
the strong to average range, ranking the strongest in the area of providing help to
struggling students. SA continues to work on implementing the 5 strategies that
were ranked as weak.
Table A.3 and Table A.4 show a comparison of school profile and resource
allocation between SA and an EBM prototype school. The amount of resource
allocated for the students at SA is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model
(EBM). In all areas , from enrollment to class sizes in grades K – 3 and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model.

192
Table A.2
SA Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student Performance
Odden’s
strategies
Implementation
Notes Strong Average Weak
Not
Observed
1) analyzing
student
achievement
√
Grade levels analyzing student achievement data in
reading, math, & science using data teams. Teachers
are supported by 1.5 curriculum coordinator positions
to assist with developing and analyzing assessments.
2) setting
ambitious goals √
Principal conforms to state and district goals as outlined
in the SIP. School uses the data to tailor how they will
meet the initiatives.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√
Focus this year has been to teach the existing
curriculum with fidelity to get a baseline of
effectiveness of curriculum.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√
Principal acknowledges that more of an effort was
made to implement the data team process across grade
levels. Teachers use grade level formative, summative,
and diagnostic assessments.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√
State has eliminated all teacher in-service days due to
budget cuts. School uses Wednesday faculty meetings
to provide PD and has offered sub days as well as
Saturdays as options on various content, however a
clear focus on PD has not been established or sustained.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√
School has implemented 90 min blocks for reading and
math with electives after lunch and extra support after
school.
7) providing extra
help for
struggling
students
√
Has flexible start/end time schedule for curriculum
coordinator to sustain after school tutoring program for
struggling students. Other programs such as summer
and pre-school transition opportunities have been
eliminated due to budget cuts.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√
Implementation of grade level data teams to sustain
culture of collaboration. However, Principal states he
needs to model the process for more effective
implementation.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√
School relies on the WestEd consulting company to
provide the framework for school improvement.
Enlisted District supports for the PE program.
10) investing in
human capital
management
√
Principal mentioned eliminating positions that were
ineffective, but the strategy was not clear from the
research that was conducted.

193
Table A.3
School Profile Comparison: SA and Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
SA
Elementary
School SA – EBM Comparison
School Configuration K - 5 *Pre-K - 6 SA
*Although SA services
PreK and 6 EBM staff
are allocated on
enrollment and student
characteristics.
Enrollment 432 630 45% larger than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 23
1-3: 21
4-6: 21
K is approx 53% greater
than EBM
1-3 is approx 40%
greater than EBM
4-6 is approx 16% less
than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of
PD
180 +
0 days of PD
+
5% less than EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 7% 5% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 59% 9% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 7% 3% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 75% 45% greater than EBM

194
Table A.4
Resource Comparison: SA and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School
Resources
School
Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with SA
Characteristics
(656 Students) SA
SA – EBM
Comparison
Core Teachers 24 36 30 SA needs 6 more
core teachers
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 7 2.3 7 Part-time teachers
@ 10hrs/wk to assist
students in SFA grs.
K-6.
Approx 4.5 less than
EBM?
Not sure how to
calculate the PTT…
A FTE is 6 hrs/day –
30 hrs/wk. A PTT
only works 2hrs/day
– 10hrs/wk.
7 PTTs x10= 70 hrs
30/70 =2.3, so would
it be equivalent to
2.3 FTEs?
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 3.3 1.5
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4.3
(433 students)
0
Teachers for
EL
1 for every 100:
0.43
2.36
(236 students)
1.5
Extended day 1.8 2.7 *2 *After school study
hall differs from the
EB model which
assumes classes of
15 focused on
academic subjects.
1 Half-time
coordinator .5 FTE
4 PTTs @ 10hrs/wk
to provide tutoring
for after school study
hall.
30/40 = 1.4 FTE?
.7 less than the EBM

195
Table A.4, continued
School
Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with SA
Characteristics
(656 Students) SA
SA – EBM
Comparison
Summer
School
1.8 2.7 0 SA does not offer
any summer school
Learning
Disabled
student
3 3
(9% or 59
students)
3
(7% or 44
students)
4 more teachers than
EBM
GATE student $25/student 15,750 $0 SA does not offer
Gifted & Talented
programs.
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
-------- $11,000 2 sub days/teacher
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4.3
(432 students)
5 .7 more than EBM
1 ELL position
1 ELL Part-Time
Teacher @
20hrs/wk, 30/20 =
Primary School
Adjustment Program
(PSAP) Teacher 1
FTE
2 Counselors
1 Student Services
Coordinator (SSC)
Non-
instructional
aides
2 3 0
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 1.5 2 S.5 greater than the
EBM given the
larger size of SA

196
Table A.4, continued
School
Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with SA
Characteristics
(656 Students) SA
SA – EBM
Comparison
Principal 1 1.5 2 .5 greater than the
EBM given the
larger size of SA.
SA also has a Vice-
Principal
School site
Secretary
2 3 3 Same as the EBM
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses
– trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc
63,000 $7,500 or
$12/pupil
$7,500 SFA service
provider
Significantly less
than EBM
$2700/day for subs 1
per teacher @
$159/day PD with
WestED
Title IIA monies
paid for the West Ed
PD and subs.
Technology $250/pupil 157,500 $116/pupil** **$35,000 to sustain
on-line programs for
grs. 3-6
Significantly less
than EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil 88,200 $300 per
teacher
$17/pupil
Significantly less
than EBM
Student
activities
$200/pupil 126,000 $5/pupil $3,000 to sustain PE
initiative
Significantly less
than EBM

197
Use of the Academic Financial Plan to Effectively Allocate Resources to
Strategies that Increase Student Achievement
The principal stated that although the school is accountable for reporting
quarterly progress, there is no accountability built in the plan when the school does
not meet student achievement goals. As a result, the school has to be driven to
reflect on the plan. The principal stated that when teachers are not held accountable,
they play the blame game, blaming students for lack of progress rather than using
data to inform instruction. The principal hopes to implement data teams to focus on
and improve instruction.
The principal expressed that the lack of collaboration among teachers and
schools within the complex has been a barrier in the school improvement process.
The principal suggests that building professional collaboration days back into the
school year would encourage more interaction among colleagues and allow schools
to provide professional development opportunities based on the teachers’ and
schools’ needs.
In the 3 years as an instructional leader at SA, the principal received the most
training this year: 2 sessions followed by an optional additional session as needed.
In the past, the principal expressed that he relied on the former Ac/FP to set goals for
the next year. Because the process to complete the plan was so time consuming, the
principal only presented how the money would be budgeted to fund personnel and
school initiatives. The principal stated that money hasn’t been a problem at SA due
to stable enrollment affecting funding through Weighted Student Formula. Teachers’

198
positions have been stable from year to year with no cuts, so it hasn’t been an issue
with teachers. The principal felt that furloughs helped refocus the school on aligning
instruction to the standards and cutting out the less rigorous, “fun activities” like
extracurricular field trips and activities like bicycle education that were not
standards-based. “Overall, the student achievement scores improved and teachers
were more focused. As a school, teachers were able to step back and identify what
the necessities were and get rid of the fluff.” The principal stated that because SA is
a “big school” they haven’t been affected by the budget cuts as compared to smaller
schools affected by the impact of weighted student formula.
Summary of SA’s Academic/Financial Plan
Academic Goals
• Provide all students access to high quality curriculum.
• Implement standards based curriculum, instruction, and assessments;
incorporate rigor, relevance, and relationships in all classrooms.
• Ensure proficiency in all content areas, and provide academic support for
all students.
Plans for Financial Resources to Meet the Goals
The financial resources support the school’s continued growth and
development to implement a standards-based educational program. The total
projected school budget is $3,605,845.00. The largest portion, 78% or $2,819,287
million, is from Weighted Student Formula funding. Categorical funding, 19% or
$702,684, provides special education teachers, support positions, and related

199
expenditures. A small remaining amount, less than one percent, comes from federal
impact aid and PTSA funding that covers a part time music teacher.
Standards based education: $2,621,936.00 - 93% of the budget.
Approximately ninety-three percent of the budget by category will be used to
support basic programming needs including personnel, instructional materials,
equipment, and supplies. One and a one-half teacher curriculum coordinator
positions continue to support SA’s Title I program, Success for All reading program,
Achieve3000 coordinator, Everyday Math program, and the science curriculum.
A half-time teacher will be hired to monitor and coordinate Twilight
School—an after school tutoring program for Grade 3-6 students who are below or
approaching proficiency. Twilight School will include instruction by part-time
teachers in learning stations which include: Achieve3000, Success for All reading,
Every Day Math, science, academic and conceptual vocabulary, and math facts. The
half-time teacher will also coordinate with parent/guardian, college student and
community volunteers to provide an after school study hall/tutoring program
available for all students.
A part-time teacher will be hired to assist with a school wide music program
to implement appropriate grade level music standards.
Quality student support: funds to be used: $150,370 - 5% of the budget.
Approximately five percent of the budget is allocated to support personnel
including one student services coordinator (SSC), one SCC clerk, two school

200
counselors, one and one-half primary school adjustment project counselors, and one
health aide.
Continuous improvement: funds to be used: $18,630 - < 1% of the
budget.
Less than one percent of the budget is allocated to supplement one and one-
half teacher positions in Grade 1.
School operations: funds to be used: $72,116 - 2% of the budget.
Approximately two percent of the total WSF budget is planned for routine
expenditures including office equipment maintenance and contracts; and custodial,
office, library and classroom supplies. A major part of these funds provides for
administrative, custodial, and casual hire personnel.
Other funding resources anticipated, or grant to be received, that are
part of the Academic Plan that may not be listed in the Financial Plan.
Additional funds will be used to provide professional development to all
teachers to support continued growth of academic rigor, scaffolding, and student
engagement in all classrooms. In addition, contracted services by WestEd service
provider will provide additional professional development for faculty and staff in
differentiation, academic/conceptual vocabulary, math content strategies, T4S,
assessment, rigorous lesson design, PLCs, and co-teaching. In addition, teachers will
be provided substitute teacher days or stipends to provide school wide grade
level/department collaboration time. Additional funds will be used to purchase
physical education and playground equipment to promote a safe and structured

201
recess program organized by volunteers and coordinated by the Windward District
physical education teacher. School actions are reflected in the Academic Plan under
“Possible Enabling Activities if Supplemental Funds are Available.”
School A’s Academic and Financial Plan is integrated with Title I, Special
Education, and ELL funding. The Head Start Program is coordinated on campus with
all social services programs. The Academic and Financial Plan coordinates all funds
that are allocated to the school to ensure goals and objectives for student
achievement are aligned. Every resource supports achievement of each of the three
goals.
The principal stated that he communicates his school improvement efforts
using the Ac/FP during monthly School Community Council (SCC) meetings and
has surveyed all stakeholders regarding the vision/mission. The principal stated that
he reflects on the outcomes of the Ac/FP quarterly when reports are due to the CAS.
As the principal reflected on the Ac/FP process he explained that it could be
improved by allowing principals more time to collect data throughout the year on
student achievement. The plan is due in December and schools only have one
quarter of data to base the plan on. The principal expressed his frustration in
creating a plan for next year based on last year’s data and only quarter one data of
the current school year. The principal asked, “how do you measure success of the
current plan and develop a new plan when you are still in the middle of the school
year. The current Ac/FP process asks principals to do a lot of ‘forecasting’ for the
next year.” The principals felt the process could be improved by delaying the

202
development in the plan from December to sometime during the spring allowing
more time for principals to gauge progress of the current year, eliminating the
practice of developing next year’s plan on last year’s data. The principal asked:
Are we doing it [Ac/FP] just to do it? Things change throughout the year so I
don’t always follow it. At the beginning of the new school year, you are
already starting a new one? We (principals) are getting approval from the
SCC so early and sharing with stakeholders too early...why?

Lessons Learned
SA has sustained improvement for the Disadvantaged and Asian/Pacific
Islander subgroups in reading and math. Overall, SA has met AYP objectives for all
subgroups with the exception of Sped and ELL in which they will need to continue
to focus their efforts on closing the achievement gap.
• The school has adopted state and complex initiatives to focus on
implementing a focus on data and implementing data teams to close the
achievement gap for all students in reading and math.
• The school uses formative assessments to analyze data and provide
support to struggling students within the school day as well as during
extended day opportunities.
• The school continues to implement the inherited reading curriculum and
District mandated math curriculum and will continue to focus on
implementing both with fidelity to track effectiveness of the reading and
math programs.

203
• The school has a strong emphasis on eliciting community support to
provide extended learning supports for struggling students in the testing
grades.
• The school has a strong belief in addressing the “whole student” by
balancing the core curriculum with elective course offerings.
• Professional development opportunities are limited due to the removal of
professional development days within the school year for teachers and
there is a lack of funding to sustain it. Effective leadership is crucial in
building capacity and aligning support and promoting the “buy-in” among
teachers in order to meet district and state initiatives. The school
continues to focus on increasing the amount of professional development
opportunities for the staff with an emphasis on implementing curriculum
with fidelity and analyzing student achievement data using data teams.
• The principal adopts state and complex goals as his own and uses the
Ac/FP to document progress made towards those initiatives to ensure SA
is in compliance.
Future Considerations
Additional resources would be helpful to build on SA’s success. SA’s
intervention model focuses on new initiatives adopted from the state’s SIP. Targeted
and sustained professional development in the area of data teams to help support
analysis of student achievement data and effectiveness of the curriculum is desired
by the school but is lacking due to budget cuts. A clear focus on student

204
achievement data across all subgroups may help SA develop target interventions to
close the achievement gap for specific populations of students in the ELL and Sped
subgroups. Time for the school to gather current data and analyze student
achievement results and school improvement efforts during the school year has been
a barrier. The principal has stated that incorporating the time needed to reflect on the
implications of data to create a plan for the following school year has been a road
block in the school improvement process. In the principal’s opinion, delaying the
Ac/Fn process later in the school year may allow the school to effectively link
resources to strategies that the school identifies as a priority and may help strengthen
the Ac/FP process encouraging the instructional improvement efforts to be more
cohesive.

205
APPENDIX H
CASE STUDY 2: SCHOOL B (SB)
School Profile
Established in 1900, SB is located on the island of Oahu and is one of six
rural public schools that make up a complex in the Windward District. The complex
is comprised of 5 elementary schools Pre-K through grade six which feed into an
intermediate and high school serving grades seven to twelve. The complex has a
total student population of approximately 3,500 students.
SB is a multi-ethnic school, primarily servicing students from kindergarten
through the sixth grade. SB houses a DOE funded special education preschool
program, as well as a privately funded Headstart preschool program for eligible
students. SB is one of two elementary schools in the district to offer students an
alternative educational experience via the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program
(HLIP). The HLIP program provides standards-based instruction in the Hawaiian
language to students from kindergarten through grade six. SB also has a partnership
with Kamehameha Schools’ Literacy Instruction and Support Division who provides
support in literacy to all of our kindergarten through grade three classrooms.
SB is comprised of 280 students. The Native Hawaiian population at 73% is
the largest ethnic category, the White population as the second largest at 9%, and the
Samoan population as the third largest at 5%. Figure B.1 illustrates the ethnic
breakdown of School B.

206

Figure B.1. Ethnic breakdown of School B in SY 2010-2011

*Data taken from the School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR), 2011

Table B.1 below illustrates the student profile in SB as compared to the
Complex and the State of Hawaii. The student profile of SB exceeds the complex
percentages of students with special needs and free and reduced price lunch in each
subgroup. The percent of students receiving special education services is slightly
higher at 15%, compared to the complex at 11% and the state at 10%. The percent
of students at SB receiving ELL services is 4% as compared to 5% within the
complex and 10% in the state. The percent of students at SB receiving free or
reduced price lunch is 77% which surpasses the percent of students within the
complex at 54% and state at 47%.

207
Table B.1
Comparison of Student Profiles in SB, Kahuku Complex, and Public Schools in the
State of Hawaii
SB Complex State
Number of Students 280 3,481 170,000
Number SPED 43 365 17,089
Percent SPED 15% 11% 10%
Number ELL 12 171 17,134
Percent ELL 4% 5% 10%
Number FRPL 214 1,871 80,374
Percent FRPL 77% 54% 47%
*State of Hawaii DOE Trend Report 2010-2011

Of the 5 elementary schools in the complex, 4 schools have attained the
NCLB status of “In Good Standing, Unconditional,” and one with a status of “In
Good Standing, Pending.” Three of the five elementary schools qualify as Title I
schools. SB is one of the Title I schools in the complex that has attained the status of
“In Good Standing, Unconditional.”
An analysis of the 2010-2011 Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) data indicates
that SB has failed to meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) benchmarks of 72% in reading and 64% in math by scoring 55% and

208
28% respectively. SB had acquired the status of “ In Good Standing, Unconditional”
by qualifying for “safe harbor.” Safe harbor is a calculation and application of
criteria that analyzes how much improvement has been made by those students who
were not proficient previously. It may or may not be needed in determining a
school’s AYP. If a school does not meet the percent proficient target, then the safe
harbor calculation and criteria are automatically applied. Beginning in SY 2004-05,
the United States Department of Education (USDOE) allowed the application of
“anchored” safe harbor. “Anchored” safe harbor requires the use of comparisons
between the current year and the previous three years consecutively. Each
comparison has specific criteria that must be met for that level comparison to be met.
There are two criteria that must be achieved in order for safe harbor to be
“Met.” First, one of three possible safe harbor calculations must result in a 10%,
19%, or 27% improvement (decrease) in the students that were not proficient.
Second, retention rate for a sub-group must be “Met.”
SB failed to meet AYP since SY2004-05 and has moved from the status of
“Restructuring” to “In Good Standing, Unconditional” in SY2010-11. Table B.2
illustrates the NCLB status of SB from 2004-2011.

209
Table B.2
NCLB Status of SB from 2004-2011
NCLB Status for School Year NCLB Status
2010-2011 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2009-2010 Planning for Restructuring
2008-2009 Planning for Restructuring
2007-2008 Corrective Action Year 1
2006-2007 Corrective Action Year 1
2005-2006 School Improvement Year 2
2004-2005 Restructuring
2003-2004 Restructuring
*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure B.2 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in reading. Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
Objectives for reading in blue, indicating the proficiency levels that students must
meet every year, and the percent of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested
in red, grades 3-6. SB failed to meet AYP objectives in all grades tested from 2007-
09. Reading data reveal a decline in student performance until SY2008-2009. In
SY2008-2009, overall student achievement results show a steady 10% growth in
which SB meets the AYP objective of 60%. The following year the number of

210
students meeting proficiency remains stagnant as the AYP objective increases to 72%
resulting in a status of “Not Met” in SY2010-2011.

Figure B.2. School B HSA longitudinal reading results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011
**The Hawaii State Assessment began in 2003-04, new assessments were given in
2006-07 and results are not directly comparable with prior years.

Figure B.3 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in math. Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
Objectives for math in blue, indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet
every year, and the percent of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red,
grades 3-6. SB failed to meet AYP objectives from SY2006-2011. After SY2008-

211
2009, SB shows a 10% growth in the percent of students meeting proficiency over
the next two years despite SB’s failed attempts to meet AYP benchmarks.

Figure B.3. School B HSA longitudinal math results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure B.4 below shows an analysis of student achievement results in reading
by subgroup indicating that performance in all subgroups declined until SY2008-09,
and in SY2009-10 the Disdavantaged and Asian/Pacific Islander subgroups
demonstrated a sharp spike in performance with a dramatic increase of 20% in the
percent of students meeting proficiency. Both the Asian/Pacific Islander and
Disadvantaged subgroups met proficiency at 59% and 55% respectively, exceeding
the AYP objective of 46%. Although the Sped population failed to meet AYP in

212
SY2009-10, the subgroup also demonstrated a growth of 20% with 22% of students
meeting proficiency.

Figure B.4. School B HSA student achievement results in reading by subgroup &
year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

As the AYP objective in reading increased in SY2010-2011 from 59% to
72%, performance in the Asian/Pacific Islander and Disadvantaged populations
plateaus and the subgroups fail to meet the NCLB benchmark. In SY2010-11, the
White population, with 40 or more students in the testing grades, qualifies as a
subgroup and falls short of the AYP objectives along with the Sped subgroup whose
performance declines by approximately 10%. Longitudinal results in reading reveal
that growth among the Sped subgroup is inconsistent.

213
Figure B.5 below illustrates longitudinal student achievement results in math
as proficiency by subgroups. Performance among all subgroups declines from
SY2007-09 and although the Asian/Pacific Islander and Disadvantaged subgroups
show steady growth from 2008-2011 all groups failed to meet AYP objectives in
math from SY2007-2011. In the SY2010-2011 the White population qualifies as a
subgroup and the Sped population is eliminated as a subgroup in Math. When asked
why there was no subgroup reported for Math, the principal stated that the state
miscalculated the number of students designated as Sped on the report and
corrections were made in December of 2011 and therefore may not be reflected in
the current data.

Figure B.5. School B HSA longitudinal student achievement results in math by
subgroup & year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

214
Efforts to Improve Instruction at SB Elementary School
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at SB Elementary School. The structured interview protocol
that guided data collection also frames the case study. Elementary school principals
responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions regarding their 2011-
2012 school improvement plans and strategies. Principals’ responses provided
quantitative resource data for comparison with the Evidence Based Model and told
the story of how and why the school utilizes its resources toward instructional and
academic improvement. The story of SB’s improvement process is as follows.
Instructional Improvement Process
In 2009, the former principal of SB was replaced with a temporary assigned
(TA) principal. The TA principal was a former Vice Principal at an elementary
school within the district and became certified as an administrator and officially
hired in SY2010-2011. The principal is currently in his 3
rd
year of service at SB.
When the principal took over in the second semester of SY2009-2010, the Complex
Area Superintendent (CAS) of the district initiated a task force as a last ditch effort,
hoping to avoid another school sanction, to assess SB’s NCLB status of “Planning
for Restructuring.” Prior to the onset of the task force, communication was not
flowing freely among all stakeholders. The principal stated that he took over in the
second semester of the school year and the Ac/FP had not been completed. The task
force met once or twice a month and used restricted funds from the district to provide

215
substitutes for school employees to meet from 8-3pm. Meetings were held off
campus at a neutral site to encourage members to openly to discuss concerns.
At the start of SY2010-2011, a comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) was
conducted by SB’s Leadership Team which consisted of representatives from each
role group of the SB “family” (principal, grade level teacher chairpersons,
department heads, parent association leaders, student council representatives, and
community leaders).
Through the analysis of SB’s school wide data, the Leadership Team was
able to identify and clarify the needs of both the students and school. More
specifically, HSA data indicated that 60% of the students were proficient in reading
and 39% of students were proficient in the area of math at the end of SY2009-2010.
Thus, SB made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for SY2009-2010 as student
proficiency increased by 18 percent in the area of reading and eight percent in the
area of math. Although students made progress, teachers wanted and needed more
support in the areas of lesson design, rigorous instruction, formative and summative
assessments, differentiation, data analysis, and using data to drive instruction.
To help address staff needs, weekly Student Achievement Collaboration
(SAC) times were launched to allow teachers the opportunity to collaboratively
analyze school-wide benchmark assessment data, monitor student progress, and use
their data to drive instruction. In addition, Learning Team (LT) meetings were also
implemented to provide teachers the time to collaborate, share best practices, discuss
effective teaching strategies, and engage in activities aligning their curriculum to the

216
academic content standards that specifically address the needs of their learners.
During the SY2011-2012 SB has committed to:
• Focus on strengthening the processes that support school-wide
improvement.
• Improve the system of tracking individual student achievement in reading
and math.
• Initiate and evaluate interventions for students who are well-below
proficiency, approaching proficiency, and exceeding proficiency.
• Make student learning and achievement a collective responsibility that
includes all stakeholders.
Reading and math were the content focus for the instructional improvement
process due to the high stakes testing and accountability for meeting AYP
benchmarks. SB has focused on instruction in developing core values that drive the
school community as a whole. The principal stated that the task force decided that
“values were critical in tying the school community together.” Results of the CNA
determined that SB needed to put forth a more concentrated effort in improving
students’ reading comprehension. In the past, the school employed a reading
curriculum using direct instruction which was phoenix based, however, teachers
identified that students were also struggling with comprehension.
Implementing a Research-based Curriculum
SB designated specific blocks of time for language arts and math instruction.
Grades K-2 teachers implement guided reading and grades 3-6 implemented the

217
Trophies curriculum. SB decided on Trophies after a staff vote and reviewing
different texts. SB readjusted language arts instruction for the lower grades. Grades
K-3 also attend a separate reading and writing block focused on K-3 literacy in
which teachers incorporate writing into the curriculum. In the past, the practice of
balancing reading and writing was only in place for grades 4-6. When SB
encumbered the NCLB status of “Restructuring,” SB used Title I funds to fund a
reading intervention specialist. Currently, the focus in language arts has been on
fluency in kindergarten to grade 2, and comprehension as students begin to read. SB
also uses Reading A to Z, a computer based program which the principal stated has
been an effective supplement within the classroom.
SB implements the complex adopted Houghton Mifflin Every Day Math
(EDM) curriculum across grades 3-6 and allows teachers to supplement the
curriculum as they see fit. The GoMath curriculum is implemented in grades K-2.
SB acquired the new GoMath program in SY2011-12 after teachers attended several
district trainings on aligning the math curriculum to the common core state standards.
Assessment & Data Analysis
When asked if assessments are an integral part of SB’s instructional
improvement process, the principals stated, “Yes! By far it helped us the most!” SB
uses Data for School Improvement (DSI) an on-line DOE developed program which
allows schools to create formative assessments tied to the Hawaii Content and
Performance Standards (HCPS) to differentiate and drive the curriculum, instruction,
and assessments. Although SB students made progress, the CNA conducted by SB’s

218
leadership team indicated the need to continue to utilize a formal system to track
individual student achievement in reading and math as well as initiate supports and
interventions for those who were well-below proficiency, approaching proficiency,
and exceeding proficiency to meet the needs of all learners.
Student Achievement Collaboration (SAC) teams were implemented at SB to
analyze school-wide benchmark assessment data to monitor student progress. SACs
examine students’ strengths and needs and document interventions, tracking progress
of student performance on the benchmarks. During SAC meetings SB staff which
students are not performing and develop plans to re-teach mini lessons to meet
student achievement outcomes
Professional Development & Coaching
As part of the Hawaii State Teacher’s Association’s (HSTA) contract, all
professional development and in-service days were eliminated from the 2011-12
official school calendar. Staff at SB also participate in Learning Teams (LTs) to
provide teachers time to collaborate, share best practices, discuss effective teaching
strategies, and engage in activities to align their curriculum to the standards. The
principal has stated that the LTs are critical in supporting teachers during the
improvement process. SB uses the LTs to elicit and provide support and build
capacity among the staff. The principal makes a purposeful effort to attend the LTs
and works collaboratively in addressing the needs of teachers. The principal will
follow up with the curriculum coordinator to illicit experienced “master teachers” to
provide professional development on various topics during faculty meetings. By

219
encouraging collaboration between administrators, support staff, and teachers in LTs,
professional development becomes teacher-led as determined by the staff. Learning
Teams meet three times a month after school on Wednesdays.
The principal and VP also sit in on SAC meetings as teachers discuss the
needs of students and record interventions in meeting minutes. During collaboration
time with the Curriculum Coordinator the principal will discuss the needs of the
SACS and make an effort to address the teacher’s needs as soon as possible. SACs
meet twice a week for 2-3 hours on Monday/Thursday, or Tuesday/Friday after lunch
from 12:30 -2pm. During this time, students attend a variety of elective course
offerings such as: Hawaiian Studies, Computers, Library, Character Education, and
PE.
Over the past 20 years, Kamehameha Schools (KS) has partnered with SB to
provide literacy instructional support for the predominantly Native Hawaiian
population as well as professional development for the staff. Within the literacy
blocks, KS staff support SB teachers in incorporating strategies such as guided
reading, shared reading, thinking maps, and writing about reading into their lessons.
The principal stated after the task force completed the CNA, student outcomes
became clearer for reading. In the past, SB teachers stepped back during reading
instruction and let the staff from KS lead. SB continues to work to eventually
become more independent of KS and sustain professional development needs on
their own. SB is moving to a co-teaching model with KS. The principal stresses to
the SB staff to take the best teachers have to offer and supplement best practice with

220
the professional development strategies KS offers in order to build capacity and give
students the best.
SB used Title I funds to provide teachers with substitutes to attend
professional development on campus during the school day. Due to lack of funding,
SB had to use creative strategies such as half day substitutes or scheduling
professional development after school on Wednesdays.
Due to budget cuts, SB downsized from two curriculum coordinator
positions- one for the lower and one for the upper grades - to one this year. However,
the principal stated that with one curriculum coordinator supporting grades K-6 the
communication improved regarding expectations for data teams. Allowing one
person to set the culture for data teams has resulted in more consistent
implementation across grade levels. SB does not have funding for any academic
coaches.
Help for Struggling Students
Beginning in 2011-12 all schools in the Complex were directed to implement
the WestEd framework for the Response to Intervention (RTI) model to meet the
needs of all students through differentiation.
SB has a fully self-contained DOE funded preschool for students receiving
Sped services, operating full day, with an enrollment of eight students. Students
receiving Sped services needing an inclusion setting are enrolled with a privately
funded pre-school called Headstart housed on SB’s campus. SB also houses a
Hawaiian Immersion Charter school which services pre-school students. An

221
agreement has been established between SB and the Charter to build a continuum to
prepare students for the HLIP Hawaiian Immersion Kindergarten class offered at SB.
The charter school is able to use one classroom and must attend SB’s Hawaiian
Immersion Kindergarten parent meetings. The Charter school is allowed to take
fieldtrips with the Hawaiian Immersion Kindergarten class once a year.
The principal of SB also recognizes the need to continue the summer
transition program for incoming kindergarten students to prepare them for school.
Approximately 60% of SB’s incoming kindergarteners attended preschool from
SY2008-2011. During the summer SB offers a three week kindergarten transition
program in which the DOE funded 50% for Title I schools. SB offers full-day Junior
Kindergarten (JK) for students who turn five by December 31st and full-day
Kindergarten. Class size for JK is 17:1, with one full-time teacher, an EA, and one
PTT shared among the two Kindergarten classes. During the morning block,
Kindergarten teachers create reading and language arts stations. Using the strategy of
ability grouping teachers are able to provide more support and differentiate
instruction according to the needs of students.
In the past SB placed one PTT in every class to reduce the student to teacher
ratio. The use of PTTs decreased this year due to budget cuts. Currently SB has 1
PTT per grade level.
During SY2010-2011 teachers provided targeted interventions during the last
half of the 3
rd
quarter for students in grades 3-6 who were not meeting proficiency
after the 2
nd
round of the on-line HSA test. Small groups taught by the most skilled

222
teachers provided students a double-dose of instruction in reading and math. The
principal stated that using this strategy was effective and students performed better
on the last round of the HSA. Lack of funding has prevented SB from continuing the
implementation of small groups this year.
Extended learning opportunities during the summer were also offered to
students who failed to meet proficiency in reading and math on the HSA. SB will
not continue to offer summer school this year due to lack of funding.
The principal of SB wanted to extend the school day by 60 minutes to offer
tutoring after school, however the principal was challenged by the staff and could not
come to agreement on identifying: the academic focus, who would provide the
instruction- certified teachers or aides, and which students would participate.
Attempts to implement the after school tutoring failed due complications with the
teachers’ union regarding honoring teacher’s prep time after school and providing
compensation for teachers after work hours.
Students receiving ELL services are supported by a PTT during pull out
sessions. Due to lack of funding SB was not able to purchase a half-time teacher.
SB also supplements the curriculum with on-line reading programs such as
ACHIEVE 3000, Reading A-Z, Accelerated Reader, and IXCEL for math all of
which are purchased and funded by the District. Teachers also have 5-10 computers
in each classroom in grades 2-6 to encourage the use of on-line programs. The
principal stressed the importance of reading using the ACHIEVE 3000 on-line
program. In SY2010-11 the principal joined forces with a non-profit organization to

223
provide every student in grades 4-6 a free computer. SB also sponsored quarterly
workshops for parents to support students at home in accessing the ACHIEVE 3000
on-line reading program.
In addition, to increase student achievement on campus, SB continues to
focus on improving the average daily attendance as the school fell short of meeting
the state standard of 95% average daily attendance by 3 percentage points. The
principal also sent home letters to parents promoting the importance of regular
attendance. SB began implementing incentives for students with perfect attendance
in SY2009-10. Monthly assemblies and certificates were awarded to students who
demonstrated perfect attendance. The principal of SB stated that the average daily
attendance rate increased from 89% in SY2008-09 to 93% in SY2010-11.
Parent & Community Involvement
The principal of SB stated that he actively attends monthly Community
Association meetings to spread the word about school initiatives and student
progress. At the meetings the principal has been able to ask for support and provide
opportunities for community feedback. On-going communication with the
community association has allowed SB to benefit from the collaboration. As a result
of hearing the needs of the school, community members have stepped forward to
volunteer in classes as reading buddies.
Instructional Leadership as a Foundation for Change
The complex contracted the WestEd consulting company to reform
underperforming schools. WestEd consultants have worked with schools within the

224
complex for a number of years focusing on observing classroom instruction and
using observation data to determine areas for improving lesson design. SB has
adopted the WestEd framework of effective teaching and uses the Teach for Success
walkthrough tool to define indicators of best practice in the classroom. The principal
actively stresses the importance of the observation tool by providing in-service
opportunities for teachers to teach different components. The principal began with
“stating the objective.” The principal video-taped himself teaching a lesson as he
emphasized the practice of “stating the objective” and had the staff analyze and
discuss the pros and cons of the lesson. The staff also discussed why stating the
objective was important for the teacher to do during the lesson and any missed
opportunities to implement indicators of best practice using the observation tool.
The principal consciously works with the staff to identify the “teachable moments”
during classroom instruction and provides examples in staff meetings. The principal
stated that the observation tool is “engrained into minds of teachers.” The principal
states to teachers that, “I’m not asking you to do anything I wouldn’t do.” The
principal takes the time to explain to teachers that the administration is open to
suggestions, that “open dialogue is key for our school.” He also explained that,
“being at the data team meetings as part of the team is important for instructional
leadership and working with Curriculum Coordinator and meeting two or three times
a week to touch bases has helped provide support for teachers.” The principal also
believes in coaching teachers immediately following an observation. He stated that,
“we don’t do written feedback, we (admin) prefer face to face.”

225
Teachers created SAC binders to keep data and build accountability into SB’s
improvement plan. The binders were geared toward student achievement keep track
of standards and benchmarks taught. Teachers identified “power benchmarks” and
kept track of non-proficient students and interventions applied as well as
instructional changes teachers made to address learning needs and gaps. Also
documented were team minutes of discussions in data teams to show process, an
analysis of teams agreements and later reporting back on how they did. Teachers are
also accountable for reporting student progress made towards student learning goals
in the Ac/FP. The principal emphasizes the importance of knowing the learning
outcomes within the Ac/FP because the Ac/FP is geared towards student
achievement.
During the Learning Teams the principal also refers to the indicators of best
practice within the observation tool. The Curriculum Coordinator also participates in
classroom observations and participates in peer coaching. The principal explains to
the staff that the observation tool reinforces research-based practices proven to
increase student achievement and reiterates that his instructional vision is centered
around effective teaching and, “what will have the most impact on students and what
making decisions around what is in the best interest of students.”
Table B.3 illustrates how SB implements the 10 steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by SB. Based on the story of SB’s school improvement efforts,
SB implemented 8 of Odden’s (2009) ten effective strategies in the strong to average

226
range, ranking the weakest in the area of setting ambitious goals and investing in
human capital management.
Table B.4 and Table B.5 show a comparison of school profile and resource
allocation between SB and an EBM prototype school. The amount of resource
allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model
(EBM). In all areas, from enrollment to class sizes in grades K – 3 and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model.

227
Table B.3
SB Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student Performance
Odden’s
strategies
Implementation
Notes Strong Average Weak Not Observed
1) analyzing
student
achievement
√
Staff participate in regular SAC and LTS to discuss
instructional strategies, develop formative
assessments, and analyze student work.
2) setting
ambitious goals
√
Principal conforms to state and district goals as
outlined in the SIP. School uses the data to tailor
how they will meet the initiatives. SB will need a
plan to address under-represented populations that
have been inconsistent in qualifying as a subgroup
on the HSA ie. Sped, ELL, and White.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√
CNA completed by task force to assess
effectiveness of standards-based curriculum and
identify specific needs of students.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√
Routine practice of creating, implementing and
analyzing formative assessments has been
integrated into teacher workday as an expectation
for school improvement thru SACs and LTs.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development √
State has eliminated all teacher in-service days due
to budget cuts. School uses Wednesday faculty
meetings to provide PD and has offered sub days as
well. Principal provides effective leadership in
building capacity by identifying “master teachers”
to provide immediate support & PD. More support
is need to sustain PD for District initiatives.
6) using
instructional
time more
efficiently
√
School has implemented 90 min blocks for reading
and math with electives after lunch allowing time
for data teams to meet.
7) providing
extra help for
struggling
students
√
Majority of support offered within school day in an
inclusion setting with extra staffing to support
struggling students. Principal actively seeks out
support from community members and non-profit
organizations and forms partnerships with various
stakeholders to benefit school initiatives.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√
Implementation of grade level data teams to sustain
culture of collaboration. Principal allows teachers
to dictate PD based on the needs of the LTs.
9) using
research-based
and proven
strategies
√
School relies on the WestEd consulting company to
provide the framework for school improvement.
School also works with KS to implement best
practice in reading.
10) investing in
human capital
management
√
The strategy was not clear from the research that
was conducted.

228
Table B.4
School Profile Comparison: SB and Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
SB
Elementary
School SB – EBM Comparison
School Configuration K - 5 *Pre-K - 6 *Although SB services
PreK and 6 EBM staff
are allocated on
enrollment and student
characteristics.
Enrollment 432 280 35% less than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-2: 20
3-4: 30
5/6 Combo:
30
K -2 is approx 33%
greater than EBM
Gr. 3 is approx 100%
greater than EBM
4-6 is approx 20%
greater than EBM
Full day Kindergarten Yes Yes
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of
PD
180 +
0 days of PD
+
5% less than EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 15% 3% greater than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 77% 27% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 4% 6% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 92% 62% greater than EBM

229
Table B.5
Resource Comparison: SA and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School
Resources
School
Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
EBM School
with SB
Characteristics
(216 Students) SB SB – EBM Comparison
Core Teachers 24 12 13 SB has 1 more position
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 2.4 8 SB has 5.6 more than the
EBM
6 FTE Elective Teachers
2 FTE Hawaiian Immersion
Teachers
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 1.1 .5 .6 less than the EBM
1 FTE Curriculum
Coordinator
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty
students: 2.16
1.08 0 SB does not provide tutors
Teachers for
EL
1 for every 100:
0.43
.02 1.5 .08 greater than the EBM
Extended day 1.8 0.9 0 SB does not provide Extended
day programs.
Summer
School
1.8 0.9 2 1.1 greater than the EBM
SB offers a summer transition
program for Kindergarten
only
Learning
Disabled
student
3 1.5 6 4.5 greater than the EBM
Gifted student $25/student $25/student $0 SB does not provide allocate
funding per pupil only funds
the GT position.
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
------------

230
Table B.5, continued
School
Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with SB
Characteristics
(216 Students) SB SB – EBM Comparison
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
0.65 3.5 2.85 greater than the
EBM
6 PTTs, 1 per grade
level
Non-
instructional
aides
2 2 .5 1.5 less than EBM
PTT to provide parent
workshops
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 0.5 2 1.5 greater than the
EBM given the larger
size of SB
School
Administration
1 1 2 1 more than the EBM
given the larger size of
SB.
Secretary/
Clerical
2 1.5 2 .5 more positions
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
& prep time, 10
summer days,
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc
------------ $54/pupil $15,000 for
substitutes/stipends and
training costs
Technology $250/pupil ------------ $0/pupil** Significantly less than
EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil ------------ $25/pupil
K-3 an
additional
$20/pupil
in grs. K-3
$25/pupil
Books and $2,400 for
KS guided reading
program in grs K-3
Significantly less than
EBM
Student
activities
$200/pupil ------------ $0/pupil Significantly less than
EBM

231
Use of the Academic Financial Plan to Effectively Allocate Resources to
Strategies that Increase Student Achievement
The principal stated that additional resources would be needed to continue
and expand SB’s efforts in closing the achievement gap. He stated that SB would
not have been able to meet AYP as quickly in the last two years without the funding
of the curriculum coordinator, reading specialist, and specialist teachers who teach in
the afternoon so core teachers have pupil free time to collaborate in SACs and LTs.
The principal stated that he is worried about sustaining all of the progress SB has
made over the last 3 years.
The principal has stated that he has had no previous experience writing the
Ac/FP as a Vice-Principal, and no training as a TA Principal, he simply learned from
dialoguing with other principals and TA principals that were new to the system. He
stated, “We had the same problems and questions and needed to get answers…the
peer dialogue was crucial.” The principal had some training during the
administrators certification program:
...but I didn’t understand it at the time, it was one session and the
information went over my head! This year there was more support as far as
working sessions and training, and the CAS sitting down and reviewing it.
The Ac/FP was new, I was appreciative. The Complex principals also got
together to align and support one another and meet SIP.

The principal starts the year addressing the State’s initiatives for the year and
ties those into how they will improve the school. In November, when he begins
writing the plan the staff is familiar with the initiatives. The principal also keeps
information flowing between the School Community Council (SCC), Hawaiian

232
Immersion parent group, the PTA, and parents. He also attends every community
association meeting to share data on student achievement outcomes. Leadership also
shares the plan to teams to departments and various role groups can provide feedback.
The principal feels that when there is feedback from all role groups as the final draft
is developed there are no surprises.
SB reflects on the Ac/FP goals quarterly. During administration meetings,
the principal, vice-principal, and curriculum coordinator, discuss progress made
towards the goals, data to support trends, and next steps. The principal also shares
progress with the SCC and the community association during monthly meetings.
In a time of budgetary cuts the principal agreed that the Ac/FP helped SB to
prioritize resource allocation needs. He explained that “the Ac/FP process forces us
to do a CNA, identify strategies, and prioritize actions, and everything funded is a
prioritized action. Any additional things that would help us make a bigger impact
would go in supplemental needs.” The principal stated that, “the Ac/FP provides SB
a focus on identifying our big bang actions and what is on our wish list to help
students even more.” The principal explained that supplemental requests are not
prioritized and administration has the flexibility to make a decision. He also pointed
out that “positions are decided by admin so no one points a finger and no one has a
say that one position better than another.”

233
Summary of SB’s Academic/Financial Plan
State of Hawaii’s Academic Goals
1. Assure all students graduate college and career ready through effective
use of standards-based education.
2. Ensure and sustain a rich environment and culture for lifelong learners.
3. Continuously improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness of
the educational system.
Plans for Financial Resources to Meet the Goals
The total projected budget is $2,478,434.
Standards-based education: funds to be used = $1,842,667 – 74%.
The funding allocated for Standards-Based Education includes all teacher
positions, classroom support personnel, student supplies, office supplies, building
supplies, and maintenance costs.
Quality student support: funds to be used = $214,676 – 8%.
The funding allocated for Quality Student Support includes a school
counselor position, a student services coordinator (SSC), a student services clerk,
classroom support personnel, and computer equipment/supplies.
Continuous improvement: funds to be used = $55,916 – 2%.
The funding allocated for Continuous Improvement includes an academic
coach. Additional funding that addresses the Continuous Improvement of our school
systems has been outlined in Standards-Based Education, Quality Student Support,
and School Operations.

234
School operations: funds to be used = $365,175 - 14%.
The funding allocated for School Operations includes administrative
positions, clerical staff, custodial staff, office supplies/equipment, custodial
supplies/equipment, and support personnel.
Other funding resource(s) anticipated, or grant(s) to be received, that
are part of the Academic Plan, which may not be listed in the Financial
Plan.
SB is a Title I school and School Improvement Grant (SIG) recipient. Title I
monies and SIG funding for the 2011 – 2012 school year will pay for the
professional development of teachers/staff, parent engagement activities/strategies,
and support personnel to help improve standards-based learning and increased
student achievement on our campus.
How Has the Plan Coordinated and Integrated Federal, State, and Local
Services/programs?
All positions and resources have been focused towards standards-based
learning and improved student achievement regardless of the funding source.
In the principal’s opinion, the Ac/FP form and process could be improved to
make it a more useful tool to link resources to student performance. As far as the
process, the principal recommended that the Ac/FP be completed during second
semester. The principals biggest complaint was that:
We’re doing a plan a year in advance when we haven’t finished a year we’re
already in. We only have one quarter of data to use to write the new plan.
We can’t allocate resources to address current school needs, it’s too early!

235
For next year’s plan we’re using last year’s data because we’re doing plan too
early.

The principal makes the argument that the process would be more valuable if done
later in the year.
Lessons Learned
Although SB Elementary School struggles to meet AYP benchmarks, SB has
made significant gains in lowering the achievement gap among the Asian Pacific
Islander and Disadvantaged subgroups since SY2008-09. Several student
populations such as Sped, ELL, and the White population have been inconsistent in
meeting the adequate number of students needed to qualify as a subgroup from year
to year and have not been tested annually. During the current principal’s tenure, SB
has made a concentrated effort to improve processes within data teams, analyzing
formative and summative assessments, and building capacity among staff to increase
professional development opportunities among teachers.
• The school has adopted state and complex initiatives to focus on
implementing a focus on data and implementing data teams to close the
achievement gap for all students in reading and math.
• The school has formalized structures in place to sustain collaboration
among staff with specific goals that focus on building best practice
among teachers and improving instruction and student achievement.

236
• By analyzing data weekly, the school sets specific goals for all students
including subgroups. On-going data analysis guides instruction at SB
where specific strategies are discussed in SACs and LTs.
• SB has struggled to sustain funding to provide opportunities for students
within the school day as well as during extended day opportunities.
• The principal involves all stakeholders in the school improvement process
and is successful in creating partnerships between the school and
community to support all students.
• Professional development opportunities are limited due to the removal of
professional development days within the school year for teachers and
there is a lack of funding to sustain it. Effective leadership is crucial in
building capacity and aligning support and promoting the “buy-in” among
teachers in order to meet district and state initiatives. The school
continues to focus on increasing the amount of professional development
opportunities for the staff by creating partnerships with private and
charter schools who are invested in supporting the predominant Hawaiian
population.
• The principal adopts state and complex goals as his own and uses the
Ac/Fn to document progress made towards those initiatives to ensure SA
is in compliance.

237
Future Considerations
Additional resources would be helpful to build on SB’s success. SB’s
intervention model focuses on new initiatives adopted from the State’s SIP.
Targeted and sustained professional development in the area of curriculum and
instruction to target all subgroups is desired by the school but is lacking due to
budget cuts. Acquiring the resources to develop the professionalism of the staff at
SB is needed to increase the competency of teachers and provide students with
adequate levels of instruction. The principal has aligned the school to district and
state initiatives, however carries the sole responsibility of sustaining the school
improvement process within the school. SB has built capacity among teacher leaders
to create professional development opportunities, however staff grapple with moving
all students to meet or exceeds on the Hawaii State Assessment. Sustaining the
professional development with a clear focus on increasing student achievement has
been a challenge.
A clear focus on student achievement data across all subgroups has helped
SB identify students who need targeted interventions to close the achievement gap.
With more than 77% of the students qualified for free and reduced lunch, sustaining
opportunities for struggling students within the school day and during the summer
has been challenging. Although successful in the past, the principal has stated that
funding for extra help strategies such as after school tutoring and summer school
have been eliminated due to budget constraints.

238
In the principal’s opinion, delaying the Ac/Fn process until later in the school
year will allow SB to gather the most current student achievement data, assisting SB
in its efforts to effectively link resources to strategies that will most impact student
achievement.

239
APPENDIX I
CASE STUDY 3: SCHOOL C (SC)
School Profile
SC is located on the island of Oahu and is one of six rural public schools that
make up a complex in the Windward District. The complex is comprised of 5
elementary schools Pre-K through grade six which feed into an intermediate and
high school serving grades seven to twelve. The complex has a total student
population of approximately 3,500 students.
SC is located in the richly cultivated valleys and coastal flatlands on the
North Shore of Oahu. SC started in 1893 as an English School, serving the
community’s sugar plantation children in grades K-12. The present 4.5 acre campus,
serving only grades K-6, was dedicated in 1988. The architecture of the buildings
reflects its former past as a sugar plantation town. The town hasn't changed much
since the mill closed. Old sugar workers and their families still live in plantation
housing. The community surrounding SC still moves to a gentle pace with its
uncluttered beaches, fishing grounds and gentle trade winds. In this rural community
children safely walk to and from school, play after school sports at a nearby park or
visit with neighbors.
SC is comprised of approximately 485 students. The Native Hawaiian
population at 46% is the largest ethnic category, the Samoan population as the
second largest at 16%, and the Filipino population as the third largest at 12%. Figure
C.1 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of School C.

240

Figure C.1. Ethnic breakdown of School C in SY 2010-2011

*Data taken from the School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR), 2011

Table C.1 below illustrates the student profile in SC as compared to the
Complex and the State of Hawaii. The percent of students receiving free or reduced
priced lunch at SC is 65%. The percent of students receiving Special Education
services is 6% and the percent of students with limited English proficiency is 9%.
Within the complex, the percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is
54%. The percent of students receiving Special Education services is 11% and the
percent of students with limited English proficiency is 5%. In the State of Hawaii,
the percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is 47%. The percent of

241
students receiving Special Education services is 10% as well as the percent of
students with limited English proficiency at 10%.

Table C.1
Comparison of Student Profiles in SC, Complex, and Public Schools in the State of
Hawaii
SC Complex State
Number of Students 485 3,481 170,000
Number SPED 31 365 17,089
Percent SPED 6% 11% 10%
Number ELL 41 171 17,134
Percent ELL 9% 5% 10%
Number FRPL 316 1,871 80,374
Percent FRPL 65% 54% 47%
*State of Hawaii DOE Trend Report 2010-2011

Of the 5 elementary schools in the complex, 4 schools have attained the
NCLB status of “In Good Standing, Unconditional,” and one with a status of “In
Good Standing, Pending.” Three of the five elementary schools qualify as Title I
schools. SC is one of the Title I schools in the complex that has attained the status of
“In Good Standing, Unconditional.”

242
An analysis of the 2010-2011 Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) data indicates
that SC has met the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
benchmarks of 72% in reading and 64% in math by scoring 78% and 70%
respectively. SC has met AYP in reading and math since SY2006-07. Table C.2
illustrates the NCLB status of SC from 2004-2011.

Table C.2
NCLB Status of SC from 2004-2011
NCLB Status for School Year NCLB Status
2010-2011 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2009-2010 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2008-2009 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2007-2008 In Good Standing, Pending
2006-2007 School Improvement Year 1
2005-2006 School Improvement Year 1
2004-2005 In Good Standing, Pending
2003-2004 In Good Standing, Unconditional
*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure C.2 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in reading. SC met AYP objectives in all grades tested from 2006-11.
Reading data reveal no significant growth in student performance until SY2010-11.

243
Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives for reading in blue,
indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet every year, and the percent
of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red, grades 3-6. In SY2010-11,
overall student achievement results peak from 60% of students meeting with
proficiency to 78%. Interestingly, SY2010-11 is the same year AYP objectives
increase after three years from 58% to 72%. SC trends in overall student
performance in reading seem to run parallel to the AYP benchmarks.

Figure C.2. School C HSA longitudinal reading results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011
**The Hawaii State Assessment began in 2003-04, new assessments were given in
2006-07 and results are not directly comparable with prior years.

244
Figure C.3 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in math. SC met AYP objectives every year from SY2006-2011.
Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives for math in blue,
indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet every year, and the percent
of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red, grades 3-6. In SY2008-09,
SC shows a slight decrease in student growth of 6%. Beginning in SY2009-10, SC
increases the number of students meeting proficiency by 10% each year, over the
next two years. As the AYP objective increases to 64% in SY2010-11, SC meets
AYP with 70% of students proficient in math.

Figure C.3. School C HSA longitudinal math results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

245
Figure C.4 below shows an analysis of student achievement results in reading
by subgroup indicating that performance in the White and Asian/Pacific Islander
subgroups was the most consistent in meeting AYP objectives, while the
Disadvantaged subgroup performed just under the bar. Student performance within
the Sped and ELL subgroups declines until SY2009-10 where they reach a low of
10%. Although the two populations never meet AYP objectives, the subgroups
climb to 33% in ELL and 44% in Sped SY2010-11.

Figure C.4. School C HSA student achievement results in reading by subgroup &
year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure C.5 below illustrates longitudinal student achievement results in math
as proficiency by subgroups. Performance in the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup
hovers above the AYP objectives from SY2006-11. Patterns of growth among

246
students meeting with proficiency in the White, Disadvantaged, and Asian/Pacific
Islander populations begin to increase from SY2008-09 – SY2010-11. The White
subgroup increased performance by 30% with 90% of students meeting with
proficiency. The Disadvantaged subgroup met at 70% and the Asian/Pacific
Islanders at 65%. Although the ELL subgroup did not meet, they also demonstrated
impressive gains over the last two years with a growth of 34%, moving from 4% of
students meeting in SY2008-09 to 38% in SY2010-11. The lowest performing
subgroup was the ELL population demonstrating the most inconsistent growth
patterns from 2006-11. In SY2010-11, only 10% of Sped students met with
proficiency further widening the achievement gap among ELL and all other
subgroups.

Figure C.5. School C HSA longitudinal student achievement results in math by
subgroup & year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

247
Efforts to Improve Instruction at SC Elementary School
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at SC Elementary School. The structured interview protocol
that guided data collection also frames the case study. Elementary school principals
responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions regarding their 2011-
2012 school improvement plans and strategies. Principals’ responses provided
quantitative resource data for comparison with the Evidence Based Model and told
the story of how and why the school utilizes its resources toward instructional and
academic improvement. The story of SC’s improvement process is as follows.
Instructional Improvement Process
The principal has served SC for the last 8 years. SC teachers continue to
develop and implement standards based lessons that help students meet statewide
benchmarks and prepare them for the intermediate and high school curriculum.
Ninety percent of the Title I funds and 75% of Weighted Student Formula (WSF)
funds are used to reduce class sizes and to provide support in the classrooms so that
teacher are able to differentiate their lessons and provide opportunities for small
group instruction.
Student proficiency levels in reading and math continue to increase. The
HSA data show that gains in math are greater than reading. Data also indicate that in
reading students perform better in third and fourth grade than in fifth and sixth.
Math data reveal that achievement in third and sixth grade is higher than the rest of
the school and well above the state average. Walkthrough data and collaboration

248
folders show that teachers are focusing their lessons more on standards and
benchmarks. Collaboration folders also show that all grades are implementing
common benchmark assessments and are tracking individual student achievement.
SC has identified the need for teachers to continue to reflect on teaching practices
and improve on providing more opportunities for student to show evidence of
meeting proficiency levels. Differentiated classroom instruction and the ability to
reach higher level thinking skills as measured by Marzano’s Taxonomic Levels of
Understanding are critical needs for students. SC has identified the need to discuss as
a grade level, the appropriate level of rigor needed for each benchmark, and the
system that will be used for data collection and lesson design.
Over 80% of students receiving special education services participate in an
inclusion program and are able to receive modified lessons and support in the regular
education setting. This principal feels this program has successfully helped students
meet the goals outlined in their Individual Education Plans (IEPs).
Grade level teachers have been given time to collaborate and plan lessons and
assessments. They meet weekly to discuss individual student data and how to use
the data in the classroom. Select teachers also received professional development in
the areas of student engagement, differentiation, rigor, ELL and standards based
instruction by the District.
In order to take advantage of new learning opportunities that advancing
technology provides, the school recently replaced and updated all of the computers in
the computer lab and allocated school funds to provide additional staff in the lab. SC

249
also purchased five net books per classroom for grades 2-6 so that teachers could
create mini computer labs in their classrooms making it easier for students to access
on-line tutorials for reading and math.
Implementing a Research-based Curriculum
Reading and Math are the instructional focus at SC. SC implements the
District mandated Everyday Math as the math curriculum and Trophies for reading.
SC teachers did participate in a process to align the curriculum. Using substitute
days, the principal had teachers work with the textbook companies and complete a
correlation guide for each program and mapped out alignment. Where teachers
identified gaps, they were allowed to supplement the curriculum with the Pearson
program for Trophies, and use the State’s standards based tool kit, but still teach the
curriculum with fidelity. The principal admits that SC staff use EM as a resource
because it doesn’t align with standards, so the principal emphasizes with teachers to
rely on the standards as the goal and to supplement with various resources. The
principal stated that the SC is “trying to make the curriculum common among the
grade levels , either all teachers teach with fidelity or they all collaborate to support
one another, so teachers worked to align their lesson plans.” The principal expressed
that one obstacle in working towards curriculum alignment was that teachers voiced
they didn’t have time, and the principal was met with some resistance. In the past
teachers wanted a set program that was scripted. The principal felt that teachers that
were less “flexible” or lacked the competency to create a rigorous standards-based

250
lesson, requested a scripted program because no extra effort was required in lesson
planning.
Assessment & Data Analysis
Assessments have been an integral part of the instructional improvement
process at SC. Stipend and substitute days provided grade levels the time to sit down
and create assessments, map out when assessments were given, opportunities for
teachers to grade together, and record data.
Teachers have a choice in what type of assessments to use in the reading
curriculum either the Trophies’ end of selection test as a summative assessing a
standard in the theme; or an end of chapter test to address a taxonomic level, with an
emphasis on rigor and developing a level 3 or 4 response. Students in grade levels
where teachers are consistent in collaborating and analyzing student work have
shown progress.
SC uses West Ed framework which explicitly identifies indicators of best
practice within the classroom as a guide for instructional implementation. Teachers
implement ability grouping for student in reading and math and changed the
schedule to choose when they would teach language arts. All grade levels complied
with incorporating dedicated language arts and math blocks of 90 minutes. All
assemblies and special activities occur in the afternoon to minimize interruptions.
Professional Development (PD) & Coaching
As part of the Hawaii State Teacher’s Association’s (HSTA) contract, all
professional development and in-service days were eliminated from the 2011-12

251
official school calendar. SC trained all teachers in the WestEd framework and
offered District initiated professional development on differentiated instruction, co-
teaching. SC relies completely on whatever professional development the District,
Complex Area Superintendent (CAS) provides. Other options for PD are through
schools who pay and invite SC. At the beginning of the year a few opportunities
were offered by the District for differentiation, academic vocabulary, and functional
writing strategies, but only for a limited number of teachers. The principal would like
an Academic Coach to help support the school improvement effort but stated that she
can’t afford one. Wednesday staff meetings are also available for PD to occur,
however, the principal is unable to afford to pay for professional development due to
lack of funds.
Help for Struggling Students
SC partners with a privately funded full day Pre-K Sped inclusion program
which is housed on SC’s campus. SC provides a teacher and the Pre-K program
provides the school with six spaces for Sped students and an aide. Currently, there
are 24 students in the program. SC also offers a Junior K program and four day
Kindergarten classes. SC has three classes at each grade level in grades 1-6. SC
uses the strategy of ability grouping within reading and math to lessen the student to
teacher ratio. The highest performing group has the largest class size, one adult with
23-25 students. The middle group accommodates 18-20 students, with one teacher
and a PTT. The lowest performing students have 9 students in a group with one
teacher and a PTT. The Sped teacher will also teach a small group of 3-5 students.

252
Students receiving Sped services also have access to an extra session reading for 30
minutes in the afternoon using the Orton Gillingham reading intervention strategies.
SC implements more “school wide” versus grade level activities so that
school improvement efforts are not compromised. For example, instead of every
class or grade level planning isolated activities or celebrations occurring throughout
the day, the principal initiates one school wide assembly or fair that would take place
in the afternoon so that reading and math instruction remain uninterrupted.
SC offers intervention reading and math classes during the day with an adult
during the 90 minute blocks in which an adult works with a small group of 2-4
students. SC also offers on-line tutorials using ACHIEVE 3000 and SOARS for
reading, IXCEL in math, and Discovery Ed all paid for by State. Extended day
opportunities such as tutoring afterschool are only provided to the Sped population
through their IEPs. The principal stated that because SC has met AYP they receive
less funding and could not sustain the interventions.
ELLs are serviced through a half-time teacher and a PTT in the general
education setting with minimal pullout. Individual support is offered as needed in
the afternoons.
Beginning in 2011-12 all schools in the Kahuku Complex were directed to
implement the WestEd framework for the Response to Intervention (RTI) model to
meet the needs of all students through differentiation. Classroom observation data,
special education progress reports and HSA data show that SC continues to make
gains in identifying and addressing the needs of under-performing students. Chapter

253
tests and Requests for Assistance (RFAs) as part of RTI show that reading and math
classes that have been grouped according to proficiency levels continue to offer
consistent support for students who are close to proficiency in those tow content
areas. Walkthroughs and observation data, collaboration folders, and student
proficiency data show that SC needs to formalize a plan for providing remediation
and second dose teaching for students not meeting proficiency.
Parent & Community Involvement
The principal of SC stated that parent involvement is most apparent during
extra-curricular activities and not to support instruction. SC also has a partnership
with military who help support school teachers with content such as PE and
preparing students for the district physical fitness meet.
Instructional Leadership as a Foundation for Change
The complex contracted the WestEd consulting company to reform
underperforming schools. WestEd consultants have worked with schools within the
complex for a number of years focusing on observing classroom instruction and
using observation data to determine areas for improving lesson design. SC has
adopted the WestEd framework of effective teaching and uses the Teach for Success
walkthrough tool to define indicators of best practice in the classroom. The
instructional vision for the improvement effort was principal driven. The principal
stated that she has been re-enforcing the concept of co –teaching for the last 5 years,
and that the District started only three years ago. The principal stated that, “training
is finally matching up with what we already have in place, RTI – already had

254
something in place for all students with different abilities.” SC also adapts the
number of adults in classes to differentiate instruction for students with lower
abilities.
The principal builds accountability into the vision by analyzing HSA test
scores after every round of testing. The principal also conducts regular grade checks
in every class and lists students not proficient. Grade level teams sit with the
principal to explain what they are doing to help each underperforming student. The
principal will also review the observation data gathered during weekly walkthroughs.
The principal expressed the need for academic coaches, music, art, and PE
teachers, to build collaboration time for teaches into the schedule, and provide have a
tutoring for students. The principal stated that, “More man power, better quality
people in key positions, we would do even better.”
Table C.3 illustrates how SC implements the 10 steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance. Based on the story of SC’s school
improvement efforts, SC implemented 6 of Odden’s (2009) ten effective strategies in
the strong to average range, and 4 strategies in the weak range.
Table C.4 and Table C.5 show a comparison of school profile and resource
allocation between SC and an EBM prototype school. The amount of resource
allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model
(EBM). In all areas, from enrollment to class sizes in grades K – 3 and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model.

255
Table C.3
SC Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student Performance
Odden’s strategies
Implementation
Notes Strong Average Weak Not Observed
1) analyzing
student
achievement
√
Principal analyzes student scores, staff
focuses on alignment of curriculum.
2) setting
ambitious goals √
Principal conforms to state and district goals
as outlined in the SIP. School uses the data
to tailor how they will meet the initiatives.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√
Staff has worked to align curriculum to
standards, however a consistent curriculum
is not implemented with fidelity.
System to provide instruction in ability
groups established.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√
Routine practice of creating, implementing
and analyzing formative assessments has
been integrated into teacher workday as an
expectation for school improvement thru
grade level teams
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√
School uses Wednesday faculty meetings to
provide PD and has offered sub days as
well. Principal has struggled to sustain PD
for state/district initiatives.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√
School has implemented 90 min blocks for
reading and math. Uses co-teaching and
ability grouping and provides more adult
support within general ed setting.
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√
Majority of support offered within school
day in an inclusion setting with extra
staffing to support struggling students.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√
This strategy was not clear from the
research conducted.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√
School relies on the WestEd consulting
company to provide the framework for
school improvement. Implements inclusion
and co-teaching.
10) investing in
human capital
management
√
The strategy was not clear from the research
that was conducted.

256
Table C.4
School Profile Comparison: SC and Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
SC
Elementary
School SC – EBM Comparison
School Configuration K - 5 *Pre-K - 6 *Although SC services
Pre-K and 6 EBM staff
are allocated on
enrollment and student
characteristics.
Enrollment 432 485 12% more than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-2: 20
3-6: 25
K -2 is approx 33%
greater than EBM
Gr. 3-6 is the same as
the EBM
Full day Kindergarten Yes Yes
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of
PD
180 +
0 days of PD
+
5% less than EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 6% 6% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 65% 15% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 9% 1% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 92% 62% greater than EBM

257
Table C.5
Resource Comparison: SC and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School
Resources
School
Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with SC
Characteristics
(656 Students) SC
SC – EBM
Comparison
Core Teachers 24 36 28 SC needs 8 more
core teachers
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 7 1 1 PTT for PE15
PTTs to support grs.
K-6 in reading and
math. Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 3.3 1.5
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4.3
(433 students)
0
Teachers for
EL
1 for every 100:
0.43
2.36
(236 students)
1.5
Extended day 1.8 2.7 0 SC does not offer
extended day
Summer
School
1.8 2.7 0 SC does not offer
any summer school
Learning
Disabled
student
3 3
(9% or 59
students)
4 1 more teacher than
EBM
Gifted student $25/student ------------ $0 SC does not offer
Gifted & Talented
programs.
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
------------ $0
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4.3
(432 students)
1.5 .5 ELL positions
1 ELL PTT

258
Table C.5, continued
School
Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with SC
Characteristics
(656 Students) SC
SC – EBM
Comparison
Non-
instructional
aides
2 3 0
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 1.5 .5 1 PTT
1 lower than the
EBM
Administation 1 1.5 2 .5 more than the
EBM
School site
Secretary/
Clerical
2 3 2 1 less than EBM
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses
– trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc
------------ $or $12/pupil $8,000 RTI training
$11,000 WestEd
Framework
Technology $250/pupil ------------ $0/pupil $0 Significantly less
than EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil ------------ $26/pupil Significantly less
than EBM
$400/teacher
Student
activities
$200/pupil ------------ $5/pupil $3,000 to sustain PE
initiative
Significantly less
than EBM

259
Use of the Academic Financial Plan to Effectively Allocate Resources to
Strategies that Increase Student Achievement
The principal said that years ago training was provided by the Complex at the
beginning of the school year in August to meet the deadline of a first draft in October.
In between the principal received on the job training, which in the opinion of the
principal wasn’t effective. The principal stated that about eight years ago, the Ac/Fn
was referred to as the School Implementation Design (SID), and the principal never
officially sat down and wrote it out. SID committees, including teachers and the
Positive Behavior Support committee wrote the plan and it was not goal oriented.
The principal stated that the process of writing the plan has changed to meet District
and State compliance initiatives and SC uses the Ac/Fn as a guide to complete all
teacher and student outcomes. Accountability is built into the Ac/Fn quarterly when
principals have to report on outcomes to all stakeholders.
Summary of SC’s Academic/Financial Plan
State of Hawaii’s Academic Goals
1. Assure all students graduate college and career ready through effective
use of standards-based education.
2. Ensure and sustain a rich environment and culture for lifelong learners.
3. Continuously improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness of
the educational system.

260
SC’s Total Projected Budget is $2,657,506
Standards based education: funds to be used- $2,100,158.00 – 79%.
This includes all teacher positions, text books, computers, student supplies,
office supplies and classroom support personnel, as well as building supplies and
maintenance.
Quality student support: funds to be used - $134,134.00 – 5%.
This includes a school counselor position, and the Student Services
Coordinator position.
Continuous improvement: $0 - 0%.
Funding that addresses the continuous improvement of our school systems
has also been outlined in Standard Based Education, Quality Student Support and
School Operations.
School operations: funds to be used- $418,405.00 – 16%.
This includes administrative positions, clerical staff, and custodial staff.
Other funding resources anticipated, or grants to be received, that are part of
the academic plan, that may not be listed in the financial plan: SC is a Title 1 school.
Predicted funding for 2011-2012 is about $150,000.00. This money pays for 1
certificated support position to manage Title 1 money and provide curriculum
coordination. Funding from this program also pays for professional development
substitutes and Part time teacher positions for classroom and student support.
The principal stated that the Ac/Fn has forced SC to downsize positions
during a time of budgetary cuts. In the past, all positions were assigned to the school

261
by the DOE and the principal along with teachers shared the responsibility of
figuring out teacher assignments. Based on the Weighted Student Formula (WSF)
the principal now determines which positions to buy. Due to budget cuts the
principal has opted to purchase PTTs that teach elective courses such as PE,
computers, and library, and eliminated two counselors from the financial plan to one.
The principal stated that budget cuts have also forced SC to make adjustments with
the types of programs offered and focus more on reading and math instruction.
The principal stated that the Ac/Fn form and process could be improved to
make it a more useful tool in linking resources to student performance by aligning
the academic plan document to the financial plan document, “they are two separate
documents.” The principal shared frustration when elaborating on the writing
process:
...re-writes, it really is the CASs vision of what should be going on, trend
report provided data by the State DOE is old, the budget changes so much
during the year, and you’re predicting how many students you’ll have and
allocating positions not knowing. I always save a position, in case. Change
how money shifts, allow more time to collect data, and have it due in May!

The principal stated that she wrote the plan independently because the goals and
objectives are dictated top down from the Superintendent’s SIP and then shared it
with the faculty.
Lessons Learned
Although SC Elementary School has met AYP benchmarks, the Sped and
ELL subgroups continue to lag behind demonstrating inconsistent student
achievement over the years and significant gains in among the ELL population in the

262
past two years. The tenured principal has communicated to SC staff a more top
down initiative to use the reading and District mandate math curriculum with fidelity
and has provided the structure and support within SC classrooms to support this
effort.
• The school has adopted state and complex initiatives and continues to
focus on the implementation of data analysis through data teams to close
the achievement gap for all students in reading and math.
• SC has identified the need for teachers to reflect on teaching practices to
improve on providing more opportunities for students to show evidence
of meeting proficiency levels.
• SC has identified the need to discuss as a grade level, the appropriate
level of rigor needed for each benchmark, and the system that will be
used for data collection and lesson design.
• The school has formalized structures in place to sustain collaboration
among staff with specific goals that focus on implementing the WestED
model for building best practice among teachers and improving
instruction and student achievement.
• The principal is vigilant about meeting with data teams to discuss and
document interventions for identified students.
• SC has struggled to sustain funding to provide opportunities for students
within the school day as well as during extended day opportunities.

263
• Professional development opportunities are limited due to the removal of
professional development days within the school year for teachers and
there is a lack of funding to sustain it. SC relies on professional
development provided by the District.
• The principal adopts state and complex goals and uses the Ac/Fn to
document progress made towards those initiatives to ensure SC is in
compliance.
Future Considerations
Additional resources would be helpful to build on SC’s success. SC’s
intervention model focuses on new initiatives adopted from the State’s SIP.
Targeted and sustained professional development to comply with the implementation
of data teams, on-going formative assessment and data analysis seem to big the
greatest need at SC. The principal has aligned the school to district and state
initiatives, however relies totally on the District to provide the training for teachers
to sustain the school improvement process. Lack of sustained professional
development for all teachers at SC continues to be a challenge for SC as they work to
meet the needs of all students. Effective leadership is crucial in building capacity and
aligning support and promoting the “buy-in” among teachers in order to meet district
and state initiatives. Sustained professional development is essential in building the
competence of teachers who adequately address the varying instructional needs
within SC’s population.

264
In the principal’s opinion, delaying the Ac/Fn until late in the year and
combining the academic plan with the financial plan would make the Ac/Fn a more
useful tool. Currently, budget allocations are based on enrollment count “predictions”
for the following school year. Unofficial budget allocations and lack of current
school data have hindered SC in creating a solid plan for linking resources that it
may or may not have, to strategies that improve student achievement the following
year.

265
APPENDIX J
CASE STUDY 4: SCHOOL D (SD)
School Profile
SD is located on the island of Oahu and is one of six rural public schools that
make up a complex in the Windward District. The complex is comprised of 5
elementary schools Pre-K through grade six which feed into an intermediate and
high school serving grades seven to twelve. The complex has a total student
population of approximately 3,500 students.
SD was established in 1904 on 3.7 acres donated by a local community
member. SD Elementary is one of the smallest schools in the state with only 130
students in kindergarten through the sixth grade and is surrounded by a very tight
knit community. The SD School Community Council and Parent/Teacher
Association meet regularly and are active agents of the school.
In May of 2010, a proposal was made by the Board of Education to
consolidate SD with either of the two other rural schools in the district. Parents and
concerned members of the community advocating for the important role of small
schools in rural communities rallied before representatives of the DOE,
Superintendent, and the Board of Education. During a public hearing, parents argued
that SD was not in an area of declining population. At the time, SD was fully
utilized and had an excellent academic record. Those advocating for SD also
emphasized that the school had been an important community asset for over 100
years. The closure of SD was not equivalent to closing an urban school where young

266
students would travel less than a mile to a new school, both of the alternative schools
were at least seven miles away and the vast majority of SD students did not currently
ride a bus to school. In June, a task force assembled by the DOE found that
consolidation would result in overcrowding and loss of programs and opposed the
closure of SD Elementary School.
The Native Hawaiian population at 59% is the largest ethnic category at SD.
The White population is the second largest at 23%, and students of multiple
ethnicities comprise the third largest at 6%. Figure D.1 illustrates the ethnic
breakdown of School D.

Figure D.1. Ethnic breakdown of School D in SY 2010-2011

*Data taken from the School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR), 2011

267
Table D.1 below illustrates the student profile in SD as compared to the
Complex and the State of Hawaii. The percent of students receiving free or reduced
priced lunch at SD is 69%. The percent of students receiving Special Education
services is 7% and the percent of students with limited English proficiency is 0.8%.
Within the complex, the percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is
54%. The percent of students receiving Special Education services is 11% and the
percent of students with limited English proficiency is 5%. In the State of Hawaii,
the percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is 47%. The percent of
students receiving Special Education services is 10% as well as the percent of
students with limited English proficiency at 10%.

Table D.1
Comparison of Student Profiles in SD, Complex, and Public Schools in the State of
Hawaii
SD Complex State
Number of Students 129 3,481 170,000
Number SPED 9 365 17,089
Percent SPED 7% 11% 10%
Number ELL 1 171 17,134
Percent ELL 0.8% 5% 10%
Number FRPL 89 1,871 80,374
Percent FRPL 69% 54% 47%
*State of Hawaii DOE Trend Report 2010-2011

268
Of the 5 elementary schools in the complex, four schools have attained the
NCLB status of “In Good Standing, Unconditional,” and one with a status of “In
Good Standing, Pending.” Three of the five elementary schools qualify as Title I
schools. SD is one of the Title I schools in the complex that has attained the status of
“In Good Standing, Pending.” At SD, Title I federal funds are used to supplement
existing programs and personnel, support parent involvement activities, provide
professional development for faculty, and assist all students, especially those who are
furthest from proficiency.
An analysis of the 2010-2011 Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) data indicates
that SD met the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
benchmarks of 72% in reading 64% in math by scoring 76% and 64% respectively.
SD met AYP in reading and math in the overall percent of students meeting with
proficiency. However, the school did not meet benchmarks for all subgroups in math,
therefore receiving a status of “In Good Standing, Pending.” Table D.2 illustrates
the NCLB status of SD from 2004-2011.

269
Table D.2
NCLB Status of SD from 2004-2011
NCLB Status for School Year NCLB Status
2010-2011 In Good Standing, Pending
2009-2010 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2008-2009 In Good Standing, Pending
2007-2008 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2006-2007 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2005-2006 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2004-2005 In Good Standing, Unconditional
2003-2004 In Good Standing, Unconditional
*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure D.2 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in reading. SD exceeded AYP objectives in all grades tested from
2006-11. Reading data reveal steady gains in student performance until SY2010-11.
Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives for reading in blue,
indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet every year, and the percent
of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red, grades 3-6. From SY209-
10 to SY2010-11, overall student achievement results show a lack of growth in the
percent of students meeting with proficiency at 76%.

270

Figure D.2. School D HSA longitudinal reading results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011
**The Hawaii State Assessment began in 2003-04, new assessments were given in
2006-07 and results are not directly comparable with prior years.

Figure D.3 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in math. Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
Objectives for math in blue, indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet
every year, and the percent of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red,
grades 3-6. SD did not met AYP objectives in SY2007-08, but show an increase of
18% of students who meet with proficiency from 2008-2010. Then in SY2010-11,
data reveal a decline in performance from 68% to 64% of overall students who meet
proficiency in math.

271

Figure D.3. School D HSA longitudinal math results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure D.4 below shows an analysis of student achievement results in reading
by subgroup indicating that performance in the White subgroup exceeded AYP
benchmarks and was the most consistent in meeting AYP objectives. From 2006-
2011 growth remains steady among the White subgroup with 100% of student
meeting proficiency in reading in SY2009-10 and then slightly declining to 88% in
SY2010-11. A significant achievement gap exists between the White subgroup and
the Disadvantaged and Asian/Pacific Islander subgroups where student achievement
results are the most inconsistent in terms of longitudinal growth.

272

Figure D.4. School D HSA student achievement results in reading by subgroup &
year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure D.5 below illustrates longitudinal student achievement results in math
as proficiency by subgroups. Again, performance in the White subgroup outpaces
that of the Disadvantaged and Asian/Pacific Islander subgroups widening the
achievement gap from 2007-2010. In SY2010-11, performance in the White
subgroup declines from 94% to 72% of students meeting proficiency in math.
Performance among the Disadvantaged and Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup
declines from 2006-2008, then rises in SY2009-10 from 42% to 58% of students
meeting with proficiency. In SY2010-11, SD fails to meet AYP objectives of 64%
in math among these two subgroups with only 50% of the Disadvantaged population
and 62% of the Asian/Pacific Islanders meeting proficiency.

273

Figure D.5. School D HSA longitudinal student achievement results in math by
subgroup & year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Efforts to Improve Instruction at SD Elementary School
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at SD elementary school. The structured interview protocol
that guided data collection also frames the case study. Elementary school principals
responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions regarding their 2011-
2012 school improvement plans and strategies. Principals’ responses provided
quantitative resource data for comparison with the Evidence Based Model and told
the story of how and why the school utilizes its resources toward instructional and
academic improvement. The story of SD’s improvement process is as follows.

274
Instructional Improvement Process
The principal has served SD since SY2010-11 and has been at SD for two
years. In SY2011-2012, the principal of SD continues to push the school to meet
100% of students needs through rigorous classroom instruction, and the provision of
tutoring and other academic supports. SD’s goal is to have at least 80% of students
meet or exceed proficiency in reading and 70% for math. At the same time SD
works to transition from the Hawaii Content Performance Standards III (HCPSIII) to
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in kindergarten through second grade.
Although Hawaii is adopting the CCSS, the HSA still measures student achievement
based on the HCPSIII in grades three through six.
The principal stated that reading and math are the foundation of SDs
improvement process, as well as a focus on emphasizing behavioral and academic
maturity and helping students understand why they are in school and the importance
of building their skills in these areas. SD serves a predominantly large
disadvantaged population. The principal stated that addressing the motivation of
students to focus on academics has been a challenge:
Students don’t put in the effort, they may have the skills and ability, but don’t
put emphasis on learning it. I have a 6
th
grader with no plans, who wants to
drop out. He doesn’t understand the importance of trying as hard as you can.

Implementing a Research-based Curriculum
At SD, teachers developed standards-based curricula, employ scientifically
proven instructional methods, and have selected Success for All (SFA) as the

275
primary reading program and Everyday Math (EM) for mathematics. As part of their
school wide professional development efforts, SD developed a Common Core State
Standard pacing guide which is aligned to the Every Day Math program in grades K
through 4.
The principal’s expectation for reading is that all classroom teachers from
kindergarten through sixth grade implement SFA with fidelity to engage students in
strengthening their reading skills and comprehension. Teachers at SD also
implement Marzano’s academic vocabulary and concept vocabulary. SD also uses
the ACHIEVE3000 a web-based individualized learning program to accelerate
reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing proficiency and performance on high
stakes tests in grades two through six. SD provides family workshops to maximize
student participation in ACHIEVE 3000.
Assessment & Data Analysis
All of SD’s teachers are expected to implement standards-based programs
and projects, and research-based instructional practices. Faculty participation in
collaborative study groups and systematic monitoring of classroom instruction data
provide feedback and support for classroom teachers to continuously improve
instruction and student achievement. The principal conducts monthly Professional
Learning Community (PLC) meetings to focus on language arts and math and all
teachers participate in collaborative study groups.
Assessments have been an integral part of the improvement process at SD,
especially in reading. Reading groups are fluid, and students can go in and out

276
depending on their needs. Reading groups are mixed grade level groups in K-2, and
3-6
th
, with a focus on reading and writing. SD only has one teacher per grade level.
The size of groups depends on the number of teachers. Teachers push graduating
from a group to go on to a higher level, with students switching at the quarter. The
principal explained that fifth grade is the largest reading group which includes many
third graders. Depending on the reading levels of students, the largest class size is
twenty three and the smallest is fifteen. Tutoring is also available after the reading
groups for students needing a double dose. Tutoring is offered in between reading
and lunch. SD begins math instruction after lunch.
Professional Development (PD) & Coaching
As part of the Hawaii State Teacher’s Association’s (HSTA) contract, all
professional development and in-service days were eliminated from the 2011-12
official school calendar. SD uses the WestEd walkthrough protocol to promote
effective teaching strategies the principal would like to see in every classroom. The
principal stated that teachers follow the SFA curriculum with fidelity, however the
principal was not as convinced regarding the Every Day Math curriculum. The
principal reinforces a student-centered approach when making decisions about
improving instruction, rather than focusing on the teacher’s needs.
Instruction in the SFA curriculum mirrors the WestEd indicators for best
practice. Teachers incorporate the WestEd indicators as a guide in creating
standards-based lessons. Professional development was also a part of the SFA
package. An SFA representative visits SD four times a year to perform

277
walkthroughs and analyze reading data. The representative observes every reading
class and provides feedback to every teacher. Wednesday staff meetings are also
available for professional development to occur, however, the principal is unable to
afford to pay for professional development due to lack of funds. The principal has
provided some information on the WestEd framework, reading, and walkthrough
data, but admits that it hasn’t been enough to make the framework clear to teachers
and the school community.
Help for Struggling Students
Extended learning opportunities were available in the past but federal funding
for these programs ran out and are no longer funded. A community member
submitted a grant which funds the music program after school two hours a day, three
days a week for grades K-1. SD does not have an ELL teacher due to the small
population of ELLs. ELL students are fully immersed in the general classes and SD
has been very successful using a reading program that is language rich. SD has
incorporated designated reading and math blocks into their schedule. The reading
block is ninety minutes in the morning and math in the afternoon. SD also offers PE
to all students.
The online reading program, Achieve 3000, which is paid for by the state
DOE is offered during and after school. SD holds quarterly meetings to review the
progress of students who are not proficient in reading and math and is able to
individualize tutoring needs with the help of the core teachers for these students
because it is a small school.

278
Parent & Community Involvement
SD has provided quarterly workshops to encourage parents to use ACHIEVE
3000, however the turnout has been minimal. Parental involvement at SD increases
during extracurricular activities. Fundraisers are also organized by the PTSO and
elicit strong support and attendance from the community.
Instructional Leadership as a Foundation for Change
The complex contracted the WestEd consulting company to reform
underperforming schools. WestEd consultants have worked with schools within the
complex for a number of years focusing on observing classroom instruction and
using observation data to determine areas for improving lesson design. SD has
adopted the WestEd framework of effective teaching and uses the Teach for Success
walkthrough tool to define indicators of best practice in the classroom.
Instructional leadership is provided mostly by both the principal and
curriculum coordinator. SD also encourages teachers to take on leadership roles to
facilitate professional development in the area of curriculum alignment and
standards-based instruction. Top down initiatives are communicated to staff by the
principal, however the principal encourages teachers to advocate for their own ideas
for school improvement. The principal expressed that the upper grades (3-6) take on
more of a leadership role in analyzing data and setting expectations as far a
curriculum and instruction and the lower grades (K-2) follow. Communication at SD
is described by the principal as “fluid.” The principal of stated that SD is too small
of a school to be one way or the other.

279
The principal stated that funding for a math curriculum coordinator would be
a needed resource that would help expand SD’s instructional improvement efforts.
The principal would like to see more collaboration between the elementary schools
and the intermediate and high school to help students meet the expectations within
the K-12 construct and transitioning with the needed skills in math.
Table D.3 illustrates how SD implements the 10 steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance. Based on the story of SD’s School
improvement efforts, SD implemented 5 of Odden’s (2009) ten effective strategies in
the strong to average range, and 5 strategies in the weak range.
Table D.4 and Table D.5 show a comparison of school profile and resource
allocation between SD and an EBM prototype school. The amount of resource
allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model
(EBM). In all areas, from enrollment to class sizes in grades K – 3 and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model.

280
Table D.3
SD Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student Performance
Odden’s strategies
Implementation
Notes Strong Average Weak Not Observed
1) analyzing student
achievement
√
Quarterly reviews are done in SFA
by representative.
2) setting ambitious
goals
√
Goals are set for 80% in reading
and 70% in math, below the State’s
recommendations yet above the
AYP benchmarks
3) implementing
effective curriculum
and instructional
program
√
SFA strong with supports, but weak
in the area of Math. Principal
advocating for teaching SFA with
fidelity K-6.
4) using benchmark
and formative
assessments
√
Formative & summative
assessments used in SFA. Math not
observed.
5) employing
ongoing professional
development
√
Budgetary cuts have affected
sustained PD needed to target the
needs of various subgroups.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√
Designated reading and math
blocks. Time during the day and
after school for tutoring in reading.
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√
Tutoring in reading provided during
the day.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative school
cultures
√
Principal is open to teacher input,
staff comfortable collaborating with
principal.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√
Use of WestEd framework for best
practices in instruction. Use of
PLCs.
10) investing in
human capital
management
√
Staff reductions have been made
due to lack of funding.

281
Table D.4
School Profile Comparison: SD and Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
SD
Elementary
School SD – EBM Comparison
School Configuration K - 5 *Pre-K - 6 *Although SD services
Pre-K and 6 EBM staff
are allocated on
enrollment and student
characteristics.
Enrollment 432 130 70% less than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 20
4-6: 20
K -2 is approx 33%
greater than EBM
Gr. 3-6 is approx 20%
less than EBM
Full day Kindergarten Yes Yes
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of
PD
180 +
0 days of PD
+
5% less than EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 7% 41% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 69% 38% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 0.8% 92% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 77% 57% greater than EBM

282
Table D.5
Resource Comparison: SD and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School
Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
EBM School
with SD
Characteristics
(108 Students) SD
SD – EBM
Comparison
Core Teachers 24 6.0 7 1 more than the
EBM
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 1.2 1.5 .3 more Specialist
teachers than EBM
1 FTE PE teacher
1 Part-time Hawaiian
Studies teacher
2.45 more
Instructional
Facilitators than
EBM
1 Curriculum
Coordinator
1 Student Services
Coordinator
1 Counselor
SD does not offer
Tutors or ELL
services
Instructional
Facilitators/
Mentors
2.2 .55 3
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
.54 0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100:
0.43
0.1 0
Extended day 1.8 0.45 0 SD does not offer
extended day
Summer School 1.8 0.45 0 SD does not offer
any summer School
Learning
Disabled
student
3 0.75 3 2.25 more Sped
teachers than EBM
1 FTE teacher
2 FTE Educational
Assistants
Gifted student $25/student $25/student $0 SD does not offer
Gifted & Talented
programs.

283
Table D.5, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
EBM School
with SD
Characteristics
(108 Students) SD
SD – EBM
Comparison
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
5% of all of the
above
$1,500
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
0.33 1 0.67 more than the
EBM
1 FTE Counselor.
1 FTE Student
Services Coordinator
Non-
instructional
aides
2 0.67 0 0.67 less than EBM
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 0.25 1 0.75 more than the
EBM
Administration 1 1.0 1 Same as the EBM
School site
Secretary
2 1.25 1.5 .25 more than EBM
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil
for other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
------------ $85/pupil $7,620 SFA
Consultant
$3,400 WestEd
Framework
Technology $250/pupil ------------ $0/pupil Significantly less
than EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil ------------ $0/pupil Significantly less
than EBM
$/teacher
Student
activities
$200/pupil ------------ $0/pupil Significantly less
than EBM

284
Use of the Academic Financial Plan to Effectively Allocate Resources to
Strategies that Increase Student Achievement
The principal explained that she has had one day of training on writing an
Ac/FP and two years of writing the plan as a new principal or using on the job
experience.
The principal reports SD’s progress towards student outcomes in the Ac/FP
quarterly. SD also uses the same data to communicate with teachers and students in
the testing grades. SD is small enough that after the first round of HSA, the principal
meets with each student to let them know expectations for the HSA. In grades one
and two, teachers analyze students’ reading and math scores, discuss barriers to
student achievement goals, and share strategies to improve instruction so that
students can make gains. The principal also reports quarterly outcomes to the School
Community Council (SCC) as a way to communicate progress made towards school
improvement efforts.
Summary of SD’s Academic/Financial Plan
Academic Goals
SD will increase student achievement on the Hawaii Content and
Performance Standards (grades three through six) and Common Core Standards
(grades Kindergarten through second) in Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and
Social Studies.

285
Plans for Financial Resources to Meet the Goals
The total projected school budget is $1,139,596. The total Weighted Student
Formula funds for SY 2011-2012 is $918,305; Standards Based Education -
$707,383, Quality Student Support - $144,671, and Continuous Improvement -
$27,958.
Standards based education: funds to be used $707,383 – 62%.
A total of $5,400 has been reserved to provide faculty with training, materials,
supplies, and release time (substitute teachers $3,180) for the implementation of
professional learning communities.
Quality student support: funds to be used $144,671 – 13%.
A total of $2,000 has been reserved to fund our Success for All Contract and
fee for use of DIBELS (1 dollar per student).
Continuous improvement: funds to be used $27,958 – 2%.
See above - Standards Based Education and Quality Improvement
School operations: funds to be used $2,500 – less than 1%.
A total of $2,500 has been reserved to purchase office and custodial supplies,
subscriptions for educational resources, telephone service, and repair and
maintenance of office/teacher workroom equipment and supplies.

286
Other funding resources anticipated, or grants to be received, that are
part of the Academic Plan, that may not be listed in the Financial Plan.
Contract with WestEd to consult and train teachers to better understand and
implement T4S and RTI. Implement after school after/before and or during school
tutoring to sustain Academic Financial Plan.
SD is a Title 1 School. Title 1 federal funds are used to supplement existing
programs and personnel, support parent involvement activities, provide professional
development for faculty, and assist all students, especially those who are furthest
from proficiency.
The principal of SD has stated that the Ac/FP has not been a useful tool in
assisting SD to prioritize resource allocation needs. The principal expressed
frustration that the process demands that SD create a plan for students and teachers
to meet District and State initiatives, knowing that SD will not receive adequate
funding to accomplish the task. The principal stated that using Weighted Student
Formula (WSF), the DOE has eliminated the “loss threshold” for small schools, SD’s
population is so small, it does not generate enough money to fund the initiatives for
the following year’s plan. The principal stated that:
SD is down to the bare bones, we don’t have the funds to accomplish the
goals, the initiatives in the Ac/FP are a bunch of lies, it’s not realistic writing
goals I know can’t accomplish without funding, the principal’s role alone
covers six different positions – custodian, parent-community network
coordinator, curriculum coordinator, technology coordinator, vice-principal,
principal, and student council leader.

287
Staffing at SD is compromised every year and positions are usually cut due to lack of
funding.
When asked how the Ac/FP form and process could be improved to make it a
more useful tool to link resources to student performance, the principal replied, “ It’s
done too early in the year, and should not be done in November or December during
the holidays, it’s too stressful! If the budget came in earlier it would help me write
my plan.” Using the current process, the principal stated that “nothing was funded,
so I can’t write a plan with no money!” The principal also requested that the state
“change the budget to include base funding with mandatory positions” that would
allow SD to fund a teacher in every grade level. The principal stated that she would
like to see a change in the allocation of funds through WSF, “so I am guaranteed
positions to meet my minimal needs.” The principal also felt that staff in District
and State positions should, “examine practices that are successful in schools instead
of creating a whole new system and new protocols” that schools do not receive
funding for, “take what is effective.”
Lessons Learned
SD Elementary School has shown overall gains in reading and math and the
White population continues to exceed AYP benchmarks. Student achievement once
at an all time high in SY2009-10, drastically declined in the White group the
following year in SY2010-2011, yet the achievement gap among the Asian/Pacific
Islander and Disadvantaged population continues to persist. The new principal has

288
encouraged collaboration among staff with the use of on-going formative assessment
and data analysis to improve student achievement among all subgroups.
• The school has adopted state and complex initiatives by analyzing data
and implementing data teams to close the achievement gap for all
students in reading and math.
• SD has identified the need for faculty participation in collaborative study
groups, and systematic monitoring of classroom instruction and data to
provide feedback and support for classroom teachers in an effort to
continuously improve the system.
• SD strives to implement standards-based programs and research-based
instructional practices.
• The school has formalized structures in place to sustain collaboration
among staff with specific goals that focus on implementing the WestED
model for building best practice among teachers and improving
instruction and student achievement.
• The principal is vigilant about meeting with individual students to set
goals for student achievement.
• Professional development opportunities are limited due to the removal of
professional development days within the school year for teachers and
there is a lack of funding to sustain it.

289
• The principal adopts state and complex goals and uses the Ac/Fn to
document progress made towards those initiatives to ensure SD is in
compliance.
Future Considerations
Additional resources such as funding to sustain a consistent staff and
professional development would be helpful to build on SD’s success. Targeted and
sustained professional development to comply with the implementation of data teams,
on-going formative assessment and data analysis seem to big the greatest need at SD.
The principal has aligned the school to district and state initiatives, however relies on
its own staff to provide the training for teachers to sustain the school improvement
process. Lack of sustained professional development for all teachers at SD
continues to be a challenge as they work to meet the needs of all students and close
the achievement gap between the White population and the Asian Pacific Islander
and Disadvantaged populations. Effective leadership is crucial in building capacity
and aligning support and promoting the “buy-in” among teachers in order to meet
district and state initiatives. Sustained professional development is essential in
building the competence of teachers who adequately address the varying
instructional needs within SD’s population.
In the principal’s opinion, delaying the Ac/Fn until later in the year and
receiving an adequate budget that would help fund a base staff and district initiatives
would make the Ac/Fn a more useful tool. Currently, budget allocations are based
on enrollment count which determine the WSF or funding for the following school

290
year. SD faces the challenge of meeting the outcomes in a plan with inadequate
funding for staff, resources, programs, and professional development. Lack of
funding have affected the consistent retention of highly qualified staff and have
hindered SD in creating a solid plan for linking resources to strategies that improve
student achievement the following year.

291
APPENDIX K
CASE STUDY 5: SCHOOL E (SE)
School Profile
School E (SE) is located on the island of Oahu and is one of six rural public
schools that make up a complex in the Windward District. The complex is
comprised of 5 elementary schools Pre-K through grade six which feed into an
intermediate and high school serving grades seven to twelve. The complex has a
total student population of approximately 3,500 students.
Established in 1973, SE is the northernmost school in the Windward District.
SE serves a student body of approximately 453 students preschool to sixth grade on
Oahu’s North Shore. The school is nestled between the Ko’olau Mountains and
Ehukai Beach Park and is a picturesque, well-maintained campus. The student
population has steadily increased over the last three years, starting at 376 students in
SY2008-09 to 453 students in SY2011-12 an increase of 15% in 3 years. The DOE
projects an enrollment of 471 in SY2012-13.
The White population at 56% is the largest ethnic category at SE. The Native
Hawaiian population is the second largest at 20%, and the Japanese population the
third largest at 6%. Figure E.1 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of School E.

292

Figure E.1. Ethnic breakdown of School E in SY 2010-2011

*Data taken from the School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR), 2011

Table E.1 below illustrates the student profile in SE as compared to its
Complex and the State of Hawaii. The percent of students receiving free or reduced
priced lunch at SE is 28%. The percent of students receiving Special Education
services is 11% and the percent of students with limited English proficiency is 5%.
Within the complex, the percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is
54%. The percent of students receiving Special Education services is 11% and the
percent of students with limited English proficiency is 5%. In the State of Hawaii,
the percent of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch is 47%. The percent of

293
students receiving Special Education services is 10% as well as the percent of
students with limited English proficiency at 10%.

Table E.1
Comparison of Student Profiles in SE, Complex, and Public Schools in the State of
Hawaii
SE Complex State
Number of Students 399 3,481 170,000
Number SPED 43 365 17,089
Percent SPED 11% 11% 10%
Number ELL 20 171 17,134
Percent ELL 5% 5% 10%
Number FRPL 110 1,871 80,374
Percent FRPL 28% 54% 47%
*State of Hawaii DOE Trend Report 2010-2011

Of the 5 elementary schools in the complex, four schools have attained the
NCLB status of “In Good Standing, Unconditional,” and one with a status of “In
Good Standing, Pending.” Three of the five elementary schools qualify as Title I
schools. SE does not qualify as a Title I school. Although, the number of students
attending SE continues to grow, the disadvantaged population at SE has remained

294
stable at approximately 30% from SY2009-10 to SY2011-12, as well as the percent
of students receiving special education (12%) and ELL (5%) services.
An analysis of the 2010-2011 Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) data indicates
that SE exceeded the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) benchmarks of 72% in reading 64% in math by scoring 79% and 73%
respectively. SE continues to meet AYP in reading and math in the overall percent
of students meeting with proficiency. Maintaining a status of “In Good Standing
Unconditional,” SE has exceeded the AYP criteria since the inception of the
statewide NCLB measure in 2003.
Figure E.2 illustrates SE’s longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in reading. SE exceeded AYP objectives in all grades tested from
2006-11. Reading data reveal that 74% of students met with proficiency in SY2006-
07 to 79% of students meeting in SY2010-11, 5% growth over a span of 5 years in
the percent of students meeting with proficiency. In SY2009-10 there is a slight dip
in performance, the year in which schools were subject to furloughs. Shown below
are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives for reading in blue, indicating the
proficiency levels that students must meet every year, and the percent of students
meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red, grades 3-6.

295

Figure E.2. School E HSA longitudinal reading results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011
**The Hawaii State Assessment began in 2003-04, new assessments were given in
2006-07 and results are not directly comparable with prior years.

Figure E.3 illustrates the longitudinal student achievement results from
SY2006-2011 in math. Shown below are the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
Objectives for math in blue, indicating the proficiency levels that students must meet
every year, and the percent of students meeting proficiency in all grades tested in red,
grades 3-6. SE has exceed AYP objectives in Math since SY2006-07, longitudinal
data reveal there has been a 4% growth in the overall percent of students meeting
proficiency with 69% of student meeting proficiency in SY2006-07 to 73% meeting
in SY2010-11. In SY2009-10 there is a slight dip in performance, the year in which
schools were subject to furloughs.

296

Figure E.3. School E HSA longitudinal math results

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure E.4 below shows an analysis of student achievement results in reading
by subgroup indicating that performance in the White subgroup exceeded AYP
benchmarks and was the most consistent in meeting AYP objectives. From 2006-
2011 the White subgroup exceeded AYP objectives in reading in the percent of
students meeting proficiency. A significant achievement gap exists between the
White subgroup and the Disadvantaged, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Sped subgroups
where student achievement results are the most inconsistent in terms of longitudinal
growth. In all subgroups except the White group, small gains were made until
SY2009-10, in which performance drops and then rises again the following year in
SY2010-2011. In SY2010-11, every group except the White group fails to meet the

297
AYP objective for reading. Although the Sped subgroup demonstrates growth of 32%
over five years, a gap of 30% of students who fell short of meeting the AYP
benchmark of 72%.

Figure E.4. School E HSA student achievement results in reading by subgroup &
year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Figure E.5 below illustrates longitudinal student achievement results in math
as proficiency by subgroups. Again, performance in the White subgroup outpaces
that of the Disadvantaged, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Sped subgroups widening the
achievement gap from 2007-2010. The White group also shows growth of 9% over
the last 5 years. Performance among the Disadvantaged and Asian/Pacific Islander
subgroup remains inconsistent from SY2006-2008. In SY2009-10, student

298
achievement results drop in every subgroup and rise again in SY SY2010-11.
However, in SY2010-11, the Disadvantaged and Sped subgroups fail to meet AYP.
Although the Sped subgroup demonstrates 30% growth from 2006-2011, the
achievement gap among the Sped population is the greatest in which 30% of students
fell short of meeting the AYP benchmark of 64%.

Figure E.5. School E HSA longitudinal student achievement results in math by
subgroup & year

*Data taken from the Accountability Resource Center Hawaii (ARCH), 2011

Efforts to Improve Instruction at SE Elementary School
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at SE elementary school. The structured interview protocol
that guided data collection also frames the case study. Elementary school principals

299
responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions regarding their 2011-
2012 school improvement plans and strategies. Principals’ responses provided
quantitative resource data for comparison with the Evidence Based Model and told
the story of how and why the school utilizes its resources toward instructional and
academic improvement. The story of SE’s improvement process is as follows.
Instructional Improvement Process
The principal was hired during the last quarter of SY2010-11 and has served
SE for approximately one year. Prior to the principal being hired, SE’s former
principal of 8 years retired in the Spring of SY2009-10 and a Temporary Assigned
(TA) principal was hired during the interim. The staff at SE expressed to the current
principal “lack of stability” was pervasive among the staff due to a “revolving door
of leadership.”
SE’s resources are aligned to the goals and strategies of the state strategic
plan to ensure student support and high student achievement. The principal
emphasizes the four initiatives in the strategic plan: closing the achievement gap, the
PreK-12 construct, use of formative assessment to drive instruction, and data teams.
SE continues to implement activities that enable students to successfully transition
into Kindergarten and out of sixth grade into middle school. SE holds a Kindergarten
as well as a 7
th
grade orientations prior to the new school year to help parents
understand the SE’s expectations and systems of support as students and parents
navigate their way through grades K-6. As part of the Prek-12 construct, SE

300
continues to work together to strengthen its transition plan to ensure all students
graduate from high school college and career ready.
SE’s goal is to continue to close the achievement gap so that all students meet
proficiency in the reading and math standards. SE’s principal continues to build
capacity within school systems through “collective leadership” and a purposeful
focus on improving instruction and increasing student learning. Although SE has
maintained the NCLB status of “In Good Standing,” Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
results from 2007 to 2011 show that student achievement in grades three to six has
plateaued. Therefore, SE continues to focus on rigorous standards-based instruction
and increasing student achievement by participating in Professional Learning Teams
(PLTs). Using the RTI framework, PLTs collaborate on standards-based curriculum
to ensure high quality instruction is occurring in every classroom, and analyze
student data and provide differentiated instruction and targeted interventions to all
students based on the results of common grade level assessments. SE strives to build
“a data culture or a culture of inquiry,” a concept the principal feels is essential in
helping teachers become accountable to each other and their students. The increase
in the number of students attending SE has been significantly impacted the school
during furloughs in sustaining the funding necessary to retain the number of highly
qualified teaching staff at SE. Fifteen percent of the student body attends SE on a
geographic exception.

301
Implementing a Research-based Curriculum
The Complex Area Superintendent informed all principals that the school
plans must address state strategic plan goals and the execution of the three academic
strategies. In SY2011-12, SE staff identified common pedagogy and best practices
that every teacher agreed to implement in the classroom. Currently, weekly
walkthroughs using the district’s protocol are used to track accountability and
measure progress. The principal stated that the walkthrough data indicated that
scaffolding of instruction as well as increasing the rigor and relevancy of SE’s
lessons must improve in order to ensure proficiency in reading and math for all
subgroups.
SE uses the Houghton-Mifflin TROPHIES reading curriculum in grades K-6.
SE has begun to align the curriculum to the CCSS in Kindergarten through second
grade as a compliance initiative with Race To The Top. In grades three through six,
teachers continue to align curriculum to the Hawaii Content Performance Standards
III (HCPS III) as students are still held accountable for meeting these benchmarks
measured through the HSA. In SY2010-11, Hawaii adopted the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). The principal stated that because of the shift, schools are not
allowed to purchase new curriculum until the State comes out with their
recommendations which will be aligned to the CCSS. SE uses the Harcourt GOMath
curriculum in grades K-2 a new series aligned to the CCSS which was adopted at the
end of SY2010-11. The District mandated Everyday Math (EM) curriculum aligned
to the HCPSIII has been used in grades 3-6 for the last 5 years. The principal stated

302
that the teachers were not shy in expressing during a faculty meeting that they “hate
Everyday Math!” Teachers claim that the EM program skips around and there is not
enough drill and practice to attain mastery of the standards. EM is also discontinued
after grade six and students participate in a more traditional Harcourt curriculum
when they enter seventh grade.
Grade level benchmarks are reflected in the instruction in each classroom
with assessments aligned to the benchmarks. The principal of SE expressed that
providing instructional leadership has been difficult with two different math
curriculum in the lower and upper elementary. With the State’s directive preventing
schools from adopting new curriculum and the District’s CCSS rollout only focusing
on K-2, professional development has been very choppy. Using two curriculums for
Math has also made teaching with fidelity challenging. The principal told staff
during a time of uncertainty- not knowing what the State’s recommendations will be
or a timeline of when new curriculum will be available to schools- to teach to the
standards. However, the principal has admitted that even teaching to the standards
has been problematic when using two sets of standards. The principal also expressed
frustration because there has been no training for principals on the new CCSS.
Parent & Community Involvement
SE is known for its community and parental involvement. Parents volunteer
to read and tutor students daily in grades PreK-3. The PTSA holds several
fundraisers every year to fund part-time art and music teachers. A partnership with
the AINA in Schools program provides opportunities for all students to learn more

303
about gardening, nutrition, and the sustainability. Other special activities include a
school musical, Surf Night, winter program, PE meet, Career Day, Health Fair,
Family Fun Fair, talent show, and May Day celebration. After school activities
include a student farmer’s market, garden club, and ukulele classes. Working with
students, staff, parents, and community partners, SE has established a community
that continues to strive to meet the needs of all learners.
Professional Development (PD) & Coaching
As part of the Hawaii State Teacher’s Association’s (HSTA) contract, all
professional development and in-service days were eliminated from the 2009-12
official school calendars. SE uses the WestEd walkthrough protocol to promote
effective teaching strategies the District would like to see in every classroom. The
principal relies on District funded professional development opportunities for staff.
Because the District funded opportunities are only open to a few teachers at a time,
SE relies on teacher leaders to bring information back to the school and share during
faculty meetings. The principal admits that training the trainer approach to providing
PD has not been effective. Teachers often express that they are not confident in the
new content and need more time to process the new initiatives. Grade level PLTs in
grades K-2 have also expressed that they have spent the majority of their meetings
aligning to the CCSS and have not had the time to drill down to individual student
progress and have meaningful conversations around student achievement and
improving instructional delivery of their lessons.

304
The principal uses PLTs to evaluate progress made towards school and
district initiatives. Teachers participate in the collaborative analysis of student work,
discuss student achievement on quarterly common grade level assessments, and post
results of summative assessments on a data wall. The principal provides
instructional leadership by facilitating quarterly grade level PLTs. Administration
and the curriculum coordinator meet with each grade level to review student progress
and plan next steps for each quarter with an emphasis on targeted interventions for
all students who fail to meet proficiency. School wide, staff is accountable for
participating in data analysis to inform instruction and increase student achievement.
SE’s academic program is enriched through differentiated classroom instruction and
a concerted effort to infuse art and technology into instructional practices and student
products.
Help for Struggling Students
Access to Web-based instructional support for teachers and students accessed
by students both at school and at home and helps to extend learning opportunities.
SE uses ACHIEVE 3000, Accelerated Reader, and Read Live on-line programs for
reading and the Math Whizz on-line program as an intervention for non-proficient
students in math. The enrichment program for selected students in grades three to
six focuses on Math Olympics, Science, and Language Arts through the use of
various media. Science enrichment opportunities are also extended to students in
grades K-2 once a week.

305
The principal found that SE’s traditional bell schedule had been a barrier in
using the resources of time and personnel more efficiently in assisting struggling
learners. Finding time within in the school day to offer interventions without having
students miss core instruction was non-existent. SE tried offering interventions
before and after school, however not all students needing the support were able to
attend. SE also found that it was spending more money on hiring additional
personnel such as part-time teachers to tutor during random times throughout the day
to provide access to the reading and math supports.
The old bell schedule allows teachers to choose when they want to teach
reading and math. Reading and math instruction varied from grade level to grade
level, teacher to teacher, and day to day. The chaotic schedule hindered Special
Education, ELL teachers and educational assistants from providing the required
number of service minutes to children receiving special education supports in an
inclusive setting. Students were often pulled into resource classes for reading and
math and did not have access to the core instruction with the general education
teacher.
SE strives to provide a warm, caring, and supportive learning environment
for all students. Currently, the staff is working on revising the current bell schedule
to align with the RTI framework allowing additional time within the school day to
accommodate the learning needs of SE’s diverse population. The bell schedule will
be focused on: providing all students access to rigorous standards based instruction
with a highly qualified teacher, allowing any student who is non-proficient in reading

306
and math access to additional supports, implementation of a reading and math
intervention block, character education lessons, and time for grade level articulation.
The principal stated that aligning to the RTI framework enables SE to provide a
more comprehensive approach to providing coordinated supports allowing students
to become successful learners. In the 2010-11, the annual School Quality Survey
indicated that 77% of students reported feeling safe and supported by dedicated
school staff members. SE has implemented a character education program to sustain
an environment conducive to learning and promote the safety and well being of
student and staff member on campus.
Instructional Leadership as a Foundation for Change
The complex contracted the WestEd consulting company to reform
underperforming schools. WestEd consultants have worked with schools within the
complex for a number of years focusing on observing classroom instruction and
using observation data to determine areas for improving lesson design. SE has
adopted the WestEd framework of effective teaching and uses their walkthrough tool
to define indicators of best practice in the classroom.
The principal uses the walkthrough data administered in 2010-11 to measure
best practice in the classroom. Data revealed that areas for improvement included
scaffolding, academic vocabulary, building relevancy, and increasing the rigor
through addressing the taxonomic levels in lesson plans. Data show that 51% of
teachers were scaffolding with attributes by explicitly explaining and modeling the
learning; 33% of teachers were explicitly introducing, defining, reviewing, and or

307
demonstrating how the key vocabulary is used within the learning; and 33% of
teachers were establishing for students a reason why they need to know the content
or be able to use the skill. Ninety-three percent of lessons were delivered at a
taxonomic level of one, 46% at a level of two, eight percent at level three, and zero
percent at level four on Marzano’s Taxonomy.
The principal works with the curriculum coordinator to ensure there is
communication between grade levels regarding the use of curriculum to meet the
grade level standards. The curriculum coordinator also wears the hat of testing
coordinator and ELL instructor. With the implementation of PLTs and the constant
need for data to inform instruction and measure individual student progress, the
principal would like to transform the role of the curriculum coordinator to an
academic coach to help organize PLTs and provide a more research- based
framework to set common assessment goals for each grade level.
SE also has a Vice-Principal who leads the Positive Behavior Support
Committee and the Character Education initiative. The Vice-Principal is also
responsible for conducting walkthroughs for grades 3-6. The Vice-Principal also
provides leadership in updating the data wall, attending and providing feedback
during quarterly PLT meetings.
The principal also expressed the need for alignment of professional
development among State, District, and school to meet the Superintendent and Race
To The Top initiatives. The principal expressed frustration with the ability to sustain

308
PD throughout the year for staff and the lack of non-instructional or non-pupil days
to do so.
Table E.2 illustrates how SE implements the 10 steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance. Based on the story of SE’s School
improvement efforts, SE implemented 6 of Odden’s (2009) ten effective strategies in
the strong to average range, and 4 strategies in the weak range.
Table E.3 and Table E.4 show a comparison of school profile and resource
allocation between SE and an EBM prototype school. The amount of resource
allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence Based Model
(EBM) in all areas except staffing of instructional facilitators/pupil support, special
education teachers, administration and funding of gifted/talented students. In all
areas from enrollment to class sizes in grades K – 6 and effective instructional
strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the EBM model.

309
Table E.2
SE Implementation of Odden’s Ten Steps for Doubling Student Performance
Odden’s strategies
Implementation
Notes Strong Average Weak Not Observed
1) analyzing student
achievement
√

2) setting ambitious
goals
√
SE’s vision is that all students will
be proficient in reading and math
3) implementing
effective curriculum
and instructional
program √
Teaching one curriculum with
fidelity has been problematic. SE
uses 2 different set of standards as a
guide in creating lessons and is
using the District EM curriculum as
well as beginning the process to
align with the K-2 CCSS.
4) using benchmark
and formative
assessments
√
SE has implemented PLTs to begin
the process of data analysis and
creating common assessments.
5) employing ongoing
professional
development
√
Budgetary cuts have affected
sustained PD needed to target the
needs of various subgroups. SE has
relied on District trainings and
teacher leaders provide feedback on
information.
6) using instructional
time more efficiently √
SE is currently in the process of
developing a new bell schedule to
align with RTI framework.
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√
Use of on-line supports, PTTs,
small group instruction before,
during, and after school.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative school
cultures
√
Use of PLTs, teacher-leaders step
forward to provide in-servicing on
District initiatives.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√
Use of research –based frameworks
to guide systems such as RTI and
PLTs in place for communication
and collaboration.
10) investing in
human capital
management
√
Population of SE growing, hired
HQ teachers, many experienced HQ
tenured teachers on staff.

310
Table E.3
School Profile Comparison: SE and Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
SE
Elementary
School SE – EBM Comparison
School Configuration K - 5 *Pre-K - 6 *Although SE services
Pre-K and 6 EBM staff
are allocated on
enrollment and student
characteristics.
Enrollment 432 450 4% greater than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 21
4-6: 27
K -3 is approx 28%
greater than EBM
Gr. 4-6 is approx 8%
more than EBM
Full day Kindergarten Yes Yes
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of
PD
180 +
0 days of PD
+
5% less than EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 11% 1% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 28% 22% less than EBM
EL students 10% 5% 5% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 44% 11% greater than EBM

311
Table E.4
Resource Comparison: SE and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School
Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
School E – Current
Resource Status
(450 Students) SE – EBM Comparison
Core Teachers 24 21 3 less than the EBM
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 3.5 1.3 less than EBM
1 Computer teacher
1 Enrichment teacher
.5 Hawaiian Studies
.5 Music
.5 Art
0.8 more Instructional Facilitators
than EBM
1 Curriculum Coordinator
1 SSC
1 Counselor
Tutors same as the EBM
SE does not offer Tutors or ELL
services
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 3
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
1
(110 students)
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100:
0.43
0
(20 students)
Extended day 1.8 1 1.7 less than EBM
2 PTTs for extended day
Summer School 1.8 0 SE does not offer any Summer
School
Learning Disabled
student
3 5
(11% or 49
students)
2 more Sped teachers than EBM
5 FTE teacher
5 FTE Educational Assistants
Gifted student $25/student $50/student
(120 students)
$25 more than EBM
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
$3,000
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
5 2.4 more than the EBM
1 FTE Student Services
Coordinator
8 PTTS

312

Table E.4, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
School E – Current
Resource Status
(450 Students) SE – EBM Comparison
Non-instructional
aides
2 0 SE does not provide non-
instructional aides
Librarian/ Media
specialists
1 1 Same as the EBM
Administration 1 2 1 more than the EBM
School site
Secretary/ Clerks
2 3 1 more than the EBM
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil
for other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
$ 22/pupil Significantly less than EBM
$10,000 WestEd Framework
Technology $250/pupil $15/pupil Significantly less than EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $40/pupil Significantly less than EBM
Student activities $200/pupil $0/pupil Significantly less than EBM

313
Use of the Academic Financial Plan to Effectively Allocate Resources to
Strategies that Increase Student Achievement
The school improvement plan at SE is guided by the Superintendent’s goals
in the State’s strategic plan. However, all of the school wide structures established
to improve collaboration and communication among staff have been driven by the
principal. SE continues to focus on its vision that all students can learn and be
successful. The principal feels that the first year was important in putting into place
the structures (PLTs, formative assessments, new bell schedule) that would allow SE
to build upon and establish more ambitious goals for students in reading and math in
the future. Accountability using the Ac/FP is top down. The school reports data to
the District office quarterly with minimal feedback regarding the school’s progress.
The principal feels that by setting school wide expectations for staff and putting
structures into place to improve collaboration and communication keep the staff
accountable to one another and focused on school improvement and student
achievement.
The principal provides the instructional leadership in leading State and
District initiatives and communicated the expectation that staff must take on more of
a collaborative leadership role in the school improvement process. Administration
has taken the lead in setting up several platforms for staff to share in the decision-
making process. SE relies heavily on the Grade Level Chairs (GLCs) to attend
monthly leadership meetings to discuss initiatives in the Ac/FP. GLCs then take the
information discussed in leadership to the grade level meetings to ensure all teachers

314
have input on how initiatives will impact students, instruction, and operations.
Information from grade level meetings cycles back to administration. Items are
shared with the School Community Council (SCC) where community stakeholders
provide input. The principal uses Ac/FP and shares the data on the school’s progress
towards meeting student achievement outcomes as a tool in keeping all role groups
focused on the direction of the school. The principal uses feedback from all role
groups to make a final decision.
Summary of SE’s Academic/Financial Plan
State of Hawaii’s Academic Goals
1. Assure all students graduate college and career ready through effective
use of standards-based education.
2. Ensure and sustain a rich environment and culture for lifelong learners.
3. Continuously improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness of
the educational system.
Plans for Financial Resources to Meet the Goals
The total projected school budget is $2,328,033. The largest portion, 73% or
$1,722,324 million, is from Weighted Student Formula funding. Categorical funding,
26 %or 625,528, provides special education teachers, support positions, and related
expenditures. A small remaining amount, less than one percent, comes from federal
impact aid and PTSA funding that covers a part time music teacher.

315
Standards based education: $1,781,410– 77% of the budget
The largest expenditure of the total budget, 75% goes to certificated staff.
This includes five teachers for Kindergarten, three teachers each for grades one and
two, and two teachers each for grades three-six. Certificated staff also includes a
technology teacher, student support coordinator, honors/science enrichment class
teacher, and a curriculum coordinator. Six special education teachers are included in
the certificated. Funding for these positions comes from general categorical
allocation rather than from the Weighted Student Formula allocation. Five
educational assistant positions are also funded through the general categorical
funding.
Five part time teachers and one paraprofessional tutor are included under
Personal Services to provide students in regular classrooms with direct instruction to
support the general education teachers. Often, these positions are filled with people
with teaching degrees. The paraprofessional works under the supervision of a teacher
when providing direct services to students and provides other non-instructional
support for regular education teachers to purchase student educational materials,
classroom supplies, and maintenance contracts for duplicating machines, the
laminators and other equipment, $36,955 is budgeted.
Quality student support: $107,637– 5% of the budget
Staffing includes personnel costs for a student services coordinator; half time
clerk; half time Primary School Adjustment Program (PSAP) Educational Assistant
and a health aide.

316
Continuous Improvement: $0.
School operations: $438,968 – 18% of the budget.
Personnel costs $413,162 include a principal, vice principal, school
administrative services assistant (SASA) a clerk, one clerk typist for the office and
three fourths (.75 FTE) clerk typist for the library. Three custodial positions are also
included. The casual payroll budget includes $8,000 for three classroom cleaners at
two hours daily and adult supervisors to monitor students at lunch in the cafeteria.
Other recurring expenses include phone, custodial supplies, equipment and alarm
systems maintenance and repair contracts, and office supplies. To cover these costs
$15,824 is set aside.
SE received Title II A funding in the amount of $10,000 which paid for
professional development at the beginning of the year. The Parent Teacher Student
Association (PTSA) will continue to fund the part-time music teacher mentioned in
the academic plan overview.
The plan coordinates the resources that are available as outlined in the plan to
ensure that student achievement is central to all expenditures and activities.
Decisions regarding the Academic and Financial Plan were guided by federal, state,
district and school services and program requirements. Table illustrates SE’s
allocation of funding based on the three goals outlined in the State of Hawaii’s
Ac/FP.
SE’s principal feels that the additional resource of professional development
to address Goal #3: Continuously improve the system, is imperative in expanding

317
improvement efforts. SE has been fortunate that its student body continues to grow
and sustaining its human capital as well as funding has not been an issue. The
principal expressed frustration in the lack of professional development for principals
and teachers. The principal stated that State and District initiatives such as PLCs,
formative assessment, and data analysis are top down and principals carry the heavy
burden of providing instructional leadership with no sustained professional
development to continuously improve these processes. The principal stated that
schools are expected to make the shift to the CCSS in grades K-2 with little training.
PD was only offered to a select few teachers, with no clear plan to roll out CCSS to
grades 3-6, teachers are trying to process the shift, and meanwhile, principals have
not been trained. It is difficult to provide teachers with the support and resources
they need if I as the instructional leader do not have the background knowledge
myself to set the expectations regarding the shift in CCSS and how it will impact
curriculum and instruction.”
The principal of SE explained that there were only two official days of
training on how to write the Ac/FP and that she had no prior experience. The
principal felt the most challenging part of the process was allocating the budget to
align with the Academic goals in the plan. The principal felt that the challenge as a
first year principal was that the school is given a projected lump sum of money based
on a projected enrollment for the following year with the task of allocating funding
to each goal and zeroing out the balance. Allocating resources was challenging
without a clear understanding of how students were doing. As a school, SE was in

318
the early stages of gathering current student achievement data to assess students’
progress and needs. The principal stated:
Completing the Ac/FP so early in the year made it difficult for a first year
principal to assess where resources should be allocated because I was still
assessing which programs were effective and which weren’t, which programs
to sustain and which to cut out.

The principal of SE also stated that the current plan was also not a plan that she
developed and was not aligned with the new initiatives described in the
Superintendent’s strategic plan. SE’s current Ac/FP is an annual plan and had no
continuity year to year.
In a time of budgetary cuts, the Ac/FP has helped the principal of SE to stay
focused on the strategic plan and allocate resources that tightly align with school
wide outcomes for each goal. The Ac/FP is also an accountability piece that the
principal uses as a tool when communicating school wide initiatives to various
stakeholders. Depending on the role group, the principal has stated the stakeholders
often come to meetings with their own agendas; a clear Ac/FP assists the principal in
navigating through the decision making process and remain focused on the school’s
vision.
The principal of SE felt that the Ac/FP could be a more useful tool if it
incorporated a research-based framework which cited the rationale behind the
Superintendent’s statewide initiatives that include closing the achievement gap using
data teams and formative assessment. SE’s principal stated that:
It would be helpful if the strategies for improving student achievement were
listed under each category so that principals could begin analyzing what

319
resources they would need in order to sustain structures like PLCs for
collaboration, data or technology to enhance formative assessment and data
analysis, and professional development to improve instructional practices.
Aligning a researched based framework would also help principals balance
resources to meet the three goals in the Ac/FP. Many principals allocate the
majority of their budget to Goal 1: Ensuring students are college and career
ready through standards based education and very little resources to Goal 3:
Continuous improvement of the system.

SE’s principal also expressed the need to delay the Ac/FP process to later in
the year to allow more time to gather current data in order to plan for the following
year:
Currently the plan is done in the fall, and it’s too early, principals don’t have
enough time to evaluate the current year’s plan built on last year’s data and
we are creating a new plan for the following year with very little data to
establish a comprehensive needs assessment.

Lessons Learned
Although SE Elementary School has met AYP benchmarks, the Asian Pacific
Islanders, Disadvantaged, and Sped subgroups continue to lag behind the White
subgroup. All subgroups have demonstrated inconsistent student achievement over
the years and significant gains in among the Sped population in the past year. The
new principal has communicated to SE staff the need for more collaboration and
communication regarding individual student progress due to the fact that
performance gains in all subgroups except Sped have plateaued.
• The school has adopted state and complex initiatives and continues to
focus on the implementation of data analysis through data teams to close
the achievement gap for all students in reading and math.

320
• SE has identified the need for teachers to reflect on teaching practices to
improve on providing more opportunities for students to show evidence
of meeting proficiency levels.
• SE has identified the need to discuss as a grade level, the appropriate
level of rigor needed for each benchmark, and the system that will be
used for data collection and lesson design.
• The school has formalized structures in place to sustain collaboration
among staff with specific goals that focus on implementing the WestEd
model for building best practice among teachers and improving
instruction and student achievement.
• The principal is vigilant about meeting with data teams to discuss and
document interventions for identified students.
• SE has struggled to provide support to students during the school day as
well as during extended day opportunities.
• Professional development opportunities are limited due to the removal of
professional development days within the school year for teachers and
there is a lack of funding to sustain it. SE relies on professional
development provided by the District.
• The principal adopts state and complex goals and uses the Ac/FP to
document communicate progress made towards teacher and student
outcomes in the Ac/FP to ensure SE is in compliance.

321
Future Considerations
Additional resources would be helpful to build on SE’s success. Targeted
and sustained professional development to comply with the implementation of data
teams, on-going formative assessment and data analysis seem to big the greatest need
at SE. The principal has aligned the school to district and state initiatives, however
relies totally on the District to provide the training for teachers to sustain the school
improvement process. Lack of sustained professional development for all teachers at
SE continues to be a challenge for SE as they work to meet the needs of all students.
Effective leadership is crucial in building capacity and aligning support and
promoting the “buy-in” among teachers in order to meet district and state initiatives.
Sustained professional development is essential in building the competence of
teachers who adequately address the varying instructional needs within SE’s
population.
In the principal’s opinion, delaying the Ac/Fn until late in the year and
combining the academic plan with the financial plan would make the Ac/Fn a more
useful tool. Currently, budget allocations are based on enrollment count “predictions”
for the following school year. Unofficial budget allocations and lack of current
school data have hindered SE in creating a solid plan for linking resources that it
may or may not have, to strategies that improve student achievement the following
year.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Academic/Financial Plan (Ac/FP) is an annual school plan that is designed to improve performance, documenting school goals, priorities, programs, activities, and the funds designated to accomplish them. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of understanding about how the Ac/FP is used by principals in Hawaii to determine resource allocation with a focus on improving student achievement. This study uses Odden’s (2009) Evidenced-based Model as a framework to align resources in the Ac/FP, with research-based strategies that are effective in meeting student achievement outcomes. ❧ This study also investigates five elementary Ac/FPs and examines the links between resource allocation and student achievement and focuses on how principals can use an Evidence-Based framework to effectively link resources to meet the school’s vision and mission as described in the Ac/FP.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

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

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 allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

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

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

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

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Tyrell, Bernadette (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/09/2012

Defense Date 04/26/2012

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

Tag academic financial plan,educational adequacy,Hawaii,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email bernsuafoa@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-55566

Unique identifier UC11290230

Identifier usctheses-c3-55566 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TyrellBern-929.pdf

Dmrecord 55566

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tyrell, Bernadette

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