University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EXAMINATION OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES THAT
PROMOTE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: CASE STUDIES OF RURAL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN HAWAII

by

C.K. Acopan-Tuasivi

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

December 2012

Copyright 2012 C.K. Acopan-Tuasivi

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my OHANA for allowing me to pursue this
amazing journey. To my children Seth (11), Luke (5) and Teuila (2), you inspire me to
serve my students with the integrity and rigor I desire for you. I pray that you will value
education and the impact it can have on your lives. I hope that you will embrace every
opportunity to learn and commit to do your very best in all that you do. To my husband,
friend, and dearest confidant SGT Telea Tuasivi Jr. (USMC), your love and support have
truly motivated me to finish what we started. Thank you for sacrificing so much for our
family and taking on our parental duties for countless hours while I pursued my dream.
To my dad Lawrence S. Acopan, you have instilled in me the value of hard work and
dedication in all that I do. Words can not express my love and appreciation for you and
all that you have done for me. Thank you for your constant support and provision beyond
measure that have afforded me the opportunities that I hope to provide for my children.
To my uncle Thomas A. Akana, you have taught me so much about life and the kind of
person I aspire to be by your example. You impart a sense of order and reason in the
midst of my often hectic world. Thank you for always encouraging me. Your love and
generosity have impacted my life more than you will ever know. To my cousin Angel
Kapea, you have been such a blessing. I appreciate your loving care of my children
through out this process. Finally, I share this triumph with my mother, a woman of
courage and strength. I think of you everyday. Missing you has been my driving force in
completing this journey. Thank you for a lifetime of unconditional love and always
believing in me. I LOVE YOU MOM, WE DID IT! In loving memory, Charlene
Ululani Akana Acopan, July 17, 1952 – July 20, 2007, Mahalo Ke Akua.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am sincerely grateful to the expert panel of my dissertation committee. To my
chairperson Dr. Larry Picus, thank you for being exactly what I needed to get through
this. I appreciate your support and expertise in facilitating my progress toward
completion. To my co-chairs Dr. Melora Sundt and Dr. Dominic Brewer, thank you for
your insight and constructive feedback that have helped me grasp and synthesize key
parts of this study. To my instructors: Dr. Melora Sundt (Diversity & Pro Seminar), Dr.
Gisele Ragusa (Learning/Gap Analysis), Dr. Dominic Brewer (Accountability), Dr.
Stuart Gothold (Leadership & Human Resources), Dr. Robert Rueda (Inquiry Methods &
Statistics), Dr. Darnell Cole (Learning Theory), Dr. Gilbert Hentschke (Economics), Dr.
Larry Picus (Economics), Dr. Richard Sedar (Economics), and Dr. Morgan Polikoff
(Policy). Thank you for challenging me beyond what I thought I was capable of and for
investing your time and talent in Hawaii. Mahalo to the principals who welcomed me and
gave their time to contribute to this study. I appreciate your insight and transparency
regarding the strengths and challenges of your schools, and I am humbled by your
dedication & service. To my thematic group, Brandon, Joanne, Kyle S., Kyle M., Mitzie,
Bernie & Akenese, Mahalo for your support through out this grueling process. To Bernie,
Jamie, & Hannah, thanks for making the APRISE study tours memorable. To Akenese, I
feel like I’ve known you forever. Fa’afetai tele for everything, I cherish our friendship.
To my 2009 HAWAII COHORT OHANA, it has been a privilege to engage in some of
the most meaningful learning experiences that have truly added value to my life. This
journey would not have been the same with out you all. Finally, I am honored to
officially be apart of the USC alumni network and Trojan legacy. Fight On!

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES vviii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1

Introduction 1

Background of the Problem 2

Education in America 2

Federal Impact on Public Schools 5

Education in Hawaii 10

A Kingdom of Learning 10

Current Demographics 10

Hawaii Resources 11

Hawaii Reform 12

Financial Standing 13

Nationwide Resource Allocation 14

Statement of the Problem 17

Research Questions 17

Purpose of the Study 18

Importance of the Study 19

Limitations 20

Delimitations 20

Assumptions 21

Definitions 21

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 25

The Evidence Based Model 26

1. Understand the Performance Challenge 31

2. Set Ambitious Goals 33

3. Adopt a New Curriculum 35

4.
Commit to Data-Based Decision Making 38

5. Invest in On-Going Professional Development 41

6. Focus Class Time More Efficiently 45

7. Provide Multiple Interventions For Struggling Students 47

8. Create Professional Learning Communities 48

9. Promote Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership 52

10. Encourage Professional & Best Practices 54

Conclusion 55

v

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 57

Research Questions 57

Instrumentation and Data Collection 61

Quantitative Data Collection 61

Qualitative Data Collection 63

Case Studies 65

Data Analysis 66

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 68

Profile of Sample Schools 69

Achievement Data 71

Reading Proficiency 71

Math Proficiency 75

Research Question #1: What are the current instructional vision and improvement
strategies at the school level? 79

Utilizing Data to Inform Instruction 80

Ensuring Time for Collaboration & Professional Development 81

Intentional Leadership Expertise 82

Research Question #2: How are actual resource patterns aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies in the Evidence Based Model? 83

Research Question #3: How did the allocation of resources change in response to
recent budget adjustments? 91

Research Question #4: How are resources used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan? 92

Understanding the Performance Challenge 93

Setting Ambitious Goals 96

Implementing Effective Curriculum and Instruction 97

Using Instructional Time Effectively and Efficiently 100

Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 102

Investing in On-Going Professional Development 105

Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 107

Using Research-Based and Proven Strategies 109

Addressing Talent and Human Capital 109

Parent & Community Involvement 110

Leadership 112

vi
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 116

Overview of the Study 116

Summary of Findings 119

Understanding the Performance Challenge 124

Setting Ambitious Goals 125

Implementing Effective Curriculum and Instruction 126

Utilizing Benchmarks and Formative Assessments 126

Using Instructional Time Effectively and Efficiently 127

Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 128

Investing in On-Going Professional Development 129

Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 129

Utilizing Research-based and Proven Strategies 130

Addressing Talent and Human Capital 130

Limitations 131

Implications 131

Recommendations 133

Conclusion 134

REFERENCES 136

APPENDICES 142
Appendix A: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol School Sites 142

Appendix B: Case Study: Kokua Elementary 144

Appendix C: Case Study: Laulima Elementary 166

Appendix D: Case Study: Malama Elementary 194

Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook 217

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 – Sample School Student Enrollment and Demographics 60

Table 3.2 – Sample School Proficiency, AYP Standing, & NCLB Status 60

Table 4.1 – Student Enrollment of Sample Schools. 69

Table 4.2 – Core Teachers and Specialist Teachers – Actual vs. EBM 86

Table 4.3 – EL, Special Education, Vocational, &
Gifted Programs – Actual vs. EBM 87

Table 4.4 – Tutors, Extended Day, and Summer School
Programs – Actual vs. EBM 87

Table 4.5 – Substitutes and Professional Development – Actual vs. EBM 89

Table 4.6 – Pupil Support, Librarians, and Secretaries – Actual vs. EBM 90

Table 4.7 – Administration and Instructional Facilitators – Actual vs. EBM 91

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 – Hawaii State Department of Education Budget 12

Figure 2.1 – Evidence Based Model 26

Figure 2.2: Adequate Prototypical Elementary & Middle School Resources 28

Figure 4.1 – Student Needs of Three Study Schools 69

Figure 4.2 – Kokua Elementary – Percent by Minority 70

Figure 4.3 – Laulima Elementary – Percent by Minority 70

Figure 4.4 – Malama Elementary – Percent by Minority 71

Figure 4.5 Reading Proficiency Scores for All Students 73

Figure 4.6 – Reading Proficiency Scores for Disadvantaged Students 74

Figure 4.7 – Reading Proficiency Scores for Asian/Pacific Islander Students 75

Figure 4.8 – Math Proficiency Scores for All Students 76

Figure 4.9 – Math Proficiency Scores for Disadvantaged Students 77

Figure 4.10 – Math Proficiency Scores for Asian/Pacific Islander Students 78

ix
ABSTRACT
This study presents case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii that
examine resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement. The combined
frame work of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the 10 Strategies
for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) were utilized to compare actual school
resources and student achievement data to determine educational adequacy. The study
investigates the instructional vision and improvement strategies of rural elementary
schools, how they are using resources to implement effective strategies, the effects of
recent budget adjustments and the resource allocation patterns that align with or are
different from the comparison framework. Common strategies used by all three schools
include principal leadership, using data to inform instruction, providing multiple
interventions for struggling students, and collaboration and professional development.
The schools in this study use multiple strategies to impact education for the highly
disadvantaged and minority student populations that they serve. The data shows that
these schools possess the adequate funds and potential to increase student achievement
beyond what they are generating, however the consistency and quality of resources are
questionable. The more aligned individual schools were with the comparison framework,
the more consistent their growth was over time. Recommendations include expanding
this study with a future gap analysis, escalation of leadership and teaching fidelity for
rigorous alignment of resources to goals, and prioritizing the reallocation of resources to
align with educational commitments to ensure academic success for all students. The
Evidence Based Model and Ten Strategies could serve as a catalyst for schools to figure
out adequate levels of resources needed to significantly increase student achievement.

1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Over the past three decades real educational spending per student has almost
doubled without comparable gains in achievement. Still, the United States public
education system spends more per student than all but a few countries, yet on average, its
students often perform at or below the level of those in other economically advanced
countries (Christensen, 2008). In an effort to improve student achievement and maintain
our nation’s position in the global economy, the United States continues to focus on
producing educational outputs, while struggling to allocate adequate inputs. Adequacy
and accountability drive federal mandates that continue to deliberately pressure schools
nationwide to ensure high levels of achievement for all students.
It is imperative for individual schools to begin analyzing the most efficient
methods of allocating resources, paying close attention to student and program
assessments, working with diverse student populations, and the intentional use of
effective learning and instructional strategies. “More money is needed to achieve
equivalent outcomes with high need students…while this complicates analyses of
funding and resources, there is no logic under which it provides a justification for
spending less on the education of children in poverty.” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, pg.
101) However, evidence continues to show that the proper allocation of resources has
the potential to improve student achievement, even in areas where students have
historically underachieved (Odden & Archibald, 2009). This study will analyze resource
allocation strategies in rural elementary schools in Hawaii with scarce resources that have

2
consistently contributed to the achievement gap, yet have the potential to outperform
schools that have similar demographics and student populations.
Background of the Problem
Education in America
The nationwide reform of public education is no stranger to controversy. Even
before the Revolutionary War, literacy was minimal among lower class Americans until
Thomas Jefferson advocated for public education in 1778, as he believed it was “essential
to democracy” (Kaestle, 2001). His proposed Bill for the More General Diffusion of
Knowledge was drafted as a means to guarantee public school education for all children
(Kaestle, 2001).
By the 1830s, Jefferson’s vision for a statewide school further evolved through
the work of reformer Horace Mann, the first official secretary of education in
Massachusetts (Kaestle, 2001). After personally inspecting over a thousand schools
himself, Mann discovered a school system built on “inequity”, with no state supervision
and varied schools from town to town that were largely supported by local taxes and fees
charged to parents (Kaestle, 2001). Affordability determined whether or not a student
was able to attend a public school at all, signifying a chance at a better life than most.
The inception of the historical public school as we know it today, took root
shortly after the mid-nineteenth century, known then as the “common” school. Horace
Mann influenced the development of a public school system that would “serve all boys
and girls and teach a common body of knowledge that would give each student an equal
chance in life.” (Kaestle, 2001) Grass roots school reform during this era met resistance
from many, especially since common schools were entirely funded by local property

3
taxes, free of charge to even the poorest children, and were governed by local school
committees that were subject to minimal state regulation (Kaestle, 2001).
Meanwhile, the rise in immigration was at an all time high, with foreigners
arriving in record numbers, noting more than half of New York City residents as being
foreign born by 1840 (Kaestle, 2001). Many were Irish Catholics and most were poor
and hungry for an education but found that although public schools were free and open to
all, the curriculum focused primarily on Protestant values. Citizens were refusing to pay
taxes while parents considered sending their children to the alternate Catholic schools
that were created in response to the outcry of the Catholic community. Thus began the
conflict of church and state as well as religious influences in schools. This continued
well on to 1846 when the Public School Society was replaced by the newly formed New
York City Board of Education (Kaestle, 2001). At the forefront of effectively organizing
public education, New York policy makers during this time contributed numerous related
actions to the development of public schools. They are most recognized as one of the
first states to use profits from land sales to support local education and later practiced
using local property taxes to support state public schools (Kaestle, 2001).
Through the distinctive course of American public education, issues pertaining to
race have often linked low social economic status and lack of access to quality schools.
Historically, the very concept of segregation dates back to the time of slavery and the
lack of entitlement that African Americans experienced. After the Civil War, the two-
thirds of African Americans who lived in the South were mostly slaves with little or no
access to education, while in the North blacks were entitled to attend public schools that
were separate from whites and often experienced inferior facilities and education quality

4
(Kaestle, 2001). Even though Congress required states to guarantee freedom of non-
sectarian education to all children, over the years, tension and discord continued. Quality
schools became desirable to settlers and by the turn of the nineteen-century, school
reform continued to encourage the expansion of American public schools. Beginning in
1870, financial expenditures for public schools during that era increased from $69
million to $147 million in 1890, and enrollment also rose from 7.6 million to 12.7 million
(Kaestle, 2001). Yet segregation was still an issue and despite hardships, black literacy
soared in the decades after the Civil War from 5 percent to 70 percent (Kaestle, 2001).
Controversies over the lenient attempts for U.S. courts to remedy segregation
continued to erode nationwide public schools. Ambiguous de jure and de facto laws that
constituted school segregation also gained increased attention, while pressure for
integration compelled communities to take risks that many were not prepared for.
Although many black children were treated well and acquired educational benefits,
change was still limited to certain parts of the country, especially the South (Hochschild
& Scovronick, 2003). The “equal-but-separate” ruling of the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson
provided band-aid relief by granting transportation and accommodations to assist with
integration. However, the doctrine was upheld well in to the 1930s until the National
Advancement for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sought to overturn the
three and a half decade segregation remedy (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Even at a
time when the economic depression hit hard, the desire for access to quality public
education remained constant.
While access to education managed to increase during the 1930s and 1940s, a
new system of “tracking” students was introduced. The process involved testing the

5
intellectual aptitude of students then assigning them to the appropriate academic or
vocational “track” (Ravich, 2001). Although a number of students were diverted away
from rigorous academics to pursue more practical training, the strategy appeared to
benefit many disadvantaged children. However, the “tracking” movement that was
meant to be more of an experiment, led to even less academic rigor with the development
of yet a third “life adjustment education” track that concentrated on basic living skills for
nearly 60 percent of what they called “unmotivated” students (Ravich, 2001). As
American education moved further away from traditional academics, critics during this
era complained of “watered down curriculum” for all students. Experts were blamed for
their intentions of making schools more “real life” and detrimentally lowering standards,
reducing student achievement, and contributing to the decline in student motivation
(Ravich, 2001). Well into the 1950s, access to education appeared to be improving,
while the realization regarding the decline in equitable education for all students was on
the rise.
Federal Impact on Public Schools
As the 50
th
and final state to be added to the United States of America in 1959,
Hawaii would absorb the landmark federal and state controversial issues that have
historically impacted and shaped education. The series of events and course of actions
set forth in the name of educational equity and adequacy would significantly influence
education in Hawaii, and would prove to be equally important to educational practices
throughout Hawaii and the continental United States as the years unfold.
In 1954, the ground breaking Brown vs. Board of Education civil rights case got
the nation’s attention, igniting a series of litigation that would spark the long awaited

6
overhaul of American public schools. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Hispanic
and Black students deemed segregation unconstitutional, and imposed mandatory
nationwide improvement regarding adequacy for all students. The decision of the courts
further emphasized the strong need for improvement in educational outcomes for
underserved student populations (Cross, 2004), while the call to eliminate segregated
education also encouraged the provision of adequate resources for large numbers of poor
and minority students who were still attending segregated schools at the time (Rebell,
2002).
Later, the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957, ruffled up Americans and
further indicated just how far behind the U.S. was in math and science. By 1958,
President Eisenhower released millions of dollars annually through the National Defense
Act, in a massive effort that stressed education in the science and math fields (Ravich,
2001). American scholars created advanced curriculum that would train advanced
students in these fields, striving to produce future scholars that could ultimately maintain
the U.S. global standing. The push for education seemed underway, but the era of mass
education was still segregated in many parts of the country (Ravich, 2001). The quest
continued for equal education for all children.
Litigation also continued throughout the nation as more citizens challenged
educators and policy makers to provide an equal and equitable education for all children.
The federal government responded with the1964 Civil Rights Act that cut off funding
from school districts who overlooked discriminant protocols and gave legal attention to
individual students who could potentially sue (Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003). Shortly
after in 1965, more funding was made available through The Elementary and Secondary

7
Education Act (ESEA) which provided federal funds totaling over $1 billion a year for 4
years, to aid disadvantaged schools with many poor children (Anderson, 2001). With
individual states left to allocate resources for their respective public schools, the overall
effect of previous rulings were subjective. Many states in the south blatantly continued
to defy civil rights laws not only regarding education, but overall. The challenge then for
many educators and policy makers was to determine adequate needs of all children.
In the1973 Supreme Court ruling of San Antonio Independent School District v.
Rodriguez, stated that according to the federal constitution, education was not an
essential interest. This declaration led to an increase in plaintiffs seeking remedies
through state courts regarding individual state education finance systems, many of which
were won during the 1980’s due to the difficulty state courts faced in finding a system to
address funding disparities (Rebell, 2002). “While experts and justices argue about
whether educational inequities should even be acknowledged, much less corrected, the
roots of inequality grow deeper and its fruits more bitter in many communities.
Nonetheless, when a commitment is finally made to invest thoughtfully in the education
of the children who are generally left furthest behind, their ability to learn becomes
obvious, with benefits to them, their communities, and our society as a whole” Darling-
Hammond (2009).
Throughout the 70s and well into the 80s, America began to lean toward a more
business mindset and began to adopt corporate ideals in hopes to run schools more
efficiently. Business involvement in the public schools seemed conducive at a time with
the rise in unemployment, decline in workplace productivity, losses in global market
shares, and massive changes in technology that led corporate leaders and public officials

8
to discern the lag in U.S. economy (Cuban, 2001). These influences spurred changes in
school finance and the usual way that schools conducted day-to-day operations, while
improving student outcomes continued to be a nationwide struggle.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released a
quality assessment report regarding the current state of U.S. public schools in A Nation At
Risk. The analysis identified numerous areas of mediocre deficits in the America’s
educational system in comparison to other leading countries. NCEE (1983) stressed the
urgency to improve student performance at all levels of education both public and
private, through mastery of curriculum standards that align with high school curriculum
and college entrance requirements. Concerns that the nation was failing to produce
scholars in the math and science fields further signified the collective strides that would
need to be taken in order to compete in the society of global advancement.
The concept of standards-based reform continued and was most impacted by the
federally mandated No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB replaced the 1965
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in an effort to increase accountability
among states and provide a more streamlined method of measuring student performance
(NCLB, 2002). 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 between high and low achieving students, as well as increasing
accountability for disadvantaged and minority students, English language learners, and
students with disabilities that are also required to maintain proficiency on academic
assessments. The pressure of school sanctions motivated many schools to interpret what
their standards should be and how they plan to meet those standards through curriculum,

9
instruction, and assessments (Diamond & Spillane, 2003). The journey continues to be
arduous in the nationwide quest to meet the expected 100% proficiency by 2014. Despite
NCLB expectations of standards based reform and increased accountability of public
schools, other nations continue to outperform the learning outcomes of students in the
United States (Wei et al, 2009).
To further optimize standards based reform and encourage states to increase their
attention on student outcomes, the federal government increased high stakes incentives
for nationwide public schools through the Race to the Top (RTTT) program. The Obama
administration pledged to appropriate $4.35 billion to states through a competitive
process that focused on specific criteria related school wide reform, a commitment to
excellence, and compliance to adapt effective policies and practices. Authorized under
the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the competitive grant
program encourages and rewards states that are implementing significant reforms in the
four distinct areas: 1) enhancing standards and assessments, 2) improving the collection
and use of data, 3) increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher
distribution, and 4) turning struggling schools around (www.ed.gov, 2011).
In 2010, the United States Department of Education awarded stimulus funds to a
total of 12 states in two separate phases. Phase 1 RTTT recipients who received the
largest awards included Tennessee ($500 million) and Delaware ($100 million). From
the pool of applicants that included 35 states and the District of Columbia, Phase 2
winners of the competition included the states of Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and the District of

10
Columbia (www.ed.gov, 2011). Hawaii will receive a total $75 million over a four-year
period for statewide school reform initiatives.
Education in Hawaii
A Kingdom of Learning
In 1820, the first American Protestant missionaries arrived in Hawaii. Among the
first to receive English standard education from early settlers, were the children of the
Hawaii’s royal families. Nearly a decade later by 1830, schools were well established on
every island and by 1839, the first Chiefs’ Children’s School in Honolulu was opened to
educate future rulers that by then included both Hawaiians and foreigners (Cachola,
1995). Two decades later, King Kamehameha III established Hawaii’s first public school
system in 1840, which at the time was recognized as the oldest public school system west
of the Mississippi (Cachola, 1995). The constitution of 1840 also mandated free public
education and required all children to attend school, a necessity he felt was crucial for his
people. As one of the first children himself to be educated by the missionary settlers,
Kamehameha III believed strongly in education as a means to prepare Hawaii for the
evolving society that was emerging in the islands. He envisioned Hawaii as a “kingdom
of learning”. By 1850, English became the preferred language throughout an estimated
423 schools servicing an estimated twelve thousand students (Cachola, 1995).
Current Demographics
Hawaii public school enrollment has increased to 178,649 (2009-10) students and
consists of 289 schools grades K-12. The unique student population is unlike any other
state and possibly any other place in the world, serving a large majority of immigrant and
indigenous ethnicities including Part-Hawaiian (25%), Filipino (20%), Caucasian (15%),

11
and Japanese (10%). Attempts to close the achievement gap between low performing
and high performing students, specifically with the federally targeted disadvantaged and
special needs population, has been a major challenge for Hawaii public schools, which
includes 55% of students who are constituted as special needs classified in 5 categories:
Economically Disadvantaged (33%), Special Education (5%), English Language
Learners (3%), Section 504 (1%), or a combination of Multiple Special Needs (13%)
(Superintendent’s 21
st
annual report, 2010).
Hawaii Resources
Today, Hawaii is the only state in the nation with a singular statewide school
district. Although property taxes are not a source of revenue for Hawaii public schools,
the Department of Education requires more than a quarter of state general funds and
federal resources to operate annually. General appropriations for the 2010 fiscal year
declined due to budget reductions in the 2009 session of the Hawaii State Legislature.
An additional $6.44 million appropriation was factored into the 2010 fiscal budget for
payments related to health premiums, retirement benefits and debt services. These funds
were later transferred to the State of Hawaii Department of Budget & Finance. Total
revenues that were reported in the 2010 appropriated funds represent the total cost of
public education in Hawaii (Superintendent’s 21
st
Annual Report, 2010). The following
table reflects the total dollars decreased over the last three fiscal years. Budget
expenditures were also less than desired to maintain significant educational programs.

12
Figure 1.1 – Hawaii State Department of Education Budget

Hawaii Reform
Trends in the decline of U.S. global rankings in education and career
opportunities triggered the call for nationwide reform. Since 2001, Hawaii has taken
conscious steps toward planning and implementing statewide school reform. Efforts
have been made in developing an accountability structure to assist Hawaii public school
students in meeting national standards. The current operating framework includes NCLB
federal mandates of, the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE) Strategic
Implementation Plan (SIP) 2003, and the Hawaii State Act 238 (Session Laws of HI,
2000), including budgeting, program planning, and evaluation imperatives required to
meet mandates (Hess & Squire, 2009). The SIP also provided clear classroom
expectations for Hawaii public schools in three main areas: standards-based education,
sustaining a culture for lifelong learning, and continuous improvement of the system (HI
Superintendent’s Strategic Plan, 2011). The focus of Hawaii legislation shifted toward

13
improving accountability measures of statewide public education to ensure the
improvement of student achievement regarding content and performance standards.
When Hawaii legislators passed the Reinventing Education Act (REA) of 2004,
also known as Act 51, it triggered the implementation of a single statewide school
calendar, the weighted student formula (WSF), School Community Councils (SCC), and
the transfer of repair and maintenance, buildings, and human resource functions to the
HIDOE. Act 51 also granted increased authority to school communities and principals in
determining the allocation of resources to improve student achievement at the school
level. Ouchi (2003) states that giving principals more control over their budgets is not
suggestive of increased student success, further suggesting that principal autonomy must
include supportive policies like accountability, leadership development, school choice
and utilization of the Weighted Student Formula (WSF). While Hawaii’s Act 51 did not
account for adequate funding or improved instruction and curriculum, it did address
equitable distribution of funds for individual school budgets by implementing the WSF
(HIDOE Act 51, 2007). The advantages of utilizing the WSF would mean increased
funding for disadvantaged schools with high percentages of underrepresented and low
socioeconomically status students. The concept of a weighted student formula was
created with the intent of ensuring a level playing field for all students while providing
equitable resource allocations to districts and schools (Miles & Rosa, 2006).
Financial Standing
As previously mentioned, Hawaii is the one of 10 states awarded in phase 2 of
RTTT, 12 in all, and is the recipient of $75 million over 4 years for statewide education
reform. While the goal of RTTT is to promote equal opportunities for all students to

14
receive a decent education and seek post-secondary options, success of federal mandates
would also translate to increased economic growth and improved quality of life for
Hawaii residents (RTTT Executive Summary, 2010). RTTT targets compliance by 2018
when all students should meet or exceed reading and math proficiencies, and 2011
mandates that all teachers in Title I schools attain a “highly qualified” status (HQT).
Like many other states across the nation, Hawaii public schools continue to struggle to
meet federal mandates as target expectations continue to rise.
The on-going recession in Hawaii led to an abrupt cut in state revenues when the
governor enacted furloughs for the first time in history, totaling almost $474 million
(HIDOE, 2011). Hawaii public schools were subjected to the loss of 17 instructional
days in the 2009-2010 school year and 10 furlough days in the 2010-2011 school year,
eliminating all professional development days for teachers. Students were left with 163
instructional days compared to their counterparts in other states receiving an average of
180 instructional days. Lawmakers, educators, and citizens rallied to problem solve
which resulted in an agreement to end furloughs at the end of the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
To suffice, Act 143, SLH 2010, approved $67million from the Hurricane Relief Fund to
restore 11 furlough days for all DOE employees for the 2010-11school year (HIDOE,
2011).
Nationwide Resource Allocation
Across the U.S., states have been independently determining best practices to
meet federal mandates that are essential to increase student achievement. Although
NCLB is focused on standards-based reform, NCLB does formulate particular adequacy
models that could potentially assist schools with efficient allocation of resources.

15
Evidence shows that the proper allocation of resources has the potential to improve
student achievement in areas where students have historically underachieved (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
There are four primary methods for determining an adequate funding level to
achieve student performance (Guthrie & Rothstein, 2001; Odden & Picus, 2008):
1. Cost Function Model – This method uses econometric modeling to analyze and
determine sufficient resource funding that a district may need to ensure students
perform at an identified level (Rebell, 2007). Data collection of per-pupil
expenditures, student performance, and school characteristics are a part of calculating
average expenditures in order to modify effective resource allocations. Some critics
have identified concerns regarding limited application at the district level as well as
its limited detail of instructional strategies that would be effective in raising student
performance (Odden, 2003).
2. Professional Judgment Model – This approach utilizes educational experts to
determine necessary resources that are essential in implementing effective standards
based educational strategies to ensure student achievement.(Odden, 2003; Rebell,
2007). Although this method is user friendly and generates clear recommendations, it
has also been criticized for its reliance on professional opinions rather than research-
based practices (Hanushek, 2006).
3. Successful District Model – This widely used model identifies successful school
districts that consistently achieve student outcomes then sets an adequate resource
funding level using a weighted student formula for per-pupil budgeting (Odden,
2003). Critics of this approach question the lack of explanation regarding increased

16
student performance (Hanushek, 2006), and the difficulty in applying this method to
school districts that may be different from select models (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). The assumption of implementing similar budgets of a successful district to a
low-performing district may not ensure similar student successes (Odden, 2003).
4. Evidence Based Model – This approach is based on current educational research and
determines the necessary resources and strategies needed to execute a high quality
educational program for all students to reach proficiency. Odden & Picus (2008)
state that by analyzing specific school components by their actual costs, an
individualized comprehensive plan can be developed to employ best practices tailored
to any school. They further implicate that the EBM is not a prescription rather a
framework that schools can utilize to effectively allocate resources. However, there
is criticism that using an adequacy model to improve student proficiencies cannot
account for exact expenditures needed to ensure student success (Hanushek ,2006).
In education, accountability refers to the practice of holding educational systems
responsible for the quality of their products – student’s knowledge, skills, and behaviors
(Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The Evidence Based model is closely aligned with NCLB and
the growing body of accountability and adequacy research strategies that pertain to
education reform. The customization of the framework is one of its greatest advantages,
which includes considerations of unique school and district wide demographics, student
population, and specific groups of students who may require extra supports such as
English Language Learners (ELL) and Special Education (IDEA). Given the diverse
populations of the rural elementary schools that will compose this study, the tailored
options of the Evidence Based Model will be an essential part of the analysis.

17
Statement of the Problem
Allocating scarce resources is a complicated issue that can be overwhelming for
any organization, especially schools. According to Odden & Picus (2008), school
finance in particular, concerns the distribution and use of money for the purposes of
providing educational services and producing student achievement. While many local
schools are impacted by a combination of limited resources and federal constraints, the
challenge has been finding the necessary resources to make it happen. As Monk (2010)
stated, resources should not be a barrier.
Like the rest of the nation, Hawaii is tasked with the challenge of meeting rising
proficiency targets while effectively educating a diverse student population. Meanwhile,
educators and policy makers continue to search for ways to improve student achievement
in order to meet the demands of NCLB. Research on the achievement gap between low
and high performing students indicates that reaching low achieving students in the early
years of their education can have a tremendous impact on their life outcomes (McKinsey,
2009). Further research to determine effective allocation of scarce resources in rural
primary schools would be valuable in creating a tailored school wide system that is
research based and fortified to improve student performance.
Research Questions
This study will attempt to answer the following questions as they pertain to the
rural Hawaii schools in the study sample:
1. What are the instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?

18
2. How are actual resource use patterns aligned with or different from the
resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008)?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget
adjustments?
4. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine rural elementary schools in a coastal
community on Hawaii’s main island of Oahu with a high Native Hawaiian, high poverty,
and high struggling student population performing at various academic levels. The
Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) will be used as the framework to analyze
the various levels of funding and school supports. This will help to get a better
understanding of district and school resource allocation patterns regarding scarce
resources that serve a significantly high population of disadvantaged students. The Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) will also be used to profile
student outcomes of each sample school. Although there is a growing need to examine
better use of resources to improve student performance, particularly when funding levels
are significantly low, the Evidence Based model is designed to readily identify problems
and reallocate resources to better support student learning based on current research
(Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2009). It is anticipated that
the analysis of the rural schools in this study will support the Evidence Based methods of
resource allocation and instructional strategies, equipping educational leaders with

19
research based data and tools to actively engage in the process of effective and efficient
school reform.
Importance of the Study
Due to the economic downturn over the past several years, Hawaii has recently
experienced historical budget cuts through governor-enacted furloughs for the 2009-2010
and 2010-2011 school years. While funding cutbacks have occurred statewide, districts
& schools have been hit the hardest with drastic reductions in quality resources and
increased demands on faculty and staff on hand. This constitutes less resources for rural
districts and schools that are already operating on scarce budgets and often higher
populations of indigenous, ELL, and impoverished students. Equitable outcomes are no
longer the focus of education reform, research currently shows that adequacy is the
driving force to improving student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). It is expected to
confirm common resource allocation practices and instructional strategies that align with
the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009). It is also anticipated that the rural schools in this
study have been implementing best practices according to limited knowledge and
resource use, and therefore could benefit from a strategic set of approaches and practices
to avoid. Educational failure is not an option for Hawaii, especially at the primary levels
and could be lost opportunities to strengthen academic foundations of students who have
the potential to improve state retention, and ultimately benefit the overall economy as
contributing citizens. While the reality of the achievement gap exists, current research in
America also shows that only 1 in 10 low-income kindergarteners becomes a college

20
graduate, while greater number join the ranks of what has been dubbed the “prison
nation”. (Darling-Hammond, 2010)
Limitations
Limitations of this study included:
1. The schools included in this study were dependent on the participation of school-
site principals. Only three of the original six school principals agreed to be apart
of this study and completed an interview addressing the research questions.
2. Study schools were not chosen randomly, rather for demographic similarities and
rural location in the state of Hawaii. Therefore, findings should not be
generalized across rural elementary schools with similar demographics.
3. Data collection of both qualitative and quantitative information was limited to the
access and interpretation of the data gathered for this study. Many of the
expenditures were either non-existent or included in various categories.
4. Specific expenditures that were not available and difficult to decipher, forewent
the full scope comparison of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Delimitations
The following delimitations applied to this study:
1. The sample size was limited to three schools.
2. These were rural elementary schools only, located in the state of Hawaii and
may not be generalized to other states or countries.
3. Soliciting school-site principals to participate in this study.
4. Obtaining permission to collect significant data.

21
5. Data collected at each site reflected school procedures and maintenance of
tracking useful data.
Assumptions
The overall assumption is that there is sufficient data to be collected for this study
and that all such data is true and accurate. It is also assumed that by comparing the
combined frameworks of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009), the results will create
suggestions for a customized adequacy plan for each of the 6 rural elementary schools in
this study as a guide to improve student performance.
Definitions
This section includes definitions of terminology needed to better understand this
study.
1. Act 51 (AKA – Act 238): The 2004 Reinventing Education Act (REA)
implemented by the Hawaii Legislature as the current centralized accountability
system for Hawaii public schools.
2. Adequacy: Requires states to provide districts and schools with a level of
resources that allow them to implement quality programs and strategies that
enable all students to meet high standards that meet national proficiencies (Odden
et al, 2010).
4 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Enacted in 2009 by
President Obama, marks the beginning of quality resource recovery in education,
ultimately designed to stimulate the economy through avenues of education &
employment. Long-term intentions of ARRA include visionary improvements in

22
innovative strategies of education reform that will increase effectiveness and
productivity of school systems over time.
5 Accountability: The focus on school as the basic unit with an emphasis on student
outcomes as a measure of adult and system performance, including public
reporting of student achievement, and consequences for nationwide performance
(Oday, 2002).
6 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A measurement of student progress required by
national standards created by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001. Target
proficiency levels for nationwide schools by 2013-14 in the English/language arts
and mathematics content areas and required 95% participation on standardized
tests (Ed-Data, 2008).
7 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.
7. English Language Learner (ELL): A person who fluently speaks a language other
than English in the home, is in the process of learning English as a second
language, and participating in other compensatory educational curriculum.
8. Equity: Fairness of resources and funding pertaining to per-student expenditures.
Also known as vertical equity, appropriate time and attention of individual
students that are needs based, and horizontal equity, equal access of education.
(Bhatt & Wraight, 2009)

23
9. Evidence Based Model: A research based funding approach to education based on
identifying individual school-based programs and educational strategies to
improve student learning and outcomes (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
10. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Also known as the 2001 Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal accountability system that sets
the student performance standards for states to use as a guide in: 1) requiring
accountable results in schools, 2)allowing increased control and flexibility where
ever possible, 3) providing more choices for parents and families, and 3)holding
schools accountable for student performance results, 2) providing parent states
provides education (a) requiring accountability for results in schools, (b)
providing more choices for parents, (c) giving greater local control and flexibility,
and (c) implementing Evidence Based practices.
11. Race To The Top (RTTT): A competitive grant program that is a part of the
ARRA that provides $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top recipients. RTTT is
designed to compensate states that deem education as a priority and are taking
innovative steps toward effective and efficient education reform.
12. Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP): The Hawaii Department of Education’s
plan of action that will span seven years from 2011-2018, encouraging statewide
schools to implement bold educational strategies that will ensure students are
prepared for post secondary opportunities.
13. Title I Funds: A federally funded program that schools participate in to
financially assist low socioeconomic students that qualify for free or reduced
school meals.

24
14. Weighted Student Formula (WSF): A calculated amount of funds schools receive
per student that is dependent on individual need, rather than enrollment numbers,
justifying increased resources for students with higher needs (e.g. IDEA, ELL).
15. Professional Learning Community: Teams of school staff that share a common set
of core values regarding education and student achievement. PLCs collaborate
regularly to improve instructional strategies by analyzing shared data and
discussing specific students that may require extra support. (DuFour et al, 2005)

25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The pressure of nationwide educational reform has led to increased accountability
initiatives at the state level. While equitable funding primarily focuses on ensuring all
students receive the same amount of resources to assist with their learning, it does not
address student achievement or education quality (Odden & Picus, 2008). The courts
have intervened by setting national standards for states to abide by, however the shift
from equity to adequacy still requires substantial changes in school governance even
when resources are scarce. Research shows that base level expenditures must be high
enough for districts and schools to implement successful educational programs for
students to meet performance standards (Odden et al, 2003). Efforts to maximize the
allocation of scarce resources in a rural district may differ from that of an urban district,
but are still necessary at the district and school levels to provide quality standards-based
education for all students. To date, there is no clear policy that presents a fair approach
to produce adequate levels of achievement for all students. Likewise, current research
lends several adequacy models that have proven success over time, however none can
truly predict the exact measures it would take to consistently improve nationwide student
performance. Research based methods have proven to be effective thus far.
This literature will include ten sections that focus on key components of Evidence
Based research that have been proven to increase student performance. The Evidence
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) will be the implemented framework in determining
the alignment of best practices in relation to effective resource allocation. The 10
Strategies for Doubling Performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009) derived from the
Evidence Based model will also be highlighted in each of the 10 sections. This approach

26
will identify specific school level programs and strategies that research has shown to
significantly increase student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
The Evidence Based Model
As previously discussed, the theoretical framework for this study is based on the
Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Funding expenditures include: core
academic teachers, specialist or elective teachers, extended support help, specialized
education, professional development, other non-classroom schools support instructional
staff, instructional materials & equipment, student support, administration, maintenance
and operations (Odden & Picus, 2008). The following graphic representation of the
EBM (Figure 2.1) is provided for in depth visual conceptualization.
Figure 2.1 – Evidence Based Model
Source: Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan & Fermanich, (2006)

27
There have been positive impacts on student learning, especially for ELL and low
SES students with classes of 15 to1 in grades K-3, however data that supports the 25 to 1
ratio in grades 4-12 have been hard to find but supports the national average for staffing
these respective ages (Odden & Picus, 2008). Teacher Specialists are recommended for
elective classes and are determined along with Librarians on a percentage base of 20%
for elementary & middle, with a slight increase of 33% for high school. Additionally,
summer school and extended day resources are included for special needs and ELL (1 per
100) students. The model also includes specialty education for gifted, special needs and
vocational education, trainers, coaches, professional development, as well as student and
teacher support (Odden, Picus, Mangan, Goetz, & Aportela, 2007). Ten days of annual
professional development is also included in the model along with planning and
collaborative opportunities to utilize trainers and coaches that often provide relief for
core teachers.
To examine how schools allocated resources to improve student learning, Odden
(2009) and his associates studied the resource allocation patterns of several schools
across the U.S. Similar attributes of best practices combined with resource allocations
were commonly found among schools that had either successfully doubled, or nearly
doubled their student achievement. The findings of these studies provided the foundation
of the 10 research-based strategies that were developed using the Evidence Based model.
The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) identifies key
elements of proper allocation of resources to promote student learning, and links them to
the best practices that were identified in the related studies. Based on this research they
developed ten strategies for doubling student performance using the EBM approach and

28
developed an adequacy model that would help schools better define the answer to, “How
much will it cost?” (Odden, 2009).
Components of the Evidence Based model offer a research-based structure that
educational leaders can customize to create a comprehensive plan of action that could
effectively improve school fiscal operations and ultimately improved student learning.
Each component is clearly identified and includes an applied budgetary dollar figure for
each resource in the model. (Odden & Picus, 2008). An example of a prototypical
elementary school and middle school (Figure 2.2) in the following subsections provide
detailed descriptions to help better understand significant components of the EBM.
Figure 2.2: Adequate Prototypical Elementary & Middle School Resources
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6-8
Prototypical school size 432 450
Class size K-3: 15 4-5: 25 6-8: 25
Full-day kindergarten Yes NA
Number of teacher
work days
195 teacher work days
(increase of 5 days)
195 teacher work days
(increase of 5 days)
Percentage poverty (free
& reduced price lunch)
50% 50%
Percent ELL 10.6% 10.6%
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18
2. Specialist teachers 20% more assuming
a 6 period day with each
FTE teaching 5 periods: 4.8
20% more assuming
a 6 period day with each
FTE teaching 5 periods: 3.6
3. Instructional
facilitators
1/200 students: 2.2 1/200 students: 2.25
4. Tutors for struggling
students
1/100 poverty
students: 2.16
1/100 poverty
students: 2.25
5. Teachers for ELL
students
An additional 1 teacher/100
ELL students: 0.46
An additional 1 teacher/100
ELL students: 0.48
6. Extended day 1.8 1.875

29

Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.) by Odden and Picus
(2008), pp. 132-133. Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.

Since the focus of this study seeks to link proper resource allocations to the
achievement of students in Hawaii’s rural elementary schools that are likely to be smaller
than the average size urban school, the EBM provides enhanced resources to
accommodate the unique components of such schools. Student populations with high
representations of poverty, minority, and ELL are characteristics of common low-
Figure 2.2, continued
7. Summer school 1.8 1.875
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions and 1.5
aide positions
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions and 1.5
aide positions
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students
$25/student $25/student
11. Substitutes 10 days/FTE 10 days/FTE
12. Pupil support staff 1/100 poverty students:
1.32 total
1/100 poverty students plus
1 guidance/250 students:
3.18 total
13. Supervisory aides 2 2
14. Librarians/LMC 1 1
15. Principal 1 1
16. School site secretary 1 secretary and 1 clerical 1 secretary and 1 clerical
Dollar per Pupil Resources
17. Professional
development
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses– trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses– trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
18. Technology and
equipment
$250/pupil $250/pupil
19. Instructional
materials, textbooks,
assessments
$200/pupil $200/pupil
20. Student activities $250/pupil $250/pupil

30
performing schools in larger urban districts (Odden & Archibald, 2009). However, the
sample schools chosen for this study include two out of the three at-risk characteristics;
high poverty and high Native/Part Hawaiian students who are considered minorities. The
available resources of the side-by-side complex area rural elementary schools may be
lacking both in quantity and quality to support theses at-risk student populations. This
study will utilize the EBM to determine possible formulas of efficient resource
allocations for the above mentioned sample schools that will be detailed further in
chapter 3.
While critics argue that an adequacy model cannot provide the exact amount of
resources needed to ensure student success at a proficient level (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009), Odden & Picus, et al (2008) explain that the EBM is not a prescription, but rather
a framework to help schools examine how resources can be more effectively allocated to
meet student achievement outcomes. The flexibility of the EBM can be tailored to meet
the differential needs of almost any school and the framework also takes into account
unique student populations as well as the amount of students who may require added
supports such as special needs and ELL students. Several states including Arizona,
Arkansas, North Dakota, Kentucky, Washington, Wisconsin, & Wyoming have
successfully used the Evidence Based framework to estimate funding adequacy for
improved student performance (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 further clarifies the importance of schools using data regarding
student learning to identify learning needs of their unique student population. In order to

31
improve student performance, funds need to be allocated more effectively and clearly
focused on best practices that correlate with better student learning outcomes. Closer
attention must be given to school finance. It is crucial for educational leaders to know
about current funds and spending patterns of existing resource allocations to ensure
effective use. If more funds are deemed necessary according to the EBM, there can be a
realistic starting point for district and school administrators to clearly understand where
more resources are needed, and how much it will cost to those add resources.
The 10 key components of the EBM include: 1) Understanding the Performance
Problem and Challenge, 2) Setting Ambitious goals, 3) Adopting a New Curriculum &
Instructional Vision 4) Committing to Data-Based Decision Making, 5) Investing in
Ongoing Professional Development, 6) Using School Time More Efficiently, 7)
Providing Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students, 8) Creating Professional
Learning Communities, 9) Empowering Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement,
and10) Taking Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
(Odden, 2009). As previously mentioned, these key elements assist with identifying
individual school-based programs and educational strategies that research has shown to
improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
1. Understand the Performance Challenge
Education as we know it continues to evolve inevitably. The first step in creating
educational change is recognizing the “urgency” of such change and understanding the
complexity of this challenge (Odden, 2009). One major component requires effective
leadership to guide the way. While multiple theorists define leadership in various ways,
Northouse (2007) suggests that leadership is “a process whereby an individual influences

32
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.” In education, leadership is further
defined as “vital to the effectiveness of a school.” (Marzano et al, 2005). Effective
leaders set the tone of the school and play an essential role in shaping the attitudes of
faculty by cultivating professional relationships that ultimately benefit the students and
families it serves.
In a quantitative meta-analysis study conducted on school leadership as practiced
by principals, the findings indicated that principals have a significant effect on the
student achievement in their schools (Marzano et al, 2005). Principals bear most of the
responsibility for comprehensive operations that pertain to increasing student outcomes.
The federal government has given autonomy to state educational leaders and policy
makers in deciding how they will meet the demands of NCLB, however district and
school administrators are ultimately responsible for making informed data-based
decisions to assist with such demands. Odden (2009) suggests that schools must identify
and gain awareness of the learning needs pertaining to their student population in order to
efficiently focus on research-based instructional improvements that are most effective in
raising student performance. He further recommends that school leaders begin a
comprehensive analysis.
Many districts and schools are unaware of the scope of their problems until they
actually take the time to analyze the numbers (Odden, 2009). Change must include
conducting needs assessments to gauge and prioritize an action plan that clearly meets
the particular needs of a school population. An effective leader recognizes that school
wide assessment is pertinent when the organization has become stagnant in serving its

33
purpose and requires significant changes to ensure future success (Bolman & Deal,
1994).
Among other management tasks, effective educational leaders engage in
collaborative efforts to create an environment that welcomes change and encourages
creative strategies geared toward effective school reform (Ouchi, 2003). Schools that
have experienced major progress in student performance have utilized detailed
performance data to guide their decisions in understanding the performance challenge
unique to their school.
2. Set Ambitious Goals
According to Odden (2009), once an initial analysis is complete and the
performance challenge is realized, the next step involves setting ambitious goals
regardless of current student performance or demographics. Odden and Archibald (2009)
further emphasizes that while setting reasonably attainable goals bring about modest
gains that could potentially satisfy national expectations, schools must set ambitious
goals in order to experience dramatic improvements in student achievement.
Hallinger and Heck (2002) emphasize vision as a key component in
transformational leadership and highlight visionary leaders as the guiding force that
profoundly influences an organization toward positive change. While initial resistance to
change is expected, there is a tendency for educators to embrace high expectations for
learning and a sustaining system designed for performance improvement over time
(Odden, 2009). Vision is not only instrumental in setting the tone and welcoming
change, it also allows school wide stakeholders to collaborate in articulating values that
will serve as the foundation of effective problem solving. A transformational leader

34
would encourage constituents to contribute and embrace innovative ideas and
opportunities for school wide improvement, thus setting ambitious goals. This would
mean discarding less effective systems and taking on new practices that would create
transformational change, ultimately increasing student outputs.
Many schools struggle in defining high goals for all students and research shows
that it is most difficult to set goals for the high majority populations of poverty and
minority students (Odden, 2009). Low expectations often associated with these low
socioeconomic status subgroups should be ignored and goals should be set beyond
marginal expectations that these groups are often held to. Odden (2009) and his
associates pointed out that none of the schools they researched used the strategy of
focusing resources only on students nearest proficiency, often referred to as “bubble”
students, to raise their tests scores.
In fact, every school that Odden (2009) and his associates studied nearly doubled
their performance when they set ambitious goals of 90% proficiency or higher, despite
their baseline performance levels ranging from 50% to 29%. Rosalia District in
Washington increased from 43% to 85% in math proficiency and 32% to 94% in reading
proficiency. Abbotsford District in Wisconsin increased from 55% to 87% in math
proficiency and 79% to 94% in reading proficiency. Low-income students in Rosalia
District in Washington increased from 32% to 94%, while low-income students in
Madison District in Wisconsin also increased from 50% to 75% (Odden & Archibald,
2009). The National Education Goals Panel (1998) attributed their successes to their
decisions to raise achievement standards and invest in teacher knowledge and skills
(Darling-Hammond, 2010).

35
While it is recommend that established learning goals be challenging for both
students and teachers (Childress, Levin, & Delancey, 2006), research also shows that
established learning objectives that are clear and ambitious for all students significantly
improves student performance on state wide assessments (Marzano, 2003). Setting
ambitious goals are crucial to educating students at high levels and overall school
success. The focus and energy of educational leaders are greatly impacted by clarifying
how the organizational structure of a school and its allocation of resources will contribute
to the success of student achievement (Odden, Goetz, & Picus, 2010).
3. Adopt a New Curriculum
The nucleus of every successful school is the unique curriculum that has been
formulated specifically for the population it serves. This critical element is dependent on
effective program designs that support new teachers in grasping cultural and social
learning dynamics as well as equipping all teachers with implementation strategies that
are conducive to the diverse and complex classrooms they teach in (Darling-Hammond,
2006).
Schools that have set ambitious goals to improve student achievement have
focused on educational programs and strategies that they could control and have invested
in curriculum decisions that best fit their performance challenges (Odden, 2009). In
recent years, school leaders have been given more autonomy over the allocation of
resources on site. Schools and districts have also gained increased control over everyday
operations that include the organization of curriculum and instruction, curriculum
program and textbooks, academic expectations, and instructional practices (Odden,
2009).

36
All schools that Odden (2009) and his associates studied changed their curriculum
of choice by discarding older systems and either adopting or creating a new curriculum
that best fit the performance challenge of their student populations. Several profiled
schools selected comprehensive programs including Core Knowledge, Expedition
Learning/Outward Bound, Modern Red Schoolhouse, and Success for All (Odden &
Archibald, 2009). Abbotsford switched to a guided reading program, Kennewick selected
the Open Court reading program and Appleton chose the school wide Different Ways of
Knowing program due to their high numbers of ELL students (Odden & Archibald,
2009). To improve proficiency in mathematics, LaCrosse adopted Math Investigations
and Monroe selected the Every Day math program along with several other schools in the
study. Every school that was studied adopted and implemented a new curriculum based
on their performance challenges with the intentions of dramatically improving school
wide achievement for all students.
While the movement in United States continues toward implementing a national
standards-based approach, high stakes testing is not always an accurate representation of
what students are capable of academically. Meeting AYP seems arbitrary compared to
competitive global ideologies. Schools are now tasked with preparing future generations
to take on roles in society that require a rigorous curriculum that is conducive to the
demands of the 21
st
century. To prepare students to meet the high demands of the future,
educators must implement engaging and challenging curriculum with concepts that
students can understand deeply, search and use information confidently, collect data and
evidences, evaluate ideas and develop skills of analysis (Darling-Hammond, Alexander,
& Price, 2002). In other parts of the world, many countries have shifted their approach

37
to education toward a more creative thinking and problem solving oriented instruction
(Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In the past, many Asian countries have been known to produce highly skilled
individuals in Math, resulting from a highly rote driven curriculum. However, recent
literature indicates that the stereotypical view of the Asian education systems is actually
false and has instead found their programs include content richer in depth, more
manipulative activities and learning supports, increased opportunities for engaging and
collaborative learning, and require knowledge application to more complex problems
than the United States (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In recent years, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies
(TIMSS) ranked Singapore first internationally in math proficiency in 1995, 1999, and
2003. Roughly 90% of Singapore students scored above the international median on the
TIMSS tests (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Top honors have preceded the nations
intentional efforts to improve student achievement for all students in math and science
due to a long history of lagging scores, especially minorities.
After three decades of investing in education, in 1997 Singapore began a major
overhaul quest to its national education system when the nation’s prime minister declared
the “thinking schools, learning nation” initiative (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The vision
of organizational change that was disseminated through out the country included major
reform efforts in assessment, curriculum, and pedagogy in order to develop a school
culture of critical and creative thinking that complimented their already expanding
commitment to integrated technology (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Further initiatives to
“teach less, learn more”, encouraged teachers focus more on in-depth quality pedagogy,

38
creating opportunities for student initiatives to “shape their own learning” and
proactively engage in the learning process (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Once a new approach has been chosen, simultaneously teachers must
collaboratively work to develop more effective ways to deliver the curriculum and
expand the effort more systemically to all classes and schools in a district (Odden, 2009).
Teachers who work together in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) not only
develop effective ways of teaching new curriculum, they create a professional
environment of support and continuity that adds value to the overall school culture
through the change process that ultimately benefits students.
4. Commit to Data-Based Decision Making
The pressure of increased accountability in the last decade has changed the way in
which educational leaders plan for success. Data based decision making often
contributes to such initiatives in the most relied upon form of high stakes testing. While
test scores present valuable information for system wide accountability tracking, these
indicators are merely a part of the system that requires other sustainable components.
Accountability in education is more of a process of interpreting and implementing
relevant data that promotes productive practices. Therefore, policies and systems
regarding accountability do not guarantee improved student practices nor does it ensure
effective pedagogy. Educational accountability relies on the investment of its leaders to
forge competent teacher alliances that cultivate a rich understanding of content matter,
student learning strategies, and diverse pedagogical techniques, that foster student
learning and meeting high standards (Darling-Hammond, 2004).

39
Although research supports multiple layers of testing beyond state requirements
and verified increases in student achievement can be traced to the use of various types of
assessments, some educators believe that there is already too much testing in U.S.
Schools (Odden, 2009). However, utilizing data to formulate decisions for school wide
reform remains critical to improving as well as maintaining system wide programs and
curriculum. Schools that have experienced an increase in student achievement have
implemented various types of assessments to gather and track data to direct their
instructional practices (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald 2009). These assessments may
include benchmark assessments that are usually given quarterly, measuring summative
data on student learning regarding content taught during the previous nine weeks, as well
as formative assessments that are more diagnostic in nature and typically given at
specific points in time within a nine-week instructional period.
While annual state wide testing results are valuable in determining school wide
effectiveness, experts highlight the benefits of benchmark and formative assessments that
are given to individual students during the school year to help teachers adjust classroom
strategies along the way. Odden (2009) suggests that formative assessments can be
customized to identify specific benchmarks or standards and results can be used to
inform educators of their effectiveness in the teaching of content standards as well as
student grasping related concepts. He further entails the necessity of professional
development support for teachers to assist translating the collection of formative
assessment data into concrete instructional strategies that requires an expertise that most
teachers do not possess (Odden, 2009).

40
Black and William (1998) discovered that careful attention toward formative
assessments particularly assists low achieving students by reducing the range in
achievement while simultaneously raising overall achievement. They further claim that
any amount of improvement that supports significant gains for such students are essential
due to the fact that struggling students notably tend to lack academic confidence, possess
learning disabilities, struggle with acting out conduct behaviors, and/or become
chronically truant, often leading to more serious societal problems. For students to gain
awareness and connectedness to their school and teachers, self-assessment as a part of
formative assessments can play an important role in supporting student achievement.
Black and William (1998) describe three key elements coupling these assessments:
“recognition of the desired goal, evidence about present position, and some
understanding of a way to close the gap between the two” (p.6). Defining targets that
students can utilize empowers them to assess themselves and evaluate sufficient data that
paints a clear picture of personal learning goals and the roadmap of how to achieve them.
Furthermore, if the culture of a school exemplifies support for all students to achieve at
high levels, then the motivation for students to take more initiative in their own learning
will show. Students could then benefit profoundly from a classroom culture that involves
shared critical thinking and in depth discussions between peers and teachers (Black and
William, 1998). Districts, schools, and teachers that seriously commit to making data
driven decisions are able to precisely identify areas of concern and need, efficiently
respond with necessary resources, and effectively inform instruction to maximize
learning for all students.

41
5. Invest in On-Going Professional Development
Successful schools that have experienced dramatic increases in student
performance intentionally invest in on-going professional development. Odden (2009)
claims that implementing a newly developed curriculum requires professional
development to assist teachers in acquiring and sustaining the expertise to incorporate
such strategies in their instructional practices. He further states that substantial
improvements in student achievement are notably linked to program strategies and
classroom based instructional practices of effective professional development (Odden,
2009).
Professional development must focus on student learning and incorporate select
curriculum content that has been tailored for a specific school. Darling-Hammond et al
(2009) suggests that professional development is most effective when it addresses the
concrete and everyday challenges involved in the field of teaching that are often specific
and abstract in nature. Such professional development should also be ongoing, intensive,
and deeply rooted in practice. Studies show that while professional development
activities that range between 30 and 100 hours over the course of 12 months produces
significant academic gains for students, data from similar studies with a declined
frequency of 5 to 14 hours of professional development activities indicated no effect on
student learning (Darling-Hammond et al, 2009). Furthermore, a teacher survey
pertaining to views of professional development activities indicated that the most
effective activities were the ones that were efficiently sustained over time (Darling-
Hammond et al, 2009).

42
To meet national and statewide demands, districts and schools are expected to
improve student performance over time with the resources they already have. Elmore
(2005) argues that whether schools engage in external or internal accountability policies
toward instructional improvement, building individual and organizational capacity is
needed. He further adds that this improvement must be learned in order for educators to
gain the knowledge and skills required to improve student learning and boost school wide
performance. Research suggests that new instructional practices that pertain specifically
to issues of student learning increases student performance and are dependent on the
organization’s ability to provide educators with the necessary ongoing and intensive
professional development (Elmore, 2005).
Through extensive research, Wei, et al. (2009) discovered that effective
instruction takes place when district and school administrators are able to provide: 1)
Time for professional collaboration and learning that is built into the teacher day; 2)
Ongoing activities of professional development that focus on content and context
oriented; 3) Extensive opportunities for both formal and informal in-service
development; 4) Supportive induction programs for new teachers; and 5) School
governance structures that involve teachers in decisions about curriculum, instruction,
and professional development. Investing in these school inputs provides the supports that
teachers need to be equipped to improve student learning and ultimately raise
achievement.
While student learning is only one crucial aspect of professional development,
other valuable outcomes important in education include creating changes in teacher
knowledge and practice, implementing new programs, promoting changes in school

43
culture, and developing teachers leadership (Loucks-Horsely & Matsumoto, 1999). The
“nature” and “quality” of such professional development consists of four essential
elements according to Loucks-Horsley, & Matsumoto (1999): 1) content – the material
that is learned; 2) process – how the content learned; 3) strategies and structures – the
organization of the content learned; and 4) context - the conditions regarding the learned
content. They further argue that teachers are only able to sustain notable changes
regarding learned instructional strategies that promote student learning with the strong
support of their schools and districts. It is also critical to incorporate instructional
coaches to assist in capacity building and sustainable instructional efforts assists with the
ongoing cycle of issues that inevitably arise as teachers work through new practices,
program curriculum, and technology (Loucks-Horsely & Matsumoto, 1999).
Odden (2009) also identifies six structural features that are essential of effective
professional development:
1. Form – refers to the method of a professional development activity and
how it is organized in terms of a study group, teacher network,
committee, workshop, mentoring collaborative, or curriculum
development group. Research suggests that effective professional
development follows best practices and should be school-based, job
embedded, and ongoing.
2. Duration – relates to the frequency hours an educator spends on an
activity over time. 100 to 200 hours of annual ongoing and continuous
professional development provides teachers with valuable learning
experiences that promote success.

44
3. Collective Participation - involves a collective component that
includes groups of educators within the same district, school, grade
level or department that contribute to the success of an organization.
Setting aside time for this process to occur and allowing time for the
expansion to include contributing stakeholders is an essential part of
professional development.
4. Content Focus – refers to the caliber to which an activity is focused on
cultivating and enhancing teachers’ content knowledge and discerning
practical ways of how students learn that content best (Odden, 2009).

5. Active Learning – incorporates various activities that promote teaching
and learning opportunities that are engaging and meaningful for
participants, emphasizing the effectiveness of incorporating new
strategies under the direction of instructional coaches (Odden, 2009).
6. Coherence – relates to the degree in which the activity fosters the
professional development that aligns with key parts of the educational
system such as state performance standards, district and school goals,
and teacher evaluations (Odden, 2009).
Darling-Hammond (2010) states that extensive professional development assists
educators in learning how to use frequent diagnostic assessments of student progress that
is tied to instructional planning. Professional development must focus on individualized
student data that teachers can effectively utilize to guide their instructional practices
(Porter et al, 2005), and allow teachers to seek ways to incorporate new ideas, learn and

45
use formative assessments, and improve best practices as an integrated part of an
evolving school culture (Black & William, 1998).
The depths and layers of professional development that exist today are many.
The focus on teacher supports for learning, practicing, and maintaining effective teaching
strategies that collectively boost student and school wide performance are essential in all
areas of education. Consistent gains in student achievement prove to be evident in
ongoing and intensive professional development investments (Odden, 2009). Building
capacity in this particular area is beneficial to the culture of a school in need of change.
Urbanski & Nikolau (1997) refer to effective teachers as “change agents”, frontline
educators who are highly influential in the classroom and among colleagues in evoking
the change that schools need.
6. Focus Class Time More Efficiently
An essential step attributed to increasing student performance is the efficient use
of instructional time throughout the school day. While many schools across the nation
have experimented with changing school days, calendar years, or both, there is little
evidence that can formulate significant outcomes for student learning. With the
exception for struggling students (special needs & ELL), participation in extended day,
extended school year, and summer programs help to decrease the likelihood of academic
regression and rather promotes continuous and meaningful learning experiences that are
necessary for student progress. Extended time for this particular population has proved
to increase student performance (Odden, 2009).

46
In a study conducted by Odden & Archibald (2009) none of the schools extended
their school days or years, instead instructional time was adjusted to meet school and
student needs.
Elementary schools adjusted class time in blocks for core subjects of math and
reading with careful attention to “protect” valuable instructional time by minimizing
distractions and interruptions. Extended time in either 90 to 120 minute blocks were also
set aside for important subjects such as reading and math, to promote quality instructional
time for student and staff engagement.
To maximize class time efficiently, elementary schools in Kennewick,
Washington also utilized “academic learning time” (ALT), the formal allocation of
instructional time that closely aligns with student learning; when instruction is actually
provided and students are actually engaged (Odden, 2009). To increase ALT,
Kennewick used both whole-group and small-group instructional strategies during their
120 minute time blocks for reading, allocating 60 minutes to each of the two time frames
and strategically organized by age and reading level. Schools that implement the ten
strategies often discover ways to use time more effectively and did not require any
additional funding, rather more strategic allocations of existing resources (Odden, 2009).
Other strategies that focus class time more efficiently at the elementary level
includes keeping class sizes to the recommended 15 to 1 ratio for grades K-3, facilitating
social relationships that form among teachers, students and their families, and teaching
more individualized instruction that could simplify the formative assessment process
(Odden, 2009). The investment of quality teaching and student engagement time will

47
ultimately be worth the resources spent if priority is given to increasing student
performance.
7. Provide Multiple Interventions For Struggling Students
Multiple interventions are a necessity for struggling students. The EBM
specifically identifies extended time for this population of students as a critical
component to improving student proficiency as well as overall school performance.
Schools that have been successful in doubling or nearly doubling performance
implemented a range of tutoring supports and incorporated extended-day programs that
included academic, cultural, and recreational components (Odden, 2009). According to
the EBM, schools that provide extended learning opportunities for struggling students
also have the option of budgeting resources to offer time outside of the regular school
year such as extended- day or after school programs, summer school, and extended
supports during calendar breaks (Odden & Picus, 2008). A number of schools and
districts have provided extra supports and extended time for their struggling students
needing differential support in core curriculum classes (Darling Hammond, 2010).
Odden (2009) presents four tiers of interventions geared toward increasing
student achievement. The first tier includes providing all students with high quality
instruction. The second tier incorporates strategies within the regular classroom that are
guided by formative assessments and may include individual or small group tutoring
and/or instruction by a licensed teacher. On occasion, a trained instructional aide may
conduct tutoring and a second teacher may also be added to co-teach for increased
support and continuity for students with more complex challenges. The third tier includes
extended time through extended day opportunities for students with more intensive

48
learning needs that require extensive support. The fourth stage, if needed, is yet an even
higher level of intensive support that provides students with identified disabilities with a
program that is geared toward their specific disability. Each tier of instructional support
is added only after previous tiers have been exhausted and the student still needs
additional assistance (Odden, 2009).
Tutoring has proved to be highly effective for struggling students due to the
timeliness of immediate attention to learning challenges (Odden, 2009). The value of
tutoring, especially one-to-one, is one of the most intensive academic support strategies
that can be offered to a struggling student, reducing the rates of future remedial
instruction. Effective tutoring should be determined by formative assessments and based
on student progress toward proficiency. It should also be offered on an only as-needed
basis and tied to a specific learning problem since it is meant as a short-term intervention.
The goal of tutoring is to transition a struggling student back into the regular classroom
setting once proficiency in a benchmark is attained, the student is cycled back into the
classroom (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
8. Create Professional Learning Communities
The eighth step involves creating Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that
are built on the development of a collaborative school culture. PLCs as we know it
today, have the potential to work relentlessly to boost student performance. Unlike the
previous strategies, this strategy is not created by the schools and districts before
engaging in 10 Strategy process, rather it is the culmination of previous ongoing
activities that involve true collaborative efforts of educational stakeholders who desire to
attain ambitious goals over satisfying bureaucratic gains (Odden & Archibald, 2009).

49
Organizations that invest in high expectations for student achievement include “small
learning communities; continuous, long-term relationships between adults and students;
advisory systems that systematically organize counseling, academic supports, and family
connections, and small class sizes and reduced pupil loads for teachers that allow them to
care effectively for students” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p.246)
Schools that have experienced significant achievement outcomes encouraged
collaborative rather than individual isolated practices. These efforts helped to foster
commonalities related to effective instructional practice, peer teaching observations, and
utilization of formative assessments to tailor instruction (Odden & Archibald, 2009). As
a result, the topic of instruction became transparent and sparked professional
conversations that added value to professional culture and development experiences.
Ultimately, enhancing the primary focus of professional collaboration that research
shows should link learning directly to school curriculum (Odden, 2009; Darling-
Hammond, 2002).
According to Bensimon (2004), educators must first be aware that an achievement
gap exists. Secondly, teachers must be involved in a process that allows them to interpret
the meaning of the gap, encouraging teachers to process and reflect on their own
practices. Participating in data analysis promotes teacher reflection regarding personal
attitudes and perspectives. Actively involving teachers in seeking out solutions to
problems that arise may inspire change. Data analysis acts as a catalyst for real change
that prompts educators to reflect on how their own practices might be contributing to a
problem (Bensimon, 2004).

50
Clark & Estes (2001) presents a motivational index that aligns with engaging
teachers in Professional Learning Communities:
1. Active Choice- occurs when teachers are actively involved in seeking out
data that supports the problem to determine distinct solutions.
2. Mental Effort- takes lace when teachers work collaboratively to create a
shared plan and share the responsibility of improving school wide
initiatives.
3. Persistence- occurs when teachers develop, implement, and monitor a
plan that is supported by data driven decision-making.
Schools that have made significant gains included pupil free time during normal
instructional days for teacher collaboration. Continuity efforts in school wide reform
involve setting aside 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 to forge 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.
DuFour (2004) presents three big ideas that describe effective PLCs, the first
suggests the need for a cognitive shift in school culture from a focus on teaching to a
focus on learning. Profound changes are possible when teachers begin to focus on
student learning, regardless of their abilities. PLCs enable educators to become aware of

51
the misalignment between their commitment to student learning and the lack of
coordinated strategies to respond to students who struggle with learning. Issues may be
discussed as they arise and strategies can be designed to immediately implement added
supports for struggling students. The second idea consists of a teacher shift from an
independent to collaborative working system. Members work together to achieve
common goals that are linked to student learning and commit to a culture of common
vision and collective attitudes that promote accountability among professionals. Lastly,
the third big idea focuses on he shift from external to internal issues of a school, by
utilizing data to make informed decisions that address areas of concern that align with the
overall vision of the school (DuFour, 2004; DuFour, et al., 2006).
Building teacher capacity is an essential process of building school wide reform
and professional culture. Kirkpatrick (2006) presents four levels of evaluating the success
of professional development: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results –to effectively
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, utilizing pre-tests and post-tests to measure if new knowledge and
skills were acquired and what participants have learned during a particular training
activity. Kirkpatrick (2006) further 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. He also gives sensible advice about encouraging leaders to reflect
on available resources and how much of an organization’s budget and persons can be
dedicated to evaluating programs. He further suggests building leadership capacity
among stakeholders to share accountability, creating “buy in.” Above all, patience

52
within an organization is crucial allow new programs foster and allow for changes in
behavior to take place (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
9. Promote Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
District Leadership, school administrators and frontline teachers are collectively
essential leaders in improving instruction for all students to learn at high levels.
Leadership at all levels of an educational system can assist in generating “ambitious”
student achievement outcomes (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
While school principals play a huge role in the success of a school, they are not
humanly equipped to handle everything on their own. Such tasks include directing
instructional leadership regarding curriculum planning, developing professional learning
strategies, mentoring and coaching teachers, and assisting with analyzing formative
assessments (Odden, 2009). There are opportunities for widespread leadership to assist
with important responsibilities to improve student outcomes such as promoting teachers
to take on an instructional coach or curriculum facilitator role. Principals are able to
expand their leadership team by delegating strategies to other committed educators who
are willing to invest in the vision and mission of their school. Effective leaders are
abreast of organizational team members, are alert to recognize potential leaders, and are
open to nurturing emergent leaders (Bolman & Deal, 1994).
A common quality that successful and high achieving schools possess is effective
leadership (Ouchi, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Odden, Goetz & Picus,
2010). Leaders need to be able to stimulate followers to be creative and innovative,
challenge personal as well as organizational values and beliefs (Northouse, 2007). As
strong and highly influential role models, transformational leaders motivate and inspire

53
individuals to commit to a shared vision and high expectations of an organization.
Followers also rely on their high standards of moral and ethical conduct (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Collaborative efforts of effective leaders and school
stakeholders assist in the implementation and maintenance process of daily operations
that allow students to engage and contribute to their own learning.
Bolman & Deal (2002) are convinced that leadership qualities are to a certain
extent, “rooted in faith and soul, emerging over the course of an individual’s life
journey.” They further present 5 qualities that have been consistent across effective
leaders:
1. Focus – The difficult task of getting everyone moving in the right direction
includes first knowing where you are and which direction to you are going.
Effective leaders have an “internal compass” and are visionary opportunist
who naturally lead their teams in the desired direction.
2. Passion – Outstanding leaders possess innate intentions of making a
difference in the lives of the children and families they serve. They show
genuine care and relentless commitment that is hard to fake and often
contagious
3. Wisdom – Often the most experienced leaders, they are veterans to their craft.
They are able to recognize and appreciate complex issues, finding clear
patterns and order when navigating toward a destination.
4. Courage – Courageous leaders take risks and make decisions in spite of
conflicting facts. They are confident to forge ahead even when they are
wrong and are open to dialogue with critics.

54
5. Integrity – Considered the “moral compass”, integrity inspires the depths of
honesty, trust, and loyalty.
Urbanski and Nickolau (1997) signify that clarifying roles and expectations of
school administrators and teachers must occur to experience meaningful change. Prior to
recent views of educators wearing multiple hats and taking on a variety of
responsibilities, administrators are no longer seen as just managers and teachers are no
longer just teaching. Furthermore, educators as professionals have become more
involved in leadership and curriculum as a collaborative effort, establishing cohesive
relationships and encouraging new innovative roles.
Administrators and teachers are viewing their roles and their search for solutions
to problems through multiple lenses that Bolman and Deal (2008) describe as four
frames: 1) structural, 2) human resource, 3) political, and 4) symbolic. While leadership
continues to guide schools, principals are seeking input from constituents and involving
teachers options related to curriculum and professional development (Urbanski &
Nikolaou, 1997). Change is never easy and remains a work in progress. Effective
widespread and distributed leadership can help to ease the natural progression of such
change.
10. Encourage Professional & Best Practices
Organizations that actively search for ways to improve student achievement are
aware of existing literature and data that exhibit effective change. Educational leaders
are also proactive in seeking expertise and best practices from other professionals who
have a proven track record of dramatically improving student performance (Odden &
Archibald, 2009). Schools that have doubled student performance not only seek the

55
guidance of experts during the planning process, they also experiment with reallocating
resources to find the best fit. In alignment with the EBM, elementary schools included in
the study tried reducing class sizes in K-5 down to 15, and over time found that the
change was most effective for the respective grades, especially for minority and low-
income students (Odden, 2009).
With the wealth of knowledge and data that is available, educational leaders and
policy makers are only limited by what they are willing to access and implement.
Research shows that successful teachers deploy effective instructional strategies in their
classrooms and are well equipped with a repertoire of strategies that best fit the students
they teach (Marzano, 2003). However, if teachers do not have the means and support to
execute current quality teaching strategies for students to learn at high levels, student
achievement may remain stagnant. A strategic benefit of the EMB directly targets
increasing student performance by focusing on data driven best practices of school wide
improvement, even if it means discarding programs that lack significant gains in student
performance (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Conclusion
This study will utilize the resource allocation framework of Odden et al (2008) to
examine how schools are strategically using their resources to improve student
achievement. The Evidence Based Model offers a research-based point of comparison
when looking at the individual elementary school case studies. The schools in this study
improved despite their challenging student demographics and limited funding. The
interest of the study is in comparing the resource allocations, educational strategies, and
best practices that each school utilized to improve the efficacy of students outcomes, in

56
relation to the Evidence Based Model (Odden, 2003). The “best practices” used in the
Evidence Based Model have been cited as key elements in numerous studies on
education (DuFour et al., 2006; Elmore, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Marzano, 2005; Odden,
2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005). The next chapter explains the
methodology of the study including the research questions and the sample selection.

57
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes the individual research questions, instruments used to
collect data, prospective sample and the planned data analysis of the entire study. As
previously stated in preceding chapters, the main focus of this research was to
incorporate the use of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) created by Odden & Picus
(2008) as the chosen framework to analyze the resource allocation patterns in schools and
the extent to which the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009)
were implemented and related to student outcomes within each respective school. Both
the EBM and the 10 strategies provide policy makers, researchers, and practitioners with
specific recommendations regarding how resources can be utilized at the school level to
produce significant improvements in student outcomes (Odden & Archibald, 2009). This
study was limited to the examination of three rural elementary schools on the leeward
coast of Oahu, Hawaii that are part of the state’s single district, and additional attention
to the unique resource allocation challenges and opportunities that these organizations
present. This independent project was one of eight occurring at the University of
Southern California’s Hawaii Cohort in a thematic dissertation group dedicated to
exploring the link between resource allocation, instructional strategies, and student
achievement in Hawaii schools through the examination of school level data.
Research Questions
This study was framed by the following four research questions as they pertain to the rural
Hawaii schools in the study sample:
1. What are the instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?

58
2. How are actual resource use patterns aligned with or different from the
resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008)?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget
adjustments?
4. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
This study employed a mixed methods approach (Patton, 2002) to capture the
various issues that Hawaii rural schools deal with in order to provide quality education
for the students they serve. Utilizing a combined quantitative and qualitative approach
allowed for an in depth examination of actual documented resource allocations, the
overall costs and benefits of key stakeholders, as well as the rationale behind such
decisions of individual school principals. Research has shown that using a combination
of sources to gather information employs a more comprehensive perspective of a
program and formulates different data sources for a researcher to cross-check and
validate findings (Patton, 2002).
Population and Sample
This study used a purposeful sample of three rural elementary schools located in
coastal communities that are highly populated with low-income and Native/Part
Hawaiian residents on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The schools in this sample are
traditional state public schools that serve K – 6
th
grade students relatively diverse in size,
with a low of 485 students to a high of 885 per school site. As previously mentioned, the
focus of this study was to understand how rural schools in Hawaii allocate and use

59
educational resources to improve student learning. The EBM offers one basis of
comparison for alternative ways to allocate available resources. Student populations with
high representations of poverty, minority, and ELL are characteristics of common low-
performing schools in larger urban districts (Odden & Archibald, 2009) and reflect many
similar characteristics of the schools in this study. All of the sample schools in this study
contain two out of the three at-risk characteristics; high poverty and high Native/Part
Hawaiian students who are considered minorities. The percentage of students receiving
free or reduced-cost lunch range from 62.5% to 81.7%; students in special education
programs range from 7.7% to 16.1%; and students that speak English as a second
language range from 0% to 9.9%. The percent of kindergartners that attended pre-school
range from 23.3% to 53.5% and the percent of families with children living in poverty
range from 20.7% to 25.7%, where as the Hawaii state average is 11.2%. The majority
of the study school populations include a range of 62.4% to 93.6% Native/Part Hawaiian
students, some of the largest complex representations in the state. Table 3.1 below
provides a visual summary of the 2009-2010 student enrollment and significant subgroup
demographics of individual sample schools. Pseudonyms have been used for
confidentiality purposes.

60
Table 3.1 – Sample School Student Enrollment and Demographics

Sample School
Student
Enrollment
%
Native/Part
Hawaiian
%
SPED
%
ELL
%
Free &
Reduced
KOKUA Elementary 580 68.2 69 5.0 82
LAULIMA Elementary 834 66.4 67 6.3 76
MALAMA Elementary 435 93.6 94 0.0 72

To track Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in accordance with federal NCLB
initiatives, the state of Hawaii utilizes the standards based Hawaii State Assessment
(HSA). As a way of measuring the growth of local schools one year to the next, annual
reading and math proficiency mean scores are analyzed to determine a school’s AYP
standing and NCLB status. All three sample schools have been in restructuring and have
received sanctions at various levels while the range of school restructuring phases also
vary. Two of the three sample schools have met AYP for the 2009-2010 school year.
Table 3.2 below provides the breakdown of each school in reading and math for the 2009
– 2010 school year, their overall AYP standing, and their NCLB status.
Table 3.2 – Sample School Proficiency, AYP Standing, & NCLB Status
Sample School
KOKUA LAULIMA MALAMA
2009-2010
Reading
Proficiency

47%

55%

52%
2009-2010
Math Proficiency

45%

47%

60%
AYP Standing

Not Met

Met

Met
NCLB
Status

School
Improvement
In Good
Standing,
Unconditional

Restructuring

61
Instrumentation and Data Collection
As a part of a larger body of research being conducted by the University of
Southern California’s Hawaii Cohort, a comprehensive eight-hour training session was
conducted on September 17, 2011 by thematic group chair Dr. Lawrence Picus to
establish data collection protocols and determine best practices. Along with the data
collection protocols, which include a series of open-ended questions intended to obtain
each school’s strategy for improving performance (Appendix A), a codebook (Appendix
E) was also distributed that details the individual data collection items, as well as their
definitions. All researchers in the thematic dissertation group utilized the same protocols
and instruments to gather data and entered the information into an online database using
secure web-interface.
Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative data were gathered and organized according to the data developed by
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) and includes the following main areas:
1. School profile data and contacts- identifying information including physical
address, state identification number, website, and the contact information of
the person at the school site.
2. District profile data and contacts- identifying items such as physical address,
state identification number, website, and the contact information of the person
at the district office.
3. School resource indicators- indicator such as school enrollment, grade span,
number of ELL students, length of school day, length of math class, etc.

62
4. Core academic teachers- number of licensed grade-level teachers who teach
core subjects.
5. Specialist and elective teachers- number of specialist teachers such as art,
music, and physical education, who often provide regular classroom teachers
with planning and preparation time.
6. Library staff- full-time equivalents (FTEs) assigned to library related
instruction/tasks such as library media specialists or library aides.
7. Extra-help staff- FTEs consisting mainly of licensed teachers used in a variety
of strategies to assist struggling students or students with special needs.
8. Other instructional staff- number of staff members that support a school’s
instructional program but do not fit in previous categories such as consultants
(excluding those related to professional development) and permanent
substitutes.
9. Professional development staff and costs- FTEs and other expenditure
elements related to providing processional development for a school.
10. Student services staff- school-based support staff such as counselors along
with positions and expenditures related to extra-curricular activities and
athletics.
11. Administrative staff- number of staff entered as FTEs dedicated to
administrative functions such as the principal, secretary, technology
coordinator, etc.
12. Elementary class size- recorded for grades K - 6
th
.

63
Qualitative Data Collection
The qualitative data collected and the data collection protocols (Appendix A) are
based on a series of adequacy studies and research conducted by Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates (Odden et al, 2007; Picus et al, 2008). As stated previously, the data were
collected in a series of open-ended interviews with school principals designed to focus on
understanding the key elements of instructional improvement efforts with less emphasis
on the process aspect, addressing the following areas:
1. Curriculum and Instructional Vision- determines items such as content focus,
assessments, and curricula utilized in the instructional improvement effort.
2. Resource Allocation- explores specific resource elements of the instructional
strategy, such as implementation details of class size reduction and
interventions, along with how long they have been in place.
3. Instructional Leadership- analyzes whether the improvement effort was
central office initiated (top down) or bottom up, regarding other leadership
issues.
4. Accountability- explores items built into the plan such as the requirement of a
School Board report that helped solidify focus.
After the initial training session, all members of the thematic dissertation group
made contact with the principals of their prospective schools via e-mail, telephone
conversations, or in-person meetings to introduce themselves, the purpose and parameters
of the study, and to secure the school’s consent to participate. Additionally, a tentative
appointment for the in-depth interview was scheduled after conducting a quick review of

64
some of the documents and information that would be useful for the researcher to review
before hand. The following list details the documents requested for review:
1. School/Site Budget (resource allocation)
2. Staff Roster/Assignments (number and duties of personnel)
3. School/Site Plan (instructional programs, focus and plans)
4. Bell Schedule (instructional minutes, professional development/collaborative
or individual planning time)
5. School Mission Statement (instructional focus)
These items were obtained in electronic form and if available, downloaded from
public sources such as the school or district website to minimize the burden of
participation for the school principal. Researchers reviewed the data collection protocols
to ensure all researchers were comfortable with and understood the parameters governing
the study before the actual interviews were conducted with site principals. After the
refresher training was completed, interviews with the principals began given that the
thematic group’s collective exemption from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was
received, (September 2011). Hard copies of the above documents were also shared upon
request of the researcher by school-site principals at the time of the scheduled interviews.
Follow-up conversations to verify specific strategies and resource expenditures occurred
by phone or email throughout the fall of 2011 and spring of 2012.
Data collected in the full principal interviews and the preceding and subsequent
analysis were both quantitative and qualitative with a multiple methods design (Patton,
2002). According to previous research studies, utilizing several methodologies to obtain
and analyze resource allocations as well as implement effective instructional strategies

65
that result in improved student outcomes, are highly suggested. Extensive research
regarding the School Site Allocation Model (SSAM) incorporates the use of separate
expenditures that school sites receive through five different categories: administration,
operations, pupil support, staff support, and instructional support (Cooper, 1993). A
similar streamlined model that tracks centralized resources used at the school sites
utilized similar categories of district expenditures by recording costs according to a
district multi layer framework indicates how shared district allocation of resources at the
school level can be separated as a result of student need (Miller, Roza, and Swartz,
2004). As this particular study focused on rural elementary schools, a more appropriate
methodology and framework is the Evidence Based Model detailed by Odden and Picus
(2008). The EBM provides a point of comparison between the actual resources each
school site has allocated and the level of resources that are suggested, based on extensive
research and best practices.
Case Studies
The data collected pertaining to the improvement instructional strategies
exhibited in the sample schools were synthesized into a series of case studies. This
format allowed the comprehensive comparison within and between schools included in
the sample and further examination of how their resource allocation and instructional
improvement strategies compare with those suggested by the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden
& Archibald, 2009). Patton’s (2002) framework was utilized to compose all 6 case
studies and the raw data were assembled and organized into a condensed case record that

66
will be generated and classified with the final detailed case study formulated as a
narrative of each school.
While case studies have been criticized by some researchers as being too
subjective, lacking in rigor, and producing findings that cannot be generalized across
settings (Merriam, 1988), the format as implemented in this study allows for a
meaningful comparison of sample school resource allocation and the instructional
strategies implemented to increase the likelihood of positive student outcomes. The
issues of subjectivity and rigor have been carefully considered with the comprehensive
training session and clear data collection protocol developed and used in several other
USC dissertations in California over the last four years are used as tools to minimize any
inherent problems with the format. In terms of the issue of generalizable findings, while
each individual study features a relatively small sample, the collective body of all studies
in the dissertation group coupled with those of prior years using the same protocols, has
produced an increasingly diverse database of information.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the data gathered involved several steps, starting with the entry
and upload of the qualitative information collected from the principals and the
quantitative data retrieved from the Hawaii Department of Education (2011) into the
secure web-based database. The next step included the creation of individual case studies
(Appendix B, C, & D) using the structured in-depth interview protocol (Appendix A) to
create a comparison between the information collected from the individual principal
interviews regarding resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies to the
Evidence Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling

67
Student Performance (Odden, 2009). It was anticipated that the creation of the case
studies coupled with the in-depth comparisons between the collected school data and the
Evidence Based Model and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance would
highlight areas of need where additional data or research are required. As a result, brief
and targeted follow-up discussions with site principals were scheduled to address the
identified information gaps. The results of these follow-up conversations were
incorporated into the case studies and included in the findings presented in Chapter Four.
The impact of the current national and state financial crises continued to affect
educational adequacy for all students to achieve at high levels. Budget deficits in various
areas related to school funding continue to impact the capability of school districts to
provide even the very basic services for schools on site. These evolving issues have been
monitored carefully through out this study. Additionally, the unique challenges and
pressures facing rural school complexes like those in this study sample, such as resource
consolidations and other cost savings practices, were also examined. The findings will
be presented in chapter 4.

68
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The findings of this chapter were acquired from case studies of three elementary
schools (Appendix B, C, & D) located in Hawaii rural communities. An analysis of these
findings will detail school demographics and performance data, insight from principal
interviews and relevant literature to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resource use patterns aligned with or different from the resource use
strategies used in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget
adjustments?
4. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
All three schools were Title I, non-charter public schools that demonstrated
consistent student achievement and have been in NCLB restructuring status. One school
recently achieved Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) two years in a row, another school
earned AYP for the first time one year ago, and the third school remains in restructuring
while making moderate school wide gains. These schools have shown a range of growth
on the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) that measures annual student performance for
grades 3-6.

69
Profile of Sample Schools
The schools in this study were selected based on the following criteria. First, their
rural location in coastal communities, second their high needs population of students
considered disadvantaged (special needs and free & reduced lunch) and living in poverty
(20.7% -25.7%, double the state average of 11% in 2009-10), and third the
overrepresented minority student population, majority of whom are Native Hawaiian.
Figure 4.1 – Student Needs of Three Study Schools

The enrollment for these school ranged from 435 to 834 students. While two
schools were part of a complex of 5,570 students, one school belonged to a neighboring
complex of 2,320 students. All three schools were part of a larger complex area of 7,880
students, and district containing 38,740 students.
Table 4.1 – Student Enrollment of Sample Schools.
Kokua Laulima Malama
School 580 834 435
Complex 5,57 5,570 2,320

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kokua

Laulima

Malama

14%

9%

12%

85%

81%

77%

95%

95%
99%

SPED
Disadvantaged
Minority

70
The student demographics of these schools were diverse. The majority of the
students were Native Hawaiian in all three schools, followed by a high percentage of
Asian-Pacific Islander students that included Filipino, Samoan, and Micronesian. There
were low percentages of White, Hispanic, and Black students. Minority students made
up the majority of the student population of each of the three schools.
Figure 4.2 – Kokua Elementary – Percent by Minority

Figure 4.3 – Laulima Elementary – Percent by Minority

70.7

6.9

5.1

4.7

2.9

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.3

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.2

NaFve
Hawaiian

Samoan

Filipino

White

Hispanic

Black

Japanese

NaFve
American

Micronesian

MulFple
2+

Indo-‐Chinese

Chinese

Tongan

Guam/Chom

59.5

13.3

7.7

4.8

4.6

2.6

2.3

2.2

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.1

NaFve
Hawaiian

Filipino

Samoan

White

Micronesian

Hispanic

Portuguese

Black

Japanese

Indo-‐Chinese

NaFve
American

Chinese

MulFple
2+

Guam/Chom

Tongan

71
Figure 4.4 – Malama Elementary – Percent by Minority

Achievement Data
All three schools in the study demonstrated considerable growth in their school
wide achievement scores. Although Hawaii does not have a systematic ranking system to
compare schools across the state, the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) is utilized to
measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). These data were analyzed to evaluate the
student achievement of each school regarding all students, disadvantaged students, and
Asian/Pacific Islander students. While none of the schools met the NCLB benchmark
requirements, two out of three schools have recently met AYP under the safe harbor
criteria. The third school has shown consistent school wide growth over the past 5 years.
Lowering the achievement gap and improving the performance of these student
subgroups are key measures of success for Title I schools across the nation.
Reading Proficiency
The three schools were chosen for their rural location and high-risk student
populations. The reading achievement gap for all three schools has narrowed
95.4

1.3

0.9

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

NaFve
Hawaiian

Filipino

Samoan

Hispanic

White

Black

MulFple
2+

Chinese

Portuguese

72
accordingly in the last five years even with the challenging demographics that each
school presents. There were significant dips and fluctuations that occurred, however over
time all three schools have seen fair amounts of progression. The Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA) reading scores between 2005-06 and 2010-11 were analyzed and
revealed the following data.
The reading proficiency levels for all students, though low in 2005-06 when the
change in testing instruments occurred, increased by 4% for Laulima and 2% for Kokua
while scores at Malama stayed the same. The most significant gains for Kokua occurred
2 years later in 2007-08 from 42% to 54% (12% increase), followed by a dramatic
decline from 54% to 44% (10% decrease) in 2008-09. Although Kokua had the lowest
scores of all three schools in 2009-10, the school is showing a gradual upward trend.
After acquiring modest gains in 2007-08 then dropping considerably for two consecutive
years, Malama recently attained their greatest improvements in 2010-11 from 33% to
52% (19% increase). Laulima has been the most consistent in displaying slow and steady
progress between 2005-06 (33%) and 2010-11 (55%) averaging a total increase of 22%.
Overall, between 2005-06 and 2010-11 Kokua improved 5% (from 42% to 47%) and
Malama improved 10 % (42% to 52%) in 2010-11.

73
Figure 4.5 Reading Proficiency Scores for All Students

Reading proficiency scores for the disadvantaged students have followed a similar
trend, lagging slightly behind their peer counterparts in reading. Malama had the largest
increase for this particular subgroup last year in 2010-11 from 31% to 48% (17%
increase). The highest increase for Kokua was in 2007-08 from 42% to 54% (12%
increase. However, for the three year period between 2008-09 and 2010-11 the most
consistent and gradual improvements for disadvantaged students in reading was at
Laulima from 33% in 2007-08 to 52% in 2010-11 (19% increase).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

Percent

Proficient

Kokua

Laulima

Malama

74
Figure 4.6 – Reading Proficiency Scores for Disadvantaged Students

On a national spectrum, there is no category for Native Hawaiians when it comes to
NCLB. These students are included in either the Asian/Pacific Islander (API) or
Disadvantaged categories depending on their classification at the school level.
Proficiency scores for API students at all three schools were comparable with all
students, slightly behind yet exceeding at times. Baseline scores for API and all students
were the same for both in 2005-06 at Kokua 42%, Laulima 33%, and Malama 42%.
After rebounding from a dramatic 12% decline in 2008-09, the increase was highest for
the API subgroup at Malama from 32% reading proficiency in 2009-20 to 53% in 2010-
11 (17% increase). The next highest increase was at Kokua from 45% in 2006-07 to 53%
in 2007-08 (8% increase). However, proficiency scores for Kokua dropped considerably
the very next year from 53% to 42% (11% decrease) in 2008-09. Aside from a slight dip
of 4% in 2008-09, achievement scores at Laulima has shown a consistent upward trend.
The highest rise for Laulima went from 37% in 2008-09 to 48% in 2009-10 (11%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

Percent

Proficient

Kokua

Laulima

Malama

75
increase) leading into an all time high of 56% in 2010-11 (8% increase), scoring 1%
above the general population score of 55%.
Figure 4.7 – Reading Proficiency Scores for Asian/Pacific Islander Students

Overall, the data pertaining to the reading proficiency scores for all students,
disadvantaged students, and Asian/Pacific Islander students show similar rise and fall
trends across all three student subgroups.
Math Proficiency
The analysis of math AYP results demonstrates a less favorable perspective
regarding the achievement gap that was observed for reading. However, percentages
increased for all three schools between 2005-06 and 2010-11 displaying a range of
progression across student subgroups despite challenging demographics. The findings of
the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) math scores over a span of five years revealed the
following data.
The math proficiency levels for all students rose from 28% - 45% for Kokua (17%
increase), 11% - 47% for Laulima (36% increase), and 21% - 60% for Malama (39%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent
Proficient

Kokua

Laulima

Malama

76
increase. Kokua demonstrated the highest rise of 24% in 2010-11 and Kokua experience
the next highest rise of 23% in 2007-08. Kokua dipped significantly in 2008-09 by 14%
and Malama also declined 10% in that same year. Laulima achieved the most consistent
rise in math scores attaining modest gains between 2005-06 and 2010-11 with a high of
8% in 2010-11.
Figure 4.8 – Math Proficiency Scores for All Students

Among the three major subgroups of this study, school wide growth registered the
highest gains for Disadvantaged students. Malama demonstrated the highest growth of
all three schools from 16% in 2005-06 to 58% in 2010-11 (42% increase). There was
also a significant 10% dip for Malama (33%-23%) back in 2008-09 and a 12% dip (51%-
39%) for Kokua that same year. Laulima showed the most consistent growth over time
gaining 7% in 2006-07, 8% in 2007-08, 7% in 2009-10, and 8% in 2010-11. Overall,
between 2005-06 and 2010-11 disadvantaged students improved proficiency in math by
16% at Kokua, 32% at Laulima, and 42% at Malama.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percent

Proficient

all
students
Kokua

all
students
Laulima

all
students
Malama

77
Figure 4.9 – Math Proficiency Scores for Disadvantaged Students

Although the schools are part of the same district and share similar demographics,
the range in math proficiency scores are quite different. Asian Pacific Islander (API)
students have improved much like the general student population, consistently staying
with pack and even surpassing them at times. Proficiency scores for API students were
exactly the same at Kokua for six consecutive years, improving 23% in 2007-08 followed
by a significant 14% dip in 2008-09. API students at Laulima also compared similarly to
all students annually, surpassing their peer counterparts in by 5% in 2007-08 (28%-33%)
and by 1% (47%-48%) 2010-11. Malama displayed the highest growth in API
proficiency scores from 36% to 60% in 2010-11 (24% increase). Overall, between 2005-
06 and 2010-11 math proficiency scores improved 17% for Kokua, 37% for Laulima, and
39% for Malama.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

Percent

Proficient

Kokua

Laulima

Malama

78
Figure 4.10 – Math Proficiency Scores for Asian/Pacific Islander Students

Each of the three schools included in this study has demonstrated a wide range in
student achievement. Although they share similar demographics and are apart of the
same district, their academic standings with AYP differ. These schools have also
experienced sporadic fluctuations in student performance that have managed to improve
over time. Such improvements have contributed considerably to lowering the
achievement gap that has persisted even before NCLB. As a result of past sanctions for
all three schools, increased support has been beneficial to individual school wide reform.
The following sections of this chapter will address the research questions by
incorporating data from the case studies found in Appendix B, C, and D. The first
question explores the instructional vision and improvement strategies utilized by each of
the three schools. The second question addresses how the schools are using resources to
implement effective strategies. The third question examines the effects of recent budget
adjustments on resource allocation decisions. Lastly, the schools resource allocation
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percent

Proficient

Asian
Pacific
Islander

Kokua

Asian
Pacific
Islander

Laulima

Asian
Pacific
Islander

Malama

79
patterns are compared to the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2007) and 10
Strategies to Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Research Question #1: What are the current instructional vision and improvement
strategies at the school level?
All three schools in this study shared a common instructional vision to improve
academic achievement for all students and lower the achievement gap among the
disadvantaged and minority subgroups that make up the majority of the student
population. To achieve this vision schools are utilizing a variety of strategies
encompassed in four main categories that will be further detailed in this section. First,
given the overrepresented population of disadvantaged minority students at all three
sample schools, each school invests a considerable amount of time and attention to extra
help for struggling students. Second, in order to plan and develop effective instruction,
assessments and data are analyzed throughout the school year to adjust and inform
instruction as needed. Third, professional development and collaboration among teachers
and administration are encouraged through departmental and school wide teams to foster
a positive reciprocal learning and teaching environment. Lastly, the driving force that is
pertinent to the success of any school lies in the leadership initiatives of the school
principal and the support of administrators, coaches, teachers, and staff.
Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
Each school provided intervention programs for struggling students throughout
the school day. All three schools utilized a combination of inclusion, small group, and
extra one-on-one time either before, during, or after school depending on student needs.
All three schools offered an after school or extended day program for select students as

80
well as extra tutoring. Although inclusion classroom environments are the preferred
method to engage struggling students across schools, each individual school found
specialized attention to be more effective. Kokua utilizes 5-10 minute mini lessons
followed by 40 minutes of workshop time in small groups, rotating between a teacher and
aide to allow for differentiation as well as data collection. Malama also used a small
group intervention method with rotation patterns that “flood” instruction with increased
group interaction and accountability, and fewer groups doing independent work, thus
often allowing time for double instruction. After dealing with years of severe behavioral
issues in the classroom, Laulima has designed the school curriculum to target the
majority population of disadvantaged minorities, where the average student is considered
one who is struggling, hence incorporating smaller homogenous grouped classes with
low performing students and bigger grouped classes with higher performing students.
All three schools expect teachers to closely monitor student achievement and provide
students with the supports they need, which include collaborating with the school team
regarding students who may need more comprehensive supports.
Utilizing Data to Inform Instruction
All three principals noted the significance of data analysis as an integral part of
informing educational practice. While there is no statewide data bank to track and
analyze student data, each school utilizes results from the annual Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA), some form of Data School Improvement (DSI) system for formative
assessments, and Longitudinal Data System (LDS) dashboards. Some use Galileo, while
individual schools also incorporate various forms of technology to effectively analyze
respective data. Each school utilizes their data differently which may vary from school

81
to school. Principals of each school possess strong leadership teams made up of
administrative and coaching staff that analyze respective data and disseminate
accordingly. Most use a combination of regular staff meetings to share aggregated data
and departmental meetings to examine detailed data by subject. Principals also
emphasized the availability of additional small group and one-on-one classroom supports
for teachers needing assistance with specific data.
Ensuring Time for Collaboration & Professional Development
An essential component of school reform is collaboration. The main focus of
collaborative efforts involves a great deal of professional development that is geared
toward the on-going support for teacher delivery of the Hawaii State Standards.
However, since the state of Hawaii retracted 10 professional development days from the
public school system for the 2010-2011 school year, like many schools across the state
the schools in this study were left to fend for themselves. As a part of the “Zone of
Innovation” the complex areas of the sample schools were given 4 professional
development days to utilize before the start of the school year. Even though teachers
were paid to attend, participation was not mandatory. Each of the three principals in this
study responded and took action in their own way, by being creative and shifting around
the already scarce resources that they had. Kokua developed an in house professional
development rotation system that allows teachers to be out of their classrooms and
collaborating in their grade level PLCs all day twice a month. Malama also allotted an
hour and a half per week of collaboration time for teachers to meet with their PLCs.
Most of the professional development for Laulima is provided on-site. Although teachers
were expected to collaborate in their PLC settings regularly to ensure effective

82
monitoring of student achievement and timely attention to student needs, additional “sub-
days” were utilized for teacher training on specific instructional activities. Finally, all
three schools relied heavily on their coaching and consultant staff as knowledgeable
collaborative resources for professional development. One principal even tapped into
experienced teachers with strong leadership skills and utilized them as faculty leaders and
peer coaches.
Intentional Leadership Expertise
A common strength at each of the three schools was the leadership expertise of
their principals. Each principal talked about the importance of building capacity within
their schools and cultivating a shared vision in order for their school to be successful.
They praised their dedicated leadership teams, faculty and staff who they believe are
committed to educating the challenging student population that they serve. As former
educators themselves, each principal earned their way up through the ranks. Each
managed to develop positive relationships and buy-in with staff along way and did the
best they could to create a democratic school culture that emphasized bottom-up school
transformation.
Two principals came from different parts of the island and complex areas, while
one principal had returned to serve in the very community that she grew up in. Having
served their respective schools for over a decade, all three principals had developed
strong ties within their school communities and earned the respect of their students,
families, and staff members. A significant strategy noted by one principal was a very
“hands-on” approach that included modeling what expected programs should like even if
it meant going into the classroom and teaching a lesson that a teacher may be struggling

83
with. Another principal indicated the importance of facilitating partnerships with
coaching staff and teachers to generate an open dialogue in order to impart immediate
feedback and attention to student needs and teacher abilities.
Taking on the leadership responsibilities of these particular schools also meant
having to face issues far beyond the average disadvantaged student. Principals talked
about dealing with deeper rooted issues that came with the territory of their school
communities like poverty and homelessness that are counterproductive to educating
students with life circumstances they have no control over. One principal credited a
group of teachers and staff who led a team several nights a week in opening up the
computer room and classrooms on campus to accommodate students in need of a place to
study and assistance with homework. These principals do their best to foster a positive
school culture and lead by example in the face of adversity.
Research Question #2: How are actual resource patterns aligned with or different from
the resource use strategies in the Evidence Based Model?
This section will focus on the Evidence Based Model (EBM) framework that will
be used to compare effective and ineffective resource allocation patterns that promote
student achievement at each of the three sample schools. The comparison will take into
account such EBM recommendations as school size and demographics unique to the
schools in this study. Detailed case studies of individual schools are located in Appendix
K, L, and M.
The Evidence Based Model developed by Allan Odden and Lawrence O. Picus
(2008) is a research-based framework designed to identify effective elements of a
comprehensive instructional program that promotes student performance. The model can

84
be used to determine adequate levels of funding as well strategically guide individual
schools toward specific and efficient use of resources to improve student achievement
(Odden, 2003). Odden and Picus (2008) have conducted extensive research to develop
EBM prototypical schools that account for school size and demographics. An elementary
K-5 prototypical school would have a maximum of 432 students with an average class
size of 15 for K-3 and 25 for grades 4-5 (Odden & Picus, 2008). Staffing of a
prototypical elementary school of 432 students would include 24 core teachers, 10
specialist teachers, and 2 instructional facilitators or coaches. A full time teacher is
identified as a Full Time Equivalent (FTE), calculating each full time teaching position as
one FTE unit. Coaches are considered instructional leaders who coordinate staff and
program development opportunities as well as provide hands-on teaching strategies in the
classrooms by modeling and providing consistent feedback (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Evidence Based Model funds resources to provide extra staff and support to
assist disadvantaged and low-income students. These resources vary and are calculated
by allotting one certified tutor for every 100 students who qualify under the free and
reduced lunch status. Certified tutors are trained in specific strategies and are intended to
support the regular curriculum by helping students catch up and return to the regular
classroom setting. Tutors provide group tutoring for up to three students for one hour or
individual tutoring for twenty minutes (Odden & Picus, 2008). The model also includes
resources for struggling or disadvantaged students, English Language (EL) students, and
special education students. However, special education students requiring more intense
comprehensive services are not included in the Evidence Based Model formula and are
often funded by the state (Odden & Picus, 2008).

85
The Evidence Based Model also includes resources to fund administrators,
technology coordinators, librarians, clerical staff and support staff. Although the model
also provides resources for professional development, year round coaching, technology,
instructional materials, and gifted students, funding formulas are dependent on student
enrollment. The following sections will detail the resource allocation patterns of the three
sample schools in comparison to the Evidence Based Model.
Table 4.2 displays the staffing equivalent of an Evidence Based Model elementary
school of the same size in terms of core teachers and specialist teachers. One school is
nearly the same size as the EBM elementary prototypical school with 435 students,
another school is significantly larger with 594 students, and the third school has nearly
double enrollment size with 834 students. The class sizes for all three schools are larger
in the K-3 grades with 3-9 students more than the EBM recommends, while two schools
have 2-3 students less per class in grades 4-5. Two of the three schools are staffed above
what the EBM recommends for core teachers while the largest of the three schools is just
under what the EBM allows. It is important to note that the recommended size of an
EBM prototypical elementary school is 424 students.

86
Table 4.2 – Core Teachers and Specialist Teachers – Actual vs. EBM
Core Class Size Core Teacher
FTEs
Specialist Teacher
FTEs

School

Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EMB
Suggests

Actual
School
EBM
Suggests

Actual
School
Kokua 580 K-3 15

4-5 25
K-3 20

4-5 23

40

44

7.25

13
Laulima 834 K-3 15

4-5 25
K-3 24

4-5 25

51

49

9.2

9.8
Malama 435 K-3 15

4-5 25
K-3 18

4-5 22

24

34

4.8

8
The actual staffing for Special Education teachers is significantly more than
the EBM recommends for all three schools. However, principals noted that the resources
in place are allocated to meet the high demands of the overrepresented disadvantaged
student population that each school serves. One school has no English Language (EL)
learners while the other two matched up or come close to the recommended EL FTEs.
None of the schools in this study utilize funds for Gifted Programs.

87
Table 4.3 – EL, Special Education, Vocational, & Gifted Programs – Actual vs. EBM
English Learner
FTEs
Special Education
FTEs
Gifted Funds

School

Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests

Actual
School

Kokua

580

1

1

5

4

$14,850

0

Laulima

834

4

3

7

10

$20,850

0

Malama

435

0

0

3

7

$10,875

0
According to the Evidence Based Model, certified tutors are recommended to work
with struggling students who fall behind in order to get them caught up and back on track
with the regular curriculum. All three schools are underfunded for certified tutors
according to the recommendations of the Evidence Based Model. All three schools offer
individualized Extended Day and Summer School programs for select struggling students
that are state funded and therefore, do not account toward their annual school budgets.
Table 4.4 – Tutors, Extended Day, and Summer School Programs – Actual vs. EBM
Tutors Extended Day
FTEs
Summer School
FTEs

School

Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EMB
Suggests

Actual
School
EBM
Suggests

Actual
School
Kokua 580 5 3 2.7 0 2.7 0
Laulima 834 6 3

3.5 0 3.5 0
Malama 435 3 2 1.8 0 1.8 0

There was a statewide reduction in Professional Development days for the entire
Hawaii public school system in 2010-2011. This meant zero PD days for teachers

88
according to their teacher contracts. However, since all three sample schools were a part
of the complex area that was included in the “Zones of Innovation”, they were given four
PD days to prepare for the upcoming school year. Still, the Evidence Based Model
recommends at least ten summer institute days as a means to provide teachers with the
professional development they need to prepare for the school year. While the PD days
are lacking compared to the EBM, the amount spent on PD exceeds the EBM
recommendations. School leaders have been resourceful in gathering various funds to
provide teachers access to professional development supports. Coaching is also provided
in the EBM and is ongoing throughout the year. Though each school uses them
differently, the sample schools were also given extra coaching resources as a part of the
zone initiatives. Principals at all three schools consider professional development a
leading priority that impacts the ability of their school to move forward.

89
Table 4.5 – Substitutes and Professional Development – Actual vs. EBM
Substitutes Professional
Development
Number of Teacher
Work Days

School

Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EMB
Suggests

Actual
School
EBM
Suggests

Actual
School
Kokua 580 $29,700 Data not
available

$59,400
+10 PD
days

4 Zone
PD days
190
+10 PD
days
180
+ 4 PD
days
Laulima 834 $41,700 Data not
available

$83,400
+10 PD
days

$150,000
+4 Zone
PD days
190
+10 PD
days
180
+ 4 PD
days
Malama 435 $21,750 Data not
available
$43,500
+10P D
days

$100,00
+ 4 Zone
PD days

190
+10 PD
days
180
+ 4 PD
days

The Evidence Based Model allows for significantly more pupil support than these
schools provided. All three schools staffed masters level school counselors as their FTEs
and also noted receiving an assigned Behavioral Health Specialist (BHS) from the district
level per school site. Although at the elementary level the Evidence Based Model only
allows for one librarian, two out of the three schools noted FTEs for one librarian and
one technician, and one school noted combining a librarian/technician position into one
FTE. The schools are running well over comparable FTEs for secretaries and
administrative clerks at each site.

90
Table 4.6 – Pupil Support, Librarians, and Secretaries – Actual vs. EBM
Pupil Support
FTEs
Librarian & Techs
FTEs
Secretaries & Clerks
FTEs

School

Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EMB
Suggests

Actual
School
EBM
Suggests

Actual
School
Kokua 580 5 2
Counselors
1 1
Lib/Tech

2 1 SASA
3 clerks
Laulima 834 6.75 2
Counselors
1 1 Lib
1 Tech

2 1 SASA
3 clerks
Malama 435 3.35 1
Counselor
1 1 Lib
1 Tech

2 1 SASA
2 clerks

The study schools and the Evidence Based Model are similarly staffed regarding
administration. Every school has a principal and two out of three schools have assistant
principals on staff. As previously mentioned, instructional facilitators or coaches are a
vital part of daily educational operations. Each of the principals relies heavily on the
expertise that the coaches are able to provide on-site and in the classrooms. According to
the Evidence Based Model, two of the three study schools exceed the recommended
amount of instructional facilitators while the largest school could benefit from having
more. The Evidence Based Model does not include student services positions that are
unique to Hawaii. Two of the three schools also resourced one FTE for a Student
Services Coordinator (SSC) who oversees the special education related and
comprehensive students services on site. The largest of the three schools that is nearly
double the size of the prototypical school funds two FTEs for the SSC position.

91
Table 4.7 – Administration and Instructional Facilitators – Actual vs. EBM
Principal Vice Principal Instructional Facilitator
FTEs

School

Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EMB
Suggests

Actual
School
EBM
Suggests

Actual
School
Kokua 580 1 1 1 1 3 4
Laulim
a
834 1 1 1.5 2 4 3
Malam
a
435 1 1 .5 0 2.2 3

In summary, the schools in this study range from similar enrollment to nearly
double the size of what the Evidence Based Model recommends, have larger classes in
the upper grades, fewer teachers at the largest school, no gifted funds, fewer tutors,
shorter school years, fewer professional development days, fewer instructional
facilitators, and less funding for categorical programs compared to the model. The
schools are comparable to the Evidence Based Model in administrative resources, clerical
staff and support staff.
Research Question #3: How did the allocation of resources change in response to
recent budget adjustments?
Given the location and various factors related to the demographics and challenges
associated with rural schools, it was anticipated that resources of the sample schools in
this study would be scarce and therefore significantly impact educational outcomes.
However, even in recent economic times and fiscal constraints, available resources
increased due to special budgetary circumstances. As a recipient for national Race to the
Top (RTTT) funds, the Hawaii Department of Education created the “Zones of
Innovation” to distribute and monitor federal resources. Many rural schools in the state

92
of Hawaii have been designated as apart of the “Zone” including the three elementary
schools in this study. Taking part in the Zone included adhering to the common core
standards, nurturing K-12 students to graduate on time college and career ready, and
targeting critical thinking as a foundational piece. Critical components of Zone schools
include participation in the development and implementation of a Zone/School
professional development programs. Schools included in the Zone also receive added
resources to implement school level initiatives and encourage collaboration between
other Zone schools to significantly enhance and support student learning.
Research Question #4: How are resources used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
The actual resources of the schools in this study are comparable in regard to
administration, clerical staff and support staff, however are slightly below the Evidence
Based Model in a few areas. School leaders had to be resourceful in order to efficiently
meet the needs of the high disadvantaged student populations they serve. As previously
mentioned, the common strategies used by all three schools include intentional principal
leadership, utilizing data to inform instruction, providing multiple interventions for
struggling students, and ensuring time for collaboration and professional development.
While some strategies were incorporated more than others, most of the Ten Strategies
were utilized along with a few others to help improve school wide achievement. These
approaches were pivotal at individual schools in various capacities according to student
need and teacher abilities. Each school worked together in their own way to help their
schools move forward in maximizing the time and skills of committed staff members and
improving school wide student performance in the midst of rising standards.

93
Understanding the Performance Challenge
According to Odden (2009) the first step to improving student performance is to
understand the performance challenge and what lies ahead. As previously mentioned, the
schools in this study utilized most of the Ten Strategies, many of which collectively
detail the priorities of individual schools. For example, each school spends an extensive
amount of time analyzing student achievement data to understand where they are and
where they need to be in terms of state and national standards. They also devote a
considerable amount of time on instructional improvement via Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) and regular staff meetings that are guided by the principal, coaches
and peer leaders.
While the schools are located in the same rural complex area, they face similar
challenges in varying degrees. Each school has seen their share of low student
performance on standardized assessments and even though each of the three schools has
either met or come close to meeting AYP in the past, rising standards have made it
difficult to maintain. All three schools meet with coaches and consultants individually or
in small groups to discuss detailed results of each of the three rounds of HSA testing and
the effects on student achievement. Stakeholders at each school site are aware of their
academic standing, realize the urgency for improvement in reading and math compared
to state and national standards, and are actively engaging in strategic school wide efforts
to promote student growth.

94
Utilizing Benchmarks and Formative Assessments
Student performance is identified and monitored in various ways. Odden (2009)
suggests utilizing more formative assessments to accurately gauge what students know
and don’t know. All three principals and their staff analyze various types of data to
inform instruction and learning. For example, as apart of the Hawaii public school
system, all three schools utilize the results of the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) test for
grades 3-6 measured three times per school year. Individual schools also use some form
of Data School Improvement (DSI) system and Longitudinal Data System (LDS) to drive
formative assessments and adjust teaching strategies throughout the school year. Most of
the standards-based curriculum aligns with state benchmarks and are utilized along with
classroom assessments in a various ways. Each school incorporates them according to
student need and teacher ability, most at the discretion of teachers. Teachers use the
assessment information to guide classroom instruction geared toward individual student
needs at various levels. A combination of collaborative strategies are also used to
analyze data such as grade level teams that include teachers and coaches, as well as
leadership teams that include principals and coaches.
Laulima Elementary has been using a new program called Galileo as their DSI test
bank. The system allows educators to use or create particular items and every item is
then mapped to a certain standard to create measureable tests. Laulima incorporates mid-
term and quarterly tests for every subject and every grade based on the standards. For
example, Galileo could provide information about a certain standard that students may be
having difficulty grasping, which in turn may need more attention and clarification for
student improvement. Principal Laulima notes results may look like random guessing if

95
the student either didn’t understand the question, the question was bad, or something
happened to see if they actually got it or not. For students in kindergarten through third
grade, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are administered
as a formative assessment to monitor reading fluency associated with comprehension.
These assessments help to measure the attainment of early literacy skills related to
decoding fluency that serves as one of the content focus areas for Laulima.
Malama Elementary also used Galileo as their DSI test bank system to link assist
with benchmarks and interventions to inform instruction. Teachers also track end of the
unit assessments for the lower grades in order to focus on building up early reading skills.
In the upper grades, Read Well is utilized to track student progress. Principal Malama
shared that the research regarding Read Well has found the program to be a strong and
accurate indicator of how well students are taught in relation to their developing
knowledge. Teachers at Malama also utilized classroom assessments at the beginning,
middle and end of topic areas as well as using short test benchmarks in between.
Kokua Elementary mainly utilized the three separate rounds of Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA) results to benchmark students and drive curriculum and instruction.
However, they have also used Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and the
complex area adopted iSTEEP, a universal screening assessment that identifies students
who are at-risk in the areas of reading and math. Principal Kokua encourages teachers to
utilize the acquired information to plan their instructional focus in alignment with content
standards and statewide goals for student achievement. Teachers also use end of the
chapter/lesson assessments to gage student comprehension and one-on-one attention
before moving on to activities that build on prior concepts. Students are monitored

96
regularly during daily workshop style groups where teachers are able to provide
differentiated instruction for students with varied levels and abilities.
Each school gathers data in their own way to measure student progress and adjust
both teaching and learning strategies that are geared toward closing the achievement gap
between disadvantaged students and school wide performance. The information obtained
allows educational leaders to make informed decisions and provide guidance in setting
ambitious goals for school wide growth and reform.
Setting Ambitious Goals
Odden (2009) recommends that educators set high and ambitious goals regardless
of student demographics and performance levels. As previously discussed in earlier
sections, all three schools spend a considerable amount of time analyzing which is
instrumental in setting aspiring goals. The main target for schools is to meet the national
accountability standards of the federal NCLB. However, meeting required AYP targets
have not always been realistically attainable for the schools in this study. One school had
to focus on stabilizing student behavioral issues and expectations to build a positive
school culture before focusing on student achievement. A couple of schools had to work
on building consistency and faculty buy-in due to high teacher turnover rates. All three
schools noted reading comprehension and critical thinking as a top priority, as well as the
importance of decoding and oral language as essential to student learning.
These schools have been setting ambitious goals to increase performance, but have
struggled to help their respective schools improve student achievement with the resources
they have. Each of the three schools were in restructuring for some time during the five
years that were evaluated for this study and therefor benefitted from added restructuring

97
resources intended to rebuild the necessary infrastructure needed to help schools pick up
and move forward. Since then, all three schools in this study have been making strides to
meet AYP targets for their respective students populations, particularly significant
student subgroups which make up the majority of their student body.
The NCLB benchmark requirements have been extremely ambitious as a baseline
for schools to set goals and achievement targets, considering the overrepresented
disadvantaged populations they serve. All three schools studied use the AYP
requirements as a catalyst to set goals for increasing annual student proficiency. The
goals set by each school varied accordingly. Stakeholders of all three schools are not
satisfied with their current academic standing, are aware of their growth potential and
expect to significantly improve further in the years to come.
Implementing Effective Curriculum and Instruction
Focusing on things that school systems can change and have control over, like
curriculum and instructional programs, allows schools to act on and affect change in
producing high levels of student performance (Odden, 2009). The schools in this study
focused on utilizing curriculum that was beneficial to instruction and learning, refining
programs that were already in use as well as taking the risk of trying something new.
Principals and their leadership teams implemented curriculum that was approved by the
state and adopted by their school complex area. Programs selected were data driven and
dependent on the skill level of front line teachers for implementation in the classrooms.
Teachers at all three schools were expected to follow the Hawaii state content core
standards, fully implement any adopted curriculum and utilize standard-based instruction
combined with General Learner Outcomes (GLO) to ensure consistency of grade level

98
standards. To a certain extent, individual schools also decided how the state and complex
area adopted curriculum material was used and the way in which instruction was
delivered to the students. Although Hawaii required all public elementary schools to use
Common Core for grades K-2 for the 2010-2011, two out of three schools decided to
implement the program beyond what was required. Schools also provided various
additional interventions and supports for English Language learners and struggling
students as mandated by state law.
Kokua Elementary utilized Common Core for grades K-5. Principal Kokua shared
various programs that the school used to focus on content. She talked about the emphasis
on reading, clarifying that many of their students struggle with math because of the
reading. Even though the math scores are lower than reading, principal Kokua stated that
the core focus is on reading and critical thinking. The school uses such programs as
Open Court for reading and Everyday Math. They have also begun supplementing a
more hands on type of curriculum called Singapore math. Kokua Elementary has also
adopted Read A Loud, a program that encourages reading one million words a year, a
program that research shows could raise reading by a minimum of one grade level
annually.
Laulima Elementary shifted to Common Core standards for grades 3-6 in addition
to the state requirement for grades K-2 in two distinct ways. By actively promoting
student engagement and by emphasizing overt learning techniques through the “I, We,
You” continuum. The combined strategies provided a common framework for teachers
that guide consistent modeling and monitoring to maximize student learning. While
reading mastery is used for phonics, the focus for Laulima is mainly comprehension

99
based supported by targeted curricula which is supplemented in variations for all grades
depending on teacher strengths and student needs (e.g. Voyager, Zoom In, etc.). Principal
Laulima emphasizes the importance of aligning and mapping out curriculum according to
state standards.
Standard-based instruction and General Learner Outcomes (GLO) are also
utilized to guide instruction and promote student learning throughout all the grade level
standards. The understanding is that teachers follow the Hawaii state content standards
and implement the adopted curriculum with fidelity. Laulima also shifted from Aims
Web math curriculum to Voyager Math and will be adopting Focal Points by Karen
Fuson in 2011-2012. Studies show that Focal Points directly correlates with the common
core standards for grades 2-6. As stated in Principal Laulama’s Academic Financial Plan
(AFP), the chosen curriculum focuses on higher order critical thinking and has been
designed to accelerate the progress of struggling learners. In addition, special education
teachers have been trained regarding My Read Coach by Orton Gillingham (OG), an on-
line reading program that is a multi systemic learning (MSL) approach to reading.
Between 1
st
and 2
nd
grade students are also introduced to the Scott Forseman
standardized base called Reading Street.
The school also utilized the “thinking map” visual framework that teaches
students about their own thinking. Laulima modified the eight thinking map categories,
often mistaken as a graphic organizer, to help students understand and be able to describe
cause and effects. For example as they relate to personal behavioral choices or historical
events during social studies. Specific time for core subjects is allocated.

100
Malama Elementary has adopted the Five Pillars of Reading that is identified by
the National Reading Panel (NRP) as the school’s foundational framework. The pillars
include phonics, phonemics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary as the emphasis to
inform reading instruction. Although there is also a strong emphasis on writing and oral
language development, their primary content focuses on reading and math, and
secondarily oral language. Supporting curriculum and resources include the Open Court
program that includes Read Well for grades K-3 and Imagine It for grades 4-6. The
school has also recently adopted Singapore Math for grades K-3 and Trans Math for
grades 4-6. A combination of Response to Intervention (RTI), specialized core
curriculum materials and research based instructional strategies are also used to drive
school wide initiatives to improve student achievement.
Principal Malama emphasized the practicality of their instructional approach to
allow for staff to identify and address behaviors of concern in order to help students learn
and encourage academic practices outside of school. General Learner Outcomes (GLO)
are also utilized and is the responsibility of all school personnel in order to create a
school culture that it conducive to learning. Although a primary goal is to align with the
state of Hawaii state standards, principal Malama shared that it is still a work in progress
to completely align curriculum with state standards to address materials that students are
notably missing. Specific time blocks are allocated for language arts and math
instruction.
Using Instructional Time Effectively and Efficiently
Instructional time is generally a fixed resource when used effectively and
efficiently, can produce significant results in student performance. Schools that have

101
experienced positive gains in student achievement, in some cases even doubling student
performance have utilized instructional time more effectively and efficiently (Odden &
Archibald, 2009). Although each of the schools in this study has had varying school
wide achievement scores, some struggling more than others, with the perception of
instructional time as a priority. Individual schools also have designated times with
minimum interruptions set aside for core subjects. In addition, each of the schools
provide resources and intervention programs for English Language learners and
struggling students that includes the overrepresented population of disadvantaged and
minority students at all three schools.
Malama Elementary incorporates Language Arts blocks of the core curriculum
consisting of 110 minutes every morning for grades K-1, 80 minutes in the morning and
65 minutes in the afternoon for grades 2-3, and 90 minutes in the morning and 60
minutes in the afternoon for grades 4-6. The designated time for learning Math includes
70 minutes daily after lunch for grades K-1, 80 minutes daily after morning recess for
grades 2-3, and 90 minutes everyday after morning recess for grades 4-6. Malama also
provides extra help for struggling students that will be detailed in the next section.
Kokua Elementary designates English Language Arts (ELA) blocks of the core
curriculum in two and a half hours every morning for K-2 graders. Math workshop for
K-2 grade students is held in the afternoons after the lunch transition for one and a half
hours daily. Grades 3-6 rotate between two and a half hour time blocks in the morning
and one and a half hour time blocks in the afternoon for either ELA or Math. Kokua also
provides added supports for struggling students that will be detailed in the following
section.

102
Laulima Elementary integrates Language Arts blocks of the core curriculum 50
minutes first thing in the morning for kindergarteners, 1 hour and 15 minutes at the start
of the day for grades 1-2. Rotation blocks of Reading and Math are between 100 minutes
in the morning and 90 minutes after morning recess for grades 3-4, and 90 minute
rotation blocks between Reading and Math in the morning and after morning recess for
grades 5-6. Kindergarteners attend Home Room after reading then Math for 45 minutes
before morning recess. Grades 1-2 rotate between 60 minute Math blocks either before
or after recess. Laulima also provides support for struggling students throughout the
school day and after school. The curriculum has been designed to target the majority
student population who are disadvantaged after years of dealing with commensurate
behavioral issues. The school also provides extended day or Extended Learning
Opportunities (ELO) three days a week for one hour. Approximately 250 students attend
and are taught by certified teachers. Summer school is offered five days a week, for three
hours a day, and runs for 5 weeks. ELL is also offered for 4 weeks. Principal Laulima
noted that they run very few 1:1 interventions unless there is a high need and more 2:4
using DIBELS, particularly in grades 1-3 as a strategic intervention because they
understand that reading fluency is associated with comprehension. Decoding fluency as
well as phonemic awareness and blending are also critical components for lower level
students who are struggling. Laulima also provide extra help for struggling students that
will be detailed in the next section.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
The schools in this study all provide extensive supports for the struggling students
who make up the majority of their student body. Although they each serve particularly

103
high populations of disadvantaged minority students, their support methods vary in order
to accommodate student needs at their individual school sites. Odden & Picus (2008)
recommend implementing certified tutors for struggling students that align with the
suggested resources of the Evidence Based Model in order maximize overall student
performance. The sample schools utilized actual teachers, educational assistants, and
PPTs to assist with tutoring efforts struggling students. However, tutorial sessions were
based on available funding and teachers volunteering beyond their contracted time for
additional wages. Even with multiple resources provided by each school for struggling
students, because staff are not trained as certified tutors, tutorial sessions are not
consistent with the strategy for struggling students that Odden (2009) recommends.
Malama Elementary implements the Response to Intervention (RTI) model to
assess students and provide appropriate interventions. One strategy includes a rotation of
small learning groups two hours a day, utilizing everyone who is available to “flood”
classrooms during small group instruction so that there are fewer groups doing
independent work, thus creating a more effective rotation pattern that will allow some
groups to have double instruction. Malama also provides Extended Learning
Opportunities (ELO) and incorporates an extended day program for one hour daily in
small groups for select students. This includes at least one Educational Assistant (EA)
who monitors the computer-assisted instruction. There are also two scheduling
specialists that share 2 classrooms, one in the morning for reading or math. Malama also
offers summer school for select students and Extended School Year (ESY) for special
education students. There are no ELL students at Malama Elementary.

104
At Kokua Elementary, most of the support for struggling students is provided
during the regular school day, utilizing mostly inclusion classroom environments.
Principal Malama emphasized that this strategy allows for struggling students to be
placed with positive role model students. A typical classroom staffs one full time teacher
and one aide to assist the teacher. Rather than working toward class size reduction, the
whole workshop style of teaching addresses the reduction strategy. It is supported in
such a way that involves in depth focus on the standard for a particular lesson and the
anticipatory set followed by a 5-10 minute mini lesson on the concept being taught, then
breaking up into small groups for approximately 40 minutes of workshop time. Principal
Malama indicated that this strategy allows for small group differentiation, rotating the
teacher and aide between groups to assist with data collection. Although the inclusion
method is preferred, resource classrooms were incorporated for students who were too far
behind and needed more intensive services, where students were pulled out for specific
skills. Kokua Elementary also provides after school tutoring for students who need extra
support, but has difficulty with student attendance.
Laulima Elementary students have been managing social and behavioral issues in
recent years as a result of an overhaul in school culture and expectations. Principal
Laulima noted that behavior supports must be in place even though curriculum is the
major focal point. The average student at Laulima is considered one who is struggling
and therefore supports are geared toward student deficiencies and needs. According to
the school Academic Financial Plan, due to multiple factors many students are not
meeting the HSA expectations and intensive support for those struggling learners is
critical to accelerating their progress. Reform efforts have evolved to provide a more

105
personalized education to students that include keeping class sizes as small at possible
and incorporating tutors to support kindergarteners and struggling students. Laulima is
also a “Walk to Reading” and “Walk to Math” school, utilizing smaller homogeneously
clustered classes with low performing students and larger clusters with higher performing
students. The school relies heavily upon teacher aides or Para Professionals (PPTs),
many have been at Laulima for ten years or more. There are three PPTs exclusively for
Kindergarten who Principal Laulima feels are competent enough to work with a small
groups or one student on their own which frees up the classroom teachers to do the same
as needed. Interventions are highly infused early on in grades K-3. For first and second
graders PPTs are supervised by coaches to assist with specific interventions, for example
common six minute solutions that again support reading fluency to increase repeated
exposure and practice in order for students to become fluent. For grades 4-6 Laulima
conducts spot interventions if they are not considered SPED, potentially SPED, or came
from a country where they have never been in school before. Teachers are expected to
monitor student achievement and provide struggling students with the supports they need.
They are also autonomous in communicating and collaborating with the Special
Education support team regarding students who they feel may need more comprehensive
supports.
Investing in On-Going Professional Development
A vital component of improving student achievement is the ongoing and
continuous investment of professional development for teachers. This allows proper and
consistent implementation of effective pedagogy that directly impacts student learning to
ultimately improve student performance. Professional development is an effective way

106
of improving student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008) that involves intense
implementation of systematic, widespread, and ongoing professional development
(Odden, 2009).
While the schools in this study had no control over the 10 professional
development days that were cut state wide, each principal resourced in house support for
their teaching staff. All three schools in this study also allocated time for teacher
collaboration and relied heavily on their instructional coaches to address student
assessments and instructional strategies in small groups as well as one-on-one. Teacher
training was also a significant part of professional development that was imbedded at
each school in their own way. The actual professional development time allocated at all
three schools was significantly less compared to the Evidence Based Model, however it
was difficult to measure associated costs due to overlapping resources on site.
Kokua Elementary provided most of the professional development on-site.
Teachers are out of their classrooms twice a month all day from 8:30am -1:45pm during
IRA, a rotation system that was created in house to allow teachers to meet by grade level
to analyze assessments and plan for instruction. The rotation occurs every 7 to 8 school
days.
Principal Laulima believes that a school that has deep underlying issues like
Laulima Elementary must provide staff with professional development that enables them
to understand the “task analysis” related to the students’ expectations of the standards.
Meaning that teachers must be able to break down a task to its simplest form for students
to understand the steps required to process and complete what is expected of them. This

107
is a one of the big tools Laulima has discovered and has been working on with their
average students who are struggling.
While the majority of professional development is provided in house by coaches,
peer teachers, and often the principal herself, additional staff development has also been
provided by outside consultants Kathy Jungjohan from the University of Oregon and
West Ed. They have collaborated with Laulima staff to identify and address issues
related to teachers’ basic math conceptual understanding in order to develop necessary
math concepts and task analysis skills that are critical in helping students with remedial
difficulties to be successful. Laulima also utilized “sub days” for teacher training on
specific instructional activities like Engagement IEU.
Principal Malama mainly utilizes weekly staff meetings that range from 45
minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes for professional development. She has also allotted
teachers an hour and a half per week to meet with their departments. Meetings are
mainly geared toward analyzing assessments and planning for instruction. However, a
significant part of professional development also included observations of classroom
interactions and creating a dialogue with teachers from neighboring schools. Malama
Elementary relies heavily on coaching staff who spend most of their time in the
classroom or meeting with teachers in small groups or one-on-one. The school also
collaborated with consultants from Morningside, Singapore Math, Sopris West, and
Thinking Maps Inc.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
Odden (2009) describes this strategy as a structured culmination of previous
strategies that is built into a school or district to support collaborative efforts regarding

108
curriculum and instruction. A tandem component includes tasking both teachers and
administrators with distributed leadership roles. Detailed examinations of data analysis
practices and teacher partnerships indicated that staff at all three schools in this study
work collaboratively to improve student performance. Educators team up to set
ambitious goals and achievement targets for all students, meet regularly throughout the
year to discuss current data, and plan for effective instructional and learning strategies to
meet student needs. Principals at each school encourage Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) and promote some method of distributive leadership.
Seasoned teachers at Laulima Elementary have been leading staff as peer coaches,
creating a school culture where collaboration in PLC settings are “expected” to ensure
effective monitoring of student achievement and timely attention to student needs.
Principal Laulima indicated that adult learning is linked closely to effective PLCs,
student assessments, and effective research based strategies. Kokua Elementary allocates
a rotation system in house that allows teachers to collaborate regularly in grade level
PLCs to analyze assessments and plan for instruction every. Principal Kokua promotes
the all-day PLC time that occurs every 7 to 8 schools days. Malama Elementary allotted
teachers an hour and a half per week to meet with their department PLCs. Principal
Malama specified that the scheduled collaboration times were often supported by coaches
and mainly geared toward analyzing assessments and planning for instruction. All three
schools incorporate regularly scheduled meetings for front line teachers that effective
PLC (Professional Learning Community) research recommends.

109
Using Research-Based and Proven Strategies
All the schools in this study intentionally utilized research-based and proven
strategies to improve student achievement for all students. While most of the programs
are typically examined and approved at the state and district levels, complex areas and
principals are somewhat autonomous in determining the strategies that best fit the student
populations they serve. However, due to the rural location and various factors related to
the highly disadvantaged population at all three schools, all three principals have
struggled to obtain and retain experienced teachers that research has evidenced to be
effective with these student needs of this caliber. Zone schools have recently been
afforded the resources proportionate to the highly scrutinized rural communities that have
gone years without commensurate supports. Staff buy-in and implementation was also
crucial for the schools in this study, guiding the general direction of program choices that
are usually dependent on teacher strengths and student needs. Principals are choosing to
equip their schools with researched-based and proven strategies that hone in on
professional best practices proven to increase student performance for disadvantaged and
struggling students who are the majority of their student body.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital
Odden (2009) identifies principal and teacher talent as key components to
improving student performance, noting talent problems regarding shortages and
inadequacy particularly in urban and rural areas. Consistent with the rural location and
nature of the highly disadvantaged student population represented at all three schools,
quality educators have been difficult to maintain. While the principals at each school
have taken the typical career path of an administrator, each has invested years of service

110
as a former teacher, received extensive training to serve as vice-principal, and earned
their principalship at their respective schools. The quality leadership that has been
modeled speaks is a strong representation of the hiring and training efforts of all three
principals. The complex area has been a breeding ground for new teachers, many on
contract with Teach for America as well as new teacher placements for newly certified
teachers. Although prospective teachers are limited to the Hawaii state applicant pool,
principals are autonomous in hiring qualified applicants accordingly. One principal
noted hiring the right people as a critical process, something she didn’t know much about
and had to get better at. Another principal indicated the importance of building capacity
within by encouraging potential PPT and EA staff to go back to school and get their
teaching degrees. A few have actually completed their schooling and returned as on-site
faculty members. Each principal also mentioned the importance of finding a successor to
take over their leadership efforts, each concerned about proper training and transition as
they each prepare for retirement. While the principals in this study rely heavily on their
specialized coaching staff and seasoned faculty to take on leadership roles, individual
schools also foster an environment where teachers are encouraged to stay abreast and
improve their professional skills and knowledge. In addition to the 10 Strategies (Odden,
2009) previously discussed, there are two other strategies that research has found to be
effective in school wide reform (Blankstein, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2002; & Marzano,
2003).
Parent & Community Involvement
The principal and staff of all three schools promote and encourage parent and
community involvement. Families participate in a variety of school wide activities that

111
include parent teacher conferences, open house, holiday celebrations, and the School
Community Council (SCC) which consists of parents, teachers, administrators and staff,
and community members who collaborate to ensure student academic progress and
budget initiatives align with the school’s Academic Financial Plan (AFP).
At Laulima, local expectations of parents are very different from the typical
mainland model where participation often means physically going to the school. Laulima
emphasizes meeting parents where they are at and respecting the way they choose to be
involved. “If parents define their role as getting their child to school, checking their
homework, encouraging them, and talking to them, then that’s awesome…most parents
are very supportive.” Laulima Elementary also received numerous donations and grants
from community businesses and organizations like the recent Native Hawaiian Education
Act (NHEA) grant written by Principal Laulima. The grant funded a community
partnership program from 2007-2010 that helped to support the school’s desire for
integrated student achievement through cultural and place-based learning that encourage
students to connect with each other, their school, and their community.
Malama Elementary hosts a student led achievement celebration twice a year
where presentations include a student led conference where work samples and scores are
shared with participating family members. Parents are also invited to attend
walkthroughs and special classroom observations in support of student achievements.
Principal Malama notes that importance of connecting with parents and families are just
as significant as creating partnerships with community businesses and organizations.
Malama has also established partnerships with multiple groups in the community
including the Hawaii State Legislators who support student achievement improvement

112
efforts. At Malama parent and community activities are dependent on the availability of
resources that are often lacking, however they do the best they can with the students
when they have them even if it means sacrificing this piece.
Kokua Elementary hosts an annual breakfast held for community donors and
merchants who consistently help out in an attempt to increase community involvement.
They were invited to come to Kokua Elementary for breakfast, provided laminated
placemats with school statistics that many place in the windows at their businesses, and
tour the school and classrooms to visualize resources or lack thereof. Principal Kokua
says that it has been a successful way to create a sense of partnership with the community
and create opportunities for local businesses that aspire to give back and invest in
education. Kokua also acknowledges student achievements quarterly and promotes a
positive behavior program to engage students in a variety of physical and academic
standards-based activities.
Leadership
The leadership role of the principal at each school is significant in establishing the
instructional vision and creating an environment where educators are equipped and
motivated toward maximizing student performance. The administrative leadership at all
three schools in this study have particularly high expectations to improve academic
achievement for all students in order to lower the achievement gap among the
disadvantaged and minority subgroups that make up the majority of their student
populations.
Principal Kokua plays a major role in all aspects of her school and sets the tone
by having the greatest influence on student performance. She is the driving force behind

113
all the reform and changes that have taken place in the last three years as principal. As a
former vice principal for nine years prior to becoming principal, Principal Kokua has
managed to develop positive relationships with her staff and create a culture of
professionalism that supports the ambitious goals and expectations that staff members
have for themselves and their students. She is highly respected, is open to collaboration,
and is firm in her belief that with the proper supports, all children can learn and deserve a
quality education.
Principal Malama considers her role as an instructional leader a priority and feels
that her partnership with her coaching staff assists in making that happen. She appreciates
professional development workshops and informational training but deeply values a more
constructive hands-on approach to be most effective and relevant in the classrooms.
With decades of service as a former veteran teacher and vice principal prior to earning
her principal ship, her knowledge and experience have been pivotal in effecting change.
Her capacity to lead played a major role in all decision-making aspects of successful
school wide reform efforts, finally paying off for the first time in 2009-10. Along the
way, Principal Malama has managed to create a school culture that values student
performance and positively influences the evolving school community. She is open and
sets the tone for collaboration, is respected by colleagues and families, and puts forth her
best effort to ensure a quality education for students of Malama Elementary.
Principal Laulima has strong ties with the school community, is passionate about
her role as a leader, setting the tone for her committed staff. She stresses that the
decision making process is very democratic and “bottom up”, and her leadership style is
very “hands on”. Principal Laulima strongly believes that schools don’t move if the

114
principal is not hands on. She further emphasizes that she doesn’t expect anybody to do
anything she wouldn’t try herself. For example, she has modeled in staff meetings what
certain lessons and programs should look like and has even gone into the classroom by
teacher requests to teach certain lessons that they may be struggling with. The answer is
always “OK, give it to me,” and the rationale behind that is always “we are in this
together.” Principal Laulima leads by example and promotes the belief of education
being a true team effort. Accountability for Principal Laulima is “personal.” Having
lived in the community her whole life, she was “sick of people writing us off.” She
resents the assumption that people in her community don’t value education, because she
believes that they do. The choice to come back and serve meant giving up a lot, and she
realized early on that there was so much work to do. After years of working toward
stabilizing staff and providing a foundation where kids could be successful, she was able
to lead her team in building up a school community that proved just how much children
desire to learn and can learn in the face of adversity. Although Principal Laulima feels
that they still have a long way to go, the significant growth in assessment data have
proven that Laulima Elementary is well on its way.
The strategies that have been examined are recommended by several experts
including Odden (2009), Blankstein (2004), Marzano (2003), and Darling-Hammond
(2002). Many of the strategies discussed require very little or no added expenses.
However, analyzing data regularly, setting ambitious goals and producing effective
curriculum often require extensive expenditures. The rural schools in this study have all
struggled with fiscal constraints and disadvantaged student populations that require
intensified educational attention. Before Race to the Top funds were able to provide

115
added resources, the schools compromised in various areas due to scarce resources and
relied heavily on community partnerships to enhance student learning. Consequently, the
strategies discussed that do require a considerable amount of financial investment have
been most affected. The schools in this study have managed to implement most of the
suggested strategies with increased efforts geared toward the majority student population
of struggling students that they serve, however the range of implementation is very
broad.

116
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The diverse student population of Hawaii public schools presents an ideal
laboratory to examine various statewide resource opportunities and challenges
confronting quality education initiatives. While efforts to improve student achievement
and maintain high standards for all students have been perplexing, nation wide attention
continues to intensify the urgency for increased student outcomes. Adequacy and
accountability mandates are on the rise and continue to pressure schools across the
country to provide high levels of academic opportunities for all students. As educational
leaders and policy makers strive to discern resource and funding matters, rural schools in
Hawaii continue to serve record numbers of disadvantaged and minority students who are
struggling. The final chapter of this study includes a brief overview, a summary of the
findings, limitations of the study, implications for policy and practice, and
recommendations for future research.
Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the resource allocation patterns and
instructional strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii rural elementary
schools from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. The schools in this study were selected based on
their rural location in coastal communities, their high needs population of students
considered disadvantaged (special needs, free and reduced lunch) and living in poverty
(20.7% -25.7%, double the state average of 11% in 2009-10), and the overrepresented
minority student population, majority of whom are Native Hawaiian. Although the
profiles of these schools present similar characteristics of a typical Title I school, they
were not specifically selected for their Title I status. Each of the three non-charter public

117
elementary schools in this study demonstrated a wide range of successful improvements
in student achievement in the midst of scarce resources and budget constraints. Each of
the three schools has also been in NCLB restructuring status in the past, one school
recently achieved Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for the second year in a row, another
school earned AYP for the first time last school year, and the third school has met AYP
in the past but remains in restructuring while making moderate school wide gains.
Examination of public records and school documents and along with one-on-one
interviews with school site principals provided the necessary resources to conduct this
comprehensive analysis. Data collected from the three sample schools were compared
with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and analyzed with Odden’s
(2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance to identify how resources are
being allocated and implemented to improve student achievement.
The theoretical framework of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
is an adequacy model created to help schools define the answer to “How much it will
cost?” The research-based components of the model provide educational leaders an
avenue to strategically allocate resources in ways that would substantially improve
overall student performance. The model also includes prototypical elementary, middle
and high school level sample schools derived from extensive research by leading school
finance and education experts on effective expenditures and related outcomes. Several
areas lend exceptions, for example adjustments for school site demographics (e.g. low
income, ELL, and minority), student population and attention to specialized education
and extended support that directly relate to rural schools in Hawaii. The Evidence Based
Model provides a base line framework that can be instrumental in refining school level

118
resources and programs by utilizing school data to focus on teacher capacity and student
learning, ultimately improving student achievement. Best practices of the Evidence
Based Model are aligned with in-depth studies of schools across the nation that
experienced dramatic school wide advances in student achievement.
The Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) was also
used to analyze school level resources that contributed to improved student performance.
According to Odden & Archibald (2009), schools in their study doubled or nearly
doubled school wide student performance by consistently utilizing these strategies.
Paired with the Evidence Based Model, the strategies provide an added framework for
individual schools and districts to create an organizational culture that promotes the
intentional use of effective learning and instructional strategies in order to produce
significant improvements in overall student achievement.
Odden & Picus (2008) emphasize the importance of understanding how
individual school spending aligns with actual student performance by examining resource
allocation patterns that support student learning. Given the unique student populations of
rural schools in Hawaii, the assumption would be that more resources are needed.
However, even in times of fiscal constraints, experts believe that proper allocation of
resources has the potential to significantly impact student achievement. For schools to
effectively support and contribute to the academic success they desire for their students,
aligning best practices that correlate with improved student outcomes is highly
recommended.

119
Summary of Findings
The research questions for this study are:
1. What are the instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies in the Evidence Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008)?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
budget adjustments?
4. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
1) What are the instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school level?
All three schools included in this study are dedicated to lowering the achievement
gap and improving overall student performance. The schools are utilizing several
strategies recommended by Odden (2009) that also align with the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Numerous accounts indicate that these schools employ faculty
and staff who are invested in collaborative efforts to organize and apply strategies geared
toward improving student achievement.
2) How are actual resource patterns aligned with or different from the resource use
strategies in the Evidence Based Model?

Interviews with the school site principals provided the most insight on current
resource allocations regarding staffing and expenditures. They were each able to clarify
many of the resources available on their elementary school campuses however comparing
actual dollar amounts with the Evidence Based Model recommendations was difficult.

120
Public records were accessible but sometimes vague regarding allocation funds for
several Evidence Based Model categories including gifted and talented programs,
substitute teachers, technology, student activities and supplies. Compared to the
Evidence Based Model, the study schools have less resources in some areas but are
comparable in others. Estimations according to school documents and principal
recollection were utilized for this comparison study.
Since a major component of the Evidence Based Model is dependent on student
enrollment to determine school size, it was desirable to analyze three varying schools.
As previously mentioned, one school was nearly the same size as the EBM elementary
prototypical school with 435 students, another was significantly larger with 594 students,
and the third school was nearly double the enrollment size of the prototypical school with
834 students. Although the class sizes for all three schools were larger in the lower K-3
grades and smaller in the upper grades 4-5 compared to the Evidence Based Model,
staffing support included an abundance of PPTs and EAs to support core and specialist
teachers. They are often utilized in small group rotations, tutoring and extended day
efforts. Two of the three schools were staffed well above while one school was
comparable to the allotted core teachers and specialty teachers recommended by the
Evidence Based Model. The largest of the three schools that showed the most consistent
gains employed only 2 less core teachers than what is recommended. Like the other
schools in the study, the principal relied heavily on a combination of programs coupled
with competent PPTs and EAs who are experienced and have been with their respective
schools for many years. Although they are not certified teachers or tutors, they often
carry out various supportive responsibilities as the leadership see fit. Conducive to the

121
overrepresented disadvantaged student population that each of the sample schools serve,
two out of three schools had 3-4 more special education teachers than the EBM
suggested, and one school was short by 1. That particular sample school chooses to
emphasize inclusion with small group differentiation for the majority of the special
education population coupled with one-on-one pull outs for specific needs. Teacher
numbers at all three schools tend to fluctuate due to the high disadvantaged and high
needs community that they serve. Providing funding for teacher recruiting and retention
would benefit the community, schools, and ultimately long term student performance.
Each of the three schools included in this study spent more on Professional
Development than the Evidence Based Model recommends. This is largely due to the
statewide cutbacks of 10 PD days and 7 instructional days in 2009-2010 and an
additional 10 PD days during the 2010-2011 school year. The reductions came at a time
when educational leaders had to be resourceful in providing their faculty and staff with
PD training to increase school readiness and build capacity for learning and instruction.
The newly dispersed Race to The Top funds granted teachers additional pay to attend
optional PD days to prepare for the upcoming school year, however it was not mandatory
and could not be mandated according to teacher contracts. Still, principals utilized the
resources they had to support and prepare their staff as best as they could.
All three sample schools were significantly lacking in pupil support in comparison
to the Evidence Based Model that could allow for 2-4 more FTEs in this category. The
two smaller schools accounted for 2 schools counselors while the largest school had 1
school counselor and 1 district level Behavioral Health Specialist (BHS) from the district
level funds. Given the challenging student population and the surrounding communities,

122
providing more funding for schools to increase pupil support (counselor or BHS) as
recommended by the EBM, could be beneficial in assisting with commensurate issues
and concerns that often arise or create a proactive culture now that the schools are
stabilized and moving forward. Currently, the two schools that have assistant principals
on staff incorporate their expertise toward pupil support among other duties. However,
the school with only one administrative principal has expressed being overwhelmed with
various issues including pupil support and will likely fill the assistant principal position
to assist with various supports necessary in providing increased opportunities for
effective student learning.
All of the schools in the study are utilizing creative techniques to provide extra
support for their students. For example, because of the high percentage of Native
Hawaiian students, school leaders have incorporated culture based learning activities for
several corps and elective classes involving hands on lessons. These experiences are
especially meaningful for the large population of struggling students to build student self-
esteem and confidence that help to translate into the classrooms. PPTs and EAs are
instrumental in assisting with these programs and help to reduce the number of students
in rotation groups where differentiation is implemented.
Extended day and after school tutoring require certified tutors according to the
Evidence Based Model. However, once again it is much more feasible for the schools in
this study to use PPTs and EAs. All three schools offer extended learning opportunities
for all students, encourage struggling students participate, and realistically service about
30% of those students who actually need it. Even with recent budget constraints, the

123
schools in this study consider this a priority and find the means to provide access to as
many of their students who will attend.
3) How did the allocation of resources change in response to recent budget
adjustments?
The sample schools in this study have all dealt with lack of resources even when
considering the challenging demographics of the communities they serve. The principals
that were interviewed are not surprised and continue to persist. Each has expressed a
range of complexities related to budget adjustments like analyzing data, prioritizing
programs, shifting staff members, and realizing there may never be enough resources to
truly carry out what they envision for their school. The principals express doing the best
that they can with what they have and hope to significantly impact as many students and
families along the way.
The familiarity of recent budget constraints has further signified the scarce
resources of past budgets, however the reality is that all three schools have been in
restructuring status at some point during the five-year analysis of this study. Each school
has benefited from additional restructuring resources that may not have been included in
their school budgets. Tracking those resources in a cost-benefit analysis could be
beneficial in a future study.
A significant component that directly impacts budget adjustments for all three
schools in this study is the federal Title I funding program. While all three schools
encompass 77% - 85% of disadvantaged students respectively, Title 1 funds can fluctuate
depending on such enrollment. This also means added challenges that come with the

124
territory of providing high levels of educational opportunities for such a large number of
disadvantaged students as well as specific criteria and utilization of the Title 1 funds.
As previously mentioned 10 PD days and 7 instructional days in 2009-2010 and an
additional 10 PD days during the 2010-2011 were cut by the state of Hawaii. While it
directly affected school readiness for all public schools across the state, it posed
additional hardship for rural schools in particular who depend on building capacity to
allow teachers to hone their instructional strategies, especially when faced with the high
needs disadvantaged population of their study body. Federal Race to The Top funds
were able to grant 10 additional Professional Development days and extra coaching staff
to schools in the Zones of Innovation, however the paid PD days were not mandatory and
could not be mandated according to teacher contracts.
4) How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement plan?
The rural elementary schools included in this study were successful in their way
and showed a range of improved academic gains over time. Although there was a lack of
resources in several significant areas according to the Evidence Based Model, their
commitment to narrowing the achievement gap among low performing disadvantaged
students that make up the majority of the students they served remained constant.
Substantial progress in student achievement was evident in the schools that closely
aligned with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the accompanying
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Understanding the Performance Challenge
All three principals are keenly aware of where their schools stand and are sensitive
to the various needs of the children and families they serve. Having been in restructuring

125
status under NCLB, each of the three schools have faced similar academic challenges and
benefitted from external improvement resources. Thus, increasing their awareness of the
programs and teaching strategies that are implemented on the front lines, relying on
current data to analyze their effectiveness. Each principal speaks highly of their faculty
and staff, promotes a democratic bottom-up approach to solving issues, and is abreast on
research strategies that are similar to the profiles of their individual schools. Their prior
service as veteran teachers themselves as well as their experience as administrators for at
least a decade respectfully, is a testimony of their commitment and focus to narrowing
the achievement gap and increasing student performance.
Setting Ambitious Goals
Each of the three schools set ambitious goals to promote school wide improvements
in student achievement. While the ultimate goal is to meet or exceed national standards,
the focus continues to be on providing high levels of instruction to increase student
learning. Although proficiency objectives for reading (72%) and math (64%) were set
from the top down, individual schools set ambitious goals unique to their student
population. For example, one school set a “SMARTe” goal for 100% of their students to
improve critical thinking skills by at least 15% as measured by the HSA (grades 3-6) and
Children’s Progress (grades K-2). Another school set a goal for 70% of all students to
meet proficiency in reading and math quarterly assessments, while one of the schools
also focused on 100% of teachers to deliver effective curriculum instruction to all
students as measured by walk-throughs. All three schools follow the goals set forth by
the state and set goals on-site to promote school wide student achievement.

126
Implementing Effective Curriculum and Instruction
All the schools in the study focused on employing effective curriculum and
instruction. They all implemented curriculum that was approved by the state and adopted
by the complex area for “common core” subjects. While the chosen curriculum at each
school differ, implementation was also individualized to meet student needs and teacher
ability. They were able to refine programs that worked and incorporate other research-
based strategies that had a track record of success with similar student populations.
Individual schools also collaborated with their leadership teams on curriculum mapping
and pacing, with an emphasis on aligning with state standards.
While each of the principals preferred inclusion style classes, small homogeneous
group rotations were commonly used to provide differentiation and pull outs for students
needing more one-on-one attention. The schools in this study used various reading
curriculum including Open Court, My Read Coach, Read Street, Read Well, and Imagine
It. Math curriculum also varied, including Every Day Math, Voyager Math, Singapore
Math, and Trans Math. The schools also employed strategies like the “I, We, You”
Continuum, Thinking Maps, and Response to Intervention (RTI) to enhance the learning
process.
Utilizing Benchmarks and Formative Assessments
Each of the three schools used a variety of formative and summative assessments to
inform instruction. A common resource for all Hawaii public schools are the three
rounds of the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) test for grades 3 to 6 in the elementary
level. Individual schools also utilize a combination of Data School Improvement (DSI)
systems, Longitudinal Data Systems (LDS), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

127
Skills (DIBELS) and end of the unit/chapter assessments to drive formative assessments
and adjust teaching strategies throughout the school year. Attention is given toward
aligning standards-based curriculum with state benchmarks in order to apply strategies
according to teacher ability and student needs. Principals set aside time for teacher
collaboration to analyze data by grade level teams that often include coaches. While all
three schools gather data in their own way, each school incorporates data analyses to
inform decisions and guide instructional practices accordingly.
Using Instructional Time Effectively and Efficiently
The schools in this study have each designated core time blocks with minimal
interruptions. The focus during these protected times is on instruction and learning.
Schools allocated 90 to 150 minutes for both reading and math that are split and rotate
between morning and afternoon time blocks depending on student grade levels.
Individual schools also provide additional resources for ELL and struggling students as
required by law, and although teacher contracts do not allow for extending the school
day, tutoring is offered at all three schools. Emphasis on reading weighed more heavily
than math for all three schools.
Each school incorporates a variety of strategies to teach math and reading more
effectively to the average student who is considered disadvantaged and often struggling.
A common resource among all three schools includes staffing more PPTs and EAs than
certified tutors for reading and math support throughout the school day as well as
designated tutoring times. Although they are professionals in their own right and are
trained to administer certain portions of school program, according to the Evidence
Based Model schools are highly impacted by the structure of their tutoring programs and

128
depend heavily on the alignment of effective tutors and the regular program of
instruction. To maximize student performance it is also recommended that tutors are
certified teachers and trained in specific tutoring strategies. (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
All the schools in this study use various strategies to provide extra support for
struggling students who are the majority of the students they serve. Most of the support
is provided through out the school day in the form of workshop style groups that are
homogeneously smaller, rotating between a teacher and an aide. In addition, one school
implements Response to Intervention (RtI) methods to incorporate appropriate
intervention for their school.
As previously mentioned, PPTs and EAs are utilized in various ways to support
teachers in the classroom. Although they are not certified tutors, the overall school
culture relies heavily their presence and ability to carry out tasks assigned by the
principal and teachers. Many of them have been at their respective schools almost as
long as their principals and are often supervised by coaches to assist with specific
interventions. Schools would benefit from training PPTs and EAs as certified tutors so as
to utilize them at a greater capacity. Since the average student at all three schools is
considered at-risk and “struggling”, the schools in this study must consider who conducts
tutoring for the large population of students who need one-on-one assistance to gain the
skills they need to achieve proficiency. As previously mentioned, the Evidence Based
Model recommends certified and trained tutors to provide the intensity that this strategy
needs to maximize the effects of tutoring outcomes. (Odden & Picus, 2008).

129
Investing in On-Going Professional Development
All three principals intentionally invest in on-going professional development. With
statewide reductions in the areas of instructional and PD days, the schools in this study
valued PD too much to discard it. One school utilized in house expertise among
seasoned teachers and coaches to provide professional trainings without utilizing PD
budgetary funds. Another school was able to allocate funds by utilizing “sub days” for
specialized trainings on new comprehensive programs like AVID and Engagement IEU.
Another school was resourceful in accessing the expertise of veteran teachers to mentor
and train new teachers. Although the schools have a fair percentage of teachers with
longevity, all three principals expressed the issue of higher than normal turn over rates in
their complex area and the frustration of constantly having to invest in new teacher
training. All three principals also encourage collaboration among teaching staff and
coaches as a constant form of professional development that opens the lines of
communication to freely exchange ideas and strategies that are effective in the classroom.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
Each of the three principals urge collaborative meetings and promote widespread
distributed leadership among their staff. Principals worked closely with their leadership
teams that consisted of administration, coaches, and teachers. Their main focus is to
analyze student data to guide instruction. All three principals also encourage teaching
staff to engage in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) through out the year to
analyze data and adjust for effective learning and teaching strategies in order to improve
overall student achievement. Examination of data analysis practices and teacher

130
partnerships indicate that the staff at each of the three schools in this study work
collaboratively to improve student performance.
Utilizing Research-based and Proven Strategies
The three schools included in this study utilize research-based strategies to
improve instructional strategies that directly impact student achievement. Although
principals have some autonomy in choosing strategies to employ at the school level,
distinct programs are approved at the district level before being disseminated. Principals
are generally informed about major changes in curriculum and direct their schools in
applying district approved policies.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital
All three principals are products of a system that recognizes talent and invests in
building capacity to promote educational leaders. Each principal in this study paid their
dues in the classroom before pursuing an administrative career path. More recently,
principals have expressed that the limited pool of teachers in Hawaii makes it difficult for
them to hire the high quality teachers that their disadvantaged students need to be
successful. One principal came to the realization that she had to improve her
interviewing skills to hire better teachers, while another principal had to learn how to
recognize strong teachers with leadership potential to maximize teacher talent as a
resource. One of the principals also encouraged a few of her educational assistants to
further their education, who eventually returned and are currently on staff as certified and
highly qualified (HQT) teachers. The three principals each established leadership teams
comprised of coaches and teachers with expertise in data analysis and teaching strategies
to guide improvement practices and increase student achievement.

131
Limitations
There are three limitations to this study. First, since the sample schools in this
study were dependent on the participation of school-site principals, only three of the
original six who were invited to participate consented and followed through with the
protocol interview. Second, the schools in this study are comprised of a purposeful
sample chosen specifically for their demographic similarities and rural location in the
state of Hawaii. Therefore, findings should not be generalized across rural elementary
schools with similar demographics. Lastly, the data collection of both qualitative and
quantitative information was limited to the access and interpretation of the data gathered
for this study. Many of the expenditures were either non-existent or included in various
categories. Specific expenditures that were not available and difficult to decipher,
forewent the full scope comparison of the Evidence Based Model.
Implications
A comprehensive review of the literature and findings provided a variety of
information for educational leaders and policy makers. Most notably, this study supports
the utilization of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009) as a combined framework to
maximize best practices focused on raising student achievement. According to the
Evidence Based Model and other research based studies, all three schools are adequately
funded in most areas and have the potential to demonstrate increased student
performance beyond what they are currently generating. The sample schools displayed
gains that indicate that the more aligned individual schools were with the comparison
framework, the more consistent their growth was over time. Hence, it is paramount for

132
educational leaders and policy makers to refine allocation practices with rigorous
adherence to application, essentially aligning resources to specific goals.
Findings from this study highlighted strategies that do not require an abundance
of resources, rather sharpening current improvement efforts to focus on achieving
significant student gains and lowering the achievement gap. Educational leaders
committed to school reform can set ambitious goals, adopt a new curriculum &
instructional vision, commit to data-based decision making, and create a professional
school community with very little to no extra funding. For example, consistently
aligning goals and objectives with state and national standards like NCLB would help
with analyzing student data and creating ambitious goals. School leaders would benefit
from converging these foundational strategies with distributive leadership teams to
effectively problem solve and make decisions that dramatically impact teacher abilities
and student learning.
Results from this study also indicate that student performance is lower than what
principals would like it to be. Schools perceive instructional time as a priority but are not
allocating sufficient resources directly on students. The data shows a large portion of
school funds going toward more administrative positions like secretaries rather than
certified teachers and pupil support that directly impact student performance. Given the
overrepresentation of disadvantaged students who are considered struggling, vigilance is
vital for these schools. Escalation of leadership and teaching would enhance a rigorous
adherence to the alignment of resources to goals. It would be valuable for school leaders
to examine priorities and reallocate resources to align with educational commitments that
foster academic success for all students.

133
Recommendations
This study contributes to the body of research on resource allocation strategies at
the school level that centers on improving student performance and lowering the
achievement gap. It would be beneficial to expand this study with a larger sample of
rural elementary schools in the state of Hawaii utilizing the Evidence Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
(Odden, 2009) to increase validity and generalization of this comparison study. The
research based framework would allow other rural schools in Hawaii to examine proven
best practices that facilitate the implementation of effective curriculum.
Further research regarding the comparison framework and other research based
strategies is also needed with attention to low-performing and struggling students with
extreme demographic issues like poverty and homelessness. This would provide an
avenue of resources that schools can access in order to adequately provide the
educational supports that are fundamental for disadvantaged students to learn and prevent
them from falling too way behind.
Addressing the issue of adapting practice to needs based on data, these schools
could benefit from a future gap analysis to study actual skills, knowledge, structure, and
motivation. This would better direct administrators and their staff in figuring out what
they think the issues are and the rate and direction of change that is acceptable compared
to the data. Additionally, it would be beneficial for school leaders to assist their staff in
constructively probing deeper to recognize their own beliefs and help them understand
how to adapt strategies based on the data they are getting.

134
Lastly, there is a need for principal support and training to improve teacher
recruiting and retention. Knowledge and confidence in interviewing and hiring skills of
principals would help them identify the right teachers for their schools. Since rural
schools often pose the need of highly qualified and experienced teachers, knowing what
to look for would give principals an advantage in the selection process. This would also
alleviate many stressors that go along with finding quality teachers among a limited pool
of applicants. Teachers make all the difference in providing opportunities that add value
to a child’s learning experiences. Studies show student achievement is more likely to
occur with the presence of more qualified teachers at high needs schools and conversely
declines when such teachers leave (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Conclusion
The nation’s imperative on educational reform seeks to improve academic
performance for all students in a time of an unstable economy. Educational leaders of
Hawaii’s single school district have been tasked with directing state initiatives to improve
statewide policy and programs that impact student achievement. In the midst of fiscal
constraints, proper investment in education at every level is necessary to rebuild the
economy and vital for sustaining future generations. This study focuses on the resource
allocation strategies of rural elementary schools that have displayed a range of improved
student performance despite the highest percentage of disadvantaged and minority
students in the state of Hawaii. The principals of these schools have been relentless
leaders with a strong commitment in believing that every child can learn, setting a
precedence for their leadership teams and teaching staff in providing data-based
strategies that meet the learning needs of their students. Although the overall data shows

135
that more can be done for these students, these schools did their best to add value and
impact their education. The Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) combined
with the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) could serve as
a catalyst for schools in Hawaii to adequately allocate resources toward educational
strategies that focus on student needs and teacher abilities to dramatically improve
student achievement.

136
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

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

Anderson, J.D., (2001). School: The Story of American Public Education. Part III, 1950-
1980, Separate and Equal, pp.121-170. Boston, Massachusetts. Beacon Press.

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.

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

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

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2002). Leading with soul and spirit. The School Administrator
(AASA) web edition, pp. 1-10.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Fifth Edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice
and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, W.G., Tobin, E., Kursweil, M.A. (2006). Equity and Excellence in American
Education. Continuing Higher Education Review, Vol. 70, pg.189-193.
University of Virginia Press.

Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., and Eide, E.R.(2008). The role of economics in
education policy research. In Ladd, Helen F. and Fiske, Edward B. (Eds.)
Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy. New York: Routledge, pp.
23-41.

Cachola, J.I. (1995). Kamehameha III:Kauikeaouli. Honolulu, HI. Kamehameha
Schools Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate.

137
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.

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

Cross, C.T. and Roza, M. (2010). How federal categorical funding prevents the effective
use of resources. In Adams, J.E. Smart Money. Harvard Education Press.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Cuban, L. (2001). School: The Story of American Public Education. Part IV, 1980-2000,
The Bottom Line, pp.171-213. Boston, Massachusetts. Beacon Press.

Darling, Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s
commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College, Columbia
University.

Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J.P. (2003) High stakes accountability in urban elementary
schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Working paper, Northwestern
University.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National standards and assessments: Will they improve
education? American Journal of Education. 102(4).

DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. School Administrator,
60(5), 13-18.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

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

EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.

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

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.

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

138
Folkman, D.V. (2004). Facilitating organizational learning and transformation within a
public school setting. Presented Paper. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference
in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Indiana University’
Indianapolis, IN.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Friedman,T. L.(2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, pp. 250-275.

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.

Guthrie, J. & R. Rothstein. 2001. “A New Millennium and a Likely New Era of
Education Finance,” Education Finance in the New Millennium, Larchmont, NY:
Eye on Education.

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. (2006). Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Hanushek, E. & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic
development. Journal of Economic Literature 46(3), 607-668.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lei Zhang. 2009. Quality-consistent estimates of international
schooling and skill gradients. Journal of Human Capital 3(2): 107–43.

Hanushek, E.A. & Lindseth, A.A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouse:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Hanushek, E.A. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. National Center
for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education. Working paper. December.

Hawaii Department of Education. (2009). SAT, HCPS & Terra Nova Scores.
http://doe.k12.hi.us/myschool/sat-hcps-terranova.htm

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

139
Hawaii Department of Education (2010). Superintendent’s 21
st
Annual Report:
Overcoming Challenges. State Systems Accountability Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.
http://arch.k12.hi.us.state/superintendent_report/annual_report.html

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

Hess, F. M., and Squire, J. P. (2009). “Diverse Providers” in action: School restructuring
in Hawai`i. AEI Future of American Education Project. Working paper. 1-44.

Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools.
Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, NY.

Kaestle, C.F. (2001). School: The Story of American Public Education. Part I, 1770-
1900, The Common School, pp.9-60. Boston, Massachusetts. Beacon Press.

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

Loucks-Horsley, S., Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for
teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and
Mathematics. 99(5), 258-271.

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

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works:
From Research to Results. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s schools, 1-23.

Monk, D.H. (2010). Considering outside-the-box changes in education funding. In
Adams, J.E. Cambridge, MA.

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

The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), April 1983.

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

Northouse, Peter G. (2010). Fifth Edition. Leadership- Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

140
Odden, A. R. (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.

Odden A.R. & Archibald. (2009). Doubling student performance...and finding the
resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin.

Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-
74.

Odden, A.R., Goetz, M.E., and Picus, L.O., (2010). Merging costs with effective resource
strategies. In Adams, J.E. Cambridge, MA.

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

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Aportela, A.
(2007). Moving from good to great in Wisconsin: Funding schools adequately and
doubling student performance. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al. (2005).
An Evidence Based approach to recallibrating Wyoming's block grant school
funding formula. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.

Ogbu, J. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of and
explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 18(4), 312-334

Ouchi, W. (2003). Making public schools work: A Revolutionary plan to get your
children the education they need. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY.

Ouchi, W. (2009). The Secret of TSL: The Revolutionary discovery that raises school
performance. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY

Ouchi, W., Riordan, R., Lingle, L., and Porter, L. (2005). Making public schools work:
Management reform as the key. The Academy of Management Journal. 48(6), 929-
940.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
Edition). Sage
Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.

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

141
Race To The Top (2011). Retrieved April 29, 2001, from www.ed.gov.

Ravich, D. (2001) School: The Story of American Public Education. Part two, 1900-
1950, as American as public school, pp. 60-119. Boston, Massachusetts. Beacon
Press.

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, pgs. 218-267.

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A
Proposal for Enhancing the Validity of Education Adequacy Studies. Teacher
College Record 109(6) ID Number 12743, Available at
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743

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, www.whitehouse.gov, May 7, 2011

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.

Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
pp. 33-47.

Spring, J. (2009). American Education (14
th
edition). New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.

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

Wei, R.C., Andree, A., & Darling-Hammond, L. How nations invest in teachers.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 28-33.

Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S Hirsh,
(2009). Preface. In Professional learning in the learning profession A status
report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX:
National Staff Development Council.

142
APPENDIX A
OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
SCHOOL SITES

The following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on this
protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on obtaining key
elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process
aspect.

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.

A. What are 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. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)

5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?

6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of
your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, 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?

143
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, In-service 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?)

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

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?

144
APPENDIX B
CASE STUDY: KOKUA ELEMENTARY
Background
Kokua Elementary opened its doors in 1960 and continues to serve Kindergarten
through sixth grade students. The school is located in a rural community on the island of
Oahu and is a part of a district that services both the largest indigenous and special needs
population in the state of Hawaii. Enrollment for the 2010-2011 school year includes
580 students on site, 5,568 students with in the complex, 7,884 students within the
complex area and 38,739 students in the entire district. Although student enrollment
declined in between 2005 through 2008 by nearly 60 students, enrollment rose back up to
594 students in 2010-11. There were 5 classes per grade for Kindergarten and 1
st
grade,
4 classes per grade for grades 2-4, and 3 classes per grade for 5
th
and 6
th
grade.

Figure B.1 – Student Enrollment 2005-06 to 2010-11 for Kokua Elementary

597

568

540

565

580

594

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580

590

600

610

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

Enrollment

Enrollment

145
Kokua Elementary is a Title I school with 85% of students receiving free or
reduced lunch (Disadvantaged), 14% of students qualify for special education (SPED),
and 4% of students are English Language Learners (ELL). Forty seven percent of
students attending Kokua Elementary attended preschool.

Figure B.2 – Demographics of Student Needs for Kokua Elementary
Although the indigenous population is by far the majority, Kokua Elementary
School also serves a diverse student population. The ethnic groups represented include
Native Hawaiian (70.7%), Samoan (6.9%), Filipino (5.1%), White (4.7%), Hispanic
(2.9%), Black (2.1%), Japanese (1.9%), Native American (1.8%), Micronesian (1.3%),
multiple ethnicities (0.6%), Indo-Chinese (0.5%), Chinese (0.3%) and other Pacific
Islander (0.3%).

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

ELL

SPED

Disadvantaged

ELL
SPED
Disadvantaged

Student
Needs
4%
14%
85%

146

Figure B.3 – Demographics of Student Ethnicities for Kokua Elementary
There were a total of 44 teachers (FTE) at Kokua Elementary. Twenty-eight
teachers provided regular instruction, thirteen provided special instruction, and three
provided supplemental instruction. Teachers at this school had an average of 8.2 years of
teaching experience, 50% of teachers have taught at this school for five or more years,
and 25% of teachers had advanced degrees. There was one principal, one vice-principal,
one Student Services Coordinator (SSC), one librarian and two counselors.
The purpose of this case study was to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Kokua Elementary School.
Assessment Data
Kokua Elementary has shown comparable growth patterns for both Reading and
Math early on in the transition of assessment tests between 2005-06 and 2006-07.
70.7%

6.9%

5.1%

4.7%

2.9%

2.1%

1.9%

1.8%

1.3%

.6%

.5%

.3%

.3%

.2%

.2%

NaFve
Hawaiian

Samoan

Filipino

White

Hispanic

Black

Japanese

NaFve
American

Micronesian

MulFple
2+

Indo-‐Chinese

Chinese

Other
Pacific
Islander

Tongan

Guamanian/Chomorro

147
However as national and state standards continued to rise, proficiency scores in both
Reading and Math took a slight dip in the first few years of the Hawaii State Assessment
(HAS) then fell significantly behind while maintaining modest school wide gains.
HSA Reading Proficiency
Kokua Elementary was 2% away from meeting the state reading proficiency
objective of 44% in 2005-06, scoring 42% for all students and 42% for disadvantaged
students. During the first year of HSA testing, reading scores for all students increased
from 42% in 2005-06 to 44% in 2006-07 (2% increase), while reading scores of
disadvantaged students showed a slightly greater increase from 42% in 2005-06 to 45%
in 2006-07 (3% increase). The following year showed an increase of 10% for all
students, however the rise in national and state standards also increased the gap in
proficiency scores. Kokua Elementary entered restructuring status in 2005-06 and was in
the second year of school improvement for the 2010-11 school year. Based on Kokua
Elementary’s 2010-2011 NCLB School Report, only 47% of all students and 44% of
disadvantaged students met reading proficiency, missing the 72% objective.

148

Figure B.4 – Kokua Elementary Reading Proficiency Scores
Terra Nova Reading Proficiency
The nationally normed test that is utilized as a part of the Hawaii State
Assessment is called the Terra Nova. Table B.1 shows the national percentages of Kokua
Elementary students who performed average or above the national standards in the area
of reading. Although students test scores were in the lower range during their 3
rd
grade
year, percentages showed modest improvement as students promoted in grade level.
While percentages showed a significant decline from 2006-07 to 2010-11 for 3
rd
graders
(16% decline) and 5
th
graders (15% decline), percentages for 4
th
graders (14% increase)
and 6
th
graders (5% increase) has also shown modest gains.

44%
44%

58%
58%
58%

72%

42%

44%

54%

44%

41%

47%

42%

45%

49%

43%

37%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

State
ObjecFve
Proficient
(all)
Proficient
(disadvantaged)

149
Table B.1 – Percent of Students Reading Proficient on Terra Nova Assessments

Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Grade 3 65 49 45 49 49
Grade 4 49 52 60 39 63
Grade 5 72 58 60 61 57
Grade 6 68 73 56 61 73

Kokua Elementary has struggled over the years to meet both state and national
standards in reading as measured by the Hawaii State Assessment. Figure B.5 shows the
rise in reading proficiency scores for all subgroups during the 2007-08 school year, the
gradual decline in percentages during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years, and the
most recent growth during the 2010-11 school year. While under Restructuring status,
Kokua Elementary met the 1year proficiency calculation by state standards for the 2006-
07 and 2007-08 school years. This improved the school’s NCLB status from
Restructuring to In Good Standing, Unconditional for the 2007-08 school. However, the
decline in reading proficiency scores during 2008-09 and 2009-10 changed the school’s
status to pending while in good status then to School Improvement Year 1. Kokua
Elementary did not meet AYP in 2010-2011 and was in their second year of School
Improvement.

150

Figure B.5 – Kokua Elementary Reading Proficiency Percentages by Subgroup
HSA Math Proficiency
Kokua Elementary met the state math proficiency objective of 28% with a score
of 28% for all students in 2005-06. However, disadvantaged students scored 26%,
missing the state objective by 2%. Kokua Elementary also met state and national
objectives for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) during the first year of HSA testing in
2006-07. Math scores increase from 28% to 31% for all students, 26% to 28% for
disadvantaged students, and 27% to 30% for Asian/Pacific Islander students. Math
proficiency continued to rise during the 2007-08 school year displaying significant
growth for all subgroups, all students 54%, disadvantaged 49%, and Asian/Pacific
Islander 55%, exceeding the 46% objective. However, math proficiency scores showed a
significant decline in 2008-09 and 2009-10. Based on Kokua Elementary’s 2010-2011
NCLB School Report, only 45% of all students and 42% of disadvantaged students met
the math proficiency, falling short of the 64% state objective.
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-‐06
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
2010-‐11

All
Students

Disadvantaged

Asian/Pacific
Islander

151

Figure B.6 – Kokua Elementary Math Proficiency Scores
Terra Nova Math Proficiency
Although the nationally normed test was changed in 2006-07 from the SAT9 to
the Terra Nova, the Hawaii State Assessment continues to test 3
rd
through 6
th
grade
students annually. Table B.2 shows the national percentages of Kokua Elementary
students who performed average or above the national standards in the area of math.
There was a significant decline for fourth graders in 2009-10 from 60% to 47% (13%
decrease), a significant decline for fifth graders in 2007-08 from 72% to 56% (16%
decrease), and a significant decline for sixth graders in 2008-09 from 75% to 54% (21%
decrease). An increase in students testing average or above nationally in math showed
significant growth for all grades during 2006-07 to 2010-11. Over the past five years,
3% more third graders improved, 22% more fourth graders improved, 13% more fifth
graders improved, and 36% more sixth graders improved.

28%
28%

46%
46%
46%

64%

28%

31%

54%

40%

41%

45%

26%

28%

51%

39%

38%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

State
ObjecFve
Proficient
(all)
Proficient
(disadvantaged)

152
Table B.2 – Percent of Students Math Proficient on Terra Nova Assessments
Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Grade 3 62 63 60 60 65
Grade 4 61 54 60 47 83
Grade 5 72 56 62 65 85
Grade 6 51 75 54 60 87

Figure B.7 shows the math proficiency scores for all subgroups from 2005-06 to
2010-11. While Kokua Elementary was under restructuring status in 2005-06 and 2007-
07, students met the math objectives for two consecutive years during the transition of
the nationally normed SAT9 to the Terra Nova. This progression helped the school meet
AYP in 2007-08 and reclassify their status to good standing, unconditional for that year.
Figure B.7 also shows the extreme growth in math proficiency scores for all subgroups
during the 2007-08 school year, followed by a significant decline in 2008-09.
Disadvantaged students have since lagged slightly behind even with the subtle
improvements for all subgroups in the 2009-10 and 2010-11.

153

Figure B.7 – Kokua Elementary Reading Proficiency Percentages by Subgroup
Instructional Improvement Process
Principal Kokua
Principal Kokua served as vice principal of Kokua Elementary for nine years
before becoming principal three years ago. She agreed to participate in an interview and
responded to a series of qualitative and quantitative questions regarding her plans and
strategies for school wide improvement for the 2010-2011 school year. There was a
structured protocol that guided the interview to collect specified data pertaining to this
study. Principal Kokua’s insight and responses combined with public records of state
and school documents provided the qualitative and quantitative resource data that was
utilized for comparison with the Evidence Based Model. The comprised information
helped to identify the allocation of school resources for academic and instructional
improvement. The ten strategies for doubling performance (Odden & Archibald, 2006)
are used as a recommended framework for identifying research based strategies that have
been proven to increase academic performance.
Curriculum& Intervention
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-‐06
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
2010-‐11

All
Students

Disadvantaged

Asian/Pacific
Islander

154
Principal Kokua emphasized reading as the content focus of Kokua Elementary.
She says that students often have problems with math because of the reading, and
although they try to focus on both, there is a stronger emphasis on reading as the core
curriculum piece. The schools SMARTe goal is “100% of students will improve critical
thinking skills as demonstrated by at least a 15% improvement as measured by the HSA
(grades 3-6) and Children’s Progress (grades K-2) by May 2012.” Both reading and
critical thinking are critical components.
Kokua Elementary has adopted Open Court curriculum for teaching English
language arts and Everyday Math curriculum for teaching math. Recently they have been
supplementing training for the more hands on Singapore math. As a former America’s
Choice school for eight years, Kokua Elementary has also adopted Read A Loud, a
program that encourages reading one million words a year. Research shows that this
practice could raise reading by a minimum of one grade level. While every classroom is
expected to follow this model, teachers are also expected to follow the Hawaii state
content standards and fully implement the adopted curriculum. Standard-based
instruction and General Learner Outcomes (GLO) are utilized to ensure students are
learning all the grade level standards. Specific time is allocated for language arts and
math instruction.
While the state requires common core standards for only Kindergarten through
2
nd
grade, Kokua Elementary decided to start common core for grades K-5. The English
language arts (ELA) block of the core curriculum consists of two and a half hours every
morning for K-2 graders and focuses on reading and writing skills. Math workshop for
K-2 grade students is held in the afternoons after the lunch transition for one and a half

155
hours daily. Grades 3-6 rotate between two and a half hour time blocks in the morning
and one and a half hour time blocks in the afternoon for either ELA or Math.
Help for Struggling Student
Kokua Elementary provides most of the support for struggling students during the
regular school day utilizing inclusion classroom environments. This strategy allows for
struggling students to be placed with positive role model students. A typical classroom
staffs one full time teacher and one aide to assist the teacher. Rather than working
toward class size reduction, the whole workshop style of teaching addresses the reduction
strategy. It is supported in such a way that involves in depth focus on the standard for a
particular lesson and the anticipatory set followed by a 5-10 minute mini lesson on the
concept being taught, then breaking up into small groups for approximately 40 minutes of
workshop time. This strategy allows for small group differentiation, rotating the teacher
and aide between groups to assist with data collection. Although the inclusion method is
preferred, resource classrooms were incorporated for students who were too far behind
and needed more intensive services, where students were pulled out for specific skills.
Kokua Elementary provides after school tutoring for students who need extra
support, but has difficulty with student attendance. It is not mandatory for teachers
however those who volunteer get paid out of school funds. The city also runs an after
school “A+” program that emphasizes homework completion, academic enrichment, PE
and art and crafts. Neither program is mandatory. (Both are voluntary)
Assessments & Data Analysis
Principal Kokua’s Academic Financial plan acknowledges assessment for
learning and instruction as the first guiding principal in assuring that all students graduate

156
career-ready through effective use of standards-based education. Related objectives
include utilization of formative assessments, including Data doe School Improvement
(DSI) to drive instruction, improving schools and data system through use of
Longitudinal Data System dashboards (LDS), using high quality standards, curriculum
and materials, and expanding opportunities for rigorous Career and Technical Education
programs of study within pathways.
While data showed proficiency scores for Kokua Elementary have fluctuated
between 2005-06 and 2010-11, the gap in student achievement among disadvantaged
subgroups at Kokua Elementary is narrowing. Students have made moderate increases in
their math scores compared to more significant increases in language arts. Part of the
reason for this discrepancy is that the school puts a heavy emphasis on language arts
more than math. Kokua Elementary decided a while ago that K-3 grades were the learn
to read grades and 4-6 were the read to learn grades. Another reason is that there area a
high percentage of disadvantaged students who could benefit from extra after school
tutoring that is offered, but often do not attend. Lastly, another reason for the nominal
improvement in the math scores is likely because Kokua Elementary has been
supplementing training for a new hands-on Singapore math curriculum and the teachers
have not received the proper professional development to teach the new curriculum.
Kokua Elementary utilizes annual statewide assessments for grades 3-6 known as
the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) to monitor student progress of national
accountability goals and standards, as well as measure progress toward closing the
achievement gap between disadvantaged students and school wide performance. The
results of each of the 3 rounds of HSA scores are reviewed with faculty and staff to

157
determine areas of focus and to adjust priorities as indicated. Teachers use the results of
the state assessments to plan their instructional focus and to monitor their progress
toward meeting state goals in achievement. Teachers also use end of the chapter/lesson
assessments to gage student comprehension and one on one attention before moving on
to activities that build on prior concepts.
Assessment data is analyzed through out the year in variety of collaborative
meetings. The school has a minimum day schedule on Wednesdays that allow for two-
hour staff or departmental meetings. A significant part of these staff meetings is devoted
to data analysis. Some of these meetings are facilitated by in house coaches or outside
consultants, which will be detailed in the Professional Development section. In addition,
teachers meet with coaches and consultants throughout the year in small groups and /or
one-on-one, to discuss student performance in more detail. Principal Kokua emphasizes
that a lot is done by grade level and that Professional Development at Kokua Elementary
could be more individualized.
Race to The Top
Since Hawaii became a recipient for national Race to the Top (RTTT) funds,
schools in Kokua Elementary’s complex area have been included in the “Zone of
Innovation”. The agreements of participating in the Zone includes sharing in a vision
that every student graduates on time college and career ready, a mission built on a K-12
construct of common core standards, and an overall target to instill critical thinking.
Crucial components of Zone schools also include participation in the development and
implementation of a Zone/School professional development structure that utilizes
Assessment for Learning (Jan Chappuis), Coaches’ Academy, and Instructional

158
Leadership Teams (ILT). Principal Kokua emphasized that being apart of the Zone has
increased resources to implement some of the initiatives that educators in their complex
area have been talking about even before they were designated as part of the Zone. They
saw the importance of the complex working together and being in the Zone encourages
that collaboration piece.
Professional Development & Coaching
Professional development is driven by student deficiencies that are identified
within student performance data, particularly the overrepresented disadvantaged
populations. The main focus of Professional Development (PD) at Kokua Elementary is
the on-going support for teacher delivery of the Hawaii State Standards. In her plan for
the school, Principal Kokua intentions are to align school strategies with the Department
of Education’s Strategic Plan measures to; 1) Implement focused, prioritized, standards-
based curriculum, instruction, and assessment through professional development options;
2) Establish standardized school-wide screening, intervention, and progress monitoring to
provide multi-tiered intervention and instruction; 3) Utilize formative assessments,
including DSI to drive instruction. Due to budget cutbacks, the state provided zero days
for Professional Development, where in the previous year nine days were allotted.
Designated Zone schools were provided four PD days to prepare for the new school year.
However, although teachers were compensated to attend, it was not mandatory and
therefore not all teachers participated. Most of the Professional Development for Kokua
Elementary is provided on-site.
Teachers are out of their classrooms two times a month all day for Professional
Development from 8:30am -1:45pm during IRA, a rotation system that was created in

159
house to allow teachers to meet by grade level to analyze assessments and plan for
instruction. The rotation occurs every 7 to 8 school days.
Principal Kokua relies heavily on her coaches who are master teachers
themselves. In the past, Kokua Elementary always had two coaches for a long time and
like many other schools in the Zone, have been given two extra coaches as additional
resources; one student success coach and one data coach. While each school uses them
differently, Principal Kokua uses her student success coach for math. The other two
coaches are utilized for language arts, one for the level and the other for the lower level.
Kokua Elementary
Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement is highly encouraged by the principal and
staff. Kokua Elementary acknowledges student achievements quarterly and promotes a
Positive Behavior program to engage students in a variety of physical and academic
standards-based activities. Principal Kokua noted that they do have their share of
contentious parents, but for the most part, people of the community are very thankful and
appreciative. The school also hosts an annual breakfast held for community donors and
merchants who consistently help out in an attempt to increase community involvement.
They were invited to come to Kokua Elementary for breakfast, provided laminated
placemats with school statistics than many place in the window at their business, and tour
the classrooms to visualize resources or lack thereof. So far it has been a successful way
to create a sense of partnership with the community.

160
Leadership
Principal Kokua sets the tone and has the greatest influence on student
performance and plays a major role in all aspects of the school. She is the driving force
behind all the reform and changes that has taken place in the last three years as principal.
As a former vice principal for nine years prior to becoming principal, Principal Kokua
has managed to develop positive relationships with her staff and create a culture of
professionalism that supports the ambitious goals and expectations that staff members
have for themselves and their students. She is highly respected, is open to collaboration,
and is firm in her belief that with the proper supports, all children can learn and deserve a
quality education.
Table B.3 shows how Kokua Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.
Table B.3 – Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based Strategies

Odden’s 10
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
Observed
1) Analyzing
student
achievement data
√ Several assessments are utilized.
Teachers meet regularly to analyze
formative & summative data in
order incorporate changes for
instructional improvement.
2) Setting
ambitious goals
√ The school’s SMARTe goal and
focus content on reading are the
foundations for proficiency and
instructional improvement.
3) Implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ Teachers are expected to follow
state content standards and
incorporate complex adopted
curriculum as apart of the Zone of
Innovation initiatives.
4) Using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ Multiple forms of assessments are
used to guide instruction and
monitor student progress.

161
5) Employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ While the state lost 10 PD days due
to budget constraints, designated
schools in the Zone were allotted 4
PD days to prep for the school year.
6) Using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Maximizing instructional time is on-
going effort. Daily time blocks are
specified for math and language
arts.
7) Providing extra
help for
struggling
students
√ The majority of supports for
struggling students are provided
during school hours. Participation
has been minimal when offered
after school.
8) Creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly by grade
level to collaborate on instructional
strategies, data analysis and student
achievement.
9) Using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers utilize a variety of
research-based strategies to inform
instruction student. Designated
Zone schools also agree to
participate in innovative strategies
that promote student achievement.
10) Investing on
human capital
management
√ Even with budget restraints, the
principal was creative in building
capacity through providing in house
PD support for teachers.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ Principal Kokua and her staff make
a conscious effort to create
meaningful relationships with
children & families and build
partnerships with merchants &
donors in their community.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ Principal Kokua is invested and
intentional about school decisions.
She sets the tone, leads by example
and values effective use of
strengths.

Although Kokua Elementary employs most of Odden’s (2009) effective
strategies, the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the
Evidence Based Model (EBM). In most areas, including enrollment number, class size
and effective instructional strategies, the amount of resources budgeted is considerably

162
less than the EBM model. It was difficulty calculating resource amounts that were
allocated for students since the actual figures were not produced by the principal.
Careful review of public school documents, the 2010-2011 Academic Financial Plan and
Narrative Summaries, allowed for some estimated figures to be included for comparison.
Table B.4 and B.5 shows a comparison of school profile and resource allocation
between Kokua Elementary and an EBM prototype school.
Table B.4 – School Profile Comparison: Kokua Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
Kokua
Elementary
School

Kokua – EBM
Comparison
Resources

School Configuration K - 5
K - 6 Kokua has a 6
th
grade class
that EBM does not
Enrollment 432 580 Has 162 more students than
EBM
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 20
4-5 23
5 students more than EBM

2 students less than EBM
Full Day
Kindergarten
Yes Yes Comparable
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 days

10 PD days cut
by state
furloughs
4 days allotted
for the Zone
6 less PD days than EBM
recommends
Students with
Disability
12% 14.3% 2.3% greater than EBM
Students in poverty 50%
84.7% 34.7% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 3.5% 6.5% less than EBM
Minority students 30%
95.3% 65.3% greater than EBM

163
Table B.5 – Resource Comparison: Kokua Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element

EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
(432 students)

EBM School
with Kokua
Characteristics
(594 Students)

Kokua
Elementary
School

Kokua – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 44
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 13 Percentage of
support teachers at
Kokua is

*1.
**2.
***3.
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 4 coaches
(2 regular and
2 zone)
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16

3
(Supplemental
Instruction)
Teachers for
EL
1 for every 100: 0.43
1
(21 students)
Extended day 1.8 0 Kokua compensates
volunteer teachers
who tutor after
school hours with
school funds.
Summer
School
1.8 0 Kokua does not
offer any summer
school
Learning
Disabled
student
3

4 Kokua utilizes 4
resource classrooms
but prefers LRE
GATE student $25/student $4,500 0 $4,500 less than
EBM
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
$27,500 0 None at Kokua
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
5.9
(594 students)
2 .16 more than EBM
Non-
instructional
aides
2 0 None at Kokua
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 1 Kokua has a
Library

164
Principal 1 1.5 1 Same
School site
Secretary
2 3 2 Same (but Kokua
has more students)
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
& prep time, 10
summer days,
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.

$59,400
4 PD days for
Zone
designated
schools
Kokua uses money
provided by the state
through the federal
RTTT funds for PD.
There is significant
investment in this
area for the Zones of
Innovation.
Technology $250/pupil
$148,500 $ /pupil
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $83,160 $/pupil
Student
activities
$200/pupil $118,000 $/pupil

Lessons Learned
Kokua Elementary School is gradually made lowering the achievement gap and
improving overall student performance in the past five years.
• The school sets specific goals that focus on instruction and has made
intentional efforts to meet the needs of all students, especially the
overrepresented disadvantaged population.
• Analyzing data and setting specific goals for all students are critical in
designing and addressing specific strategies to address the gap in
achievement. Regular and consistent data analysis guides instruction at
Kokua Elementary.

165
• Kokua Elementary was designated as a “Zone of Innovation School” and has
agreed to participate in the development and implementation of the adopted
state supports for instruction and professional development.
• The school has a strong in house professional development plan that relies
heavily on collaboration. Coaching consultants provide teachers with grade
level and individualized support with instructional strategies and data
analysis. This support is offered to the whole staff during meetings and also
one-on-one to teachers in their classrooms. Coaches are on staff master
teachers who are on site daily.
• Kokua Elementary employs the PLC model twice a month during an in house
rotation cycle that allows each grade level to collaborate for one full school
day every 7-8 days.
• Principal Kokua leads by example, provides leadership that is focus driven
and promotes a positive learning community.
By implementing these programs Kokua Elementary has experienced moderate
growth in student achievement for all subgroups. Kokua showed steady improvement for
a couple years before meeting AYP in 2007-2008, showed a significant decline a year
later, and has since been slowly recovering upward. Although many of the supports have
been recently put in place, student success is on the rise and expected to narrow the
achievement gap. Principal Kokua is hopeful that the future cooperation of the teachers
union will come around and endorse extending the school day for the benefit of all
students.

166
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY: LAULIMA ELEMENTARY
Background
Laulima Elementary was established in 1963 in a rural agricultural community
on the island of Oahu. The majority of the student population included children who
lived on family owned farms, with more than half being of Native Hawaiian decent. The
district continues to serve the largest indigenous and disadvantaged population in the
state of Hawaii today. Enrollment for the K-6 school in 2010-2011 includes 834 students
on site, 5,570 students with in the complex, 7,890 students within the complex area and
38,740 students in the entire district. Although student enrollment declined in between
2005 and 2008 by nearly 50 students, enrollment rose to 834 students by 2010-11. There
were 6 classes for Kindergarten, 1
st
and 2
nd
grade, and 5 classes for grades 3-6.

Figure C.1 – Student Enrollment 2005-06 to 2010-11 for Laulima Elementary

807

786

782

763

772

834

720

740

760

780

800

820

840

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

Enrollment

Enrollment

167
Laulima Elementary is a Title I school with 81% of students receiving free or
reduced lunch (Disadvantaged), 9% of students qualify for special education (SPED), and
8% of students are English Language Learners (ELL). Forty three percent of students
attending Laulima Elementary attended preschool.

Figure C.2 – Demographics of Student Needs for Laulima Elementary
Along with the overrepresented indigenous population, Laulima Elementary
School also serves a diverse student population. The ethnic groups represented include
Native Hawaiian (59.5%), Filipino (13.3%), Samoan (7.7%), White (4.8%), Micronesian
(4.6%), Hispanic (2.96%), Portuguese (2.3%), Black (2.2%), Japanese (.9%), Indo-
Chinese (0.7%), Chinese (0.5%), Native American (.5%), multiple ethnicities (0.2%),
Tongan (.1%) and Guamanian/Chamorro (.1%).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

ELL

SPED

Disadvantaged

ELL
SPED
Disadvantaged

Student
Needs
8%
9%
81%

168

Figure C.3 – Demographics of Student Ethnicities for Laulima Elementary
There were a total of 51.5 teachers (FTE) at Laulima Elementary. Forty and one
half-time teachers provided regular instruction, ten provided special instruction, and one
provided supplemental instruction. Teachers at this school had an average of 12.2 years
of teaching experience, 32% of teachers have taught at this school for five or more years,
and 19% of teachers had advanced degrees. There was one principal, three vice-
principals, two Student Services Coordinators (SSC), and one librarian.
The purpose of this case study was to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Laulima Elementary School.
Assessment Data
Laulima Elementary has shown steady school wide growth in both Reading and
Math even while national and state standards continued to rise. Although the school has
struggled to meet such standards, school leaders and educators have persevered in
providing consistent student supports that led the school wide efforts toward meeting
59.5%

13.3%

7.7%

4.8%

4.6%

2.6%

2.3%

2.2%

.9%

.7%

.5%

.5%

.2%

.1%

.1%

NaFve
Hawaiian

Filipino

Samoan

White

Micronesian

Hispanic

Portuguese

Black

Japanese

Indo-‐Chinese

Chinese

NaFve
Amercian

169
Annual Yearly Process (AYP) for the very first time in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011
consecutively. The Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) scores show significant gains in
student proficiency that progressed toward meeting AYP in recent years.
HSA Reading Proficiency
Laulima Elementary was 11% away from meeting the state reading proficiency
objective of 44% in 2005-06, scoring 33% for all students and 32% for disadvantaged
students. During the first year of HSA testing, reading scores for all students increased
from 33% in 2005-06 to 37% in 2006-07 (4% increase), while reading scores of
disadvantaged students trailed behind with an increase from 32% in 2005-06 to 36% in
2006-07 (4% increase). The following year remained the same for all students, while the
rise in national and state standards continued to increase the achievement gap. Laulima
Elementary has been in restructuring status even before the start of the 2005-06
comparison school year. However, the gradual improvements in student proficiency
have since changed the school’s overall AYP and NCLB status to met, in Good Standing,
Unconditional for the 2010-11 school year. Based on Laulima Elementary’s 2010-2011
NCLB School Report, only 55% of all students and 52% of disadvantaged students met
reading proficiency.

170

Figure C.4 – Laulima Elementary Reading Proficiency Scores
Terra Nova Reading Proficiency
The Terra Nova is the nationally normed test that is utilized as a part of the
Hawaii State Assessment. Table C.1 shows the national percentages of Laulima
Elementary students who performed average or above the national standards in the area
of reading. Although students test scores have fluctuated through the years, percentages
have generally showed gradual improvement as students promoted in grade level. While
percentages showed a significant decline from 2006-07 to 2010-11 for 3
rd
graders (6%
decline), there were significant improvements for grades 4 (8% increase), 5 (9% increase)
and 6 (15% increase).

44%
44%

58%
58%
58%

72%

33%

37%
37%

40%

48%

55%

32%

36%

33%

36%

42%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

State
ObjecFve
Proficient
(all)
Proficient
(disadvantaged)

171
Table C.1 – Percent of Students Reading Proficient on Terra Nova Assessments

Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Grade 3 56 47 43 51 43
Grade 4 59 58 54 61 67
Grade 5 56 66 63 65 65
Grade 6 59 65 65 77 74

Laulima Elementary has struggled to meet national and state standards in reading
as measured by the Hawaii State Assessment. Figure C.5 shows the rise in reading
proficiency scores for all subgroups during the 2006-07 school year, the gradual decline
in 2007-2008 for the disadvantaged population, and the gradual growth for all subgroups
between 2008-09 and 2010-11. The most aggressive growth in student achievement took
place during 2009-20010 and 2010-11 when Laulima Elementary met AYP for 2
consecutive years. For the first time, the school was no longer under Restructuring
status. Laulima Elementary met AYP in 2009-2010 for the first time and after
maintaining their overall AYP for the 2010-2011 school year, the school NCLB status
was changed to In Good Standing, Unconditional.

172

Figure C.5 – Laulima Elementary Reading Proficiency Percentages by Subgroup
HSA Math Proficiency
Math proficiency scores were at its lowest in 2005-06 for all students (11%) as
well as disadvantaged students (%11) missing the state standard (%28) by a comparable
margin. Since then, Laulima Elementary has shown significant gains in math for all
students (%9) and disadvantaged students (7%) in 2006-07, all students (%8) and
disadvantaged students (8%) in 2007-08, all students (%4) and disadvantaged students
(2%) in 2008-09, all students (%7) and disadvantaged students (7%) in 2009-10, all
students (%8) and disadvantaged students (8%) in 2010-11. Between 2005-06 and 2010-
11 Laulima cumulatively increased math proficiency by a total of 36% for all students
and 32% for disadvantaged students. Based on Laulima Elementary’s 2010-2011 NCLB
School Report, the school met overall AYP and was In Good Standing, Unconditional.
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-‐06
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
2010-‐11

All
Students

Disadvantaged

Asian/Pacific
Islander

173

Figure C.6 – Laulima Elementary Math Proficiency Scores

Terra Nova Math Proficiency
The Hawaii State Assessment changed a portion of the annual 3
rd
through 6
th

grade test in 2006-07 from the nationally normed SAT9 to the Terra Nova. Table C.2
shows the national percentages of Laulima Elementary students who performed average
or above the national standards in the area of math. There was a significant decline for
third graders in 2008-09 from 51% to 43% (8% decrease) and in 2010-11 from 53% to
47% (6% decrease). There was also a slight decline for sixth graders in 2008-09 from
62% to 59% (3% decrease). However, sixth graders showed the most significant growth
from 2006-07 (39%) through 2010-11 (74%) with an increase of 35%. Both fourth and
fifth graders showed steady improvement for five consecutive years. Fourth graders
improved from 43% in 2006-07 to 64% in 2010-11 (21% increase) and fifth graders
improved from 49% in 2006-07 to 70% in 2010-11 (21% increase).

28%
28%

46%
46%
46%

64%

11%

20%

28%

32%

39%

47%

11%

18%

26%

28%

35%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

State
ObjecFve
Proficient
(all)
Proficient
(disadvantaged)

174
Table C.2 Percent of Students Math Proficient on Terra Nova Assessments
Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Grade 3 51 51 43 53 47
Grade 4 43 55 55 61 64
Grade 5 49 59 66 68 70
Grade 6 39 62 59 66 74

Figure C.7 shows the math proficiency scores for all subgroups from 2005-06 to
2010-11. While Laulima Elementary was under restructuring up until the 2009-10 school
year, students continued to show a gradual progression over time. Although scores were
no where near proficient levels, this progression laid the foundation that helped to
prepared students to meet AYP in 2011. Laulima Elementary made AYP under Safe
Harbor conditions for the second consecutive year, which reclassified the school’s status
to good standing, unconditional. Figure C.7 also shows the significant growth pattern in
math proficiency scores for all subgroups over a span of six years. While improvements
are on an upward trend for all subgroups, disadvantaged students still lag slightly behind
all students and Asian/Pacific Islander students.

175

Figure C.7 – Laulima Elementary Reading Proficiency Percentages by Subgroup

Instructional Improvement Process
Principal Laulima
Principal Laulima has been the principal at Laulima Elementary for eight years
and prior vice principal for nine years. She agreed to participate in an interview and
responded to a series of qualitative and quantitative questions regarding her plans and
strategies for school wide improvement for the 2010-2011 school year. There was a
structured protocol that guided the interview to collect specified data pertaining to this
study. Principal Laulima’s insight and responses combined with public records of state
and school documents provided the qualitative and quantitative resource data that was
utilized for comparison with the Evidence Based Model. The comprised information
helped to identify the allocation of school resources for academic and instructional
improvement. The ten strategies for doubling performance (Odden & Archibald, 2006)
are used as a recommended framework for identifying research based strategies that have
been proven to increase academic performance.
Curriculum& Intervention
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-‐06
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
2010-‐11

All
Students

Disadvantaged

Asian/Pacific
Islander

176
Principal Laulima noted critical thinking and language development as the
content focus of Laulima Elementary. She says that in order for students at Laulima to
be able to master core standards the focus is geared toward five big ideas; 1) reading
awareness and 2) alphabetic principal were intensively addressed in the lower grades K-
1, the middle grades emphasized 3) blending, and once they are a reader 4) fluency is the
focus. Principal Laulima further emphasized that fluency was also given careful attention
because students at Laulima don’t read enough outside of school. Lastly, 5) building
vocabulary is instilled for all grades to support the limited experience and limited
exposure students at Laulima have outside of school. Principal Laulima indicated that
according to extensive studies by experts on poverty like Hart Risley and Ruby Payne,
increasing vocabulary is fundamental to comprehension.
Laulima Elementary utilizes reading mastery for phonics. All Special Education
teachers have been trained regarding My Read Coach by Orton Gillingham (OG). OG is
an on-line reading program that is a multi systemic learning (MSL) approach to reading.
Between 1
st
and 2
nd
grade students are also introduced to the Scott Corseman
standardized base called Reading Street. The focus continues to be mostly
comprehension based and supported by targeted curricula. Laulima supplements a
variety of curricula for all grades depending on teacher strengths and student needs (e.g.
Voyager, Zoom In, etc.). The school also utilizes the “thinking map” visual framework
that teaches students about their own thinking. Often mistaken as a graphic organizer,
Laulima modifies the eight thinking map categories to help students understand and be
able to describe cause and effects, for example as they relate to personal behavioral
choices or historical events during social studies.

177
Principal Laulima also discussed the importance of aligning and mapping out
curriculum according to state standards. Recently, Laulima shifted to core standards for
grades 3-6 in two distinct ways. First through student engagement with the goal that 85%
of all students are engaged and on task 85% of the time as observed and measured by
walkthroughs. The emphasis of this instructional piece has been on overt learning and
ties into the second strategy that utilizes the “I, We, You” continuum. The combined
strategies provide a common framework for teachers that guide consistent modeling and
monitoring to maximize student learning.
Laulima Elementary has utilized AimsWeb for math curriculum in the past and
has also used Voyager Math for grades 3-6. Laulima will be adopting Focal Points by
Karen Fuson in 2001-2012. The math program that has been directly correlated with
grades 2-6 common core standards. As stated in Principal Laulima’s Academic Financial
Plan (AFP), the chosen curriculum focuses on higher order critical thinking and has been
designed to accelerate the progress of struggling learners. The understanding is that
teachers follow the Hawaii state content standards and implement the adopted curriculum
with fidelity. Standard-based instruction and General Learner Outcomes (GLO) are
utilized to guide instruction and promote student learning throughout all the grade level
standards. Specific time is allocated for language arts and math instruction.
The Reading block of the core curriculum consists of 50 minutes first thing in the
morning for kindergarteners, 1 hour and 15 minutes at the start of the day for grades 1-2,
a rotation of Reading and Math between 100 minutes in the morning and 90 minutes after
morning recess for grades 3-4, and 90 minute rotation blocks between Reading and Math
in the morning and after morning recess for grades 5-6. Kindergarteners attend Home

178
Room after reading then Math for 45 minutes before morning recess. Grades 1-2 rotate
between 60 minute Math blocks either before or after recess.
Help for Struggling Students
Laulima Elementary provides support for struggling students throughout the
school day and after school. The school’s curriculum has been designed to target the
majority student population who are disadvantaged after years of dealing with
commensurate behavioral issues. While students have been managing social and
behavioral issues in recent years as a result of an overhaul in school culture and
expectations, Principal Laulima noted that behavior supports must be in place even
though curriculum is the major focal point. For Laulima, the average student is
considered one who is struggling and therefore supports are geared toward student
deficiencies and needs. According Laulima’s Academic Financial Plan, due to multiple
factors many students are not meeting the HSA expectations and intensive support for
those struggling learners is critical to accelerating their progress.
Reform efforts have evolved to provide a more personalized education to students
that include keeping class sizes as small at possible and incorporating tutors to support
kindergarteners and struggling students. Laulima is also a “Walk to Reading” and “Walk
to Math” school, which means they have smaller homogeneously grouped classes with
low performing students and bigger tire group classes with higher performing students.
Principal Laulima noted that they run very few 1:1 interventions unless there is a high
need and more 2:4 using DIBELS, particularly in grades 1-3 as a strategic intervention
because they understand that reading fluency is associated with comprehension.

179
Decoding fluency as well as phonemic awareness and blending are also critical
components for lower level students who are struggling at Laulima.
The school relies heavily upon teacher aides or Para Professionals (PPTs), many
have been at Laulima for ten years or more. There are three PPTs exclusively for
Kindergarten who are competent enough to work with a small groups or one student on
their own which frees up the classroom teachers to do the same as needed. Interventions
are highly infused early on in grades K-3. For first and second graders PPTs are
supervised by coaches to assist with specific interventions, for example common six
minute solutions that again support reading fluency to increase repeated exposure and
practice in order for students to become fluent. For grades 4-6 Laulima conducts spot
interventions if they are not considered SPED, potentially SPED, or came from a country
where they have never been in school before. Teachers are expected to monitor student
achievement and provide struggling students with the supports they need. They are also
autonomous in communicating and collaborating with the Special Education support
team regarding students who they feel may need more comprehensive supports.
Laulima Elementary provides extended day or Extended Learning Opportunities
(ELO) three days a week for one hour. Approximately 250 students attend and are taught
by certified teachers. Summer school is offered five days a week, for three hours a day,
and runs for 5 weeks. ELL is also offered for 4 weeks. The city also runs an after school
“A+” program that emphasizes homework completion, academic enrichment, PE and art
and crafts. Neither program is mandatory. (Both are voluntary)

180
Assessments & Data Analysis
Principal Laulima’s Academic Financial Plan incorporates the utilization of
formative assessments to measure student achievement in assuring that all students
graduate career-ready through effective use of standards-based education. Related
objectives include utilization of formative assessments, including Data for School
Improvement (DSI) to drive instruction, improving schools and data system through use
of Longitudinal Data System dashboards (LDS), using high quality standards, curriculum
and materials, and expanding opportunities for rigorous Career and Technical Education
programs of study within pathways.
Laulima Elementary has been using a new program called Galileo as their DSI
test bank. The system allows educators to use or create particular items and every item is
then mapped to a certain standard to create measureable tests. Laulima incorporates mid-
term and quarterly tests for every subject and every grade based on the standards. For
example, Galileo could provide information about a certain standard that students may be
having difficulty grasping, which in turn may need more attention and clarification for
student improvement. Principal Laulima notes results may look like random guessing if
the student either didn’t understand the question, the question was bad, or something
happened to see if they actually got it or not.
Laulima Elementary also utilizes annual statewide assessments for grades 3-6
known as the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) to monitor student progress of national
accountability goals and standards, as well as measure progress toward closing the
achievement gap between disadvantaged students and school wide performance.

181
Teachers use the results of the state assessments to plan their instructional focus and to
monitor their progress toward meeting state goals in achievement.
Assessment data are analyzed through out the year in variety of collaborative
meetings. The coaches collaborate with Principal Laulima then with teachers. Teachers
have two hours a week of Professional Learning Community (PCL) time. A significant
part of PLC’s is devoted to data analysis and instructional improvement amongst teachers
with the guidance of Principal Laulima and the coaching staff. In addition, teachers meet
with coaches and consultants throughout the year in small groups and /or one-on-one, to
discuss student performance in more detail.
Race to The Top
Since Hawaii became a recipient for national Race to the Top (RTTT) funds,
schools in Laulima Elementary’s complex area have been included in the “Zone of
Innovation”. The agreements of participating in the Zone includes sharing in a vision
that every student graduates on time college and career ready, a mission built on a K-12
construct of common core standards, and an overall target to instill critical thinking.
Crucial components of Zone schools also include participation in the development and
implementation of a Zone/School professional development structure that utilizes
Assessment for Learning (Jan Chappuis), Coaches’ Academy, and Instructional
Leadership Teams (ILT). Schools apart of the Zone receive added resources to
implement school level initiatives and encourage collaboration between other Zone
schools to significantly enhance and support student learning.

182
Professional Development & Coaching
Principal Laulima’s AFP recognizes the importance of ensuring and sustaining a
rich environment and culture for life-long learners. This goal further emphasizes the
crucial objective of quality Professional Development (PD) supports. The rationale
emphasizes the “need for systematic and timely support to struggling learners as well as
with PD in areas of pedagogy and place-based learning so that adults continually hone
their skills in order to meet students’ needs”. She further indicates that adult learning is
linked closely to effective PLC’s, student assessments, and effective research based
strategies. Teachers are expected to collaborate in PLC settings to ensure effective
monitoring of student achievement and timely attention to students’ needs.
Student deficiencies that are identified through student performance data drive
Professional Development (PD) at Laulima, with particular attention to the majority of
the disadvantaged and struggling student population. Aside from dealing with hardcore
behavioral issues, Laulima has also experienced a dramatic transformation as a result of
high teacher turn over. Principal Laulima commends her very committed and stable staff
who are 100% Highly Qualified (HQ) under NCLB criteria, and notes they have been
HQ for three consecutive years. School reform evolved for staff as well as students. She
strongly believes that a school that has deep underlying issues like Laulima must provide
staff with PD that enables them to understand the “task analysis” that relates to the
students’ expectations of the standards. A critical component includes teachers knowing
their role in breaking down tasks that are often assumed and sometimes taken for granted.
Most teachers are good readers and have had positive verbal experiences, but the
majority of the students at Laulima do not have the very basic foundation to carry out

183
what most would assume to be a simple task. For example, it is not enough for a teacher
to expect students like ours to find the main idea or write a summary without breaking it
down. Principal Laulima further explains that “ for kids to be able to write a summary
they have to be able to read something, fit it in a framework, and be able to retell it
seamlessly so that then they can concentrate, not on the details, but on the synthesizing”.
Additional staff development has been provided by outside consultants Kathy
Jungjohan from the University of Oregon and West Ed. They have been collaborating
with Laulima staff to identify and address issues related to teachers’ basic math
conceptual understanding in order to develop necessary math concepts and task analysis
skills that are critical in helping students with remedial difficulties to be successful. Due
to budget cutbacks, the state provided zero days for Professional Development, where in
the previous year nine days were allotted. While designated Zone schools were provided
four PD days to prepare for the new school year, Laulima also utilized “sub days” for
teacher training on specific instructional activities like Engagement IEU. Most of the
Professional Development for Laulima Elementary is provided on-site.
Prinicpal Laulima works closely with her 3 professional coaches. She is
confident about having enough coaches and believes that Laulima has strong teachers
who have been leading staff as peer coaches. Like other schools in the Zone, Laulima
Elementary was given extra coaches as additional resources. While each school utilizes
them differently, Principal Laulima has designated one coach for Response to
Intervention (RTI), one coach for grades 3-4, and one coach for grades 5-6. Designated
coaches work closely with consultants to ensure standards-based instruction is happening
in the classrooms.

184
Parent and Community Involvement
Laulima Elementary hosts an annual open house that attracts roughly 80% of
enrolled students and their families. Parent teacher conferences are held in the first
quarter with 100% parent participation. Only two parents were unable to attend in person
this year and our teachers made multiple attempts to ensure that a phone conference was
held for each of the families. There is also a common planner that goes home with each
student everyday and teachers have reported 85%-90% of parents signing them daily. On
average the school gets 95% participation on most academic related activities. Laulima
also sponsored a gingerbread night right before winter break that hosted 85 families. The
cafeteria was jam packed because it wasn’t just the child and a parent, there were entire
families that attended. Mom, dad, siblings, grandparents, and cousins all came out to
enjoy.
Principal Laulima has strong ties with the surrounding community since she grew
up and lived there most of her life since she was child. She explains that the local
expectations of parents are very different from the typical mainland model where
participation often means coming to the school. Principal Laulima emphasizes that its all
about meeting parents where they are at and respecting the way they choose to be
involved. To her, “if parents define their role as getting their child to school, checking
their homework, encouraging them, and talking to them, then that’s awesome. We have
our share of complaints once in a while, but I think parents are very supportive.”
Laulima Elementary also receives numerous donations and grants from
community businesses and organizations. They recently completed their 3
rd
and final
year of a million dollar grant awarded by the Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA), a

185
grant that Principal Laulima wrote. The grant from 2007-2010 funded a partnership
program with a nearby local organization dedicated to perpetuating the Hawaiian culture.
The learning center provided Laulima students various opportunities to engage in hands
on activities that included Native Hawaiian agricultural practices, acting out mo’olelo
(stories), and writing their own book. Since the grant ended, the students continue to
practice what they have learned. Every morning grades 3-6 do mele pana (songs) and oli
(chants). The students also created murals of the mo’olelo they learned that are
displayed on the walls around the school.
Community partnerships have helped to support the school’s desire for integrated
student achievement through cultural and place-based learning that encourage students to
connect with each other, their school, and their community. An integral resource
includes the School Community Council (SCC) at Laulima Elementary which consists of
parents, teachers, administrators and staff, and community members who collaborate to
ensure student academic progress and budget initiatives align with the school’s AFP.
Leadership
Principal Laulima has strong ties with the school community, is passionate about
her role as a leader, and sets the tone for her committed staff. The decision making
process is very democratic and “bottom up”, and her leadership style is very “hands on”.
Principal Laulima strongly believes that schools don’t move if the principal is not hands
on. She further emphasizes that she doesn’t expect anybody to do anything she wouldn’t
try herself. For example, she has modeled in staff meetings what certain lessons and
programs should look like, and she has even gone into the classroom when asked by
teachers to teach certain lessons that they may be struggling with. The answer is always

186
“OK, give it to me”, and the rationale behind that is always “we are in this together”.
Principal Laulima leads by example and promotes the belief of education being a true
team effort. Accountability for her is personal. Having lived in the community her
whole life, she was “sick of people writing us off”. She resents the assumption that
people in her community don’t value education, because she believes that they do. The
choice to come back and serve meant giving up a lot, and she realized early on that there
was so much work to do. Principal Laulima explained that about 10 years ago, meeting
AYP was not a priority, it would have slowed down progress, “we just weren’t ready”.
She further emphasized that they had to give up a lot to focus on priorities if she wanted
to see the staff stabilize and feel that they were making a difference and wanted to see
kids successful, “that’s the accountability that matters to me”. As a team, Laulima
reached a pivotal point about two years ago when they decided that it was time to try to
make AYP.
Laulima Elementary reached their goal and met AYP for 2 consecutive years.
“Anybody who says you can come in and turn a school around in 2 years is full of it. I
think it takes at least 7-10 years to rebuild that foundation, to really take care of those
behaviors before kids can learn and really build up the confidence in the teachers”.
Principal Laulima has built up a school community that has proven how much children
desire to learn and can learn in the midst of adversity. Although she says that they still
have a long way to go, the significant growth in assessment data have proven that
Laulima Elementary is well on its way.
Table C.3 shows how Laulima Elementary implements the ten steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.

187
Table C.3 – Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based Strategies at
Laulima Elementary

Odden’s 10
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
Observed
1) Analyzing
student
achievement data
√ Multiple assessments are utilized.
Teachers and staff meet regularly to
analyze formative & summative
data in order to inform instructional
improvements and student learning.
2) Setting
ambitious goals
√ School goals and objectives focus
on critical thinking and language
development to guide instruction
and increase student achievement.
3) Implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ Teachers and staff incorporate
schools programs that align with
state content standards and complex
adopted curriculum as apart of the
Zone of Innovation initiatives.
4) Using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ Several forms of assessments are
used to guide instruction and
monitor student progress.
5) Employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ With 10 PD days cut by the state
due to budget constraints, Zone
schools were given 4 PD days. Sub
days are also utilized for PD at
Laulima.
6) Using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Maximizing instructional time is on-
going effort. Daily time blocks are
specified for math and language
arts.
7) Providing extra
help for struggling
students
√ Various supports for struggling
students are provided during school,
after school extended hours, and
summer school.
8) Creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Teachers and staff PLCs meet
regularly to collaborate on data
analysis, instructional strategies,
and student achievement.
9) Using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers and staff utilize a variety
of research-based strategies
depending on teacher strengths and
student needs to inform instruction.
10) Investing on
human capital
management
√ Even with budget restraints, the
principal was creative in building
capacity through providing in house
PD support for teachers.

188
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ Principal Laulima and her staff are
committed to the students and
families they serve as well as
building relationships and
partnerships with businesses and
organizations in their community.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ Accountability for Principal
Laulima is personal. She is
cognizant of her role as an
educational leader to effect change
and instill positive learning
experiences for her students and
their families. Her commitment to
literacy and lifelong learning are
pivotal in her school community.

Laulima Elementary employs all ten of Odden’s (2009) effective strategies and in
most areas, including enrollment, class size and effective instructional strategies, the
amount of resources are comparable to the Evidence Based Model. However, scarce
resources in areas like technology, professional development, instructional materials, and
student activities show levels of inadequacy despite recent school gains in achievement.
It was difficult calculating resource amounts that were allocated for school resources
since the actual figures were unclear among public records. Careful review of school
documents, the 2010-2011 Academic Financial Plan and Narrative Summaries, allowed
for some estimated figures to be included for comparison.
Table C.4 and C.5 shows a comparison of school profile and resource allocation
between Laulima Elementary and an EBM prototype school.

189
Table C.4 – School Profile Comparison: Laulima Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
Laulima
Elementary
School

Laulima – EBM
Comparison
Resources

School Configuration K - 5
K - 6 Laulima has a 6
th
grade
service that EBM does not

Enrollment 432 834 Has 402 more students
than EBM

Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 24

4-5 25
K-3 has 9 more students
than EBM

4-5 ratio is the same as
EBM
Full Day
Kindergarten
Yes Yes Same as EBM
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 days

10 PD days cut
by state
furloughs;
4 days allotted
for the Zone
6 less PD days than EBM
recommends
Students with
Disability
12% 8.9% 3.1% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50%
80.8% 30.8% greater than EBM

EL students 10% 7.8% 2.2% less than EBM
Minority students 30%
95.2% 65.2% greater than EBM

190
Table C.5 – Resource Comparison: Laulima Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element

EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
(432 students)

EBM School
with Laulima
Characteristics
(834 Students)

Laulima
Elementary
School

Laulima – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 K-3 : 37

4-6 : 14
K-3 : 24

4-6 : 25
K-3 : 13 less than
EBM

4-6 : 11 more than
EBM
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 K-3 : 7.4

4-6 : 2.8
K-3: 4.8

4-6: 5

K-3 : 2.6 less than
EBM
4-6: 2.2 more than
EBM

1 less than EBM

3 less than EBM

1 less than EBM
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 4 3

Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
6

3
(PSAP Student
Support)
Teachers for
EL
1 for every 100: 0.43
4 3
Extended day 1.8 6 0 6 less than EBM
Summer
School
4.2 4.2 0 4.2 less than EBM
Learning
Disabled
student
3
7
10 3 more than EBM
GATE student $25/student $20,850 0 $20,850 less than
EBM

Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
$1,043 0 $1,043 less than
EBM
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
6.74
(674 students)
4 2.746 less than
EBM
Non-
instructional
aides
2 4 0 4 less than EBM

191
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 1 1 Same as EBM
Principal 1 1 1 Same as EBM
School site
Secretary
2 2 1 1 less than EBM
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
& prep time, 10
summer days,
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.

10 summer PD
days and
$83,400

4 summer PD
days from Zone
resources and
$74,000

6 less summer PD
days and $9,400
Technology $250/pupil
$208,500 $ 40,000
CPU Equipment
(computers)
$168,500 less than
EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $116,760 $95,350
Texts, supplies,
AVID, ImagLrn
$21,410 less than
EBM
Student
activities
$200/pupil $166,800 0 $116,800 less than
EBM

Lessons Learned
After years of struggling with severe student behaviors and remedial type reading
and math proficiency levels, Laulima Elementary School has met Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) for the last 2 consecutive years and is currently in good stand with
NCLB.
• Laulima first worked on stabilizing student behaviors and building up a
committed teaching staff in order to create a school culture that was confident
and ready to work toward improving student proficiency. Having behavioral
interventions in place is essential to student learning.

192
• The school sets specific goals that focus on literacy instruction and has made
intentional efforts to understand the disadvantaged student population they
serve in order meet the needs of all learners.
• Analyzing data and setting specific goals for all students are critical in
designing and addressing specific strategies to address the gap in
achievement. Teachers utilize PLCs for regular and consistent data analysis
to inform instruction.
• Laulima Elementary is considered a “Zone of Innovation School” and has
agreed to participate in the development and implementation of the adopted
state supports for instruction and professional development.
• The school employs a professional development plan that relies heavily on
collaboration. Coaching consultants provide teachers with individualized and
small group support geared toward improving data analysis and instructional
strategies. This support is offered to the whole staff during meetings and also
one-on-one to teachers in their classrooms. Coaches are on staff and on site
daily.
• Principal Laulima leads by example, provides leadership that is focus driven
and promotes a positive learning community.
By implementing these programs Laulima Elementary has experienced significant
growth in student achievement for all subgroups. Although a few of the supports have
been recently put in place, others have been imbedded as a part of the refined school
culture that exists today. Student success is becoming the norm among a population
where expectations seemed far beyond their reach. Principal Laulima first desires to

193
teach her students to be more verbal with each other and create a mentorship program
between upper level students and early kindergarteners. It is her hope that future
dialogue and verbal exchanges would not only prepare the little ones for first grade, but
also instill healthy interactions for 6
th
graders to verbal parents when it is their time.
Verbal communication is something that has been an ongoing struggle in the local
community for generations. Secondly, Principal Laulima desires to acquire a School
Based Behavioral Health (SBBH) position to do outreach work in the community
targeting young single mothers. She strongly believes that there is a tendency for
uneducated mothers to abuse or spoil their children and may not recognize that they may
be indulging or re-parenting themselves through their children, unknowingly damaging
their kids and affecting their ability to learn. Providing that outreach piece by going to
the homes, the shelters, and the churches will be able to reach parents and teach them
skills that can then become imbedded knowledge in the community. Lastly, Principal
Laulima shared one of her internal goals to never allow for than 2% of her students to be
determined at SLD (Specific Learning Disability). She strongly believes that it is not a
true disability and if more than 3%-5% of students in a school are it is because they are
not being taught. “Most related disabilities can be eliminated early on if you know what
you’re doing.”

194
APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY: MALAMA ELEMENTARY
Background
Malama Elementary is located in a rural community on the island of Oahu,
Hawaii that serves students K-6 grade. The school has a Hawaiian Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) initiated by the surrounding community and is a part of a district that
services the largest indigenous and special needs population in the state of Hawaii.
Enrollment for the 2010-2011 school year includes 435 students on site, 5,570 students
with in the complex, 7,880 students within the complex area and 38,740 students in the
entire district. Student enrollment declined in between 2005 and 2007 by about 40
students, leveled out between 2008 and 2010, then dropped significantly in 2010-11. The
fluctuation in student enrollment is attributed to the opening of a second elementary
school a few blocks away as well as a public charter school within the same area. There
were 3 classes per grade for grades K-3

and grade 6, and 2 classes for grades 4 and 5.
There were an additional 3 classes for the HLIP and seven Special Education classes.

Figure D.1 – Student Enrollment 2005-06 to 2010-11 for Malama Elementary
511

486

471

483

485

435

380

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

Enrollment

Enrollment

195
Malama Elementary is a Title I school with 77% of students receiving free or
reduced lunch (Disadvantaged), 12% of students qualify for special education (SPED),
and 0% of students are English Language Learners (ELL). Forty three percent of
students attending Malama Elementary attended preschool.

Figure D.2 – Demographics of Student Needs for Malama Elementary
Although the student population is predominantly indigenous, Malama
Elementary School also serves a diverse student population. The ethnic groups
represented include Native Hawaiian (95.4%), Filipino (1.3%), Hispanic (.9%), Samoan
(.9%), White (.4%), Black (.2%), Chinese (.2%), Korean (.2%), Portuguese (.2%), and
multiple ethnicities (0.2%).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

ELL

SPED

Disadvantaged

ELL
SPED
Disadvantaged

Student
Needs
0%
12%
77%

196

Figure D.3 – Demographics of Student Ethnicities for Malama Elementary
There were a total of 34 teachers (FTE) at Malama Elementary. Twenty-five
teachers provided regular instruction, eight provided special instruction, and one
provided supplemental instruction. Teachers at this school had an average of 8.5 years of
teaching experience, 47% of teachers have taught at this school for five or more years,
and 24% of teachers had advanced degrees. There was one principal, no vice-principal,
one Student Services Coordinator (SSC), one librarian and one counselor.
The purpose of this case study was to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Malama Elementary School.
Assessment Data
Malama Elementary has shown a fluctuation in Reading and Math test scores
since the transition of assessment tests between 2005-06 and 2006-07. As standards
continued to rise at both the state and national levels, proficiency scores in both Reading
and Math gradually declined between 2007-08 and 2009-10. The first few years of the
95.4%

1.3%

.9%

.9%

.4%

.2%
.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

NaFve
Hawaiian

Filipino

Hispanic

Samoan

White

Black

Chinese

Korean

Portuguese

MulFple
2+

197
new Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) replaced the SAT9 portion with the Terra Nova
nationally normed test. During this time, Malama Elementary fell significantly behind
until Spring 2011 when the school met the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) gaining
proficiency under the safe harbor criteria.
HSA Reading Proficiency
Malama Elementary was 2% away from meeting the state reading proficiency
objective of 44% in 2005-06, scoring 42% for all students and 37% for disadvantaged
students. During the first year of HSA testing, reading scores for all students were
maintained at 42% while scores for the disadvantaged population improved from 37% to
41% (4% increase) in 200-07. Proficiency scores continued to rise in 2007-08 from 42%
to 46% (4% increase) for all students and 41% to 43% (2% increase) for disadvantaged
students. Since then scores significantly fell between 2007-08 and 2009-10 from 46% to
33% (13% decline) for all students and 43% to 31% (12% decline) for disadvantaged
students. While the rise in national and state standards also increased the gap in
proficiency scores in 2010-11, Malama achieved dramatic improvements in math totaling
19% for all students and 17% for disadvantaged students. The significant growth was
significant in helping Malama Elementary meet AYP after being in restructuring for
several years. The rising trend could further improve their status with NCLB if scores
continue to improve. Based on Malama Elementary’s 2010-2011 NCLB School Report,
only 52% of all students and 48% of disadvantaged students met reading proficiency
under the safe harbor criteria.

198

Figure D.4 – Malama Elementary Reading Proficiency Scores
Terra Nova Reading Proficiency
The nationally normed test that Hawaii utilizes as a part of the HSA is known as
the Terra Nova. Table D.1 shows the national percentages of Malama Elementary
students who performed average or above the national standards in the area of reading.
While test scores fluctuated between 2006-07 and 2010-11, the declining trend was
comparable to the HSA scores that also declined. Students test scores started off in the
lower range for grades 3-5 then showed significant growth over the 5 year span.
However, in that same span of 5 year, grade 6 started off with a high of 73% and
consistently declined over the years ending with 68% (5% decline) in 2010-11.
Significant gains were made 2006-07 and 2010-11 for 3
rd
graders (29% increase), 4
th

graders (10% increase), and 5
th
graders (11% increase). By the 2010-11 school year, all
grades scored in the mid to high 60’s, comparable to nearly 70% of students in their
respective grades.
44%
44%

58%
58%
58%

72%

42%
42%

46%

40%

33%

52%

37%

41%

43%

38%

31%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

State
ObjecFve
Proficient
(all)
Proficient
(disadvantaged)

199
Table D.1 – Percent of Students Reading Proficient on Terra Nova Assessments

Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Grade 3 39 55 36 37 68
Grade 4 58 63 60 45 68
Grade 5 54 66 50 43 65
Grade 6 73 63 58 57 68

Malama Elementary has struggled over the years to meet both state and national
standards in reading as measured by the Hawaii State Assessment. Figure D.5 shows the
gradual rise in reading proficiency scores for all subgroups between 2005-06 and 2007-
08 school year, the decline in percentages during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years,
and the significant growth in 2010-11. While undergoing restructuring over the past
several years, Malama Elementary met overall AYP for the first time in 2010-11 under
the safe harbor criteria. The NCLB restructuring status will change when Malama is able
to maintain their improved status. The rising trend for all subgroups is projected to
continue.

200

Figure D.5 – Malama Elementary Reading Proficiency Percentages by Subgroup
HSA Math Proficiency
The lowest math proficiency scores were recorded in 2005-06 that included 21%
for all students and 16% for disadvantaged students. Malama Elementary exceeded the
state math proficiency objective of 28% the very next year in 2006-07 with a score of
32% for all students and 31% for disadvantaged students. However, with rising
standards over the next three years, Malama would continue to make modest gains school
wide but not enough to meet the increased demands. Malama Elementary has been in
restructuring over the years, struggling to improve achievements in math. While the
standard remained at 46% between 2007 and 2010, scores fell during the second year in
2008-09 then rose back up in the third year, still missing the 46% mark by 10% for all
students and 14% for disadvantaged students. While Math proficiency standards rose yet
again in 2010-11 from 46% to 64%, significant improvements were attained for all
students (60%) and disadvantaged students (58%). Malama Elementary met AYP in
2010-11 according to the safe harbor criteria and although their NCLB Status remains in
restructuring, they are closer than they have ever been to improving their NCLB status if
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-‐06
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
2010-‐11

All
Students

Disadvantaged

Asian/Pacific
Islander

201
they can continue to maintain the school’s rising trend to meet or exceed math
proficiency standards.

Figure D.6 – Malama Elementary Math Proficiency Scores
Terra Nova Math Proficiency
The section of the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) that utilizes a nationally
normed test was changed in 2006-07 from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova. The HSA
measures the annual progress of 3
rd
through 6
th
graders. Table M.2 shows the national
percentages of Malama Elementary students who performed average or above the
national standards in the area of math. There was a significant decline for fourth graders
in 2008-9 from 61% to 46% (15% decrease) and a slight drop for sixth graders during
that same year from 67% to 64% (3% decrease). 3
rd
and 5
th
graders showed gradual
improvements through out the 5 year span. All grades tested average or above nationally
in math and showing significant progress between 2006-07 and 2010-11. Overall, 3
rd

grade improved from 52% to 73% (21% increase), 4
th
grade improved from 65% to 86%
(21% increase), 5
th
grade improved from 55% to 80% (25%), and 6
th
grade improved
from 68% to 87% (19%).
28%
28%

46%
46%
46%

64%

21%

32%

35%

25%

36%

60%

16%

31%

33%

23%

32%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2005-‐2006
2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010
2010-‐2011

State
ObjecFve
Proficient
(all)
Proficient
(disadvantaged)

202
Table D.2 – Percent of Students Math Proficient on Terra Nova Assessments
Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Grade 3 52 49 52 59 73
Grade 4 65 61 46 60 86
Grade 5 55 60 62 67 80
Grade 6 68 67 64 66 87

Figure D.7 shows the math proficiency scores for all subgroups from 2005-06 to
2010-11. Malama Elementary has been in restructuring status even before 2005-06.
Student proficiency scores came close to meeting national standards during the early
transition of the nationally normed SAT9 to the Terra Nova. However, when national
and state demands increased, scores decreased significantly before stabilizing in more
recent years. Positive school wide improvements helped to prepare for future growth in
overall student achievement, which led to a school wide record-breaking year in 2010-11.
Figure D.7 shows the significant rise in math proficiency scores for all subgroups from
2009-10 to 2010-11. Throughout the years, disadvantaged students have lagged slightly
behind while showing significant improvements with in their own subgroup.

203

Figure D.7 – Malama Elementary Math Proficiency Percentages by Subgroup
Instructional Improvement Process
Principal Malama
Principal Malama served as vice principal of Malama Elementary for 3 years
before becoming principal seven years ago. She agreed to participate in an interview and
responded to a series of qualitative and quantitative questions regarding her plans and
strategies for school wide improvement for the 2010-2011 school year. There was a
structured protocol that guided the interview to collect specified data pertaining to this
study. Principal Malama’s insight and responses combined with public records of state
and school documents provided the qualitative and quantitative resource data that was
utilized for comparison with the Evidence Based Model. The comprised information
helped to identify the allocation of school resources for academic and instructional
improvement. The ten strategies for doubling performance (Odden & Archibald, 2006)
are used as a recommended framework for identifying research based strategies that have
been proven to increase academic performance.
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005-‐06
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
2010-‐11

All
Students

Disadvantaged

Asian/Pacific
Islander

204
Curriculum& Intervention
Principal Malama discussed the content focus to include primarily reading and
math, and secondarily oral language. Her Academic Financial Plan (AFP) emphasizes
the desired use of high quality standards, curriculum and materials that are aligned with
Hawaii State Department of Education Strategic Plan Measures. However, it is still a
work in progress to completely align curriculum with state standards to address materials
that students are notably missing. She further indicates that Malama Elementary utilizes
an instructional approach that is practical for staff to identify and address behaviors of
concern in order to help students learn and encourage academic practices outside of
school. General Learner Outcomes (GLO) are also utilized and is the responsibility of all
school personnel in order to create a school culture that it conducive to learning. A
combination of Response to Intervention (RTI), specialized core curriculum materials
and research based instructional strategies are used to drive school wide initiatives to
improve student achievement.
Malama Elementary has adopted the five pillars of reading that is identified by
the National Reading Panel (NRP) as the school’s foundational framework. The pillars
include phonics, phonemics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary as the emphasis to
inform reading instruction. There is also a strong emphasis on writing and oral language
development. Malama has also adopted Open Court curriculum that includes Read Well
for grades K-3 and Imagine It for grades 4-6. The school has also recently adopted
Singapore Math for grades K-3 and Trans Math for grades 4-6. Specific time is allocated
for language arts and math instruction.

205
The Reading block of the core curriculum consists of 110 minutes every morning
for grades K-1, 80 minutes in the morning and 65 minutes in the afternoon for grades 2-3,
and 90 minutes in the morning and 60 minutes in the afternoon for grades 4-6. The
designated time for learning Math includes 70 minutes daily after lunch for grades K-1,
80 minutes daily after morning recess for grades 2-3, and 90 minutes everyday after
morning recess for grades 4-6.
Help for Struggling Student
Several interventions are utilized at Malama Elementary for struggling students.
The first is a designated small group intervention time of two hours a day, rotating
between two groups. Another strategy is utilizing everyone who is available to “flood”
classrooms with small group instruction so that there are less groups doing independent
work, thus creating a more effective rotation pattern that will allow some groups to have
double instruction. Malama also has Extended Learning Opportunities (ELO) and
incorporates an extended day program for one hour daily in small groups for select
students. This includes at least one Educational Assistant (EA) who monitors the
computer-assisted instruction. There are also two scheduling specialists that share 2
classrooms, one in the morning for reading or math. While there are no ELL students,
Principal Malama mentioned that the school also offers summer school for select
students, Extended School Year (ESY) for special education students.
Assessments & Data Analysis
Malama Elementary utilizes a combination of both formative and summative
assessments to inform instruction. The school’s Academic Financial Plan (AFP) targets
assessment for learning and instruction as the first guiding principal in assuring that all

206
students graduate career-ready through effective use of standards-based education. Key
objectives include utilization of formative assessments, including Data doe School
Improvement (DSI) to drive instruction, improving schools and data system through use
of Longitudinal Data System dashboards (LDS), using high quality standards, curriculum
and materials, and expanding opportunities for rigorous Career and Technical Education
programs of study within pathways. One related strategy that is aligned with the HDOE
Strategic Plan measures includes using formative assessments to design and implement
instruction.
Principal Malama emphasized the extensive use of a program called Galileo, a
test bank system that allows educators to link benchmarks and interventions to inform
instruction. Teachers also track end of the unit assessments for the lower grades in order
to focus on building up early reading skills. After that, Read Well is utilized to track
student progress. Principal Malama shared that the research regarding Read Well has
found the program to be a strong and accurate indicator of how well students are taught
in relation to their developing knowledge. The school also utilizes the annual statewide
assessments for grades 3-6 known as the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) to monitor
student progress of national accountability goals and standards, as well as measure
progress toward closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and school
wide performance. The results of each of the 3 rounds of HSA scores are reviewed with
faculty and staff to determine areas of focus and to adjust priorities as indicated. Teachers
use the results of the state assessments to plan their instructional focus and to monitor
their progress toward meeting state goals in achievement.

207
Assessment data is analyzed through out the year during multiple collaborative
efforts. A significant part of regular staff meetings and teacher group meetings are
devoted to data analysis. Some of these meetings are facilitated by school coaches or
outside consultants, which will be detailed in the Professional Development section. In
addition, teachers meet with coaches and consultants throughout the year in small groups
and /or one-on-one, to discuss student performance in more detail. Principal Malama
emphasizes that although they have improved in many areas, she is not satisfied with
where they are with assessments. She stresses that there is so much going on that the
school could benefit from being more systematic with data collection, refining that
process is critical.
Race to The Top
Since Hawaii became a recipient for national Race to the Top (RTTT) funds,
schools in Malama Elementary’s complex area have been included in the “Zone of
Innovation”. The agreements of participating in the Zone includes sharing in a vision
that every student graduates on time college and career ready, a mission built on a K-12
construct of common core standards, and an overall target to instill critical thinking.
Crucial components of Zone schools also include participation in the development and
implementation of a Zone/School professional development structure that utilizes
Assessment for Learning (Jan Chappuis), Coaches’ Academy, and Instructional
Leadership Teams (ILT). Principal Malama emphasized that being apart of the Zone has
increased resources to implement some of the initiatives that educators in their complex
area have been talking about even before they were designated as part of the Zone. They

208
saw the importance of the complex working together and being in the Zone encourages
that collaboration piece.
Professional Development & Coaching
Professional development at Malama Elementary is driven by student needs and
teacher abilities. A key component is the on-going support and delivery of the Hawaii
State Standards. The school’s AFP focuses on the alignment of professional
development related school strategies with the Hawaii Department of Education’s
Strategic Plan measures that include; 1) Implement focused, prioritized, standards-based
curriculum, instruction, and assessment through professional development options; 2)
Implement skills, strategies, and concepts learned in professional development including
PD provided during and after school; 3) Provide in-service training to staff so that each
employee understands and incorporates the mission of the school that contributes to
student proficiency and school atmosphere that expects every student to graduate and
attend college. Due to budget cutbacks, the state provided zero days for Professional
Development, where in the previous year nine days were allotted. Designated Zone
schools were provided four PD days to prepare for the new school year. The majority of
Professional Development for Malama Elementary is provided on-site.
Principal Malama utilizes weekly staff meetings that range from 45 minutes to 1
hour and 15 minutes to comply with teacher contracts. She has also allotted teachers an
hour and a half per week to meet with their departments also known as Professional
Learning Communities (PLC). Meetings are mainly geared toward analyzing
assessments and planning for instruction. However, a significant part of PD also includes

209
observing classroom interactions and creating a dialogue with teachers from neighboring
schools.
Malama Elementary relies heavily on their coaching staff that includes one full
time coach, two half time coaches, and one data coach. Most of their time is spent in the
classroom or meeting with teachers in small groups or one on one. The school also
works with consultants from Morningside, Singapore Math, Sopris West, and Thinking
Maps Inc.
Parent and Community Involvement
Malama Elementary hosts an annual Open House, holds parent teacher
conferences at least once a year, and does a student led achievement celebration twice a
year. The presentations include a student led conference where the student get the
opportunity to shares some of their work and scores with their families. Parents are also
invited to attend walkthroughs and special classroom observations to support student
achievements. Connecting with parents and families are just as significant as creating
partnerships with community businesses and organizations. Malama Elementary has
established such partnerships with multiple groups including the Hawaii State Legislators
who support student achievement improvement efforts.
Parent and community involvement is encouraged but could use some
improvement. Activities are dependent on availability of resources. With budget
cutbacks and the lack of resources, the mentality of the school leadership is to do the best
they can with the students when they have them even if it means sacrificing this piece.

210
Leadership
Principal Malama considers her role as an instructional leader a priority and feels
that her partnership with her coaching staff assists in making that happen. She believes
that coaches and consultants are valuable assets that consistently monitor and guide
instruction. Support for teachers and students are better served when coaches are right
there in the classrooms providing immediate feedback and attention to student needs and
teacher abilities. Principal Malama appreciates professional development workshops and
informational training but deeply values constructive hands-on assistance that is most
effective and relevant on the front lines and in the classrooms. As a former veteran
teacher for several years and a former vice principal for 7 years prior to becoming
principal, her knowledge and experience have been pivotal in effecting change. Her
capacity to lead played a major role in all decision-making aspects of successful school
wide reform efforts, finally paying off for the first time in 2009-10. Along the way,
Principal Laulima has managed to create a school culture that values student performance
that positively influences the evolving school community. She is open and sets the tone
for collaboration, is respected by colleagues and families, and puts forth her best effort to
ensure a quality education for students of Malama Elementary.
Table D.3 shows how Malama Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.

211
Table D.3 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based Strategies at
Malama Elementary

Odden’s 10
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
Observed
1) Analyzing
student
achievement data
√ Several assessments are utilized.
Teachers meet regularly to analyze
formative & summative data in order
incorporate changes for instructional
improvement.
2) Setting
ambitious goals
√ Malama’s goals focus on reading and
math as well as oral language for
instructional improvement and
student proficiency.
3) Implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ Teachers are expected to follow state
content standards and incorporate
complex adopted curriculum as apart
of the Zone of Innovation initiatives.
4) Using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ Multiple forms of assessments are
used to guide instruction and monitor
student progress.
5) Employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Even though the state cut 10 PD days
due to budget constraints, designated
schools in the Zone were allotted 4
PD days.
6) Using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Daily time blocks are specified for
math and language arts. Maximizing
instructional time is on-going effort.
7) Providing extra
help for
struggling
students
√ Most supports for struggling students
are provided during school hours.
8) Creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to
collaborate on data analysis,
instructional strategies and student
performance.
9) Using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers utilize a variety of research-
based strategies to inform instruction
student. Designated Zone schools
also agree to participate in innovative
strategies that promote student
achievement.
10) Investing on
human capital
management
√ Even with budget cuts, the principal
employs coaches and consultants to
provide individual and small group
PD support for teachers.

212
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ Principal Malama and her staff do
their best to provide quality services
to students and families. She is
selective with after school activities
due to budget constraints.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ Principal Malama sets the tone, leads
by example, and is practical when
considering effective school
decisions.

Although Malama Elementary implements most of Odden’s (2009) effective
strategies, the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the
Evidence Based Model (EBM). In most areas, including enrollment number, class size
and effective instructional strategies, the amount of resources budgeted are slightly less
than the EBM model. It was difficulty calculating resource amounts that were allocated
for students since the actual figures were not produced by the principal. Careful review
of public school documents, the 2010-2011 Academic Financial Plan and Narrative
Summaries, allowed for some estimated figures to be included for comparison.
Table D.4 and D.5 shows a comparison of school profile and resource allocation
between Malama Elementary and an EBM prototype school.

213
Table D.4 – School Profile Comparison: Malama Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
Malama
Elementary
School

Malama – EBM
Comparison
Resources

School Configuration K - 5
K - 6 Malama has 6
th
graders that
the EBM does not

Enrollment 432 435 Comparable to the EBM

Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 18
4-6 22
3 students more than EBM

3 students less than EBM
Full Day
Kindergarten
Yes Yes Comparable to the EBM
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 days

10 PD days cut
by state
furloughs
4 days allotted
for the Zone
6 less PD days than EBM
recommends
Students with
Disability
12% 12.2% Comparable to the EBM
Students in poverty 50%
77% 27% greater than EBM

EL students 10% 0% 10% less than EBM
Minority students 30%
99.6% 69.6% greater than EBM

214
Table D.5 Resource Comparison: Malama Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School
Element

EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
(432 students)

EBM School
with Malama
Characteristics
(435 Students)

Malama
Elementary
School

Malama – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core
Teachers
24 K-3 18

4-6 22
34 6 less than EBM
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 8 8 Same as EBM

1 more than EBM

3 less than EBM

4 Less than EBM
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 2 3
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16

4

1
(Supplemental
Instruction)
Teachers for
EL
1 for every 100: 0.43
4 0
Extended day 1.8 2.79 0 2.79 less than EBM
Summer
School
1.8 2.79 0 2.79 less than EBM
Learning
Disabled
student
3
3
? ?
GATE
student
$25/student $10,875 0 $10,875 less than
EBM
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
? 0 ?
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
3
(335 students)
2 1 less than EBM
Non-
instructional
aides
2 2 0 2 less than EBM
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1 1 1 Same as EBM
Principal 1 1 1 Same as EBM

215
School site
Secretary
2 3 1 2 less than EBM
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
& prep time, 10
summer days,
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.

$43,500
4 summer PD
days for Zone
resources and
6 less summer PD
days and
$43,500 less than
EBM
Technology $250/pupil
$108,750 $30,000 $108,720 less than
EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $60,900 0 $60,900 less than
EBM
Student
activities
$200/pupil $87,000 0 $87,000 less than
EBM

Lessons Learned
Malama Elementary School met Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for the first time
in 2010-11 after years of struggling with various factors related to underperformance.
Significant school wide improvements in recent years have helped with closing the
achievement gap and improving overall student performance for Malama students.
• Malama provides a fully funded Hawaiian Immersion program on-site to
support the cultural values of the surrounding Hawaiian homestead
community. Families have a choice to enroll their child in either program.
• The school has learned from past experiences regarding effective programs
that enhance rather than detour student performance. Leadership is informed
about current resources that are designed to improve instructional strategies.
• Teachers are encouraged to analyze data and set strategic goals that align
with state standards and specifically address closing the achievement gap.
Every effort is made to focus on initiatives that support the needs of all

216
students, with particular attention to the school’s high indigenous and
disadvantaged populations.
• Malama Elementary was designated as a “Zone of Innovation School” and has
agreed to participate in the development and implementation of the adopted
state supports for instruction and professional development.
• Professional development is a key component to the success of the school.
Collaboration is highly encouraged and supported by coaching consultants
who provide teachers with individualized and small group supports. Staff
meetings and Professional Learning Communities (PLC) are also utilized
consistently to build capacity and employ effective research based strategies
for learning.
• Principal Malama describes her leadership style as practical.
By implementing these programs Malama Elementary has experienced successful
growth in student achievement for all subgroups and ultimately met AYP in 2010-11 for
the first time. Although many of the supports are fairly new, student achievement is
projected to continue upward and lower the achievement gap. Principal Malama has
learned from her mistakes along the way and reflects on the importance of hiring the
right people who share the same vision and commitment to quality education. She is
hopeful that educational and state leaders will figure out a way to get experienced
effective teachers to student populations with the highest needs. That continues to be an
on-going problem that she would like resolved for the benefit of the vast majority of
disadvantaged and high needs students that attend Malama Elementary.

217
APPENDIX E
DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
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

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

218
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

III. District Profile

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

IV. District Contacts

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

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

219
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
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 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

220
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

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.

221
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 driver’s education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which
would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.

VIII. Library Staff

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

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

IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. 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.

222

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.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide small
groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second
language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to teach them
English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for the
2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help
staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that 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.

223
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.
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 that
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

224
X. Other Instructional Staff

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

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

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

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

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

225
additional pay based on the hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate
them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is, and
indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

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

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve
as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents
to get their children to attend school.

226
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.

XIII. Administration

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

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

XIV. 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.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study presents case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii that examine resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement. The combined frame work of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) were utilized to compare actual school resources and student achievement data to determine educational adequacy. The study investigates the instructional vision and improvement strategies of rural elementary schools, how they are using resources to implement effective strategies, the effects of recent budget adjustments and the resource allocation patterns that align with or are different from the comparison framework. Common strategies used by all three schools include principal leadership, using data to inform instruction, providing multiple interventions for struggling students, and collaboration and professional development. The schools in this study use multiple strategies to impact education for the highly disadvantaged and minority student populations that they serve. The data shows that these schools possess the adequate funds and potential to increase student achievement beyond what they are generating, however the consistency and quality of resources are questionable. The more aligned individual schools were with the comparison framework, the more consistent their growth was over time. Recommendations include expanding this study with a future gap analysis, escalation of leadership and teaching fidelity for rigorous alignment of resources to goals, and prioritizing the reallocation of resources to align with educational commitments to ensure academic success for all students. The Evidence Based Model and Ten Strategies could serve as a catalyst for schools to figure out adequate levels of resources needed to significantly increase student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

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

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

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies: a case study of schools in a southern California school district

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

Asset Metadata

Creator Tuasivi, Clarice Kawohikukapulani Acopan (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/01/2012

Defense Date 09/07/2012

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

Tag disadvantaged,effective strategies,evidence based,minority,OAI-PMH Harvest,research based,scarce resources,struggling

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 cktuasivi@yahoo.com,tuasivi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-100364

Unique identifier UC11288950

Identifier usctheses-c3-100364 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AcopanTuas-1218.pdf

Dmrecord 100364

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tuasivi, Clarice Kawohikukapulani Acopan

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