mitzie-higa-march18

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Contact Us

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HOW RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS ARE USED TO PROMOTE STUDENT
LEARNING: CASE STUDIES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN HAWAI`I
WITH RISING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

by

Mitzie Y. Higa

__________________________________________________________________

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

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Mitzie Y. Higa

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my son, Noah, and my husband, Miles who
allowed me to pursue this huge endeavor while sacrificing our family time. Noah,
thank you for always believing in me, your mom, and inspiring me to accomplish my
goals. Your dedication to your own school work inspired me to push on when I felt
like giving up. I want you to have all the world offers, so I hope my perseverance
when things got rough, sticks with you, and you remember that I pushed through and
just kept going. Miles, thank you for not complaining when the house was left in
shambles as I plowed through my research and for motivating me to finish. You are
my rock. This dissertation is also dedicated to my mom and my dad who always
taught us to reach for the stars and never, ever give up. Daddy, you may have been
taken from us suddenly when I was a baby, but I know that you are watching from
heaven and cheering me on every single day of my life. Thank you to my four sisters
and my brother, as well as my grandmas, grandpas, great-grandmas and great-
grandpas, aunts, uncles, and many cousins for believing in me over the years. Last,
but not least, I thank my students who inspired me every day as I motivated them to
pursue their dreams, as they supported me in mine. Who knew that a little bare-
footed girl running around in the desert chasing lizards, and being chased by geese,
would one day grow up and earn a doctorate? Thank you to those who believed in
me, that little mud-smeared girl with hand-me-down clothes, and put the idea in my
head that anything was possible.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Melora Sundt and Dr. Guilbert
Hentschke for agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee and offering their
expertise and insight. I would like to offer a special thank you to Dr. Lawrence O.
Picus who offered me countless hours of dedication, inspiration, and encouragement,
always believing in my ability and desire to make a difference with my dissertation. I
would also like to thank Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, Dr. Dominic Brewer, and Dr.
Richard Seder for helping me connect economic concepts to school improvement
over these last three years. I would like to thank my other professors, Dr. Gisele
Ragusa for her patience and insight during gap analysis; Dr. Gilbert Hentschke for
confirming my thoughts about the importance of innovation and autonomy in schools
and the role they play in school improvement; Dr. Robert Rueda for making research
methods and statistics actually exciting and fun; and Dr. Stuart E. Gothold for
reinforcing my beliefs about modeling strength of character and its vital importance
in leadership. Each professor brought new knowledge that motivated me to stretch
further, and research more, while also providing different perspectives into the
complex challenge of improving student achievement. I would also like to thank Dr.
Jonathan Schwartz for believing in me and convincing me to pursue my doctorate.
Thank you to the teachers from elementary through high school along the way that
saw something special in me, when I couldn’t see it myself, and helped me find it.
Endless thanks also goes out to my USC Hawai`i cohort full of dedicated, passionate,
strong, and quite humorous friends. I couldn’t have done it without your support.
iv
Hannee, thank you, for being like a long lost sister. We did it!! We did it!! Lastly, I
especially want to thank the principals in my study for being brave enough to share
their inspiring stories full of challenges and triumphs on their journeys of school
improvement.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures ix
Abstract xiii
Chapter One: Overview of Study 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 25
Chapter Three: Methods 74
Chapter Four: Findings 89
Chapter Five: Discussion 152
References 178
Appendices 190
Appendix A: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol — School Sites 190
Appendix B: Ekahi Elementary 193
Appendix C: Elua Elementary 224
Appendix D: Ekolu Elementary 257
Appendix E: Eha Elementary 285
Appendix F: Elima Elementary 310
Appendix G: Invitation to Participate in Study 344
Appendix H: Follow-Up E-Mail 345
Appendix I: Information/Facts Sheet for Non-Medical Research 346
Appendix J: School Visit/Interview Dates 348
Appendix K: List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by 349
Participating Schools
Appendix L: Data Collection Codebook 350

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Adequate Prototypical Elementary & Middle School Resources 72
Table 3.1: Rising Academic Achievement in Reading Across Five School 77
Samples (HSA Data)
Table 3.2: Rising Academic Achievement in Math of Five School Samples 78
(HSA Data)
Table 3.3: School Sample Demographics, Enrollment, and Grade Range 79
2010-11
Table 3.4: School Sample Community Data 80
Table 3.5: School Sample Resource Indicators 82
Table 3.6: School Resources 83
Table 4.1: Samples of One Section of the Narrative Summaries of the 108
Academic Financial Plans from Five Sample Schools
Table 4.2: Academic Financial Plan — One Section — Goal 1 Examples 110
from Five School Samples
Table 4.3: Schools’ Resource Allocation Comparison to EBM 116
Table 4.4: Data Use in Five School Samples 132
Table 4.5: Sample School Characteristics 144
Table B.1: Ekahi Elementary Reading — Percent Proficient or Above on 199
SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments 2003-04 to 2010-11
Table B.2: Ekahi Elementary Math — Percent Proficient or Above on 202
SAT9 and TerraNova 2003-04 to 2010-11
Table B.3: Bell Schedule — Week A 212
Table B.4: Bell Schedule — Week B 213
Table B.5: Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based 216
Strategies at Ekahi Elementary
vii
Table B.6: School Profile Comparison: Ekahi Elementary School and 219
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
Table B.7: Resource Comparison: Ekahi Elementary School and Evidence 220
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
Table C.1: Percent of Students Proficient in Reading on SAT9 and 229
TerraNova Assessments
Table C.2: Percent of Students Proficient in Math on SAT9 and TerraNova 233
Assessments
Table C.3: Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based 249
Strategies at Elua Elementary
Table C.4: School Profile Comparison: Elua Elementary School and 252
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
Table C.5: Resource Comparison: Elua Elementary School and Evidence 253
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
Table D.1: Percent of Students Proficient in Reading on SAT9 and 261
TerraNova Assessments
Table D.2: Percent of Students Proficient in Math on SAT9 and TerraNova 265
Assessments
Table D.3: Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based 277
Strategies at Ekolu Elementary
Table D.4: School Profile Comparison: Ekolu Elementary School and 279
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School
Table D.5: Resource Comparison: Ekolu Elementary School and Evidence 281
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
Table E.1: Eha Elementary Reading Proficient or Above SAT9 and 289
TerraNova Assessments
Table E.2: Eha Elementary Math Proficient or Above SAT9 and TerraNova 293
Assessments

viii
Table E.3: Eha Elementary Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps for 302
Doubling Student Performance
Table E.4: School Profile Comparison: Eha Elementary and Evidence 304
Based Model (EBM) School
Table E.5: Resource Comparison: Eha Elementary and Evidence Based 306
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
Table F.1: Elima Elementary Reading Proficient or Above SAT9 and 314
TerraNova Assessments
Table F.2: Elima Elementary Math Proficient or Above SAT9 and 319
TerraNova Assessments
Table F.3: Elima Elementary Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps for 336
Doubling Student Performance
Table F.4: School Profile Comparison: Elima Elementary and Evidence 339
Based Model (EBM) School
Table F.5: Resource Comparison: Elima Elementary and Evidence Based 340
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Demographics by student need of five sample schools 2010-11 91
Figure 4.2. Demographic percentages by student need of five sample 92
schools
Figure 4.3. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools 93
on HSA 2010-11
Figure 4.4. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools 94
on HSA 2010-11, disadvantaged subgroup of five sample
schools
Figure 4.5. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on 96
HSA 2010-11, ELL subgroup of five sample schools 2010-11
Figure 4.6. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on 97
HSA 2010-11, Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup of five sample
schools
Figure 4.7. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools 98
on HSA 2010-11, White subgroup of five sample schools
Figure 4.8. Reading proficiency of disabled subgroup of five sample 99
schools
Figure 4.9. Math proficiency scores of five sample schools 100
Figure 4.10. Math proficiency of disadvantaged subgroup of five sample 101
schools
Figure 4.11. Math proficiency of ELL subgroup of five sample schools 102
Figure 4.12. Math proficiency of Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup of five 103
sample schools
Figure 4.13. Math proficiency of White subgroup of five sample schools 104
Figure 4.14. Math proficiency of disabled subgroup of five sample schools 105
Figure B.1. Ekahi Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11 194
x
Figure B.2. Ekahi Elementary student needs demographic percentages 195
2010-11
Figure B.3. Ekahi Elementary student ethnic demographic percentages 196
2010-11
Figure B.4. Ekahi Elementary reading — percent proficient or above 198
on HSA
Figure B.5. Ekahi Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by 200
subgroup on HSA 2010-11
Figure B.6. Ekahi Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA 201
Figure B.7. Ekahi Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA 203
Figure C.1. Elua Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11 224
Figure C.2. Elua Elementary student needs demographics percentages 225
2010-11
Figure C.3. Elua Elementary ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11 226
Figure C.4. Elua Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on HSA 228
Figure C.5. Elua Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by 231
subgroup on HSA
Figure C.6. Elua Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA 232
Figure C.7. Elua Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HAS 234
2010-11
Figure D.1. Ekolu Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11 257
Figure D.2. School Student needs demographics percentage for Ekolu 258
Elementary
Figure D.3. School Student ethnic demographics percentage for Ekolu 259
Elementary 2010-11
Figure D.4. Ekolu Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on 260
HSA 2010-11
xi
Figure D.5. Ekolu Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by 263
subgroup on HSA 2010-11
Figure D.6. Ekolu Elementary math — percent proficient or above on 264
HSA 2010-11
Figure D.7. Ekolu Elementary math — percent proficient or above on 266
HSA 2010-11 by subgroup
Figure E.1. Eha Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11 285
Figure E.2. Eha Elementary student needs demographic percentages 286
2010-11
Figure E.3. Eha Elementary ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11 287
Figure E.4. Eha Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on 288
HSA 2010-11
Figure E.5. Eha Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by 291
subgroup on HSA
Figure E.6. Eha Elementary Math — percent proficient or above on HSA 292
2010-11
Figure E.7. Eha Elementary Math — percent proficient or above by 294
subgroup on HSA 2010-11
Figure F.1. Elima Elementary enrollment data from 2003-04 to 2010-11 310
Figure F.2. Elima Elementary student needs demographic percentages 311
2010-11
Figure F.3. Elima Elementary ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11 312
Figure F.4. Elima Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on 313
HSA 2010-11
Figure F.5. Elima Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by 316
subgroup on HSA 2010-11

xii
Figure F.6. Elima Elementary math — percent proficient or above on the 318
HSA 2010-11
Figure F.7. Elima Elementary math — percent proficient or above by 320
subgroup on HSA 2010-11

xiii
ABSTRACT
This study used a purposeful sample of five public non-charter elementary
schools in Hawai`i. The schools, located on two different islands, displayed evidence
of improving academic performance and consistently outperformed the state average
growth in scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA). These schools had mid to
high percentages of disadvantaged students as well as a high percentage of minority
students. Case studies, which included information collected from school documents
as well as interview data, performance data and information on the use of resources
at the school level, were conducted in all five schools. The findings were analyzed
and compared with the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) of resource allocation,
developed by Odden and Picus (2008). The Evidence-Based Model identifies the
elements of a school-wide instructional program that research has shown to be
effective in improving student performance.
The findings highlight the importance of providing principals with enough
autonomy to make data based decisions regarding the allocation and use of their
limited resources to meet students’ specific learning needs. These principals also
realized the value of working collaboratively with their staff toward a shared purpose
of raising student achievement and providing students and staff with the support
needed to achieve this goal. This study illustrates that, even within current fiscal
constraints in the state of Hawai`i, resources focused on increasing student
achievement through the ten strategies identified by Odden and Archibald (2010) to
dramatically improve student performance can be effectively allocated by using data-
xiv
driven decisions. As the State of Hawai`i and the nation recover from the current
recession, the Evidence-Based Model offers a framework that provides guidance to
focus the allocation of future investments in education to promote student
achievement. Implications for practice and policy are discussed.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Accountability of Public Schools in the U.S.
Over the years schools in the U.S. have been expected to produce citizens
that will contribute and function in society, thus the curriculum taught in schools has
adapted to demands of political, social, economic, and religious pressures based on
societal values and needs of the times (Spring, 2009). In 1992 a report from National
Council on Education Standards and Testing stated,
High standards for student attainment are critical to enhancing America’s
competitiveness. The quality of human capital, the knowledge and skills of
labor management, helps determine a nation’s ability to compete in the world
marketplace. International comparisons, however, consistently show that the
academic performance of American students is below that of students in
many developed countries. The relative deficiency in America’s human
capital contributes to the inability of many firms in the United States to
compete internationally. Low skill levels many also be impeding American
business from shifting to newer, more efficient methods of production that
require greater responsibility and skill on the part of the front-line workers.
These deficiencies likely affect the standard of living of all Americans, but
the effects are felt most keenly by those who do not have adequate skills (p.
11).

In most recent years, as the awareness of this global competitiveness has
surfaced, the focus has turned toward the accountability of our U.S. school systems
and their outputs measured through standardized testing (Spring, 2009). Along with
the push toward global competiveness comes the push for financial accountability
regarding where money is actually spent. People outside of academia have very few
criteria in which to measure a school system’s success, and because of this lack of
accountability measures, much suspicion is created about academics having too
2
much freedom and too little direction (Kennedy, 1997). The expectations of
university systems as well as our nation’s elementary schools are often perceived as
murky to the general public (Kennedy, 1997; Porter, 1989).
As a nation, especially since NCLB, high-stakes testing has become the
driving force of change and accountability within U.S. public schools (Hinde, 2003).
Though NCLB does not mandate curriculum, it does mandate that each state set
standards for student achievement in each grade. These standards are goals that each
student needs to reach by each specific grade level. These standards drive school
decisions on curriculum, instruction, and assessments (Berry, Turchi, Johnson, Hare,
& Owen, 2003). NCLB also set up sanctions for those schools that fail to meet their
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals as set by each state. However, NCLB requires
that all schools must reach 100% student proficiency by the year 2014. The pressure
of school sanctions has motivated many schools to interpret not only what their
standards should be, but also how their standards will be met through their
curriculum, instruction, and assessments in their schools (Diamond & Spillane,
2003). Earlier, in 1992, as the standards movement began, a report by the National
Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) warned of the dangers of
implementing standards reform without school, district, and state support,
If national content and performance standards and assessments are not
accompanied by clear school delivery standards and policy measures
designed to afford all students and equal opportunity to learn, the concerns
about diminished equity could easily be realized. Standards and assessments
must be accompanied by policies that provide access for all students to high
quality resources, including appropriate instructional materials and well-
prepared teachers” (p. E12)
3
Standards for students moved ahead, but they moved ahead without NCEST’s
recommendation of standards for what schools, districts, or states should provide to
help students and teachers reach these goals (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In fact, as predicted by NCEST, diminished equity has been realized. The
demand for accountability in subject area performance has created various reactions
within different schools in the U.S. (Wright, 2002; Porter, 1989; Diamond &
Spillane, 2003). Wright (2002) reported that a high-stakes standardized test (the
SAT-9) resulted in a narrowed curriculum, a lower quality of teaching and learning,
and harmful effects on both teachers and students in a large inner-city elementary
school in Southern California with a high student population of English Language
Learners. Teachers in the same district reported that the emphasis on testing had
caused changes including a de-emphasis or even elimination of content areas and
other activities not related to the SAT-9. This change included replacing their former
math program that “emphasized hands-on, exploratory, self-discovery math and de-
emphasized paper and pencil tasks” (Wright, 2002, p. 21) and adopting a new math
program that emphasized paper pencil work as well as daily test prep, and bubble-in
answers. They argued this change of “teaching to the test” was not what was best for
the students. In other words, the demand for raising student scores on state tests,
without providing funding, diminished the intention of equitable learning. It also
didn’t go along with policies focused on research-based practices to support student
learning. Nationwide schools are searching for answers to improve their schools
from organizational structures, to changes in curriculum, professional development,
4
outside school reform consultants, and new allocations of resources to improve
student achievement. Despite standards based reform, the passage of NCLB, and a
demand for accountability of public schools, other nations continue to outperform
the learning outcomes of students in the United States (Wei et al., 2009).
Resource Allocation in U.S. Public Schools
The demand for the accountability for student learning has been followed in
some states by the demand for accountability of resources in its schools, starting with
equitable funding, and later, adequacy of funding. How much is enough? Roza and
Hill (2006) ask how anyone knows how much is adequate, if they don’t even know
where the money is actually being spent in the nation’s schools. Four main models
have been used to try and determine the adequacy of funding levels to achieve state
student performance across the nation: 1) the successful district approach, 2) the cost
function approach, 3) the professional judgment approach, and 4) the evidence-based
approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 2001; Odden & Picus, 2008).
The successful district approach identifies the per-student funding at
successful districts with high-achieving student outputs and then applies similar
funding to low-performing schools with the premise that similar funding will
produce similar student achievement (Odden, 2003). Criticism of this approach
focuses on the fact that a successful district’s demographics and students’ needs may
be very different than a poor-performing district. Purely allocating similar funding of
a successful district to a poor-performing district does not ensure similar success of
the students (Odden, 2003).
5
The cost function approach estimates the average level of funding that is
needed by using econometric models to measure how much funding a district needs
to spend relative to student characteristics to ensure students perform to an identified
level (Rebell, 2007). Criticism of this approach focuses on the limits of using a
district funding analysis tool instead of a school analysis tool. Also extensive data
need to be collected such as per-pupil expenditures, student performance, and school
characteristics statewide in order to determine average models of spending.
Additionally, the general public, as well as educators and policy makers find the cost
function model difficult to understand (Rebell, 2007).
The professional judgment approach uses highly qualified practitioners who
are knowledgeable both in resource use and effective educational strategies (Odden,
2003; Rebell, 2007). However, this method is often criticized for its reliance on
professional opinion rather than research-based practices (Hanushek, 2006). Finally,
the evidence-based approach to educational adequacy focuses on identifying best
practices that have increased student performance based on research as a framework
for school improvement. Each of these essential elements is identified and a cost is
applied to each element. (Odden & Picus, 2008). Some critics argue that an
adequacy model cannot provide the exact amount needed to ensure student success at
a proficient level (Hanushek, 2006). However, Odden and Picus (2008) explain that
the Evidence-Based Model is not a prescription, but instead a framework from which
schools may begin to allocate their resources effectively focused to increase student
achievement.
6
The advantage of using the Evidence-Based Model as a framework for this
study is that it is customizable according to school needs. Its framework takes into
account the student population and the amount of students who may need extra
supports such as special needs students and English as a Second Language Learners.
The Evidence-Based Model has successfully been used in several states due to its
close alignment to research-proven strategies for school reform. These states include
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky
(Odden, Picus, et al., 2008).
In some states, including Hawai`i, there has been a focus toward providing
more equitable funding with the added intent of giving more local school control
with the use of the weighted-student formula which emerged as an alternative to
traditional funding practices focused on staff (Ouchi, 2003). Instead, the student-
weighted allocation uses a formula to fund students based on their needs. A standard
fixed amount is allocated for every student, then more money is allocated to this base
amount for students with greater learning needs such as low socio-economic status,
English as a Second Language Learners, or students identified as special education
(Miles & Roza, 2006). The intent of using a weighted-student formula was to
provide a more equitable allocation of resources to schools and districts (Miles &
Roza, 2006). The accountability built into the No Child Left behind Act, holds
schools accountable for all students, including those students that may need more
interventions. The weighted-student formula was derived with the intent to help
7
ensure there is a level playing field for all students with the premise that students
with special needs need more supports to level the field (Miles & Roza, 2006).
However, once the school is funded, an accountability problem arises in that
schools may receive more funding, but they are not required to change how their
resources are used. Many schools, despite being the recipients of more funding,
allocate their resources in much the same way they had in the past, which didn’t
prove effective. Just the allocation of more resources, does not ensure they are spent
effectively. This lack of accountability continues to be a problem (Miles & Roza,
2006). The evidence-based model provides a framework of accountability from
which to measure the effectiveness of resource allocations and their relationship to
increased student achievement (Odden, 2009).
According to Ouchi (2009) the organizational structure of a school including
its allocation of resources needs to be carefully assessed. He contends that strong
teachers are “developed, coached, and protected by strong principals” (p. 8). Schools
are not just a random collection of people and buildings. They are part of an
organization. If a school is failing, Ouchi (2003) contends that it needs to be
examined to find what part of the organization is not supporting success. Ouchi
(2003) proposes that instead of the public jumping to blame teachers for failing
schools, teachers’ unions, or parents, schools and communities should be looking
more critically at schools that are chronically failing as an organizational failure
much in the same way the public looks at businesses that fail. In this study the
evidence-based model provides a framework to compare a school’s organizational
8
structure and supports for student learning through its allocation of resources. Odden
(2009) contends that through this framework problems can be more readily identified
and resources reallocated better to support student learning based on research
(Odden, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
Despite standards based reform and the passage of NCLB, other nations
continue to outperform the learning outcomes of students in the United States. In
math, on the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA), the U.S. ranked
21
st
out of 30 countries. In science the U.S. ranked 25
th
out of 30 countries (Wei,
Andree, & Darling-Hammond, 2009). Further evidence of the U.S. not producing
competitive student learning outcomes can be seen through the nation’s poor NAEP
scores in math and writing (NAEP, 2009). In a recent report by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) there is evidence that for every
year that the average schooling level of the population was raised, there was a
corresponding increase of 3.7% in long-term economic growth (OECD, 2007). Our
nation’s diversity continues to expand, and yet there is evidence that our teachers are
not prepared to teach this new population of students (Futrell, 1999). According to
the OECD (2007), while the United States is going backward in educating its U.S.
citizens as its ranking decreases, most of the rest of the world is going forward.
Although school reform is one of the hottest topics in the United States in education,
there continues to be the problem of low student performance coupled with little
9
accountability for funding directly focused on research-based practices for raising
student achievement.
There are not enough high-quality teachers in our nation’s public schools and
there is little incentive to create new teachers or to retain quality teachers. Kersaint,
Lewis, Potter, and Meisels (2007) estimate that one third of our nation’s teachers
turn over every year. Included in this number are the many teachers who leave the
profession early in their careers. After five years, the retention rate for teachers is
only 61% nationwide. This means 39% are leaving the profession within the first 5
years (Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2007). Futrell (1999) reports that, unlike
other professions, today’s teachers are treated more as children than as valued
professionals as more and more decisions are taken away from them. The public no
longer views teaching as an attractive profession, as it is often accompanied by rigid
bureaucratic hierarchy with teachers having little input in decisions, and because of
this teachers feel undervalued, disheartened, and unsupported (Stoll et al., 2006).
Hanushek (2010) posits that higher student learning outcomes are based on
the quality of the nation’s teachers. International evidence suggests that building an
individual and collective capacity of a nation’s teachers is required to successfully
implement educational reform. Building this capacity is the critical link of school-
wide, district, and national change within the U.S. educational system. Without a
complex blend of professional development, an infrastructure of support, motivation
building, and positive learning, the organization culture within the nation’s schools
will not change (Stoll et al., 2006). According to Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) this
10
investment in school reform begins with data collection in order to identify student
learning needs, and then the careful allocation of resources based on these needs
coupled with best practices based on research, and focused on increasing student
proficiency.
Although states are investing in professional development of their teachers,
the investments are not focused. Across the United States in an effort to improve the
public education system teachers are required to have many ongoing improvements
in their curriculum through professional development spanning a variety of subjects
simultaneously. Multiple foci contribute to a lack of focus on any one goal. Clark
and Estes (2008) state that:
Few people have the luxury of a single work goal. Once a person has chosen
and begun working on a goal, they usually have to divide their attention
between many other goals. When people get distracted too often or for too
long by less important (but perhaps more attractive) work goals, they have a
persistence problem. A lack of focused goals as well as lack of time for
implementation, revision, and reflection on practice, may have contributed to
teacher burnout evidenced by a lack of motivation and the failure to
implement new instructional practices in the classroom” (Clark and Estes,
2008)

A lack of self-efficacy could also contribute to a lack of buy-in by teachers.
Stress is defined as “a perceived excess of environmental demands over and
individual’s perceived capability to meet them and when failure to meet these
demands has important perceived consequences” (McGrath, 1970) . Without
proficient focused, ongoing, imbedded instruction and support for new methods of
instruction, teachers may lack the understanding of the new instructional strategies
11
and contribute to an overwhelmed feeling followed by the lack of persistence of their
implementation (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
According to research, professional development alone will not improve
student learning (Wei et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2005; Chappuis et al., 2009). Time
for planning, collaboration, and reflection for teachers is also needed. In the U.S.
there is less time allocated for the planning and collaboration for teachers than is
allocated by educational systems in high-achieving nations where instructional
change is created through ongoing, embedded professional development (Wei et al.,
2009; Porter et al., 2005; Chappuis et al., 2009). In fact, instruction takes up less than
half of a teacher’s working time in high-achieving European and Asian countries.
The other half of a teacher’s work day in high-achieving nations is spent planning,
grading, collaborating, observing other teachers, and providing feedback to
colleagues as they design instructional improvements (NCTAF, 1996; and OECD,
2007). Research shows that in order for teachers to be effective, they need
organizational support from their administration that will allow time for them to
collaborate, review data, learn, reflect, plan and practice the skills in a contextual
format to become better educators (Porter et al., 2005; Wei et al., 2009; OECD,
2007). Some U.S. public schools have dramatically improved their performance by
changing their practices. These schools use research-based best practices, including
individual planning time, as well as weekly common planning time for teachers.
Improving the quality of teaching requires rethinking the allocation of resources. All
of these research-based practices support the improvement of student academic
12
achievement (Odden, 2009). Resources need to be invested in human capital.
Investments in human capital build on knowledge, skills, health, and values that
cannot be separated from a person such as financial or physical assets. Therefore,
economists argue that expenditures in education are important investments. In order
to prepare educated citizens, teachers must be invested in to help students achieve
(Salamon, 1991; Becker, 1993; Friedman, 2005; McKinsey & Company, 2009).
Based on research in over one hundred countries with different cultures and
economic systems, Becker (1993) contends that human capital is an expenditure
nations should invest in. The more educated a person was in each of these countries,
the more gains in earnings they achieved, usually well above-average income,
though in less developed countries the gains were smaller (Becker, 1993). Karoly
(2001) adds that the current and future workforce in the U.S. is dependent on the
investments in the quality and quantity of human capital. In 1991 Salamon warned
that the nation’s weakened social and economic agenda was converging based on
need. As the workforce needs changed it became more apparent to other researchers
that a more skilled and educated workforce was needed in order to stay competitive
globally (Friedman, 2005; Salamon, 1991). McKinsey and Company (2009)
reflected similar findings that our nation’s economic future rests on our ability as a
nation to produce highly skilled, highly educated workers or risk “the equivalent of a
permanent national recession” (p. 7). The U.S. can no longer rely on wealth from
land, capital stock, and hours of labor (Salamon, 1991). It continues to be the trend
that in order to remain competitive, the U.S. workforce needs to keep up with the
13
growing demand for workers trained and skilled in engineering and science
(Salamon, 1991). Unfortunately, there has been a decline in these types of workers
that threatens the economic welfare and security of our country (Friedman, 2005). A
focus on human capital in the form of increased knowledge and skills, especially in
engineering and science, are necessary for a strong economy (Salamon, 1991;
Friedman, 2005; McKinsey & Company, 2009). This focus on increasing the wealth
of human capital begins with investment in our nation’s teachers. These investments
include the placement of people, the investment in those people, the structure of the
organization that supports those people, and more effective leadership that supports
change within schools. It is our teachers who need to have the capacity to improve
instruction and thus increase the academic achievement of our nation’s students.
Hanushek (2010) reports most studies on teacher quality do not evaluate the
economic value of a change in the quality of its teachers. It is important to note that
the countries with stronger economic growth are those countries that perform better
on the international math and science tests (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2008).
Hanushek (2010) states that by just replacing the lowest performing five to eight
percent of teachers with average teachers would push the U.S. near the top of the
international rankings of math and science with a present value of $100 trillion.
Consistent estimates across several longitudinal studies regarding the impact of test
performance in relation to the earnings of young workers ranged from ten to fifteen
percent increase per standard deviation of test performance. However, Hanushek and
Zhang (2009) estimate an even higher return of 20 percent per standard deviation
14
using a sample of workers earnings throughout their career, unlike other studies that
estimated only early-career earnings. These potential earnings in relation to test
scores present a strong suggestion that the value of effective teachers is critical to
future earnings, and the U.S. economy, which relies on the productivity of its
workers (Hanushek, 2010). “The estimates of the growth impacts of bringing U.S.
students up to the level of Finland imply astounding improvements in the well-being
of U.S. citizens. The present value of future increments to GDP in the U.S. would
amount to $112 trillion” (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010). This amount of return
minimalizes all the discussion and debate on the U.S. $1 trillion economic stimulus
package in 2008 (Hanushek, 2010).
Several studies on the United States’ educational system have found that
teachers are not being provided with the type of professional development that has
shown to be effective in high-achieving nations, the structure of teachers’ workdays
within our nation do not provide adequate time for teachers’ other professional
duties, and are not generating teacher buy-in that is essential to the change needed
within our educational system (Alton-Lee, 2007; Wei, Andree, & Darling-
Hammond, 2009). Professional development provided for teachers in the U.S. is not
routinely followed up with feedback after implementation by teachers within their
classrooms as is suggested as a best practice through research (Wei, Andree, &
Darling-Hammond, 2009; Porter et al, 2005; Chappuis et al., 2009). These findings
about professional development are in direct opposition to the practices followed by
high-achieving nations. In Singapore the Ministry of Education established a
15
Teacher’s Network in 1998. Its mission is to support its teachers to promote and
support teacher –initiated professional development through sharing, collaboration,
and reflection. In fact as part of this initiative, the Singapore government pays for
100 hours of required professional development each year for all of its teachers,
along with the 20 hours each week in which teachers visit other teachers’ classrooms
to study teaching. Best practices are shared and they also examine problems in order
to collaborate to find solutions that they can then share with others (Wei, Andree, &
Darling-Hammond, 2009).
As the U.S. attempts to reform its public schools, it has turned the nation’s
focus from an equitable education which has not produced equitable results in
student achievement (Downs, 2010), to an adequate education, creating the desire to
define what adequate means in terms of reaching student achievement standards as
well as funding educational systems (Odden, Goetz, & Picus, 2010). Unfortunately,
many teachers, schools, and administrators are not trained how to effectively use
data to drive their decisions. Schools wishing to improve the academic outcomes of
their students need to first identify student needs based on assessment data. Once
analyzed, schools may focus the allocation of their resources more effectively to the
specific interventions and improvements needed to improve the instructional needs
of their students by providing teachers with content, pedagogy, and support for
improving their effectiveness at raising student achievement (Odden, Goetz, & Picus,
2010). However, first educational leaders and teachers need the training that will
enable them to analyze data effectively to make these types of decisions effectively.
16
In an attempt to address a lack of accountability in U.S. public schools, some
cities and districts have tried to implement a decentralization of school districts to
give principals more control of their schools. They reason that if principals are to be
held accountable for their schools’ performance, they need autonomy to allocate
their resources at their schools. In response to this line of thought some principals
have been given more control over their budgets, as much as 87.2 percent of the
budget in St. Paul, Minnesota, 85.0 percent in New York City, and 73.7 percent in
Houston. However, in many schools across the nation, it is far more common for
principals to only have control of a far lower percentage of their budget. In Los
Angeles principals control 6.7 percent, in New York 6.1 percent, and in Hawaii
principals only control about 4 percent (Ouchi, 2003). Ouchi (2003) warns that he is
not suggesting that if districts simply give principals more control over their budget
that it will boost the success of their schools. He suggests that the autonomy of
principals must also be accompanied by other supporting policies such as school
choice, development of effective principals, accountability, and weighted student
formula budgeting. In New York more principal autonomy was created for some
schools that broke the factory-model type structure. Under an innovation silo in the
form of Alternative Schools Superintendency, newly designed, innovative schools
were buffered from the bureaucracy and regulations of the traditionally run public
schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Changing the allocation of school, district, and state educational funds is not
easy, because most educational systems were set up to distribute funds “equitably” to
17
ensure that programs serving under-represented groups, such as Title I funds (Weiss,
2010). The problem with this set-up for distribution of funds is that it allocates
money with specific, often rigorous, specifications as to how that money can be
spent and who it should be spent on. The allocation of funds not only to a school,
but also within a school, is structured in such a way that it limits where funds may be
spent, how they may be spent, and who may spend them often without regards to
student achievement data according to Cross and Roza (2010). Funds are not
distributed based on data of student achievement, but more on demographics. These
limits can create roadblocks for administrators wanting to reallocate funds differently
than the specifications that limit funds to certain types of spending.
The allocation of resources is not consistently tied to student learning goals in
the U.S. (Odden, 2009). This study looks at the root of addressing these problems
through resource allocation, with a focused and expanded look at the importance of
supporting teachers through effective school leadership, the use of data-driven
decisions, professional development, instructional coaches, and other organizational
supports such as regularly scheduled time allocated for professional learning
communities, all which drive student achievement and are included within the
framework of the Evidence-Based Model. Academic improvement of the students in
five public elementary schools in Hawai`i will be examined. Each elementary school
is characterized by a trend of rising academic gains between the years of 2003-04 to
2010-2011. The five schools have varied student demographics. Each elementary
school will be compared with the framework of the Evidence-Based Model and used
18
to discuss and define how resource allocation along the various components are used
and compared with best practices linked to successful student learning outcomes for
students. Also taken into account will be changes of allocations that were made at
each school in response to the recent economic downturn which, in Hawai`i,
included the loss of 17 instructional days for students due to teacher furloughs in the
2009-2010 school year, followed by 10 furlough days in 2010-2011 which
eliminated days normally set aside for teacher professional development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the practices in five elementary
schools in Hawai`i with consistently rising trends of student academic performance
from 2003-04 to 2010-11. These schools succeeded in improving student
performance despite an economic downturn, including the loss of 17 instructional
days in the second semester due to teacher furloughs for the school year 2009-2010
followed by the loss of 10 more furlough days in the school year 2010-11 which
although did not fall on instructional days, sacrificed teacher professional
development days. All schools reported gains (increase of 8% to 32.9%) in
academic achievement in math, and all but one school reported academic
achievement gains (an increase of 3.6% to 13.5%) in reading. One school showed a
slight drop in reading achievement by 0.6% percent. However, from 2006-07 to
2010-11 all five schools reported gains in math achievement from 14.9% to 52.9%
and an increase ranging from 9.7% to 33.3% in reading. Data collected from five
schools were compared to the Evidence-Based Model and analyzed to identify how
19
resources were allocated and improvements implemented to promote increased
student achievement. A deeper description is provided regarding the allocation of
resources aimed at strengthening school leadership, development of professional
learning communities and teacher instructional quality and productivity through
professional development activities, as well as other supports, to promote positive
student achievement outcomes.
Research Questions
The research questions for this particular study are:
1. How are resource allocation patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based
Model?
2. What instructional improvement strategies are currently being
implemented at the school sites?
3. How have allocations of resources supported instructional improvement?
Importance of the Study
Students need to be college ready and globally competitive. Many of our
nation’s schools are not preparing our students for this goal. This study provides
insight into possible connections between the allocation of resources, including the
expenditures and practices used on professional development to promote student
achievement, used specifically by schools in Hawai`i that have successfully raised
student academic proficiency. These descriptions will include not only how schools
have allocated their resources within their school, but also the specific structures and
20
activities identified in each school as it was used to promote an increase in teacher
instructional quality and student academic achievement. These descriptions may help
to provide guidance to state, district, and school leadership when formulating
budgets and choosing quality programs and structures to promote the creation and
support of high quality teachers, educational leaders, and programs and supports that
positively impact student achievement. At the state level, this study provides
additional information on whether these particular schools have necessary resources
to provide an adequate education to all students. Additionally, it provides
information on whether the Evidence-Based Model fits within Hawai`i’s school
finance policy. This study is one of the first in Hawai`i to use the Evidence-Based
Model as a framework to analyze the allocation of school resources and its
relationship to student achievement.
Limitations
There are two limitations to this study. First, the current limited applicability
of the Evidence-Based Model to Hawai`i schools due to the state’s school finance
policy and use of the weighted student formula limits this study. As of now, the
current school funding formula does not make it possible to fully implement the
Evidence-Based Model. Second, the data collection for this study is limited to the
availability of the data at the school sites. The data collected at each school was
dependent on how accurate and detailed the schools were with collecting and
maintaining data.
21
Delimitations
Data collection for the allocation of resources was not collected over an
extended period of time, but limited to the school current school year of 2011-2012.
The researcher was not able to control for any participants willingness to participate,
or any biases during interviews. This study does not include an analysis of district
resource allocation policy and priorities. Lastly, the five schools in this study were
selected based on their trend of rising gains in student academic achievement along
with their mid to high percentage of low-income students. The small and purposeful
school sampling of five schools in Hawai`i does not allow for results to be
generalized to other schools in Hawai`i, especially those with differing demographics
and social contexts.
Assumptions
It is assumed that all data collected through interviews and school documents
is true and reflective of current instructional practices at the school sites as well as
complete and accurate.
Definition of Terms
Act 238: (in Hawai`i) not only implemented an educational accountability
system for Hawai`i’s public schools that would measure and report on the attainment
of statewide content and performance standards, but it also recommended the central
accountability include the safety and well-being of students, and the civic
responsibility among students.
22
Adequacy (in education): Student academic performance expectations as
determined by a state’s curriculum standards, NCLB, and measured by a state’s
testing system with a goal that all but the most severely disabled students will
achieve at proficient or advanced levels – and the funding to support necessary
resources to achieve these outcomes.
Accountability: Systems that hold students, schools, or districts responsible
for academic performance.
Adequate Yearly Progress: “A goal of the 2001 federal law No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) that requires schools and districts to measure and report students’
annual progress toward proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics by
2013-14. Progress is based on whether the school or district met its Annual
Measurable Objectives and demonstrated 95% participation on standardized tests,
achieved its target on the Academic Performance Index and, for high schools, met
target graduation rates” (Ed-Data, 2008).
Categorical Fund(s): State and federal funds allocated in addition to revenue
limit income and designated for students with special and specific needs, such as
disabilities, and for special purposes and programs.
Coaching: “refers to opportunities for active learning that are often ongoing
in nature and assist teachers in active learning” (Odden et al, 2002, p. 69).
Content standards: Standards adopted by the state that delineate what each
student must learn in each grade level in language arts, mathematics, science, social
studies, physical education, and visual/performing arts.
23
Cost Function approach: Econometric approach to identifying costs
associated with achieving desired/required student achievement outcomes.
Costs: expenditures incurred to produce a certain outcome.
Effective Professional Development: “Professional development that
produces change in teachers’ classroom-based instructional practice, which can be
linked to improvements in student learning” (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, &
Gallagher, 2002, p. 53).
English Language Learner: Most current designation for students not yet
sufficiently proficient to access and learn from the regular instructional programs
offered at the school. English language proficiency is assessed annually.
Equity: Equalization of funding across per-pupil expenditures.
Evidence-Based model: School instructional improvement design grounded in
scientifically based research and widely documented effective practice based on
resource allocation associated with achieving desired/required student achievement
outcomes.
Expenditure: Any resource of time, money or personnel expended to provide
students with instruction, facilities and services.
Expert Judgment approach: Use of a panel of educators, specialists, and
administrators to determine resources necessary to achieve desired/required student
achievement outcomes.
No Child Left Behind: “The 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that places comprehensive accountability
24
requirements on all states, with increasing sanctions for schools and districts that do
not make adequate yearly progress toward proficiency in English/language arts and
mathematics or that fail to test 95% of all students and all significant subgroups”
(Ed-Data, 2008).
Professional Learning Community: (Group of) school staff members
improving instruction by working collaboratively around a common vision for
student achievement and using data to inform shared decision making regarding both
student and professional learning necessities. (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005).
Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP): outlined 91 strategic actions for the
implementation of standards for all Hawaii public schools, complex areas, offices,
and all major stakeholders (students, teachers, administrators, staff, specialists,
superintendent, parent, and community members).
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: Students who participate in the
free/reduced price lunch program.
Weighted Student Formula (WSF): a funding formula derived to produce a
fair and equitable way to distribute fund for school budgets. The amount of money
given to a school is based on individual student need, not enrollment. This means
students with more needs will receive more resources. (Hawai`i Department of
Education)

25
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
A background of the State of Hawai`i’s Accountability Framework is
discussed, followed by ten sections in this chapter designed to explore the various
themes provided in literature around the general resource use of research-based
school improvement strategies. The research is organized within the framework of
the Evidence-Based Model in order to discuss and compare research. The Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) connects the allocation of resources to the
improvements in student achievement through identified best practices. These
practices include the use of transformational and distributive leadership that help
create clear, ambitious goals, and a shared vision (Odden & Archibald, 2009). It also
stresses the importance of educational leaders’ use of data to drive decisions for
school improvement. Instructional improvement is further supported by the use of
professional learning communities, on-going, embedded, professional development,
and the support of instructional coaches. Adult learning theory is also discussed in
this study in the context of its relationship to creating and supporting effective
teachers as well as its use for developing more effective educational leaders.
This chapter provides an overview of the literature regarding school finance
and resource allocation as they pertain to the implementation of research-based best
practices that ultimately lead to educational reform.
26
Background of the State of Hawai`i’s Accountability Framework
Hawai`i’s schools fall under a unique governance structure in that all K-12
public schools compose the only state-run district in the United States, headed by the
state superintendent, and supported by 15 complex area superintendents who act
under the superintendent’s direction. The Board of Education was, until recently,
elected and the Board in turn appointed the school superintendent (Hess & Squire,
2009). Recent Legislative changes require that the Board Of Education be appointed
by the governor beginning in 2011, and that they continue to hire the State
Superintendent. Adding to this centralized governance structure is the fact that the
local teacher’s union, Hawai`i State Teachers Association (HSTA) represent all
public school teachers in the state and negotiate for one contract for all state teachers
every two years. All principals along with other state workers belong to a single
union (HGA) as well which negotiates their contract, including salaries, benefits etc.
every two years.
Hawai`i’s public school system is composed of 289 schools, K-12, with an
enrollment of 177,871 students in the 2009-2010 school year. The student population
consists of diverse ethnicities with a large percentage of indigenous and immigrant
groups with 25% part-Hawaiian, 20% Filipino, and 10% Japanese, and 15 %
Caucasian. The state employs approximately 13,000 teachers. However, most
teachers have taught for fewer than five years at the same school and 50% of all new
teachers continue to be recruited from outside the state (Superintendent’s Report,
27
2009-2010). The newest teachers tend to be concentrated in the highest needs areas
especially the Leeward coast of Oahu.
New teachers are under probation for 2 years after which they may become
tenured, unless marked as marginal by principals. Once teachers receive tenure they
may apply and relocate to different schools or districts simply by filing a transfer
form followed by an interview with the principal at the school they wish to relocate
to, and after which they may then be hired. Within a school each principal may place
teachers in any grade within their credentialed area within their own school, but they
may not release them from their school without detailed procedures that follow
specific policies as outlined in the teacher contract.
Along with the nation, the state of Hawai`i struggles to hold schools
accountable for student learning. Although Hawai`i first adopted state content and
performance standards for its public K-12 schools in 1994, an accountability system
was not put in place until after the passage of NCLB (Hess & Squire, 2009). The
Hawai`i Department of Education Planning & Evaluation Office created the
Accountability Framework in November of 2003. Within this framework they
combined laws and initiatives from the State’s Act 238 (Session Laws of Hawai`i,
2000), the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and the Department’s
Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP). Although each of these laws and initiatives had
goals of raising student academic achievement, imbedded within them were different
foci that needed to be joined together in what the DOE describes as a holistic
framework. For instance the State’s Act 238 not only implemented an educational
28
accountability system for Hawai`i’s public schools that would measure and report on
the attainment of statewide content and performance standards, but it also
recommended the central accountability include the safety and well-being of
students, and the civic responsibility among students. The SIP outlined 91 strategic
actions for the implementation of standards for all schools, complex areas, offices,
and all major stakeholders (students, teachers, administrators, staff, specialists,
superintendent, parents, and community members). Lastly, NCLB mandated school
accountability and prescribed operational details applied to public schools. In
response to these different laws and initiatives the Department of Education formed
an Accountability Workgroup, a Measures Workgroup, and a Data Workgroup to
create an accountability model that would promote continuous improvement and
achievement of the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards in Hawai`i`s public
schools (Hess & Squire, 2009).
In addition The Hawaii Department of Education Planning & Evaluation
Office sought advice and recommendations from outside sources including Drs. W.
James Popham, professor emeritus of the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA); Eva L. Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) at UCLA; and Arlen Guillickson,
Director of the Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. When the
Accountability Framework was finally created, through these joint efforts, they had
successfully embedded the strategic goals of SIP, with the accountability
expectations of NCLB and Act 238 including program planning, budgeting, and the
29
evaluation requirements necessary to meet the requirements of these laws and
initiatives (Hess & Squire, 2009). In 2004, Hawai`i’s legislature also adopted Act 51,
the Reinventing Education Act, which among other changes overhauled the state
funding formula by changing it to a weighted student formula (WSF). Though the
governor vetoed this legislation, it passed and was strongly supported by the Board
of Education, the superintendent, and the Department of Education (Hess & Squire,
2009). Act 51 granted increased HIDOE control over school facilities and
maintenance, and School Community Councils implemented at every school with a
principal as the member having the final call on all decisions. Although the
allocation method for funding, as well as the push for standards-based learning have
moved forward, much less emphasis has been placed on resource allocation and its
effect on student achievement; this oversight is not exclusive to the state of Hawai`i.
The Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model uses ten key components for improving school
performance: 1) Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge; 2) Setting
Ambitious goals; 3) Changing the Curriculum Program and Creating a New
Instructional Vision; 4) Committing to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven
Decisions; 5) Investing in Ongoing, Embedded; Intensive Professional Development;
6) Focusing class time more efficiently and effectively; 7) Providing multiple
interventions for struggling students; 8) Creating a Collaborative; Professional
Culture; 9) Empowering Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through
Widespread Distributive Instructional Leadership; 10) Taking Advantage of External
30
Expertise in Professional and Best Practices (Odden, 2009). The Evidence-Based
Model includes expenditure elements of: core academic teachers, specialist or
elective teachers, extra help, professional development, other non-classroom
instructional staff, instructional materials and equipment, student support,
administration, operations and maintenance (Odden & Picus, 2008) K-3 class size is
provided with a ratio of 15 to 1 and grades 4-12 are provided with a ratio of 25 to 1.
Specialist teachers are provided for electives and they as well as librarians are
determined based on percentages – 20% for elementary and middle with 33% for
high school. Additional resources such as extended day and summer school are
included for ELL (1 per 100) and special needs students. Vocational and gifted
education along with trainers and coaches for professional development as well as
teacher support are also provided within the model (Odden, Picus, Mangan, Goetz, &
Aportela, 2007, p. 6). Ten days of professional development are provided per year,
as well as opportunities for collaboration time included by restructuring student-
contact time through the relief of core teachers by specialist teachers. Estimates of
funding adequacy using the evidence-based model have been conducted in
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky
(Odden & Archibald, 2009). Based on this research Odden and Archibald (2009)
developed ten strategies for doubling or near doubling student performance. These
strategies offer guidance to educational leaders, especially in times of fiscal
constraint, of the most effective use of their funding to support high-quality,
comprehensive, school-wide instructional improvement.
31
Odden (2009) examined the allocation of resources at several schools across
the U.S. that had doubled or nearly doubled their students’ performance. He and his
associates wanted to find out just how those schools allocated their resources to
improve student learning. Through several studies of this nature Odden and
Archibald (2009) found several commonalities of resource allocations and best
practices across schools that had successfully doubled, or almost doubled their
student achievement. Based on this research they developed ten strategies for
doubling student performance using the Evidence-based model (Odden, 2009). The
Evidence-based model not only identifies the allocation of resources to promote
student learning, but also ties them to the best practices used at each school in these
studies. What they found were not only the best practices supported by educational
research, but they also developed an allocation of resource model that would help
schools better define the answer to, “How much will it cost?” Thus, clarifying how
the organizational structure of a school and its allocation of resources contribute to
the success of student achievement (Odden, Goetz, & Picus, 2010).
The Evidence-Based Model provides a framework as a starting point for
schools that can be adjusted depending on the type of school (elementary, middle, or
high school) and student population. It also clarifies the importance of schools using
data on student learning, to identify learning needs of their particular student
population. In other words, it is not a one-size-fits-all formula, but a framework to
customize improving student performance at individual schools through better
allocations of resources including the collaboration and planning time for teachers
32
and administration. Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) explain that in order to improve
student performance more money may not be needed, but instead, money needs to be
allocated more effectively, clearly focused on best practices directly connected to
better student learning outcomes. If more funds are deemed necessary according to
the Evidence-Based Model, there is a starting point for district and school
administrators to understand specifically where more resources are needed, and how
much it will cost to add these resources. However, before requesting more money, it
is important for school administrators to understand how their current funds are
being spent by closely examining the resource allocations that exist within a school
or district to ensure they are being used effectively.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
Effective educational leaders use data to inform their decisions (Ouchi, 2003;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Odden, 2009; Wagner & Kegan, 2006).
Schools that have shown significant rising gains in student achievement use data-
collection to inform their decisions. Across the nation, schools and school districts
are searching for ways to improve the academic achievement of their students. While
some recommend charter schools as the answer to raise the academic achievement of
students (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008; Smarick, 2010) due to the easier
access to autonomy, others focus on the turnaround of public schools (Odden, 2009;
Odden, Goetz, & Picus, 2010; Mass Insight, 2007). Glass (2000) points out that
using meta-analysis to further understand our educational direction is an important
factor, “We need to stop thinking of ourselves as scientists listing grand theories, and
33
face the fact that we are technicians collecting and collating information” (p. 12). To
achieve this goal, educational leaders need to use data to inform their decisions. In
order to make the changes needed, educational leaders need to understand the
performance challenge at their particular school. Once this is understood from
student data, educational leaders may then move forward with a plan of action.
However, Odden (2009) warns that teachers, principals, and educational leaders must
not only understand the performance problem, but they must also have the desire to
address the performance challenge. A sense of urgency must be understood and
accepted wholeheartedly by all stakeholders. Schools must identify, and fully
understand the learning needs of students at their school and then efficiently focus on
research-based instructional improvements that will be most effective in raising
student achievement (Odden, 2009).
Setting Ambitious Goals
Along with understanding the performance challenge, ambitious goals must
also be set regardless of current student academic performance or demographics,
according to Odden (2009). In fact, none of the schools and districts in the studies
conducted by Odden and his associates that doubled performance used a strategy of
targeting assistance to only the students that were nearest proficiency, often referred
to as “bubble” students, to raise their test scores (Odden, 2009). All schools in his
studies that nearly doubled their performance set ambitious goals of 90%
proficiency, despite some of their current performance levels being at 50%, 32%, or
even 29%. In mathematic proficiency Rosalia District in Washington increased from
34
43% to 85%. In reading proficiency Kennewick District in Washington increased
from 57% to 88%; Madison District in Wisconsin increased from 50% to 75% with
their low-income students, and Rosalia District in Washington increased from 32%
to 94%. Columbus Elementary within the Appleton District in Wisconsin raised
their reading proficiency from 51% to 90% and their math proficiency from 55% to
75% (Odden & Archibald, 2009). In fact, the state of North Carolina had the largest
student achievement gains in mathematics, as well as substantial progress in reading,
during the 1990s. The National Education Goals Panel (1998, 1999) attributes their
success to their decision to raise their standards of achievement as well as their
investment in teachers’ knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Changing the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Schools that set high goals of improving student proficiency strategically
focused on changing educational issues that they had control over such as curriculum
and instructional programs that drive educational programs (Odden, 2009). Schools
and district have control over what happens in their schools: “teacher assignments,
academic expectations, the organization of curriculum and instruction, the
curriculum program and textbooks, and effective instructional practice” (Odden,
2009, p. 27). Schools in studies conducted by Odden and his associates threw out
their old curriculum and either chose new curriculum or developed their own
(Odden, 2009). They chose their curriculum based on their particular students’
performance challenge. Due to their high numbers of ELL students, Columbus
Elementary in Appleton, Wisconsin chose to implement the schoolwide Different
35
Ways of Knowing program (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Madison created its own
reading program using balanced literacy; Kennewick chose Open Court for their
reading program; and Abbotsford switched to a guided reading program (Odden &
Archibald, 2009). To improve mathematics instruction Monroe district in Wisconsin
chose EveryDay Mathematics along with several other schools, Franklin Elementary
in LaCrosse, Wisconsin chose Investigations Mathematics. In each case, they chose
their curriculum based on their students’ performance challenge.
In Singapore, successful countrywide school reform was implemented that
created organizational change along with a change in curriculum. With this change a
different mindset as to what their curriculum should be focused on was also
imbedded into their school system. Prior to this change schools in Singapore had a
reputation for having rote-oriented learning, along with many other nations in Asia.
However, times have changed since the end of British rule in 1965. Singapore has
undergone 30 years of investment in education reform that has completely
transformed their system (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Students in Singapore have
ranked at the top of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) tests in mathematics and science in 1995, 1999, and 2003, and near the top
in other years. Their strategy to transform their educational system began with efforts
to increase equity by broadening access to education (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
They also included in their system many diverse independent, autonomous, and
public schools, all of which receive government subsidies. Although each school is
required to maintain their bilingual policy and incorporate national education into
36
their curriculum, the Ministry of Education encourages specialized schools in
different areas such as art, sports, mathematics, and science that cater to students’
interests (Darling-Hammond, 2010). In 1997 the prime minister announced an
explicit focus for all schools to reform their curriculum to ensure that it would
develop creativity and critical thinking in their students. The educational motto was,
“thinking schools, learning nation” and later “teach less, learn more” to encourage
teachers to not teach in quantity, but instead to teach in depth to allow students more
room for initiative to shape their own learning (Darling-Hammond, 2010). They also
encouraged and supported scheduled time within teachers’ work days to encourage
collaboration and research (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, &
Orphanos, 2009). The prime minister’s focus was to encourage teachers to think
creatively and use their own critical thinking skills to reflect and revise their own
teaching methods based on their research (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Singapore’s change in curriculum is similar to ideas proposed by Gardner
(2009). According to Gardner (2009) teachers must undergo a change in mindset to
prepare students for a future that will be very different from the world we live in
today. This mindset calls for preparing students in different ways than traditionally
practiced. He explains that in order to prepare our students for a global society,
teachers need to help their students develop what he is calling the five minds for the
future; the disciplined mind, the synthesizing mind, the creating mind, the respectful
mind, and the ethical mind. He summarizes these types of minds:
37
• In the future, individuals who wish to thrive will need to be experts in at
least one area; they will need a discipline.
• As synthesizers, they will need to be able to gather together information
from disparate sources and put it together in ways that work for
themselves and can be communicated to other persons.
• Because almost anything that can be formulated as rules will be done well
by computers, rewards will go to creators- those who have constructed a
box but can think outside it.
• The world of today and tomorrow is becoming increasingly diverse, and
there is no way to cordon oneself off from diversity. Accordingly, we
must respect those who differ from us as well as those with whom we
have similarities.
• Finally, as workers and as citizens, we need to be able to act ethically —
to think beyond our own self-interest and to do what is right under the
circumstances. (2009, p. xiii)
Committing to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions
Schools that steadily improved their student achievement used many types of
assessments to collect data to guide their instruction (Odden, 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009). These assessments included benchmark assessments, given
periodically or quarterly; as well as formative assessments which are more diagnostic
in nature and given usually at the beginning and the end of and instructional unit at
several periods within a nine-week instructional period. It is important to understand
38
the differences of these types of assessments. Unfortunately they are often confused
(Odden, 2009). In fact, to create and effectively implement formative assessments
and analyze them well, training is needed. Schools need to ensure that professional
development in creating and analyzing formative assessments is provided to ensure
effective use (Odden, 2009). Once trained in creating and using formative
assessments to inform instructional decisions, they are powerful tools for improving
student academic achievement.
In New Jersey frequent diagnostic assessments of student progress are used to
determine instructional interventions. Schools’ specific needs are assessed and
specific professional development is provided based on the areas identified to
strengthen teachers’ instructional skills (Darling-Hammond, 2010) This focused use
of data has increased reading proficiency of 4
th
graders in Orange District from a
reading proficiency rate of 22% in 2005 to 75% in 2007. Orange District, serving
students composed of 70% low-income, 83% African-American, with the remaining
students of Haitian and Latino decent, was the first district in New Jersey to use
frequent diagnostic assessments to allocate professional development programs
specifically provided to raise achievement in the areas identified by the assessments
(Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In Montgomery County in Maryland, after an initial resistance regarding the
creation and use of formative assessments, the majority of teachers began to
understand their value as they witnessed the rise in their students’ academic
performance (Odden, 2009). According to Black and William (1998), the focus of
39
assessments should be on what happens in the classroom and how teaching and
learning need to be supported. If an accountability system is just paying attention to
inputs and outputs, without knowing what is happening in the classrooms, or what
Black and William (1998) referred to as “the black box” it cannot know what
occurred there. Black and William (1998) also point out that in order for assessments
to help teachers, they need to be formative “a significant aspect of any program will
be the ways in which teachers make these adjustments” (p. 4). Formative
assessments are valuable tools that help teachers to identify students’ strengths and
needs. Teachers use these assessments to alter their instruction to meet the assessed
needs of their students. Black and William (1998) identify three elements needed in
formative assessment, “recognition of the desired goal, evidence about present
position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two” (p. 6).
“What is needed is a classroom culture of questioning and deep thinking, in which
pupils learn from shared discussions with teachers and peers” (Black and William,
1998, p.9). Students also need to believe that they can achieve and will. Along with
these beliefs students need detailed feedback that identifies for them, how to improve
their work through formative assessments. Once these targets are defined, students
need to use self –assessments and peer-assessments to critically evaluate their work.
Students can only assess themselves when they have sufficient information that
paints a clear picture of their learning goals and how to reach them (Black &
William, 1998).
40
Investing in Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development
Investment in on-going, embedded, intensive professional development is a
practice found in schools with steadily rising academic achievement (Odden, 2009).
Professional development must be focused on providing teachers with actual data
from their own students’ achievement to guide their instructional practices in order
to improve their effectiveness (Porter, Blank, Smithson, & Osthoff, 2005).
Unfortunately, a very common practice in the United States as noted by Wei,
Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson and Orphanos (2009) is the use of one day,
one-shot workshops for professional development of teachers. Mathematics teachers
in the U.S. on average only received 8 hours of professional development on how to
teach mathematics which includes only 5 hours of in-depth study of subject matter
during 2003-04, and fewer than 10% were provided with more than 24 hours of
professional development focused on math. Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto (1999)
add that the “The quality or nature of professional development consists of four
clusters of variables: content (what is to be learned); process (how content is to be
learned); strategies and structures (how content is organized for learning); and
context (conditions under which content is learned)” (p. 259). Porter et al (2005)
support these findings “Without elaboration, effective professional development (1)
engages participants in active learning, giving them the opportunity to construct their
own knowledge; (2) is designed for groups of participants (e.g., a team of teachers or
all teachers in a given grade from a school); (3) is coherent (i.e., tailored to the
teachers’ level of experience and aligned with the content standards, assessments,
41
and other policy instruments of the system within which teachers teach); (4) focuses
on the content of instruction, and especially knowledge of how students learn the
content; and (5) is sustained over time (in contrast to one-shot workshops)” (p. 149).
Professional development must allow each teacher to find ways to integrate new
ideas, learn and use formative assessments, refine practices, and implement these
changes into current cultural norms and expectations at particular schools and
actively reflect on these changes (Black & William, 1998).
Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) defined learning as “The aim of all
instruction is to alter long-term memory; If nothing has changed long-term memory,
nothing has been learned” (p. 77). In other words if new knowledge has not
transferred effectively to long-term memory in learners, it will not be available for
use later, thus learning has not occurred. Mayer (2008) states that different methods
of instruction encourage this knowledge transfer to long-term memory more
effectively than others. Research by Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto (1999) address
this issue and remind administrators that they need to be concerned with “multiple
outcomes that professional development can produce, including teacher learning of
new knowledge and teaching skills, changes in classroom practice, and leadership
development; implementation of new curriculum or assessment programs; and
changes in school and district culture” (p. 259). Professional development cannot be
focused only on student learning outcomes without providing the time necessary for
teachers to change their classroom practices through support, reflection, and a
42
change in school and district culture that supports these types of changes. According
to research in order to have effective instruction, administration needs to provide:
Time for professional learning and collaboration built into teachers’ work
hours; Ongoing professional development activities that are embedded in
teachers’ contexts and focused on the content to be taught; Extensive
opportunities for both formal and informal in-service development;
Supportive induction programs for new teachers; School governance
structures that involve teachers in decisions about curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and professional development. (Wei, Darling-Hammond,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009)

Unfortunately, although U.S. schools are gradually offering more
opportunities for U.S. teachers, most professional development workshops are not
well-designed (Birman et al., 2003; Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2007). Only
through supportive conditions within their school, district, and their state context will
teachers be able to sustain specific changes in their instructional practices learned
through professional development that will support improvement in student learning
(Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto, 1999). Loucks-Horsley, & Matsumoto (1999)
explain that:
...fixating on student learning as the only important outcome for professional
development ignores other critical outcomes, for example, changes in teacher
knowledge and practice, implementation of new programs, changes in school
culture, and development of teachers’ leadership abilities. These outcomes
are critically important to the broader goal of national reform in science and
mathematics education. (p. 258)

To better support teachers in implementing change, many schools with
rapidly rising student academics have enlisted the help of instructional coaches.
Instructional coaches can alleviate teacher stress when providing professional
development using the following essential criteria according to Thompson and Zuli
43
(1999). Instructional coaches need to first create a cognitive dissonance which helps
teachers examine their existing beliefs and practices and reference them against new
knowledge as well as their new experience with subject matter, students’ learning,
and their instructional practices. Coaches also provide time, contexts, and ongoing
support for teachers as they try new methodologies and approaches to instruction.
This time period of adjustment can be hard for teachers, however, instructional
coaches help ease the transition through discussions, reading, writing and other
activities. These various activities help teachers revise their thinking as well as their
instruction. Over time instructional coaches ensure that dissonance-creating activities
lead to dissonance-resolving activities connected directly to the teachers’ individual
and collective context. Providing instructional coaches at a school helps to provide
ongoing help as the cycle of surfacing issues arise as teachers work through new
curriculum, technology, or practices (Loucks-Horsely & Matsumoto, 1999).
Herbst (2003) explains that one specific change that is needed is the
instructional practice of mathematics. Herbst contends that professional
development in mathematics needs to support teachers’ understanding in designing
and foreseeing activities and discussions that will help their students build on their
mathematical knowledge. Professional development needs to include the careful
coordination of building on students’ mathematic understanding “in managing task
completion and knowledge development, a teacher has to cope with three subject-
specific tensions related to direction of activity, representation of mathematical
objects, and elicitation of students’ conceptual actions” (p. 197). Therefore, support
44
of teachers is not only to help teachers with understanding these types of
interventions, but also to support them in their implementation to encourage their
success as well as their persistence. If teachers continue to teach in the same manner
in which they have been teaching mathematics, no change can take root. In order for
change to occur, innovative methods need to be learned and implemented.
Innovation requires an environment open to change. In order for low-performing
schools to successfully create a culture of change there must be an initial dissonance
followed by ongoing support (Christensen et al, 2008). Allocation of resources, such
as the provision of instructional coaches for teachers, provides support for these
types of instructional changes (Odden, 2010).
Focusing Class Time More Efficiently and Effectively
It is interesting to note that none of the schools in the studies conducted by
Odden and associates extended their school years or their schools days, but instead
used the existing time within their school days more effectively (Odden, 2009). First,
schools and districts protected and extended their instructional time for core subjects.
The protection of instructional time included not permitting intercom interruptions
during core subjects, trips to the principal’s office, or other various interruptions. The
purpose was to allow students to become fully engaged during core subjects without
distractions. Second, schools and districts maximized the effectiveness of their
instructional time, or “academic learning time” (ALT). This time does not include
transitions such as preparing for reading, or the time involved in students moving
into their reading groups or to other classrooms. Instead ALT is the actual focused
45
time on the instruction of core subjects. It is uninterrupted and carefully planned
(Odden, 2009). Some schools created cross-grade level reading classes that grouped
students according to reading levels despite their grade level. This permitted teachers
to teach whole-group instruction for 90 minutes instead of dividing their time
between different reading groups. Other schools divided their classes into three
reading groups based on their reading levels. However, the classes that were
separated into three groups were less engaged than those in separated into separate
classes by reading levels (Odden, 2009). Kennewick district used both strategies
during their 120 minutes of reading instruction with 60 minutes devoted to whole-
group instruction and 60 minutes on small group instruction. Small group instruction
was made possible by having every school staff member teaching reading. The most
skilled teachers were assigned the students with the most learning needs. Third,
schools and districts reduced class sizes to 15 students in Kindergarten through the
third grade (Odden, 2009). Smaller class sizes provided opportunities for teachers to
focus on individualized instruction including the use of formative assessments,
facilitated closer social relationships between students, teachers, and their families,
and promoted fewer disruptions for disciplinary matters which helped students
remain more engaged in their learning (Odden, 2009). Fourth, schools and districts
provided a critical element of providing more time for struggling students described
in the next section.
Each of these strategies helped focus instructional time more effectively
during core subject instruction. All of these strategies stem from practices found in
46
countries with high achievement. They do not overall have longer school days or
school years (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2005), but
instead have much more focused and rigorous instruction in core subjects, such as
reading, and especially in math, in comparison to what is commonly found in the
U.S. (Hiebert et al., 2005; Schmidt, 1983; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
Providing Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
The degree of personalization of instruction is a key element found in
successful schools. Organizational supports that promote student learning 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). Darling-Hammond (2010) contends that schools need to be structured to
allow professionals to create and implement curriculum that is focused, reinforced by
a shared vision, and evidenced by authentic assessments with relevance to the real-
world Personalization of instruction is made easier with 21
st
century technology that
integrates new technologies for learning (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Using
technology and a myriad of new software that is customizable to each student, allows
teacher to serve as professional learning coaches and content architects (Christensen,
2008). Teachers are able to use information from program assessments to modify and
adapt programs as needed for each student based on individual progress. More
47
programs are now automatically modifying instructional content based on student’s
needs even without teacher intervention.
In schools studied by Odden (2009) and associates, some schools provided
more instructional time for struggling students during the afternoon while other
students participated in elective classes. Other strategies used by schools with
steadily increasing achievement included four tiers of interventions; the first being
the provision of high quality instruction to all students (Odden, 2009). The second
tier is to provide interventions within the regular classroom guided by formative
assessments. Classroom interventions can include the use of individual or small-
group instruction (maximum of five students), and/or tutoring by a licensed teacher.
In some cases an additional teacher co-teaches with a regular classroom teacher in
order to provide extra supports to students with learning needs that require
continuous assistance. The third tier includes extended time in the form of an
extended day for those students with learning needs that require more support. The
final stage, if needed, is to provide students with identified disabilities with a
program that is geared to their specific disability (Odden, 2009).
Gordon (2009) found that in Finland, recognized for having the highest-
performing students, schools are staffed with one specifically trained tutor for every
seven teachers. In the U.S. schools with steadily rising achievement used a similar
strategy. Each tutor provides tutoring to one student for 20 minutes daily. Four full-
time teachers could provide tutoring to individual students for 20 minute periods
each. They could effectively tutor 72 students daily. It is important to note that their
48
tutoring is not generalized (ex. Math), but is instead guided by the formative
assessments taken by the classroom teachers. Interventions for specific skills
(example such as adding fractions with uncommon denominators) are used as
identified by the classroom teacher. Tutors use different lessons and/or approaches to
reteach concepts and promote understanding. Once the skill is mastered, a student no
longer receives tutoring, unless a new needed skill is identified by the classroom
teacher (Odden, 2009). This allows yet another child to receive individual tutoring as
needed.
Creating a Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning
Communities)
With the idea of distributive leadership, and supporting teachers to improve
instruction, comes a growing practice that is also found in many schools with rising
academic gains. This practice is the formation and use of Professional Learning
Communities. In these schools, the leadership and teachers collaborate for school
improvement in teams. “International evidence suggests that educational reform’s
progress depends on teachers’ individual and collective capacity and its link with
school-wide capacity for promoting pupils’ learning” (Stoll et al., 2006). They also
offer suggestions to help teachers regain their passion for teaching that educational
systems are in “grave danger of stamping out opportunities for” (p. 7) within U.S.
public schools. Teachers need gifts of authorship, the ability to create new lessons
and methods to reach their students which will inspire them again; love, and being
able to say and express it; power, the ability to make a difference and work for a
49
common cause; and significance, in the shared respect, faith and commitment toward
a common purpose. These can be nurtured by administrators through the sharing of
successes and celebrations of accomplishments and by honoring their school heroes
and heroines. Educational organizations need “a group of professional colleagues or
friends who meet periodically to share experiences and support one another through
triumphs and tragedies” (Bolman & Deal, 2002, p. 9).
Wang and Paine (2003) argue that even a mandated curriculum does not
necessarily take away teachers’ autonomy if implemented correctly. Autonomy and
accountability do not have to be at odds. They further explain that to maintain a
teacher’s autonomy the organizational structure of a school must be one that supports
teachers having the ability to make teaching decisions through their collaborations
with their colleagues which include interpreting curriculum, practicing, and guiding
each other’s instruction to build on their content knowledge, instructional strategies
and practice. This dialogue between teachers contributes to understanding of
curriculum, best teaching strategies/practices, as well as content area understanding
and promotes teacher efficacy, even in the case of mandated curriculum (Wang &
Paine, 2003; Gerber, 2001). Wang and Paine (2003) also explain “contrived
curriculum and teaching organization and the autonomy teachers have in making
their teaching decisions are not always contradictory in influencing the quality of
teachers’ knowledge and their teaching practice” (p. 75). Hargreaves and Dawes
(1990) also suggest that a collaborative culture creates openness, trust, and support
among teachers in which their autonomy is defined and developed to their own
50
purpose and curriculum. In fact significant higher achievement was identified by
Reys et al (2003) of those students being taught with standards-based curriculum
over a period of two years in relation to those students not being taught with
standards-based curriculum.
Research regarding the use of adult learning theory and its applicability in a
K-12 educational setting has been explored to attempt and answer some of these
questions for public schools interested in using it within their professional
development to empower their teachers to become change agents to improve their
schools. Unfortunately, though many studies have been conducted on professional
development of teachers, adult learning theory is rarely mentioned when planning
professional development of teachers. Schools are focused on helping students learn
without considering that they also need to figure out how to help their teachers learn
(Brookfield, 2005; Kegan, 1982; Taylor, 1997; Marzano, Waters, and McNulty,
2005). Mezirow’s (1991) theory of transformative learning explains the key to
transformative learning is being able to name our reality in order to see the
possibility for change. He adds that meaning is an interpretation. People from
various disciplines may interpret the same event through their own theoretical lens or
“range of convenience”. Individuals make meaning of events through a lens
influenced by their social conditions and personal experience along with their unique
personal interpretations of these experiences. People experiencing the same event
may gain different meanings based on their personal interpretations of the event
(Mezirow, 1991). He adds that “culture can encourage or discourage transformative
51
thought” (p. 3). However, unlike Freire (1970) who ties transformation directly with
social change, Mezirow focuses on the individual change, believing that
transformative learning creates the people who will be empowered to create the
social change; however, the use of this knowledge is up to them (Cranton, 2006).
K-12 schools in our nation are facing the challenge of not only educating
their students, but of educating their teachers to become better educators with the
ability to teach diverse learners effectively. Mezirow’s theory of transformative
learning suggests that the adult learners need learning strategies specifically for adult
learners. According to Mezirow (1991) one of the keys to transformative learning is
being able to critically reflect on initial expectations of an experience and compare
these expectations with the reality of the end result. This critical reflection helps
people to transform their learning and gain new perspectives. Mezirow (1991) refers
to this experience of expectations not being met as a “disorienting dilemma”
necessary for change in one’s perspective and learning. However, there are
questions as to how or when the disorienting dilemma will occur; can transformative
learning be sped up; if it can be facilitated by others, and if transformative learning
will work effectively with all types of adult learners (Cranton, 2006).
A key assumption in Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning is that each
adult has the capacity to critically analyze his or her thoughts and actions (1991).
Other theorists such as Brookfield (2005) Taylor (1997) and Kegan (1994) suggest
that although some adults may be able to critically reflect individually, in other cases
a facilitator is needed to help to achieve transformative learning effectively. In the
52
Evidence-Based Model, these facilitators would be the instructional coaches
provided for teachers (Odden, 2009). Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning
was developed based on women returning to college, thus the question is; will
Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning work with the subgroup of adult
learners, educators and educational leaders, in schools wishing to undergo large scale
improvements or reinvention? Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) work with this
specific set of adult learners, in-service teachers and school administrators. They
explain that in order to promote transformative learning it is essential that leadership
create an environment in which transformative learning can occur. It is not enough
to rely on the assumption that adults can critically reflect on their own teaching and
learning. There must be structures in place to support critical reflection and thus
change. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) propose that schools create support
systems which include similar ideas that Mezirow (1991) identified such as
discourse, but also structural elements provided by the leadership within the schools,
such as ample time for teachers and administration to meet, hold discussions,
collaborate, and problem solve together. Without this structural support, teachers
may not persist with their critical analysis of their teaching due to the time
constraints and other demands of their job (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
DuFour et al.’s (2005) framework of Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) is a focused method for creating successful teachers and schools. PLCs tie
into some of Mezirow (1991) theory of adult learning and Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty’s (2005) findings regarding how teachers learn effectively. DuFour et al
53
(2005) like Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), also concentrate their work on
professional development for teachers. Their recommendations for the development
of PLCs correlate with the structural supports recommended by Marzano, Waters,
and McNulty (2005), along with the discourse and critical reflection Mezirow (1991)
identified as essential for transformative learning. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty
(2005) and DuFour et al. (2005) contend that a transformation of a school begins
with the adult learners within the school, teachers. DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour
(2005) propose that collaboration should support members being able to consider
others’ perspectives. Members of PLCs must demonstrate an accurate understanding
of other members feelings, interests, and concerns whether spoken or unspoken.
Critical reflection, much like Mezirow (1991) suggests, is essential to
promote the transformation of their teachers, and administration to become high-
quality schools. However, Mezirow (1991) tends to suggest individual critical
reflection, based on individual expectations, and new understandings. DuFour et al.
(2005), as well as Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), although proposing an
element of individual reflection, also write that in order for individuals to be able to
critically reflect and gain new perspectives, teachers need to have deep discourse
with others to not only think through their own experience, but also to consider
others’ perspectives. It is through this mutual sharing of ideas that a new perspective
is gained as teachers compare and contrast their views and expectations with others
whether similar or dissimilar. Though Mezirow (1991) also recommends this
discourse, DuFour et al. (2005), and Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) stress
54
the importance of leadership and teacher leaders that are able to offer new
perspectives within PLCs during this discourse as facilitators. Through their
observations of teachers’ discourse, leaders will be able to identify misconceptions,
challenges, and the change needed within their teachers learning.
Ideas for transformative learning that Mezirow (1991) recommended for
adult learning are similar to the recommendations for school improvement as
identified by Wei et al. (2009). After conducting several studies on schools in high-
performing nations, common threads supportive of teachers’ learning were
identified. These common characteristics involved ongoing, contextually-focused,
professional learning and collaboration embedded into teachers’ work hours,
abundant opportunities for both formal and informal in-service development;
supportive induction programs for new teachers; and an empowerment of teachers
through their involvement in decisions about curriculum, instruction, assessment,
and professional development. Although some U.S. schools are now offering more
such opportunities, most do not receive this type of well-designed professional
development (Birman, 2007; Wei et al., 2009). The importance of contextually and
job-embedded professional development is important when considering Cranton’s
(2006) description of an essential element of adult learning being that the content is
relevant to the learners needs in order to achieve a highly motivated learner. Wei et
al.’s (2009) suggestions align with transformative learning. They too recommend
that teachers have the structural supports suggested by DuFour et al. (2005) and
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) such as time for teacher discourse,
55
collaboration, and reflection. They stress the importance of allowing teachers to
observe each other, plan lessons together, and then reflect on the strengths and
weaknesses of each lesson before revising the lesson together. This type of
structural support allows teachers to critically reflect on their own teaching and
learning. Their focus during their observations is on stu dent learning, but is then
redirected to their own learning as they critically reflect on how to improve their
practice.
Essential to creating change of practice within a school is ongoing, embedded
collaboration as identified by DuFour et al. (2005). Professional Learning
Communities as framed by Dufour et al., (2005) are more than group work, but are
more democratic and relationally-bound communities with distributed leadership and
shared decision making. They focus on developing a strong sense of community
through a shared vision and purpose along with a collective responsibility for student
learning (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005). Through the successful development and
implementations of PLCs in schools, according to DuFour and Eaker (1998), they
can transform factory-model schools into schools that embrace new perspectives,
norms, and assumptions that are radically different than schools in the past.
In Mezirow’s Transformative Learning theory the assumption is that either
singularly or collectively someone within the group will have the solution to a
problem or the perspective needed to create the disorienting dilemma needed to
create critical reflection and then change (Cranton, 2005). Mezirow’s assumption is
that adults have the capability to not only define the problem, but also the capacity to
56
critically analyze its context, as well as becoming aware of their personal biases,
which has the potential to create a transformation of a habit of mind (Cranton, 2005).
DuFour et al (2005) suggest that this is not always the case. In order to create this
disorienting dilemma there should be effective leadership as well as teacher leaders
whom are effective at guiding the discourse to encourage new perspectives as well as
helping PLC members to feel comfortable enough to share their views, challenges,
and perspectives. Biases are not always conscious to individuals. Even collective
biases may exist without a group’s conscious knowledge. This collective bias may
exist especially for groups composed of homogeneous backgrounds ethnicities, and
gender. We should also question whether a sharing experience is important to all
individuals according to Cranton (2006). Engaging in discourse for some individuals
may carry anxiety with it, especially if there is a history of negative experiences with
schooling in their past (Cranton, 2006). Mezirow (2000) proposes that
transformation may occur even without the discourse for some adults. However, K-
12 schools cannot depend on this happening randomly, in order to reach all students
as mandated by NCLB, they need to reach all teachers. To reach all teachers, they
must consider the diversity within their adult learners as well, their teachers.
Brookfield (2005) suggests that adult learners are at different stages of development
and that although some adults may be able to critically reflect individually, many
will not be able to do so without addressing the challenges preventing them from
doing so. Adult learners must be able to step outside of themselves and their own
perspectives in order to see the change that is needed. Sometimes this awareness of a
57
different perspective needs to be facilitated by others (Brookfield, 2005; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Morewood & Bean, 2009).
Sometimes an unsuccessful attempt at professional development is blamed on
the theory or theories used to support it. However, sometimes it is not the theory that
is proven wrong, but the implementation of the theory that is not accurate or
complete. An example of this was found by Servage (2008) when she explored the
ideas of transformative learning through professional learning communities as
framed by DuFour and Eaker (1998) in Alberta school districts through the Alberta
Initiative for School Improvement (AISI). She found that although the schools
embraced the ideas of PLCs, their implementation of them differed from the essential
ideas for successful transformative learning proposed by Mezirow (1991) or DuFour
et. al (2005). Unfortunately, Servage (2008) discovered that the PLCs within the
AISI schools focused on what Mezirow would identify as clearly instrumental. By
their PLCs directing their attention to data-driven decisions and student learning,
they focused solely on school improvement based on curriculum, lesson planning,
assessment tools, and the implementation and assessment of teaching strategies.
Although these activities were important, they did not delve deeper into the critical
reflection proposed by Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning (p. 69). Instead
they locked in on a hypothetical-deductive mindset and relatively short term goals.
This omission of analyzing deep-held personal beliefs, and the culture and context of
their school setting, along with the aim of considering what obstacles may be
preventing their school from realizing its collective ideals and other possibilities for
58
itself, undermined the successful implementation of the PLCs and thus raised doubts
about the sustainability of long-term change within their schools (p. 66). Though
there were limited successes in the AISI schools, Servage (2008) attributes their
problems to a failure of correct and complete implementation of Mezirow and
Dufour’s theories as they were designed.
Individuals must find and confront their beliefs and practices that undermine
democracy and perpetuate social injustices (Servage, 2008). According to Mezirow
(1991) this shift in one’s world view may happen dramatically through a sudden
revelation, or it may happen slowly over time through a collection of experiences
and combined insights through critical reflection (Cranton, 2005). In fact, Servage
observed schools in her study avoiding this type of confrontation and reflection in
order to avoid conflict. Mezirow (2005) contends that this conflict is a necessary
element of discourse and essential for helping to create disorienting dilemmas
necessary for critical reflection which can then lead to transformative learning.
Hesling, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) argue that the failure of
educators, schools, and education leaders to improve schools is deeper than just a
structural or implementation problem. They explain that educational leaders today
are asked to be change agents. They are no longer the person with the solutions.
They lack the training necessary to meet the multiple demands of reinventing a
school or school system. To be effective educational leaders of change which will
prepare students for a different future, they need to be able to face the distress from
their school system and educators as they ask the tough questions, collectively
59
identify the problems, and reconsider their current roles as they move into more
distributed leadership roles as they challenge comfortable norms. Those leaders who
successfully do adaptive work, such as reinventing educational systems, are able to
define and evaluate their own internal authority, examine their beliefs, theories,
values, expectation, and biases, and finally determine when, how, and why, an
unpopular decision must be made. In fact based on research with large samples,
using a variety of measures, it suggests that roughly one-half to two-thirds of adult
populations in the United States has not yet fully developed self-authoring capacities
(Kegan, 1994, 2000). Through these studies they also found no predictor of age,
affluence, education, or temperament as to which adults may possess these
capacities.
This information again brings in to question if all adults are developmentally
ready for the type of transformative learning Mezirow describes. Hesling, Howell,
Kegan, and Lahey (2008) contend that many adult learners are not developmentally
ready for transformative learning and will need guidance through professional
development to gain this knowledge, acquire these new skills. The professional
development should also be a source of support and encouragement of their
psychological growth in order to go through what he considers a developmental
process in order to successfully go through of transformative learning.
Folkman (2004) studied the ability of an organization, in this case public
school settings, to put theory into practice using action research classes for teachers
and administrators to promote Mezirow’s transformative learning along with the
60
PLC structure recommended by DuFour. As educators participated in the action
research classes, they worked to answer three core questions: What should students
be learning? How do you know if they are learning? What are you prepared to do
when students aren’t learning? By asking these questions his goal was to shift the
mentality of educators from complaining to one of productive discourse that would
promote change by bringing to light and challenging competing commitments, mixed
messages, assumptions, and unanticipated contradictory results (Folkman, 2004). As
a leader he was essentially creating the disorienting dilemma that Mezirow (1991)
identifies as necessary for critical reflection that enables transformative learning.
The idea of facilitating this type of discourse aligns with Brookfield (2005)
and Kegan (1994) as well as Hesling, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey’s (2008)
suggestions that adult learners may not be developmentally ready to critically reflect
without guidance and support. By facilitating the discourse and collecting essay
reflections from the educators participating in the action research classes, Folkman
(2004) was able to identify underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs, behind
individual educator’s suggestions for improving the action research class. During
discourse, the principal was then able to guide the discourse by reframing teachers’
ideas to consider new perspectives. When 4
th
grade teachers felt like they didn’t
know what to do without meeting with the 3
rd
grade teachers, the principal reframed
their thinking to realize that 4
th
grade was the beginning of a new sequence of
learning that ends in 8
th
grade, just as Kindergarten is the beginning of a sequence
that ends in 3
rd
grade according to their state standards. This reframing successfully
61
helped the teachers rethink their previous expectations, and helped to promote the
transformative learning and reform their vision and expectations for their 4
th
graders
using a new perspective (2004). This type of facilitated reflection helped teachers
consider other perspectives of which they did not realize on their own. It was only
through facilitation and an educational leader’s awareness of the perspective shift
needed, that challenged teachers’ current thinking and provided the reframing
necessary for the teachers to confront a road block, move on, and in turn change their
perspective.
Glazer and Hannafin (2008) also identified that teachers in their study reacted
differently to their training. In their study they studied the influence of mentor and
teacher interactions during technology integration collaborative apprenticeships.
Though all teachers went through the same training with the same supports, the
effect on teacher learning was not the same. They attributed this difference in
learning to a teachers’ readiness for learning. They identified that the teachers in
their study with the greatest change were those teachers who showed more
autonomy, as well as self-initiative as they sought out more support and feedback
from others than those teachers with the least amount of change in their practice.
Clement and Vandenberghe (2000) found similar results in their study of teachers
during professional development. They found that teachers allowed more autonomy
along with systemic structural supports within their schools such as time, motivation,
and collaboration, made the biggest changes in their instructional practice. However,
they cautioned schools about requiring a consensus and neglecting a teachers’
62
autonomy. To provide a balance between collaboration and autonomy a teacher’s
voice should be heard. Teachers should not be forced into consensus without
addressing the wisdom teachers possess. They found that though collaboration was
necessary and helpful for teacher learning, there also needed to be time for a teacher
to reflect on their own learning and make changes in their own classroom without a
complete consensus. Though all teachers were trained, not every teacher
implemented what they learned in exactly the same way, but instead, the most
effective teachers varied their instruction to meet the needs of their learners as well
as the needs of their own teaching style and individuality in order to create the long-
term change desired (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000). Brookfield (1995) suggests
that adults need others to hold up a mirror for them to be able to see their
assumptions to implement the changes that are necessary for learning that changes
practice.
Empowering Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through
Widespread Distributive Instructional Leadership
When examining the best practices found in schools with high achievement,
rising improvement, and even complete turnaround, several commonalities were
found. One of the most essential elements found was that effective leadership was
the key to school success (Ouchi, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Odden,
Goetz, & Picus, 2010). Ouchi (2003) explains that an essential part of an
organization is its leader. Principals are leaders of schools. They must be strong and
they must be not only good decision makers, but also capable of making quick
63
decisions from a myriad of choices each day whether it is to modify curriculum,
schedules, or the placement of essential staff in the correct position. According to
Ouchi (2003) these types of principals are not born, they are created. He explains
that principals have to be selected, trained, given autonomy to make critical
decisions, and finally must be held accountable for student performance as well as
teacher satisfaction. Ouchi (2003) adds that having strong principals is essential to
improve schools, along with the need to decentralize the one-size-fits all policy that
is enforced through districts and states. Principals need to be given equitable funding
as well as the authority to delegate their resources according to the needs of their
school.
Ouchi (2003) examined over 223 schools in six cities in the United States and
Canada and came up with he defines as a revolutionary change with seven elements
required for schools to be successful. He lists The Seven Keys to Success as; 1)
Every principal is an entrepreneur; 2) Every school controls its own budget; 3)
Everyone is accountable for student performance and for budgets; 4) Everyone
delegates authority to those below; 5) There is a burning focus on student
achievement; 6) Every school is a community of learners; 7) Families have real
choices among a variety of unique schools.
Ouchi’s (2003) first key element, every principal is an entrepreneur, is
essential. Though he advocates the need for a decentralized school system in which
principals have autonomy, including budgetary control, he concedes that even within
a bureaucratic system, principals can act as entrepreneurs, but these types of
64
principals are made of strong qualities of determination that are willing to risk taking
chances to fight for what is needed for their school and their students. These types of
principals may be defined as ‘troublemakers’ or ‘renegades’ by the central office, but
they are capable of making change and asking for forgiveness for their ‘rule-
breaking’ later.
Ouchi (2003) explains every principal must closely examine their school to
understand the population that his/her school serve, the desires of the community for
their school, and the strengths and needs of the students he serves. Once this task is
complete a principal can plan what programs, curriculum, staffing, and supports are
needed for his/her school to help his/her students achieve success. Ouchi (2003) does
not advocate a one-size-fits all structure of a school, but instead a customized system
developed by the leader, in this case the principal, that addresses the needs of the
population the school serves. In Ouchi’s (2003) studies he describes successful
principals who each designed very different systems within their schools.
One such school he describes is Bronx Science, with 2,704 students in grades
9-12 has produced five Nobel Laureates and has the most winners in the annual
Westinghouse/Intel Science Talent Search. Approximately 24,000 students apply
annually and take the entrance exam with only 3,500 being accepted each year. The
teachers use “the inductive-discovery” approach to teaching there which they self-
describe as a demanding and challenging, but beneficial. In order to maintain quality
teachers, the principal initially hires a new teacher for one year, and if they make the
cut, keeps them on probation for the next three years. The teacher is observed six
65
times each year and evaluated by the principal, assistant principals, and department
coordinators. Once a teacher reaches tenure, they are observed twice a year, until
their sixth year, followed by once a year. Teachers collaborate, share lesson plans,
and help each other. Socialization is dynamic, energetic, and collegial.
Seemly the opposite of the type of system in place at Bronx Science, is the
system designed for Corliss High School located on the South Side of Chicago. A
school formerly well-known for its violence and low-academic performance was
turned around by Principal Spivey. After examining the population he would be
serving, receiving input from the surrounding community, and evaluating his
students’ strengths and needs, he designed a very rigid school system that requires
strict adherence by his teachers and his students. When he first took over the school
he locked out three-hundred students who missed the morning bell and were still
lounging on the front steps. After what he thought was surprising support from his
Superintendent at the time, he instilled strict attendance policies, combed the
neighborhood for truant students, and enforced strict behavioral and academic codes
within his school. Teachers there collaborate, but in their case, lesson plans,
curriculum, assessments, reading approaches, and homework assignments are all
uniform. He determined that this type of structure was needed for his students who
he felt did not have much structure outside of school. They needed school to be a
safe place to learn with known expectations and no guesswork. Within one year his
students’ reading scores jumped from the 17.5 percentile to the 24.7 percentile.
66
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) state that although there is no clear
definition of the exact behaviors of leaders that promote student achievement, he
states there is “strong guidance on specific leadership behaviors for school
administrators and that those behaviors have well-documented effects on student
achievement” (p. 7). He explains a bad leader can cause a great teacher to leave, or
submit to the status quo under pressure. A great leader can inspire and provide
guidance and support to great teachers, and improve weak teachers to help them
become great, or counsel them out of the profession if needed. Effective school
leadership is an essential component to improving school and thus student academic
performance (Wagner & Kegan, 2006). A leader needs to provide a supportive
climate in which all stakeholders listen to the needs of each other. To some
stakeholders leaders may give strong affiliation; to others, the leader may give
specific directives with a high degree of structure (Northouse, 2010; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
What Ouchi (2003) has described as a principal’s needed quality of being an
entrepreneur, Mezirow (1991) would describe as a transformational leader. A
transformational leader adapts to different types of situations, but also to the different
needs of each stakeholder. This adaptation could be the needs of entire school, or
community, as well as the individual needs within that school or community.
Sometimes the leader will need to provide strong support, while at other times a
leader may need to give specific directives. Northouse (2010) explains leaders need
to be able to stimulate followers to be creative and innovative, challenge their own
67
beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization. Leaders need
to encourage followers to think things out on their own and engage in careful
problem solving. Transformational leaders provide inspirational motivation and
communicate high expectations to followers, inspiring them through motivation to
become committed to and part of the shared vision in the organization (Northouse,
2010; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Also according to Northouse (2010)
transformational leaders have idealized influence and act as a strong role model for
followers. They have high standards of moral and ethical conduct and can be
counted on to do the right thing. They inspire followers through motivation to
become committed to and part of their shared vision (Northouse, 2010; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Urbanski and Nickolaou’s (1997) identify the change in the expectations and
roles of administrators and teachers as schools undergo reformations. They state that
while administrators were once seen as only managers and teachers solely for
teaching duties, their roles have now become more blurred as teachers become
involved in leadership within their schools and principals become more involved
with being knowledgeable about curriculum as well as management. The new roles
promoted from within by teachers to promote teacher leadership are; shared
knowledge base, high and rigorous standards, internship, differentiated roles,
professional discretion, professional discretion, promotion within the profession, and
accountability.
68
The role for teachers and administrators as defined by Urbanski and
Nickolaou (1997) correlates with what Bolman and Deal (2008) refer to as
multiframe thinking. In other words teachers and administrators are viewing their
roles and their search for solutions to problems through multiple lenses they describe
as four different frames, structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Ouchi
(2003), as well as Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), describe these types of
leaders in the qualities of principals that can improve and even reform schools.
Urabanski and Nickolaou (1997) explain that principals continue to set goals and
procedures, while also asking for input from teachers. They involve teachers in the
process of setting goals and deciding on curriculum choices and professional
development options (Urbanski & Nickolaou, 1997). However, schools still follow
protocol such as chain of command and a hierarchy of power (Urbanski &
Nickolaou, 1997) though it is more of a distributive leadership. Lastly schools are
encompassing culture and developing mission statements with meaning (Urbanski &
Nickolaou, 1997). This thought ties into one of Ouchi’s (2003) Seven Keys to
Success, “Everyone delegates authority to those below” (p. 14).
As schools view problems through different lenses in search of solutions, the
collaboration between administration and teachers to approach problems ties directly
in with what Belasco and Stayer (1993) described as the needed change in
management styles as organization learn to adapt leadership roles to shift as the
person or group with the expertise takes the lead depending on the given situation.
Urbanski and Nickolaou (1997) contend that this change is not coming easy and has
69
met many roadblocks as organizations and the people within them cling tightly to old
norms, however, they offer hope and direction for organizations, in this case,
schools, to make this change to promote successful educational systems. Bolman and
Deal (2002) found some shared qualities of effective leaders. These common
qualities were the ability to focus with a very clear vision; passion and the ability to
“care deeply about their work and making a difference” (p. 3); wisdom from a lot of
experience from both multiple successes and failures; courage to keep moving
forward even against adversity; and integrity where the “soul takes the form of a
bedrock sense of identity and durable sense of conviction” (p. 4). It is through this
passion, conviction, and clear vision that strong educational leaders can create the
change needed to improve schools.
The Change Leadership Group, composed of experts knowledgeable about
the world of educational reform, organizational development, and adult learning,
worked together find a solution to the challenge faced by schools and their
educational leaders to improve their schools. They identified similar qualities
needed in leaders such as the ones identified by Ouchi (2003), and Marzano, Waters,
& McNulty (2005) as well as other researchers in education. Their task was to
propose ways to help leaders within an organization change, and help their
organization change, without hiring a new leader. They provide a method for
educational leaders to not only create this change within themselves, but also within
their organization and the individuals within their organization. They found that in
order improve a school’s performance, efforts needed to focus not only how to get an
70
organization to change, but with the understanding that in order to change an
organization, they also needed to be able to change the individuals within the
organization. This dual focus creates an outward and inward change gradually over
time that is sustainable. In order for educational leaders to implement change, they
need to build new capacities to transform our schools (Wagner & Kegan, 2006).
Educational leaders must understand the complexities and the interdependent
relationship between individual and organizational change (Wagner & Kegan, 2006).
Bolman and Deal (2008) state similarly that leaders need a strong political frame in
which to analyze and use power, conflict, competition, positive politics- and the
allocation of power and scarce resources. Leaders must set goals and make decisions
which emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among
different stakeholders. In order to complete these types of tasks, leaders must
understand not only the complexity of an organization, but the complexities of the
individuals in the organization and how to motivate them toward a shared vision
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Wagner & Kegan, 2006).
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
Schools with dramatically rising student achievement also realize that they
may not have all the answers. Therefore they refer to educational research and
experts and seek out guidance from the experts in the field of education with
evidence of their expertise and success in helping schools dramatically improve their
student achievement (Odden, 2009). While seeking this guidance schools that are
successful ensure that any initiatives implemented to improve student learning are
71
carefully monitored for effectiveness. Data are also collected and analyzed by trained
staff members to effectively make changes or offer supports to teachers and students
as needed. However, after providing structures of support such as professional
development and instructional coaches to analyze and solve problems that occur, and
checking for fidelity in their implementation, schools are also willing to drop
programs that do not show significant student gains in achievement over an extended
period of time (Odden, 2009).
Conclusion
This study used Odden et al.’s (2008) allocation of resources framework
(Table 2.1) to examine how schools are using their resources in a strategic way to
improve student achievement. The Evidence Based Model offers a research-based
point of comparison when looking at the individual 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 and
strategies that each school used with those outlined above in the Evidence Based
Model. This comparison provides not only a comparison of resources, but also a
comparison of recommended best practices in schools, all of which have proven
efficacy in improving student achievement that can be used to obtain desired
educational outcomes (Odden, 2003). The “best practices” used in the Evidence-
Based Model have been cited as key elements in numerous studies on education
(DuFour et al., 2006; Elmore, 2002; Johnson, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Marzano, 2005;
Marzano, 2006; Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; Reeves,
72
2006). The next chapter explains the methodology of the study including the research
questions and the sample selection.

Table 2.1
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%

73
Table 2.1, continued
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools
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
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
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.
74
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Introduction
This study has important implications for resource allocation decisions to
improve student learning. The focus on elementary schools on Oahu and the Big
Island of Hawai`i, that have produced rising academic performance despite a range
of disadvantaged students, demographics, and median household incomes, enables
the examination of how each school uses the resources available to impact student
learning. These comparisons include not only how schools have allocated their
resources within their school, but also the specific structures and activities each
school used to promote an increase in student academic achievement. These
descriptions may help to provide guidance to state, district, and school leadership
when formulating budgets and choosing quality programs and structures to promote
the creation and support of high quality teachers, educational leaders, programs and
supports that positively impact student achievement. This study is one of the first in
Hawai`i to use the Evidence-Based Model as a framework for analyzing the
allocation of school resources and its relationship to student achievement.
This study determined if best-practices from research were implemented and
supported in each school by using the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by
Odden and Picus (2008) as a 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
75
respective school. The study was limited to the examination of schools with various
ranges of disadvantaged students from 56.1% to 89.9%, diverse ethnicities, located
in communities with a range of median household incomes from $40,122 to a high of
$58,533. While it is an independent project, the study is based on the methodologies
of similar studies conducted in California and Wyoming that were dedicated to
exploring the link between resource allocation, instructional strategies, and student
achievement in schools through the examination of school level data (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
Additional information regarding student achievement and school decisions
regarding resource allocation is provided through the examination of school
documents including each school’s School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR),
Academic and Financial Plan, and test data. Principals at each school site were
interviewed to obtain data.
Research Questions
The study is framed by the following three research questions:
1. How are resource allocation patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based
Model?
2. What instructional improvement strategies are currently being
implemented at the school sites?
3. How have allocations of resources supported instructional improvement?
76
Identifying Schools: Purposeful Sample and Population
This study used a purposeful sample of five elementary schools in Hawai`i.
Four of the schools are located on the island of Oahu and one is located on the Big
Island of Hawai`i. Schools were specifically chosen for their consistently rising trend
in student academic performance as measured by the Hawai`i State Assessment
(HSA) and the percent of students achieving proficient or better, shown in Tables 3.1
and 3.2, as well as each school’s high percentage of disadvantaged students shown in
Table 3.3. The diverse student demographics and percentage of disadvantaged
students is shown in Table 3.3 that provides a summary of the grades each school
encompasses, their enrollment numbers, along with a demographic summary
consisting of the percentage of each significant subgroup (Table 3.3), and
community data (Table 3.4). Pseudonyms are used in place of school names to honor
the promise of anonymity for each school.
As shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in comparison to state elementary school
averages, the five sample schools have increased the percentage of students
achieving proficient or above on the Hawai`i State Assessment from 2006-07 to
2010-11 by a range of 5.6% to 23.6% more than the state average in reading and by a
range of 6.8% to 38% above the state average for math. They have achieved these
higher proficiency averages despite being schools with a range of disadvantaged
students from 12.1% to 45.9% above the state average as shown in Table 3.3.

77
Table 3.1
Rising Academic Achievement in Reading Across Five School Samples (HSA Data)
Percent of Students Achieving Proficient or Above on the Hawai`i State
Assessment
School `Ekahi `Elua `Ekolu `Eha `Elima *State
Reading 2006-07 57.4% 52% 40.7% 60.3% 35.4% 59.5%
Reading 2007-08 67.4% 59.4% 40.9% 64.2% 42.3% 60.8%
Difference +10% +7.4% +0.2% +3.9% +6.9% +1.3%
Reading 2007-08 67.4% 59.4% 40.9% 64.2% 42.3% 60.8%
Reading 2008-09 63.2% 65.2% 52.6% 61.3% 45.5% 63.7%
Difference -4.2% +5.8% +11.7% -2.9% +3.2% +2.9%
Reading 2008-09 63.2% 65.2% 52.6% 61.3% 45.5% 63.7%
Reading 2009-10 78% 72.4% 61.4% 67.9% 50.9% 65.6%
Difference +14.8% +7.2% +8.8% +6.6% +5.4% +1.9%
Reading 2009-10 78% 72.4% 61.4% 67.9% 50.9% 65.6%
Reading 2010-11 90.7% 71.8% 67.2% 75.6% 64.4% 69.2%
Difference +12.7% -0.6% +5.8 +7.7 +13.5 +3.6
Total improvement
from 2006-07 to
2010-11 — Reading
+33.3% +19.8% +26.5% +15.3 +29% +9.7

*State data source: Hawaii State Department of Education, System Evaluation &
Reporting Section [average of proficiency of grades 3-6 statewide]

78
Table 3.2
Rising Academic Achievement in Math of Five School Samples (HSA Data)
Percent of Students Achieving Proficient or Above on the Hawai`i State
Assessment
School `Ekahi `Elua `Ekolu `Eha `Elima *State
Math 2006-07 45.7% 45.2% 43.5% 48.1% 20.5% 47.1%
Math 2007-08 67.4% 49.3% 51.4% 47.5% 28.8% 50%
Difference +21.7% +4.1% +7.9% -0.6% +8.3% +2.9%
Math 2007-08 67.4% 49.3% 51.4% 47.5% 28.8% 50%
Math 2008-09 48.1% 55.8% 56.8% 41.6% 29.6% 49.4%
Difference -19.3% +6.5% +5.4% -5.9% +0.8% -0.6
Math 2008-09 48.1% 55.8% 56.8% 41.6% 29.6% 49.4%
Math 2009-10 65.7% 59% 57.8% 59.1% 39.3% 53.9%
Difference +17.6% +3.2% +1% +17.5% +9.7% +4.5%
Math 2009-10 65.7 59% 57.8% 59.1% 39.3% 53.9%
Math 2010-11 98.6 67% 82.7% 69.8% 60.5% 62%
Difference +32.9 +8% +24.9% +10.7 +21.2% +8.1%
Total
improvement from
2006-07 to 2010-
11 — Math
+52.9% +21.8% +39.2% +21.7 +40% +14.9

*State data source: Hawaii State Department of Education, System Evaluation &
Reporting Section [average of proficiency of grades 3-6 statewide]

79
Table 3.3
School Sample Demographics, Enrollment, and Grade Range 2010-11
Percent of Students
School Demographics `Ekahi `Elua `Ekolu `Eha `Elima
*State
of
Hawai`i
Native Hawaiian 44% 28.8% 18.4% 36.3% 44.8% 27.7%
Filipino 27.2% 39.9% 1.8% 9.3% 20.8% 20.5%
White 10.3% 6.7% 0.7% 5% 17.4% 14.4%
Hispanic 4.3% 1.9% 0.7% 4.2% 6% 3.3%
Indo-Chinese 3.8% 1.7% 7.7% 9.3% 0.3% -
Japanese 2.7% 2.4% 1.1% 6.4% 2.1% 8.6%
Black 2.2% 2.7% 0.4% 1.6% - 2.3%
Micronesian 1.1% 1.7% 51.5% 1.9% 0.3% -
Samoan 1.1% 9.8% 8.8% 2.1% 1.3% 3.4%
Portuguese 1.1% 0.7% - 0.8% 2.3% -
Chinese 1.1% 0.5% 2.6% 6.1% 3.6% 3.1%
Korean 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 6.9% - 1.2%
Native American 0.5% - - - 1% 0.6%
Tongan - - 4.8% - - -
Other Pacific Islanders - - 0.7% 0.5% - -
Other Asian - - - 0.8% - -
Multiple Ethnicities - 2.9% - 8.8% - -
Other - - - - - 15%
Disadvantaged 59.4% 60.5% 89.9% 56.1% 63.1% 44%
ELL 12.5% 11.7% 49.6% 16.1% 5.8% 10%
SPED 13.9% 7.8% 7.2% 11.9% 16.1% 10%
Student enrollment 09-10 180 565 278 360 360 -
Grades K-6 K-6 K-5 K-5 K-5 -
*State data from 2010 Superintendent’s 21st Annual Report

80
Table 3.4
School Sample Community Data
School `Ekahi `Elua `Ekolu `Eha `Elima
*State of
Hawai`i
Median Household
Income
$48,051 $58,533 $40,122 $52,797 $48,104 $75,066
% of households with
Public Assistance
Income
9.2% 7.4% 5% 4.5% 5.9% 7.5%
% of families with
children living in
poverty
15% 5.7% 15.4% 11.7% 11% 11.2%
Educational Attainment
Percent high school or
higher
80.1% 80.6% 85.1% 88.1% 83.8% 90.4%
Educational Attainment
Percent Some college
29.3% 33.2% 28.1% 24.7% 27.3%
Not
available
Educational Attainment
Percent 4-yr degree or
higher
19.9% 19.5% 29.8% 40.5% 19.9% 29.6%
Island and District Oahu -
Central
District
Oahu -
Leeward
District
Oahu -
Honolulu
District
Oahu -
Honolulu
District
Big Island
of Hawai`i-
Hawai`i
District
-
*State data from 2010 Superintendent’s 21st Annual Report

81
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The data collection instruments for this study were based on the data
collection tools used to conduct the Picus, Odden, Aportola, Mangan, Goertz’ (2008)
Wyoming state adequacy study. These instruments included a data collection
codebook, which identifies data collection items and their definitions, a data
collection protocol to record quantitative information, and an open-ended interview
protocol (Appendix A). These data collection tools were based on a school-based
expenditure reporting framework developed by Odden, Archibald, et al. (2003). This
framework has been expanded and utilized to conduct several U.S. state adequacy
studies in Kentucky (Odden, Fermanich, &P. Sandoval (Dissertation) Picus, 2003),
Arkansas (Odden, Picus, & Fermanich, 2003; Odden, Picus, & Goertz, 2006),
Arizona (Odden, Picus, Fermanich, & Goertz, 2004), Wyoming (Picus, Odden,
Aportola, Mangan, & Goertz, 2008; Odden, Picus, Goertz, Fermanich, Seder, Glenn,
& Nelli, 2005), Washington (Odden, Picus, Goertz, Fermanich, Mangan, 2006) and
Wisconsin (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goertz, Mangan, & Aportola, 2007). The data
collection protocols will be modified and used to capture the school resource
indicators for the five elementary schools (See Table 3.5 for School Resource
Indicators).

82
Table 3.5
School Sample Resource Indicators
Percent English Learners
Percent Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Instruction
Length of Mathematics Instruction
Core Academic Class Size
Class Size
Staffing Ratios
Number of Support Staff
** Adapted from Picus & Odden (2006)

In July 2011, the researcher was trained in the data collection methodology.
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) application through the University of Southern
California was submitted in June 2011. In July 2011, the researcher requested
approval from the Hawai`i Department of Education to conduct this study. Initial
contacts with five site level principals via email communication occurred following
IRB and DOE approval in October 2011.
In addition, protocols (Appendix L) were utilized to capture the schools’
available resources in instructional staff, professional development, support staff,
and extra help for students (See Table 3.6 for School Resources).

83
Table 3.6
School Resources
1. Core Academic Teachers
English Language Arts
Math
Social Studies
Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
Art, music, physical education
Academic Focus with or without special funding
3. Extra Help
Tutors
Resource Specialist Program (Special Education)
Inclusion Teachers
English as a Second Language Teacher
Special Education Classes for severely disabled students (including aides)
Extended Day and Summer School
4. Professional Development
Teacher Time - Substitutes
Trainers and Coaches
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
Coordinators
Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA)
Building Substitutes
Instructional Aides
6. Administration
Principal
Vice Principal
Office Staff
** Adapted from Picus and Odden (2006)

84
The initial email communication was an invitation to participate in the study
(Appendix G). When the researcher received the confirmation from the principals,
she sent out a second email, with one attachment, that provided information on the
study (Appendix H). Each principal received a letter explicating purpose of the
study, the confidentiality guaranteed with their participation, what participation
entails, how the results will be used, and additional contact information. Within two
weeks, the researcher contacted the principals via telephone and or e-mail to answer
any questions they had and scheduled the interviews. Twelve invitations to
participate in the study were sent out. Five principal agreed to participate in the study
and interviews were scheduled and conducted between December 2011 and January
2012.
School site data collection occurred between August 2011 and January 2012.
The researcher sent each principal a memo requesting specific documents and
provided the principal with a copy of the open-ended interview questions (See
Appendix A). Prior to each school site visit, the researcher searched the state of
Hawai`i’s Department of Education web pages for background data and information
about the particular school. During the site visit, the researcher ensured the collection
of school level documents indicating professional development focus, general
professional development budgetary information, staff list, student enrollment count
and classroom enrollments, the master calendar, and additional documents providing
school expectations and practice. Each site visit involved an in-depth interview with
the school principal. Key personnel were allowed to be invited at each principal’s
85
discretion; however, no principal chose to invite other key personnel to the
interview.
The principal interviews yielded both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative data gathering consisted of using the quantitative information protocol.
During the quantitative data gathering portion of the interview, the staff list was
utilized to count staff FTEs and discuss their use. Quantitative data included:
• Staff (Core, Specialist, Support, Tutors).
• Student demographics (English Learner and Free and Reduced Price
Lunch).
• Current student enrollment.
• Instructional Minutes for core academic subjects.
• Pupil-Teacher ratios.
• Intervention and Summer School program minutes and teacher ratios.
• Additional supplemental program minutes.
• How many teachers are teaching particular grade levels and subjects?
• Allocation of staff to meet specific instructional goals and objectives.
• Use of support personnel to support student learning.
The principals were asked to provide general budgetary information for
professional development such as how many substitute/release days they planned for,
money spent on professional development trainers and/or consultants, and other
professional development costs. The qualitative data was gathered using the open-
ended interview protocol. The principals were asked questions that queried their
86
professional development plans, strategic plan for improvement, the school’s
instructional vision, and implemented instructional improvement strategies. These
school improvement strategies were: focus on educating all students, a rigorous
curriculum that aligns to state standards, providing effective professional developing,
using data to drive instruction, extra support for struggling students, instructional
leadership, professional learning communities, and restructuring the learning
environment.
Once school level data were collected, the researcher sorted the data into
quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative data involved calculating
staff FTEs, instructional minutes, and general professional development
expenditures. When the school’s quantitative data were figured, the researcher input
the quantitative results onto Picus and Associates’ web based database. To derive the
basic calculations of the Evidence-Based Model, the researcher input raw data such
as student enrollment for each grade level, number of staff into the web page:
http://cpre.wceruw.org/finance/reports.php which generated basic comparison
numbers to the Evidence-Based Model. The researcher then performed basic sums
and percentages calculations using an Excel spreadsheet to derive the remaining
quantitative data needed for the Evidence-Based Model comparison.
For the qualitative information, the researcher transcribed the interview notes.
Once the notes were transcribed, the researcher coded and organized the data into the
following categories: Focus on Educating all Students; Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum
and Align to State Standards; Use Data to Drive Decisions; Support Instructional
87
Improvement with Effective Professional Development; Restructure the Learning
Environment; Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities;
Professional Learning Communities; and Instructional Leadership. A case study for
each school was written. Each case study captured the school’s general background,
history of improvement and data on the school’s Academic Performance and
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets, key elements and themes of the
improvement process, a comparison of the school’s actual resource use to that
provided in the Evidence-Based Model, the linkages between resource
allocation/use, and lessons learned.
Data Analysis
The conceptual framework for the quantitative data analysis is the Picus and
Associates Evidence-Based Model. School level resource allocation and use was
compared to the EBM recommendations. The resource allocation patterns for these
particular Hawai`i schools were framed within the following question, “How do the
schools’ resource allocation and use compare to the Evidence-Based Model?”
Quantitative data analysis involved the use of frequency statistics encompassing
percentages and averages for instructional minutes and FTE staffing ratios. All
analytic procedures captured the current resource use in the five elementary schools.
Staffing data were figured using percentages of full-time equivalents and teacher-
pupil data were analyzed using ratios. Instructional minutes were analyzed through
percentages to determine how much of the instructional day is allocated to particular
academic subjects.
88
The qualitative information was analyzed using the findings of the Evidence-
based model (Odden et al., 2006). Qualitative data included the strategies within the
instructional improvement plan, instructional vision, and professional development
plan. These data were analyzed to determine if they aligned with the research based
instructional strategies: focus on educating all students; adopt a rigorous curriculum
and align to state standards; use data to drive instruction; support instructional
improvement with effective staff development; restructure the learning environment;
provide struggling students with extended learning opportunities; instructional
leadership; and professional learning communities. The analyses of the quantitative
data were limited to whether these “best practices” components were in existence at
the school site and not whether these components impacted student achievement.
Summary of Methodology
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study research method was used to
conduct the study and analysis of five particular elementary schools in Hawai`i. The
analysis data for the different instructional components and resource use were
obtained through interviews with the school principals, school document analysis of
the master schedule, school staff list, master calendar, school vision and mission
statements, school improvement plan, and general budgetary allocations for
professional development. The study’s data collection instruments were based on
Picus and Associates’ data collection instruments, which have been used to conduct
adequacy studies in several U.S. states. Quantitative data and qualitative data were
analyzed through a comparison with the Evidence-Based Model (Appendix N).
89
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine resource allocation patterns at
school sites with rising academic achievement utilizing the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 20085) as a resource allocation framework. This chapter presents
and summarizes the findings through the examination of five case studies of sample
elementary schools in Hawai`i on two different islands. Detailed information on each
sample school is provided in case studies in Appendices B-F. The conceptual
framework for this study was by Odden (2009) and Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
work on doubling student performance as well as the Evidence-Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008) that examined the research based strategies used for school
improvement. The following research questions were used as a framework to analyze
the findings, through interviews and document review, to build knowledge around
how site level allocation of resources at the school level impacted overall student
achievement:
1. How are resource allocation patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based
Model?
2. What instructional improvement strategies are currently being
implemented at the school sites?
3. How have allocations of resources supported instructional improvement?
90
Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
Schools were selected for this study based on their patterns of rising
academic achievement evidenced by the Hawai`i State Assessment in reading and
math and high percentage of disadvantaged students. Review of critical documents
along with in depth interviews were conducted using protocols to ensure consistency
of data gathered over multiple sites. Summaries of each case study are provided here
to an aggregate of findings from the five school sites along with patterns and trends
that emerged. Following the summary, strategies implemented at various sites are
discussed within the framework of the Evidence-Based Model. Comparisons to the
Evidence-Based Model are identified to compare resource allocation trends across all
sites and when differences occurred.
The findings reveal: (1) how the actual resource use patterns at the school
sites are aligned with or different from the resource use strategies used in the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM), (2) how resources are used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan, (3) how the allocation and use of resources
have supported instructional improvement.
All the analyzed schools were non-charter public elementary schools that had
demonstrated a rising trend in student achievement. The following section shows a
comparison of each school’s profile. All the school’s analyzed in this study were
located in the state of Hawaii, four from the island of Oahu and one from the Big
Island of Hawai`i. Schools were within four different districts and five different
complexes. These schools were all part of four different K-12 districts (Ekolu
91
Elementary and Eha Elementary were from the same district). The schools studied
also have a wide range of student enrollment as shown in Figure 4.1. The smallest
school had an enrollment of only 180 students and the largest school had an
enrollment of 565 students. Figure 4.1 shows the enrollment amount of each school,
as well as the distribution of students across categories by student need
(Disadvantaged, ELL, and disabled).

Figure 4.1. Demographics by student need of five sample schools 2010-11

The student demographics shown in Figure 4.2 at each of the five sample
schools is similar in regard to the high percentage of minority students from 82.6% at
Elima Elementary to a high of 99.9% at Ekolu Elementary and disadvantaged
students from 56.1% at Eha Elementary to a high of 89.9% at Ekolu Elementary. All
180
565
278
360 360
107
342
250
202
227
14
66
138
58
21
25
44
20
43
58
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Ekahi Elua Ekolu Eha Elima
All students
Disadvantaged
ELL
Disabled
92
schools were Title I schools, though they were not purposefully selected with the
criteria of being Title I.

Figure 4.2. Demographic percentages by student need of five sample schools

Assessment Data — Reading Proficiency
The five sample schools were chosen for their patterns of rising academic
achievement from 2003-04 to 2010-11. Each school’s pattern of rising achievement
is shown below on Figure 4.3.

59.4
60.5
89.9
56.1
63.1
7.8
11.7
49.6
16.1
5.8
13.9
7.8
7.2
11.9
16.1
89.7
93.3
99.9
95
82.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Ekahi Elua Ekolu Eha Elima
Disadvantaged
ELL
Disabled
Minority
93

Figure 4.3. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on HSA
2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

By disaggregating the data further a clearer picture shows how the schools
support, or don’t support, their subgroups overall proficiency progress in reading.
Figures 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 further disaggregate the reading data over the past
eight years by the significant student subgroups reported by the Hawai`i Department
of Education through Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) data.
As shown in Figure 4.4, reading proficiency for the disadvantaged subgroup
followed a rising trend for all schools. However, Elua Elementary had a near leveling
off of reading proficiency scores within the last year, between 2009-10 and 2010-11.
The largest rise in reading proficiency scores was at Elima Elementary last year,
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
94
2009-10 and 2010-11 (an increase of 17.7%). However, for the two year period
between 2008-09 and 2010-11 the largest rise in proficiency scores was at Ekahi
Elementary (an increase of 24.8%) followed by the second largest increase in reading
proficiency scores over a two year period of Elima (an increase of 20.3% over two
years). Although Elua Elementary, Ekolu Elementary, and Eha Elementary have
rising patterns of reading achievement, there were more modest gains within a two
year period with an increase of 12% at Elua Elementary, 15.2% at Ekolu Elementary,
and 12.8% at Eha Elementary.

Figure 4.4. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on HSA
2010-11, disadvantaged subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
95
Reading proficiency varied across the five samples of schools for the ELL
subgroup as shown in Figure 4.5 over the last eight years. The reading proficiency
across all five schools varied greatly. The largest rise in scores for the ELL subgroup
was at Eha Elementary from 20% reading proficiency in 2009-10 to 54.5% in 2010-
11 (an increase of 34.5% in one year). Another large rise in scores is evident at
Ekolu Elementary from 20% in 2008-09 to 54% in 2009-10 (an increase of 34% in
one year). However, Ekolu Elementary reading proficiency scores dropped in 2010-
11 (a decrease of 5.8%). Ekahi Elementary and Elima Elementary did not have a
large enough ELL subgroup to be counted in the Hawai’i State Assessment as per the
guidelines for subgroups outlined by NCLB, though it is important to note a drastic
dip in scores at Elima Elementary in one year from 41.6% 2007-08 to 18.1% in
2008-09 (a decrease of 23.5%). Elua Elementary reading proficiency scores for ELL
students also dipped slightly in one year from 42.8% in 2009-10 to 42.1% in 2010-11
(a decrease of 0.7%). It is important to note that within the last year from 2009-10 to
2010-11, three schools (Ekolu, Elua, and Eha Elementary) have shown the highest
percentage of ELL students proficient or above proficient. Elima Elementary and
Ekahi Elementary did not have a significant amount of ELL students to be counted
as a subgroup on the HSA for 2010-11.

96

Figure 4.5. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on HSA
2010-11, ELL subgroup of five sample schools 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Reading proficiency scores for the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup increased
across all sample schools from 2009-10 to 2010-11 except at Elua Elementary which
dipped slightly from 74.8 to 72.6% respectively (a decrease of 2.2%). The largest
gain for one year for the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup was at Elima Elementary
from 48.8% in 2009-10 to 61.9% in 2010-11 (an increase of 13.1%). However, the
largest gain in reading proficiency for the same subgroup over two years was at
Ekahi Elementary from 61.7% in 2008-09 to 89% in 2010-11 (an increase of 27.3%).
However, all five schools have shown a rising trend of students proficient or above
proficient in reading within this time frame.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
97

Figure 4.6. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on HSA
2010-11, Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

The only school with a significant amount of a white subgroup of students
over eight years was Elima Elementary. The only other school with a significant
amount of the white subgroup in 2010-11 was Elua Elementary. The white subgroup
at Elima had a significant decrease in scores from 87.5% in 2003-04 to 44.4% in
2004-05 (a decrease of 43.1%). However, after a slight increase in 2005-06, the
white subgroup’s reading proficiency scores have steadily increased up to 78.9% in
2009-10, followed by only a slight increase the next year to 80% in 2010-11 (an
increase of only 0.1%). Between 2006-07 until 2010-11, there was a total increase of
reading proficiency for the white subgroup of 22.4%.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
98

Figure 4.7. Percent proficient or above in reading of five sample schools on HSA
2010-11, White subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

As the data for reading proficiency for the disabled subgroup is
disaggregated, it reveals a very significant finding. Ekahi Elementary’s disabled
subgroup’s proficiency scores have risen steadily over the past five years reaching
100% proficiency in 2010-11 for an increase of 85.8%. A large jump in scores
occurred between 2006-07 and 2007-08 (an increase of 25.8% in one year), a rise to
52.1% in 2008-09 (an increase of 12.1%), a rise to 65.2% in 2009-10 (an increase of
23.1%), and finally another jump in scores to 100% in 2010-11(an increase of
34.8%). All other sample schools with significant subgroups of disabled students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
99
show a much lower growth in proficiency up to 2008-09 followed by a drop in scores
from 2009-10 to 2010-11.

Figure 4.8. Reading proficiency of disabled subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Assessment Data — Math Proficiency
The five sample schools were chosen for their patterns of rising academic
achievement from 2003-04 to 2010-11. Each school’s pattern of rising achievement
is shown below on Figure 4.9.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
100

Figure 4.9. Math proficiency scores of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

By disaggregating the data further a clearer picture also shows how the
schools support, or don’t support, their subgroups overall proficiency progress in
math as well. Figures 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 further disaggregate the math
data over the past eight years by the significant student subgroups reported by the
Hawai`i Department of Education through Hawai`i State Assessment data.
As shown in Figure 4.10, math proficiency for the disadvantaged subgroup
followed a rising trend for all schools. The disadvantaged subgroup at Ekahi
Elementary reached 98% proficiency in 2010-11, 82.3% at Ekolu Elementary, 64%
at Eha Elementary, 63.4% at Elua Elementary, and 55.1% at Elima Elementary.
Within the last two years the disadvantaged subgroup at all five schools made gains
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
101
with Ekahi Elementary increasing proficiency by 46.1%, Elima Elementary
increasing proficiency by 35.9%, Eha Elementary increasing proficiency by 26.7%,
Ekolu Elementary increasing proficiency by 25.7%., and Elua Elementary increasing
proficiency by 15.9%. Elua Elementary and Eha Elementary made smaller gains in
one year most recently. Elua Elementary increased proficiency of its disadvantaged
group by 10.4% and Eha Elementary increased by only 3% from 2009-10 to 2010-
11.

Figure 4.10. Math proficiency of disadvantaged subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
102
As the data for math proficiency for the ELL subgroup is disaggregated, it
reveals a very significant finding particularly for two schools Ekolu Elementary and
Eha Elementary. Within one year both schools made significant gains in math
proficiency for the ELL subgroup. Ekolu Elementary increased math proficiency
from 38% in 2009-10 to 70.6% in 2010-11 (an increase of 32.6%). Eha Elementary
increased proficiency from 20% to 63.6% in 2010-11 (an increase of 43.6%). Elua
Elementary made moderate gains in comparison.

Figure 4.11. Math proficiency of ELL subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
103
Math proficiency scores for the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup increased
across all sample schools most significantly from 2008-09 to 2010-11. The
Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup made gains in proficiency of 52.9% at Ekahi
Elementary, 34.3% at Elima Elementary, 25.7% at Eha Elementary, 25.4% at Ekolu
Elementary, and 12.1% at Elua Elementary.

Figure 4.12. Math proficiency of Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup of five sample
schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
104
The only school with a significant amount of a white subgroup of students
over eight years was Elima Elementary. The only other school with a significant
amount of a white subgroup in 2010-11 was Elua Elementary. The white subgroup at
Elima, just as they did in reading proficiency, had a significant decrease in math
proficiency scores from 43.7% in 2003-04 to 16.6% in 2004-05 (a decrease of
27.1%). However, after a slight increase in 2005-06, the white subgroup’s reading
proficiency scores have steadily increased up to 75% in 2010-11. Between 2006-
07until 2010-11, there was a total increase of math proficiency for the white
subgroup of 48.1%.

Figure 4.13. Math proficiency of White subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
105
As the data of math proficiency for the disabled subgroup is disaggregated, it
reveals a very significant finding again for Ekahi Elementary. The disabled subgroup
proficiency scores have risen steadily over the past four years reaching 100%
proficiency in 2010-11 for an increase of 66.7%. Equally significant was the lack of
math proficiency gains for the disabled subgroups at three of the other schools with
all disabled subgroups at these schools falling below 20% proficiency. The disabled
groups at Elua Elementary decreased to16.6% math proficiency, at Eha Elementary
they slightly increased to only 7.6%, and at Elima Elementary they fell to an all-time
low within the eight years of 3.5% proficiency.

Figure 4.14. Math proficiency of disabled subgroup of five sample schools
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ekahi
Elua
Ekolu
Eha
Elima
106
The purpose of comparing schools that experienced substantial growth in
math and reading proficiency, as well as those that showed moderate academic
growth, was used to help examine the frameworks of both effective and ineffective
elements of the five schools in this study as they attempted to improve their student
proficiency levels for all students. Disaggregating these data into subgroups helped
to identify subgroups that made substantial growth as well as those that either did not
progress at a high rate or declined in proficiency. These findings are discussed in the
next section.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The framework of the Evidence-Based Model identifies effective, research-
based strategies and allocates resources aligned to support an effective and
comprehensive instructional program to promote academic growth. The amount of
resources allocated for specific categories was extremely difficult to determine
across the five samples of schools. The main challenge was the collection of similar
data from each school site. Though each school site kept the same documents that
included their Academic Financial Plans, Academic Financial Plan Template, and
The Narrative of the Academic Financial plan, each of the forms varied from school
to school. Specific figures were also not produced by the principals in all five sample
schools in several instances, although some estimates were given for some areas.
After careful review of school documents including the Academic Financial Plan
Template, Academic Financial Plans, Narrative Summaries of the Academic
Financial Plan and the state Weighted Student Formula allocations, and after
107
speaking with principals in person and by several e-mails, specific spending
allocations for some areas remained undeterminable. The categories that were
undeterminable for most schools included funds allocated for technology, student
supplies, student activities, substitutes, after school and summer tutoring (if offered),
gifted and talented students, and professional development for some schools. The
last expenditure reports posted online as required by the Hawaii State Legislature
were for the year 2007-08. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 shows a comparison of school profile
and resource allocations that were determinable between the five sample schools and
an EBM prototype school. However, these figures were not supported by official
expenditure school documents, other than those listed above, as more specific
expenditure documents were not produced by the principals.
Voiced by several principals was their own frustration with the format of the
school documents that they needed to produce including the Financial Academic
Plans. A lack of guidelines for the specific format of these plans as well at the lack of
a specific format for the Narrative Summaries of the Academic and Financial Plans
is evident when comparing them to each other. Between five different schools,
although the headings were the same for each document, the information contained
under each heading didn’t include the same types of data even within the same
district and complex. Samples from just one section of the Narrative Summaries of
the Academic and Financial Plans in Table 4.2 show these extreme differences not
only in data, but also in the narrative elements included. The actual documents also
ranged from only one page to ten pages.
108
Table 4.1
Samples of One Section of the Narrative Summaries of the Academic Financial Plans
from Five Sample Schools
Example 1:
Standards Based Education: Funds to be used
The planned expenditure is $1,972,714.00. This includes WSF and Categorical funds.
Example 2:
Standards Based Education Funds to be used: $2,686,844 (including categorical)
The funds in Standards-Based Education are allocated primarily to fund 24 teacher positions and 1
educational assistant position. Additionally, classroom supplies are funded through the Standards-
Based Education category. The funds allocated in this category are used to have a direct impact on
student achievement through instructional staff, materials, or equipment.
Example 3:
Plans for financial resources to meet goals:
(90%) of the funding is allocated for personnel costs to maintain appropriate teacher to student
ratios; to support school operations; to provide an array of comprehensive student support; and to
sustain standards based education with professional development and coaching.
Funds from Title 1 will focus on professional development and targeted interventions identified in
the academic plan.
Example 4:
Standards Based Education: Funds to be used
$9,000 will be used to purchase supplies and materials for student portfolios, classroom data walls,
and materials that support the needs of our varied learners. $10,200 will be used to cover the cost of
substitutes so that teachers can implement PLC initiatives. Included in the plan is an additional
$50,000 from outside sources to cover the cost of a language arts basal program.
Example 5:
Standards Based Education: Funds to be used
WSF (weighted student formula) $1,099.550 Personnel, equipment, current expenses
Categorical $384,575 Special Education, A+ Program, Hawaiian Studies
Federal $17,460 Drug Free, ELO, Casual/hr
Trust $3,284
Grand Total $1,504,869
For highly qualified, certified teachers to meet the NCLB initiatives for increased student
achievement, educational assistants, paraprofessional tutors, fringe benefits, substitute teachers,
classroom supplies, educational materials, textbooks in reading, math, science, social studies, and
cost of some phone lines.

109
Further lack of consistency across school financial documents was also found across
Academic and Financial Plans as shown in Table 4.2.

110
Table 4.2
Academic Financial Plan — One Section — Goal 1 Examples from Five School Samples
Expenditure
Funded Enabling Activities Outcomes: Initial, Intermediate Lead Timeline Description Est $ Amount
Sample One
1.Assess students quarterly using ROOTS assessment,
Scholastic Reading Inventory and DSI Reading and
Math. Analyze assessment data through an Elua Inter
Rater Protocol in grade level teams during articulation
sessions on a regular basis, utilize data boards for goal
setting and adjust instruction according to student
needs.
Literacy for Learning: Guiding Principle 1 (SW 4)
a - 100% of grade levels develop and implement
quarterly plans based on prior quarter data to address
areas of students’ needs.
b - 10 % quarterly increase in the students at or above
grade level on DSI Reading and Math and SRI.
b - 85% of students will improve by at least one grade
level on the SRI or ROOTS assessment.
Principal (P) July 2010-
June 2011
- Scholastic
Reading Inventory
Quarterly
Assessment
Assess
- ROOTS Reading
Assessment PTTs
$16,000
Sample Two
1. Continue to refine the implementation of Everyday
Math curriculum and ensure alignment of assessments
with the benchmarks.

AYP response restructuring team report 2005
Learning Criteria: foundation learning

Title 1: SW 2 – Schoolwide reform strategies
Title 1: SI 2 – Adopting best practices
Title 1: SI 1 – Using research based strategies

DOE Literacy for Learning GP #2 – Evidence based
strategies / GP # 5 -- Accountability
Initial: 100% of teachers will submit LPC’s to math
coach every week.
Initial: 100% of classrooms observed in walkthroughs
reflect standards-based relevant, rigorous curriculum as
documented on the walkthrough observation tool.
Inter: 85% of all students will “meet or exceed
proficiency” on Benchmark tracker test each month.
Inter: 85% of all students will “meet or exceed”
proficiency on constructed response prompts in math
each month.
Inter: 85% of all students will receive “MP” or “ME” on
all math strands on semester report cards
Principal
Grade level
chairpersons
Math coach
Quarterly
Semester

111
Table 4.2, continued
Expenditure
Funded Enabling Activities Outcomes: Initial, Intermediate Lead Timeline Description Est $ Amount
Sample Three
1. (SW 2, 8, 9) Provide opportunities for students
and teachers to examine student work in order to
monitor progress and set goals:
• Examine math and Lang. Arts samples once a
month
• Analyze strengths and needs & graph progress
• Set quarterly goals
(SW8)100% of classrooms will have data walls for
math and Lang. Arts that showcase student work that
measure the standards.
75% of students will show progress towards meeting
their goal each quarter.
Admin
SW
Coord.
Check data walls
once a month
Analyze data
each qtr.
Data wall
Supplies
Classroom
materials to
support form.
assessment
$2000

$2000
Sample Four
Provide Standards-Based Instruction (SBI) in all
classrooms.
a.100% of teachers will use SBI as evident by
classroom observations.
b. Students in grades 3-5 will show a 10% increase in
math/reading proficiency as evident in the HSA.
c. 80% of students in grades K-2 will meet growth
targets in math/reading on NWEA.
Admin.
Leadership team
Faculty
2010-2011
sy
Meeting
times,
Extended
days, PC and
waiver days
-0-
Sample Five
Provide and implement effective, research-based,
best practices
• Achieve 3000, Math Whizz, Compass
Learning
• Benchmark Assessment Tests (Edison)
• Formative and Summative Assessments
• Strategies: AVID, SIOP, PREL School
Improvement Services: Picturing Science and
Image to Word, RIP, RTI (Response to
Intervention- Differentiated Instruction),
RADPIC, Tiering (Edison) (SW 2)
1a. Designated grade level teachers will receive
training and implement programs appropriate to their
grade level. (SW4)
1a. All teachers use data to identify reading and math
performance groupings and instruction while
monitoring Rigor, Relevance, and Relationship by
administering weekly constructed responses for
Reading, Math, and monthly in Science, Writing, and
Social Studies.
1b. Increase 5% per quarter of student rubric scores to
levels ¾ as a result of utilizing weekly constructed
response in reading, math, and monthly in science,
writing, and social studies.
1a. Principal
Curr. Coord.
1b. Principal
Curr Coord. ELL
Coord. GLCs
Edison
1a. Curr Coord.
1b. GLC
Teachers
1a. Aug 2010
Monthly
Aug 2010-
March 2011
Weekly
1b. Sept. 2010-
Apr. 2011
$1,784,331
$103,990
Pending Title
I funding
$5,562
$15,252

112
The school documents weren’t useful for comparison purposes for several
allocations such as funds spent for technology, student supplies, student activities,
gifted and talented students, and funds spent for substitutes. Specific expenditures
spent for allocations that supported school improvement initiatives were not able to
be determined in several instances because of the inconsistencies across school
documents. Each of the five school’s allocations in comparison to the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) with what could be
determined are shown in Table 4.3. There is a large discrepancy between the
prototype elementary school and the five sample schools in almost all areas included
in the EBM. In analyzing the number of core teachers each sample school should
employ based on their enrollment, every school, except one, falls short ranging from
1 FTE at Ekahi Elementary to 2.7 FTEs at Elua Elementary. Ekolu Elementary has
2.1 more core teachers than the EBM recommends. The total number of certified
teachers working as specialist teachers at the five sample schools falls far short of the
recommendations of the EBM that recommends a total of 18.6 additional specialist
teachers for the five schools. Most of the sample schools utilized educational
assistants, PTTs, or PPTs as tutors instead of the certified teachers that the EBM
model recommends, because of lack of funding, according to principals. The EBM
recommends using certified teachers for all learning interventions. However Eha
Elementary utilized five retired certified teachers half-time as tutors (2.5 FTE) that
still fell 1.1 less certified teachers than the EBM recommends. Elima Elementary

113
also utilized two certified teachers and two EAs that fell just 0.3 less certified
teachers than EBM recommends.
One staffing area where the sample schools exceeded the recommendations
of EBM was with the allocation of special education teachers. The allocation of
SPED teachers almost doubled the recommendations of the EBM varying from one
more certified teacher at Ekolu Elementary to 4.75 more at Ekahi Elementary. The
allocation of ELL teachers was fairly close to the EBM recommendations, as four
out of five schools had a low percentage of ELL students, not many ELL teachers
were needed. EBM would recommend an additional 0.4 certified teacher to be
placed at Ekolu Elementary due to its higher percentage of ELL students.
A larger discrepancy is evident from the EBM prototype school and the five
sample schools in the amount of funding allocated at each school for professional
development, technology, instructional materials, supporting gifted students, and
student activities by a wide margin. The amount each school spent on professional
development was below the recommendations of EBM for two schools. Ekahi
Elementary allocated $5,500 less than EBM recommends, and Eha Elementary
allocated $22,200 less for professional development expenses base than EBM
recommends. However, three schools allocated more funds than EBM recommends
for professional development expenses, each using their allocation of professional
development funds for outside providers (Edison and Success For All), which
principals factored in to their professional development costs. Elua Elementary
allocated $3,500 more than the EBM recommends, Ekolu Elementary allocated

114
$56,200 more, and Elima allocated $48,000 more for professional development than
EBM recommends. However, the principals spent a part of their professional
development funds for expenses to purchase online applications that run formative
and summative assessments in math and reading for students. These applications also
collect and report data to teachers and administration. The principals did not separate
out the cost of each part of the services they received from outside providers. So
again, their method of lumping funds together prevented the exact data to be
analyzed that was spent specifically for professional development. However, it was
clear that ten professional development days were cut by the state at all five schools
(all schools in the state lost these PD days), falling ten days short of the PD days that
the EBM recommends.
Technology was another area that was difficult to collect data on as principals
tended to lump different funds with their activities and initiatives instead of
separating out the cost of technology as a separate expenditure. For this reason the
amount Elima Elementary spent on technology could not be analyzed. However,
from the data that was collected from the other four schools, the funds allocated for
technology were far below the amount recommended by the EBM by a range of
$34,300 less at Ekahi Elementary to a high of $60,000 less at Eha Elementary.
Data was also difficult to analyze for expenditures spent on gifted and
talented students as the principals all stated that they included any funds for gifted
and talented in with the differentiation needs of all students. Instructional materials
and student activities was another area that principals had a difficult time accounting

115
for exact expenditures as they lumped these funds with other goals, activities, and
initiatives without itemizing their cost alone. It also should be noted that each
principal was extremely busy and wished they had someone shadowing them and
recording these data as they were implementing changes within their schools to
improve student achievement. As the principal at Elima Elementary stated, “I am
glad you are writing this down. I think each school can learn from each other, if only
we had time to write everything down as we went along”.

116
Table 4.3
Schools’ Resource Allocation Comparison to EBM
Ekahi
180 students
Elua
565 students
Ekolu
278 students
Eha
360 students
Elima
360 students
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Core Teachers 10 9 31.7 29 14.9 17 20 18 22.8 21
Specialist Teachers 2 1 6.3 0 3 0 4 0 4.6 0
Instructional
Facilitators/ Mentors
.9 2 2.8 3 1.4 0 1.8 2 1.8 1 Curr. Coord.
Tutors 1.1 0 FTE
(2 PPTs)
3.4 0 FTE
7PPTs
2.5 0 FTE
(1 PTT and
3 PPTs)
3.6 2.5 2.3 2 FTE
2 EAs
Teachers ELL 0.1 0 FTE
1PPT
0.1 0 FTE
1PPT
1.4 1 0.6 1 FTE
1PPT
0.2 0
Extended Day FTE 0.9 0 2.9 0 FTE
7 PPTs
(same as tutors)
2.1 Data not
available
1.7 0 FTE
EAs
1.9 Data not
available
Summer School FTE .9 0 2.9 0 2.1 0 1.7 0 1.9 Data not
available
Learning Disabled
FTE
1.25 6 FTE
4EAs
3.9 7 FTE
4 EAs
1.9 3 FTE
5 EAs
2.5 5 FTE
7 EAs
8 PPTs
2.5 5 FTE
3 EA
Substitutes $27,500 $800 $82,296 $48,000 $38,682 Data not
available
$64,903 Data not
available
$59,191 Data not
available
Pupil Support 1.1 1 3.4 1 FTE
(2 PPTs)
2.5 1 2 1 2.3 1

117
Table 4.3, continued
Ekahi
180 students
Elua
565 students
Ekolu
278 students
Eha
360 students
Elima
360 students
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Non-Instructional
Aides
0.8 1 SSC
2 PPTs
2.6 1 SSC 1.3 1 SSC 1.7 1 SSC 1.7 1 SSC
Librarian/ Media
Specialists
1 1 Lib. 1 1 lib.
1 tech
1 1 lib.
1 tech
1 1 lib.
1 tech
1 1 lib.
1 tech.
Principal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
School
Secretaries/Clerk
1 1 SASA
2 clerks
2 1 SASA
3 clerks
1 1 SASA
1 clerk
1 1 SASA
2 clerks
1 1 SASA
1 clerk
PD
$100 per pupil
$18,000
10 PD
days
$12,500
0 PD days
$56,500
10 PD days
$60,000
0 PD days
$27,800
10 PD
days
$83,000
0 PD days
$36,000
10 PD days
$13,800
0 PD days
$36,000
10 PD days
$84,000
0 PD days
Technology
$250 per pupil
$45,000 $10,700 $141,250 $120,000 $69,500 $29,170 $90,000 $30,000 $90,000 Data not
available
Resources for Gifted
and Talented
Students
$25 per pupil
$4,500 $0 $14,125 $0 $25 $0 $9,000 0 $9,000 $0
Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil
$25,200 $3,000
Not all data
available
$79,100 $12,000 $38,920 Data not
available
$64,903 $25,000 $50,400 Data not
available
Student Activities
$200 per pupil
$36,000 $4,000 $113,000 $2,000 $55,600 Data not
available
$113,000 $8,000 $72,000 Data not
available

118
What instructional improvement strategies are currently being implemented at the
school sites?
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies
The five sample schools used a variety of improvement strategies to increase
student achievement. Their improvement strategies were evaluated through the
framework of Odden and Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model as well as Odden and
Archiblad’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. The
Evidence-Based Model connects the allocation of resources to the improvements in
student achievement through research-based best practices. Their research is based
on studies conducted on schools and districts that dramatically improved their
student performance. It included patterns of allocated resources between schools that
supported student achievement. Although all of the sample schools in this study used
most or all of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) recommendations to raise student
achievement on the surface, the depth of implementation at each school varied.
Although, resources may have been allocated, several resource allocations were in
the beginning stages of full implementation. Not all resources were used as
efficiently and effectively as research dictates.
The Evidence-Based Model
The evidence-based model uses ten key components for improving school
performance: 1) Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge; 2) Setting
Ambitious goals; 3) Changing the Curriculum Program and Creating a New
Instructional Vision; 4) Committing to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven

119
Decisions; 5) Investing in Ongoing, Embedded; Intensive Professional Development;
6) Focusing class time more efficiently and effectively; 7) Providing multiple
interventions for struggling students; 8) Creating a Collaborative; Professional
Culture; 9) Empowering Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through
Widespread Distributive Instructional Leadership; 10) Taking Advantage of External
Expertise in Professional and Best Practices (Odden, 2009). In this section, the ten
key components will be discussed as they related to the allocations and strategies
identified at the five sample schools in this study. Included in the discussion of the
ten key components, the findings regarding the expenditure elements provided in the
Evidence-Based Model: core academic teachers, specialist or elective teachers, extra
help, professional development, other non-classroom instructional staff, instructional
materials and equipment, student support, administration, operations and
maintenance (Odden & Picus, 2008) will also be discussed as compared to the
framework of the Evidence-Based Model recommendations.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
One of the first strategies school should employ according to Odden (2009) is
to understand the performance problem and challenge. All five principals did make
this goal their first priority; however they used different methods and resources to
understand the performance challenge at each of their schools. Although they all
reviewed state assessment data from the previous year, only the principal at Eha
Elementary explained that to understand his school’s performance challenge when he
became principal he invited every staff member to his office where they talked about

120
what challenges they needed to face at his school. Once he spoke with everyone he
put all the information into a table to identify patterns that helped him focus on a
prioritized list of challenges. He also made it a point to visit all of his students’
families to ask them what they wanted from his school. He visited 80% of the
families within the first semester and plans to continue until he has spoken with
every family.
The principal at Ekolu Elementary had an outside agency come in to analyze
her school’s situation. She cited this evaluation as being vital as it helped her to
understand the challenges she faced. The hardest part for her was to help her teachers
understand that the needs assessment was accurate. Slowly, over several years, her
teachers began to understand the assessment was accurate, but not until they made
the changes in their instruction, guided by Edison Learning, and began to see their
students’ state assessment scores rise, did they have buy-in to the instructional
changes they were making. This buy-in didn’t happen until 2009-10 and more
teachers in the following year 2010-11 after their STEM thematic units were
implemented and their math scores jumped even higher. The principal at Ekolu
Elementary also never accepted teachers telling her “Well, you have to look at our
students and where they came from [low SES]. Don’t expect too much.” She told
them not only did she grow up in the same neighborhood, but so did her husband and
he lived in the same government housing that their students currently live in. She
knew her students could achieve the highest of standards and that they [the school

121
staff] were the only ones preventing it, she just needed to find out how to help her
students best.
At Ekahi Elementary the principal focused on creating Data Teams (PLCs),
guided by her math coach and reading coach, to help not only figure out the
performance challenge for individual students, but also to pull all of her staff
together as a team to attack the problem “head-on”. Her school was also under fire,
because of its small size, to be consolidated into another elementary. The possibility
of their school closing also helped create a team spirit and a fight, and urgency to
improve their school performance. She promoted the vision to her staff and her
community that her school would meet the needs of every child regardless of their
different ability levels or demographics. She focused on each child and expected her
staff to do the same. She made it very clear to her staff that she felt there was no
excuse for her school not to reach the needs of every single student as they are a very
small school (180 students). Both the principals at Elua Elementary and Ekahi
Elementary created a master board in which to keep track of her students’ progress
on state assessments given three times a year online, and relied on the teachers to
identify not only the students’ learning needs, but their own needs as teachers that
would help their instruction.
The principal at Elua stated that she believes that “once a good system is set
up, it should run itself. If it doesn’t, than it is not a good system”. When she was first
assigned to her school her biggest concern and one that she concentrated on the most
was the disorganization of procedural systems and expectations within Elua

122
Elementary. There were not many systems in place. Procedural systems were not in
place such as no faculty handbook that outlined professional expectations and duties,
no curriculum handbooks with guidelines, or guidelines. She also noted a general
lack of professionalism from the teachers and staff. This lack of respect not only in
meetings where she noticed teachers carrying on side conversations during faculty
meetings with disregard for anyone speaking, including herself, and even cases of
teachers texting during meeting. Outside of meetings she witnessed, and was made
aware of, by conversations with other staff members, that some staff members were
not treating others with respect in their general dealings with each other. She made it
her goal to get all of her staff “on the same bus going the same direction or they
could get off the bus”. She gathered most of her information through a careful
examination of test scores and her own observations at her school. Her observations
caused her to focus on building better relationships at her school between all staff
members. Principal Polu hoped that by using the FISH philosophy, developed by
ChartHouse Learning as a tool to build a stronger work culture that strengthens
relationships in her school. It is based on the understanding that if basic needs are
met for humans in an organization, then they will in turn be able to fulfill the needs
of the organization (more connected teams, better communication, extraordinary
service, and higher retention of employees), not only would her staff focus on their
goals of student academic improvement, but they would also remember to build
solid, strong, professional, and personal relationships with each other. She believes

123
that relationships are the key to transforming a school’s success as a “team spirit”
type of mentality.
The principal at Elima Elementary sought to respect what he described as a
“sense of place” to understand what his school was “all about” and what his
community wanted from his school. He also stated that a principal’s character is of
the “utmost importance”. He stated that he was a reflection of his school, and if he
wanted others to respect him, then he needed to hold the highest standards for
himself. Principal Alani made it clear that when a principal steps into a school, they
need to respect what is already in place. A principal’s first priority should be getting
to know what is already in place, why it is in place, and what is and isn’t working
before they even think about making changes. “It is about having respect for those
who have come before you”. He also expressed that he came into a good situation at
his school when he became principal. He explained what he meant by a good
situation by listing what was going well for the school. The reading and math scores
were already on the rise, the teachers and staff were fully invested into his school,
and everyone worked well together as a team and had already created curriculum
maps and pacing guides that were aligned to the state standards. The staff members
were very collaborative in nature and this is something he appreciated. He expressed
that he did not mean to say he stepped into utopia, of course there were problems,
but he did step into a great situation. His explained his job as a principal is to take
any situation, analyze the situation, and then problem solve. He pointed out that if
principals don’t understand the problem, they will not be able to fix it. He learned

124
about his school by walking around daily, visiting classrooms at least three times a
week and actually sitting in the classrooms to “feel the lesson”. He wanted to
observe not only the lesson, but also how the students were engaged in the lesson. He
wanted a sense of what was happening in each classroom including anything that
might be interfering with instruction such as problem behaviors or learning
challenges of specific students. He stated that from the very beginning until now he
comes into the school each day as if it is a study, making observations, and talking
with everyone, not just in his school, but in his community. He studies his school
daily and when he finds problems, he turns his focus onto finding a solution.
Setting Ambitious Goals
According to Odden (2009) ambitious goals must be set regardless of current
student academic performance. Although all five schools had goals of academic
improvement, most only set incremental goals for change and targeted the students
that are often referred to as “bubble” students, meaning students who were very close
to reaching proficiency (Odden, 2009). Elua Elementary, Eha Elementary, and Elima
Elementary all referred to these students as “target assist” students and focused their
main interventions on these students reaching proficiency to raise their schools
overall proficiency score, especially targeting any students belonging to subgroups
that were underperforming. However, the principal at Elima Elementary stated that
targeting those particular students was never their intention, but something they
realized as they identified students who needed learning interventions. He also
broadened their targeted students to include the lowest performing students and

125
though their disabled group shows they are at only 3.5% proficiency in reading on
the HSA, they recently exited several disabled students because of their academic
growth. The exiting of these students from the special education classification will
also cause the school to lose four FTE teacher positions next year. Two schools stood
out as aiming higher with ambitious goals. Ekahi Elementary sought 90% students
reaching academic proficiency in reading and math and Ekolu Elementary stated,
“The only thing stopping our students from achieving is us. They can all reach
proficiency and even exceed proficiency; that is our goal”.
Using state assessment data, the principal at Ehaki Elementary, with the help
of individual teachers and her two curriculum coaches, grouped each student in each
class by their learning needs as identified by the state assessment. For example, in
one class 6 students were approaching in math, 3 were well-below in math, 7 were
approaching in reading. Once initial groups are formed, she then works with the
reading and math coach, as well as the teachers to provide specific interventions for
students based on their needs. These interventions were not solely for those students
not achieving the standards, but also for those students who needed enrichment
activities, because they were meeting or exceeding the standards. In Hawai’i students
have three opportunities to take the state assessment. Schools are required to have
students test two times; however, the third time is an option for schools. She makes it
clear to all students, parents, and teachers that each student’s goal is to improve their
score every time they take the test. Although the state does not require students to
take the state assessment each time, she insists that every child, whether they met the

126
standards or not, take the test all three times and each time their goal is to improve
their individual score.
Changing the Curriculum Program and Creating a New Instructional Vision
Across all five sample schools there was a common drive toward having
students meeting the standards as required by the state. Every school not only created
curriculum maps, but also aligned their curriculum to all standards and benchmarks
and created pacing guides. At schools with more than one class per grade level,
common assessments were created to monitor student academic progress; however,
some schools had more common assessments than others in more subjects.
Although many schools had changed math curriculum through a statewide
initiative in 2005, because of a math and science initiative no math curriculum at any
five of the sample schools had been changed since then, due to budget constraints for
some, but others did not feel they needed to switch their math curriculum. They only
felt the need to refine their instructional methods, procedures, and formative
assessments better.
One commonality that was mentioned by the three principals with the
EveryDay Math curriculum for math is their findings through aligning the
curriculum with the Hawai`i Content and Performance Standards was that their
teachers needed to supplement the curriculum to fill gaps of instruction. Ekahi
Elementary’s teachers were allowed to switch some of the sequencing of math units.
However, Ekolu Elementary and Elima Elementary were allowed to not only switch
units, but even skip ones that didn’t align to the state standards for their particular

127
grade level. Ekahi Elementary supplemented EveryDay Math with Singapore Math,
while Ekolu Elementary allowed teachers autonomy to supplement their math
instruction at their discretion to the point that some grade levels used different math
curriculum. The principal at Ekolu Elementary stated that she struggles with her
decision of allowing her teachers so much autonomy with their math instruction and
is waiting for this year’s HSA results to analyze if the decision is working or not.
Research on EveryDay Math (EDM) explains that the program was designed in a
spiraling format that needs to be taught in the order the lessons were designed with
fidelity to be most effective at raising student achievement. However, in the schools
she had visited that had improved their math proficiency, she had noted that they had
allowed their teacher to switch some units out of sequence to meet state standards
prior to the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA). She also had her teachers keep
students in heterogeneous groups for math instruction as she had observed the same
practice in other schools she had visited.
Ekolu Elementary switched to the Success for All reading program, but then
again switched to Houghton-Mifflin after the principal responded to barely rising
reading test scores. Elua Elementary switched to Success for All under a previous
principal and kept it. Ekahi Elementary didn’t switch reading curriculum, but instead
switched how they conducted formative assessments and used them to provide better
and more frequent learning interventions. The principal credits not the curriculum
itself, but rather how well they used it. Their improvements in student achievement
came from refining instruction, making time for teachers to collaborate and work out

128
problems and find solutions, creating curriculum maps and pacing guides aligned to
standards. Ekahi Elementary, Ekolu Elementary, and Elima Elementary went one
step further by using their formative assessments used in the classroom to guide their
selection of students for learning interventions to help specific students with specific
skills. Elua Elementary and Eha Elementary did not use formative assessments from
the classroom to guide their learning interventions with students outside of the
classroom and after school.
Committing to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions
Effective educational leaders must use data to inform their decisions in order
to improve academic performance at schools (Ouchi, 2003; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; Odden, 2009; Wagner & Kegan, 2006). All five schools included in
this study used data to inform their decisions. Although there were some similar
uses of data at all five schools, each school also had variations from each other as
shown in Table 4.4. All of the schools started with looking at their students’
proficiency scores on the state assessment from the previous year to begin planning
for the next year and had their teachers trained in creating and using formative and
summative assessments to drive instruction in their classrooms. Though all five
schools used data-driven decisions as well as formative assessments, they used them
at various levels of intensity. Elua Elementary used assessments to guide instruction
in the classroom, but did not use data from the classroom to guide pullout learning
interventions during and after school. Ekahi Elementary, Ekolu Elementary and
Elima Elementary used data from formative and summative assessments to guide

129
instruction in the classroom and to guide pullout learning interventions. Elima
Elementary not only uses these data to guide instruction and plan learning
interventions, but also to reconfigure where to place PTTs, PPTs, and EAs to assist
students. These placements are constantly shifting throughout the year as students
are identified as needing extra learning interventions and support.
Eha Elementary is committed to using formative and summative assessments
to meet the needs of their students. Much of their professional development is
focused on effective use of formative and summative assessments to drive their
instructions. PLCs are used for grade levels to meet in vertical and horizontal teams
to discuss the strengths and needs of their students. As grade level teams, teachers
analyze their students’ work, identify their individual needs, and format plans to
address the identified needs. Later, after new instruction, they analyze again whether
their instructional strategies and lessons addressed student needs effectively.
The most detailed, intensive use of data, in the form of ongoing weekly
formative assessments as recommended by research (Odden, 2008; Darling-
Hammond, 2010; Porter, Blank, Smithson, & Osthoff, 2005) was at Ekahi
Elementary. Teachers write anecdotal notes listing students that struggled that week
with specific skills as well as students who needed enrichment lessons. Data teams
met every Wednesday to review data and planned action, including pullout learning
interventions for each student to address the deficits in learning or the enrichment
that was needed if student were meeting the standards. The reading and math coach,
along with the principal, also collected and graded student quarterly assessments to

130
determine which students and teachers needed extra support in their classrooms. It is
important to note that Ekahi Elementary also had the most academic growth in one
year as measured by the HSA and the school with the highest math and reading
academic proficiency for the subgroups of ELL students and disabled students.
Although all five schools used data to drive their instruction, different levels
of implementation became evident. Shown in Table 4.4 is a comparison of data
usage to inform instruction as implemented within PLCs at each school. All schools
reviewed state test day from the previous year and met as PLCs to analyze data and
create plans for interventions. However, the allotted time for meeting in PLCs varied
by school. PLCs met weekly at Ekahi Elementary, Elua Elementary, and Ekolu
Elementary. Meeting times for PLCs at Eha Elementary fluctuated between weekly
and bi-monthly as teachers request meeting times from the principal when they need
it. PLCs at Elima Elementary met montly (during the time normally reserved for
faculty meetings on Wednesdays). PLCs at all five schools created and used
formative assessments to drive classroom instruction. However, only four schools
used the same formative assessments to driven pullout learning interventions during
the school day and only two used them to allocate staff to support students that
varied from week to week as student needs changed. Lastly, only one school, Ekahi
Elementary, set up two accountability measures for PLCS. The principal at Ekahi
Elementary not only assigns specifc goals for PLCs each week, but also requires
each teacher to write weekly anecdotal notes identifying students who need extra
assistance with specific learning goals that week. With this information, the principal

131
sets up a schedule for specific, skills-based learning interventions for students with
the reading and math coach. At the bottom of the table the total data-driven level of
implementation or depth of use can be determined. The higher the total, the greater
usage of data the school used to inform instructional decisions. What is interesting
about the level of data usage is that the two highest levels of implementation of data-
driven decisions were by Ekahi Elementary and Elima Elementary which also had
the highest percentage students proficient or above on the HSA in Reading and
Math. Ekahi Elementary had the highest implementation of data-driven decisions as
well as the highest percentage of growth in reading (and increase of 33.3%) and in
math (an increase of 52.9%) from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Elima Elementary had the
second highest implementation of data-driven decisions as well as the second highest
percentage of growth in reading (an increase of 29%) and math (an increase of 40%)
over the same time period.

132
Table 4.4
Data Use in Five School Samples
Data Use at each school Ekahi Elua Ekolu Eha Elima
Reviewed state test data from
previous year to inform
instruction.
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Met as PLCs (or Data Teams) to
analyze data and create plans for
learning interventions. (Weekly,
monthly, quarterly, or pre-post?)
Yes
weekly
Yes
weekly
Yes
weekly
Yes
Weekly/
bi-monthly
Yes
monthly
Accountability for data-focused
goals during PLCs set by
principal or leadership team.
Yes No No No No
Accountability set by principal-
teacher wrote weekly anecdotal
notes identifying students who
needed extra assistance with
specific learning goals each week.
Yes No No No No
Created and used formative
assessments to drive classroom
instruction.
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Used classroom formative
assessments to communicate
learning interventions outside of
students’ classrooms during the
school day.
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Used classroom formative
assessments to communicate
learning interventions outside of
students’ classrooms after school.
Yes No No No No
Used data to allocate staff for
learning interventions (flexible).
Yes No No No Yes
Level of data use implementation. 8 3 4 4 5

133
Investing in Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development
One of the hardest hit areas because of widespread state budget cuts was the
professional development opportunities offered to the teachers at all five sample
schools. Not only did the state cut ten professional development days as part of
furloughs given to teachers, but funding cuts didn’t allow principals to offer many
alternatives for professional development either. The Ekahi Elementary principal
stated, “I couldn’t afford to pay substitutes, so I encouraged my teachers to
participate in any professional development either after school or on weekends”.
Unfortunately, a very common practice was implemented by all five schools
in this study by providing only one or two day workshops as professional
development, if it was offered. This ineffective common practice has been found
across the United States (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson and
Orphanos, 2009). One or two day workshops are ineffective for transferring
knowledge to long-term memory, unless necessary time is provided for teachers to
change their classroom practices through support, reflection, and a change in school
and district culture that supports these types of changes (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark,
2006). According to research in order to have effective instruction, administration
also needs to provide activities that are embedded in teachers’ contexts and focused
on the content to be taught; both formal and informal in-service development (Wei,
Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
Although only one or two day workshops were offered to teachers, three
principals used instructional coaches to deepen the lessons learned at workshops as

134
well as provide reflection and feedback to teachers throughout the year regarding
their use of new practices. Brookfield (2005) Taylor (1997) and Kegan (1994) also
suggest that although some adults may be able to critically reflect individually, in
other cases a facilitator is needed to help to achieve transformative learning
effectively. In the Evidence-Based model, these facilitators would be the
instructional coaches provided for teachers (Odden, 2009). It is not enough to rely
on the assumption that adults can critically reflect on their own teaching and
learning. There must be structures in place to support critical reflection and thus
change. The principals at Ekahi Elementary and Elima Elementary provided
facilitators for these types of critical reflections thus extending the learning that
occurred through professional development workshops into the context of their
teachers’ classrooms.
At Elima Elementary Edison provided math and reading coaches who met
with teachers once a week to support the skills and strategies learned at the
workshops they attended. The principal at Elima Elementary was only able to offer
his teachers professional development provided by Edison as part of the “package”
of being an Edison Alliance school. Through Edison, and funding from Title I,
teachers at Elima Elementary were able to attend a one day professional
development session once a quarter. According to the principal the focus of each
professional development opportunity was chosen, based on school data, by Edison.
The math coach at Ekahi Elementary attended a Singapore Math workshop
with some teachers at her school. She was then able to follow up with the teachers at

135
her school as they worked through using Singapore Math as a supplemental activity
to challenge students in problem solving. Those teachers who attended the training
also provided assistance and support to other teachers as well on using data to drive
instructional decisions and learning interventions.
The principal at Ekolu Elementary not only took an Engineering course from
Purdue online, but took it with all of her teachers, the librarian, and the technology
coordinator funded through a grant. Her goal was to strengthen their teacher-created
STEM thematic units. She said the taking the course together not only helped them
work through everything they were learning, but also provided each other with
“sounding boards” to problem solve together. She felt her staff really bonded by
taking this professional development course together and they all had to “pull each
other through the course” because it was very difficult. They all became “leaders”
with each other.
All principals at all five schools stated that professional development was
important and necessary while also expressing a frustration of budget restrictions and
deficits that did not allow them to offer more professional development opportunities
for their teachers. Principals also expressed their desire for more professional
development by the district and state for principals focused on budget and finance
decisions. The only principal that felt completely comfortable with budgetary matters
was the principal at Ekahi Elementary. She stated that her mentor, provided to her by
the New Principal’s Academy, helped her with finance and budget issues along with
a multitude of other tasks. The principal at Elima Elementary was grateful for his

136
SASA’s help as well as his Complex Area Superintendent (CAS), but stated that he
“would be the first one to sign up for the course if the DOE offered it”.
Focusing Class Time More Efficiently and Effectively
It is interesting to note that none of the schools in the studies conducted by
Odden and associates extended their school years or their schools days, but instead
used the existing time within their school days more effectively (Odden, 2009). Just
as the schools Odden (2009) studied that had increased their academic performance
all five schools in this study did not extend their instructional day, but instead
protected it by not permitting intercom interruptions during core subjects, trips to the
principal’s office, or other various interruptions. They also, as Odden (2009)
recommended, believed the purpose of protecting the instructional time was to
promote student engagement during core subjects without distractions. The principal
at Elima Elementary expressed his goal was to remove all distractions from the
classroom so that teachers could “just concentrate on their instruction and their
students”. Although all five principals did not spend a lot of time during their
interviews describing how their school focuses class time more efficiently and
effectively, across all schools there were more expectations and criteria for reading
instruction in classrooms.
The reading curriculum and format at each school varied. At Ekahi
Elementary teachers follow very strict guidelines in their reading program, Reading
First Reading Mastery as it is a scripted program. All teachers are trained
extensively, observed, and supported by their Reading Coach. Most teachers at

137
Ekahi Elementary are veteran teachers and have been teaching the program for
several years; however, the structure of interventions for struggling students was
revised and refined by the current principal when she took the position two years ago
as described in more detail in the next section. Eha Elementary uses teacher-created
curriculum for reading, but the principal has been thinking about switching to a basal
reading program as the teachers have identified that their students need a more
structured approach in reading instruction to strengthen a general student weakness
in conventions and skills in reading, especially with grammar, vocabulary, spelling,
and reading comprehension. However, budget cuts have not allowed them to
purchase a basal program. Ekolu Elementary uses Scott-Foresman basals as well as
Accelerated Reading for interventions, while also integrating reading into their
thematic units. Elima Elementary uses a Houghton-Mifflin basal for reading and
Elua Elementary uses Success For All for their reading program.
Two schools, Ekolu Elementary and Elima Elementary require their teachers
to follow the Lesson Cycle Design from Edison Learning for all their lessons. They
follow this specific sequence from Bell Work (Do Now), to Anticipatory Set, to
Lesson Objective, Vocabulary, “I do” Explicit Instruction and Teacher Modeling-
Metacognitive Strategies, to “We do” Guided Practice, followed by “We do”
Independent or Group Practice, then “You do” Independent Practice with Teacher
Monitoring, and ending with Assessment/Closure to ensure bell to bell academic
engagement.

138
Elua Elementary teachers follow the guidelines for Success For All lessons
during reading. However, the principal did not go into a lot of detail in describing the
expectations. However, she make a change aimed at improving reading instruction
by utilizing all certified teachers as well as PPTs and PTTs that were specifically
trained in teaching reading using Success for All (SFA) during the 90 minute reading
block that she also allocated. SFA had been adopted at her school by the former
principal in hopes of raising student reading achievement. She noted that other
schools she had visited had improved their academic proficiency in reading and they
had also used SFA. She also kept a Success for All (SFA) coach who is responsible
for making sure teachers are using their instructional time effectively and following
the specific format for lesson plans as dictated by SFA. The SFA Coach also trains
and support teachers in the program and conducts observations and provides
feedback to all teachers.
All five schools also had set lengths of time set aside specifically for reading
instruction. Ekahi Elementary had the longest time set aside of 105 minutes,
followed by Elua Elementary, Ekolu Elementary, Eha Elementary, and Elima
Elementary that all had 90 minutes set aside specifically for reading instruction. All
schools have their students separate into homogeneous ability reading groups.
Mathematics instruction along with expectations for instruction and guidance
was mentioned much more briefly than reading by all five principals during their
interviews. However, Ekolu Elementary and Elima Elementary have their teachers
follow the Lesson Cycle Design from Edison Learning for math. Each school

139
allocated 60 to 90 minutes per day for math instruction; however, principals heard
from their teachers that it usually takes 90 to 120 minutes and allow their teachers
the flexibility to use more time if needed. Sometimes this means extending a lesson
over more than one day. Three schools, Ekahi Elementary, Elua Elementary, and
Elima Elementary use EveryDay Math. Eha Elementary uses Investigations as their
math curriculum along with an online math program, Envisions, for math
interventions. Ekolu Elementary uses teacher-created STEM thematic units that
integrate science, math, and social studies; however they also use Math Whizz and
require math instruction of 90 minutes daily.
Providing Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
Schools that provided interventions for specific skills (example such as
adding fractions with uncommon denominators) as identified by the classroom
teacher while also using different lessons and/or approaches to reteach concepts and
promote understanding were found at schools that doubled or near doubled their
students’ academic progress (Odden, 2009). Students received learning interventions
only until the skill was mastered, unless a new needed skill is identified by the
classroom teacher (Odden, 2009). This practice allowed yet another child to receive
individual tutoring as needed. Each student received tutoring for 20 minutes a day,
three times a week (Odden, 2009). A similar process was found at only one school in
this study, Ekahi Elementary, which also has shown the greatest gains in academic
achievement by all significant subgroups reported on the Hawai`i State Assessment.

140
Although the principal at Ekahi Elementary starts with state assessment
scores as a basis for creating flexible groups within classrooms designed to improve
student skills, she has another step she requires teachers to follow to guide the
formation of these learning groups throughout the year. Each week teachers are
required to send her anecdotal notes on the learning challenges encountered by
students in their classrooms that week. For example, a teacher first identifies the
lessons covered that week and then the teacher lists students who had difficulty with
specific reading and math concepts. A teacher might write that Keahi, Mary, and
Levi had difficulty understanding how to add fractions with unlike denominators;
Karen, Kona, Phillip, and Elise had trouble identifying the main idea of a story, and
Fred and Malia need to be challenged more in math, because they excelled in all
skills taught this week regarding adding and subtracting fractions. After receiving
feedback from her teachers, the principal met with her reading and math coaches to
devise the learning intervention groups ranging from one-to-one to small groups for
pullout learning interventions three times a week for the identified students whether
it is for extra support to help them learn concepts they struggled with or enrichment
activities for those students who excelled that week. Learning interventions lasted
for 35 minutes each for two days, and 45 minutes for the third day. After students
were identified for learning interventions, a schedule was devised for pullout groups
(or one-to-one depending on students’ needs), and sent to the teachers. The A and B
schedule created by the principal allows for learning interventions to happen during
blocks of instructional time during non-core classes, such as art, music, etc.

141
The principal at Elua Elementary increased her part-time staff (EAs) from 5
people to 10. With these new positions she implemented a program for students to
participate in other activities that would allow her to free up time for her teachers and
curriculum coaches to articulate in data-driven teams to improve student learning as
well as allow for students to be pulled for learning interventions during elective
blocks.
All five schools in this study provided learning interventions for students
during the school day. Although formative assessments in the classroom were
connected to learning interventions during the school day for four of the schools
(Ekahi, Ekolu, Eha, and Elima Elementary), they were not consistently connected to
formative assessments during after school learning interventions. Instead the after
school learning interventions were based on skills identified by either the HSA
(broad categories), by SFA assessments at Elua Elementary, or Edison Assessments
at Elima Elementary and Ekolu Elementary. Ekolu Elementary and Elima
Elementary also have online formative assessments for their students provided as a
part of being Edison Alliance schools.
Creating a Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning
Communities)
According to Stoll (2006) educational reform’s progress depends on the
individual and collective capacity of schools to increase student achievement. At all
five schools Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) were active. However, the
implementation of PLCs was varied in depth at each school.

142
At Ekolu Elementary the principal provided teachers with authorship as they
created their own STEM thematic units within their PLCs. She credits the creation of
thematic units with igniting her teachers’ passion for teaching again. According to
Stoll (2006) without this authorship schools are in danger of crushing out
opportunities for teachers to find this passion. The ability to create new lessons and
methods to reach their students helps to inspire them again. Authorship needs to be
nurtured by administrators through the sharing of successes and celebrations of
accomplishments (Bolman & Deal, 2002). Her teachers’ STEM units and lessons
have been featured in the local paper and one of her teachers actually attended
professional development in Korea on organic farming and the use of the
fermentation process for fertilizer to promote plant growth. She brought back this
knowledge to her PLC and they are planning on using the information to deepen
their STEM thematic units even more.
Principals had to be creative in order to allocate time for PLCs to meet as
budget cuts didn’t provide extra PD days, or time after school to meet. Budget cuts
also didn’t provide money to hire substitutes to teach classes while teachers met in
PLCS. Lack of time and funds encouraged principals to become innovative with
their time. The principal at Elima Elementary replaced eleven Faculty meetings,
normally scheduled for Wednesdays, with time for PLCs to meet at his school. He
also met with his leadership team every morning to discuss their plans for the day.
The principal at Elua Elementary provided two hours each week for grade levels to
meet in PLCs. The principal at Ekahi Elementary used every Wednesday for PLCs

143
(Data Teams- lower/upper teams) after students went home. Students attend school
from 7:55 am until 2:10pm daily, except for Wednesday. Across the state, on
Wednesdays, schools normally dismiss students earlier to allow for teacher and
faculty meetings. Instead of having her teacher use this time for faculty meetings or
committee meetings, she allocated this time for Data Teams (PLCs) one team for
lower grades and one for upper grades. In these data teams, teachers problem solve
as described earlier under Data-Driven Decisions.
Although every school, despite budget cuts, was able to carve out time for
collaboration for teachers to use data to problem solve within their PLCs, only one
school used a strategy that Brookfield (2005) and Kegan (1982) and Mezirow found
helped adult learners [the teachers] change their practice more effectively by
allowing time and coaching for critical thinking. Cranton (2006) states that
transformative learning, the type of learning that is needed to help teachers change
their instruction, sometimes needs to be facilitated and this is the one step that the
principal at Ekahi Elementary did, that the other schools did not do. She worked
with the reading and math coaches to come up with a focus for each time the PLCs
met. They not only had to meet, but teachers had to identify which students needed
help or enrichment activities, which specific skill needed to be worked on, and they
also needed to reflect on their practice. Their notes on these three tasks were turned
in to the principal each week so that she could schedule learning interventions for the
identified students for the next week. The principal, reading coach, math coach, and
Student Service Coordinator (SSC) also met within the PLCs. The PLC practices at

144
Ekahi Elementary most closely followed what DuFour et al (2005) recommends for
the use of effective PLCs.
Table 4.5 shows a compilation of some of the characteristics of each of the
five schools in this study.

Table 4.5
Sample School Characteristics
School
Locale and
Enrollment
Percentage
Disadvantaged Reading increase Math increase
Ekahi
Elementary
Rural
180
59.4% 57.4% to 90.7%
Increase of 33.3%
45.7% to 98.6%
Increase of 52.9%
Main Features: Reading First/Reading Mastery (105 min reading block) with flexible
homogeneous ability grouping; EveryDay Math (Supplemented with Singapore Math);
Curriculum Map and Pacing Guide aligned to state standards; PLCs (Data Teams meet
weekly for 1hr 25min); DIBELS; Curriculum Coaches; Class sizes K-3 (18) 4-6 (23);
Specific learning interventions linked to formative assessments in classroom and for
pullout interventions (3 times a week); Set high goals 85%-90% for reading and math HSA
Elua
Elementary
Suburban
565
60.5% 52% to 71.8%
Increase of 19.8%
45.2% to 67%
Increase of 21.8%
Main Features: Success for All Reading (90 min reading block) with flexible
homogeneous ability grouping; EveryDay Math (not taught with fidelity/not consistent
across grade levels) Achieve 3000 (Supplemented with Singapore Math and other teacher
chosen activities/curriculum); Curriculum Map and Pacing Guide aligned to state
standards; Class sizes K-3 (21) 4-6 (22)Grade level PLCs meet 2hrs per week;
DIBELS/SFA/SFI; Curriculum Coaches; Specific learning interventions linked to
formative assessments in classroom(times fluctuate/flexible planned by Curriculum
Coordinator), but data NOT used for pullout interventions; Incremental goals (80% of
students will maintain or improve their proficiency scores on HSA reading and math)

145
Table 4.5, continued
School
Locale and
Enrollment
Percentage
Disadvantaged Reading increase Math increase
Ekolu
Elementary
Suburban
278
89.9% 40.7% to 67.2%
Increase of 26.5%
43.5% to 82.7%
Increase of 39.2%
Main Features: Scott Foresman Reading (90 minute block) with flexible homogeneous
ability grouping; Teacher –created STEM thematic units integrate math , science, and
social studies 90 min. block; Step Up to Writing program; Achieve 3000; Curriculum Map
and Pacing Guide aligned to state standards; grade level PLCs (meet weekly for 2 hours);
ELL Coach and Curriculum Coordinator; Class sizes K-3 (21) 4-5 (22);Specific learning
interventions linked to formative assessments in classroom; RTI; AVID; Complex grant
providing PD for entire staff with the help of Dr. Marzano on nine instructional strategies
to increase student performance; Incremental goals (every student will increase proficiency
scores in math and reading by 5%-10%)
Eha
Elementary
Suburban
360
56.1% 60.3% to 75.6%
Increase of 15.3%
48.1% to 69.8%
Increase of 21.7%
Main Features: Teacher-created reading curriculum (90 min reading block) with flexible
homogeneous ability grouping; Achieve 3000; Investigations Math (Supplemented with
Envisions-computer based); Curriculum Map and Pacing Guide aligned to state standards;
PLCs (time for PLCs flexible, given as needed by grade level request); DIBELS;
Curriculum Coordinator; Class sizes K-3 (21) 4-5 (24); Specific learning interventions
(retired certified teachers) linked to formative assessments in classrooms, but not for
pullout interventions; HONU tutoring after school (help with homework provided by
volunteers from HPU and AARP), Complex grant providing PD for entire staff with the
help of Dr. Marzano on nine instructional strategies to increase student performance;
Incremental goals of 75% proficiency for all students in math and reading
Elima
Elementary
Rural
360
63.1% 35.4% to 64.4%
Increase of 29%
20.5% to 60.5%
Increase of 40%
Main Features: Houghton-Mifflin Reading (90 min reading block) with flexible
homogeneous ability grouping; Achieve 3000; EveryDay Math (60 minutes), but not
taught with fidelity (Supplemented with Singapore Math);Lesson Cycle from Edison used;
Curriculum Map and Pacing Guide aligned to state standards; PLCs meet monthly; RTI;
DIBELS; Monthly Edison Assessments; Curriculum Coordinator; Class sizes K-3 (19) 4-5
(21)Specific learning interventions linked to formative assessments in classroom, but NOT
for after school learning interventions; Edison Alliance School; Priority for principal 1)
curriculum 2) SPED; Incremental goals of raising math and reading proficiency for all
students by 10% on HSA.

146
Empowering Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through
Widespread Distributive Instructional Leadership
The principals at all five schools created leadership teams; however they
were composed of different members according to the staff they had available at
each school. Each team at every school was focused on their school data, mainly the
Hawai`i State Assessment scores of their students. Unlike other states that have
several performance indicators to rank a school’s performance, Hawai`i has only the
state test scores to analyze student proficiency and school performance. Any other
assessments that are used within schools are not collected by the state. Recently the
state has created an online formative assessment program for schools to use for this
purpose, but the program is in its beginning stages and although the principals
reported having their teachers use it, they also reported that it was still unpredictable
and they had experienced some technical issues with it. These technical issues, such
as students not always being able to access it and teachers not being able to share
common assessments, prevented its full implementation. However, each school did
used formative and summative assessments created collaboratively by their teachers
to guide their improvement focus. Elima Elementary and Ekolu Elementary also
focused on goals they determined along with Edison that was based on their online
formative assessments to guide their improvement plan. The principal at Elima
Elementary and Ekahi Elementary met with their leadership team every morning to
go over their plan for the day, and Wednesdays to plan their week, always with a
focus on improving their schools performance.

147
A strategy used by the principal at Ekahi Elementary was to encourage her
teachers and math coaches to lead other teachers through the new instructional
practices learned at various workshops. Teachers and curriculum coaches then
trained other teachers in the implementation of new instructional practices. Through
this method of distributing their knowledge learned from the workshops, she had
teachers and coaches lead other teachers through the process so that they too would
benefit.
After realizing the value of using PLCs at his school, the principal at Elima
Elementary also formed a principal PLC with other principals in his complex. The
principals in his complex realized that in their monthly principal meetings, if they
acted “as a PLC”, instead of just venting, they could bring their problems, but then
collaborate together to come up with some solutions to take back to their schools.
The following month they could compare notes and evaluate the implementation of a
solution to decide if it was working. He was very excited about having this type of
support as a principal and “highly suggests every principal should create their own
principal PLC”.
Taking Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
Schools with dramatically rising student achievement seek out educational
research and guidance from experts in the field, because they realize that they may
not have all the answers (Odden, 2009). The principals at Elima and Ekolu realized
they were weak in using assessments until and outside provider (Edison) helped
guide them through the use of data and how it should be used to improve instruction.

148
They also appreciated the Edison formative assessments being online, because after
students took the assessments, data were collected and analyzed immediately.
Teachers and administrators were also immediately provided with data to guide their
next steps in instruction to meet the gaps in learning, as well as identifying teachers
that needed support.
The principal at Ekahi Elementary encouraged her teachers and math coaches
to ask for help, support, and professional development when needed. Over the past
few years her teachers expressed an interest in using Singapore Math to supplement
their math program to address the gaps identified between the math program and the
state standards that they needed to teach. She has four core teachers who
consistently ask for, and attend, Singapore Math workshops when they are offered in
Hawai’i each year. These teachers and curriculum coaches then train other teachers
in its implementation. Most of the professional development for her staff was
provided in-house by either herself or by her reading and math coach due to budget
constraints. However, she feels her reading and math coach were “phenomenal” at
this task.
Taking advantage of external expertise in professional and best practices has
been an extreme challenge due to recent budget constraints according to the principal
at Elua Elementary. Other than relying on SFA methodology that is already in place,
providing staff training on the use of Thinking Maps, and AVID training with
follow-up provided to her school by a Complex Area grant, she has been unable to
fund any other expertise from outside providers though she expressed the value of it.

149
Both principals from Ekolu Elementary and Eha Elementary are part of a complex
initiative funded by a grant that brought in Dr. Marzano to help their schools work
through the nine instructional strategies to increase student performance. They feel
this outside help has moved their schools forward and also helped them to identify
their specific needs areas. All principals felt they should concentrate on building the
capacity of their teachers and use PLCs to problem-solve, but also expressed the
value of educational research and outside expertise to help them with challenges that
they had difficulty solving.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related
to allocation of resources at schools with rising academic achievement and compare
them to the framework of the Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) and
by Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
to determine which strategies the five sample schools were implementing to support
increased student achievement.
It was difficult to use the resource allocation levels suggested for a
prototypical elementary school by the Evidence-Based Model as a comparison for
this study, because it was difficult to determine the actual allocation of resources at
all five sample schools. All five schools used varied methods for recording and
reporting expenditure data. Although they all used the same required forms,
expenditures tended to be lumped in broad categories by school improvement goals
without separating the amounts spent for each part of the goal. Separating the funds

150
by type was not an expectation of the Hawai`i Department of Education on their
Academic Financial Plans. Instead they are expected to place the elements and the
allocation of funding into categories of school improvement goals. Within these
goals they have columns to list strategies, supplies, and staffing narratives, followed
by who will be responsible for implementing programs and funding. However,
funds are not always listed, or they are lumped together without listing expenditures
separately. An example of these types of “lumping of funds” is evident on the
Academic Financial Plans of each school especially for professional development.
The cost of conference fees, substitutes, supplies, and outside providers was often
lumped into a grand total. Therefore the specific amount spent for substitutes alone,
or supplies alone could not be determined. However, those elements that could be
determined showed a dissimilarity to the Evidence-Based Model especially in the
allocation of specialist teachers which only one school provided. The use of PTTs,
PPTs, and EAs as tutors was common, unlike the EBM which recommends using
only certified teachers for tutors. Summer school was also cut, because of budget
reductions. Those schools that did offer summer school or after-school tutoring were
funded by the 21
st
Grant.
This study was able to determine that each school was implementing all of
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) strategies for doubling student performance at some
level, but many of these strategies were at the beginning level of implementation at
most of the schools, especially the use of data to plan specific learning interventions
for students, as well as the use of PLCs to not only analyze students data to inform

151
instruction, but as a tool for teachers to self-reflect on their practices. The smallest
school had the greatest level of implementation of all ten strategies and also the
largest amount of progress in relation to test scores as well as the narrowest gaps
between all subgroups on the Hawai`i State Assessment, especially in math.

152
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
This final chapter presents a brief overview of the study, a summary of the
findings, limitations of the study, recommendations for future research, and
conclusion.
Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the practices in five elementary
schools in Hawai`i with consistently rising trends of student academic performance
from 2003-04 to 2010-11. Although schools were not selected for their Title I status,
all schools in this study were Title I schools. These schools succeeded in improving
student performance despite an economic downturn, including the loss of 17
instructional days in the second semester of school year 2009-10 due to teacher
furloughs, followed by the loss of 10 more furlough days in the school year 2010-
2011. Although the 10 furlough days in the second year did not fall on instructional
days, schools were forced to sacrifice teacher professional development days. From
2006-07 to 2010-11 all five schools reported gains in math achievement ranging
from 14.9% to 52.9% and an increase in reading achievement ranging from 9.7% to
33.3%. Data collected from the five schools were compared to the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and analyzed to identify how resources were allocated
and improvements implemented to promote increased student achievement.
Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) developed an allocation of resource model
that would help schools better define the answer to, “How much will it cost to

153
allocate resources to improve student performance?” Thus, clarifying how the
organizational structure of a school and its allocation of resources contribute to the
success of student achievement. The Evidence-Based Model they created provides a
framework as a starting point for schools that can be adjusted depending on the type
of school (elementary, middle, or high school) and student population. It also
clarifies the importance of schools using data on student learning, to identify learning
needs of their particular student population. In other words, it is not a one-size-fits-
all formula, but a framework to customize improving student performance at
individual schools through research based allocations of resources including the
collaboration and planning time for teachers and administration. The Evidence-
Based Model not only identifies the allocation of resources likely to promote student
learning, but also ties them to the best practices based on studies of schools that
successfully doubled or nearly doubled student achievement.
Odden and Archibald (2009) developed ten strategies described in chapter
two for doubling or near doubling student performance within the Evidence-Based
Model that tie directly into the allocation of resources that support these strategies.
These strategies offer guidance to educational leaders, especially in times of fiscal
constraint, of effective use of their funding to support high-quality, comprehensive,
school-wide instructional improvement.
In order to improve student performance Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010)
explain that more money may not be needed, but instead, money needs to be
allocated more effectively, clearly focused on best practices directly connected to

154
better student learning outcomes. If more funds are deemed necessary according to
the Evidence-Based Model, there is a starting point for district and school
administrators to understand specifically where more resources are needed, and how
much it will cost to add these resources. However, before requesting more money, it
is important for school administrators to understand how their current funds are
being spent by closely examining the resource allocations that exist within a school
or district to ensure they are being used effectively.
Summary of Research
The research questions for this particular study are:
1. How are resource allocation patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use recommendations in the Evidence-Based
Model?
2. What instructional improvement strategies are currently being
implemented at the school sites?
3. How have allocations of resources supported instructional improvement?
How are Resource Allocation Patterns at the School Sites Aligned With, or
Different From, the Resource Use Recommendations in the Evidence-Based
Model?
Specific expenditures spent for allocations that supported school
improvement initiatives were not able to be determined in several instances because
of the inconsistencies across school documents. The school documents weren’t
useful for comparison purposes for several allocations such as funds spent for

155
technology, student supplies, student activities, gifted and talented students, and
funds spent for substitutes. However, the allocations in comparison to the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) that could be compared are
discussed below.
There is a large discrepancy between the Evidence-Based Model’s prototype
elementary school and the five sample schools in almost all areas included in the
EBM. In analyzing the number of core teachers each sample school should employ
based on their enrollment, every school except one fell short. The total number of
certified teachers working as specialist teachers at all five sample schools also falls
short, but by a much wider margin, of the recommendations of the EBM that
recommends a total of 18.6 additional specialist teachers for the five schools. One of
the purposes of allocating specialist teachers at schools is to provide time for
learning interventions for students during non-core classes. Without specialist
teachers, this time is not available for interventions. Some schools adapted to limited
funds by providing electives courses into their school day that were taught by some
certified teachers, but mainly by PTTS, PPTs, and EAs. Although the principals
would have preferred allocating certified specialist teachers for non-core subjects,
the lack of funds prevented them from doing so.
The schools in this study, with the most gains in academic achievement in
reading and math, created schedules that inserted elective classes, in a rotating
schedule, into the school day thus allowing time for learning interventions in core
subjects. The autonomy principals had regarding their school schedules allowed

156
them the flexibility of creating innovative schedules that would provide time for
pullout learning interventions for students. In the 2012 Legislative session,
Legislatures have proposed House Bill 2007 HD1 and companion Senate Bill 2535,
bills that will limit the autonomy principals currently have over their bell schedules,
as well as the time allotted for instruction. The proposed legislation would offer a
choice of four different “devised” bell schedules, including set “instructional times”
that are more limited for elementary schools. Currently, samples of the four possible
bell schedules are not available for the public. These fixed choices of bell schedules
are something to be concerned about as they may limit the innovative practices of
principals who often adjust their bell schedules to maximize their use of staff to
provide learning interventions for students. Although, according to these bills,
schools may apply for a waiver from the Board of Education, some principals may
not take the necessary steps to apply for a waiver, or just accept the schedules
without considering other options that might work better for their particular schools
as the principals of the sample schools in this study had the freedom to do.
Also due to limited funding, most sample schools in this study utilized
educational assistants, PTTs, or PPTs as tutors instead of the certified teachers that
the EBM model recommends. All of the principals would have preferred to allocate
certified teachers as tutors, but fiscal constraints prevented them from doing so.
Providing schools with enough funds to hire more certified teachers for each school
as the specialist teachers the Evidenced-Based Model suggests, would provide more

157
opportunities for certified core teachers to pull students for learning interventions
during elective classes as well as provide time for PLCs to meet.
One staffing area where the sample schools exceeded the recommendations
of EBM was with the allocation of special education teachers. The allocation of
SPED teachers almost doubled the recommendations of the EBM varying from one
more certified teacher at Ekolu Elementary to 4.75 more at Ekahi Elementary. The
extra certified teachers could be used to provide learning interventions for all
students as needed if allowed by federal and state rules regarding funding and
placement of these special education teachers.
The allocation of ELL teachers was fairly close to the EBM
recommendations, as four out of five schools had a low percentage of ELL students,
not many ELL teachers were needed. EBM would recommend an additional 0.4
certified teacher to be placed at Ekolu Elementary due to its higher percentage of
ELL students.
A larger discrepancy is evident from the EBM prototype school and the five
sample schools in the amount of funding allocated at each school for professional
development, technology, instructional materials, supporting gifted students, and
student activities by a wide margin. However, three schools allocated more funds
than EBM recommends for professional development expenses, each using their
allocation of professional development funds for outside providers (Edison and
Success For All), which principals factored in to their professional development
costs. However, the actual funds spent specifically for professional development

158
expenses were difficult to determine, because a substantial amount of some of the
funds marked as professional development expenses by principals were actually used
to purchase online applications that run formative and summative assessments in
math and reading for students; this was a technology allocation, not professional
development. These applications also collect and report data to teachers and
administration.
The one element that was glaring was that seven instructional days and ten
professional development days were cut from the second semester in 2009-10 and an
additional ten professional development days were cut in the following year 2010-11
by the state at all five schools (all schools in the state lost these PD days), falling ten
days short of the PD days that the EBM recommends. The loss of these days meant
the loss of professional development activities aimed at building the capacity of the
individuals in schools to further refine instructional practices and informs decisions
on using data to drive instruction as well as learning interventions.
Another area for which data were difficult to collect and analyze was school
level allocations for technology. Principals tended to lump different funds with
various activities and initiatives aimed at larger school improvement goals instead of
separating out the cost of technology as a separate expenditure item. For this reason
the amount spent on technology at one school could not be analyzed. However, from
the data that was collected from the other four schools, the funds allocated for
technology were far below the amount recommended by the EBM by a range of
$34,300 less at Ekahi Elementary to a high of $60,000 less at Eha Elementary. In a

159
time when the goal of customizing education for the needs of the individual learner
are advised (Christensen, 2008), technology provides resources in the form of
learning programs that provide this customization. However, if funds are not
allocated for technology, these types of customizable programs cannot be purchased.
In fact, although the state provide a customizable program for reading, Achieve
3000, to all schools, next year each school will have to use their own school funds
for this purchase. It will cost school $15 per student. This funding allocation alone is
above what most schools in this study spent on technology during the 2010-11
school year (except for those schools that received funding from grants) without
having to purchase Achieve 3000, that suggests that schools may not purchase this
program next year when they will have to use school funds for its continued use.
Data was also difficult to analyze for expenditures spent on gifted and
talented students as the principals all stated that they included any funds for gifted
and talented were included in the costs of differentiation needs of all students.
However, even the funds set aside for the differentiation of instruction were not
listed as separate expenditures either. In addition instructional materials and student
activities were yet other areas that principals had a difficult time accounting for exact
expenditures as they combined these funds with other goals, activities, and initiatives
without itemizing their cost alone. It also should be noted that each principal had
little time to record their implementation of allocation changes and specific
expenditures within their schools as they worked to improve student achievement.
They didn’t report having access to technology, such as Quickbooks, Quicken, or

160
some comparable program, that would facilitate recording expenditures in an
efficient and organized manner.
What Instructional Improvement Strategies are Currently Being Implemented at
the School Sites?
All schools in this study succeeded in raising student academic achievement
despite the challenges they faced. They had fewer resources than the Evidence-Based
Model provides along with large numbers of disadvantaged students. These schools
illustrated that despite these challenges they succeeded in improving student
learning. Findings also surfaced that they allotted resources using strategies that are
similar to the research-based strategies of the Evidence-Based Model. The more
aligned their strategies were with the Evidence-Based Model, the higher their student
academic gains were.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
All five principals actively problem solved. They examined their school
practices constantly, evaluated them for effectiveness, and worked with their school
leadership teams and teachers collaboratively to find solutions. Two schools
analyzed the performance at their schools without outside help. One of those schools
had the largest gains in academic performance, but it also must be noted they had the
greatest sense of urgency to improve after almost being consolidated into another
elementary school. Every principal had the attitude of always being ready to learn,
adjust, and seek help when needed whether through mentors, their Complex Area
Superintendent, fellow principals, their leadership teams, their teachers, through

161
educational research, or through outside providers if available. They were also
willing to be flexible when needed, especially due to budget cuts. The strongest
focus at all five schools was to constantly problem-solve to seek solutions that would
raise student achievement.
Set Ambitious Goals
Specific, measurable goals that focused on instruction and learning
interventions in the classroom were implemented at all sample schools. Only one
school set ambitious goals of 90% of students earning proficient or above on the
Hawai`i State Assessment. The other four schools, although stating that they
believed all their students could learn, only set incremental goals from 5-10% above
their current achievement for each year.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
All five schools concentrated on refining their curriculum instead of
replacing it and require their teachers to use standards-based lessons. To assist with
refining their curriculum and instruction, all five schools also assisted their teachers
in collaboratively creating curriculum maps and pacing guides, though their
curriculum varied by school.
Reading groups at all sample schools were separated into homogeneous
ability flexile groups. It is important to remember that many factors need to be
considered when comparing gains in student achievement and that the use of a
certain curriculum alone does not guarantee higher achievement. Schools used a
variety of reading curriculum including Reading First/Reading Mastery, Houghton-

162
Mifflin, Scott-Foresman, Success For All, and teacher-created reading curriculum.
All schools used the online reading program, Achieve 3000, for supplemental
reading instruction. The schools expressed the value of the program because of its
customizable individualized instruction that adapted to each student’s reading goals.
Achieve 3000 was funded for all public schools in Hawai`i by the state, however,
next year the state is requiring each school to fund the program which will cost
schools $15 per student. Two schools stated they will not be able to afford it next
year.
Schools in this study also used a variety of math curriculum including
EveryDay Mathematics, Investigations, and teacher-created STEM thematic units.
Two schools use online programs to supplement instruction (Envisions and Math
Whizz). However, it should be noted that the highest gains in math achievement on
the HSA since 2006-07 to 2010-11 was by the school that taught their EveryDay
Mathematics curriculum with the most fidelity (they do switch a couple units out of
sequence, but teach lessons with fidelity). The second highest gains in math
achievement over the same time period also uses EveryDay Math, but with less
fidelity. After teachers aligned curriculum to the state standards, they were allowed
the flexibility of not teaching whole units if they were not aligned to grade level
standards. The third highest gains in math were from the school that had teacher-
created STEM thematic units. The principal cited the evidence that since the
implementation of the STEM units students were more engaged in math than
previously noted, and the teachers were reinvigorated about teaching too. The two

163
schools with the lowest gains in math had the lowest efficacy in their math
curriculum (EveryDay Mathematics and Investigations), and have been considering
changing them, but budget cuts have prevented them from doing so.
Commit to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions
Each school sets specific, measurable goals that focused on improving
instruction and providing learning interventions in the classroom and has made a
concerted and ongoing effort to meet the needs of all students. However, some
schools have not connected their formative assessments in the classroom to learning
interventions either during the day or after school. The school with the highest gains
in math and the narrowest gaps between subgroups on the HSA analyzed and used
their formative and summative assessments consistently and frequently (weekly) for
every student to make data-driven decisions. They used the data to provide learning
interventions three times a week, one-to-one or in small groups for 35 minutes for
two days and 45 minutes for a third day each week for every child that needed
interventions (for students below standards as well those exceeding standards).By
analyzing data, the data teams (PLCs) set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement gaps and
learning interventions were focused on specific skills.
Although all five schools used data to drive their instruction, different levels
of implementation became evident. PLCs at all five schools created and used
formative assessments to drive classroom instruction. However, only four schools
used the same formative assessments to drive pullout learning interventions during

164
the school day and only two used them to allocate staff to support students that
varied from week to week as student needs changed. An interesting finding about the
level of data usage was that the two highest levels of implementation of data-driven
decisions were by Ekahi Elementary and Elima Elementary which also had the
highest percentage of gains of students proficient or above on the HSA in Reading
and Math. Ekahi Elementary had the highest implementation of data-driven decisions
as well as the highest percentage of growth in reading (and increase of 33.3%) and in
math (an increase of 52.9%) from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Elima Elementary had the
second highest implementation of data-driven decisions as well as the second highest
percentage of growth in reading (an increase of 29%) and math (an increase of 40%)
over the same time period.
Invest in Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development
The schools in this study only implemented some aspects of professional
development and with varied levels of support mostly due to significant budget
constraints. However, although the budget was very limited for professional
development opportunities, the principals were innovative in finding time and in
some cases, grants for professional development. One school used the time normally
scheduled for faculty meetings, for professional development time instead. The
principal carved out two slots of time for two different professional development
activities each Wednesday. Two principals benefitted from being an Edison Alliance
school and were provided professional development chosen by Edison for their
teachers at least once a quarter. The principal at one school, along with the Student

165
Services Coordinator (SSC) and the reading and math coaches, provided teachers
with support for instructional strategies and data analysis to the whole staff during
weekly meetings and also one-on-one to teachers in their classrooms to provide
follow up to any professional development they attended. The coaches also help
teachers with learning new skills, modeling, and even team-teaching, dependent on a
teacher’s comfort level.
Two principals met strong resistance from teachers when trying to implement
instructional change, but each principal responded differently. Over the last four
years some teachers transferred out of one school which made the principal
responsible for hiring around 80% of her current staff. While another principal, with
very little staff change, focused on improving the human capital in her school by
investing in her teachers to not only improve their instructional practices through
professional development, but she also worked to improve the organizational
supports they needed to change. The principal that focused more on supporting her
teachers to improve their instructional practice increased the amount of students who
scored proficient and above on the HSA in reading by 26.5% and math by 39.2%
from 2006-07 to 2010-11. The school with 80% staff change made fewer gains in
student reading and math proficiency on the HSA in the same time period, but still
made higher gains than the state average.
Focus Class Time More Efficiently and Effectively
Sample schools in this study did not extend their instructional day, but
instead protected it by not permitting intercom interruptions during core subjects,

166
trips to the principal’s office, or other various interruptions. Principals sought to take
away as many distractions as possible from the classroom so that teachers focus on
instruction. Although all five principals did not spend a lot of time during their
interviews describing how their school focuses class time more efficiently and
effectively, across all schools there were more expectations and criteria for reading
instruction in classrooms.
Specific lengths of time were set aside specifically for reading instruction in
all five schools ranging for 90 minutes at four schools to 105 minutes at one school.
All schools separated their students into homogeneous ability reading groups that are
flexible. Groupings switch ranging from weekly to quarterly based on formative
assessments that define student needs.
Two schools require their teachers to follow the Lesson Cycle Design from
Edison Learning for all their lessons and one school uses Success For All guidelines
during reading. However, the principals did not go into a lot of detail in describing
the expectations. Three schools utilized PPTs, PTTs, and EAs as tutors in the
classroom during reading. However, two schools use certified teachers for tutoring as
well as PTTs, PPTs, and EAs. The certified teachers train the other staff in specific
reading curriculum to assist students.
Mathematics instruction along with expectations for instruction and guidance
was mentioned much more briefly than reading by all five principals during their
interviews. However, two schools have their teachers follow the Lesson Cycle
Design from Edison Learning for math. Each school allocated 60 to 90 minutes per

167
day for math instruction; however, principals heard from their teachers that it usually
takes 90 to 120 minutes and allow their teachers the flexibility to use more time if
needed. Sometimes this meant extending a lesson over more than one day.
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
All five schools aligned learning goals with state standards and benchmarks
that focused on instruction and learning interventions. All schools also used
formative and summative assessments to drive decisions about learning interventions
in the classroom. Only one school, Ekahi Elementary, set up two accountability
measures for PLCS that helped assure all students that needed learning interventions
received them the next week. The principal at Ekahi Elementary requires each
teacher to write weekly anecdotal notes identifying students who need extra
assistance with specific learning goals that week. With this information the principal
sets up a schedule for specific, skills-based learning interventions for students with
the reading and math coach for the next week.
Four schools used formative assessments in the classroom to connect learning
goals to pullout interventions during the school day; however, after school programs
were very limited due to budget cuts and the majority of after school programs did
not use formative and summative assessments to guide their tutoring programs. Most
after school programs were used for homework help or for larger learning goals
identified by HSA scores, such as the broad category of Geometry or Numbers and
Operations, instead of specific learning goals such as finding the area of a rectangle

168
or multiplying two digit numbers with one decimal place. Only one school was able
to offer a summer program lasting four weeks funded through a complex area grant.
Create a Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning
Communities)
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) were formed at all sample
schools to analyze student achievement data from the Hawai`i State Assessment
along with formative and summative assessments, to create plans for instructional
changes as well as learning interventions. However, the time allotted for meeting in
PLCs varied by school. The level of recommended implementation of PLCs as
described by DuFour (2005) with the collaborative, professional culture also
recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) varied as well. The school with the
most gains in student achievement on the Hawai`i State Assessment had teacher
accountability built into PLCs (Data Teams) to monitor support that may be needed
to support teacher and student needs.
The principal at one school also formed a principal PLC with other principals
in his complex and they too became a part of his “leadership team”. Their
collaboration to problem- solve helped the principal find some solutions to take back
to his school and he valued what he learned from other principals.
Empower Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through Widespread
Distributive Instructional Leadership
Leadership teams were formed at all five schools; however they were
composed of different members according to the staff they had available at each

169
school. Each team at every school was focused on their school data, mainly the
Hawai`i State Assessment scores of their students. Each school used formative and
summative assessments created collaboratively by their teachers to guide their
improvement focus. Two schools met with outside providers as well as part of their
leadership team and valued their direction and advice. They saw the strategies they
tried, such as using PLCs, allotting time for PLCs to meet, and using data-driven
decisions as essential for improving their academic performance.
All of the principals used their leadership team to support instructional
change through modeling, advising, and helping to lead teachers through
instructional changes as needed for improvement. Due to budget cuts and limited
funds for professional development, principals focused on refining their curriculum
and instruction. They were able to send a limited amount of teachers to workshops
and expected them to distribute what they had learned from the workshops to other
teachers.
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
One area that most principals felt they needed help with was in budgeting and
finance. One even stated he would be the first one to sign up if the DOE offered a
finance course for principals as he felt it was the one area he was not prepared for
even though he went through the ACE training given for administrators by the DOE.
Two principals from Edison Alliance schools appreciated the Edison formative
assessments being online, because after students took the assessments, data were
collected and analyzed immediately. Teachers and administrators were immediately

170
provided with data to guide their next steps in instruction to meet the gaps in
learning, as well as identifying teachers that needed support. The principals felt
Edison helped them learn how to analyze data far better than they did before and was
one of the most valuable assets to having Edison as a partner.
However, taking advantage of external expertise in professional and best
practices was an extreme challenge due to recent budget constraints according to all
five principals. Both principals from Ekolu Elementary and Eha Elementary felt
fortunate to be a part of a complex initiative funded by a grant that brought in Dr.
Marzano to help their schools work through the nine instructional strategies to
increase student performance. They feel this outside help has moved their schools
forward and also helped them to identify their specific need areas. All principals felt
they should concentrate on building the capacity of their teachers and use PLCs to
problem-solve, but also expressed the value of educational research and outside
expertise to help them with challenges that they had difficulty solving alone.
How Have Allocations of Resources Supported Instructional Improvement?
One of the major finding across all schools was that a lack of funding
contributed to principals not being able to allocate resources in the best way possible.
In addition 17 instructional days in the second semester of 2009-10, and 10
professional development days in 2010-11 were cut by the state as part of teacher
furloughs and DLWOP (Directed leave without pay).
Although four of the schools allocated PTTs, PPTs, and EAs for learning
interventions with students, instead of certified teachers the principals all explained,

171
“It was all they could afford”. If their budgets had allowed funding for certified
teachers, they would have preferred to have certified teachers tutoring. One school
cut back on classroom supplies, after speaking with her teachers, and used the money
to fund the position for her Reading Coach. She would have liked to fund more
certified teachers, but instead utilized her reading coach and her math coach to fully
train the PPTs at her school to provide reading and math learning interventions with
the two certified teachers in the lead. Her strategy worked well as her school’s
academic growth in reading and math for all subgroups was the highest out of all five
schools. Another school hired 5 certified teachers half-time (2.5 FTE) for learning
interventions during the school day. Unfortunately, a limited amount of certified
teachers were utilized for after school tutoring as principals could only afford hiring
PPTs, PTTs, and EAs for homework help.
Several principals would not have been able to fund professional
development, the extra personnel who covered classes during PLC meeting times, or
tutors for learning interventions without grant funding. Grant funding is for a limited
time and it is important to think about future implications of continuing to raise
student achievement without this extra funding. Ekolu Elementary allocates far less
money for instructional materials and student activities than the EBM recommends.
Without grants funding professional development, STEM projects, and tutors would
not have been fully funded at Ekolu Elementary. Through two grants, all school staff
at Ekolu Elementary was able to take an online STEM class from Purdue University
to improve their instruction of STEM thematic units.

172
Although schools in this study were not chosen for their Title I status, it
should be noted that all schools in this study that were able to raise student
achievement did so with the help of Title I funds. Again it is important to think
about future implications of continuing to raise student achievement without this
funding and what that may mean for schools without Title I funding.
Limitations
There are two limitations to this study. First, the current limited applicability
of the Evidence-Based Model to Hawai`i schools due to the state’s school finance
policy, use of the weighted student formula limits this study. As of now, the current
school funding formula does not make it possible to fully implement the Evidence-
Based Model. Second, the data collection for this study is limited to the availability
of the data at the school sites. The data collected at each school was dependent on
how accurate and detailed the schools were with collecting, maintaining, and
reporting data.
Implications for Policy and Practice
In reviewing the findings in this study, the researcher would recommend any
school, district, or state leader focused on improving student achievement in schools
begin by using Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance as a framework to guide their improvement practice. Findings from this
study support the importance of allocating these particular resources using data-
driven decisions as they promoted a rise in student academic achievement in all
sample schools in this study. The Evidence-Based Model provided a useful

173
framework to compare the allocation of resources that supported these different
strategies effectively.
This study further supports the imperative that school leaders are well versed
in current research through professional development that supports the development
and understanding of how to allocate resources to focus on improved student
learning. Findings from this study highlight especially the importance of principals
understanding how to effectively implement and use Professional Learning
Communities (DuFour, 2005) to support teachers in the use of student data to
effectively develop, revise, and assist instruction and learning interventions.
The results of this study support that professional development, especially in
the use of data to refine instructional practices and develop specific learning
interventions, is essential to improving student achievement. The findings in this
study corroborate with educational research that indicates that teachers need
organizational support from their administration that allows time for them to
collaborate, review data, learn, reflect, plan and practice newly learned skills in a
contextual format to become better educators (Porter et al., 2005; Wei et al., 2009;
OECD, 2007). The findings in this study also support the use of curriculum coaches
to extend and support professional development at the school level on a continual
basis (Odden & Archibald, 2009) which aligns with adult learning theory. Adult
learners must be able to step outside of themselves and their own perspectives in
order to see the change that is needed. Sometimes this awareness of a different

174
perspective needs to be facilitated by others (Brookfield, 2005; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; Morewood & Bean, 2009).
Findings from this study also indicate that schools that provided extended
learning interventions for students that focused on their specific learning needs made
the most academic progress at a faster rate. These findings suggest school leaders
need to allocate resources to the aligning of all learning interventions (in class, out of
class, and after school) to formative assessments from the classroom to create more
systematic and intensive extended learning interventions as recommended by Odden
and Archibald (2009). Allocating certified specialist teachers, as recommended by
the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), would allow time for student
learning interventions of core subjects to be provided by the core certified teachers.
Lastly, there were some significant findings that surfaced in this study
regarding budget and financing of schools. Principals in this study had little direct
knowledge of many budget issues and if they did, they might be able to further
allocate resources in ways that improve student learning even more. A refinement of
the Academic Financial Plan to include specific expenditures would help with this
refinement process as it would enable administrators, as well as district and state
administrators, to understand which allocations helped improve student achievement
the most and how much they cost. A systematic reporting procedure would help
better compare the usage of specific resource allocations across schools in the state.
Use of technology in the form of Quickbooks, Quicken, or some comparable
program, along with professional development on the effective use of these

175
programs, might help facilitate this process and make it less time-consuming and
more efficient for principals as well.
Recommendations for Future Research
• Expand this study to compare the Evidenced- Based Model to a larger
sample that includes more schools in Hawai`i with rising academic
achievement within more districts, including more schools from the outer
islands. This study could also assist in determining the level of
implementation of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance across a larger sample.
• Further research is needed into the effectiveness of the administrators at
school sites and the use of principal PLCs to guide administrators about
best practices that inform their leadership.
• Further research is needed into specific parts of the Evidence-Based
Model, in schools that have consistently raised student achievement, as
well as narrowed the gaps between all subgroups on the Hawai`i State
Assessment, to study their implementation of Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) 10 strategies for doubling student performance to examine how
they impacted student achievement
• Further research is needed in schools with rising academic achievement
of all subgroups and their implementation of learning interventions for
struggling students. These strategies could be shared with other schools to

176
expand their knowledge base regarding how to implement effective
learning interventions that meet the needs of all students.
• Lastly, further research on how to effectively prepare principals for
budget and finance decisions, along with software programs that would
ease the recording and tracking of expenditures more accurately and
efficiently, is needed.
Conclusion
Improving student performance is at the heart of educational policy and
standards-based reform has become the driving force in the U.S to reach this goal. In
a time of fiscal constraint faced by the state of Hawai`i along with the nation, it is
important to make every investment in education focused on improving student
achievement. This study highlights principals in Hawai`i who had enough autonomy
to allocate their limited resources toward their students’ specific learning needs.
These principals also realized the value of working collaboratively with their staff
toward a shared purpose of not just raising their students’ achievement, but also
providing their students, as well as their staff, with the supports needed to achieve
this goal. This study illustrates that, even within the current fiscal constraints,
resources focused on increasing student achievement can be effectively allocated by
using data-driven decisions. In the current financial crisis, it is unlikely that the state
of Hawai`i will be able to fully fund the Evidence-Based Model recommended by
Odden and Picus (2008). However, Odden, Goetz, and Picus (2010) explain that
more money may not always be needed, but instead, money needs to be allocated

177
more effectively, clearly focused on best practices directly connected to better
student learning outcomes. As the State of Hawai`i and the nation recover from the
current recession, the Evidence-Based Model, offers a framework that provides
guidance to focus the allocation of future investments in education to promote
student achievement.

178
REFERENCES
Alton-Lee, A. (2007). It’s Time for a New Learning Agenda in Policy, Research and
Practice in Education. Making a Bigger Difference in Desired Educational
Outcomes for DiverseLearners through Collaborative Cultures of Inquiry and
Development. Invited Paper. 31st Annual Conference. Honolulu, HI.

Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school
systems come out on top. London: McKinsey and Company.

Belasco, J., and Stayer, R. (1993). Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence,
learning to Let Employees Lead. New York: Warner Books. pp 16-23.

Berry, B., Turchi, L., Johnson, D., Hare, D., Owens, D.D., and Clements, S. (2003).
The impact of high stakes accountability on teachers’ professional
development: Evidence from the South. A Final Report to the Spencer
Foundation. Unpublished manuscript,
http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/Spencer_FinalReport.pdf

Birman, B.F. (2003). Education policy analysis and program evaluation: Shifting
methods, politics, and temperament. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. 22(2), 300-304.

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

Blank, R.K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2007). Analysis of the quality of
professional development programs for mathematics and science teachers:
Findings from a cross-state study. Washington D.C: Council of Chief State
School Officers.

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.

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

179
Borko, H., Davinroy, K.H., Bliem, C.L, & Cumbo, K.B. (2000). Exploring and
Supporting Teacher Change: Two third-grade teachers’ experiences in a
mathematics and literacy staff development project. The Elementary School
Journal. 100(4), 273-306.

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.

Brookfield, S. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and
teaching. SanFransico: Jossey-Bass.

Bull, B., Buechler, M., Didley, S., & Krehbiel, L. (1994). Professional development
and teacher time: Principles, guidelines, and policy options for Indiana.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center, School of Education,
Indiana University.

Chappuis, S., Chappuis, J. & Stiggins, R. (2009) Supporting Teacher Learning
Teams. Educational Leadership 66(5), 56-60.

Christensen, C.M, Horn, M.B., and 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) Chapter 2: Setting Performance Goals That Support
Organizational Goals. Turning Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting
the Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA.: CEP Press.

Clement, M. & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: a
solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teacher and Teacher Education. 16, 81-101.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide
for educating adults. SanFransico. Jossey-Bass.

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.

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

180
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s
commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College, Columbia
University.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification
matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis. 23(1), 57-77.

Datnow, A., Borman, G., Stringfield, S. (2000). School reform through a highly
specified curriculum: Implementation and effects of the core knowledge
sequence. The Elementary School Journal. 101(2), 167-191.

Datnow, A. & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform.
Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Denning, P. J. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform.
Commun. ACM, 26(7):467-478.

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

Dirkx, J. (1998). Transformative learning theory in practice of adult education: An
overview. PAACE Journal
http://www.coe.iup.edu/ace/PAACE%20Journal%20PDF/PDF1998/Dirkx19
98.pdf

Downs, T. (2010). School finance reform. Elsevier Ltd.: Medford, MA. Fernandez,
C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development:
The case of lesson study. The Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393-405

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.

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

181
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

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.

Fraivillig, J.L., Murphy, L.A., Fuson, K.C. (1999). Advancing children’s
mathematical thinking in Everyday Mathematics classrooms. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education. 30(2), 148-170.

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.

Futrell, M. (1999) The Challenge of the 21
st
century: Developing a high qualified
cadre of teachers to teach our nation’s diverse student population. Recruiting,
preparing, and retaining qualified teachers to educate all of America’s
children in the 21
st
century. The Journal for Negro Education. 6(3)pp. 318-
334.

Gallimore, R., Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist. 36(1), 45-46.

Gallucci, C. (2007). Using sociocultural theory to link individual and organizational
learning processes: The case of Highline School District’s instructional
improvement reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2008). Five Minds of the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.

Gerber, L.G. (2001). Inextricably linked: Shared governance and academic freedom.
AAUP. Washington D.C.
http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2001/MJ/Feat/gerb.htm

182
Glass, G.V. (2000). Meta-analysis at 25. Retrieved April 5, 2010,
http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25.html

Glazer, E. & Hannafin, M. (2008). Factors that influence mentor and teacher
interactions during technology integration collaborative apprenticeships.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 16(1), 35-61.

Gordon, E.E. (2009). Five way to improve tutoring programs. Phi Delta Kappan,
90(6), 440-445.

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.

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

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

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

Hanushek, E.A. & Woessmann, (2010). How much do educational outcomes matter
in OECD countries?" NBER Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

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

Hargreaves, A., & Dawes, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived
collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 57(4), 244-254.

Hawaii State Department of Education . (2009). Superintendent’s 19
th
annual report:
Continuous improvement. Honolulu, HI:Available at
http://arch.k12.hi.us.state/superintendent_report/annual_report.html

183
Hawai`i Department of Education. (2009). SAT, HCPS & TerraNova Scores
http://doe.k12.hi.us/myschool/sat-hcps-terranova.htm

Herbst, P.G. (2003). Using Novel tasks in teaching mathematics: Three tensions
affecting the work of the teacher. American Educational Research
Association. 40(1), 197-238.

Hesling, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2008) Putting the “Development”
in professional development: Understanding and overturning educational
leaders’ immunities to change. Harvard College Review 78(3) 1-23.

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.

Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons
from the TIMSS video study. The Elementary School Journal. 101(1), 3-20.

Hiebert, J., Stigler, J., Jacobs, J.K., Givvin, K.B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., et al.
(2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow):
Results from TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation & Policy
Analysis, 27(2), 111-132.

Hinde, E.R. (2003). The tyranny of the test: Elementary teachers’ conceptualizations
of the effects of state standards and mandated tests on their practice. Current
Issues in Education [online], 6(10). http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number10/

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

Karoly, L. A. (2001). Investing in the future: Reducing poverty through human
capital investments. In S.H. Danziger and R.H. Haveman (eds.),
Understanding Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.
314-356 (in particular pp. 328-332).

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life.
Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

184
Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach
to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation
(pp. 35-69). SanFransico: Jossey-Bass.

Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic Duty. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.

Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R. & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors
that influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education 23,
775–794

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

Lavy, V. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers.
The Future of Children. 17(1), 87-109.

Lewis, C. (2002). Everywhere I looked – levers and pendulums. Research lessons
bring studies to life and energize teaching. National Staff Development
Council.

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 reseach 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.

Mass Insight (2007) The turnaround challenge. Executive Summary American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy.Washington D.C.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd.ed.) Pearson: Upper Saddle
River: NJ.

McGrath, J.E. (1970). Social and psychological factors in stress. New York: Holt,
Rinehard, & Winston.

185
McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s schools, 1-23.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. SanFransico:
Jossey-Bass.

Milstein, M. M., Golaszewski, T.J., & Duquette, R.D. (1984). Organizationally
Based Stress: What Bothers Teachers. The Journal of Educational Research.
77(5), 293-297.

Morewood, A.L., Bean, R.M. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of effective professional
development activities in a case study school. College Reading Association
Yearbook. 30, 248-264.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York: Author.

National Council on Educational Statistics (2009). National Assessment of
Educational Progress state comparisons. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved May 23, 2009 from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/statecomp/sorting.asp

National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST). (1992). Raising
standards for American education. Washington D.C: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

National Council on Educational Statistics (2009a). The Condition of education
2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 12,
2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section2/table-mgp-3.asp

National Education Goals Panel (1998). The National Education Goals report:
Building a nation of learners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

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

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.

186
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 (4
th
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

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Education at a
glance 2007. OECD Indicators. Paris: Author.

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.

Pettegrew, L.S., Wolf, G.E. (1982). Validating measures of teacher stress. American
Educational Research Journal. 19(3), 373-396.

187
Porter, A., Blank, R., Smithson, J., & Osthoff, E. (2005). Place-based randomized
trials to test the effects on instructional practices of a mathematics/science
professional development program for teachers. Annals of American
Academy of the Political and Social Science, 599, 147-175.

Pulliam, J. & Van Patten, J. (2003). History of Education in America, 8
th
edition,
Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall

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. (2005). Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning
Organizations. Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The Learning Leader: How to Focus School Improvement for
Better Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Relich, J. (1996). Gender, Self-Concept and Teachers of mathematics: Effects on
attitudes to teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 30(2),
179-195

Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., & Holliday, G. (2003). Assessing the impact of
standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student
achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 34(1), 74-95.

Roza, M. (2010). Educational Economics: Where do school funds go? Washington,
D.C: Urban Institute Press.

Roza, M., & Hill, P. (2006). How can anyone say what’s adequate if nobody knows
how money is spent now? In Koret Task Force on K–12 Education. Stanford,
CA. Hoover Institution Press.

Russell, D.W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social
support, and burnout among classroom teachers. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 72(2), 269-274.

Salamon, Lester M. (1991). Overview: Why Human Capital? Why Now? In David
Hornbeck and Lester M. Salamon (eds.), Human Capital and America’s
Future. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1-28.

188
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist. 45(2), 109-119.

Schmidt, W.H. (1983). High school course taking: A study of variation. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 15(2), 167-182.

Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning
communities. Teacher Education Quarterly. Winter.

Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research.
78(1), 153-189.

Smarick, A. (2010). The Turnaround Fallacy, Education Next, Winter, 2010, 21-26.

Sonstelie, J. (2007). Aligning school finance with academic standards: A weighted-
student formula based on a survey of practitioners. Public Policy Institute of
California.

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

Stigler, J., & Herbert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., and Thomas, S. (2006).
Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of
Educational Change. 7, 221–258.

Taylor, E. (1997). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In
Mezirow, J. and Associates (eds.) (2000a), Learning as Transformation:
Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

Thompson, C., & Zeuli, J. (1999). The frame and the tapestry. In L. Darling-
Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook
of policy and practice, pp. 341-375. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

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

Wang, J., & Paine, L.W. (2003). Learning to teach with mandated curriculum and
public examination of teaching contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education.
19, pp. 75-94.

Watson, S. & Supovitz, J. (2001). Autonomy and Accountability in the Context of
Standards-Based Reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 9(32), 1-21.

189
Wei, R.C., Andree, A., & Darling-Hammond. 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.

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

Weiss, J. (2010). Organizing school systems for continuous improvement. In Adams,
J.E. Smart Money. Harvard Educational Press: Cambridge, MA.

Wright, W.E. (2002) The effects of high stakes testing in an inner-city elementary
school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners.
Current Issues in Education [online], 5(5).
http://cle.ed.asu.edu/vlume5/number5/

190
APPENDIX A
OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL — SCHOOL SITES
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 getting
the 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 were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been? (E.g.
Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)

2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (e.g., Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)

3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching?

4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort? (E.g.
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?

191
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the resources
been in place?

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?

2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?

3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only with 15)

4. Professional Development:
• When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)

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?

192
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?

193
APPENDIX B
EKAHI ELEMENTARY
Background on School
Ekahi Elementary was established 140 years ago and is located in a district
that serves 32,139 students, a complex area serving 17,077, and finally a complex
serving only 1,306 students K-12. Complex areas consist of one high school and all
the middle schools and elementary schools that feed into it. Though there have been
economic shifts in the area, it remains a rural school on the coast of Oahu with a
student enrollment of 180 students in Kindergarten through sixth grade as shown in
Figure B.1. Enrollment steadily declined from 2003 until 2007 by 88 students. Most
students left through a geographic exception (GE) meaning that the parents requested
their children to enroll outside of the school designated for their geographic region.
Enrollment began to increase slightly from 2007 until 2011 by 18 students still far
below the 2003 enrollment numbers. In fact, because of its low enrollment, Ekahi
Elementary was almost closed by the state in 2010. However, after public outcry, the
decision was reversed. There is one class per grade level except for Kindergarten and
1
st
grades which both have two classes each. The average daily attendance for
students is 93.9%. Figure B.1 provides enrollment data for Ekahi Elementary school
between 2003 and 2011.

194

Figure B.1. Ekahi Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11

The needs of the student population at Ekahi Elementary are shown in Figure
B.2. It is a Title I school as 59.4% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch
(disadvantaged), 13.9% of students qualify for special education (SPED), and 7.8%
of students are English Language Learners (ELL). Fifty-three percent of students
attending Ekahi Elementary attended preschool.

244
232
225
200
162
168
180
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Enrollment
Enrollment

195

Figure B.2. Ekahi Elementary student needs demographic percentages 2010-11

The student population from 2010-11 as shown in Figure 4.3 was very
diverse with the majority of students being Native Hawaiian (44%) or Filipino
(27.2%), followed by Caucasian (10.3%), Hispanic (4.3%), Indo-Chinese (3.8%),
Japanese (2.7%), African-American (2.2%), Micronesian (1.1%), Samoan (1.1%),
Portuguese (1.1%), Chinese (1.1%), Korean (.5%), and Native American (0.5%).

0
20
40
60
Disadvantaged,
59.4
ELL, 7.8
No special needs,
18.9
Disabled, 13.9
Students

196

Figure B.3. Ekahi Elementary student ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11

In 2010-11 there were 17 teachers (FTE) at Ekahi Elementary. Nine teachers
provided regular instruction, six provided special instruction, and two teachers
provided supplemental instruction (Reading and Math curriculum coaches). Fifty-
five percent of the teachers had five or more years of teaching experience. The
average years of teaching experience at this school was 14.5 years. Forty-four
percent of teachers had advanced degrees. Fifteen teachers were fully licensed and
two teachers had emergency credentials. There was one principal, no vice-principal,
one Student Services Coordinator (SCC), and one counselor at Ekahi Elementary.
The purpose of this case study was to identify effective resource allocation
and instructional strategies at Ekahi Elementary.
44
27.2
10.3
4.3
3.8
2.7
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
Native Hawaiian
Filipino
White
Hispanic
Indo-Chinese
Japanese
Black
Micronesian
Samoan
Portuguese
Chinese

197
Assessment Data — Reading Proficiency for Ekahi Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
From the school year 2003-04 until 2005-06 academic progress in reading
scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Ekahi Elementary varied from
38.9% in 2003-04, 40.5% in 2004-05, and 39.5% in 2005-06. There was a decrease
in reading proficiency scores from 67.4% proficient in 2007-08 to only 63.2 %
proficient in 2008-09 (a decrease of 4.2%). However, following this drop a steady
rise of proficient scores in reading occurred from 63.2% in 2008-09 to a 78 % in
2009-10 (an increase of 14.8%) followed by another rise in proficiency to 90.7% in
2010-11 (another increase of 12.7%) making a total increase of 27.5% in only two
years. A notable accomplishment for Ekahi Elementary is their most recent rise in
scores on the HSA in reading as shown in Figure B.4. Reading scores of
disadvantaged students also rose from 63.4% in 2008-09 to 88.2% in the 2010-11 (an
increase of 24.8% in one year). HSA data also show that the gap between the
proficiency scores in reading for all students and disadvantaged students shrunk to as
little as 0.2% in 2008-09 with the largest gap being only 4.4% in 2005-06. It is also
interesting to note that in 2006-07, 2008-09 and again in 2009-10 the disadvantaged
subgroup outperformed the proficiency scores in reading for students overall. There
was a gap of only 2.5% between all students and the subgroup of disadvantaged
students by the year 2010-11.

198

Figure B.4. Ekahi Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing; however,
the test was changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting in the school year
2006-07. It is a small portion of the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) given each
year to students from third to sixth grade. As shown in Table B.1 students’ reading
scores on the TerraNova at Ekahi Elementary has varied from year to year since
2006. Sixth graders scored 85% proficiency in 2006-07, 93% in 2007-08, 79% in
2008-09, 86% in 2009-10, and 84% in 2010-11. Fifth graders scored 94%
proficiency in 2006-07, 71% in 2007-08, 63% in 2008-09, 72% in 2009-10, and 85%
in 2010-11. Fourth graders scored 67% proficiency in 2006-07, 73% in 2007-08,
93% in 2008-09, 86% in 2009-10, and 84% in 2010-11. Finally, third graders scored
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
38.9
40.5
39.2
57.4
67.4
63.2
78
90.7
35
39.5
34.8
61.4
63.2 63.4
80.9
88.2
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

199
76% proficiency in 2006-07, 67% in 2007-08, 56% in 2008-09, 93% in 2009-10, and
80% in 2010-11.

Table B.1
Ekahi Elementary Reading — Percent Proficient or Above on SAT9 and TerraNova
Assessments 2003-04 to 2010-11
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
6
th
grade
69%
(not
reported
by
grade
level)
94 80 85 93 79 86 84
5
th
grade 85 74 94 71 63 72 85
4
th
grade 77 77 67 73 93 86 84
3
rd
grade 86 83 76 67 56 93 80

Ekahi Elementary has shown commendable growth in state accountability
measures in reading as measured through the HSA which is aligned to state standards
in each grade level. It is also notable that Ekahi Elementary has also shown high
academic growth for every significant sub-group in 2010-11 as measured by the
Hawaii State Assessment as shown in Figures B.5 and B.6. In reading, the disabled
group (SPED) and all females passed the Hawai`i State Assessment with 100%
proficiency. The disadvantaged subgroup reached a proficiency of 88%,
Asian/Pacific Islanders subgroup reached 89% proficiency, male students reached

200
84% proficiency, and overall students at Ekahi Elementary reached 90.7% in reading
proficiency.

Figure B.5. Ekahi Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by subgroup
on HSA 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Assessment Data — Math Proficiency for Ekahi Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
From the school year 2003-04 until 2005-06 academic progress in math
scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Ekahi Elementary as shown in
Figure 4.6 varied from a low 18.6% in 2003-04, 18.9% in 2004-05, and 26.7% in
2005-06. Student math proficiency scores increased in math from the 45.7% in 2006-
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
Male
Female

201
07 to a proficiency of 98.6% in 2010-11(an increase of 52.9%). There was a
significant decrease in math proficiency scores from 67.4 percent in 2007-08 to only
48.1 percent proficient in 2008-09. The most significant rise in math scores was from
65.7% in 2009-10 to 98.6% in 2010-11 (an increase of 32.9%). Math scores of
disadvantaged students rose from 51.9% in 2008-09 to 98% in 2010-11 (an increase
of 46.1%). There was a gap of only 0.6% between all students and the subgroup of
disadvantaged students by the year 2010-11.

Figure B.6. Ekahi Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing for math as
well; however, the test was also changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
18.6 18.9
26.7
45.7
67.4
48.1
65.7
98.6
15
16.2
30.3
49.1
65.3
51.9
69
98
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

202
in the school year 2006-07. Students’ math scores at Ekahi Elementary as shown in
Figure 4.7 have varied from year to year in math as measured through the
TerraNova. However, there has been a general rise in scores overall. Sixth graders
scored 81% proficiency in 2006-07, 73% in 2007-08, 68% in 2008-09, 72% in 2009-
10, and 89% in 2010-11. Fifth graders scored 82% proficiency in 2006-07, 78% in
2007-08, 56% in 2008-09, 64% in 2009-10, and 90% in 2010-11. Fourth graders
scored 56% proficiency in 2006-07, 76% in 2007-08, 78% in 2008-09, 95% in 2009-
10, and 89% in 2010-11. Finally, Third graders scored 76% proficiency in 2006-07,
74% in 2007-08, 64% in 2008-09, 93% in 2009-10, and 85% in 2010-11.

Table B.2
Ekahi Elementary Math — Percent Proficient or Above on SAT9 and TerraNova
2003-04 to 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
6
th
grade
75 (not
reported
by grade
level)
84 92 81 73 68 72 89
5
th
grade 83 78 82 78 56 64 90
4
th
grade 88 91 56 76 78 95 89
3
rd
grade 92 83 76 74 64 93 85

As shown in Figure B.7 from 2008-09 until 2010-11 the gap of proficiency in
math between all subgroups narrowed. Even more significantly the gap of

203
proficiency was nearly eliminated in Math on the Hawai`i State Assessment in 2010-
11 with 100% proficient in the disabled subgroup (SPED), 100% of females were
proficient, 98.4% of Asian/Pacific Islanders proficient, 97.7% of males proficient,
98% of disadvantaged students were proficient, and 98.6% of students were
proficient in math overall. The largest gap of proficiency between any subgroup was
only 3.3% (between SPED and Male subgroups).

Figure B.7. Ekahi Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
Male
Female

204
Principal Akala’s Story of School Improvement for Ekahi Elementary
Principal Akala responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions
regarding her 2010-2011 school improvement plans and strategies. Structured
interview protocol guided data collection. Her responses along with school and state
documents provided qualitative and quantitative resource data for comparison with
the Evidence-Based Model and told the story of how and why the school utilizes its
resources toward instructional and academic improvement. Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) recommended ten strategies for doubling student performance are used as a
framework for discussing the various elements within the case study for identifying
successful strategies used to raise student academic performance. These ten
strategies are used for comparison purposes. Each element is identified as a heading
for discussion around the school’s attempts to implement similar strategies; however,
some strategies are within the same heading, because of their close relationship to
each other as used by Ekahi Elementary. The description of Ekahi Elementary’s
story of these improvements follows.
Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge and Set Ambitious Goals
Principal Akala was first hired as a TA Principal (Temporary Assignment) in
March of 2009 and then hired as a permanent principal by June in the same year.
When she became principal the Board of Education was in the process of selecting
smaller schools to close due to state budget constraints. Ekahi Elementary was on the
list of possible schools that would be closed. Principal Akala’s first order of business
was to assess her school and decide what was needed to improve student academic

205
performance. She promoted the vision to her staff and her community that her school
would meet the needs of every child regardless of their different ability levels. She
focused on each child and expected her staff to do the same. She made it very clear
to her staff that she felt there was no excuse for her school not to reach the needs of
every single student as they are a very small school (180 students). Principal Akala
set the goal for her school at 90% reading and math proficiency on the state tests,
though she wanted to set the goal of 100%. She met with her leadership team, and
her math and reading coach advised that 100% would be unrealistic. Principal Akala
adjusted her goal to 90% instead. At that time her school was at 63.2% proficiency in
reading and only 48.1 % proficiency in math.
Principal Akala tracked the progress of each student in her school from third
through sixth grade. All students in Hawai’i are given three opportunities to pass
their state online assessment in reading and math (HSA). This gives teachers instant
feedback once each student takes each test. Though the feedback is not specific to
the test questions, it does give a scaled score for each content strand in math and
reading along with different strands in math and reading. There are posters for each
class on her wall in her office with a post-it for each student and stickers that
represent each student’s proficiency at meeting the standards on the Hawaii State
Assessment, both for reading and math. The stickers are color-coded (green = met,
yellow= approaching, red= well-below). With her teachers and leadership team she
began the year with stickers that represent each student’s met/not met status from
their last year’s state test. The teachers and leadership team then group each class by

206
needs. For example, in one class six students were approaching in math, three were
well-below in math, and seven were approaching in reading etc. Once these groups
were formed, she then worked with her reading and math coach, as well as the
teachers to provide specific interventions for students based on their needs. It is
important to note that she did not only focus on the underperforming students,
interventions were also included for those students who needed enrichment activities,
because they are meeting or exceeding the state standards. She made it clear to all
students and teachers that their goal is to improve their individual score every time
they take the test. Although the state does not require students to take the state
assessment each time, she insists that every child, whether they met the standards or
not, take the test all three opportunities given and each time their goal is to improve
their individual scores.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Another task she took on as a new principal was to assess her school’s
reading curriculum, Reading First with Reading Mastery, which had been the same
for years. This reading program has been used across the U.S. over the past 30 years
and is a product of research by Siegfried Engelmann of the University of Oregon.
Students are tested and placed in flexible homogeneous ability groups for reading
according to their needs as assessed by testing either in Corrective/Decoding classes
or Reading Mastery classes throughout the year. Principal Akala referred to Reading
Mastery as an “old program”. It is a scripted program servicing students K-6.
Though the principal felt that some people may have negative ideas about their

207
scripted curriculum, she felt that it served the students at her school well. She felt
they needed the structure of the program. She related that it “can sometimes be
boring”, but she felt it would work for her students. When new teachers enter her
school, which wasn’t often, the reading coach gives them the initial training in the
program and then offers a multitude of supports to each teacher (modeling, team-
teaching, observation-feedback) which she adjusts to each teachers
strengths/needs/comfort level). DIBELS is also used to assess students reading
fluency three times a year (pre, mid, and post assessments). Principal Akala read the
research on the program, observed teachers, and evaluated the program. After
assessing the program, and talking with her reading coach, knowing her budget was
very limited, she chose to keep the reading program. However, she changed the
formerly “sacred” 116 minute block daily in every grade level to 105 minute blocks.
This time change allowed her to create a rotating bell schedule that would allow for
reading and math interventions during non-core classes for students. The rotating
schedule also allowed opportunities for students to take non-core subjects such as art
and music. Writing and test prep were also integrated into the reading block.
The math curriculum, EveryDay Math, although not brand new, was
implemented by previous principal at Ekahi Elementary and the school had already
realized positive growth in their math scores since its implementation, so she decided
to keep it. Though teachers are required to teach EveryDay Math as mapped out by
the program, teachers were allowed to adjust the sequence of lessons after they
aligned EveryDay math to the state standards. Adjustments were allowed for

208
teachers to ensure all standards were being met for their grade level. Through their
standards alignment teachers were also encouraged to use supplemental math
strategies and lessons from Singapore Math which they integrated into math block to
address gaps between the state standards, especially common core, and EDM. When
new teachers enter her school, the math coach gives them the initial training in the
program then offers a multitude of supports to each teacher (modeling, team-
teaching, observation-feedback) which she adjusts to each teachers
strengths/needs/comfort level)
Commit to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions; Creating a
Collaborative, Professional Culture; and Investment in Ongoing, Embedded,
and Intensive Professional Development
One of the driving forces at Ekahi Elementary is the Data Teams that
Principal Akala formed when she became principal. Data Teams analyze student
assessment data and plan interventions followed by assessments to help teachers
focus instruction on students’ individual needs. There are two Data Teams. One data
team is for Kindergarten through second grade and the other data team is for third
through sixth grade. During articulation time every Wednesday, from 1:20pm until
2:45pm, the principal gives a directed focus to each team with a handout that
identifies their focus for the week, along with guiding questions, and the
interventions teachers will take. After data teams meet, they turn in these completed
forms to Principal Akala. She feels this facilitates everyone to participate and helps
them to reflect on their practices. The district, state, and Complex Area

209
Superintendent (CAS) make targets clear to Principal Akala and she makes these
targets clear for her staff. Every focus of the data team is aimed at meeting these
targets. These meetings decide the learning interventions for students that will be
completed in the following week. This weekly data team planning allows for flexible
grouping based on students individual learning needs that will address skills that
either need developed or enriched. The math coach at Ekahi Elementary attended a
Singapore Math workshop with four other teachers at her school. She was then able
to follow up with the teachers at her school as they worked through using Singapore
Math as a supplemental activity to challenge students in problem solving. Those
teachers who attended the training also provided assistance and support to other
teachers as well on using data to drive instructional decisions and learning
interventions.
Focus Class Time Efficiently and Effectively; Provide Multiple Interventions for
Struggling Students
Another element that stands out at Ehaki Elementary is that although
flexibility of teaching styles is allowed, there are guidelines and expectations set as a
whole school at Ekahi Elementary for math and reading. Although the principal
believes in common assessments, as there is only one teacher per grade (except for K
and 1
st
), they do not all use common assessments for everything. Teachers are
generally expected to be on the same lesson; however, based on students’ needs in
their classrooms, it is understood that they may be one lesson ahead or behind.
However, she explained, they “should not be ahead or behind by seven lessons”.

210
Also because each reading lesson is scripted, every teacher follows the same format
for each lesson regarding the delivery of each lesson including time and structure for
each part of the lesson. Two bell schedules are used by the entire school. One for
week A and the other for week B. This allows for flexible groupings for learning
interventions for students as well as electives such as band, art, etc. 105 minutes are
scheduled each day for Language Arts with the main focus on reading. Students are
grouped by their skill level and go to different classes during the reading block daily
based on their reading level. Writing is integrated into their reading block. ALL
teachers, part-time teachers (PTTs) and educational aides (EAs) teach reading at the
same time. PTTs are specifically trained in the instruction of Reading Mastery as
well as EveryDay Math and Singapore Math. The students with the lowest levels of
reading skills are in groups with the most qualified teachers. Time blocks for
reading and math interventions are given three times a week (two days for 35
minutes each, and one day for 45 minutes) for students needing extra assistance to
learn specific reading and math skills as well as for those students needing
enrichment activities to challenge them. Groups may be switched several times
during the year as decided based on assessment data collected by the teachers as well
as math and reading coaches. Learning interventions range from one-on-one to small
group interventions as resources allow.

211
Empower Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through Widespread
Distributive Instructional Leadership
To support instructional improvement at Ekahi Elementary the principal
believes in “using everyone’s strengths” and that every person is her greatest asset.
She highly values her reading and math coaches stating that they are “essential, hard-
working, knowledgeable people who know all the students and teachers well”. The
principal’s background is in high school, so she relies heavily on her curriculum
coaches when it comes to curriculum and guidance for classroom instruction in her
elementary school. She doesn’t want to “micro-manage” her teachers when it comes
to their instruction; however, she believes in monitoring them through the progress
of each of their students. She uses the knowledge she gains from student test data,
and through conversations with her math and reading coaches, to determine what
types of support each teacher and each student may need. As shown in Table B.3
and B.4, she developed a Bell and Curriculum schedule for every grade to allow time
for learning interventions as well time for the reading and math coach to offer
support to teachers whether it is for modeling, team-teaching, or to provide feedback
after observations.

212
Table B.3
Bell Schedule — Week A
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
7:55-8:15 Homeroom Homeroom Homeroom Homeroom Homeroom
8:15-10:00
Period 1
Reading Mastery
Writing (9:25)
Reading Mastery
Test Prep (9:25)
Reading Mastery
Writing (9:25)
Reading Mastery
Test Prep (9:25)
Reading Mastery
10:00-10:15 Recess Recess Recess Recess Recess
10:15-11:20
K-6
Period 2
E-2—math
E-4—math
H-1—math
H-3—math
J-7—Art

3—Library
4—Test Prep
5—Tech
6— Writing
E-2—math
E-4—math
H-1—math
H-3—math
J-7—Halau

3—Test Prep
4—Tech
5—Writing
6—Library/Iwa
Band
Math
10:50-11:10
Pre-school library
E-2—Halau
E-4—Math
H-1—Halau
H-3—math
J-7—math

3—Writing
4—Library
5—Test Prep
6—Tech
E-2—math
E-4—math
H-1—math
H-3—Halau
J-7—math

3—Tech
4—Writing
5—Library
6—Test Prep
11:20-12:00 Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess
12:00-12:30
Period 3
All grades-- Math All grades-- Math 11:50- 12:25
FLOW
Flexible Learning
Opportunity
Wednesday
All grades-- Math All grades--Math
12:30-1:30
Period 4
E-2—S.S.
E-4—Writing
H-1—Tech
H-3—Art
J-7—Math

Grades 3-6 Math
E-2—S.S.
E-4-Math
H-1--Art
H-3--Tech
J-7—Math

Grades 3-6 Math
E-2—Art
E-4—Halau
H-1—Math
H-3—Writing
J-7—Tech

Grades 3-6 math
E-2—Health
E-4—Art
H-1—Music
H-3—Math
J-7—Science/S.S.

Grades 3-6 Math
12:25-1:15 Teacher
Prep

1:30-2:10
Period 5
E-2—Tech
E-4—Science
H-1—Science
H-3—S.S.
J-7—
ELA/Sci/S.S.

3—Writing
4—Science
5—S.S.
6—PE
E-2—Writing
E-4—Tech
H-1—Health
H-3—S.S.
J-7-ELA/Sci/S.S.

3—Science/S.S.
4—Science
5—PE
6--Writing
1:20-2:45
Articulation/Staff
Meeting
E-2—Math
E-4—S.S.
H-1—S.S.
H-3—Health
J-7—
ELA/Science/S.S.

3—Science/S.S.
4—PE
5—S.S.
6—S.S.
E-2—Writing
E-4—Science
H-1—Writing
H-3—Health
J-7—
ELA/Sci/S.S

3—PE
4—Health
5—S.S.
6—Writing

213
Table B.4
Bell Schedule — Week B
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
7:55-8:15 Homeroom Homeroom Homeroom Homeroom Homeroom
8:15-10:00
Period 1
Reading Mastery
Writing (9:25)
Reading Mastery
Test Prep (9:25)
Reading Mastery
Writing (9:25)
Reading Mastery
Test Prep (9:25)
Reading Mastery
10:00-10:15 Recess Recess Recess Recess Recess
10:15-11:20
K-6
Period 2
E-2—math
E-4—math
H-1—math
H-3—math
J-7—LIBRARY

3—Tech
4—Test Prep
5—Halau
6— Art
E-2—math
E-4—math
H-1—math
H-3—math
J-7—math

3—Test Prep
4—Tech
5—Art
6—Halau/Iwa
Band
Math E-2—math
E-4—Halau
H-1—math
H-3—math
J-7—math

3—Art
4—Halau
5—Tech
6—Test Prep
E-2—math
E-4—math
H-1—math
H-3—math
J-7—math

3—Halau
4—Art
5—Test Prep
6—Tech
11:20-12:00 Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess Lunch/Recess
12:00-12:30
Period 3
All grades--
Math
All grades-- Math 11:50- 12:25
FLOW
Flexible Learning
Opportunity
Wednesday
All grades-- Math All grades--Math
12:30-1:30
Period 4
E-2—Science
E-4—Science
H-1—Writing
H-3—library
J-7—math

Grades 3-6 Math
E-2--Science
E-4-Social Studies
H-1--library
H-3--ELA
J-7--Tech
Grades 3-6 Math
E-2—Halau
E-4—library
H-1—Tech
H-3—ELA
J-7—Science/S.S.

Grades 3-6 math
E-2—library
E-4—Science
H-1—Music
H-3—Tech
J-7—Science/S.S.

Grades 3-6 Math
12:25-1:15
Teacher Prep

1:30-2:10
Period 5
E-2—PE
E-4—Tech
H-1—Science
H-3—Science
J-7—PE

3—Writing
4—S.S.
5—Science
6—S.S.
E-2—Writing
E-4—PE
H-1—Health
H-3—Science
J-7-
ELA/Sci/MATH
3—Science/S.S.
4—S.S.
5—Science
6--Science
1:20-2:45
Articulation/Staff
Meeting
E-2—Tech
E-4—Math
H-1—PE
H-3—Health
J-7—
ELA/Science/S.S..

3—Science/S.S.
4—Writing
5—Science
6--Writing
E-2—Writing
E-4—Music/PA
H-1—S.S.
H-3—PE
J-7—ELA/Sci/S.S

3—Writing
4—Writing
5—Science
6—
Health/Guidance

214
Many organizational structures at her school were set in place by previous
principals, but she feels they are structures that serve her population of students well.
Though she has changed a few she has accepted many as her own as well. One of
these changes was her idea of having a time for students to participate in electives.
This time slot was started when band was offered to 6
th
graders. The program was
initiated by a high school teacher that offered to teach band one day a week at her
elementary school. The time slot for band was needed, thus forming a time slot that
the principal felt would allow other students to explore elective classes as well.
Though the students in band participate from 11:55am – 1pm, the other electives last
only until the end of school (11:55-12:25pm). Students in band elect to stay after
school for the extra time. She has expanded the electives offered by previous
principals by now offering a time slot on Wednesdays for these activities called
FLOW (Flexible Learning Opportunity Wednesdays). When she set up FLOW she
asked her teachers which electives they would be interested in teaching, and then
allowed them to teach those subjects. Students select their electives ranging from
crafts, drama, dance, running club, and a technology class. Although these classes
are multi-age they are grouped by lower (K-2) and upper grades (3-6). She also
makes use of the elective time as time to pull students for learning interventions in
reading and math.
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
Yet another strategy at Ekahi Elementary that is aimed at school
improvement is that she encourages her teachers and math coaches to ask for help,

215
support, and professional development when needed. Over the past few years her
teachers have expressed an interest in Singapore Math. She has four core teachers
who consistently ask for, and attend, Singapore Math workshops when they are
offered in Hawai’i each year. These teachers and curriculum coaches then train
other teachers in its implementation. She allows her teachers to use Singapore math
as a supplement to EveryDay Math. She feels her school needs to work on
developing more problem-solving skills with her students and feels that Singapore
math is structured to help develop these problem-solving skills in her students.
Singapore Math is also used for some math interventions. Most of her professional
development for her staff is provided in-house by either herself or by her reading and
math coach due to budget constraints. However, she feels her reading and math
coach are phenomenal at this task.
Table B.5 shows how Ekahi Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.

216
Table B.5
Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based Strategies at Ekahi
Elementary
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
1) analyzing
student
achievement data
√ Not only is data collected weekly, but teachers are
required to write short paragraph of anecdotal notes
identifying students’ needs based on skills taught that
week. Principal, curriculum coaches, and data teams
analyze and coordinate interventions for identified
students
2) setting
ambitious goals
√ Goal of 90% proficiency for all students in reading and
math on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA)
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ All teachers are trained extensively by the math and
reading coaches in the Reading First Reading Mastery
program, EveryDay Math, and Singapore Math.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ All lessons are standards-based, all formative and
summative assessments are standards-based.
Assessments are analyzed weekly to plan learning
interventions for students. Pre/mid/and post assessments
are also given using DIBELS. Quarterly assessments for
reading and math are also given for students through
teacher created assessments as well as a program
designed by the state through DSI.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Teachers’ requests for professional development are
encouraged and honored. However, budget cuts have
limited funds for professional development and 10 PD
days in the teachers’ contract were taken away by the
state as Directed Leave Without Pay (DLWP). This left
the teachers with no PD days for the year, though they
may request 5 PD days which will be subtracted from
their sick leave.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Instructional time is carefully managed and monitored
by administration and curriculum coaches. Lessons must
be purposeful and are assessed weekly for effectiveness.
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√ Two complex bell schedules have been created by the
principal to allow for learning interventions for all
struggling students as well as those students that need
enrichment. All teachers, PTT, PPTs, and EAs are
trained extensively in reading and math interventions by
the Reading and Math Coaches.

217
Table B.5, continued
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Data teams have been formed by the principal that meet
weekly. Focus questions are designed by the principal.
Each team member is expected to fill out their forms and
turn them into the principal after each Data Team
meeting. These include areas of concern, needs, plans
for interventions, and self-reflection.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Data Teams are encouraged to read research, know their
curriculum well, and be able to use research-based
instruction at all times.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ Although the principal encourages professional
development opportunities, the budget cutbacks have not
allowed her to offer many professional development
opportunities, other than the extensive help that her
reading and math coaches provide to her teachers.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ The principal encourages family involvement, but also
finds this area a challenge. Her strategy with her limited
funds is to encourage families to enroll their
kindergarten students in her school. For this reason she
started a two-week Kindergarten Camp prior to students
starting Kindergarten to give families and “taste” of her
school. She feels that once she gets them in
Kindergarten, they will love her school and stay. Her
SSC encourages families and students to come to him if
they need assistance and always has an open door for
them. The clerks in the office and the crossing-guard
know the students and families well and alert the
principal with concerns.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The principal is transformative, driven, and completely
involved in all aspects of her school. She uses
distributive leadership to keep tabs on all that happens in
her school. The clerks in her office know her families
well in the community, her Student Service Coordinator
(SCC) has an open door policy for families to talk to
about anything they need to talk about. Her curriculum
coaches offer their expertise in instructional methods to
her teachers offering multiple supports to teachers and
students. All of these activities are coordinated and
monitored by the principal.

218
Although Ekahi Elementary employs some of Odden’s (2009) effective
strategies, they are not implemented fully. It is important to note that some resources
allocations were very difficult to assess due to the format of the Financial Academic
Plan principals are required to use to budget their schools in Hawai`i. Neither the
Financial Academic Plan, nor the Financial Plan Template are itemized, but instead
funds are linked to goals to improve student achievement or they are lumped into
general categories such as WSF Instruction, WSF Student Services, WSF EII, WSF
Instructional Support, WSF School Administration, or School Facility Services. Each
goal is separated into different activities that will focus on these goals. However,
within each activity funds are again lumped as a whole that includes the amount
spent on substitutes, materials, programs, and professional development into one
lump sum. This lumping of funds makes it difficult to pull out individual resource
allocations such as the exact amount spent on technology and the amount spent on
supplies or training. Ekahi Elementary had a total budget allocation of $1,783,830
for the school year 2010-11. Within these funds they were allocated $5,378.29 per
student (total of $968,092.20 WSF). Other fund sources included Federal and
Categorical sources.
Tables B.6 and B.7 shows a comparison of the school profile and resource
allocation between Ekahi Elementary and an EBM prototype school.

219
Table B.6
School Profile Comparison: Ekahi Elementary School and Evidence Based Model
(EBM) School
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
Ekahi Elementary
School Ekahi – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5 K-6 Has one additional grade
(6th)
Enrollment 432 180 252 fewer students
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 18
4-6: 22.7
K: 3 more students than
EBM
4-6: 2.3 students less than
EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes same
Number of Teacher
work days
180 + 10 days of
PD
180 Days
(10 PD days cut
by state-
furloughs)
10 less PD days than
recommended by EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 13.9% 1.9% more than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 59.4% 9.4% more than EBM
EL students 10% 7.8% 2.2% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 89.7% 59.7% more than EBM

220
Table B.7
Resource Comparison: Ekahi Elementary School and Evidence Based Model (EBM)
for Adequate School Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with Ekahi
Elementary
Characteristics
(180 Students) Ekahi Elementary School
Sch1 – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 10 9 1 less than EBM
recommends
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 2 1 (Art) 1 less than EBM
Instructional
Facilitators/ mentors
2.2 .9 2 (Reading and Math
Coaches)- $110,000 of
which half is funded by
federal funds
1.1 more than EBM
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
1.1 0 FTE
(2 PPTs though all teachers,
curriculum coaches, PTTs,
and EAs tutor during
interventions and reading
and math blocks.)
1.1 less than EBM
recommends
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: 0.43 1.1 0 FTE
(1 PTT)
1.1 less FTE than EBM
recommends
Extended day 1.8 0.9 (1 Band teacher for 6
th

graders once a week for 1
hour)
0.9 less than EBM (core
subject should be taught
for extended day)
Summer School 1.8 0.9 0 FTE
(only 2 week Kinder Camp)
0.9 less than EBM
recommends
Learning Disabled
student
3 1.25 6 FTE
4 EAs
2.75 more than EBM
GATE student $25/student $4,500 0 $4,500 less than EBM
Substitutes 5% of all of the above $27,500 $800 $26,700 less than EBM
recommends
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
1.1 1 Counselor 0.1 less than EBM
Non-instructional aides 2 0.8 1SSC
2 PPTs
0.8 less FTE than EBM
recommends
Librarian/Media
specialists
1 1 1 Librarian same

221

Table B.7, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School
with Ekahi
Elementary
Characteristics
(180 Students) Ekahi Elementary School
Sch1 – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Principal 1 1 1 same
School site Secretary 2 1 1 SASA
2 Clerks
2 more than EBM
recommends
Professional
Development
Instructional
facilitators, Planning &
prep time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
$18,000 Planning & prep time
including subs ($2,500),
conferences, travel (AVID
conference $8,000 paid by
grant), materials and
conference fees $2,000
Instructional Coaches ,
Principal, and SSC provide
most PD (“inhouse”)
$5,500 less than EBM
Technology $250/pupil $45,000 $10,700
[$2,700 included for
Achieve 3000 (online
reading program-$15 per
student paid by state, not
school funds)
[note: state moratorium on
most technology purchases]
$34,300 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional materials $140/ pupil $25,200 $3,000, but principal did not
include texts and
consumable purchases in
cost
(not all data available)
Data not available
Student activities $200/pupil $36,000 $4,000 $32,000 less than EBM
recommends

222
Lessons Learned
Ekahi Elementary School has made enormous improvements in narrowing
the achievement gap and improving overall student performance in the last seven
years.
• The school sets specific, measurable goals that focus on instruction and
learning interventions in and out of the classroom and has made a
concerted and ongoing effort to meet the needs of all students.
• By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement
gaps. Regular weekly data analysis by Data Teams (PLCs) guides
instruction at Ekahi Elementary.
• Ekahi Elementary effectively uses curriculum, along with curriculum
mapping, and a pacing guide that have all been clearly aligned to the
standards by the Data teams and Reading and Math coaches.
• The school has a strong professional learning community in the form of
Data Teams. Though the budget is very limited for professional
development opportunities, the principal, the Student Services
Coordinator (SSC), and the reading and math coaches provide teachers
support with instructional strategies and data analysis. This support is
offered to the whole staff during weekly meetings and also one-on-one to
teachers in their classrooms. Teachers have also received training in

223
AVID (funded by a complex grant) and in Singapore Math (funded by
school).
• The principal uses distributive leadership, relying on her Reading and
Math coach heavily for instructional support for her teachers and to
provide focused and effective support to all staff members that promote a
culture of learning.

224
APPENDIX C
ELUA ELEMENTARY
Background on School
Elua Elementary is located in a district that serves 38,756 students, a complex
area serving 15,814 students, and finally a complex serving 9,514 students K-12. The
school is located in what was once an agricultural area, but in the last 15 years has
become a rapidly expanding suburban area on the coastal plains of Oahu. In 2010-
11Elua Elementary had a student enrollment of 565 students in grades K-6. There
were four classes per grade level in Kindergarten through third grade and three
classes in each grade level in fourth through sixth grade.

The average daily
attendance for students is 94.6%. Figure C.1 provides enrollment from 2003-2011.

Figure C.1. Elua Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11
563
556
551
526
535
549
565
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
Enrollment
Enrollment

225
Elua Elementary is a Title I school as 60.5% of the students received free or
reduced lunch (disadvantaged), 7.8% of students qualify for special education
(SPED), 11.7% of students are English Language Learners (ELL). Forty-nine percent
of students attending Ekahi Elementary attended preschool.

Figure C.2. Elua Elementary student needs demographics percentages 2010-11

The student population was very diverse, as shown in Figure C.3, with the
majority of students being Filipino (39.9%) or Native Hawaiian (28.8%), followed
by Samoan (9.8%), Caucasian (6.7%), multiple ethnicities (2.9%), African-American
(2.7%), Japanese (2.4%), Hispanic (1.9%), Micronesian (1.7%), Indo-Chinese
(1.7%), Portuguese (0.7%), Chinese (0.5%),and Korean (0.3%).

0
20
40
60
80
Disadvantaged,
60.5
ELL, 11.7
No special needs,
20
Disabled, 7.8
Students

226

Figure C.3. Elua Elementary ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11

There are 39 teachers (FTE) at Elua Elementary. Twenty-eight teachers
provide regular instruction, seven provide special instruction, and four teachers
provide supplemental instruction (Curriculum Coordinator, Technology Coordinator,
Math Coach, and a SFA Reading Coach). Forty-one percent of teachers have five or
more years of teaching experience. The average years of teaching experience at this
school is 8.6 years. Twenty-eight percent of teachers have advanced degrees. Thirty-
eight teachers are fully licensed and one teacher has provisional credentials. There is
one principal, one vice-principal, one Curriculum Coordinator, one Student Service
Coordinator (SCC), and one counselor.
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Elua Elementary.
39.9
28.8
9.8
6.7
2.9
2.7
2.4
1.9
1.7
1.7
0.7 0.5
0.3
Filipino
Native Hawaiian
Samoan
White
multiple ethnicities
Black
Japanese
Hispanic
Micronesian
Indo-Chinese
Portuguese
Chinese

227
Assessment Data — Reading Proficiency for Elua Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
There was a steady progression of academic progress in reading scores on
the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Elua Elementary from 2006-07 school year
through 2010-11 school year (an increase of 19.8%) though there was a slight dip in
scores from 2009-10 and 2010-2011 (a decrease of 0.6). Reading scores of
disadvantaged students rose from 49.4% in 2006-07 to 69.2% in 2010-11 (an
increase of 19.8%). There was a gap in proficiency scores of 2.6% between all
students and the subgroup of disadvantaged students by the year 2010-11. However,
last year, 2010-11, reading scores leveled off. Principal Polu thinks that because they
were focusing their efforts on raising math proficiency last year, that they may not
have focused also raising reading proficiency as much.

228

Figure C.4. Elua Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

As shown in Table C.1 a nationally normed assessment has been part of the
state testing; however, the test was changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova
starting in the school year 2006-07. It is a small portion of the Hawai`i State
Assessment (HSA) given each year to students from third to sixth grade. As shown
in Table C.1 students’ reading scores on the TerraNova at Elua Elementary have
varied by only three percent from 2006-07 until 2009-10. Sixth graders scored 70%
proficiency in 2006-07, 72% in 2007-08, 67% in 2008-09, and 69% in 2009-10.
However, sixth graders scored 88% proficient in reading in 2010-11 (an increase of
19 % in one year). Reading proficiency for sixth graders has increased by 16%
overall from 2006-07 until 2010-11. On the Terra Nova fifth graders started with
78% proficiency in 2006-07, followed by a dip in proficiency to 53% in 2007-08, a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
42.2
36.6
47
52
59.4
65.2
72.4 71.8
37.3
34.7
41.8
49.4
53.9
57.2
67.2
69.2
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

229
rise to 59% in 2008-09, another rise to 70% in 2009-10, and finally jump to 92% in
2010-11 (an increase of 22% in one year) for a total increase of 14% from 2006-07
until 2010-11. Fourth graders scored 67% proficiency in 2006-07, 70% in 2007-08,
followed by a dip to 62% in 2008-09, a rise to 78% in 2009-10, and finally and
increase to 86% in 2010-11 (an increase of 8%) for a total increase of 19% from
2066-07 until 2010-11. Finally, third graders proficiency scores have risen the least
from 2006-07 until 2010-11 with 71% proficiency in 2006-07, 70% in 2007-08, a
rise to 82% in 2008-09, 83% in 2009-10, and 83% in 2010-11 (an increase of only
1% from 2009-10 to 2010-11). However, reading proficiency for third graders has
increased by 12% overall from 2006-07 until 2010-11.

Table C.1
Percent of Students Proficient in Reading on SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
6
th
grade
69% (not
reported
by grade
level)
84 73 70 72 67 69 88
5
th
grade 67 66 78 53 59 70 92
4
th
grade 70 68 67 70 62 78 86
3
rd
grade 67 72 71 70 82 83 83

230
Reading proficiency for subgroups at Elua Elementary, as measured by the
Hawaii State Assessment, is shown in Figure C.5. Elua Elementary has shown
growth in state accountability measures in reading as measured through the HSA
which is aligned to state standards in each grade level. It is also notable that Elua
Elementary has also shown academic growth for every significant subgroups except
ELL and disabled subgroups. The gap between all subgroups except ELL, disabled,
and females is within 4.8%. Females have consistently outscored every other group
in reading and although there was a dip of scores from 83.7% in 2009-10 to 77.2% in
2010-11 (a decrease of 6.5%), they remain 4.8% above the next highest scoring
subgroup of Asian/Pacific Islanders at 72.4%. White students reached 70.5 %
reading proficiency, Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup reached reading proficiency of
72.4%, disadvantaged students reached proficiency of 69.2%, male students reached
proficiency of 67.6%, and students overall met reading proficiency of 71.8%. The
lowest performing subgroups were ELL students at 42.1% reading proficiency and
disabled students at 5.5%. The disabled group has also shown a drastic dip in
reading proficiency scores from 2008-09 to 2010-11 (a decrease of 13.5%).

231

Figure C.5. Elua Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by subgroup on
HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Assessment Data — Math Proficiency for Ekahi Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
There has also been a steady progression of math proficiency on the Hawai`i
State Assessment (HSA) at Elua Elementary from 2006-07 through 2010-11 (an
increase of 21.8%) as shown in Figure C.6. Math scores of disadvantaged students
rose from 41% in 2006-07 to 63.4% in 2010-11 (an increase of 22.4%). There was a
proficiency gap of 3.6% between all students and the subgroup of disadvantaged
students by the year 2010-11.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
Male
Female

232

Figure C.6. Elua Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing for math as
well; however, the test was also changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting
in the school year 2006-07. Students’ math scores at Elua Elementary as shown in
Table C.2 have varied from year to year in math as measured through the TerraNova.
Though there have been dips and rises in math proficiency scores from year to year,
in 2010-11 there was an increase of 19% in just one year. Sixth graders had 76%
math proficiency in 2006-07, 66% in 2007-08 (a decrease of 10%), 63% in 2008-09
(another decrease of 3%), 69% in 2009-10 (an increase of 3%), and finally a rise to
88% in 2010-11 (and increase of 19% in one year). Fifth graders had a general rise
in proficiency scores from 69% proficiency in 2006-07, 71% in 2007-08, 73% in
2008-09, 71% in 2009-10, and finally a jump to 91% in 2010-11 (an increase of 20%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
23.8
12.3
29.8
45.2
49.3
55.8
59
67
23.3
10.9
26.3
41
44.7
47.5
53
63.4
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

233
in one year). Fourth graders scored 67% proficiency in 2006-07, 64% in 2007-08 (a
decrease of 3%), 60% in 2008-09 (a decrease of 4%), 77% in 2009-10 (an increase of
17% in one year), followed by another increase to 91% in 2010-11 (an increase of
14%). Fourth grade math proficiency scores increase by a total of 31% in two years.
Finally, third graders proficiency scores showed the least growth overall. Third
graders had 75% math proficiency in 2006-07, 82% in 2007-08 (an increase of 7%),
83% in 2008-09, 72% in 2009-10 (a decrease of 11%), and 81% in 2010-11. Third
graders math proficiency increased by a total of 6% from 2006-07 to 2010-11
overall.

Table C.2
Percent of Students Proficient in Math on SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
6
th
grade
74% (not
reported
by grade
level)
80 88 76 66 63 69 88
5
th
grade 84 84 69 71 73 71 91
4
th
grade 88 88 67 64 60 77 91
3
rd
grade 82 86 75 82 83 72 81

234
As shown in Figure C.7 from 2006-07 until 2010-11 there was a general
trend of growth in math proficiency as measured by the HSA at Elua Elementary.
However, it is important to note that the math proficiency gap between all subgroups
widened. Differences between subgroups stayed within 10.1% between all subgroups
except white (82.3%), ELL (31.5%), and disabled (16.6%) subgroups. However,
white students scored 82.3%, 9.6% more than females, 15.2% more than
Asian/Pacific Islanders, 19.7% more than males, and 18.9% more than
disadvantaged students. Even more significantly the gap of math proficiency
widened the most in 2010-11 between the disabled subgroup, and whites by 65.7%
and ELL students by 50.8%.

Figure C.7. Elua Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HAS 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
Male
Female

235
Principal Polu’s Story of School Improvement for Elua Elementary
Principal Polu responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions
regarding her 2010-2011 school improvement plans and strategies. Structured
interview protocol guided data collection. Her responses along with school and state
documents provided qualitative and quantitative resource data for comparison with
the Evidence Based Model and told the story of how and why the school utilizes its
resources toward instructional and academic improvement. Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) recommended ten strategies for doubling student performance are used as a
framework for discussing the various elements within the case study for identifying
successful strategies used to raise student academic performance. These ten
strategies are used for comparison purposes. Each element is identified as a heading
for discussion around the school’s attempts to implement similar strategies, though
some strategies are within the same heading, because of their close relationship to
each other as used by Elua Elementary. The description of Elua Elementary’s story
of these improvements follows.
Set Ambitious Goals and Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge
Principal Polu believes that “once a good system is set up, it should run itself.
If it doesn’t, than it is not a good system”. When she was first assigned to her school
her biggest concern and one that she concentrated on the most was the
disorganization of procedural systems and expectations within Elua Elementary.
There were not many systems in place. Procedural systems were not in place such as
no faculty handbook that outlined professional expectations and duties, no

236
curriculum handbooks with guidelines, or guidelines. She also noted a general lack
of professionalism from the teachers and staff. This lack of respect not only in
meetings where she noticed teachers carrying on side conversations during faculty
meetings with disregard for anyone speaking, including herself, and even cases of
teachers texting during meeting. Outside of meetings she witnessed, and was made
aware of, by conversations with other staff members, that some staff members were
not treating others with respect in their general dealings with each other.
In her previous school, as a vice-principal, she had helped her school adopt a
program to tackle this same issue, the FISH philosophy developed by ChartHouse
Learning. The FISH philosophy is used as a tool to build a stronger work culture
that strengthens relationships in an organization. It is based on the understanding that
if basic needs are met for humans in an organization, then they will in turn be able to
fulfill the needs of the organization (more connected teams, better communication,
extraordinary service, and higher retention of employees). The four FISH
philosophies are —Be There, Make Their Day, Choose Your Attitude, and Play. The
philosophy has been adapted to school environments to work with educators to blend
FISH philosophies with best education practices to build a positive, enthusiastic and
focused culture. The philosophy “Be there” basically means that all parties should be
focused on the task at hand. In other words, in meetings they are actively listening to
the speaker and not carrying on side conversations, texting, or a multitude of other
activities. They are “there” listening to ideas and contributing to the task at hand.
The philosophy “Make their day” is about building positive relationship through the

237
support of each other. It is about acknowledging those around you for what they do.
The philosophy “Choose your attitude” points out that everyone is responsible for
the attitude they bring into a situation and they need to be aware if they are bringing
in a pessimistic or cynical attitude or one of meeting a challenge head on and coming
in as a problem solver, not a complainer. Lastly, the fourth part of the FISH
philosophy is “play” meaning remember that sometimes levity helps alleviate the
stress from the day to day work, or can help co-workers take a break to refresh
themselves, before they get back to work. The idea is to keep the fun in your
relationships with co-workers as well as the fun in learning. It reminds the staff that
sometimes they need to laugh together as this too helps to build relationships with
each other. Principal Polu hoped that by using the FISH philosophy not only would
her staff focus on their goals of student academic improvement, but they would also
remember to build solid, strong, professional, and personal relationships with each
other. She believes that relationships are the key to transforming a school’s success
as a “team spirit” type of mentality.
Another system she put in place when she became principal that she felt was
essential for the transformation of her school was to make her personal and school
beliefs clear with goals and agendas, of not only for when teachers would meet to
articulate, but also a clear set of expectations. Her observations of staff in and out of
the classroom helped her form her ideas about what her school needed. She felt they
needed to work as a better team. To help her school become a better team Principal
Polu shared her personal beliefs as well as her beliefs for Elua Elementary. These

238
beliefs are posted all over the school, including the faculty bathrooms. She labeled
her beliefs as Soccer Beliefs tying them into her years of playing soccer. The words
from the memo she distributed are listed below.
Principal’s Perspective
My Personal Beliefs
1) Family first. Health first
2) Work hard, play hard.
3) Give and take relationships, not 50/50.

Soccer Philosophy
My Professional Beliefs:
1) One team, one family…everyone must feel valued
2) Open Door Policy
3) Parents/Community are partners
4) Learning must be engaging and challenging (not only test prep)
5) Systemic supports are needed (communication, target assist)
6) Work smarter, not harder
7) Collective vision/goal
8) Learning is NOT compartmentalized
9) We MUST be adaptive to the needs of the 21
st
century
10) Learning is by doing. Are we doing it for them?

Respect, Responsibility, Relationships

She felt there was a general lack of respect at her school as she witnessed a
lot of in-fighting between school staff. To help develop respect between her staff
members, and to create a more cohesive team, she changed several areas of her
school procedures, rules, expectations, and staff placements. She had her whole staff
develop their own ground rules for professional behavior. She initiated clear
checkpoints for everyone to monitor their progress at achieving their set goals. She
also made major shifts in personnel, because of the general lack of respect that she

239
witnessed from some staff members. She shifted staff around to form better units as
she observed their strengths and weaknesses. She also made her school an inclusion
school for Special Education students. Her goal and her motto was a very hard-lined
approach of “get on board, or get off.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
No changes in curriculum were made when Principal Polu became principal
at Elua Elementary; however, the math curriculum had changed to EveryDay Math
with the previous principal due to a state-wide initiative to enhance math and science
curriculum. Instead she tried to strengthen the curriculum that was in place. She
began visiting other schools on the island that were making greater gains in academic
achievement and noted that all the other schools she visited had grouped their
students into homogeneous reading groups as well as formed their desks into quads
in the classroom instead of rows to encourage collaboration. As a former high
school English teacher, she wasn’t in favor of homogeneous groups; however, as she
observed different schools that were making large gains of student academic
achievement, she decided to follow their model of separating students into
homogeneous ability groups to see if it would improve learning at her school.
Another change she made at her school to improve reading instruction was to
utilize all certified teachers as well as PPTs and PTTs that were specifically trained
in teaching reading using Success for All (SFA) during the 90 minute reading block
that she also allocated. SFA had been adopted at her school by the former principal
in hopes of raising student reading achievement. She noted that other schools she

240
had visited had improved their academic proficiency in reading and they had also
used SFA.
For math instruction the curriculum used at Elua Elementary is EveryDay
Math (EDM). It was set in place by a former principal. Principal Polu chose to keep
it in place also, but she decided to allow teachers to modify the sequence of lessons
to better align the curriculum with state standards. She continues to question herself
if this was the best strategy, because EDM research stated that the program was
designed in a spiraling format that needs to be taught in the order the lessons were
designed with fidelity to be most effective at raising student achievement. However,
in the schools she had visited that had improved their math proficiency, she had
noted that they had allowed their teacher to switch some units out of sequence to
meet state standards prior to the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA). She also felt that
EDM didn’t align well with the state standards that would be tested. In addition she
also allowed her teachers to supplement their instruction with other math curriculum
such as Singapore Math and a variety of other sources (teacher found or teacher
created) to fill in the gaps of instruction that they felt EDM did not address
effectively. She also kept students in heterogeneous groups for math instruction.
Commit to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions and Invest in
Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development
Severe budget cuts within the state prevented teachers and staff at Elua
Elementary from participating in many professional development activities in 2010-
11. However, teachers in grades four through sixth were able to attend an AVID

241
conference in Sacramento through a complex area grant. Some teachers were also
able to attend PD for Autism Spectrum Disorders, Singapore Math, MyOn (online
library where students can check out books and have them read out loud to them),
and an outside provider was brought into Elua Elementary school from the to lead
the whole staff in professional development on using Thinking Maps.
Other than these professional development activities, ongoing collaboration
was encouraged through the new rotating schedule that Principal Polu created that
allowed time for teachers to analyze student assessment data gathered from the HSA,
Data for School Improvement (DSI), and formative assessments. Teacher used the
time allotted to research best practices for instruction, plan learning interventions for
struggling students, discussing problem and plan changes in their instruction to help
their students learn difficult concepts. They also set up pullout learning interventions
focused on specific skills that individual students needed help with as well as pullout
enrichment activities for students who had exceeded the learning goals in the
classroom. However, Elua Elementary used classroom formative assessments to
guide instruction in the classroom, but did not use data from the classroom to guide
pullout learning interventions during and after school.
The principal’s main focus, as she explained, was to build teacher capacity by
having them use data to build their collaborative relationships focused on raising
student achievement. She explained that “relationships, respect, and trust are the key
to raising student performance” and she needed to use everyone’s strengths and build
up any weaknesses. Principal Polu knew the budget limited her from providing

242
professional development opportunities for her staff, but she hoped to optimize
change in instruction by allowing the extra time for her teachers and staff to work
together to design and implement the change that was needed. However, the only
accountability put in place for her teachers was that they needed to e-mail their
minutes to Principal Polu after each articulation. Her reasoning for only requesting
the minutes was that she felt she needed to trust her teachers to be professionals and
did not want to” micro-manage them by giving them extra duties that they needed to
complete for me”. She reiterated that teachers have enough to do without her “adding
one more thing to their plate” and feared overwhelming them with yet more work.
Focus Class Time Efficiently and Effectively
At Elua Elementary reading is taught during a 90 minutes block daily. All
teachers follow the Success For All program for reading. After 15 minutes in
homeroom, students are separated into homogeneous groups at their reading level as
assessed each quarter by Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) and the Scholastic
Performance Index (SPI). The SFA coach, located at the school, monitors classrooms
daily while also providing feedback to teachers, and any support that is needed for
teachers. This involves modeling, guiding, team-teaching, observations, and
providing feedback as needed.
EveryDay Math is taught during the math block at Elua Elementary, though it
is not taught with fidelity or with a certain structure of lessons or sequence. Teachers
are allowed to supplement lessons at their discretion as long as they are addressing
the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards and Benchmarks. Teachers have a

243
lot of autonomy when making decisions about their instructional time and format for
math. However, they do have to follow agreed to guidelines they created as a grade
level that they outlined in their curriculum maps, aligned to standards, and followed
their pacing guides.
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
Although SFA had been implemented by the former principal, academic
success at her school was still very limited. She decided that she also needed to
change some of the structures and systems that were in place, as mentioned earlier,
such as core beliefs, agreements of professional behavior and expectations, and staff
movement. She felt the “lack of systems” contributed to poor student performance.
She realized that she also needed to change the systems to support a better learning
environment. She increased her part-time staff (EAs) from 5 people to 10. With
these new positions she implemented a program for students to participate in other
activities such as volleyball, track, hula, drama, choir, Zumba, Japanese, and
Spanish. Some of these activities happened during the school day, while many of
them happened after school with positions she funded with these casual hires. She
implemented these activities for three reasons. One reason was to involve the
students and families more in the school and promote a “healthy lifestyle” as family
involvement was very low at her school. She had noticed that many of her students
participated in sports after school. The community was heavily involved in sports off
campus, so she decided as a strategy to get them involved in Elua Elementary more,
she would add sports and other activities to the curriculum to help “build

244
relationships with the parents and community”. The second reason was that having
non-core subjects in key time-slots would allow her to free up what she felt was
“much needed time to allow her teachers and curriculum coaches to articulate” in
data-driven teams to improve student learning.
Another change she made to increase student support was to designate one
class on each grade level (as needed) a special education inclusion class. She also
decreased the class size by 5 students for each teacher that chose to be an inclusion
class. She let the teachers decide together which teacher would be the inclusion
teacher. She noted that the majority of teachers that decided to be inclusion teachers
were dual -certified (Regular and Special Education certified). She also added a
special education teacher and an Educational Assistant (EA) to each inclusion
classroom. However, because of budget shortages, fifth and sixth grade inclusion
classes share the one extra special education teacher (FTE) and Educational Assistant
(EA). Currently second grade does not have an inclusion class as only two students
in second grade have been identified as special needs students.
Create a Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning
Communities)
Another main driving force of Principal Polu’s plan was to increase student
academic achievement by allowing teachers and curriculum coaches to meet in PLCs
once a week from 10am-2pm. Two grade levels per day would meet for articulation.
She encouraged them to meet off campus, if they desired, so that they would feel
more relaxed as they worked together on improving their instruction and for

245
developing plans to address the gaps in students’ academic performance etc. She
hoped that by allowing them to meet off campus, they would “develop better
relationships with each other as well”. She strongly believes that their conversations
were vital. In these teams she gave them the task of developing common
assessments (pre, mid, and post) to assess students’ academic growth as well as
review data on common assessments and plan learning interventions. She didn’t set
up any agenda for the grade level PLCs, but did require them to send her their
minutes from each meeting every week. She did not want to “micro-manage” her
teachers and she said she “trusted them to do what they needed to do”.
She also believed that part of the collaboration at her school needed to be
with the parents and businesses in her community. When she first came to the school
there was a lack of parent and community participation, so she set out to strategically
pull parents and community partners into the school. She explained that the sports
activities she created would bring in her families, but to bring in businesses she
created a campaign she named “Building Passions, Building Dreams”. She created a
book to explain how businesses could become involved in her school. In this book
she identified the demographics of her school, test scores, goals, and a vision for her
school that she wished them to be a part of as a team.
Her mission was to have businesses somehow “connect what they do to what
my students are learning”. She wanted to make learning relevant for her students by
connecting them to real world activities. She explained to businesses that they could
build relationships with Elua Elementary by creating field trips to their businesses, or

246
by sending in experts into the classrooms to share their knowledge or to do activities
with the students and teachers. By forming these connections she believed she could
help students have “Quad D learning” which would engage the students more. Quad
D learning is about making learning relevant to students. The state started promoting
Quad D learning for all schools four years ago and even provided professional
development in Quad D learning for every teacher and administrator in the state. The
professional development consisted of a lecturer and motivational speaker sharing
Quad D learning. This lecture as followed by volunteer participation in a Quad D
course through the Office of Curriculum and Instruction in the DOE.
Principal Polu believed that by encouraging businesses to become involved in
her school, it would make learning more relevant to the students. To encourage
businesses to participate she had three meetings. The first meeting was to cheer them
on and get them excited about participating, the second meeting was to let them hear
from the students what they needed, and the third was to hear what the teachers
needed. Forty businesses attended the first meeting, less than that for the second.
However, she was encouraged by the relationships her teachers were building with
businesses to make their lessons more meaningful for their students. Her third
meeting is schedule for this year. She has already seen partnerships between
businesses and teacher begin to develop, but her plan is still in its early stages.

247
Empower Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through Widespread
Distributive Instructional Leadership
Principal Polu stated that she whole-heartedly believed in distributive
leadership; However, she admits that she is still learning to let go of some control of
her “babies” such as her magnet board with student academic progress in her
conference room, and her “Building Passions, Building Dreams” strategy to build
relationships with her businesses. However, one area she has let someone else take
the lead is with her curriculum coaches. She supports her curriculum coaches to
make decisions and monitor reading and math achievement. Her curriculum
coordinator creates complex articulation schedules and goals for each teacher based
on student data. The curriculum coordinator even prints out a stack of schedules
along with student data for each teacher stating where to take their students (drop off
/pick up person) and sets his/her agenda for articulation and student learning
interventions.
Although she had a science coach last year, she switched to a math coach in
this current year (2011-12) to focus on raising math achievement even more. She
felt that math achievement needed more help as it is one of the core areas used to
measure her school’s academic growth that is linked to passing AYP as well as
sanctions through NCLB. In 2010-11 she had four curriculum coaches (a curriculum
coordinator, technology coordinator, science coach, and a SFA reading coach). In
2011-12 she also added an EA as a Media Specialist to support maintaining all the

248
software and online applications for students and teachers at her school since the
implementation of a technology component for SFA.
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
Taking advantage of external expertise in professional and best practices has
been an extreme challenge due to recent budget constraints according to Principal
Polu. Other than relying on SFA methodology that is already in place, providing staff
training on the use of Thinking Maps, and AVID training with follow-up provided to
her school by a Complex Area grant, she has been unable to fund any other expertise
from outside providers.
Table C.3 shows how Elua Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.

249
Table C.3
Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based Strategies at Elua
Elementary
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
1) analyzing
student
achievement
data
√ Although student achievement data are collected, analyzed and
discussed for use by teachers, the data is not used for pullout
learning interventions (GEMS and System 44). Teachers do use
data to inform their instruction and to create in-class learning
interventions.
2) setting
ambitious goals
√ Incremental goals set on the Academic Financial Plan of 10%
academic improvement in math and reading for students.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ √ Reading time is allotted daily for 90 min., follows SFA
curriculum plan. Students separated into homogeneous groups
at their reading level as assessed each quarter.
Math program (EDM) is not taught with fidelity. Teachers have
autonomy to decide which lesson to teach and in which
sequence as a grade level. However, they are required to teach
standards-based lessons that address each standard and
benchmark for their grade level. They also have to follow a
curriculum map and pacing guide they designed
collaboratively.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ Although teachers create and use formative assessments, data
are not used to guide pullout learning interventions during or
after school.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Funding was extremely limited due to recent budget cuts
Although $60,000 ($48,000 for subs alone) was allotted for PD,
most were not ongoing and imbedded professional development
opportunities. Subs were budgeted for teachers to attend PD for
4 days each, though teachers were not made aware of this. PD
activities were AVID, Singapore Math, MyOn (online library
for students), Thinking Maps
6) using
instructional
time more
efficiently
√ √ Reading time is planned out through SFA and follows the
program’s guidelines and lessons. Students are placed in
homogeneous groups according to SRI (Scholastic Reading
Inventory) and SPI (Scholastic Performance Index). 90 minute
block.
Math is not taught with fidelity or with a certain structure of
lessons. However, all teachers are required to teach standards-
based lessons follow their curriculum map and their pacing
guide.

250
Table C.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
7) providing
extra help for
struggling
students
√ Although extra help is provided, only teachers use data to drive
their learning interventions. There is a disconnect between what
happens in the classroom and what happens in the learning
interventions during and after school. Principal sees this as a
weakness and is currently trying to align formative assessments
from the classroom to any learning interventions.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Articulation time for each grade level once a week (2hrs); grade
levels collaborate once a quarter to review students’ writing
pieces (12- no student names) and grade them using inter-rater
process- they then analyze and discuss the strengths and
weaknesses in student writing along with teachers’ difference in
grading using notes taken while grading each paper
9) using
research-based
and proven
strategies
√ Relies on SFA provider, observations of other schools,
networks with other principals for curriculum/strategies that are
working for them
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ Funding very limited this year according to principal. Not able
to invest in many activities to build human capital.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ Though the principal has implemented a plan in the current year
(2011-12), the reason she created it is because of her low family
and community involvement. It is her strategy to pull in
families and the community businesses.
She also has also created several family activities at her school
to try and get more families involved.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ Though principal has a lot of energy and enthusiasm, there is a
lot going on all at once. She has a hard time managing and
keeping track of the multitude of changes she implemented. She
expressed that the teachers don’t feel they can come to her with
problems, which surprised her, so she started a suggestion box
to hopefully get more feedback.

251
Although Elua Elementary employs some of Odden’s (2009) effective
strategies, they are not implemented fully. It is important to note that some resources
allocations were very difficult to assess due to the format of the Financial Academic
Plan principals are required to use to budget their schools in Hawai`i. Neither the
Financial Academic Plan, nor the Financial Plan Template are itemized, but instead
funds are linked to goals to improve student achievement or they are lumped into
general categories such as WSF Instruction, WSF Student Services, WSF EII, WSF
Instructional Support, WSF School Administration, or School Facility Services. Each
goal is separated into different activities that will focus on these goals. However,
within each activity funds are again lumped as a whole that includes substitutes,
materials, programs, and professional development into one lump amount. This
lumping of funds makes it difficult to pull out individual resource allocations such as
the exact amount spent on technology and the amount spent on supplies or training.
Elua Elementary had a total budget allocation of $3,556,644 for the school year
2010-11. Within these funds they were allocated $4,145.76 per student (total of
$2,342,354.40 WSF). Other fund sources included Federal and Categorical sources.
Salaries allocated for all staff (administration, certificated, classified, and
casual/hourly) totaled $2,232,962. Table C.4 and C.5 show a comparison of school
profile and resource allocation between Elua Elementary and an EBM prototype
school.

252
Table C.4
School Profile Comparison: Elua Elementary School and Evidence Based Model
(EBM) School
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools Elua Elementary School
Elua – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5 K-6 Same with added
grade
Enrollment 432 565 133 more students
than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 21
4-6: 22
(Full-inclusion classes
have 5 students less each,
1 per grade level except
for 2
nd
grade)
K-3: 6 more the
EBM
4-6: 3 less than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes same
Number of Teacher
work days
180 +
10 days of PD
180 Days
(10 PD days cut by state-
furloughs)
-10 PD days
Students with Disability 12% 7.8% 4.2% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 60.5% 10.5% more than
EBM
ELL students 10% 11.7% 1.7 more than EBM
Minority students 30% 93.3% 63.3% more than
EBM

253
Table C.5
Resource Comparison: Elua Elementary School and Evidence Based Model (EBM)
for Adequate School Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with
Elua Elementary
Characteristics
(565 Students)
Elua Elementary
School
Sch1 – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 31.7 29 6.7 less than EBM
recommends
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 6.3 0 6.3 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 2.8 3 (SFA coach,
Math Coach,
Curriculum
Coordinator)
0.2 more than EBM
recommends
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
3.4 0 FTE
7 PPTs
GEMS tutors for
Math and Reading
Coach uses
System 44 during
and after school
3.42 less than EBM
recommends
Teachers for ELL 1 for every 100:
0.43
0.1 0 FTE
(1PTT)
0.1 less than EBM
recommends
Extended day 1.8 2.9 0 FTE
7 PPTs
(120 students have
GEMS tutoring)
2.9 less than EBM
recommends
Summer School 1.8 2.9 0 2.9 less than EBM
Learning Disabled
student
3 3.9 7 FTE
4 EAs
.9 less FTE than EBM
recommends
(4 EAs are not certified
teachers)
GATE student
(Enrichment
students)
$25/student $14,125 0 $14,125 less than EBM
recommends

254
Table C.5, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with
Elua Elementary
Characteristics
(565 Students)
Elua Elementary
School
Sch1 – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Substitutes 5% of all of the above $82,296 $48,000 $34,296 less than EBM
recommends
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
3.4 1 Counselor (2
PPTs) SFA and
supplies
($158,514)
3.4 less than EBM
recommends
Non-instructional
aides
2 2.6 1 SSC 1.6 less than EBM
recommends
Librarian/Media
specialists
1 1 1 Librarian
1 Tech
Coordinator
1 more than EBM
recommends
Principal 1 1 1 same
School site
Secretary
2 2 1 SASA
3 clerks
2 more clerks than EBM
recommends
Professional
Development
Instructional facilitators,
Planning & prep time, 10
summer days, $100/pupil
for other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
$56,500 $60,000
0 PD days
$3,500 more than EBM
recommends
10 less PD days than
recommended by EBM
Technology $250/pupil $141,250 $120,000 total
[$75,000 Grant
used for
Promethean
interactive boards
and SFA
software]
[Achieve 3000)
at $15 per
student= $8,475-
state funded ]
$21,250 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $79,100 $12,000 $67,100 less than EBM
recommends
Student activities $200/pupil $113,000 $2,000 $111,000 less than EBM
recommends

255
Lessons Learned
• Elua Elementary School has made improvements of raising academic
proficiency in reading and math in the last seven years, however reading
proficiency plateaued last year and the proficiency gap between
subgroups has widened in reading and math as well.
• All lessons are standards-based and outlined in a curriculum map created
collaboratively by the teachers on each grade level, a pacing guide was
also created
• Learning goals were aligned with state standards and benchmarks that
focus on instruction and learning interventions. Elua Elementary has
made a concerted and ongoing effort to meet the needs of all students in
the classroom.
• PTTs, PPTs, and EAs are used at Elua Elementary for tutoring, not
certified teachers. The EBM recommends using certified teachers for
learning interventions.
• After-school tutoring through their GEMS program is not aligned to
formative assessments from the classroom.
• Elua Elementary allocates far less money for instructional materials and
student activities than the EBM recommends

256
• Without grant funding, technology would not have been fully funded at
Elua Elementary.
• Without Title I funds that helped to pay for professional development, PD
would have extremely underfunded.

257
APPENDIX D
EKOLU ELEMENTARY
Background on School
Ekolu Elementary is located in the state of Hawai`i on the Island of Oahu.
The school is located in an urban district that serves 31,089 students, a complex area
serving 15,509 students, and finally a complex serving 4,847 students K-12. Ekolu
Elementary had a student enrollment of 278 students in grades K-5 in 2010-11 as
shown in Figure D.1. Although student enrollment dropped from 2003-04 until 2007-
08 by 21 students, followed by a rise of a total of 285 students, it has since returned
to an enrollment of 278 students as of 2010-11. There were two classes per grade
level. The average daily attendance for students was 93%.

Figure D.1. Ekolu Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
Enrollment
Enrollment

258
As shown in Figure D.2 students receiving free or reduced lunch were 89.9%,
7.2 % of the students qualify for special education (SPED), 49.6% of students are
English Language Learners (ELL). Forty percent of students attending Ekolu
Elementary attended preschool.

Figure D.2. School Student needs demographics percentage for Ekolu Elementary

The student population as shown in Figure D.3 was very diverse with the
majority of students being Micronesian (51.5%) or Native Hawaiian (18.4%),
followed by Samoan (8.8%), Indo-Chinese (7.7%), Tongan (4.8%), Chinese (2.6%),
Filipino (1.8%), Japanese (1.1%), Korean (0.7%), Hispanic 0(.7%), White (0.7%),
Other Pacific Islander (0.7%), and Black (0.4%).
0
20
40
60
80
100
Disadvantaged
ELL
Disabled
Disadvantaged,
89.9
ELL, 49.6
Disabled, 7.2
Students

259

Figure D.3. School Student ethnic demographics percentage for Ekolu Elementary
2010-11

There were 20.5 teachers (FTE) at Ekolu Elementary. Seventeen teachers
provided regular instruction, three provided special instruction, and 0.5 teachers
provided supplemental instruction. The average years of teaching experience at this
school was 17.8 years, 68% had five or more years of teaching experience, and 34%
of teachers have advanced degrees. Twenty one teachers were fully licensed. There
was one principal, no vice-principal, one Student Services Coordinator (SCC), and
one counselor.
The purpose of this case study was to identify effective resource allocation
and instructional strategies at Ekolu Elementary.
51.5
18.4
8.8
7.7
4.8
2.6
1.8
1.1
0.7 0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
Micronesian
Native Hawaiian
Samoan
Indo-Chinese
Tongan
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Hispanic

260
Assessment Data — Reading Proficiency for Ekolu Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
Although there was a gradual progression of academic progress in reading
scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Ekolu Elementary from 2003-04
school year through 2006-07 school year (an increase of 14.6%) as shown in Figure
D.4. A larger jump in reading scores was evident from 2006-07 to 2010-11 (an
increase of 26.7%). Reading scores of disadvantaged students rose from 27.4% in
2003-04 to 39.8 % in 2006-07 (an increase of 12.4%). A larger jump in reading
scores was also evident for disadvantaged students in more recent years from 39.8%
in 2007-08 to 66.3% in 2010-11 (an increase of 26.5%).

Figure D.4. Ekolu Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on HSA 2010-
11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
26.1
35.8
38.8
40.7
40.9
52.6
61.4
67.2
27.4
36.2
34.8
39.5
39.8
51.1
59.8
66.3
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

261
Nationally Normed Test Scores in Reading (percent proficient by grade level
each year)
The Terra Nova, a nationally Normed Assessment, is a small portion of the
Hawai`i State Assessment. As show in Table D.1 evidence of student academic
growth was also evidenced by a rise in scores. Students reading scores at Ekolu
Elementary rose in 5
th
grade from 49% in the 2006-07 school year to 85% in the
2010-11 school year (an increase of 36%). 4
th
grade scores rose from 62% in 2006-
07 to 80% in the 2010-11 school year (an increase of 18%). 3
rd
grade scores rose
from 59% in 2006-07 to 77% in 2010-11 school year (an increase of 18%).

Table D.1
Percent of Students Proficient in Reading on SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
5
th
grade
68% (not
reported
by grade
level)
47 56 49 45 60 60 85
4
th
grade 64 54 62 56 76 69 80
3
rd
grade 64 63 59 59 76 82 77

262
Ekolu Elementary has shown a trend of rising growth in state accountability
measures in both math and reading proficiency as measured through the HSA which
is aligned to state standards in each grade level as shown in Figure D.5. It is also
notable that Ekolu Elementary has also shown consistent academic growth for every
significant sub-group except for ELL students in 2010-11 as measured by the Hawaii
State Assessment. However, in the subgroup of recently exited ELL students, all
students met proficiency (100%). Disadvantaged students reached 66.3%
proficiency, 68.3% of the females reached proficiency, 66.9% of Asian/Pacific
Islanders met proficiency, 66.1% of all male students reached proficiency, and
67.2% of students overall met reading proficiency. However, only 48.2% of ELL
students, and 38.4% of disabled students (SPED), met proficiency in reading. The
gap between proficiency of subgroups is within 2.2% except for two subgroups,
disabled (SPED) and ELL students scoring well below other groups, and one
subgroup, recently exited ELL students, who scored much higher than any other
subgroup (100%).

263

Figure D.5. Ekolu Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by subgroup
on HSA 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Assessment Data — Math Proficiency for Ekolu Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
Although there was a gradual progression of academic progress in reading
scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Ekolu Elementary from 2003-04
school year through 2005-06 school year (an increase of 11.4%) as shown in Figure
D.6. A larger jump in reading scores is evident from 43.5% proficient in 2006-07 to
82.7% in 2010-11 school year (an increase of 39.2 %) with the largest jump most
recently between the 2009-10 school year from 57.8% proficient to 82.7% proficient
in 2010-11 with a rise increase of 24.9% in just one year. Reading scores of
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Male
Female
recently exited ELL

264
disadvantaged students rose from a very low 9.6% proficient in the 2003-04 to 21 %
in the 2005-06 (an increase of 11.4%). A much larger jump in proficient reading
scores is also evident for disadvantaged students from 43.6% in the 2006-07 to
82.3% in the 2010-11 (an increase of 38.7%) with the largest jump in scores from
57% in the school year 2009-10 to 82.3% within one year in 2010-11 (an increase of
25.3%).

Figure D.6. Ekolu Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing; however,
the test was changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting in the school year
2006-07. It is a small portion of the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) given each
year to students from third to sixth grade. As shown in Table D.1 students’ reading
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
9.2
11.1
20.6
43.5
51.4
56.8
57.8
82.7
9.6
11.2
21
43.6
48.9
56.6
57
82.3
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

265
proficiency on the TerraNova at Ekolu Elementary, students’ math scores have risen
in fifth grade from 53% proficiency in the 2006-07 school year to 90% in the 2010-
11 school year (an increase of 37%). Fourth grade scores have risen from 62% in
2006-07 to 89% in 2010-11 (an increase of 27%). Third grade scores have risen from
73% in 2006-07 to 85% in 2010-11 school year (an increase of 12%).

Table D.2
Percent of Students Proficient in Math on SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
5
th
grade
61% (not
reported
by grade
level)
71 82 53 50 69 72 90
4
th
grade 80 67 62 81 76 56 89
3
rd
grade 69 85 73 66 57 84 85

As shown in Figure D.7 from 2008-09 until 2010-11 the gap of proficiency in
math between all subgroups narrowed. The gap of proficiency between subgroups
was narrowed in Math on the Hawai`i State Assessment from 37.5% in 2007-08 to
within a range of 24.8% in 2010-11 (a decrease of 12.7%). In 2010-11the highest
scoring subgroup was recently exited ELL students at 95.4%, followed by males at
90.3%, disadvantaged at 82.3% Asian/Pacific Islanders at 82.2%, disabled (SPED) at
76.9%, females at 75%, and students with limited English at 70.6% proficiency.
Lastly, 82.7% of students were proficient in math overall in 2010-11.

266

Figure D.7. Ekolu Elementary math — percent proficient or above on HSA 2010-11
by subgroup
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Principal Honu’s Story of School Improvement for Ekolu Elementary
Principal Honu responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions
regarding her 2010-2011 school improvement plans and strategies. Structured
interview protocol guided data collection. Her responses along with school and state
documents provided qualitative and quantitative resource data for comparison with
the Evidence-Based Model and told the story of how and why the school utilizes its
resources toward instructional and academic improvement. Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) recommended ten strategies for doubling student performance are used as a
framework for discussing the various elements within the case study for identifying
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Male
Female
Recently Exited ELL

267
successful strategies used to raise student academic performance. These ten
strategies are used for comparison purposes. Each element is identified as a heading
for discussion around the school’s attempts to implement similar strategies, though
some strategies are within the same heading, because of their close relationship to
each other as used by Ekolu Elementary. The description of Ekolu Elementary’s
story of these improvements follows.
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
When Principal Honu became principal of Ekolu Elementary in 2001 the
student academic performance was extremely low. In 2002 only 11% of the students
reached reading proficiency and only 1% reached math proficiency on the Hawai`i
State Assessment. In order to understand the problem challenge at her school, and
because of its low standing on NCLB, an outside entity, Los Angeles Department of
Reform, was called in to assess their performance problem and challenge. They
reported their findings to Principal Honu. She stated that she felt that “outside eyes
saw things clearer than if she had someone look at her school locally”. She had
observed that at her school there was a general feeling from the teachers that the
students couldn’t perform well, mainly based on their low socio-economic and
immigrant status.
Set Ambitious Goals and Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge
She decided that the first of her challenges was to understand the majority of
her students as immigrants from Micronesia brought to Hawai`i because of the
Federation Compact in compensation for radiation effects caused by the U.S. nuclear

268
testing in their country. Many of the families that came to Ekolu Elementary had
severe health problems such as cleft lip and deformed feet. Parents of students also
died young due to their exposure to radiation. There were also many cultural
differences including education expectations and family involvement in the school.
Most the families from Ekolu Elementary expressed to the principal and teachers that
it was the school’s job to take care of their child’s education and they were not
involved in it. Principal Honu recalls a spaghetti dinner she held for the families at
her school and only five families showed up. She made multiple visits to many of
her students’ homes, when they began to miss school frequently. When she made the
home visits she was often yelled at for interfering in their family life. The families
told her explicitly that their children should be allowed to stay home if they did not
want to go to school. Principal Honu informed each family that “in America
children have to go to school unless they are sick. It is the law”. In the beginning she
often had to call in Child Protective Services (CPS) to enforce the law.
She recalled a particular time when she called a parent to inform them that
their girl had done well, the grandfather marched into her office the next day and
banged his cane on her desk shouting, “Why did you call my house? Don’t call my
house!” She said the Micronesian parents and grandparents often banged on walls or
tables and yelled at her and told her it was none of her business. Again, she
sometimes had to call in CPS to intervene on the child’s behalf. Sometimes when
she was invited into their houses, she recalls having to keep moving to keep the
roaches off of her. Students came to school with lice and she recalls a boy that went

269
as far as to chase another student with a louse. After several attempts through phone
calls and memos of trying to inform parents of the problem and how to solve it with
no success, she finally learned that the best way to get through to the parents was to
educate their children, not just with academics, but also to give them information and
support about hygiene and getting rid of tropical pests.
When her whole school had a lice epidemic in every single classroom, she
went to every single classroom to explain what lice were as well as how to get rid of
them. She enlisted the help of counselors and others to help educate her students and
she sent a letter home to the parents. Following her letter, she received a call from a
parent complaining that the Samoan population in the projects was blaming the
influx of lice on the Micronesians who were also living in the projects, and they were
about to get into some physical altercations in the housing. The next day she again
circulated through the classrooms to inform students that anyone can get lice, from
the poor to the wealthy, public school to private etc., and that no one should blame it
on any other person or group of people. She again informed them that the key was
good hygiene and not sharing brushes or combs. She again repeated how to prevent
lice, how not spread lice, and how to get rid of them. The message worked as her
parents stop blaming it on each other and the lice epidemic was resolved. Since that
time the families have passed on this information to new immigrants in the
neighborhood.

270
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
In the meantime, after the assessment of her school by Los Angeles County
Department of Reform, Principal Honu called in Success for All (SFA) to help
reform her school from 2002-2004, paying for it with Title I funds. Though Success
for All guided the teachers in reading instruction, most of her students were
Micronesian and came to her school with limited English proficiency. They
continued to make limited progress in reading. The teachers at Ekolu Elementary felt
that their reading program needed a phonics portion added to it. At the principal’s
request SFA then added a phonics component to their reading program. Although
her students reading proficiency improved, she didn’t feel they had improved enough
and left the SFA reading program, switching it for a Scott Foresman Reading
Program instead. Ekolu Elementary uses Scott-Foresman basals as well as
Accelerated Reading for interventions, while also integrating reading into their
thematic units.
Principal Honu decided she needed to increase student motivation and
attendance by changing their curriculum to something that would engage her
students more. After speaking to many students at Ekolu Elementary she discovered
they had a heavy interest in science. It really excited them about learning. In April of
2008 she decided to have her teachers create and teach thematic units based in
science. She instructed her technology coordinator to find global issues that her
teachers could develop thematic units around. She outlined these units in a booklet
her school created titled, Sustainability and S.T.E.M. at Ekolu Elementary. Each

271
global problem needed to focus on the larger concept of interdependence.
Kindergarten teachers chose the rainforest (and deforestation), first grade teachers
chose to create a unit on pollution, second grade teachers chose recycling, third grade
teachers chose sustainability, fourth grade teachers chose aquaponics, and fifth grade
teachers chose alternative energy and underwater robots.
The community, including local universities and the Navy, also began to
contribute resources to her plan. They sent in volunteers and wrote grants that helped
fund her project. The thematic units encompassed were Science and Social Studies
based, but they also incorporated Math and Language Arts. The teachers completed
the thematic units in 2009-2010 and finally implemented them in 2010-11 school.
Her project was also highlighted in the local newspaper. Students’ interest in school
increased as they involved themselves in the science and math based thematic units,
even coming in after school to complete certain projects. Teachers became better at
their flexibility in teaching as well as adaptable to changes that came with their
projects, including the deepening of student learning through their various projects.
Commit to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions
Principal Honu believes in using data-driven decisions whole-heartedly, but
admits until 2005, although they were assessing their students and collecting a lot of
data, in retrospect she realized they weren’t using data effectively to drive their
instruction or their learning interventions. In 2005 under NCLB sanctions for poor
performance, Ekolu Elementary had to pick an outside provider from a state
approved list to help reform her school. She chose Edison Learning to help her

272
school improve. Principal Honu credits Edison Learning with helping her and her
teachers realize that although they were collecting “loads” of student assessment
data, they were not using it effectively to change their instruction. According to
Principal Honu, Edison Learning also helped her realize that she needed to allot
regular time for her teachers to collaborate within professional learning communities
(PLCs). Teachers also realized, eventually, she expressed that it took several years,
the importance of having collaboration and using data from formative and
summative assessments to implement focused changes in instruction and learning
interventions to support each student’s academic growth. They didn’t realize its
importance until they started seeing a growth in their student academic proficiency
as measured by the HSA. The data they collected were focused on specific learning
objectives that were not met, and teachers collaborated together to implement
learning interventions for students followed by an assessment of student’s learning to
determine if the interventions were successful. Ekolu Elementary now uses data on a
regular basis to improve instruction and to pin-point students who need learning
interventions.
Focus Class Time Efficiently and Effectively
The teachers at Ekolu Elementary use RTI (Response to Interventions) and
use flexible grouping for learning interventions based on students’ assessments on
different reading and math skills. Teachers also created four different centers within
each classroom for reading instruction. Students are grouped by skill level.
Previously they had been grouped by IQ. Each classroom also began to devote 90

273
minutes to reading instruction and 90 minutes for math instruction. During reading
instruction PPTs, PTTs, SPED teachers, and ELL PPTS were called in to assist with
groups. Certified teachers taught the lowest performing group. Teachers follow the
Lesson Cycle Design from Edison Learning for all lessons. The Lesson Cycle is a
specific sequence for lessons from Bell Work (Do Now), to Anticipatory Set, to
Lesson Objective, Vocabulary, “I do” Explicit Instruction and Teacher Modeling-
Metacognitive Strategies, to “We do” Guided Practice, followed by “We do”
Independent or Group Practice, then “You do” Independent Practice with Teacher
Monitoring, and ending with Assessment/Closure to ensure bell to bell academic
engagement.
Ekolu Elementary uses teacher-created STEM thematic units that integrate
science, math, and social studies; however they also use Math Whizz and require
math instruction of 90 minutes daily.
Invest in Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development and Create a
Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning Communities)
According to Principal Honu teacher buy-in to the changes at the school were
very difficult. When Principal Honu first took over the school she was told that “the
teachers run the school”. She stuck to her plan to implement changes and Edison
Learning also reminded her that she was the leader and she had the last say. She
realized that the former advice she had received to “always get consensus from the
teachers for changes” was not working at her school. She believed as humans that
they would always have differences, so instead of waiting for consensus, she aimed

274
or an agreement from the majority usually around 80%. However, it took a long time
for the teachers at Ekolu Elementary to finally agree to a majority rule instead of a
consensus. There was a lot of push back from teachers, and Principal Honu was
isolated and given the cold shoulder on many occasions. It was very difficult, but
with every gain in student achievement she knew she was on the right path for Ekolu
Elementary’s goals. When she instructed the teachers to look at the audit report from
L.A. County Department of Reform and self-reflect on what it said and teachers
denied the results, she told them directly, “No, this is the problem. It is not wrong.
We need to change.”
One of the biggest changes, she felt, at her school happened when she allotted
time for her teachers to plan and collaborate weekly for one and one half hours in
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). During this time teachers learned first,
through Edison Learning, how to effectively collect, analyze, and use student data to
assess student learning. Once this piece was in place, teachers were able to not only
evaluate student data, but effectively plan instructional changes during this time.
Student academic performance began to rise dramatically. Despite initial teacher
push back, after several years, when teachers began to see results of their
instructional changes evidenced by much higher student academic achievement,
there was teacher buy-in for the changes and again student academic performance
raised even more as teacher efficacy also increased. Most recently, in 2010-11
professional development time was spent on capacity building and strategies which
was provided by the state, district, and Edison. Last summer one of her teachers

275
attended professional development in Korea on natural farming. The teacher not
only brought back knowledge and ideas about how to further their projects, such as
using a fermentation process of natural fertilizer to increase the growth of their
plants, but also invited Koreans from the professional development she attended in
Korea to visit their school to see their projects in person, which they did, and were
amazed with the students projects and understanding of natural farming including the
use of vermacast and hot composting. Most recently, all of her school staff,
including the Principal, Librarian, Curriculum Coordinator, and the Technology
Coordinator, took the course, STEM420 Engineering, from Purdue online to
strengthen their STEM thematic units together.
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
Students are separated into homogeneous ability groups for reading. These
groups are flexible and students are switched to different reading groups based on the
skills they need to develop. Reading classes use a center approach as each
homogeneous ability group receives instruction in each center focused on their
specific learning needs. Groups are switched frequently based on skills needed by
each student. Ekolu Elementary also provides learning interventions for struggling
students. Interventions are connected to formative assessments given by teachers,
identified by either the HSA (broad categories), or through Edison online
assessments provided as a part of being an Edison Alliance school.

276
Empower Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through Widespread
Distributive Instructional Leadership
Principal Honu took a firm control of the decisions being made at her school.
When she became the principal her school it was one of the lowest performing
schools and it took time to get her teachers on board with her changes to improve
their students’ academic performance. After L.A. County Department of Reform
assessed Ekolu Elementary, and SFA helped them implement changes though they
were seeing some progress in their students’ academic proficiency.
Although Ekolu Elementary did have a math coach, a reading coach, an ELL
coach, and a Data coach for one year when Edison Learning was at her school, when
they left, due to budget cuts she couldn’t afford to keep all of those positions.
Although she kept the ELL coach position due to the high ELL population at her
school, she had her Librarian, Technology Coordinator, and Curriculum Coordinator
take on the duties of the former Reading, Math, and Data coaches. She stated that
she relies on them greatly as she is only one person and realizes the importance of
distributing responsibilities to the rest of her “team”. She explained that her teachers
are also now well-versed in effective use of data to improve their instruction thanks
to their training from Edison Learning. Though she directs them as a leader, she now
distributes duties to key personnel to get the job done. Despite the resistance to
change in the beginning, almost all of her teachers that were with her in the
beginning continue to work at her school today. The teachers weren’t replaced, but
instead their instruction changed. She said “That was the key. It wasn’t the

277
curriculum that created the needed change, but how they were implementing the
learning through their instruction that made the difference.”
Table D.3 shows how Ekolu Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.

Table D.3
Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and Other Research-based Strategies at Ekolu
Elementary
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
1) analyzing
student
achievement data
√ Multiple assessments are used. Teachers analyze data in
PLCs and plan instructional changes as well as student
interventions based on formative and summative
assessments.
2) setting
ambitious goals
√ Ekolu Elementary stated, “The only thing stopping our
students from achieving is us. They can all reach
proficiency and even exceed proficiency; that is our goal”.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ Since the development and use of teacher-created STEM
units, math scores have dramatically increased. Students
are engaged, teachers are excited about teaching according
to the principal.
Reading is structured in homogeneous ability flexible
groups.
The Lesson Cycle is followed by teachers for all lessons.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ A variety of formative and summative assessments are used
to guide instruction and learning interventions.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Although PD has been offered, it has been funded mostly
through grants. 10 PD days were cut by the state as part of
furloughs.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ STEM thematic units have increased the engagement of
students in math, science, and social studies. The Lesson
Cycle provided by Edison is used as a format for every
lesson.

278
Table D.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√ Reading is structured in homogeneous ability flexible
groups to help struggling students. Learning interventions
are provided for struggling students based on a variety of
formative and summative assessments. However, no
summer school or after school tutoring is offered due to
budget cuts.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ PLCs were created, but still developing. No accountability
was described by the principal or shown on school
documents.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ All school staff took an online STEM class to improve their
instruction of STEM thematic units. The principal uses
DuFour’s process of PLCs in her school. She stated that she
is always researching how to do things better. One of her
teacher researched and attended PD on natural farming in
Korea to bring back new techniques for all teachers to use.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ Budget cuts limited investments in human capital;
however, the principal was innovative in finding several
grants to fund STEM projects, PD, and tutors. Ten PD days
cut from the year by the state.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ The principal fought long and hard to form relationships
with the family and community. Over time these
relationships have strengthened due to her persistence.
Grant opportunities from the community seek her school
out now.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The principal is driven, determined, persistent, and
innovative. She stated that she is still learning and feels she
could still “learn a lot from other principals”.

279
Table D.4
School Profile Comparison: Ekolu Elementary School and Evidence Based Model
(EBM) School
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
Ekolu Elementary
School
Ekolu – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5 K-5 same
Enrollment 432 278 154 less than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 21.4
4-5: 21.8
K: 6.4 more than EBM
4-6: 3.2 less than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes same
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 Days
(10 PD days cut by
state- furloughs)
10 less PD days than
EBM recommends
Students with Disability 12% 7.2% 4.8% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 89.9% 39.9% more than EBM
ELL students 10% 49.6% 39% more than EBM
Minority students 30% 99.93% 69.93% more than EBM

Although Ekolu Elementary employs some of Odden’s (2009) effective
strategies, others are at beginning levels of implementation as noted; the amount of
resource allocated for the students was difficult to determine. Specific figures were
not produced by the principal, but only estimates for some areas. After careful
review of school documents including the Academic Financial Plan Template,
Academic Financial Plans, Narrative Summaries of the Academic Financial Plan and

280
WSF allocations, and after speaking with the principal in person and by several e-
mails, specific spending allocations for some areas remained undeterminable. These
included funds allocated for technology, student supplies, student activities,
substitutes, after school and summer tutoring (if offered), gifted and talented
students, and professional development. The last expenditure reports posted online
as required by the Hawaii State Legislature were for the year 2007-08. Table D.5
shows a comparison of school profile and resource allocations that were
determinable between Ekolu Elementary and an EBM prototype school. However,
these figures were not supported by official expenditure school documents, other
than those listed above, as these were not produced by the principal. Ekolu
Elementary had a total budget allocation of $2,054,007 the school year 2010-11.
Within these funds they were allocated $5,345.29 per student (total of 1,587,551
WSF). Other fund sources included Federal and Categorical sources.

281
Table D.5
Resource Comparison: Ekolu Elementary School and Evidence Based Model (EBM)
for Adequate School Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with
Ekolu Elementary
Characteristics (278
Students)
Ekolu Elementary
School Sch1 – EBM Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 14.9 17 2.1 more than EBM
recommends
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 3 0 3 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 1.4 0 1.4 less than EBM
recommends
Tutors 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
2.5 0 FTE
(1 PTT and 3 PPTs)
2.5 less than EBM
recommends
Teachers for ELL 1 for every 100: 0.43 1.4 1 (FTE) 0.4 less than EBM
recommends
Extended day 1.8 2.1 Data not available Data not available
Summer School 1.8 2.1 0 2.1 less than EBM
Learning Disabled
student
3 1.9 3 FTE
5 EAs
1.1 more than EBM
recommends
GATE student $25/student $6,950 0 $6,950 less than EBM
recommends
Substitutes 5% of all of the above $38,682 Data not available Data not available
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
2.5 1 Counselor 0.5 less than EBM
recommends
Non-instructional
aides
2 1.3 1 SSC same
Librarian/Media
specialists
1 1 1 Librarian
1 Tech Coordinator
1 more than EBM
recommends
Principal 1 1 1 same
School site
Secretary
2 1 1 same

282
Table D.5, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with
Ekolu Elementary
Characteristics (278
Students)
Ekolu Elementary
School Sch1 – EBM Comparison
RESOURCES
Professional
Development
Instructional facilitators,
Planning & prep time, 10
summer days, $100/pupil
for other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
$27,800 $83,000
[Edison Alliance
School, travel,
conferences,
monthly
assessments and
reports and $4,000
for subs)
$55,200 more than EBM
recommends
10 less PD days than EBM
recommends
Technology $250/pupil $69,500 $29,170 total
[$25,000 from
ERATE plus
Achieve 3000 =
$15 per student for
a total of $4,170 pd.
by state not school
funds]
$40,330 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $38,920 Data not available Data not available
Student activities $200/pupil $55,600 Data not available Data not available

283
Lessons Learned
• Ekolu Elementary set specific, measurable goals that focus on instruction
and learning interventions in and out of the classroom and has made a
concerted and ongoing effort to meet the needs of all students. The
principal set high expectations for all her students and teachers, although
the Academic Financial plan shows incremental goals listed.
• Multiple formative and summative assessments are used. Teachers
analyze data in PLCs and plan instructional changes as well as student
interventions based on formative and summative assessments. However,
classroom assessment data are not used for after school tutoring and
summer school is not offered due to budget cuts. The principal uses
DuFour’s process of PLCs in her school. She stated that she is always
researching how to do things better.
• By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement
gaps. Regular weekly data analysis by grade level PLCs guide instruction
at Ekolu Elementary.
• Ekolu Elementary effectively uses curriculum, along with curriculum
mapping, and a pacing guide that have all been clearly aligned to the
standards collaboratively within grade level PLCs and guidance from
ELL coach and the Technology Coordinator. Since the development and
use of teacher-created STEM units, math scores have dramatically

284
increased. Students are engaged, teachers are excited about teaching
according to the principal. The Lesson Cycle, introduced by Edison, is
followed by teachers for all lessons. Reading is structured in
homogeneous ability flexible groups through a center approach.
• Ekolu Elementary allocates far less money for instructional materials and
student activities than the EBM recommends
• Without grant funding professional development, STEM projects, and
tutors would not have been fully funded at Ekolu Elementary. All school
staff took an online STEM class to improve their instruction of STEM
thematic units (funded by a grant). One of her teacher researched and
attended PD on natural farming in Korea to bring back new techniques
for all teachers to use.10 professional development days were cut by the
state as part of furloughs and DLWOP (Directed leave without pay).
• The principal uses distributive leadership, relying on her ELL Coach,
Librarian, and Technology Coordinator heavily for instructional support
for her teachers and to provide focused and effective support to all staff
members that promote a culture of learning.
• The principal fought long and hard to form relationships with the family
and community. Over time these relationships have strengthened due to
her persistence. Grant opportunities from the community seek her school
out now.

285
APPENDIX E
EHA ELEMENTARY
Background of School
Eha Elementary is located in the state of Hawai`i on the island of Oahu. The
school is located in an urban district that serves 31,089 students, a complex area
serving 15,509 students, and finally a complex serving 6,062 students K-12. Eha
Elementary had a student enrollment of 360 students in grades K-5 in 2010-11 as
shown in Figure E.1. There were three classes each for Kindergarten through second
grade and two classes per grade level from third to fifth grade. The average daily
attendance for students was 93%.

Figure E.1. Eha Elementary student enrollment 2003-04 to 2010-11

440
468
449
380
389
383
389
360
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Enrollment
Enrollment

286
As shown in Figure E.2 the subgroup of students that qualify for free and
reduced lunch (disadvantaged) are at 56.1%. The subgroup of students that qualify
for special education (disabled) are at 11.9 %. The subgroup of students that qualify
as English Language Learners (ELL) are at 16.1%. Forty percent of students
attending Eha Elementary attended preschool.

Figure E.2. Eha Elementary student needs demographic percentages 2010-11

The student population as shown in Figure E.3 was very diverse with the
majority of students being Native Hawaiian (36.3%), followed by Filipino (9.3%),
Indo-Chinese (9.3%), multiple ethnicities (8.8%), Korean (6.9%), Japanese (6.4%),
Chinese (6.1%), White (5%), Hispanic (4.2%), Samoan (2.1%), Micronesian (1.9%),
Portuguese (0.8%), other Asian (0.8%, and other Pacific Islanders (0.5%).
0
20
40
60
Disadvantaged,
56.1
ELL, 16.1 No special needs,
15.9
Disabled, 11.9
students

287

Figure E.3. Eha Elementary ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11

There were 25 teachers (FTE) at Eha Elementary. Eighteen teachers provided
regular instruction, five provided special instruction, and two teachers provided
supplemental instruction. The average years of teaching experience at this school
was 16.7 years, 84% had five or more years of teaching experience, and 10.4% of
teachers have advanced degrees. Twenty-five teachers were fully licensed. There
was one principal, a vice-principal, one Student Services Coordinator (SCC), and
one counselor.
Assessment Data — Reading Proficiency for Eha Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
Although there was a gradual progression of academic progress in reading
scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Eha Elementary from 2003-04
36.3
9.3
9.3
8.8
6.9
6.4
6.1
5
4.2
2.1
1.9 1.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
Native Hawaiian
Filipino
Indo-Chinese
Muliple- Two or more
Korean
Japanese
Chinese
White
Hispanic
Samoan
Micronesian
Black
Portuguese
Other Asian
Other Pacific Islanders

288
school year through 2006-07 school year, there have been years of declining scores.
However, the most recent years show a trend in rising proficiency from 61.3%
proficiency in 2008-09 to 75.6% in 2010-11 (an increase of 14.3%). The reading
proficiency of the subgroup of disadvantaged students hasn’t shown s much growth
in the same time frame (an increase of 12.8%). The gap of proficiency between all
students and the disadvantaged subgroup was closest in the years 2007-08 (by 0.4%)
and 2009-10 (by 0.6%). However, in 2010-11 the proficiency gap expanded to a
difference of 5.7%.

Figure E.4. Eha Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on HSA2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
44.6
58.7
46.2
60.3
64.2
61.3
67.9
75.6
43.5
57.1
44
48.3
63.8
57.1
67.3
69.9
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

289
Nationally Normed Test Scores in Reading (percent proficient by grade level
each year)
The Terra Nova, a nationally-normed assessment, is a small portion of the
Hawai`i State Assessment. As shown in Table E.1 students reading scores at Eha
Elementary have risen in fifth grade from 58% in the 2006-07 school year to 83% in
the 2010-11 school year (an increase of 25%). Fourth grade scores have risen from
77% in 2006-07 to 81% in the 2010-11 school year (an increase of 4%). Third grade
scores have fluctuated, but not risen above the 84% 2006-07. They attained the same
reading proficiency score in 2010-11 of 84%.

Table E.1
Eha Elementary Reading Proficient or Above SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
5
th
grade
69% (not
reported
by grade
level)
77% 79% 58% 79% 77% 76% 83%
4
th
grade 71% 68% 77% 83% 78% 78% 81%
3
rd
grade 70% 76% 84% 74% 77% 84% 84%

As shown in Figure E.5 Eha Elementary has shown a trend of rising growth
for all subgroups except the disabled and ELL students in state accountability
measures in reading proficiency as measured through the HSA which is aligned to
state standards in each grade level. The drop in reading proficiency for disabled

290
students (a decrease from 14.2% to 7.6% in one from 2009-10 to 2010-11for a total
decrease of 6.6%) is a concerning one. However, the rise in reading proficiency
scores for the ELL subgroup is commendable from 20% in 2009-10 to 54.5% in
2010-11 (an increase of 34.5% in one year). Recently exited ELL students had a
proficiency score of 90%, followed by 79.2% for the female subgroup, 74.8% for the
Asian/Pacific Islanders, 71.6% of the male subgroup, and 69.9% of the
disadvantaged subgroup. The gap between the highest performing subgroup of
recently exited ELL students (90%) and top five subgroups have gaps in reading
proficiency varying between 35.5% for ELL students to 10.8% of female students.
The largest proficiency gap in 2010-11 is between recently exited ELL students and
disabled students (a difference of 82.4%).

291

Figure E.5. Eha Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by subgroup on
HSA
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Assessment Data — Math Proficiency for Eha Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
As shown in Figure E.6 progression of academic progress in reading scores
on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Eha Elementary from 2003-04 school
year through 2001-11 was varied. A large jump in reading scores is evident for all
students from 41.6% proficiency in 2008-09 to 69.8% in 2010-11 school year (an
increase of 28.2%) Reading proficiency of the disadvantaged subgroup surpassed all
students slightly by 1.9% in 2009-10. Proficiency scores of all students have
increased from 48.1% to 69.8% in 2010-11 (an increase of 21.7%).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Male
Female
Recently Exited ELL

292

Figure E.6. Eha Elementary Math — percent proficient or above on HSA 2010-11
Note: Hawai`i State Assessment changed publishers in 2006-2007 to better align
with state standards

A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing; however,
the test was changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting in the school year
2006-07. It is a small portion of the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) given each
year to students from third to sixth grade. As shown in Table E.2 students’ math
proficiency on the TerraNova at Eha Elementary have risen in fifth grade from 66%
proficiency in the 2006-07 school year to 86% in the 2010-11 school year (an
increase of 20%). Fourth grade scores have risen only 2% in the same time frame.
Third grade math proficiency has risen from 67% in 2006-07 to 84% in 2010-11
school year (an increase of 17%).

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
12.9
23.8
27.3
48.1
47.5
41.6
59.1
69.8
9.4
20.7
25.4
36.5
42.1
37.3
61
64
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

293
Table E.2
Eha Elementary Math Proficient or Above SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
5
th
grade 71% (not
reported
by grade
level)
78% 91% 66% 78% 75% 73% 86%
4
th
grade 86% 73% 81% 80% 80% 75% 83%
3
rd
grade 74% 81% 67% 69% 74% 78% 84%

As shown in Figure E.7 all subgroups except for the disabled subgroup have
patterns of rising proficiency in math as measured by the HSA. The gap in
proficiency scores between subgroups except for the disabled subgroup are within
16% between the subgroup of recently exited ELL. The recently exited ELL
subgroup reached the highest proficiency of 80%, followed by 73.1% of the female
subgroup, 69.2% of the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup, 66.2% of the male
subgroup, and 64% of the disadvantaged subgroup. The lowest reading proficiency
was 7.6% by the disabled subgroup who has shown little growth in proficiency
scores since 2007-08.

294

Figure E.7. Eha Elementary Math — percent proficient or above by subgroup on
HSA 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

Principal Ono’s Story of School Improvement
Principal Ono responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions
regarding his 2010-2011 school improvement plans and strategies. Structured
interview protocol guided data collection. His responses along with school and state
documents provided qualitative and quantitative resource data for comparison with
the Evidence-Based Model and told the story of how and why the school utilizes its
resources toward instructional and academic improvement. Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) recommended ten strategies for doubling student performance are used as a
framework for discussing the various elements within the case study for identifying
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Male
Female
Recently exited ELL

295
successful strategies used to raise student academic performance. These ten
strategies are used for comparison purposes. Each element is identified as a heading
for discussion around the school’s attempts to implement similar strategies, though
some strategies are within the same heading, because of their close relationship to
each other as used by Eha Elementary. The description of Eha Elementary’s story of
these improvements follows.
Set Ambitious Goals and Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge
Principal Ono is new to Eha Elementary and has only been placed there for
the last sixth months. He stated that his core belief is that everyone should treat each
other with respect. Keeping this in mind, he spent the first part of the year becoming
familiar with systems in place from the former principal and assessing the strengths
and needs of his school. He also made a great effort to form relationships with not
only his teachers, but also the parents of his students. He invited each teacher to
meet with him one on one in his office to share their individual thoughts about their
school. He put all of their feedback into a table to identify patterns and trends.
Through the data he collected through interviews and through his experiences within
the last six months at Eha Elementary, he learned that his school is highly
collaborative in nature and that is its strength. His teachers and staff work as a great
team. They go above and beyond what is expected doing things on their own, such as
tutoring their students during their lunch, recess, and after school. He thinks very
highly of his teachers.

296
He also has a goal of meeting all of his students’ parents and has, thus far,
made home visits to about 80% of their homes. He felt that as a new principal he
needed to gain their trust and part of that trust is built through meeting them and
taking the extra effort to visit their homes. During these visits he asked parents what
they wanted from Eha Elementary. He asked for their thoughts on what the school
could do for them. Many of the parents are involved in the local recreation center
and he wants to form partnerships with them to build relationships with the school.
He noticed that he received more Geographic Exceptions (GE) from parents
requesting to move their children out of his school than GEs he has requesting to
come into his school. These requests concern him as he wants families to want to
send their children to his school. As a new principal he wants parents and students to
be happy within his school and wants to keep his students. He feels part of the reason
the parents are requesting GEs out of his school is because of old perceptions of low
academic performance from his school. So although his school just made AYP and
academic achievement is rising, the perception of some parents in the community
doesn’t reflect high views of their current rising academic achievement.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Although the principal is planning on adopting a new reading curriculum, it
has not been changed, mostly due in part to a moratorium by the state to purchase
new curriculum as well as lack of funding. Reading instruction is also supplemented
by Imagine Learning, a computer-based reading program as well as Achieve 3000
(online). There is an expectation at Eha Elementary of everyone helping each student

297
meet the standards as required by the state and NCLB. Eha Elementary created
curriculum maps, aligned their curriculum to all standards and benchmarks, and
created pacing guides. Common assessments were created to monitor student
academic as well. There was also a focus on rigor and relevance along with Quad D
lessons that was implemented school-wide to strengthen their current curriculum.
Eha Elementary uses the math program Investigations which they supplement
with Envisions, a computer-based program. They feel that Envisions helps students,
because of its the visual aids that go along with the program that teachers can project
on their whiteboards to demonstrate math concepts.
The school has two computer labs, one lab with 30 computers and the other
lab with 25 computers. They also have three mobile labs with 25 laptops each.
Commit to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions
The school is committed to using formative and summative assessments to
meet the needs of their students. Much of their professional development is focused
on effective use of formative and summative assessments to drive their instructions.
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are the main driving force of change
within Eha Elementary. PLCs are used for grade levels to meet and discuss the
strengths and needs of their students. PLCs meet three to five times a month. Time
is allotted for PLCs by the use of non-core teachers and a counselor to teach classes
(Art, Music, Library, Technology, and KidBiz 3000) while the teachers have time for
articulation. As grade level teams, teachers analyze their students’ work, identify
their individual needs, and format plans to address the identified needs. Later, after

298
new instruction, they analyze again whether their instructional strategies and lessons
addressed student needs effectively.
Teachers also meet in vertical teams with grade levels above and below their
own grade level. Within these vertical teams they conduct action research. As a team
they identify student needs, find research regarding strategies to address those needs
then format plans to help students. Student data is then collected by team members
and analyzed to determine if their instructional strategies were effective.
Invest in Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development and Create a
Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning Communities)
In the past few years because of budget cuts, as well as the professional
development days that were taken away by the state as furloughs and directed leave
without pay, there has not been a lot of time or money to conduct professional
development at Eha Elementary. To adapt to these cuts Eha Elementary has focused
their meeting times on Wednesdays for any professional development that is needed
which before budget cuts had been reserved for faculty and committee meetings.
Students are released at 12:30p on Wednesday. From 12:30 to 1:00pm teachers have
prep time. Following their scheduled prep time, the principal has partitioned out two
time slots for professional development activities. One slot is from 1:15pm until 2pm
and the second slot is from 2:00pm to 2:45pm. He has found this to be very useful
time. He makes sure that any professional development is focused and purposeful to
make full use of these two time slots. Much of their professional development is

299
focused on effective use of formative and summative assessments to drive their
instructions.
The principal at Eha Elementary also provides articulation time for each
grade level from one hour to 1 hour and 4 minutes when grade levels request it.
While teacher meet in PLCs, the counselor, the librarian, and sometimes other staff
teach lessons to the students (Hawaiiana, Music, Library, Technology, or
Achieve3000).
Focus Class Time Efficiently and Effectively
Eha Elementary uses teacher-created curriculum for reading, but the principal
has been thinking about switching to a basal reading program as the teachers have
identified that their students need a more structured approach in reading instruction
to strengthen a general student weakness in conventions and skills in reading,
especially with grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and reading comprehension.
However, budget cuts have not allowed them to purchase a basal program. Ninety
minutes is set aside specifically for reading instruction each day and students are
separated into flexible homogeneous ability reading groups. Each quarter these
reading groups are reformed as needed based on student data. Retired teachers help
struggling students in the classroom during reading and math. The math program
currently being used is Investigations. The principal at Eha Elementary gives his
teachers autonomy over their class time as long as they are teaching standards-based
lessons and following their curriculum maps and pacing guides.

300
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
Eha Elementary utilizes several interventions for struggling students. Five
retired former Eha Elementary certified teachers tutor students in reading and math
during school hours. They tutor during the language arts or math blocks, pulling out
students into small groups for instruction. They use lessons given to them by the
teachers within their small groups. To assess students’ reading proficiency, they use
DIBELS progress monitoring.
After school tutoring (HONU) is provided four days a week from 2:15pm to
3:15pm by Educational Assistants (EA) that have all been trained to help students
with reading, math, or any other type of homework. During this time, as well as
throughout the day, students from Hawaii Pacific University as well as Rotarians
also tutor student on a volunteer basis. English Language Learners (ELL) students
are supported through a pullout program for some grades, while other grades are
supported within the classroom.
A pullout reading lab was created to provide skill specific learning
interventions for the students identified as “most needy” in Kindergarten, first, and
second grades. The use of PTTs (retired certified teachers) are modified each quarter
based on data of student needs.
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
According to Eha Elementary’s School Academic Plan, through a complex
area initiative for the past three years, they have been studying Dr. Marzano’s nine
instructional strategies for increasing student learning. They have received

301
professional development in using Dr. Marzano’s strategies such as differentiation,
product and process according to student readiness, note-taking, and other strategies
that can affect student rates of learning. As part of this learning they have been
working on developing rubrics and scales to better measure state benchmarks. They
also purchased the Pinnacle electronic grade book system to track data better. Other
than this particular complex initiative, Eha Elementary has not been able to budget
for any other professional development other than AVID training for fourth and fifth
grade teachers as part of another complex initiative.

302
Table E.3
Eha Elementary Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
1) analyzing
student
achievement
data
√ PLCs and the leadership team analyze data on a regular
basis. However, not all interventions are supported by this
data (after school and summer).
2) setting
ambitious goals
√ He stated that all students can reach their full potential.
However, he set incremental gains of achievement on his
Academic Financial Plan.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ Curriculum aligned to state standards. Teachers follow
pacing guide. However, math curriculum is not followed
with fidelity as the program designers (Investigations) and
teachers state they don’t have enough time to teach it
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ Formative and summative assessments are aligned to state
standards and benchmarks and given often. These are used to
guide classroom instruction and learning interventions
during the school day. However, these formative
assessments are not used for learning interventions after
school or for summer school.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ He has been able to provide on PD time on Wednesdays
instead of having faculty or committee meetings. He splits
the time in half so that teachers can have two time slots for
PD.However, 10 PD days were cut from the school year by
the state.
6) using
instructional
time more
efficiently
√ Reading curriculum is teacher created and teachers have
autonomy over their instruction. However, all lessons must
be standards-based. The school is thinking about purchasing
a reading curriculum, but does not have the funding to do so
this year. Homogeneous ability groups are used for reading.
Math curriculum is Investigations. The teachers are not
happy with the program. The principal may also change to a
different math program when funds permit.
7) providing
extra help for
struggling
students
√ Learning interventions are provided by five retired former
Eha Elementary teachers half-time. Interventions are skills
based according to data collected through formative
assessments in the classroom. Specific reading interventions
are given for the “most need” student in grades K-2. After
school tutoring focuses on homework and is provided by
PTTs and EAs.

303

Table E.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Grade level PLCs have been created and meet as needed.
They may request meeting time from the principal. 10 PD
days were cut by the state.
9) using
research-based
and proven
strategies
√ Using PLCs, data-driven decisions for classroom instruction
and learning interventions during the school day, working
with Dr. Marzano through a complex area grant to develop
the nine instructional strategies. He wants to change the
Reading and Math curriculum, but is unable to do so at this
time.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ Budget cuts have prevented him from providing many
opportunities for professional development.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ He made it a point to meet every family. Although he has
only been principal for the last six months, he has visited
80% of the families’ homes at his school.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ He is always out and about at his school talking to students,
meeting with teachers and making sure his presence is
known. He has been working hard to understand his school,
its performance challenge, and his students and teachers for
his first semester. He is optimistic and a problem solver.

304
Table E.4
School Profile Comparison: Eha Elementary and Evidence Based Model (EBM)
School
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
Eha Elementary
School Eha – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5 K-5 same
Enrollment 432 360 72 less than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 20.7
4-5: 24.2
K-3: 5.7 more than EBM
4-5: 0.8 less than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes same
Number of Teacher
work days
180 + 10 days of PD 180 Days
(10 PD days cut by
state- furloughs)
-10 PD days
Students with Disability 12% 11.9% 0.1 % less than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 56.1% 6.1% more than EBM
ELL students 10% 16.1% 6.1% more than EBM
Minority students 30% 95% 65% more than EBM

Eha Elementary had a total budget allocation of $2,501,084 for the school
year 2010-11. Within these funds they were allocated $4,654.16 per student (total of
$1,675,497.60 WSF). Other fund sources included Federal and Categorical sources.
The amount of resources allocated for specific categories was difficult to determine.
Specific figures were not produced by the principal in several instances, although
some estimates were given for some areas. After careful review of school documents

305
including the Academic Financial Plan template, Academic Financial Plans,
Narrative Summaries of the Academic Financial Plan and WSF Allocations, and
after speaking with the principal in person and by several e-mails, specific spending
allocations for some areas remained undeterminable. These categories that were
undeterminable included funds allocated for technology, student supplies, student
activities, substitutes, after school and summer tutoring (if offered), gifted and
talented students, and professional development. The last expenditure reports
posted online as required by the Hawaii State Legislature were for the year 2007-08.
Table E.4 and E.5 shows a comparison of school profile and resource allocations that
were determinable between Eha Elementary and an EBM prototype school.
However, these figures were not supported by official expenditure school
documents, other than those listed above, as expenditure documents were not
produced by the principal.

306
Table E.5
Resource Comparison: Eha Elementary and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for
Adequate School Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with Eha
Elementary
Characteristics (360
Students)
Eha Elementary
School Sch1 – EBM Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 20 18 2 less than EBM
recommends
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 4 0 4 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 1.8 2 0.2 more than EBM
recommends
Tutors 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
3.6 2.5 FTE (5 half-
time certified
teachers)
1.1 less than EBM
recommends
Teachers for ELL 1 for every 100: 0.43 0.6
(58 ELL students)
1 FTE (2 certified
teachers, half time)
1 PTT
0.4 more than EBM
recommends
Extended day 1.8 1.7
(202 disadvantaged
students)
EAs 1.7 less than EBM
recommends
Summer School 1.8 1.7 0 1.7 less than EBM
recommends
Learning Disabled
student
3 2.5 5 FTE
7 EAs
8 PPTs
2.5 more than EBM
recommends
GATE student
(Enrichment
students)
$25/student $9,000 $0 $9,000 less than EBM
recommends
Substitutes 5% of all of the above $64,903 Data not available Data not available
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
2 1 Counselor 1 less than EBM
recommends
Non-instructional
aides
2 1.7 1 SSC 0.7 less than EBM
recommends

307

Table E.5, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with Eha
Elementary
Characteristics (360
Students)
Eha Elementary
School Sch1 – EBM Comparison
RESOURCES
Librarian/ Media
specialists
1 1 1 lib.
1 tech
1 more than EBM
recommends
Principal 1 1 1 same
School site
Secretary
2 1 1 SASA
2 clerks
1 more clerk the EBM
recommends
Professional
Development
Instructional facilitators,
Planning & prep time, 10
summer days, $100/pupil
for other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
$36,000 $13,800
0 PD days
$22,200 less than EBM
10 less PD days than EBM
recommends
Technology $250/pupil $90,000 $30,000 $50,000 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $50,400 $25,000 $25,400 less than EBM
recommends
Student activities $200/pupil $113,000 $8,000 $105,000 less than EBM
recommends

308
Lessons Learned
• Eha set specific, measurable goals that focus on instruction and learning
interventions in and out of the classroom and has made a concerted and
ongoing effort to meet the needs of all students. However, these
assessments are not tied to after school learning interventions. Tutoring
after school is focused on homework help.
• By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement
gaps. Grade levels meet in PLCs as needed to analyze data and plan
instructional changes and learning interventions. They request time to
meet from the principal. Regular time for PLCs to meet is not scheduled
unless teachers request it.
• Formative and summative assessments are aligned to state standards and
benchmarks and given often. These are used to guide classroom
instruction and learning interventions during the school day. However,
these formative assessments are not used for learning interventions after
school or for summer school.
• Eha Elementary has created a curriculum map, a pacing guide, and
aligned their curriculum to state standards.
• Eha Elementary is working with Dr. Marzano through a complex area
grant to develop the nine strategies.

309
• Teachers are not happy with their Reading and Math curriculum, but the
principal is unable to purchase new curriculum at this time.
• Though the budget is very limited for professional development
opportunities, the principal uses the time normally scheduled for faculty
meetings, for professional development time instead. He has carved out
two slots of time for two different professional development activities
each Wednesday.

310
APPENDIX F
ELIMA ELEMENTARY
Background of School
Elima Elementary is located in the state of Hawai`i on the Big Island of
Hawai`i. The school is located in a geographically isolated area within a district that
serves 23,671students, a complex area serving 10,225 students, and finally a
complex serving 837 students K-12. Elima Elementary had a student enrollment of
360 students in grades K-5 in 2010-11 as shown in Figure F.1 Student enrollment has
declined from 2003-04 until 210-11 by 71 students. There were four classes each in
Kindergarten and first grade. Second grade through fifth grade have three classes per
grade level. Sixty-eight percent of students attending Elima Elementary attended
preschool. The average daily attendance for students was 93.9%.

Figure F.1. Elima Elementary enrollment data from 2003-04 to 2010-11
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Enrollment
Enrollment

311
As shown in Figure F.2, the subgroup of students that receive free and
reduced lunch (disadvantaged) are at 63.1%, the subgroup of students that qualify for
special education (SPED) is at 16.1%, and the subgroups of students that are English
Language Learners (ELL) are at 5.8%.

Figure F.2. Elima Elementary student needs demographic percentages 2010-11

The student population as shown in Figure F.3 was very diverse with the
majority of students being Native Hawaiian (44.8%), followed by Filipino (20.8%),
White (17.4%), Hispanic (6%), Chinese (3.6%), Portuguese (2.3%), Japanese
(2.1%), Samoan (1.3%), Native American (1%), Indo-Chinese (0.3%), and
Micronesian (0.3%).

0
20
40
60
80
Disadvantaged,
63.1
ELL, 5.8
No special needs,
15
Disabled, 16.1
Students

312

Figure F.3. Elima Elementary ethnic demographic percentages 2010-11

There are 28 teachers (FTE) at Elima Elementary. Twenty-one teachers
provide regular instruction, seven provide special instruction, and no teachers
provide supplemental instruction. Seventy-five percent of teachers have five or more
years of teaching experience. The average years of teaching experience at this
school is 15.6 years. Forty-three percent of teachers have advanced degrees. Twenty-
seven teachers are fully licensed and one teacher has provisional credit. There is one
principal, no vice-principal, one Student Services Coordinator (SCC), one librarian,
and one counselor.
The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at Elima Elementary.
44.8
20.8
17.4
6
3.6
2.3
2.1 1.3
1
0.3
0.3
Native Hawaiian
Filipino
White
Hispanic
Chinese
Portuguese
Japanese
Samoan
Native American
Indo-Chinese
Micronesian

313
Assessment Data — Reading Proficiency for Elima Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
As shown in Figure F.4 there was a gradual progression of academic progress
in reading proficiency on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Elima Elementary.
The largest jump in reading proficiency is evident from 50.9% in 2009-10 to 64.4%
in 2010-11 (an increase of 13.5%). Reading scores of disadvantaged students rose
from 30.4% in 2006-07 to 59.1 % in 2010-11 (an increase of 28.7%). All students
reading proficiency scores have grown from 35.4% in 2006-07 to 64.4% in 2010-11
(an increase of 29%).

Figure F.4. Elima Elementary reading — percent proficient or above on HSA 2010-
11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
40.4
41.6
35.5 35.4
42.3
45.5
50.9
64.4
34.2 33.7 33.7
30.4
37
38.8
41.4
59.1
percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

314
Nationally Normed Test Scores in Reading (percent proficient by grade level
each year)
A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing; however,
the test was changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting in the school year
2006-07. It is a small portion of the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) given each
year to students from third to sixth grade. As shown in Table F.1, students’ reading
proficiency on the TerraNova at Elima have risen in 5
th
grade from 49% in the 2006-
07 school year to 85% in the 2010-11 school year (an increase of 36%). 4
th
grade
scores have risen from 62% in 2006-07 to 80% in the 2010-11 school year (an
increase of 18%). 3
rd
graders scores have risen from 59% in 2006-07 to 77% in
2010-11 school year (an increase of 18%).

Table F.1
Elima Elementary Reading Proficient or Above SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
5
th
grade
68% (not
reported
by grade
level)
47 56 49 45 60 60 85
4
th
grade 64 54 62 56 76 69 80
3
rd
grade 64 63 59 59 76 82 77

315
As shown in Figure F.5, Elima Elementary has shown a trend of rising
growth for all subgroups except disabled and ELL students in state accountability
measures in reading proficiency as measured through the HSA which is aligned to
state standards in each grade level. The drop in proficient and advanced scores for
disabled students (a decrease from 13% to 3.5% in one year for a total decrease of
10.5%) and ELL students (41.6% in 2007-08 to 18.1% in 2008-09) is a concerning
one. White students have a pattern of outperforming all students more recent years;
however it is important to note that it wasn’t always the pattern. In 2003-04 white
students had a reading proficiency score of 87.5% which was followed by an
extreme decrease in scores the following year of 44.4% (a decrease of 43.1% in just
one year). After this significant drop in scores in 2004-05 the scores of the white
subgroup began a steady rise with a more significant gain between 2009-10 of 60%
and 2010-11 of 78.9% (an increase of 18.9% in two years). However, the white
subgroup has plateaued from 2009-10 at78.9 to 2010-11 at 80% (an increase of only
1.1%) Females have the second highest pattern of outperforming other students since
2003-04. In 2010-11 disadvantaged students met or exceeded proficiency at 59.1%,
71.8% of the females reached or exceeded proficiency, 61.9 of Asian/Pacific
Islanders met or exceeded proficiency, 58% of all male students reached or exceeded
proficiency, and 64.4% of students overall met reading proficiency. The subgroups
of ELL students were not a significant subgroup in 2010-11 and therefore were not
reported as a subgroup on the HSA for that year. Only 3.5% of disabled students
(SPED) met or exceeded proficiency in reading in 2010-11. Principal Alani stated

316
that several students had recently exited SPED as they were performing at grade
level. The decrease in students that qualified for special education services caused
the loss of four positions funded by federal funds. The gap between the highest
performing subgroup of white students (80%) and top five subgroups have gaps in
reading proficiency varying between 22% for male students to 8.2% of female
students. The largest proficiency gap in 2010-11 is between white students and
disabled students (a difference of 76.5%).

Figure F.5. Elima Elementary reading — percent proficient or above by subgroup
on HSA 2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Male
Female
Hispanic
White

317
Assessment Data — Math Proficiency for Elima Elementary
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
Although there was a very gradual progression of academic progress in
reading scores on the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) at Elima Elementary from
2003-04 school year through 2005-06 school year (an increase of 11.4%). A larger
rise in math scores is evident from 20.5% proficient in 2006-07 to 60.5% in 2010-11
school year (an increase of 40 %) with the largest jump most recently between the
2009-10 school year from 39.3% proficient to 60.5% proficient in 2010-11 (an
increase of 21.9% in just one year). Math scores of disadvantaged students rose from
a very low 12.3% proficient in the 2003-04 school year to 16.8 % in the 2005-06
school year (an increase of 4.5%). A much larger jump in proficient reading scores is
also evident for disadvantaged students from 17.3% in the 2006-07 school year to
55.1% in the 2010-11 school year (an increase of 37.8%) with the largest jump in
scores from 33.3% in the school year 2009-10 to 55.1% within one year in 2010-11
(an increase of 21.8%).

318

Figure F.6. Elima Elementary math — percent proficient or above on the HSA
2010-11
*New Assessments began in SY 2006-07; results not directly comparable with prior
years.

A nationally normed assessment has been part of the state testing; however,
the test was changed from the SAT9 to the Terra Nova starting in the school year
2006-07. It is a small portion of the Hawai`i State Assessment (HSA) given each
year to students from third to fifth grade. As shown in TableF.2 students’ math
proficiency on the TerraNova at Elima Elementary, students’ math scores have risen
in fifth grade from 53% proficiency in the 2006-07 school year to 90% in the 2010-
11 school year (an increase of 37%). Fourth grade scores have risen from 62% in
2006-07 to 89% in 2010-11 (an increase of 27%). Third grade scores have risen from
73% in 2006-07 to 85% in 2010-11 school year (an increase of 12%).

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
15.2
12.5
15
20.5
28.8
29.6
39.3
60.5
12.3
6.4
16.8
17.3
23
19.2
33.3
55.1 percent
proficient- all
students
percent
proficient-
disadvantaged

319
Table F.2
Elima Elementary Math Proficient or Above SAT9 and TerraNova Assessments
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Test SAT 9 SAT 9 SAT 9
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
Terra
Nova
5
th
grade
61% (not
reported
by grade
level)
71 82 53 50 69 72 90
4
th
grade 80 67 62 81 76 56 89
3
rd
grade 69 85 73 66 57 84 85

As shown in Figure F.7 all subgroups except for the disabled subgroup have
patterns of rising proficiency in math as measured by the HSA. The gap in
proficiency scores between subgroups, except for the disabled subgroup, narrowed to
within 19.9% between white students and disadvantaged students. This gap is still
large, but it has narrowed by 8.7%. In 2010-11the highest scoring subgroup was the
subgroup of white students at 75%, followed by females at 61.9 percent,
Asian/Pacific Islanders at 60.3%, disadvantaged at 55.1% and disabled (SPED) at 3.5
%. Lastly, 60.5% of students were proficient in math overall in 2010-11. The
disabled subgroup is not only the lowest performing group, but they also have
declined in math proficiency from 8.7% in 2009-10 to 3.5% in 2010-11 (a decrease
of 5.2% in one year).

320

Figure F.7. Elima Elementary math — percent proficient or above by subgroup on
HSA 2010-11

Principal Alani’s Story of School Improvement for Elima Elementary
Principal Alani responded to a series of quantitative and qualitative questions
regarding his 2010-2011 school improvement plans and strategies. Structured
interview protocol guided data collection. His responses along with school and state
documents provided qualitative and quantitative resource data for comparison with
the Evidence Based Model and told the story of how and why the school utilizes its
resources toward instructional and academic improvement. Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) recommended ten strategies for doubling student performance are used as a
framework for discussing the various elements within the case study for identifying
successful strategies used to raise student academic performance. These ten
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
All students
Disadvantaged
Disabled (SPED)
Limited English (ELL)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Male
Female
Hispanic
White

321
strategies are used for comparison purposes. Each element is identified as a heading
for discussion around the school’s attempts to implement similar strategies, though
some strategies are within the same heading, because of their close relationship to
each other as used by Elima Elementary. The description of Elima Elementary’s
story of these improvements follows.
Understand the Performance Problem and Challenge
Principal Alani just finished his first complete year as principal at Elima
Elementary. He became principal of his school in January of 2009 when the former
principal retired. Principal Alani was a former high school teacher, a history major,
football coach, and vice-principal on the island of Oahu. However, his grandparents
were from the same community on the Big Island where he is now the principal of
Elima Elementary. In a way, he said it was like coming home. He has roots there.
Although he doesn’t live in the same community where his school is located, his
grandparents were from the area and buried there. This history was important to him
as it makes him feel more connected to “the place”. Principal Alani made it clear
that when a principal steps into a school, they need to respect what is already in
place. A principal’s first priority should be getting to know what is already in place,
why it is in place, and what is and isn’t working before they even think about making
changes. It is about having respect for those who have come before you. He also
expressed that he came into a good situation at his school when he became principal.
He explained what he meant by a good situation by listing what was going well for
the school. The reading and math scores were already on the rise, the teachers and

322
staff were fully invested into his school, and everyone worked well together as a
team and had already created curriculum maps and pacing guides that were aligned
to the state standards at Elima Elementary. The staff members were very
collaborative in nature and this is something he appreciated. He expressed that he
did not mean to say he stepped into utopia, of course there were problems, but he did
step into a great situation. His explained his job as a principal is to take any situation,
analyze the situation, and then problem solve. He pointed out that if principals don’t
understand the problem, they will not be able to fix it.
He made it his first priority as a principal to develop an understanding of his
school including his teachers, his students, his parents, and his community. He
learned about his school by walking around daily, visiting classrooms at least three
times a week and actually sitting in the classrooms to “feel the lesson”. He wanted to
observe not only the lesson, but how the students were engaged in the lesson. He
wanted a sense of what was happening in each classroom including anything that
might be interfering with instruction such as problem behaviors or learning
challenges of specific students. When he observes students with behavioral
problems he makes it a point to get to know them. He has them stop by his office
every morning to say hello and he asks them how they are doing as well as questions
about their time out of school. He explained he does this to help “center” them and
keep them focused while letting them know he cares about their success and who
they are as a person. He believes they need this connection. He reminds them to
remember to be “pono” [to do what is right, purposeful, and good for all] before they

323
leave for class. He stated that from the very beginning when he became principal
until now, he comes into the school each day as if it is a study, making observations,
and talking with everyone, not just in his school, but in his community. He studies
his school daily and when he finds problems, he turns his focus onto finding a
solution.
Set Ambitious Goals
The principal at Elima Elementary stated that he believes “All students at
Elima Elementary School will be empowered to reach their full potential”. He just
believes that it will take time. He set incremental goals for change and most learning
interventions were focused on students almost reaching proficiency to raise their
schools overall proficiency score, especially targeting any students belonging to
subgroups that were underperforming. These students are commonly referred to as
“bubble kids”. However, he stated that targeting those particular students was never
their intention, but something they realized as they identified students who needed
learning interventions. He also broadened their targeted students to include the
lowest performing students and though their disabled group shows they are at only
3.5% proficiency in reading on the HSA, they recently exited several disabled
students because of their academic growth. The exiting of these students from the
special education classification will also cause the school to lose four FTE teacher
positions next year. Two schools stood out as aiming higher with ambitious goals.

324
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Due to budget restraints, considering a new curriculum wasn’t even an
option. Instead Elima Elementary sought to strengthen the curriculum they had.
After students meet in their homeroom for 15 minutes, they separate and go to their
reading classrooms which are separated into homogeneous reading groups for 90
minutes. These groups are flexible and teachers meet monthly to decide if students
need to switch to a different group or not based on formative assessments given by
the teachers almost weekly. There are three groups on each grade level separated into
a group that is below benchmarks, at benchmarks, and accelerated.
Elima Elementary uses EveryDay Math (EDM); however, they recently
shifted from teaching it with fidelity to aligning it to the standards. Once they aligned
it to the standards teachers were allowed to switch the sequence of lessons, and even
in some cases, not teach certain lessons that didn’t address the standards and
benchmarks for their grade. He said some teachers said that once they aligned the
standards as a grade level to EDM, they realized that they could skip whole chapters
of EDM, because the chapters did not address Hawai`i State Standards at their grade
level. He explained it was a “cultural shift” for his staff, including himself, to
understand that they need to do “whatever it takes to help students achieve the
standards”. At Elima Elementary this idea translated into his encouragement for his
teachers to take the students outside into the school garden, run through a community
partnership, to help them explore science concepts, using math manipulatives to help

325
explore math concepts, and taking them out into the community to learn how what
they are learning in their classroom connects to the “real world”.
Principal Alani believes in his school offering a well-rounded, holistic
education that includes PE, Music, Art, and hands-on learning opportunities like the
school garden. Also he explained that if the expectations are for students to be
innovative and creative, his teachers also not only need to foster it, but they need to
model being innovative. He sees technology helping to bring learning to a different
level. He sees education as a sort of algorithm. First he explains that on the left side
there is the teacher and student along with curriculum and instruction and all of these
are within the environment. On the right side of the equation are the outputs or the
results. Learning is measured by the achievement of the standards. The variable
within this equation is the instruction. He explains that Edison helped him realize
that good instruction is vital to student achievement. So in the end everyone knows
what they are measuring (the achievement of standards), they have their curriculum,
but what they need to concentrate on is paying attention to their pedagogy. How are
great teachers teaching? He doesn’t expect every teacher to teach the same exact
way, but he does expect them to teach to the standards and benchmarks and follow
their pacing guide about when to teach each standard and benchmark to make sure
they are all covered. The teachers created curriculum maps and pacing guides
collaboratively and agreed to follow them. However, when a teacher has a creative
idea for teaching a certain concept or benchmark, he encourages them to invite him
to their room so that he can see what they are doing. He wants his students to be

326
innovative, so he feels they need to see innovation modeled by his teachers. He
encourages innovation. He encourages them to take the students outside, or bring in
videos of things happening in NASA. He stated “I want them to learn how what they
are learning in school connects to the outside world”.
Commit to Formative Assessments and Data-Driven Decisions
Elima Elementary uses data to drive instruction. They use a variety of
formative and summative assessments. Teachers give monthly reading and math
assessments using Edison assessments. They use DIBELS to assess reading fluency
at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year (pre and post). The Hawai`i
State Assessment, including the TerraNova, is given three times a year online.
Grades 3-5 are all tested in math and reading. Grade 4 is also tested in writing and
science. Along with these assessments, teachers also give quarterly assessments on
state standards according to each grade levels curriculum maps and pacing guides.
HSA data combined with formative assessment data used with team to
diagnose, analyze, and problem solve. Elima Elementary uses all of these formative
and summative assessments to analyze students’ needs. They use differentiation to
address the identified needs of each student using Response to Intervention (RTI). If
more than differentiation is required, then pullout learning interventions are
arranged.
The principal makes observations and keeps notes while observing each
teacher. When he meets with grade levels and individual teachers, they review
student data as well as his notes to help teachers set learning goals for their students

327
as well as goals to improve instruction. He tries to keep these meetings positive,
always looking at how he is there as support to help teachers, not as a critic to break
them down.
Focus Class Time Efficiently and Effectively
Elima Elementary does not have a set bell schedule. Each grade level has
their own schedule for when they block time for each subject, but it is not uniform
across grade levels. One problem is that his school’s lunch period and bus drop offs
and pick-ups are dictated by the high school next door as they share the cafeteria and
buses. Their first lunch at Elima Elementary is at 10:45. He has collected all the
block scheduling from each grade level and his next step is to put it all into a master
schedule that he can refer to so he will know when each teacher is teaching each
subject. Teachers are expected to follow the lesson format given to their school by
Edison. Teacher plan their lesson according to the structure Edison, the Lesson Cycle
Design. They follow this specific sequence from Bell Work (Do Now), to
Anticipatory Set, to Lesson Objective, Vocabulary, “I do” Explicit Instruction and
Teacher Modeling- Metacognitive Strategies, to “We do” Guided Practice, followed
by “We do” Independent or Group Practice, then “You do” Independent Practice
with Teacher Monitoring, and ending with Assessment/Closure to ensure bell to bell
academic engagement.
Invest in Ongoing, Embedded, Intensive Professional Development
Three years prior to his appointment as principal at Elima Elementary,
professional development, All Kinds of Minds, had been provided for his school as

328
part of a three year contract. It was focused on helping teachers differentiate their
instruction to meet the needs of all students. He came into the school after the
contract had ended, but was brought up to speed by the Complex Area
Superintendent who has a background in differentiation, but also in developing and
using Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to provide ongoing, embedded
professional development. Within the PLCs at Elima Elementary Principal Alani
saw the evidence that the PD provided through All Kinds of Minds was firmly in
place and a part of teacher conversations on a daily basis. He also observed that
during lunch breaks, recess, and after school, teachers’ conversations were not just
focused on problems with students in their classrooms, but also with teachers
engaged in problem solving advice and strategies to help other teachers with
solutions. He loves this deep commitment of his teachers.
His school also receives professional development as well as support through
Edison Learning, because his school is an Edison Alliance school. The Vice-
President of Educational Services from Edison meets with him weekly to offer
guidance to him as the leader. The reading and math specialist come out to his school
to work with his teachers. They assess what teachers need based on their student data
as well as what teachers ask for help with. They offer support one-on-one, small
group (as in grade level), and as a full faculty depending on what the leadership team
needs, as well as what teachers need. The key elements that Edison provides are
focused on the ideas that all schools need. These areas are assessment for learning,
leadership, the learning environment, pedagogy and curriculum, and finally, student

329
and family support services. The school uses Title I funds of $84,000 for Edison.
These funds include the support of the Administration Consultant (VP of Educational
Services), the math specialist, the reading specialist, the benchmark assessments
(online), as well as the data they provide, plus one PD conference per quarter from
Edison (on the island).
As a principal he felt the professional development he and other principals
need is lacking in the area of budget and finance. They had one eight hour session, in
one day, of professional development for principals on budget and finance. By the
end of the day he said he had a major headache. It was a lot of information to try and
absorb in one day. He felt this was not enough. Though the principal guiding them
was terrific, one day was not enough for him to absorb all of the information. He said
he would be first in line to take a course on budget and finance for principals if the
DOE offered it as he feels this is a difficult area for him. He felt fortunate that when
he became a principal his SASA was a veteran and luckily helped guide him through
the budget and finance aspects of his position. He worries what would happen if he
had come to his school and he had a new SASA. He would not have known what to
do.
Create a Collaborative, Professional Culture (Professional Learning
Communities)
Again due to budget constraints, and the elimination of all professional
development days by the teacher’s contract, Principal Alani was forced to look for
time for his PLCs to meet. His had surveyed his teachers and they had requested time

330
to meet in their PLCs as their biggest need. He decided to replace eleven faculty
meetings throughout the year, with time for PLCs to meet. That is a little more than
once a month, plus teachers also have grade level time every Wednesday to meet.
The PLCs at his school are focused Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments (CIA).
The first task he gave his PLCs was to identify the students who were not
progressing for whatever reason. After identifying around ten students on each grade
level, they next focused on what skills each student needed help with and set up
interventions for that skill. Within a month the teachers and EAs were pulling out
students from classes in small groups to provide skills based learning interventions
and they have continued ever since.
Also because of budget constraints, Principal Alani lacked funding to hire
substitutes to give teachers time to observe each other. His leadership team decided
that when teachers wanted to observe each other the Student Services Coordinator
(SSC), the Curriculum Coordinator, or the counselor would teach a short 20 minute
purposeful lesson (no “just letting the students draw a picture”, etc.) in one of the
teacher’s classroom that would allow that teacher to go to another classroom to
observe the teacher. Then after school or during lunch the two teachers could meet
to review the lessons learned from the observation. The SSC, the Curriculum
Coordinator, and the counselor rotate through different classrooms as teachers ask
for time to observe each other. They ask for this time to observe each other when
they are trying to problem solve and they need an extra set of eyes to help them
analyze a lesson, a strategy, or even student behavior. The observations help support

331
their desire to find solutions. Principal Alani said these peer-observations have
helped to build his teachers’ confidence and have been a very valuable and cost-
effective tool.
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
In the beginning of the year, his first job, and his first priority as he sees it, is
to place each student with the right teacher. To complete this task successfully, he
must know his students and teachers well. He needs to know how students learn
best. He needs to know each teacher and student’s dispositions. He uses his own
knowledge of the students, information given to him through previous teachers,
parents, and counselors and uses all the information to place each student. He placed
students with special needs on class rosters first as he believes it is critical. He says
some people may think he is crazy, but he “absolutely believes he can create the
perfect roster for each teacher”. He carefully matches each child with each teacher.
He matches challenging students with the right teacher. He gave the example that he
would not match a shy student with a highly energetic teacher or vice-versa. He
wants them in the best learning environment for their individual needs. He believes
that the better rosters he creates, the more he will minimize head-aches throughout
the year. He feels he has been very successful at these placements as many teachers
make a point of thanking him for their students on their roster.
His staff has been trained in Response to Intervention (RTI) through not only
a DOE initiative, but also through Edison Learning. RTI is designed to address the
learning needs of all students. It is not just focused on SPED students. RTI has three

332
teachers. Tier One is for 80% of students that are either meeting, exceeding, or
progressing with the standards. Tier Two is for 15% of the students that need extra
help. Lastly, Tier Three is for the 5% that need interventions. Learning interventions
are given for students, based on data from assessments. Two teachers (FTE) and 2
EAs provide learning interventions for small groups of students. A reading specialist
and a math specialist come to visit his school weekly to observe and help teachers.
They are also helping the lower grades adapt to the Common Core standards.
Sometimes he sends someone to cover a class while a teacher meets with either the
reading or math specialist for an hour or so.
Through a complex initiative an after school program was developed and
funded through Federal 21
st
Century Grant. M, T, Th, F 2:30-3:30 homework help
3:30-5:30 interest based activities. (Hawaiiana, Robotics, Karate, Karaoke, PE, and
sports) 80-100 students participate in the after school program. He knew he needed
to focus on academics, but he also knew if he didn’t offer the other interest-based
activities, students wouldn’t stay after school for the program. The interest-based
activities are the incentive to get students to stay after school for the academic help,
and then they are rewarded with high-interest activities. It was a huge success.
Summer school, called Summer Blast, follows a similar concept of offering
core and electives. It is also funded by a 21
st
Century grant and lasts for 4weeks.
Two hours are for core subject with two 15 minute breaks. The last four hours are for
electives. The electives are chosen after the principal sends out a survey to find out
what the parents want offered. The reason there are electives is because when

333
summer school was offered that was strictly core subjects, their enrollment was very
low. Offering the electives has increased their enrollment more than the principal
ever expected.
Empower Leaders to Support Instructional Improvement Through Widespread
Distributive Instructional Leadership
Principal Alani stated that he learned that if he wanted to move his school
forward, he needed to look for the experts within his school to guide other teachers,
because not only does he not look at himself as a “guru who knows everything”, but
he also knows that others within his school are experts in certain areas that he needs
to nurture and use to move his school forward. He learned part of this from being an
Edison Alliance school. He explained that Edison taught him how to use the model
of teachers teaching teachers (T3) to build capacity. He also knew that once Edison
leaves his school, next year, this type of support would be what he would need to
rely on in the future, especially with budget cuts. Through Edison he learned that
teachers observing teachers and providing feedback was very helpful. He stated that
he “would gamble that every school has resident experts that could help to build their
teacher capacity” and supporting and strengthening the capacity in the people in his
school supports everyone. He can’t be everywhere all the time, and he doesn’t know
everything there is to know about everything, so it only made sense to him to find the
experts within his school and encourage them to guide others. The key, he stated,
that he also learned from Edison, was to first have teachers come up with agreements
prior to the observations. The teachers being observed chose what they wanted the

334
observer (another teacher) to focus on by giving them one or two questions to answer
while they were being observed. This control helped teachers realize that observing
each other is a tool of support, not to criticize, but instead to offer suggestions and
insights. After observations teachers plans ways to improve lessons or offer
interventions or strategies for students who either did not understand a certain
concept or who were not engaged in the lesson.
Principal Alani stated firmly that principals need to know their school and
have a “sense of place”. What worked for his school may not be exactly what
another school needs. He knows principals who have stepped into very different
situations than he did when he became principal at Elima Elementary. He explained
that every school will have its own unique characteristics as well as the community
around it and it is vital that principals understand the “sense of place” of their
schools and community. If they don’t, he believes they will not be a successful
principal. This feeling is one of his core beliefs as a principal. However, first and
foremost he believes that the character of a principal is the defining element of any
principal. Teachers will sense if principals are completely invested in their school.
They will sense if principals are there for the long term or the short term and it will
affect a principal’s ability to lead effectively. He plans to retire, one day in the very
distant future, as principal at Elima Elementary.
Take Advantage of External Expertise in Professional and Best Practices
Principal Akani stated that he was weak in using assessments until Edison
helped guide him through the use of data and how it should be used to guide

335
instruction. He appreciates the Edison formative assessments being online, because
after students take the assessments, data is collected and analyzed after which
teachers and administration are provided with data to guide their next steps in
instruction to meet the gaps in learning, as well as identifying teachers that need
support as well. He also does a lot of reading on leadership and referred to some
books on leadership that he uses to help guide him, The Seven Habits of Highly
Effective People by Stephen R. Covey, and it inspired him to “model a strong
character, but also be empathetic and also learn to have those hard conversations”.
Reading The Element by Sir Ken Robinson and Lou Aronica motivated him to find
what motivates everyone, teachers, students, and community. Lastly, Lincoln on
Leadership: Executive Strategies for Tough Times by Donald T. Phillips, reminded
him to “walk amongst the troops” to not only gain their trust, but to learn to trust
them.
Although Elima Elementary employs most of Odden’s (2009) effective
strategies (Table F.3), the amount of resource allocated for the students is similar to
the Evidence Based Model (EBM) in some aspects while in most areas the amount of
resource budgeted is considerably less than the EBM model (funds for technology,
summer school, and student activities). Table F.4 and Table F.5 show a comparison
of school profile and resource allocation between Elima Elementary and an EBM
prototype school.

336
Table F.3
Elima Elementary Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
1) analyzing
student
achievement
data
√ PLCs and the leadership team analyze data on a regular basis.
However, not all interventions are supported by this data (after
school and summer).
2) setting
ambitious goals
√ He stated that all students can reach their full potential.
However, he set incremental gains of achievement on his
Academic Financial Plan.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ Curriculum aligned to state standards. Teachers follow pacing
guide. However, math curriculum is not followed with fidelity
as the program designers (EveryDay Math) recommend for
most effectiveness
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ Formative and summative assessments are aligned to state
standards and benchmarks and given often. These are used to
guide classroom instruction and learning interventions during
the school day. However, these formative assessments are not
used for learning interventions after school or for summer
school.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Professional development funds are used for Edison Learning.
PD is provided for teachers (once a quarter with Edison).
Reading and Math coach check in on teachers once a week for
support and guidance. VP checks in with principal for
leadership guidance.
6) using
instructional
time more
efficiently
√ Reading time is structured. Homogeneous ability groups.
Math is not structured and may vary teacher to teacher and
grade to grade. Some chapters are skipped in the math
curriculum which, according to EveryDay Math, will interfere
with the spiraling of lessons as it is designed. The Lesson
Cycle format from Edison is followed for all lessons.
7) providing
extra help for
struggling
students
√ Learning interventions are decided each month for students
through PLCs. 2 FTEs, and 2 EAs rotate through students
using pullout small group interventions. Interventions are
skills-based according to data collected through formative
assessments in the classroom. After school help is with
homework.

337
Table F.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s
Strategies
4
Strong 3 2
1
Weak
Not
observed Notes
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ PLCs have been created. Principal provides focus (which
students need help? What skills do they need to learn this
month?) and learning interventions are scheduled. 10 PD days
were cut by the state. Principal sacrificed 11 faculty meeting
times to be used for PLCs instead. Once a month or so. Funds
cut for PD by the state, so principal used Title 1 funds.
9) using
research-based
and proven
strategies
√ He reads many books on leadership and applies new
knowledge at his school. He also believes in use data to drive
decisions.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ Budget cuts have prevented him from providing many
opportunities for professional development. He has been able
to provide one PD workshop a quarter for his teachers through
Edison. He provided more time for PLCs so that his teachers
could help each other. 10 PD days were cut from the school
year by the state.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ He walks around the neighborhood and school and tries to
meet everyone and get their input on how Elima Elementary
can help them. He asks for parent input on what he offers for
after school and summer programs.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ Elima has made significant gains under his leadership in one
year though he attributes the foundations for this was set in
place by the former principal and he credits his staff for
making it happen. All of his staff smile when they say his
name and are very supportive of him. He is dynamic and
prides himself in always learning and goes to work as if it is a
“study” so that he can move everyone forward. He is
optimistic and energized and believes he needs to guide his
school through modeling an example of a strong character. He
listens to his teachers, staff, students, parents, and community.

338
Elima Elementary had a total budget allocation of $2,571,2598 for the school
year 2010-11. Within these funds they were allocated $4,606.98 per student (total
of$1,736,831 WSF). Other fund sources included Federal and Categorical sources.
The amount of resources allocated for specific categories was difficult to determine.
Specific figures were not produced by the principal in several instances, although
some estimates were given for some areas. After careful review of school documents
including the Academic Financial Plan template, Academic Financial Plans,
Narrative Summaries of the Academic Financial Plan and WSF allocations, and after
speaking with the principal in person and by several e-mails, specific spending
allocations for some areas remained undeterminable. These categories that were
undeterminable included funds allocated for technology, student supplies, student
activities, substitutes, after school and summer tutoring (if offered), gifted and
talented students, and professional development. The last expenditure reports
posted online as required by the Hawaii State Legislature were for the year 2007-08.
Table F.4 and F.5 shows a comparison of school profile and resource allocations that
were determinable between Elima Elementary and an EBM prototype school.
However, these figures were not supported by official expenditure school
documents, other than those listed above, as expenditure documents were not
produced by the principal.

339
Table F.4
School Profile Comparison: Elima Elementary and Evidence Based Model (EBM)
School
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
Elima Elementary
School
Elima – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5 K-5 same
Enrollment 432 360 72 less than EBM
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 19
4-5: 21
K-3: 4 more than EBM
4-5: 4 less than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes same
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 Days
(10 PD days cut by
state- furloughs)
10 less PD days than
EBM recommends
Students with
Disability
12% 16.1% 4.1% more than EBM
Students in poverty 50% 63.1% 13.1% more than EBM
EL students 10% 5.8% 4.2% less than EBM
Minority students 30% 82.6% 52.6% more than EBM

340
Table F.5
Resource Comparison: Elima Elementary and Evidence Based Model (EBM) for
Adequate School Resources
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with
Elima Elementary
Characteristics (360
Students)
Elima Elementary
School Sch1 – EBM Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 22.8 21 1.8 less than EBM
recommends
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 4.6 0 4.6 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 1.8 1 Curriculum
Coordinator
0.8 less than EBM
recommends
Tutors 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
2.3 2 FTE
2 EA
0.3 less than EBM
recommends
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: 0.43 0.2 0 0.2 less than EBM
recommends
Extended day 1.8 1.9 Data not available Data not available
Summer School 1.8 1.9 Data not available
(only 4 weeks 2 hr.
core subjects 2- 15
minute breaks 4 hr.
Electives)
Summer Blast
Funded by 21
st
Grant
Data not available
Learning Disabled
student
3 2.5 5 FTE
(4 teachers are
Article IV,
determined by
Federal funding)
3 EA
2.5 more than EBM
recommends
GATE student $25/student $9,000 0 $9,000 less than EBM
recommends
Substitutes 5% of all of the above $59,191 Data not available Data not available
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
2.3 1 Counselor 1.3 less than EBM
recommends

341
Table F.5, continued
School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EBM School with
Elima Elementary
Characteristics (360
Students)
Elima Elementary
School Sch1 – EBM Comparison
RESOURCES
Non-instructional
aides
2 1.7 1 SSC 0.7 less than EBM
recommends
Librarian/Media
specialists
1 1 1 Librarian
1 Tech Coordinator
1 more than EBM
recommends
Principal 1 1 1 same
School site
Secretary
2 1 1 SASA Same
Professional
Development
instructional facilitators,
Planning & prep time,
10 summer days,
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$36,000 $84,000 paid with
Title I funds to
Edison- consultant,
conferences, PD from
Edison and monthly
assessments and
reports.
$48,000 more than EBM
recommends.
10 less PD days than EBM
recommends
Technology $250/pupil $90,000 0 $90,000 less than EBM
recommends
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $50,400 Data not available Data not available
Student activities $200/pupil $72,000 Data not available Data not available
Funded by 21
st
Century
Grant

342
Lessons Learned
• Elima Elementary School has made improvements of improving student
academic performance in reading and math in the last seven years.
• The school sets specific, measurable goals that focus on instruction and
learning interventions in and out of the classroom and has made a
concerted and ongoing effort to meet the needs of all students.
• By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement
gaps. Regular monthly PLCs analyze data to inform instruction.
• The principal allocates staff (PTTs, PPTs, and EAs) to support teachers
and students based on data decisions.
• Elima Elementary aligned their curriculum to state standards, created
curriculum maps, and a pacing guide for all grade levels.
• Math curriculum is not followed with fidelity as the program designers
(EveryDay Math) recommend for most effectiveness; however, it has
been aligned to the state standards. Teachers only teach lessons that
address the state standards. Math is not structured and may vary teacher
to teacher and grade to grade. Some chapters are skipped in the math
curriculum which, according to EveryDay Math, will interfere with the
spiraling of lessons as it is designed.
• Reading instructional time is structured. Homogeneous ability groups
used during reading instruction.

343
• Though the budget is very limited for professional development
opportunities, as an Edison Alliance school the principal has been able to
provide one PD workshop per quarter for the teachers. Also Edison
reading, math, and leadership coaches provided support with instructional
strategies, data analysis, and leadership guidance.
• The principal uses distributive leadership, relying on his math and reading
coaches from Edison Learning for instructional support for his teachers
and to provide focused and effective support to all staff members that
promote a culture of learning.

344
APPENDIX G
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY
Initial Email:

Dear Principal ----,

My name is Mitzie Higa, and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education at USC, Hawai`i Cohort. I am conducting a research study as part of my
dissertation, focusing on resource allocation to improve student achievement in
elementary schools in Hawai`i. You are eligible to participate in this study.
Participation would require one interview of up to 2 hours. At your consent, the
interview will be recorded to ensure accurate recording.

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times. The interview will take place at a time and a place
convenient to you and the researcher. Your relationship with your employers will not
be affected whether or not you participate in this study.

If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at -------- or you
can call or text me at -----------. If you would prefer a phone call, please feel free to
let me know what number and what time would be convenient for you, and I will
return your call.

I have also attached a consent form for you to read and sign if you would like to
participate. If you choose to participate, please sign the form and I will collect it
when I come to interview you.

Thank you,

Mitzie Higa

345
APPENDIX H
FOLLOW-UP E-MAIL
Aloha, Principal ----

I am looking forward to meeting you ------. Again, thank you for agreeing to let me
interview you. I will see you at your school on ------, -----, ----. -------. I have been
reading over your school documents and I am excited to hear your story of -------
Elementary's journey of improving student achievement. I have attached an
information sheet to provide you with more information on this study.

Thank you,

Mitzie Higa

346
APPENDIX I
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Title: A Closer Examination of Resource Allocations Using Research Based Best
Practices to Promote Student Learning: Case Studies of Elementary Schools in
Hawai`i with Distinct Patterns of Rising Academic Achievement

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the practices in eight elementary schools in
Hawai`i with consistently rising trends of student academic performance between
1992 and 2009. These schools succeeded in improving student performance despite
an economic downturn. Data collected from eight schools will be compared to the
Evidence-based model and analyzed to identify how resources were allocated and
improvements implemented to promote increased student achievement. A deeper
description will be provided regarding the allocation of resources aimed at
strengthening school leadership, development of professional learning communities
and teacher instructional quality and productivity through professional development
activities, as well as other supports, to promote positive student achievement
outcomes. Participation is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time without
negative consequences. You must be aged 18 or older to participate.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to participate in a structured 2 hour,
audio recorded interview, to be conducted at a time and place convenient to you and
the researcher. The interview will be recorded, with your permission. You may
participate in the study, if you choose not to be recorded.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times. There will be no
identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name, address
or other identifiable information will not be collected. Your relationship with your
employer will not be affected whether or not you participate in this study.

347
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s
Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at -----------------
, through Lotus Notes at --------------- or you can call or text me at 808-778-5588.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask
questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to
participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

□ I agree to be audio-recorded.
□ I do not want to be audio-recorded.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions.
I believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and
freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

348
APPENDIX J
SCHOOL VISIT/INTERVIEW DATES
School 1 Ekahi Elementary December 20, 2011

School 2 Elua Elementary December 21, 2011

School 3 Ekolu Elementary December 28, 2011

School 4 Eha Elementary School January 12, 2011

School 5 Elima Elementary January 17, 2011

349
APPENDIX K
LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS PROVIDED BY PARTICIPATING
SCHOOLS
1. SSIR (School Status and Improvement Report)
2. Academic Financial Plan
3. Academic Financial Plan Template
4. Narrative Summary of Academic & Financial Plan
5. Staff List
6. School Schedule
7. School Calendar
8. Mission and Vision statements
9. School Quality Survey (SQS)

350
APPENDIX L
DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
This Codebook is intended to be used for collection of 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

351
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

III. District Profile

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.(Not collected for this study)

IV. District Contacts (Not collected for this study)

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.

352
n. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
o. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

School resource indicators should be collected for the 2010-2011 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

353
students have 20 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the
length of the instructional day is 360 minutes.)
j. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially
grouped for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day
length.
k. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading,
English, and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods
when students are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction
(e.g., reading, writing, comprehension). Report an average per day
length.
l. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per
day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended science instruction. Report an average per day length.
m. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction.
Report an average per day length.
n. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”
o. API

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:

354
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.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

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

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

VIII. Library Staff

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

355

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

IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of strategies
designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to learn a
school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers deploy are
generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.

Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.

Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

a. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-
5.
b. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed
teachers and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-
5.
c. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
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.

356
j. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
k. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program
for the 2008-09 school year.
l. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
m. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra
help staff do.
n. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provide supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
o. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other”
extra help classified staff do.
p. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for
most orall of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version
of a school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their
students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who
assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have
physical or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students
generally have “less severe” disabling conditions.
r. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
s. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in
self-contained special education classrooms and work with “severely”
disabled students for most or all of the school day.
t. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally
have “less severe” disabling conditions.
u. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education
aides who provide small groups of students in special education with
extra help in specific areas.
v. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate
in the extended day program.
w. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per
week that the extended day program is offered.
x. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week
in the teacher contract.

357
y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
aa. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff’s role in the extended day program.
bb. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
cc. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
dd. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer
school program (a subset of the following item).
ee. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
ff. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum during summer 2008.
gg. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards
in the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

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

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

358
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 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).

359
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.
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.)

360
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.

Linked assets