University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

(USC Thesis Other)

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS 1

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS:
A CASE STUDY OF ONE HAWAII COMPLEX

by

Isileli Moala Nau Jr.

____________________________________________________________________

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

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Isileli Moala Nau Jr.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

2
DEDICATION
My wife and I would like to dedicate this dissertation to our children. I attended the
classes and wrote the dissertation, but this was nothing short of a joint venture and sacrifice in
order to set an example for our children. Learning is an eternal principle. Obtain as much
education as possible. Work hard.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my Heavenly Father for His support, strength, and guidance. I am
certain there were more unseen interventions on His part than I can imagine. The completion of
this dissertation would not have been possible without divine assistance.
I would also like to thank Dr. Lawrence O. Picus for his unending support and optimism.
His expertise in the field of study as well as the dissertation process was invaluable. As the end
drew near, the thought of me reading my dissertation again tried my patience and endurance, but
I would receive encouragement as my thoughts would turn to Dr. Picus and his never-ending
endurance in reading my dissertation, again. If he could do it, and he was not the one earning the
degree, then I could do it!
I would like to thank my five children, now ages two to eight. You made this dissertation
possible through your sacrifices of time and separation. Many hours were spent apart and special
events were missed. You grew to accept and support me in this effort and would provide such
sweet encouragement. Your understanding was invaluable.
To my sweetheart, partner, and wife. You supported me from day one, which I still
remember vividly, when we discussed pursing a doctoral degree. Over the past three years you
did not complain once when I missed another event, skipped some household duties, or had to
come home late. You carried more than your share in raising our family over these years. Your
strength, determination, and vision are unparalleled. Without your support, I could not and
would not have finished this adventure. Your support has been immeasurable. As I have
mentioned to you before, there are few women who could do what you do.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Importance of the Study 17
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions 17
Definitions 18
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Improving Student Performance 20
Human Resource Allocation 33
Figure 2.1. Evidence-based model explanation 45
Limited Fiscal Resources 48
Gap Analysis 52
Literature Summary 52
Chapter 3: Methodology 54
Introduction 54
Methodology 54
Research Questions 55
Sample and Population 55
Instrumentation and Data Collection 56
Data Analysis 57
Chapter 4: Study Results 58
Introduction 58
Marshall Complex Overview 58
Introduction of Findings 59
Human Resource Allocation Strategies to Improve Student Achievement 60
Research Question #1 Results 69
Research Question #1 Summary 86
Research Question #2 Results 86
Research Question #2 Summary 94
Research Question #3 Results 96
Recommendations 101
Conclusion 105
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

5
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 107
Purpose of the Study 107
Summary of Findings 108
Recommendations 111
Limitations of the Study 112
Policy Implications 112
Concluding Comments 113
References 115

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Twenty-One Leadership Strategies Correlated with Higher Student 26
Achievement
Table 2.2. School Resource Indicators and Expenditure Structure 39
Table 2.3. Evidence-Based Model Recommendations 46
Table 4.1. Marshall Complex Student Demographics 59
Table 4.2. School-Specific Management Allotments 71
Table 4.3. Certificated Teaching Staff: Number per School and as Percent of Total 74
Teachers, Per School
Table 4.4. Certificated Teaching Staff: Number by Type of School and as Percent of 75
Total Teachers, by School Type
Table 4.5. Specialist Teachers as Percent of Core Teachers, Per School 76
Table 4.6. Specialist Teachers as Percent of Core Teachers, by School Type 76
Table 4.7. Certified Support Staff Per School 80
Table 4.8. Certified Support Staff Per School Type 81
Table 4.9. Certified Pupil Support Staff Per School 82
Table 4.10. Certified Pupil Support Staff Per School Type 83
Table 4.11. Classified Support Staff Per School 85
Table 4.12. Classified Support Staff Per School Type 86
Table 4.13. Complex-wide Human Resource Allocations 88
Table 4.14. Human Resource Allocations for Elementary Schools 91
Table 4.15. Human Resource Allocations for Middle/Intermediate Schools 92
Table 4.16. Human Resource Allocations for High School 93
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

7
Table 4.17. Teacher and Aide Gaps Per School Level 96
Table 4.18. Class Size Per Grade Level 98
Table 4.19. Class Size in Relation to the EBM 99

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

8
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on resources and resource allocations
in 10 schools and compare the actual personnel allocations to those of the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) and identify the differences between the recommended and actual in order to
improve student achievement. The analysis for this study focused on the Marshall Complex, in
the Hawaii Department of Education. The Marshall Complex was selected in part because of the
high population of Native Hawaiian and other minority students, as well as the large population
of students that come from low-income homes. In comparison to Odden’s Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance, the Marshall Complex was found, at varying degrees, to be
implementing most of the 10 strategies. There was a strong sense of focus by the complex and
school leaders on high academic goals for students and peer evaluations and reviews for the
faculty. Although the sample schools did not have the level of resources recommended by the
Evidence-Based Model, they did have some resources that could be reassigned to better align
with the EBM recommendations.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Hawaii educators, as well as educators across the United States, faced a pervasive
landscape of financial cutbacks and uncertainty. Education budget reductions had been
particularly intense over several years in the wake of such events as the Great Recession, which
began in September 2008 and the reoccurring conflict over the federal debt ceiling (Aiginger,
2010). During the Great Recession multiple key economic indicators such as unemployment
rates, tax revenue, and GDP, had fallen to levels unseen for decades (Aiginger, 2010; Oliff &
Leachman, 2011; Thompson, 2013). As a result, significant changes were made nationally and
locally to nearly all public services, including education.
The Great Recession had a significant impact on education budgets over the past six
years, as the effects rippled into the state and local levels. According to Oliff and Leachman
(2011), on average approximately 47% of all education expenditures in the U.S. come from state
funds, while a large majority of the remaining funds come from property taxes that are levied by
local school districts. In the wake of the Great Recession, 37 states were providing less per
student funding to local school districts (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). Many state and local
governments had incurred large sums of debt in order to lighten the financial blow to schools as
tax revenues and real estate prices continued to decline (Thompson, 2013). Few alternative
options existed in light of ever-declining home values and tighter consumer spending, resulting
in a significant reduction in tax revenues.
In response to these significant financial climates both locally and nationally, President
Barack Obama and Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) in order to boost the nation’s economy. A portion of this act provided $100 million to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

10
educational systems across the country (U.S. Congress, 2009). Although the ARRA was only
temporary, this historic measure provided a much-needed economic boost that significantly
eased the financial burdens placed upon school districts in every state. Further discussion of the
ARRA and other economic factors will be covered in the following chapter.
Background of the Problem
The effects of these financial troubles had been significant and far-reaching in the field of
education. Between 2008 and 2011 school districts nationwide had cut 278,000 jobs, which is
significant in light of the ever-increasing student population (Thompson, 2013). In addition to
these job cuts, other nationwide trends had been observed; such as furlough days for teachers,
larger class sizes, a reduction in the number of student instructional days, and the elimination of
before school and after school programs (Thompson, 2013). Although these various aspects of
education had significant impacts on student learning, schools and districts were grappling with
how to gain greater student achievement with less financial support. Arne Duncan (2010)
claimed that, “It is very difficult to improve the quality of education while losing teachers,
raising class sizes, and eliminating after school and summer school programs.” The reduction in
district and school budgets challenged educational leaders’ abilities to increase student
achievement and meet federal and state accountability measures.
The state of Hawaii had not been immune to these financial woes. Hawaii ran a single-
district school system for the entire state and therefore the state department of education received
more than 75% of its funding from state funds (Hawaii Department of Education [HDoE], 2011).
Hawaii also received about 12% of its operating budget from federal sources (HDoE, 2012a).
Hawaii was one of four states that cut per pupil spending by at least 20%, equating to nearly
$1,200 less per student per year (Oliff & Leachman, 2011). In 2010 Hawaii spent $11,754 per
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

11
pupil, which ranked in the bottom third of the top 100 largest school districts in the nation
(HDoE, 2012a).
In addition to Hawaii’s financial difficulties, the department of education faced the
challenge of a significantly diverse student population. According to the Superintendent’s
Report (HDoE, 2013a) the department educated more than 185,000 students in 288 public
schools across six islands. Of those students nearly 50% were identified as Economically
Disadvantaged, 10% received English Language services, and 10% received Special Education
services (HDoE, 2012b). The majority of students came from Polynesian or Asian ancestry with
27% being Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian, 22% Filipino, 15% White, and 10% Japanese (HDoE,
2012b).
Causes of the Hawaii Funding Crisis
With each state in the nation drawing upon unique sources of tax revenue and battling
varied economic challenges, it was necessary to discuss these issues specific to the state of
Hawaii in order to establish a clearer sense of the problem at hand. In comparison to the national
unemployment rate of 10%, Hawaii fared much better with an unemployment rate of 7% at the
peak of the recession (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). In spite of the resilience of Hawaii’s
labor market, the state economy suffered noticeably. Hawaii’s economy was largely supported
by the tourism industry, which experienced significant deteriorations through the recession
(Estevão & Tsounta, 2011). Total visitor spending from 2007 through 2010 fell from $12.49
billion to $9.99 billion, representing nearly a 20% decrease (Hawaii Department of Business
Economic Development, and Tourism, 2010). The decline in visitor spending resulted in
significant government cutbacks and allocation reductions. The state spent nearly a third of its
budget on education and therefore the department of education experienced noticeable
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

12
fluctuations in its annual allotment from the state. For example, the 2010-2011 school year
appropriation for the department was some $400 million less than the previous year (HDoE,
2011). Such prominent swings in funding make school and district-level management a
reoccurring and significant challenge. The uncertainty and inconsistency of allotted funds posed
noticeable challenges for education leaders as they attempted to effectively allocate diminishing
resources.
Federal and State Academic Accountability
Hawaii public schools were accountable to both federal and state mandates. At the
federal level Hawaii public schools were held to the dictates of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized in 2002 and is known as the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) (2002). Although the ESEA was reauthorized prior to 2002, the NCLB
reauthorization thrust the federal government into the center of education, in hopes of improving
the learning of all students (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2011). NCLB
sought to reach unprecedented student achievement through annual testing, yearly progress, and
tighter teacher qualifications.
As educators struggled to meet the increasing mandates of NCLB leading to perfection,
efforts had been made to improve the controversial legislation. In 2010 President Barack Obama
and his administration established a plan to improve the mandates outlined in NCLB (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009a). The plan allowed individual states to develop their own
accountability systems that would monitor progress in preparing students for success in college
and the work force. The state of Hawaii utilized this opportunity to develop a system known as
Strive HI (HDoE, 2013b). The Strive Hi plan was federally approved and implemented
statewide in May of 2013 and any determination of its effectiveness was still premature.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

13
There were multiple sources of state level academic accountability in Hawaii. Arguably
the most influential was the Reinventing Education Act of 2004, also known as Act 51, which
intended to “place a far greater number of decisions, and a much higher percentage of moneys,
directly in the hands of individual schools and their leaders” (HDoE, 2004, p. 1). This increased
empowerment at the school level was coupled with an increase in accountability that was
centered on academic achievement, safety and well-being, and civic responsibility. School
progress was monitored through various means such as the school’s Academic Plan, School
Quality Surveys, and standardized test scores.
While not as far reaching as Act 51, the other forms of state-level accountability in
Hawaii were certainly impactful. The Department of Education Strategic Plan, which explains
the goals and objectives of the department (HDoE, 2012b). Act 238, which further defined
school accountability through specific standards, goals, consequences, and reporting methods
(HDoE, 2003). The Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment holds schools accountable for
their ability and readiness to support the learning of students in kindergarten (HDoE, 2013c).
History of Education Funding in Hawaii
One of Hawaii’s most distinguishing funding aspects was that the entire state operated
under one school district. Because there was only one school system in the state, the large
majority of district funds came from state allocations, compared to other states in the country
where the large majority of school district funds came from local revenues, such as property
taxes (HDoE, 2004). Although this unique funding system effectively reduced the financial
disparity between schools in different neighborhoods, there was still a need to ensure that more
money went to schools with the greater need (HDoE, 2004). To address this need of effective
distribution of education funds, the state of Hawaii had employed a weighted student formula
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

14
(HDoE, 2005). Under this system funds were distributed to schools differently, based upon
certain student characteristics such as special needs, economically disadvantaged, and English as
a second language.
In 2010 Hawaii was selected to receive $75 million as one of 12 Race to the Top (RTTT)
grants from the federal government. The Race to the Top program was part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which focused on stimulating the economy through
strategic investment in critical sectors, including education (U.S. Department of Education,
2009a). The RTTT program was a $4.35 billion program aimed at improving student
achievement through state-level innovations and reform. The large majority of Hawaii’s grant
was used to assist struggling schools with the implementation and assessment of the Common
Core standards, school data reports, educator and administrator evaluations, and additional
support for targeted schools (HDoE, 2012a). The RTTT grant ended in 2014.
Statement of the Problem
Although the RTTT grant provided a much-needed financial boost to the Hawaii DOE’s
budget, a major drawback was that the funds were a one-time increase, rather than an ongoing
revenue stream. In spite of the RTTT funds a substantial struggle still existed for schools to
effectively utilize limited resources in addressing the persistent educational needs of the students.
Schools struggled with difficult decisions such as which positions, programs, and services would
remain and which would be cut. The ever-increasing pressures to increase student achievement
compounded these challenging choices schools faced as they worked to effectively allocate their
educational resources. Under such conditions, an adequacy model would be useful to assist
educational leaders in their pursuit of strategic resource allocation in their schools. Although
Hanushek (2007) debunks the capabilities of such models, the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

15
has been successfully implemented in multiple states. This particular model has effectively
guided educational leaders in research-based resource allocations tied to student achievement in
several states (Odden et al., 2005).
The EBM is a resource allocation tool used for estimating school finance adequacy
(Picus, Odden, & Goetz, 2009). The evidence-based model has proven successful in numerous
states, such as Maine, Wyoming, and Kentucky (Odden et al., 2005). The EBM focuses
primarily on human resource allocations, but also includes professional development,
instructional materials, and technology (Picus et al., 2009). The development of this model has
served as a significant benefit for public schools struggling to use limited funds to meet high
academic demands.
Purpose of the Study
The purposes of this study were to collect and analyze data on resources and resource
allocations in 10 Hawaiian schools and compare the actual personnel allocations to those of the
Evidence-Based Model and identify the differences between the recommended and actual in
order to improve student achievement. The participating schools for this study were all in the
same Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) complex, which was identified for the purpose of
this study as the Marshall Complex (pseudonym). The complex was located on the West side of
the island of Oahu. A more detailed description of the Marshall Complex is provided in Chapter
3. The EBM was applied to identify how current resource allocation strategies within the
Marshall Complex compared to those of the EBM. Secondly, the Marshall Complex’s resource
allocations were be compared to the theory of action embedded in the EBM.
Odden et al. (2005) identify four primary methods school organizations use to approach
adequacy. Each approach is used to estimate how much money is needed to improve education
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

16
to a level that is likely to ensure that all, or nearly all, students will meet their state’s learning
standards. First is the successful district approach, which identifies successful districts and
schools that allocate resources effectively and meet high academic standards. The second
method is a cost function approach that statistically identifies the optimum levels of allocations
to reach the desired outcomes. Third is professional judgment, which employs educators to
analyze the research and then use their best judgment for allocations. The fourth method is an
evidence-based approach that uses proven school reform models, like the Evidence-Based Model
developed by Odden et al. (2005) that improved school performance.
The Evidence-Based Model was used as the measure by which the Marshall School
District’s data was compared in order to identify any gaps in the district’s allocations and desired
outcomes. This process also revealed how the decisions and budgetary choices of the complex’s
leaders effect student achievement. In addition to comparing Marshall’s data to the EBM
recommendations, the complex’s data was also analyzed to determine how many of Odden’s Top
Ten strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) were employed and if the
resources were distributed sufficiently to support these strategies.
The research questions for this study were:
1. How were human resources allocated across the Marshall Complex and its schools?
2. Was there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggests is most effective?
3. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
This study utilized a detailed analysis of how resources were allocated across the 10
schools within the Marshall Complex. A quantitative methods approach was employed in this
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

17
study to answer the three research questions. Data for this study was collected from publicly
accessible sources addressing school and Complex academic and financial plans and reports.
Importance of the Study
This study was important for several reasons. The first reason focused on the frequency
of financial troubles at national, state, and local levels. According to the National Bureau of
Economic Research (2012) there have been six national scale recessions since 1975. During this
same time period, according to the Congressional Research Service (Brass, 2013), there have
been 17 government shutdowns and in the same report it warns that, “conflict is endemic of
budgeting.” If this is true and history is any indication of future results, then financial
uncertainty could become the norm. Such an environment compounds the difficulty of operating
a school with limited funds and therefore reemphasizes the need for an evidenced-based model to
guide educational leaders in their resource allocations.
In addition to school-level leaders, this study provided complex-level leaders with a case
study of the Marshall Complex, which served a high-needs diverse student population. This
study provided educational leaders with research based evidence for resource allocations as well
as strategies that have the potential to yield results in student learning. Also, this may prove
beneficial to state lawmakers as they face budget decisions and determine the DOE’s annual
allocations. Ideally state legislators will recognize the need for both an increase in education
funding as well as an improved system for allocating those resources in order to yield the desired
learning outcomes.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
There were several limitations to this study. First was the lack of sufficient resources to
adequately verify all aspects of each academic plan for every school within the Marshall
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

18
Complex. Another was the small sample size of the study, which limited the generalizability of
the results for this study. A third limitation was the relatively brief time period in which the
study was conducted, leaving the study susceptible to the current school circumstances rather
than reflecting an average over time. Fourth was the inaccessibleness of the complex and school
level leaders, limiting the data to those found through publicly available sources.
Three primary delimitations existed for this study. First, only the Marshall Complex was
chosen for this study. Second, this Complex had a kindergarten through twelfth grade
configuration and serviced a uniquely diverse student population that may likely only be
replicated in Hawaii. Third was the lack of generalizability of the results outside the Marshall
Complex.
The data in this study were based upon the assumption that the publically available data
were true and accurate to the actual resource allocation practices within the Marshall Complex.
Definitions
Achievement Gap: the difference in academic performance between minority and low
socioeconomic students and the privileged students of their school.
Act 51: a legislative measure passed in 2004 that addresses learning standards as well as
the weighted student formula.
Adequacy: the cost of providing educational programs and services so that all – or almost
all – children have an equal opportunity (Odden et al., 2005).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): the federal accountability measure for the 2001 No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) law that requires all students to meet or exceed proficiency in math
and language arts by the year 2014.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

19
Data-based Decisions Making: Utilizing data to drive the decision making process
focused on school improvement.
Evidence-Based Model: educational programs and services so that all – or almost all –
children have an equal opportunity
Expenditures: Includes money, equipment, time, and personnel used for the education of
the student body.
Free Reduced-Price Lunch: under the federal Title 1 regulation, students that meet
specific financial qualification can receive lunch and/or breakfast at school for a free or a
reduced price.
Gap Analysis: A method for identifying and measuring the distance between actual and
desired performance and then providing a diagnosis and action plan.
No Child Left Behind Act (reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act): federal legislation that propelled the federal government into the center of education, most
particularly in the areas of academic standards, assessments, and teacher quality.
Professional Development: Training for teachers in different curriculum and instructional
practices to improve student learning.
Resource Allocation: The purposeful distribution of funds to the various areas of school
expenditures.
Resources: Money, personnel, time, physical facilities, and materials.
Weighted Student Formula: a proposed equitable method for distributing department
funds to schools based upon the characteristics of each student. Schools with students that have
more unique needs receive more funding.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

20
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Due to federal and state academic accountability measures as well as limited educational
funds, public schools continued to struggle with determining how to effectively allocate finite
resources in order to meet increasingly demanding academic benchmarks. One effective
approach to meeting these demands is to identify academically successful schools and districts
and study the research-based practices they employ. This literature review was organized into
four areas that focused on the effective use of school resources to increase student learning. The
first area focused on the literature regarding effective strategies to improve student learning,
which utilized a framework based upon the 10 Strategies For Doubling Student Performance
(Odden, 2009). The second area of focus was on the successful allocation of personnel
resources. This section analyzed the literature on adequacy, school-level resources allocations,
and the successful Evidence-Based Model developed by Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, and
Goetz (2008). The third focus area of the literature review was based upon the constraints
associated with operating a school or district under the pressure of limited recourse. This section
addressed the volatility of Hawaii’s economy, the causes for this instability, and what schools
had done to function in this environment of limited resources.
Improving Student Performance
Student learning is the central objective of education and improving student learning
ought to be the primary goal of each educational institution. In order to improve student
achievement in elementary and secondary grade levels, schools must practice effective research-
based strategies. Six prominent areas of research were selected to serve as the basis for the
literature review on effective strategies that improve student learning. These areas of research
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

21
were selected for two reasons. First, they are based upon prominent studies in the area of
effective educational practices that have significantly increased student performance. Second,
these areas of research collectively address a significant portion of the reoccurring themes in the
literature on effective strategies for improving student achievement. Odden’s book, Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (2009), will serve as the framework for this portion
of the literature review, in which each of the six areas of research will be presented in relation
and connection to this book. The six areas of focus are:
• The 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, that draws upon the research of
multiple case studies and identifies key strategies for doubling student performance.
• What research-based information is known and not known regarding the
improvement of low performing schools.
• The impact of school leadership on student learning.
• How school districts can see better results through effective spending on professional
development.
• Improving instruction and student performance through the professional learning
community model.
• What lessons can be learned from high performing low-income schools.
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden (2009) has used the research of others (Chenoweth, 2007; Odden & Kelly, 2008)
to formulate his own unique work in developing ten strategies for significantly improving
student learning. Odden (2009) explains that “doubling” student performance is not limited to a
literal doubling of improvement, but rather a term to identify substantial indisputable gains. For
example, increasing the percent of students meeting proficiency from 65% to 90% or a
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

22
significant number of students within a subgroup the move from a lower level of proficiency to a
higher level. Odden’s (2009) framework is based upon research conducted at schools and
districts that have successfully allocated resources in a manner that has yielded sizeable results in
student performance, and will serve as the framework for this portion of the literature review.
The common strategies across these schools and districts are as follows (Odden, 2009):
• Initial data analysis. School and district leaders analyze the data from the state’s
standardized test. The goal is to identify macro issues such as inconsistencies scores
across tests (i.e. math and science), low performance in key areas within a test (i.e.
problem solving), gaps between the high and low performers.
• Setting higher goals. Schools and districts establish aggressive academic goals that
appear to be too high to achieve. These goals ought to be considerably higher than
current performance. For example, 90% of students will meet or exceed proficiency
in math.
• Adopt a new research-based curriculum. Educational leaders and teachers work
together in identifying and implementing an entirely new curriculum for the target
areas, such as math and reading. This process assists educators in focusing on
curriculum and instruction, which are central to their sphere of influence.
• Implement data-based decision making. In addition to the yearly state test, teachers
will incorporate quarterly benchmark tests and more frequent formative end-of-unit
assessments. Doing so will provide the teachers with data that identify exactly what
the students know and do not know, allowing for quick responsive instruction.
• Extensive long-term professional development. The two primary purposes of the
professional development are to support teachers in implementing the new curriculum
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

23
as well as strengthen their skills in data-based decision making based upon the
increased assessments. This training is most often conducted during the school day
(45-60 minutes every day) in small group collaborations or individually with a coach,
but can also include summer institutes lasting a minimum of 10 days.
• Use school time more efficiently. Instruction in the core subjects, such as math and
reading, should be given in protected blocks of time ranging from 90 to 120 minutes.
It also recommended that schools limit the number of periods per day to six. This
strategy does not require an extended school year.
• Additional assistance for struggling students. One method of assistance for these
students is focused tutoring by licensed teachers in the form of one to one tutoring for
the lowest performing students, and small group tutoring for the remaining students.
Additional strategies are double period of math and reading, after school and summer
programs, and additional assistance for special needs students.
• Create professional learning communities. These collaborative group meetings are
most effective when teacher’s schedules allow for common time during the school
day. The purposes of these groups are to analyze assessments (unit, quarter, and
semester), identify struggling students and teachers, develop standard based
curriculum units, and create a common approach to instruction.
• Widespread instructional leadership. The leadership within a school consists of the
team leaders, coordinators, instructional coaches, and principals. There should be
multiple teams within a school that can, for example, be organized by department,
grade level, or content area. Through distributive and instructional leadership the
principal does not assume all responsibility and new leaders are prepared for
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

24
additional opportunities. In order to reach higher goals the best teachers and leaders
need to be in place and working together to implement researched based strategies.
• Use external professional knowledge. School leaders should look behind their
schools and districts for additional help and guidance. A few possible sources of
additional assistance could be community leaders, professional journals, consultants,
or other schools and districts.
Improving Low Performing Schools
Similar to Odden (2009), Duke (2006) based his research on the process for improving
low performing schools, which was developed on his analysis of school improvement strategies.
Although, Duke’s (2006) work differs from Odden’s (2009) by also focusing on factors that have
caused schools to decline in their overall academic performance. Duke (2006) also reviewed the
research of five studies conducted by other researchers that focused on improving low
performing schools and he identified 11 common influences across these studies. There is
noticeable overlap in the findings of Duke (2006) and Odden (2009) that occurs in the majority
of the strategies they address. These similar strategies are italicized below and will be further
addressed individually in the literature review.
• Assistance. Content prompt assistance is needed for students with learning
difficulties.
• Collaboration. Teachers work collaboratively to monitor student progress plan
lessons and units, and assist struggling students.
• Data-driven decision making. Decisions regarding important matters such as teacher
effectiveness, resource allocation, and student needs are consistently based upon
current data on student achievement.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

25
• Leadership. The effectiveness of school improvement is direly affected by the tone
set by the principal and teacher leaders.
• Organizational structure. Various parts of a school’s organization are adjusted to
improve student learning.
• Staff development. Teachers receive continued training on the school improvement
efforts.
• Alignment. There is a clear connection between assessments, curriculum, and
instruction.
• Assessment. Students are assessed regularly to determine their academic progress.
• High expectations. Teachers truly believe, and act accordingly, that all students are
capable of meeting high standards.
• Parent involvement. Teachers and parents work collaboratively in supporting the
learning of the students.
• Scheduling. The daily schedule is adjusted to accommodate and support increased
academic work, particularly in math and reading.
School Leadership and Student Performance
Odden (2009) and Duke (2006) both determined that one key strategy for improving
student learning is effective leadership, which is also a method supported by the work of
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005). In their comprehensive study of the effects of leadership
on student learning, Marzano et al. (2005) analyzed the findings of 69 studies dating back 35
years and in addition they surveyed 650 school principals. In total, their study included 2,802
schools with 14,000 teachers and 1.4 million students. Their analysis of the results highlighted
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

26
21 leadership strategies that have shown to impact student learning. Marzano et al. (2005)
compiled their results in a table (Table 2.1) with the first having greatest significance.

Table 2.1
Twenty-One Leadership Strategies Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
Responsibility The extent to which the principal… Average
Number of
Studies
Number of
Schools
Situational
Awareness
Is aware of the details and undercurrents in
the running of the school and uses this
information to address current and potential
problems
.33 5 91
Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the
needs of the current situation and is
comfortable with descent
.28 6 277
Discipline Protects teachers from issues and influences
that would detract from their teaching time
or focus
.27 12 437
Monitoring/
Evaluation
Monitors the effectiveness of school
practices and their impact on student
learning
.27 31 1129
Outreach Is an advocate and spokesperson for the
school to all stakeholders
.27 14 478
Change Agent Is willing to and actively challenges the
status quo
.25 6 466
Culture Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of
community and cooperation
.25 15 809
Input Involves teachers in the design and
implementation of important decisions and
policies
.25 16 669
Knowledge or
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices
.25 10 368

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

27
Table 2.1, continued
Responsibility The extent to which the principal… Average
Number of
Studies
Number of
Schools
Order Establishes a set of standard operating
procedures and routines
.25 17 456
Resources Provides teachers with materials and
professional development necessary for the
successful execution of their jobs
.25 17 571
Contingent
Rewards
Recognizes and rewards individual
accomplishments
.24 9 465
Focus Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals
in the forefront of the school’s attention
.24 44 1619
Intellectual
Stimulation
Ensures that faculty and staff are aware of
the most current theories and practices and
makes the discussion of these a regular
aspect of the school’s culture
.24 4 302
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication
with teachers and among students
.23 11 299
Ideal Beliefs Communicates and operates from strong
ideals and beliefs about schooling
.22 7 513
Involvement in
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and
implementation of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment practices
.20 23 826
Visibility Has quality contact and interactions with
teachers and students
.20 13 477
Optimizer Inspires and leads new challenging
innovations
.20 17 724
Affirmation Recognizes and celebrates school
accomplishments and acknowledges failures
.19 6 332
Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal
aspects of teachers and staff
.18 11 505
Source: Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005)

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

28
Professional Development and Student Achievement
Odden (2009) and Duke (2006) agree that consistent longitudinal professional
development is essential for making significant gains in student achievement. Miles, Odden,
Fermanich, and Archibald (2004) state that intensive, high-quality professional development
should be part of any strategy for school improvement, but implementing such a program
requires specific steps and actions. Initially educational leaders need to justify the costs of
consistent high-quality professional development. Miles et al. (2004) provides three strategies to
accomplish this. First, leaders need to identify which programs are being supported by
professional development and how much money is being spent on these trainings. Second, they
must determine how well the professional development is meeting the school or district
academic goals and what results have been produced. Lastly, the resources being used for
unaligned or under-performing trainings need to be reallocated to more effective strategies.
Miles et al. (2004), along with other educational leaders from five school districts, sought
to analyze the professional development strategies within these school districts by defining the
components of professional development, describing the purpose and organization, and tracking
the costs of these trainings. After reviewing the results of their study, Miles et al. (2004) provide
the following six points:
• A significant portion of the districts’ budgets was devoted to professional
development. Across all five districts a total of $19 million was spent on professional
development in one year, representing an average of 3.6% of their total budgets, or
$4,380 per teacher.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

29
• The costs for professional development should be accurately reported in budget
reports. Funds allocated to professional development reflect an important district
investment.
• Although districts spend a significant amount on teacher time for professional
development, there is a wide range of investment between districts. Of the five
districts studied the portion of professional development spent on teacher time ranged
from 21% to 51%.
• The large majority of the professional development focused on school-level
improvements, but none of the districts had a formal method of coordinating and
implementing the skills and strategies learned.
• Districts utilize similar methods of delivery for their professional development. Of
the five districts studied, the most common methods of training were district or
school-based personnel training entire schools or individual teachers.
• Nearly half of the funding for professional development came from outside sources.
The most prominent outside source of funding was federal money through programs
such as Title 1 and Individuals with Disabilities Act.
The work of Miles et al. (2004) highlights the importance of professional development
and the need for greater accountability and monitoring of this effort of investing in the district.
Most of the district leaders in the study were surprised by the amount of money spent on
professional development within their district, which is concerning in light of the significant
portion of the budget this reflects. Also, in order to enhance the effectiveness of the professional
development, districts need to establish systems of oversight and accountability to ensure the
skills and strategies are being implemented.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

30
Teacher Collaboration
Another common finding within the research of strategies for increasing student
achievement is the practice of providing teachers with sufficient time to collaborate together
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004; Duke, 2006; Odden, 2009). DuFour et al. (2004)
emphasize the importance of having schools that respond to struggling students in a timely,
systematic, and direct manner. This type of planning is most effectively done within
professional learning communities that provide teachers and leaders the opportunity to
collaborate together (Odden, 2009; DuFour et al., 2004). DuFour et al. (2004) focus on
professional learning communities (PLCs) and how they can be effectively implemented to
utilize the combined experience and expertise of teachers and principals in order to improve
student learning.
The research of DuFour et al. (2004) heavily emphasizes student learning and the key
role PLCs play in that process. Through their work, DuFour et al. (2004) focus on three
questions: what is it we expect students to learn, how will we know when they have learned it,
and how will we respond if they do not learn it? These questions should be asked and answered
within the PLCs and under the uniform belief and conviction that all students will learn. DuFour
et al. (2004) emphasize that professional learning communities must pursue student learning
relentlessly.
According to DuFour et al. (2004), school leaders have a responsibility to establish
certain conditions for PLCs to be effective, such as a collaborative school culture, time provided
for teams to collaborate, and measurable student performance goals. As PLCs attempt to utilize
their combined knowledge and efforts to answer critical questions, there are nine fundamental
components needed for their success.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

31
• A belief that all students will learn
• A dedication to teaching and learning
• A realization that the work is about students, not adults
• An ability to work smarter not harder
• Answering critical questions focused on formative assessments
• Involvement of support staff
• On-going examination of student work
• Guidance through established protocol
• Established norms that provide structure for the team
DuFour et al. (2004) believe that the core of teaching is student learning, and that an
educator’s conviction that every student can learn, will impact classroom decisions more than
legislation or fear of sanctions. DuFour et al. (2004) present professional learning communities
as a foundational element to student learning. One strategy needed for effective PLCs is to have
them become part of the school’s routine and culture. Another strategy for effective PLCs is that
the time to collaborate should be during the regular school day and calendar. A third essential
strategy is that all teachers must be committed to reteaching when students do not master a given
concept or task. Student learning can increase significantly if schools will tap and harness the
human capital resources of its teachers and leaders (DuFour et al., 2004).
Characteristics of a Successful School
This section of the literature review has identified a substantial amount of research that
has focused on the study of academically successful schools and then the identification and
application of successful strategies in other schools. This leads to the question of why would a
school or district not look to successful schools for guidance and strategies to help their own
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

32
students? Chenoweth (2009) highlights the all too common mantra of under performing schools
as one of helplessness and being victims of a faulty system. Chenoweth (2009) blames some of
this mindset on the myriad of studies that consistently show a correlation between race and
socioeconomic status with academic achievement. More specifically, that poor black and
Hispanic students perform poorly in school. Chenoweth (2009) provides a silver lining in her
study by highlighting schools that have broken the mold by helping their minority and
economically disadvantaged students to meet rigorous academic standards. Although
Chenoweth’s (2009) work is not based on the work of the other authors discussed in this section,
her results are noticeably similar to those previously covered.
Since 2004, Chenoweth (2010) has studied 24 high performing, high poverty, high
minority schools to identify why these schools have been successful in out-performing schools
with similar student bodies as well as schools in more affluent and less culturally diverse
neighborhoods. These 24 schools were selected for her study because of their high percentage of
low income and minority student body, extremely high student achievement (nearly all students
met or exceeded the state standards), and none of them have entrance criteria (they accept all
students within their boundaries). The teachers and leaders in these schools were aware that their
students are extremely susceptible to poor instructional practices and careless school
management (Chenoweth, 2010). Therefore the teachers and leaders were committed to strive
for perfection in all areas related to the education of their students. Within this broad emphasis
on excellence, there are seven strategies that were common across the majority of the schools
(Chenoweth 2009, 2010):
• Teachers accurately identify a knowledge gap for each student by determining what
the student knows and what they need to know.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

33
• Teachers must be provided time to collaborate, review student assessment results, and
develop curriculum and other teacher strategies.
• Principals must delegate the day-to-day responsibilities and problem solving to others
in order to focus more of their time and efforts on student achievement.
• Principals and coaches need to go beyond setting high expectations by following up,
evaluating, and inspecting in order to ensure the teachers are working diligently and
effectively towards these expectations.
• Principals and teachers work together to hold themselves to high standards of
achievement and have respectfully frank meetings when these standards are not met.
• Teachers and leaders need to use student test scores to drive decision making and also
be willing to adjust their course should the test results indicate a need for change.
• Educators and leaders must have the mindset of being willing to do whatever it takes
to help their students succeed, even if the work is unpleasant or uncomfortable.
This portion of the literature review has highlighted numerous research-based practices
for improving student achievement. These practices can serve schools and districts well as these
institutions strive to meet increasing academic standards. The best practices discussed here will
also be utilized as a key part of this research project in determining which strategies the target
schools are using and also providing a plan of action for the schools. It is beneficial for the
target schools to be aware of which practices are most effective so that these schools can allocate
their limited resources to those activities that will yield the best results.
Human Resource Allocation
Although the Great Recession has ended and the economy is likely to experience
noticeable improvement, there is still noticeable uncertainty for long-term improvement (Estevão
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

34
& Tsounta, 2011). Even in light of potential increases to both federal and local educational
funding, there still remains the challenge of allocating those funds effectively. Substantial
research has been conducted on the topic of resource allocations and effective models to assist in
making those decisions (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997; Odden, 2003, 2005, 2008; Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich, & Gross, 2003; Picus et al., 2008). This section of the review will focus
on the literature in the specific areas of adequacy in education, strategic management of human
resource capital, resource use at the school level, and the Evidenced-Based Model.
Adequacy in Education
Education finance has long focused on fiscal equity, but is now shifting toward financial
adequacy and the effective use of those funds (Odden, 2003; Baker, 2005). Although it remains
essential to maintain fiscal equity within education, it is equally important to train educational
leaders on financial adequacy, especially in light of the ever-present academic accountability
measures. Educational stakeholders need to clearly determine their academic goals; the amount
of funding required to accomplish those goals, and how to distribute those funds appropriately
(Odden, 2003). In most instances of improved adequacy, financial equity improves as well,
thereby allowing for both objectives to be meet in one process (Odden, 2003; Baker, 2005). To
guide educational leaders in determining their financial needs and appropriate revenue levels for
their school or district, Odden (2003) suggests three strategies:
• Determine the costs of effective programs and strategies
• Apply those costs to an effective school finance structure
• Ensure resources are used to produce desired results
While many schools and districts determine adequate expenditure levels for the typical
student as well as added costs for special needs students, Odden (2003) offers four approaches to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

35
determining foundation expenditure levels, which according to Baker (2005) is essential for
achieving adequacy. It is of interest to note that the first two approaches focus solely on
identifying a dollar amount for what is needed to achieve academic excellence, while the last two
approaches actually suggest strategies for improving student achievement. The successful
district approach identifies districts that have experienced noticeable academic success and also
determines the district’s weighted average per pupil expenditures. The economic cost function
approach uses regression analysis with per pupil expenditures as the dependent variable and
district characteristics and desired outcomes as the independent variables. At the time of this
research no state was using this approach due to the significant variation adequacy levels. The
professional judgment approach calls upon experts in each level of education (elementary,
middle, high, and special needs) to identify key educational strategies for each level, determine
the components of these strategies, then calculate the sum for all the components. The evidence-
based approach, which first determines the best ingredients for academic success within a
district, then identifies an adequate expenditure level for these ingredients, and then determines
the total cost (a more in depth analysis of this approach is found later in this chapter).
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) provide a resource allocation framework that was
developed through their research of five high-performing schools in the Boston area that have
allocated their resources in an innovative manner. The findings of the study highlight five
effective principles for resource allocations:
• Reduction of specialized programs to create more individual time for all in
heterogeneous instructional group
• More flexible student grouping by school professionals
• Structures to support more personal relationships between teachers and students.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

36
• Longer and more varied blocks of instructional time
• Creating more useful common planning time for teachers
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) postulate that resource allocations and the design of
an instructional strategy are closely related and that one cannot be effectively implemented
without the other. Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) recognize the challenges schools face as
they attempt to align resources and academic strategy and because of this difficulty most schools
do not reach an effective alignment between the two. Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997)
provide four strategies for schools to increase their ability to align their resources and academic
plans:
• Increase the number of teachers that teach in the general education classroom, while
reducing the separation of students with special needs
• Considers ways in which those teachers not being used can reduce the teacher to
student ratio
• Eliminate programs that cause an unevenness in class size, where the differences are
not educationally significant
• Restructure the school schedule to reduce the number of students each teacher is
responsible for
In addition to allocating resources effectively, educational leaders must be able to
manage the human capital within their schools and districts effectively. Odden (2008) has
developed a system called the Strategic Management of Human Capital (SMHC) that focuses on
acquiring, developing, managing, and retaining the best talent within a school or district, which
according to Odden (2008) are required to tackle the toughest challenges. According to Odden
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

37
(2008) some of the most significant challenges leaders face regarding human capital
management are:
• Lack of alignment between human capital management strategy and practice
• Finding sufficient numbers of high quality teachers to staff high-need schools
• High teacher turnover especially in urban schools
• Chronic need for math, science, and technology teachers
• Attracting the best and brightest in each field to begin teaching
• Implementing professional development systems that create change
• Supporting compensation systems
In order to experience significant results tied to human capital, Odden (2005) recommends a
SMHC plan be designed and implemented. Such a plan should contain the following:
• A comprehensive strategic direction that is best developed while considering the
many aspects of the school, such as; performance goals, budget, internal and external
factors affecting human capital, workforce makeup, and stakeholder needs and
expectations.
• Human capital goals that are identified through the strategic direction. These goals
should be based on talent, performance management, and leadership.
• Strategic objectives serve as shorter-term goals that will lead to the achievement of
the human capital goals.
• An implementation plan highlights the actions needed to meet the strategic objectives.
Implementation plans describe the tasks, who is responsible, required resources, and
timeframe.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

38
• An accountability system that will determine how success in implementing the
strategy or objective will be measured.
As schools create and implement a strategic human capital management system they will
be better able to acquire the best talent, enhance their productivity through effective management
and training, and retain the best educators which will lead to higher levels of student
achievement and reductions in achievement gaps (Odden 2005, 2008).
Resource Use at the School Level
Districts and schools need to have systems in place that allow them to monitor and
evaluate the use of their resources in order to make improvements. Odden et al. (2003) propose
that school-level, rather than district-level, resource data are more beneficial because the results
reveal which resources are being used for educational strategies and instructional practices,
thereby revealing specific needs within each school rather than the district overall. Although
numerous school-level expenditure reporting systems exist, Odden et al. (2003) provide their
own method that attempts to fill in several gaps of the other systems. First, their model is
explicitly designed to address school-level spending, rather than being used for the dual purpose
of district and school-level. Second, their system can differentiate spending across different
units within a school. Lastly, it categorizes expenditures based upon current instructional
strategies and resource allocation.
Odden et al. (2003) have provided the following outline of their resource allocation
model that consists of resource indicators for instructional priorities as well as nine elements of
school expenditures.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

39
Table 2.2
School Resource Indicators and Expenditure Structure
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
School Unit Size Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Percent Low Income Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Percent Special Education Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Percent ESL/LEP Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Expenditures Per Pupil Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Core Class Size (Secondary)
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Length of Instructional Day Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
Length of Class Periods
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
• English/Reading/Language Arts
• History/Social Studies
• Math
• Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
• Science
• Art, music, physical education, etc.
• Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
• Vocational
• Drivers Education
• Librarians

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

40
Table 2.2, continued
School Expenditure Structure
3. Extra Help
• Tutors
• Extra Help Laboratories
• Resource Rooms (Title I, special education or other part-day
pullout programs)
• Inclusion Teachers
• English as a second language classes
• Special Education self-contained classes for severely
disabled students (Including aides)
• Extended Day and Summer School
• District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
• Teacher Time — Substitutes and Stipends
• Trainers and Coaches
• Administration
• Materials, Equipment and Facilities
• Travel & Transportation
• Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
• Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
• Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
• Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
• Supplies, Materials and Equipment
• Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
• Counselors
• Nurses
• Psychologists
• Social Workers
• Extra-Curricular and Athletics
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
• Custodial
• Utilities
• Security
• Food Service
Source: Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

41
The nine expenditure elements are central to the expenditure structure section and are
separated by either instructional or non-instructional. Odden et al. (2003) provide the following
explanations for each element:
• Core academic teachers. A licensed classroom teacher whose primary duty is to teach
the core academic subject of math, science, language arts, and social studies. This
category also includes teachers that teach any combination of these subjects, for
example math and science. Core teachers also include special education and bilingual
teachers that teach these subject matters.
• Specialists and elective teachers. Licensed classroom teachers, including librarians,
that teach all other non-core subjects or who substitute for core teachers to provide
them with collaboration time. Some examples would be foreign languages, physical
education, drivers education, and vocational courses.
• Extra help. Also consisting of licensed teachers, this category includes programs and
strategies focused on supporting struggling students. These teachers commonly
provide supplemental services and instruction that supports the curriculum of the core
courses. These teachers would include tutors, extra help laboratories, reading or math
workshops, remedial reading or math in the resource setting, inclusion teachers that
assist within the general classroom, English Language Learner courses, fully self
contained classrooms, after school or summer programs, and district alternative
programs.
• Professional development. This category is dedicated to the expenditures spent on
the training of school staff. Such costs would include trainers or coaches,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

42
professional development administration, materials, travel and transportation,
equipment and facilities, and tuition or fees.
• Other non-classroom instructional staff. Licensed and non-licensed staff that support
a school’s initiatives and programs. Such staff could be substitutes, curriculum
coordinators, technology coordinators, and instructional aides.
• Instructional materials and equipment. This includes computers, books, curriculum,
instructional supplies, programs, materials, computer hardware and software, and
student supplies.
• Student support. These are school-based student support staff such as counselors,
social workers, attendance clerks, family counselors, nurses and psychologists.
• Administration. All those who provide administrative support to a school. These
include principals, assistant principals, clerks, office supplies, equipment, and
technology.
• Operations and maintenance. This covers food services, custodial services, security,
supplies, utilities, ground maintenance, and building maintenance.
School-based data have become increasingly important as legislators expect more
academic improvement and fiscal responsibility from schools (Odden et al., 2003). An
expenditure model will provide schools with the evidenced-based tools they need to confirm the
value of their academic pursuits from a resource standpoint. Odden and Kelly (2008) also
focused on school-site expenditures and provide additional insight into the various categories of
spending within a school as:
• Instruction. All resources needed for the instruction of the school’s student body,
such as salaries, benefits, books, supplies, technology, and tuition.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

43
• Instructional support. In addition to instruction, these resources would include staff
training, curriculum, libraries, and computer labs.
• Administration. These expenditures primarily include personnel and services housed
in the main office or district offices such as salaries and benefits for principals,
assistant principals, and secretarial staff, and supplies.
• Student Support. This includes resources tied to the salaries, benefits, and supplies of
various services such as counseling, speech language, attendance, guidance, social
work, and parental assistance.
• Operations and maintenance. This category includes the salary, benefits, and supplies
of the custodians, landscapers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and others involved
in the maintenance, repair, and cleaning of the school.
• Transportation. Within most school districts this includes the salaries, benefits, and
supplies of those who transport students to and from school and on other school
excursions.
• Food service. Includes the salaries, benefits, and supplies of those who provide meals
to the students.
Although schools offer a critical service that is free to all children, the effectiveness of
any given school is greatly impacted by the receipt and allocation of money. Due to the impact
of finances on school performance, Odden and Kelly (2008) suggest that collecting data on
resources received and how those resources are allocated is essential to the school’s progress.
Odden and Kelly (2008) recommend five specific types of data that should be collected in order
to determine a school’s effectiveness in distributing resources. First is a distinct list of staffing
and expenditures costs for each program within the school. Some of these programs could
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

44
include special education, staff development, general education curriculum, and instructional
supplies. Second is the staffing and expenditures separated based on educational strategy, which
includes pullout programs, student to teacher ratio, and elective courses. Third is the staffing and
expenditures distinguished by academic content area. Fourth is the interrelationship and patterns
across these categories. Last is the relationship between these patterns and student achievement.
The Evidence-Based Model
Although the issue of insufficient school funding is a significant problem for schools,
simply securing enough money to run a school does not solve the funding issue (Odden & Kelly,
2008). An equally substantial challenge is developing a school finance system that is aligned
with evidence-based resource allocation strategies. Odden and Kelly (2008) have developed an
evidence-based model (EBM) that uses research-based evidence to highlight the most effective
educational practices and then allocating resources accordingly. Odden and Kelly (2008) believe
the EBM is the most grounded approach to resource allocation. The EBM serves as the central
theoretical framework for this study. Figure 2.1 provides a more comprehensive and clear
explanation of the EBM.
The EBM has been developed to produce ideal, yet general, models and then uses school-
specific demographic and charactersitics to create a specialized model for a particiular school.
For example, the EBM projects that a typical high school would have 600 students with an
average class size of 25 (Odden & Kelly, 2008). According to this information the model would
recommend the school have 24 full-time core teachers and eight fulltime specialist teachers. In
addition to the teacher positions, the EBM recommends support staff to include three
instructional coaches and one technology coordinator. Table 2.3 highlights the key
recommendations of the EBM for each ideal school level.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

45

Figure 2.1. Evidence-based model explanation. Source: Odden and Kelly (2008)

Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence-Based Model:
A Research/Best Practices Approach Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

46
Table 2.3
Evidence-Based Model Recommendations
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School configuration K-5 6–8 9–12
Prototypic school size 450 450 600
Class size K-3: 15, 4–5: 25 25 25
Full-day kindergarten Yes NA NA
Number of teacher work
days
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
200 teacher work days,
including 10 days for
intensive training
% disabled 12% 12% 12%
% poverty (free and
reduced-price lunch)
50% 50% 50%
% ELL 10% 10% 10%
% minority 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more: 8.0
3. Instructional
facilitators/mentors
2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
One for every 100
poverty students: 3.0
5. Teachers for ELL
students
Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.43
Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.45
Additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL
students: 0.60
6. Extended-day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer school
8a. Learning and mildly disabled students

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

47
Table 2.3, continued
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
8b. Severely disabled students
9. Teachers for gifted
students
1.8 1.875 2.5
10. Vocational
education
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions
Additional 4 professional
teacher positions
11. Substitutes 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
12. Pupil support staff $25/student $25/student $25/student
13. Non-instructional
aides
NA NA No extra cost
14. Librarians/media
specialists
5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11 5% of lines 1–11
15. Principal 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
1 for every 100 poverty
students plus 1.0
guidance/250 students:
3.25
1 for every 100 poverty
students plus 1.0
guidance/250 students:
5.4
16. School site
secretary
2.0 2.0 3.0
17. Professional
development
1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian
1.0 library technician
18. Technology 1 1 1
19. Instructional
materials
2.0 2.0 3.0
20. Student activities Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning and prep time
10 summer days
Additional: $100/pupil
for other PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning and prep time
10 summer days
Additional: $100/pupil
for other PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional coaches
Planning and prep time
10 summer days
Additional: $50/pupil for
other PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Source: Odden and Picus (2014)
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

48
Securing sufficient resources is a challenge for most school systems especially if the
request is an increase to the current allotment, an additional challenge is the actual allotment of
those resources. Of the four approaches to determing foundation expenditure levels, the
evidence-based method is most effective because it addresses both of these challenges, while
some of the approaches address only one. By providing strategies for effective resource
allocations, the evidence-based approach assists schools in mproving student achievement even
if an increase of resources is not received.
Limited Fiscal Resources
The Great Recession has had a significant impact on educational funding nationally as
well as within Hawaii (Thompson, 2013; Oliff & Leachman, 2011). The following section of the
literature review will focus on four key aspects of the current and recent financial troubles and
their effects on public education. First is the general economic environment and how
educational leaders and government officials responded. Second is the federal government’s
attempts at reducing the negative effects of the recession. Third, local restraints that hinder long-
lasting effective resource allocation. The fourth aspect focuses on the hope for potential change
and improvement in local resource allocations.
Current Fiscal Climate and Response
The combination of declining housing prices, rising unemployment, and deflated
consumer spending has led to significant drops in state revenues (Johnson, Oliff, & Koulish,
2008). According to the work of Johnson et al. (2008), at the height of the great recession in
2008 there were 36 states that had enacted or proposed substantial cuts to public education
funding in response to the declining econimic conditions. Nearly all states are mandated by law
to keep a balanced budget and because nearly 46% or all state budgets go towards education,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

49
when there is a significant economic correction education often experiences deep cuts in funding
(Johnson et al., 2008). Williams, Leachman, and Johnson (2011) believe that such financial cuts
to education have continued beyond the end of the recession and will continue on in the near
future, leading to budget-cuts of historic proportions.
Williams et al. (2011) have analyzed the budgets of each state and identified 38 states,
including Hawaii, which actually spent less on education in 2012 than in 2008. Williams et al.
(2011) recognized the unavoidable need to cut spending, but they feel that the states’ legislators
implemented cuts that were too drastic. Other viable options that should have been utilized were
to tap the state’s rainy day fund or increase revenues (Williams et al., 2011). Although Hawaii
was one of the few states to increase revenues through tighter tax exemptions, the state has still
not returned to educational funding levels of 2008 (Williams et al., 2011).
Federal Funding Assistance
In an address to both bodies of Congress, President Obama (2009) stated that in a global
economy, a good education is no longer an option, but rather it is a pre-requisite. Keeping inline
with these remarks President Obama initiated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), which was intended to be an economic stimulus in response the Great Recession
(U.S. Congress, 2009). Included in the act was a $100 billion stimulus dedicated solely to
education. This historic boost to education funding saved hundreds of thousands of jobs,
supported state and district school systems, and advanced educational reforms on student
achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Mead, Vaishnav, Porter, and Rotherham
(2010) highlight four key areas in which the ARRA attempted to improve education reform as:
first, improving consistently low-performing schools, second increasing teacher effectiveness,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

50
third developing longitudinal data systems for K-20, and fourth creating high-quality
assessments along with college and career ready standards.
In addition to the $100 billion dedicated to education in the U.S., the federal government
allotted $54 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), intended to loosen up state
spending on education. In a study conducted by Roza and Funk (2010) the budgets of 23 states
were reviewed and it was determined that 13 of the states had actually reduced their spending on
education in the wake of funds from both the ARRA and SFSF. Although these federal stimulus
efforts were intended to fill in the financial gaps of state budgets, the long-term effects could
prove to be the opposite. If states were unable to revive education spending with the assistance
of the ARRA and SFSF programs, how will the states fair now with that these special funds have
ended (Roza & Funk, 2010).
Local Constraints
According to Odden (2008), in order to help all students achieve current academic
standards, schools need talented well-prepared teachers and educated leaders. The current
system in many districts is insufficient in recruiting, hiring, training, deploying, developing, and
retaining the top talent needed to attain such high academic goals (Odden, 2008). Inadequate
funding plays a significant role in this dilemma resulting in the following leadership problems:
• The lack of a strategic human resource management system
• The inability to recruit the best and brightest in education
• Adequately staffing high-needs schools
• Chronic shortages in high-needs subject such as math, science, and technology
• High teacher turnover
• Poor follow-through and oversight of professional development
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

51
• Compensation structures that reward teachers for accomplishments that are weakly
related to student learning
During times of fiscal shortfalls it is even more critical for educational leaders to
understand and develop management skills in human resource allocations so that the limited
resources are producing as much of an impact as possible. Odden (2008) provides several key
areas in which educational leaders need to be especially attune to in order to achieve this level of
management success. First is that the acquisition, development, and retention of talented
educators should be driven by the school’s improvement plan. Second, successful human capital
management begins with successful recruitment of top teaching and leadership talent. Third,
teacher talent needs to be effectively and purposefully managed in order to yield the desired
educational results. Fourth, each part of human resource management (i.e. recruitment,
placement, evaluation, training, and compensation) should align with multiple measures of
teacher effectiveness. Finally, the school needs to develop a professional culture where top
priority is given to student achievement, effective instruction, and teacher accountability.
Opportunities for Improvement
Although the emphasis for this study will focus on educational leaders’ effective
management of resources during financially challenging times, this study also focuses on raising
awareness of the detrimental effects financial uncertainty has on student achievement. This
uncertainty falls upon the shoulders of state and federal lawmakers. Shambaugh, Kitmitto,
Parrish, Arellanes, and Nakashima (2011) identify the opportunity for learning and growth that
lies within financially challenging times. Shambaugh et al. (2011) provide the following
recommendations for improvement on the part of government officials:
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

52
• Increase and stabilize state funding for education
• Allow for funding flexibility during financial crisis
• Reform the current budgeting process lesson the financial burden on the school
district
• Increase district flexibility in staffing decisions
Gap Analysis
In addition to the data derived from the evidence-based model (Odden & Kelly, 2008) a
gap analysis method, based on the strategies of Clark and Estes (2008), will be used to identify
where performance gaps exist and the causes for these gaps. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), a gap analysis focuses on the human causes behind performance gaps. The primary
identification of performance gaps will be in the differences between the resource allocations in
the Marshall Complex’s academic strategic plan and the complex’s actual resource allocations.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that the three likely sources for performance gaps are knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational flaws. Once the performance gaps are identified and
the sources for the gaps are highlighted, recommendations for improvement will be made.
Literature Summary
This chapter has outlined the theoretical framework for this study by reviewing the
relevant and current literature. First was a review of the literature on effective educational
practices, anchored by the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
Additional resources were sited and reviewed in support of Odden’s (2009) work. The theories
of these studies were substantiated by successfully implementing the strategies in numerous
schools and districts across the country.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

53
Next, this chapter focused on the research of resource allocations and human resource
management. In this section multiple studies were reviewed in order to identify key aspects of
successful resource management and allocation. The third portion of the literature review
addressed the financial difficulties that most districts and schools in the United States are facing.
The reoccurring synopsis in the literature is that without significant change by government
officials, education funding will likely continue experiencing fluctuations and insufficiencies.
The final portion of this literature review introduced and explained the evidence-based
model (Odden & Kelly, 2008), which applies many of the strategies covered in the first two
sections of this chapter. Reasons why this model was selected for this study were also provided.
In addition to the EBM, a gap analysis method for this study was introduced and explained.
As the literature indicates, there is a significant need for effective resource management
within educational entities, especially in light of the continued budgetary uncertainty resulting
from the federal and local economies and governments. Educational leaders face the challenge
of meeting increasingly rigorous academic standards with decreasing or stagnant funds. In order
to accomplish this feat, district and school leaders need to know what educational practices are
most effective and also how to align their human resources with those practices. The EBM is an
effective tool for recommending such alignments. If any gaps are identified by the data of the
EBM then further analysis is needed in order to correct the source of the gap and begin
improvement in that area. The following chapter will address the methodology for conducting
this type of study within the Marshall Complex.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

54
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The following chapter provided an outline and description of the methodology for this
study that included the research questions, study design, sample and population, instrumentation,
data collection, and data analysis. The purpose of the study was to inform school leaders,
complex leaders and legislators of the resource allocations within the Marshall Complex as well
as the importance of employing a research-based method of allocating resources and how this
could improve student learning. Resource allocations within the Marshall Complex were
compared to the theory of action embedded in the Evidence-Based Model (Picus et al., 2008) in
order to reveal any gaps between the current and recommended allocations. The basis for the
recommended allocations was derived from Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Achievement. Identifying gaps in the resource allocations would assist the leaders of the
Marshall Complex in allocating resources in a manner that would increase student learning
within the current resource allotments received. Based upon these gaps the researcher provided
research-based strategies for improving student learning through effective resource allocations
within the Marshall Complex.
Methodology
This was a quantitative method study, which focused on one complex within the Hawaii
Department of Education consisting of one high school, two intermediate schools, and seven
elementary schools. The quantitative data was gleaned from actual expenditures across multiple
categories at the individual school level. A quantitative method approach was selected for this
study because it allowed for the analysis of resource allocation data through the lens of the EBM.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

55
Research Questions
This study answered the following research questions:
• How were human resources allocated across the Marshall Complex and its schools?
• Was there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what
the research suggested is most effective?
• How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Sample and Population
A purposeful sample was employed to select the school complex and its schools in this
study. The Marshall Complex was selected in part because of the high population of Native
Hawaiian and other minority students, which were of particular interest to educational
stakeholders in Hawaii. The Marshall Complex was also selected because the large majority of
the students within the Complex came from low-income homes. All but one of the Complex
schools received Title 1 federal funds.
The Marshall Complex was located on the West side of the island of Oahu. In 2012 the
Complex student population was 44% Filipino, 23% Native Hawaiian, 9% white, 9% Polynesian,
8% Asian, and 7% Black (HDoE, 2013d). In 2012 the Complex had a total student enrollment of
10,202 (HDoE, 2013e). From the community at large in which the Marshall Complex covered,
20% had earned a college degree and the annual household median income was $70,223 (HDoE,
2013e), both of which were lower than the island-wide averages in which 30% of the population
had earned a college degree and the annual household median income was $73,000 (HDoE,
2013e).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

56
Instrumentation and Data Collection
This study began with an initial discussion with Hawaii DOE personnel to discuss the
feasibility of the research project. This was followed by a training session led by Lawrence O.
Picus, Dissertation Chair for a group of researchers in the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education. The training session addressed the creation of data analysis
techniques and case study preparation. The Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at both the
University of Southern California and the Hawaii Department of Education were contacted to
grant approval for the study to be conducted. An instrumentation plan was made with the goal of
validating answers to the research questions by triangulating the data collected. The primary
methods of data collection were numerical data, Complex and school documents, and publically
available reports.
Numerical Data
The district resource allocation model was utilized by the researcher for inputting all
personnel allocations within each school in the Marshall Complex. The numerical data for this
portion was collected from publically available sources. The data was entered into the EBM in
order to identify differences between actual current resource allocations and resource allocations
recommended by the EBM.
Documents
Complex and school level documents were analyzed in order to determine if and how
actual resource allocations compared to the Complex’s vision and mission. The documents were
also analyzed to identify possible areas where resources could be reallocated to better support
student achievement. Some of these documents included School Accountability Reports, School
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

57
Status and Improvement Reports, Academic Plans, Financial Plans, mission and vision
statements, and school bell schedules.
Data Analysis
Data was collected and analyzed with the intention of answering each of the research
questions for this study. The data analysis comprised of the following:
• The Evidence-Based Model (Picus et al., 2008) was utilized as a conceptual model
for examining resources allocated across the Marshall Complex.
• Odden’s (2009) 10 strategies were utilized to determine which effective strategies
were being employed within the schools.
Upon the completion of these data analyses the research provided recommendations and
alternative approaches for improving the resource allocations within the Marshall Complex in
order to increase student achievement. These recommendations as well as the findings of the
study will be presented in the following two chapters.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

58
CHAPTER 4
STUDY RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate human resource data from the Marshall
Complex to determine how staff were allocated and then compare those results with the
allocations recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014). This chapter is
divided into three parts; the first is an overview of the Marshall Complex, the second presents the
findings in relation to each of the research questions, and the third is a discussion of the findings
and recommendations. The research questions are as follows:
1. How are human resources allocated across the Marshall Complex and its schools?
2. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
3. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Marshall Complex Overview
The Marshall Complex is located on the Leeward coast on the island of Oahu,
approximately 30 miles from downtown Honolulu and encompasses an area of approximately 16
square miles. The Marshall Complex educates more than 10,000 students each year in grades
kindergarten through twelve. Detailed student demographics are listed in Table 4.1 below. The
complex consists of seven elementary schools, two intermediate schools, and one high school.
Of the 10 schools in the Marshall Complex, eight receive Title 1 funds from the Federal
government. These funds are intended to provide additional resources and programs to close the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

59
educational gap that exists between students from low-income households versus those students
from high-income households.

Table 4.1
Marshall Complex Student Demographics
School
Grade
Levels
Enroll-
ment
English
Language
Learners
% English
Learner
Special
Education
Students
% Special
Education
Socio-
economic
Disadv.
% Socio-
economic
Disadv.
School 1 K-6 1,109 76 6.9% 63 5.7% 611 55.1%
School 2 K-6 709 46 6.5% 59 8.3% 349 49.2%
School 3 K-6 1,383 77 5.6% 86 6.2% 468 33.8%
School 4 K-6 762 16 2.1% 69 9.1% 316 41.5%
School 5 K-6 657 99 15.1% 54 8.2% 445 67.7%
School 6 K-6 841 27 3.2% 44 5.2% 239 28.4%
School 7 K-6 590 48 8.1% 36 6.1% 361 61.2%
School 8 7-8 813 42 5.2% 72 8.9% 330 40.6%
School 9 7-8 842 84 10% 70 8.3% 446 53%
School 10 9-12 2,578 85 3.3% 230 8.9% 1,316 46.7%
Total K-12 10,284 600 5.8% 783 7.6% 4,881 47.5%

Introduction of Findings
In this section the findings of the study will be discussed as they relate to the research
questions. The information in this section was gathered from publicly available data sources
sponsored by the Hawaii Department of Education, the Marshall Complex, and each of its
schools. These sources provided both quantitative and qualitative data needed to complete the
Evidence-Based Model and answer the research questions. The data collected were used to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

60
compare actual staff allocations to those recommended by the EBM. These data were used to
run simulations based on best practices, allowing the researcher to then recommend research-
based strategies and adjustments to the current human resource allocations in order to improve
student learning in the Marshall Complex.
Human Resource Allocation Strategies to Improve Student Achievement
The Marshall Complex has employed a variety of strategies in recent years focused on
improving student learning. These strategies have been evaluated based upon the work of
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, and are foundational in the
recommendations of the EBM. Odden’s data for this work were collected from schools that have
doubled, or significantly improved, student growth through the effective allocation of human
resources. Odden’s (2009) 10 strategies are also based upon current research dedicated to the
improvement of student achievement through the effective allocation of resources.
The Performance Challenge
One of the EBM’s recommendations to dramatically improve student learning focuses on
the importance of having a school’s staff accurately understand the problem at hand and the
amount of growth needed to correct the problem. To achieve this understanding, the staff must
initially analyze student data from end of year assessment results, and collectively work on
curriculum mapping by grade-level and subject. The goal of this phase of data analysis is to
identify macro-level issues and achievement gaps, such as which subject areas did the school
perform well in, or in which grade level standards did the school perform poorly. Then
collaborative curriculum mapping can occur and plans for addressing these gaps can begin.
The school-level staff in the Marshall Complex have analyzed test results from the
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) in order to identify broad gaps in student performance (HDoE,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

61
2013e). Since the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year the schools utilized data from the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), which will replace the HSA. According to
the School Status and Improvement Reports for each school in the complex, some form of
curriculum mapping has been implemented to close the gaps identified from the HSA test results.
Most of the schools state in their reports that this mapping has been done through grade level
collaboration and multidisciplinary mapping.
Setting Ambitious Goals
Another key component to doubling student performance according to the EBM, is the
need for administrators and leaders to set ambitious academic goals regarding student
achievement. High goals should be set regardless of past student performance or student
demographics. There should be an underlying and common belief among all school staff that
every student can and will learn. To believe that only a portion of one’s students will learn is, in
essence, similar to giving up before beginning. Ambitious, specific, and numerical goals provide
stakeholders with a specific focus and high expectation for themselves, and it does not require
any additional resources. This approach to student learning can have a significant impact on
student growth.
The Marshall Complex has established a complex-wide expectation that every student
can learn, even under the increased rigor of the Common Core standards (HDoE, 2013e). There
have been some in the community and field of education who have warned that student
performance will drop in the wake of new assessments based on the Common Core standards
(Herman & Linn, 2013). In spite of this criticism and skepticism, a number of schools in the
Marshall Complex have maintained their commitment and belief that all students can and will
learn, as stated in their School Status and Improvement Reports (HDoE, 2013e). In light of the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

62
belief that all students can learn, the Marshall Complex has set a goal that all students will learn.
This goal aligns with Odden’s (2009) recommendations for ambitious goals, but it is only a
single goal and lacks the clarity and specifics provided by multiple goals. Additional goals, for
example in the area of test scores, and at the secondary level attendance and completion, would
provide further direction and focus for the Marshall Complex staff and also assist with progress
and growth monitoring.
Curriculum and Instruction
The EBM’s third step to doubling student learning is implementing research-based
curriculum and instructional practices. This step may require a school or district to identify and
purchase a new curriculum, which would not require any additional resources beyond the current
allotment for textbooks, except for the possible initial start up costs. It is essential that the
curriculum and instructional practices be founded on current research. The new curriculum
should lead the students to read at grade level by third grade and to be proficient in basic algebra
by eighth grade (Odden & Picus, 2014).
The Marshall Complex, along with every other complex in the state of Hawaii, adopted
the Go Math curriculum and first implemented it in the 2014-2015 school year. The Go Math
curriculum is designed to have students ready for algebra prior to the ninth grade, but because
the curriculum has only been implemented for one quarter, the results and quality of the program
in the Marshall Complex are yet to be known. For reading, the Marshall Complex has not
adopted a complex-wide curriculum, although, most of the elementary schools use the
International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program (IB-PYP). The IB-PYP is designed for
students ages 3-12 and utilizes a transdisciplinary design focused on inquiry-based learning. The
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

63
IB-PYP assists educators in creating relevant, challenging, and significant lessons and
curriculum.
The schools in the Marshall Complex have also implemented the instructional strategies
developed by the organization Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID). AVID
strategies are intended to provide students with the academic and social support needed to meet
high academic standards. Many of the instructional strategies provided by AVID focus on peer-
student interactions and group activities, as well as effective note-taking skills. The Marshall
Complex adopted the AVID philosophy in 2010 and many of the teachers in the Marshall
Complex have attended trainings on the AVID strategies.
Data-based Decision Making
The EBM recommends that schools utilize frequent assessments in their pursuit of
excellence in student growth. Formative assessments are administered prior to the beginning of
a new curriculum unit, benchmark assessments are given at the end of a unit, and summative
assessments are administered at the end of a semester or school year. The formative assessments
should drive instruction (DuFour et al., 2004). The frequency and nature of the assessments
provide teachers with data that will indicate what the students know and do not know. This
information should then be used to guide classroom instruction in order to close any knowledge
gaps and assist in the students’ progression. The process of analyzing student data should be
done in collaborative settings with other teachers of the same grade level or content. In order for
the collaborative data analysis process to be successful, teachers must be given time during the
school day to collaborate (Odden, 2009). The Marshall Complex follows these guidelines of
data analysis and collaboration through a process they refer to as Data Teams. This process is
also referred to in the Complex as the Formative Instruction Process.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

64
Data Teams consist of homogenous groups of teachers based on grade level and content.
The purpose of these data teams is to evaluate student data. These teams meet as often as twice
per month, but most meet once per month or once per quarter (HDoE, 2013e). The process of
the Data Teams begins with defining clear academic targets for the students, which are inline
with the complex’s academic focuses; Common Core, Hawaii Content standards, and STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and math). The next step of the process is to determine the
evidence and criteria for evaluating the students’ work. A few common components of this step
are determining appropriate vocabulary the students must use, as well as making sure the
teachers’ instruction aligns with the assessment.
The third step in the Data Team process is to develop effective learning experiences that
will engage students at various learning levels. This step is based upon a multi-tiered system of
supports that are utilized during a lesson depending upon the level of support a student requires
in order to reach the particular learning target. The fourth part of the Data Team process is to
determine acceptable evidence of learning based upon products, conversations, and observations.
Fifth, the teachers analyze the evidence in order to provide constructive feedback to the
student. This step is central to the formative nature of the whole process, by allowing the student
to identify mistakes and reflect upon areas of improvement. The final two steps in the Data
Teams process require teachers to use the student data to drive future instruction. Ideally the
process will highlight needed instructional modifications and also guide the instructional
scaffolding of previous and new content.
The Marshall Complex appears to have implemented a thorough system for evaluating
student achievement through formative assessments. Their Data Teams process allows for
frequent collaborative work among the teachers to identify student achievement gaps and then
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

65
align future curriculum to address those gaps. The formative nature and the frequency of the
process assists the teachers in their ability to utilize timely feedback to facilitate learning. The
Marshall Complex began using the Data Team process at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school
year and therefore there is only one full year of results from this process. The effectiveness of
this process is yet to be determined in the Marshall Complex.
Professional Development
Professional development is possibly the most costly, in regard to resources, of all
Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, While most of the
recommendations require an adjustment of current resources, professional development requires
the expenditure of additional school funds. A school’s professional development should be
extensive and long-term, and should be focused on curriculum as well as data-based decision
making. Odden (2009) recommends the following criteria in order to increase the productivity
of professional development; summer institute for 10 days for each teacher, collaboration time
during the school day for at least 45 minutes per day, and one instructional coach for every 200
students. This intensive plan for professional development is intended to improve student
learning through improved data analysis, collaboration, and ultimately curriculum and
instruction.
According to the School Status and Improvement Reports (HDoE, 2013e) for each school
in the Marshall Complex, non-pupil time is provided for teachers to collaborate in their Data
Teams on a regular, but not daily, basis. Beyond the time spent in Data Teams, each of the
schools provide additional professional development, but not in the same content area. Schools 1,
3, and 4 in this study focus on IB-PYP while Schools 8, 9, and 10 focus on AVID strategies. As
with Data Teams, this training occurs regularly, but not daily. The only indication of trainings
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

66
during the same times were related to the new state-wide math curriculum, Go Math, which
consisted of one day of training. According to the school staff directories, each of the schools
has multiple instructional coaches, but their duties were not specified in the SSIRs. In the
Complex, there are 33 coaches, an average of 3.3 per school, with the lowest count being two
and the highest six. Although their duties are not specifically provided on the SSIRs, it is
assumed that the primary duty of an instructional coach is to facilitate and support the
implementation of professional development.
Time
According to the EBM, time is a fixed resource, meaning more time cannot be created or
given. Therefore, the EBM recommends that schools structure their time in a manner that will
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of this limited resource. In order to do so, the EBM
recommends four strategies; have no more than six periods in a day, schedule reading and math
blocks in 90-120 minute increments, do not allow any disruptions to the reading and math
blocks, and struggling students will have their elective courses replaced with double math and/or
reading courses. One of the added benefits of this strategy is that no additional resources are
required, and Odden’s (2009) study reveals that this strategy has one of the largest impacts on
student growth.
According to the SSIRs for each school in the Marshall Complex, no school has more
than six periods per school day, but only Schools 2, 4, and 7 have reading and math blocks of at
least 90 minutes in length. The other schools range from 45 to 67 minutes per period or block.
Each school states the high value they place on reading and math, but how they protect those
times would be an indication of the value they place on them. It is also unclear as to whether
struggling students are given additional math and reading courses.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

67
Struggling Students
In addition to extended time in reading and math for struggling students, the EBM also
recommends four additional tactics for assisting struggling students; one to one and small group
tutoring for the bottom half of the struggling students, extended day programs, summer
programs, and extensive assistance for students receiving special education services. This
strategy requires additional resources in the form of additional staff for after school and summer
programs. The EBM recommends one tutor for every 100 students receiving free and reduced
lunch, one teacher for every 100 English as a Second Language students, as well as resources for
extended day programs and summer school resources.
Summer school was available for all students in the Marshall Complex during this study,
although only the high school provided this service. Students in lower grades could still attend
summer school, but they needed to commute nearly 20 minutes to a school in another complex.
The issue of commuting may be a deterrent for students who need to attend summer school.
Struggling students were mixed in with enrichment students (those not needing to make up
school credit) in the summer school classes and so the identification and concentrated support for
the struggling students was diminished.
In addition to summer school, only School 3 specifically addressed tutoring for struggling
students in their SSIR, but it is unclear if a teacher conducts the tutoring and how frequently. It
is assumed that the students at each school can receive additional support from their teacher after
the regular school day, but this type of tutoring is inconsistent and unregimented, allowing for
struggling students to either miss the assistance or not receive it as intensively as they need.
According to the school directories no school in the Marshall Complex met the recommended
number of teachers and tutors based upon their ELL and free and reduced lunch student counts.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

68
Learning Communities
The strategy of professional learning communities offered by the EBM is one that occurs
simultaneously with Odden’s (2009) fourth strategy, data-based decision making. While
teachers are given time during the day to review assessments and align curriculum, they are also
given time and encouraged to improve their instructional strategies and plans. This improvement
of lesson plans and instruction is done by having the teachers share and discuss what is working
well, student concerns, and assessment results. This strategy does not require any additional
resources.
As mentioned previously, each of the elementary schools in the Marshall Complex
schools created interdisciplinary units in which lessons and curriculum were woven together
across contents. This practice allowed for strategy sharing and trouble shooting among teachers.
These meetings occurred on Wednesdays, after the students were released early from school.
Having a common teacher development day across all schools in the complex provided teachers
with a block of time to allow for school-wide and even complex-wide trainings and
collaboration. This strategy also assisted families with children at multiple schools so that all
students have early release on the same day.
Distributed Instructional Leadership
The EBM recommends that schools utilize expanded leadership as it pertains to
instruction. Such leadership roles could exist in grade levels, content areas, professional
development, teacher leaders, and committees. By increasing the number of teacher leaders and
thus decentralizing instructional leadership within the school, teachers participate more in the
decision making process and have a more vested interest in the development and evaluation of
the school’s curriculum. None of the SSIRs for the Marshall Complex schools addressed
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

69
instructional leadership. This lack of information and clear accountability leads to the
questioning of the complex and schools’ effectiveness in ensuring quality instruction and student
learning.
Professional Knowledge
The EBM’s final recommendation is for schools to seek out, study, and implement
outside research from professionals in the field of education. This practice will assist the schools
in remaining current and progressive in their curriculum, instruction, and assessments that will
ideally improve student growth. Each of the schools in the Marshall Complex referred to their
use of research-based practices and curriculum in their SSIRs, but it is unclear as to other uses of
outside research in school settings beyond curriculum and instruction-based practices. Beyond
school and complex-level efforts to seek out and implement outside research, the Hawaii DOE
spent $12.7 million for outside consultants to work with the lowest performing schools (HDoE,
2013d).
Research Question #1 Results
The first research question of this study was, “how are human resources allocated across
the Marshall Complex and its schools?” This research question is addressed in five parts;
management, certificated teaching staff, certificated staff proving supplemental services, student
support staff, and classified staff. An explanation for each category is provided, based upon
those given in the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014).
Management
Management at the school level in the Marshall Complex is limited to principals and vice
principals. Principals have the primary responsibility for overall operations for the entire school
while also taking care of significant needs at the individual teacher and student levels. These
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

70
duties may range from establishing school-wide professional development to resolving teacher
conflicts or student concerns. Vice principals play a supportive role to the principal and assist by
managing many of the day-to-day events. Most of the schools in the Marshall Complex have
two or more vice principals, each with a specific set of responsibilities. These duties can include
certain grade levels, facilities management, parent teacher conferences, attendance, and
calendaring. In total the 10 Marshall Complex schools had 10 principals and 22 vice principals.
Specific school management allotments can be found in Table 4.2.
Each school is required to have one principal, but the principal determines the number of
vice principals at a school site after evaluating school needs and available resources. The
average ratio of students to vice principal in the complex was 467 to 1, while the ratios by
school-type within the complex were the following: elementary 605 to 1, middle/intermediate
414 to 1, and high school 368 to 1.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

71

Table 4.2
School-Specific Management Allotments
School Enrollment Principal Vice Principal
School 1 (Elementary) 1,109 1 2
School 2 (Elementary) 709 1 2
School 3 (Elementary) 1,383 1 2
School 4 (Elementary) 762 1 1
School 5 (Elementary) 657 1 1
School 6 (Elementary) 841 1 2
School 7 (Elementary) 590 1 1
School 8 (Middle) 813 1 2
School 9 (Middle) 842 1 2
School 10 (High) 2,578 1 7
Totals 10,284 10 22
Average Per Site 1,028 1 2.2
Student Ratio N/A 1,028:1 467:1

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

72
Certificated Teaching Staff
Within the Marshall Complex there were four types of certificated teaching positions:
core teachers, specialty teachers, special education teachers, and English language learner
teachers. Core teachers teach the core subjects of language arts, social studies, math, and
science. In the Marshall Complex the core teachers taught within their assigned content areas,
but were occasionally required to teach multiple grade levels of that content. Therefore during
the data collection portion of this study each of the core teachers were counted as one whole.
Had any of these teachers taught a split line, or in other words taught additional subjects in
addition to their core content, they would have been counted as a fraction of a whole, equal to the
portion of their time spent teaching the core content. Split teaching assignments were not
applicable to any of the teachers and therefore their time was counted as one whole for their
content area.
The Marshall Complex had a total of 431 core teachers with a student ratio of nearly 24
to one. Core teachers in the complex had on average 60 minutes of preparation time per day.
This time was used according to the teachers’ discretion, but was typically used for lesson
preparation, grading, or creating assessments. Principals are allowed to dictate how this time is
used, but such actions are limited to two hours per quarter. Therefore the productivity of this
preparation time, in relation to doubling student performance, was unknown and virtually
unregulated.
The next group of certificated teaching staff is specialist or elective teachers, which
encompasses all other subjects not included in the core subjects. These courses and teachers
were often referred to in the complex as electives. Some of the more common elective courses
were art, band, ukulele, physical education, and student government. Some of the less common
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

73
specialty courses were aquaponics, auto mechanics, and agriculture. The Marshall Complex had
104 specialist teachers with an average student ratio of 99 to one. If specialist and core teachers
were combined, for a total of 535 teachers, the student to teacher ratio was just above 19 to one.
Similar to core teachers, specialist teachers also received on average 60 minutes of preparation
time per day, and this time was also unregulated.
Special education teachers comprise the third category of certificated teaching staff in the
Marshall Complex. These teachers focused on providing specialized instruction to students with
identified and documented disabilities. Special education teachers also ensured that each student
was receiving the accommodations and services outlined in their Individualized Education Plan
(IEP). Most special education teachers worked with one or more educational assistants (EA) to
ensure compliance with each IEP. The special education teachers also delivered pullout
assistance, which was given only to special education students. In the Marshall Complex there
were 119 special education teachers servicing 783 special education students, resulting in a ratio
of 6.5 to one. In spite of the added workload of special education teachers related to managing
IEPs, they did not receive any more preparation time than their certified colleagues in the
Marshall Complex.
The last category of certified teaching staff is English Language Learner (ELL) teachers.
These teachers provided grade level content to students whose first language is not English.
Similar to special education teachers, most ELL teachers worked with an education assistant in
the classroom. The Marshall Complex had 14 ELL teachers servicing 600 ELL students, which
equated to a ratio of 42 ELL students to one ELL teacher. As was the case for all certificated
teaching staff in the complex, ELL teachers received approximately 60 minutes per day or
preparation time.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

74
Below, Table 4.3 provides the certificated staff data per school, while Table 4.4 provides
certificated staff data per school-type. Table 4.5 shows the specialist teachers as a percent of the
core teachers per school, while Table 4.6 shows a similar comparison, but per school-type.

Table 4.3
Certificated Teaching Staff: Number per School and as Percent of Total Teachers, Per School
School Core Specialist
Special
Education ELL Total
School 1 (Elementary) 32 (70%) 4 (9%) 8 (17%) 2 (4%) 46
School 2 (Elementary) 43 (76%) 4 (7%) 9 (15%) 1 (2%) 57
School 3 (Elementary) 56 (78%) 5 (6%) 9 (13%) 2 (3%) 72
School 4 (Elementary) 37 (74%) 5 (10%) 7 (14%) 1 (2%) 50
School 5 (Elementary) 29 (70%) 4 (10%) 7 (15%) 2 (5%) 42
School 6 (Elementary) 42 (81%) 4 (7%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 52
School 7 (Elementary) 24 (73%) 4 (12%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 33
School 8 (Middle) 32 (57%) 14 (25%) 9 (16%) 1 (2%) 56
School 9 (Middle) 32 (60%) 12 (23%) 8 (15%) 1 (2%) 53
School 10 (High) 104 (50%) 48 (23%) 55 (26%) 2 (1%) 209
Totals 431 (64%) 104 (16%) 119 (18%) 14 (2%) 668
Average per school 43.1 9 11.9 1.4 1.4
Student ratio 23.8 to 1 114.2 to 1 86.4 to 1 734.5 to 1 734.5 to 1
*numbers in parentheses represent the percent of teachers in each category at each school

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

75

Table 4.4
Certificated Teaching Staff: Number by Type of School and as Percent of Total Teachers, by
School Type
School Type
Core (Student
Ratio)
Specialist
(Student
Ratio)
Special
Education
(Student
Ratio)
ELL
(Student
Ratio) Total
Elementary 263 (75%) 30 (9%) 47 (13%) 12 (3%) 352
Elem. ratios 25 to 1 222 to 1 142 to 1 555 to 1 NA
Middle 64 (58%) 26 (24%) 17 (16%) 2 (2%) 109
Middle ratios 26 to 1 64 to 1 97 to 1 828 to 1 NA
High 104 (50%) 48 (23%) 55 (26%) 2 (1%) 209
High ratios 25 to 1 54 to 1 47 to 1 1289 to 1 NA
*numbers in parentheses represent the percent of teachers in each category at each school

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

76
Table 4.5
Specialist Teachers as Percent of Core Teachers, Per School
School Level
Number of Core
Teachers
Number of
Specialist Teachers
% of Specialist to
Core Teachers
School 1 (Elementary) 32 4 12.5%
School 2 (Elementary) 43 4 9.3%
School 3 (Elementary) 56 5 8.9%
School 4 (Elementary) 37 5 13.5%
School 5 (Elementary) 29 4 13.8%
School 6 (Elementary) 42 4 9.5%
School 7 (Elementary) 24 4 16.7%
School 8 (Middle) 32 14 43.8%
School 9 (Middle) 32 12 37.5%
School 10 (High) 104 48 46.2%

Table 4.6
Specialist Teachers as Percent of Core Teachers, by School Type
School Level
Number of Core
Teachers
Number of Specialist
Teachers
Percent of Specialist to
Core Teachers
Elementary 263 30 11.4%
Middle 64 25 40.6%
High 104 48 46.2%
Overall 431 103 23.8%

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

77
The data in Tables 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 reveal noticeable gaps in the allotment of
personnel resources in the areas of core and specialist teachers. At the elementary school level
less than 10% of the teachers were specialist teachers, while 75% were core teachers. At the
elementary level the ratio of specialist teachers to core teachers was nearly 1:9, or just over 11%.
These figures are only half the amount recommended by the EBM, which suggests the following
allotments for the elementary schools in the Marshall Complex; 334 core teachers and 67
specialist teachers, for a ratio of 1:5, or almost 20%.
At the high school level, the data in Tables 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 show opposite results of
those for the elementary schools. For the high school, 23% of the teachers were specialist
teachers and 50% were core teachers. The ratio of specialist to core teachers was slightly more
than 1:2, or nearly 50%. These figures were quite a bit higher than the recommendations of the
EBM, which suggests 103 core teachers and 34 specialist teachers, for a ratio of 1:3, or 33%.
The gaps identified here for both the elementary and high school levels will be further evaluated
and discussed in subsequent sections.
Certified Support Staff
Table 4.7 below, highlights the certified support staff allotments per school, while Table
4.8 highlights the certified support staff allotments per school type. Certified support staff are
those who support and supplement traditional classroom learning through training and services
administered to both teachers and students. This category of staff consists of academic coaches,
academic support staff, librarians, and extended day and summer school staff. The first category,
instructional coaches, provide classroom support to teachers. This assistance can be focused on
recent professional development, classroom observations, or curriculum and assessment
development. Across the Marshall Complex there was a total of 33 instructional coaches.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

78
Instructional coaches are school-level positions that are funded through school resources. The
Marshall Complex had a set of instructional coaches, but their involvement at the school level
was minimal and irregular. The ratio of teachers to instructional coaches in the complex was 19
to one.
The next group of certified support staff is academic extra help staff, which consists of
teachers that provide tutoring in one-to-one and small group settings to struggling students, with
the aim to reduce the achievement gap. This extra help can be provided during pullout times
during the regular school day, in which students are removed from their regular courses for a
designated period of time to work on specific content in which the student is lacking. There
were no schools in the Marshall Complex that utilized this type of staff.
The third category of certified support staff is librarians. In this study librarians are
counted as certified staff that do not teach any courses, but do provide fulltime support and
services in and related to the school’s library. These services may include maintaining the
catalog system and book supply as well as training students and staff on proper and effective
research skills. Each school in the Marshall Complex had one librarian, but prior to the recent
recession each school also had an assistant librarian, except for elementary Schools 4 and 7. All
of these assistant positions were cut in order to alleviate financial strain on the more critical areas
of school operations, such as core classroom teachers.
Extended day and summer school support staff comprise the last group of certified
support staff. Those in this category provide additional and supplemental student academic
support through after school programs and summer school. According to Odden and Picus
(2014) these programs should be focused on struggling students. In the Marshall Complex these
services were made available to all students. Another difference existed in the after school
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

79
programs, which were most often run by educational assistants rather than certified teachers.
One major contributing factor to this particular use of educational assistants is the legislatively
mandated longer school days, which has reduced time after school for teacher collaboration and
parent meetings. Whereas certified teachers taught summer school, which was often times the
same teachers that taught these courses during the regular school year. Only School 10 offered
summer school services, which were limited to high school aged students. Students in
elementary and middle grades must travel approximately 20 minutes to attend summer school in
another complex.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

80

Table 4.7
Certified Support Staff Per School
School
Instructional
Coaches
Extra Help
Staff Librarians
Extended
Day
Summer
School
School 1 (Elementary) 3 0 1 0 0
School 2 (Elementary) 2 0 1 0 0
School 3 (Elementary) 2 0 1 0 0
School 4 (Elementary) 4 0 1 0 0
School 5 (Elementary) 6 0 1 0 0
School 6 (Elementary) 3 0 1 0 0
School 7 (Elementary) 4 0 1 0 0
School 8 (Middle) 2 0 1 0 0
School 9 (Middle) 2 0 1 0 0
School 10 (High) 5 0 1 0 62
Totals 33 0 10 0 62
Average per site 3.3 0 1 0 6.2
Student ratio 311 to 1 0 1028 to 1 0 166 to 1

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

81
Table 4.8
Certified Support Staff Per School Type
School Type
Instructional
Coaches
(Student
Ratio)
Extra
Help Staff
(Student
Ratio)
Librarians
(Student
Ratio)
Extended
Day
(Student
Ratio)
Summer
School
(Student
Ratio)
Elementary 24 (274 to 1) 0 7 (939 to 1) NA NA
Middle/Intermediate 4 (416 to 1) 0 2 (832 to 1) NA NA
High 5 (519 to 1) 0 1 (2595 to 1) NA 42 to 1

Certified Pupil Support Staff
Those in the category of certified pupil support staff provide non-academic support to
students in the Marshall Complex. This category is in comparison to the previously discussed
category of certified support staff, which provide instructionally-based support to students. The
category of certified pupil support staff includes nurses, counselors, and psychologists. Table
4.9 below shows the certified pupil staff allotments per school and Table 4.10 shows the certified
pupil staff allotments per school type. School nurses are available daily to provide medical
attention to students or staff and play a critical role in the case of an emergency. Each school in
the Marshall Complex employed one nurse per site. In other complexes or districts, a school
nurse is available for only a portion of the day at each school. While this is a cost-saving
technique, it is not one the Marshall Complex had chosen to make. The school nurse takes care
of minor injuries and illnesses, contacts parents if the health problems persist or are severe,
administers doctor prescribed medications, and maintains required documents.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

82

Table 4.9
Certified Pupil Support Staff Per School
School Nurses Counselors Psychologists
School 1 (Elementary) 1 2 NA
School 2 (Elementary) 1 2 NA
School 3 (Elementary) 1 1 NA
School 4 (Elementary) 1 2 NA
School 5 (Elementary) 1 2 NA
School 6 (Elementary) 1 3 NA
School 7 (Elementary) 1 2 NA
School 8 (Middle) 1 3 NA
School 9 (Middle) 1 3 NA
School 10 (High) 1 5 NA
Total 10 25 3*
Average per site 1 2.5 .33
Student ratio 1028 to 1 411 to 1 3428 to 1
* These are complex-wide staff and not assigned to any specific school

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

83
Table 4.10
Certified Pupil Support Staff Per School Type
School Type
Nurses (Student
Ratio)
Counselors (Student
Ratio)
Psychologists
(Student Ratio)
Elementary 7 (939 to 1) 14 (469 to 1) NA
Middle/Intermediate 2 (833 to 1) 6 (278 to 1) NA
High 1 (2,595 to 1) 5 (519 to 1) NA

The next group is school-level counselors, who provide students with emotional,
behavioral, academic, career, and college guidance. In the Marshall Complex these were
fulltime positions and were occupied by certified employees. Counselors meet with students
during pullout and nonacademic times, such as lunch. In addition to guidance services,
counselors also administer standardized assessments as well as provide special education
recommendations. There were 25 counselors in the Marshall Complex, yielding a student ratio
of 411 to one.
The third group is school psychologists, also referred to as School-Based Behavioral
Health Specialists (SBBH) in the Marshall Complex. The complex funded these positions and
the SBBHs were assigned to service multiple schools. The SBBH follows an instructional model
to provide behavioral and health related service to students and their families. An SBBH also
utilizes the resources of agencies outside of the Department of Education in order to assist these
individuals and families. The Marshall Complex employed three SBBHs.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

84
Classified Staff
This category of staff represents all other staff members that are not represented in the
various certified categories of staff. Examples of classified staff are paraprofessionals,
educational assistants, library technicians, instructional aides, secretaries, and clerks. Table 4.11
includes the data for classified staff per school and Table 4.12 includes the data for classified
staff per school type.
Educational assistants (EA) in the Marshall Complex were dedicated primarily to the
assistance of special education students, although as EAs were asked to assist general education
students so long as it did not take away from the supports and accommodations required for each
special education student. Educational assistants provide academic support in the classroom,
during non-instructional times, and after school. There were 99 educational assistants in the
Marshall Complex, which was a student ratio of 103 to one, but a special education student ratio
of 7.9 to one.
It was previously discussed that the schools in the Marshall Complex used to employ
library paraprofessionals or assistants, but have since discontinued funding for those positions.
The library assistants provide general support through book maintenance and ordering, checking
books in and out, and organizing. It was unknown how many library assistants were employed
prior to the recession and resulting budgetary cuts.
Secretaries and clerks is the last group of certified staff for which the Marshall Complex
had publicly available data. Secretaries and clerks provide administrative assistance in the main
office of the school to ensure compliance, accuracy, and accountability for all school staff,
students, and administrators. Their duties may include attendance, budgeting, scheduling, and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

85
registration. In the Marshall Complex there were 42 secretaries or clerks at the school level.
This is an average of 4.2 positions per school and a 252 to one student ratio.

Table 4.11
Classified Support Staff Per School
School
Education
Assistant
Library
Assistant
Secretaries and
Clerks
School 1 (Elementary) 11 0 4
School 2 (Elementary) 10 0 3
School 3 (Elementary) 11 0 4
School 4 (Elementary) 10 0 3
School 5 (Elementary) 8 0 4
School 6 (Elementary) 4 0 4
School 7 (Elementary) 4 0 3
School 8 (Middle) 10 0 5
School 9 (Middle) 11 0 5
School 10 (High) 20 0 7
Total 99 0 42
Average per school 9.9 0 4.2
Student ratio 103 to 1 10284 to 0 252 to 1

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

86
Table 4.12
Classified Support Staff Per School Type
School Type
Educational Assistant
(Student Ratio)
Library Assistant
(Student Ratio)
Secretaries and Clerks
(Student Ratio)
Elementary 58 (113 to 1) 0 25 (263 to 1)
Middle/Intermediate 21 (79 to 1) 0 10 (167 to 1)
High 20 (130 to 1) 0 7 (371 to 1)

Research Question #1 Summary
The first research question focused on the actual allocation of human resources in each
school of the Marshall Complex. In this portion of the chapter the researcher has answered this
research question by providing actual allocations, per school averages, and student ratios for
management, certificated teaching staff, certificated staff proving supplemental services, student
support staff, and classified staff positions. These figures had also been inputted into the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014) and serve as the basis for the gap analysis later in
the chapter. Although portions of the EBM could not be completed due to inaccessible resource
allocation data, the most significant portions of the model could still be completed and the
analysis was conducted on that basis.
Research Question #2 Results
Research question 2 asks, “is there a gap between the current human resource allocation
practices and what the research suggests is most effective?” This section of the chapter will
focus on the gaps in specific areas of resource allocations between the schools in the Marshall
Complex and the EB model recommendations. Table 4.13 includes complex-wide data, while
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

87
Tables 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 disaggregate the data by elementary, middle/intermediate, and high
school.
Complex-Level Data
During the recent recession, schools in the Marshall Complex, and across the state of
Hawaii, experienced a reduction in their annual budgets. Under these circumstances schools
must identify creative ways in which they can increase student performance, while operating
with potentially fewer resources. In order to identify these gaps, the researcher recorded in the
EBM the resource allocations of each school. As shown in Table 4.13 there are several
significant gaps in the resource allocations in the Marshall Complex compared to the EB model.
This section will provide a summary of the resource allocations for the Marshall Complex,
elementary schools, middle schools, high school, and then an analysis of the data.
Table 4.13 highlights the human resource allocations for the entire Marshall Complex in
comparison to the allocations recommended by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2014). In the table, negative data are indicated with parentheses, which means that the complex
had fewer positions in that given category than what is recommended by the EBM. For example,
the Marshall Complex had 33 instructional coaches, but based upon student enrollment counts
the EBM recommends 51.42, which results in a negative difference of 18.42. Based upon the
recommendations of the EBM, the Marshall Complex may be able to reposition their resources
in order to provide at least 18 more instructional coaches.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

88
Table 4.13
Complex-wide Human Resource Allocations
Position Counts Gap
Title Current EBM Current-EBM Average Per School
Principal 10 10 0 0
Assistant Principal 22 12.42 9.58 .96
Instr. Coach 33 51.42 (18.42) (1.84)
Core Teacher 431 503.2 (72.2) (7.2)
Specialist Teacher 104 114.05 (10.05) (1)
SpEd Teacher 119 68.56 50.44 5.4
ELL Teacher 16 6 10 1
Academic Help Staff 0 21.42 (21.42) (2.1)
Pupil Support Staff 25 30.38 (5.38) (0.54)
Nurses 10 13.71 (3.71) (0.37)
Instructional Aide 0 0 0 0
Supervisory Aide 0 47.14 (47.14) (4.7)
Educational Assist. 99 34.28 64.72 6.5
Librarian 10 10 0 0
Librarian Technician 0 0 0 0
Secretary/Clerk 42 47.14 (5.14) (0.5)
Net Gap (certified staff) (30.65)
Net Gap (classified staff) (18.07)
*Negative data are represented by parentheses

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

89
There is one item to note in Table 4.13. Four of the categories are represented with a
zero in the current allocations column. Three of the categories are aide-type positions: academic
help staff, instructional aides, and supervisory aides. The schools in the Marshall Complex listed
all of these positions under the title of Educational Assistants. The fourth category with a zero
value is library technician. This value is accurate in that there were no library technicians in the
Marshall Complex. The total for all aide-type positions is 124 and the EBM recommendation for
these categories is 133.22, which results in a total gap deficit of 9.22 positions. It is of interest to
disaggregate these data into two groups, Educational Assistants and non-Educational Assistants.
There were a total of 99 Educational Assistants in the complex, but the EBM only recommends
there be 34, which leaves a positive gap of 65 positions. Conversely there were 25 non-
Educational Assistants in the complex and the EBM recommends 99, leaving a negative gap of
74 positions.
The recent financial crisis and budget reductions hindered the Marshall Complex and
resulted in significant understaffing. Based upon the recommendations of the EBM, there is a
gap of 30.65 certified positions and 18.07 classified positions. This is an average of nearly 5
positions per school in the complex.
School-Level Analysis
A further analysis of each school level (elementary, middle, and high) will be provided in
order to highlight the most critical gaps in the complex. Table 4.14 provides the resource
allocations for all elementary schools in the Marshall Complex in comparison to the
recommended allocations of the EBM. For most schools, the core teachers are those that teach
language arts, social studies, mathematics, or science. However, at each of the elementary
schools in the Marshall Complex, each core teacher teaches all four of these subjects,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

90
nonetheless, there is still a significant gap between the actual and the recommended allocations
for core teachers at the elementary level. The area of core teachers is the most significant gap,
70.88, of the total gap in resource allocations, 99.52.
Table 4.15 provides the data comparison of human resource allocations between the
middle schools in the Marshall Complex and those of the EBM. It is interesting to note that the
middle schools actually had a net surplus of staff positions in comparison to the EBM. Also, the
largest negative gap was in the area of supervisory aides, which results in 3.68 positions per
middle school. It is possible that through effective reassignments, the allocation gaps could be
closed even further without the requirement of additional funds.
Table 4.16 provides the resource allocation comparisons between the single high school
in the Marshall Complex and the recommendations of the EBM. The net gap is a surplus of
nearly 28 positions. It is of interest to note that virtually the entire 28 positions consist of special
education and specialist teaching positions, while the high school met the EBM recommended
allocations for core teaching positions. It should be mentioned that the data in Table 4.16 are
representative of one school, while the data in previous tables are reflective of multiple schools.
Therefore in order to provide an accurate comparison across school levels, the elementary level
data will need to be divided by seven and the middle level divided by two in order to yield a per
school average.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

91
Table 4.14
Human Resource Allocations for Elementary Schools (n=7)
Position Counts Gap
Title Current EBM Current-EBM Average Gap Per School
Principal 7 7 0 0
Assistant Principal 11 6.45 4.55 0.7
Instr. Coach 24 30.26 (6.26) (0.89)
Core Teacher 263 333.88 (70.88) (10.1)
Specialist Teacher 30 66.78 (36.78) (5.3)
SpEd Teacher 47 40.34 6.66 (0.95)
ELL Teacher 12 3.89 8.11 1.16
Academic Help Staff 0 13.45 (13.45) (1.92)
Nonacademic Staff 14 13.45 0.55 0.08
Nurses 7 8.07 (1.07) (.15)
Instructional Aide 0 0 0 0
Supervisory Aide 0 26.89 (26.89) (3.84)
Educational Assist. 58 20.17 37.83 5.4
Librarian 7 7 0 0
Librarian Technician 0 0 0 0
Secretary/Clerk 25 26.89 (1.89) (0.27)
Net Gap (99.52)

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

92
Table 4.15
Human Resource Allocations for Middle/Intermediate Schools (n=2)
Position Counts Gap
Title Current EBM Current-EBM Average Per School
Principal 2 2 0 0
Assistant Principal 4 1.68 2.32 1.16
Instr. Coach 4 8.28 (4.28) (2.14)
Core Teacher 64 66.2 (2.2) (1.1)
Specialist Teacher 26 13.24 12.76 6.38
SpEd Teacher 17 11.03 5.97 2.99
ELL Teacher 2 1.26 0.74 0.37
Academic Help Staff 0 3.68 (3.68) (1.84)
Nonacademic Staff 6 6.62 (0.62) (0.31)
Nurses 2 2.21 (0.21) (0.11)
Instructional Aide 0 0 0 0
Supervisory Aide 0 7.36 (7.36) (3.68)
Educational Assist. 21 5.52 15.48 7.74
Librarian 2 2 0 0
Librarian Technician 0 0 0 0
Secretary/Clerk 10 7.36 2.64 1.32
Net Gap 6.99

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

93
Table 4.16
Human Resource Allocations for High School (n=1)
Position Counts Gap
Title Current EBM Current-EBM Average Per school
Principal 1 1 0 0
Assistant Principal 7 4.3 2.7 2.7
Instr. Coach 5 12.89 (7.89) (7.89)
Core Teacher 104 103.12 0.88 0.88
Specialist Teacher 48 34.03 13.97 13.97
SpEd Teacher 55 17.19 37.81 37.81
ELL Teacher 2 .85 1.15 1.15
Academic Help Staff 0 4.3 (4.3) (4.3)
Nonacademic Staff 5 10.31 (5.31) (5.31)
Nurses 1 3.44 (2.44) (2.44)
Instructional Aide 0 0 0 0
Supervisory Aide 0 12.89 (12.89) (12.89)
Educational Assist. 20 8.59 (11.41) (11.41)
Librarian 1 1 0 0
Librarian Technician 0 0 0 0
Secretary/Clerk 7 12.89 (5.89) (5.89)
Net Gap 27.44

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

94
Research Question #2 Summary
Based upon the data in Tables 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 there were several key findings.
The first and most intriguing finding was that the only negative gaps existed exclusively at the
elementary school level, while the middle and high schools had a surplus of resources that
exceeded the EBM recommendations. The elementary schools as a whole were short by nearly
100 staff positions in order to meet the recommended allocations of the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2014), which results in just over 14 staff positions per elementary school. This
figure stands in contrast to the middle and high schools that had a surplus of staff, 6.99 and
27.44, or a per school average of 3.49 and 27.44 respectively. Based upon per school averages in
net allocations, there was an upward trend going from the elementary level to high school level.
The elementary schools had a noticeable negative gap, the middle schools had a near zero gap,
and the high school had a positive gap.
To further highlight these gaps, it is important to review the data by school type as well
as teacher position. For example, the above-mentioned data indicate a negative gap of 100
teacher positions in the elementary school level, but he large majority, 71, of these positions
were core teaching positions. This figure is compared to the high school that had a total positive
gap of 53 teaching positions, but almost the entire gap, 52, consisted of specialist and special
education teacher positions. Therefore the majority of the negative teacher gap at the elementary
school level was core teaching positions, while the majority of the surplus teacher gap at the high
school was specialist and special education teaching positions.
Second, the largest gaps in resource allocations across the Marshall Complex occurred in
the categories of core teachers and educational aides. The largest negative gap (72.2) was found
in the core teacher category while the largest surplus gap (64.72) was found in the educational
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

95
aides category, which equates to a per school average of 7.22 core teachers and 6.47 educational
aides. Although the school cost for an educational aide is not equal to that of a core teacher, by
eliminating the excess aide positions each school could make available more funds to then
provide additional core teacher positions, thus closing both gaps.
The next noteworthy finding was the difference in allocations in the general education
categories to those in the special education categories. The general education categories (i.e.
core and specialist teachers as well as supervisory aides) had a total negative gap of 129.39,
while the special education categories (i.e. special education teachers and educational aides) had
a total surplus of 115.16. In other words, those staff positions intended to service general
education students were short by an average of 12.9 positions per school. The staff positions
intended to service special education students were overstaffed by an average of 11.5 positions
per school. These figures were close enough that if schools realigned these resource categories,
the number of special education positions could be reduced, freeing up funds to close the gaps in
the general education categories. Although, it should be noted that a large portion of the 115.16
special education positions were educational aides and therefore an exact one to one replacement
may not be achievable. In other words, the negative gap in general education teachers cannot be
completely closed through a reallocation of the 115.16 excess special education positions.
The fourth significant finding was how close the human resource allocations in the
middle schools were to the recommended allocations of the EBM. The largest negative net gap
in these schools was 7.36 in the supervisory aide category. The largest net surplus was 15.48 in
the category of educational aides. The total gap for both schools was 6.99 staff positions, which
is a per school average of 3.49. It would be of worth in future research to determine how these
two schools were able to allocate their resources so closely to the recommendations of the EBM.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

96
As mentioned, the most significant gaps, both in excess and shortage, occurred in the
allocated positions for instructional coaches, teachers, and aides. The teaching positions
included core, specialist, Special Education, and English Language Learner teachers. The aide
positions included academic help staff, nonacademic staff, instructional, supervisory, and
educational aides. Table 4.17 combines the data from previous tables to highlight the gaps in
these categories for each school level.

Table 4.17
Teacher and Aide Gaps Per School Level
Gap by School Level
Category Elementary Middle/Intermediate High Net Gap
Coaches (6.26) (4.28) (7.89) (18.43)
Teachers (92.89) 17.27 53.81 (21.81)
Aides (1.96) 3.82 (33.91) (32.05)

Research Question #3 Results
The third research question for this study was, “how can human resources be strategically
re-allocated to align with strategies that improve student achievement?” Odden and Picus (2014)
developed their Evidence-Based Model on the results of extensive research conducted by
themselves and others that focused on improving student learning. The results of these studies
highlighted areas in which schools should allocate their resources in order to improve their
students’ learning.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

97
Part of this research focused on the importance of class size. Research suggests, and the
EBM uses, a class size of 15 for optimal performance in grades K-3 and a class size of 25 for
grades 4-12. The Marshall Complex had a classroom average of approximately 22 students in
grades K-3 and an average of approximately 27 for grades 4-12. Four of the 13 grade levels in
the Marshall Complex exceeded the recommended class sizes. The largest discrepancy was in
the kindergarten classes, where class sizes are nearly 60% higher than the recommended level.
Although in grades 4-12, the actual class sizes were either below or at the EBM recommended
amounts.
In further analysis of the class sizes, the data in Table 4.19 are separated into three
categories; those below the EBM recommendations, those that meet the EBM recommendations
(a gap of less than one), and those above the EBM recommendations. The data highlight the
need for more core teachers at the elementary levels in order to reduce the class sizes. It is also
noteworthy that the only grade levels with class sizes that exceeded the EBM recommendations
were at the elementary level. The middle and high schools had class sizes that either met or were
below the EBM recommendations. The data in Table 4.19 are based upon core teacher counts
only and do not include specialist, special education, or English language teachers.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

98

Table 4.18
Class Size Per Grade Level (based on core teachers only)
Grade Level Current EBM Gap
K 25.72 15 10.72
1 20.59 15 5.59
2 20.66 15 5.66
3 20.52 15 5.52
4 24.44 25 (.56)
5 25.47 25 .47
6 23.27 25 (1.73)
7 25.93 25 .93
8 25.78 25 .78
9 23.61 25 (1.39)
10 25.65 25 .65
11 25.07 25 .07
12 24.81 25 (.19)

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

99

Table 4.19
Class Size in Relation to the EBM (based on core teachers only)
Grade Level
Below EBM
Recommendations
Meet EBM
Recommendations
Above EBM
Recommendations
K 25.72
1 20.59
2 20.66
3 20.52
4 24.44
5 25.47
6 23.27
7 25.93
8 25.78
9 23.61
10 25.65
11 25.07
12 24.81

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

100
In addition to class size, human resource allocations in the Marshall Complex could be
adjusted to better match the recommendations of the EBM. One specific area is that of specialist
teachers. Upon initial evaluation of the entire Marshall Complex, there was only a negative gap
of 10 specialist positions. If the data are disaggregated by school levels, the gap details are much
more prominent. For example, at the elementary school level there was a negative gap of nearly
37 specialist positions, while in the middle school level it was a surplus of nearly 13 positions,
and at the high school level a surplus of 14 positions. These gaps follow a pattern identified in
previous resource allocations in the Marshall Complex; the elementary schools human resources
were noticeably insufficient in comparison to the middle and high schools that met or exceeded
the EBM recommendations in nearly every category.
Several predominant gaps existed in the areas of academic coaches, teachers, and aides.
The data in Table 4.17 indicate noticeable shortage gaps at the elementary school level across all
three categories. Although there were excesses in these categories at the secondary level, it was
not enough to yield a net excess in any of the categories for the complex as a whole. Merely
reassigning excess staff to fill shortages will not be sufficient to close the gap between current
allotments and those recommended by the EBM. It is of particular concern that at the
elementary school level, there was a shortage of more than 90 teaching positions while the high
school had an excess of more than 50 positions. It is also worth noting that no school level met
the recommended allocations for instructional coaches, while most schools exceeded the
recommended allocations for special education teachers. The high school had the greatest
discrepancies, with only half the number of recommended coaches and triple the number of
recommended special education teachers.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

101
If the excess positions in these three categories were reallocated to fill the voids in other
areas, the number of required new hires would be significantly reduced. For example, if the
excess teachers in the middle and high schools were reassigned to the elementary schools, then
only 22 new teachers would need to be hired, assuming these teachers are certified to teach at the
elementary level. Following this same pattern for academic coaches and aides, the Marshall
Complex would need to hire 19 new instructional coaches and 33 new aides.
Recommendations
Based on the data of this study, several recommendations are offered to improve student
learning through effective resource allocations. This section is intended to assist stakeholders in
the Marshall Complex in their task of allocating their limited, and sometimes shrinking, budget
in a manner that will yield significant educational results.
These stakeholders need to eliminate further cuts in the Hawaii Department of
Education’s budget, which in turn reduces the budgets for all complexes including Marshall. In
response to the recent recession, the Hawaii Department of Education received a budget
reduction of nearly $400 million (HDoE, 2012a), which equates to a per school average of $1.5
million. According to the EBM, if the Marshall Complex were to hire enough staff to close the
deficiency gaps, the estimated cost would be nearly $3 million. By reinstating the pre-recession
funds, the Marshall Complex would be able to close the human resource gaps by 50%, without
making any other changes. In addition to an increase in funds, the Marshall Complex can
reassign staff in over-staffed areas to areas of higher needs. For example reassigning special
education teachers to be core teachers. By doing so, the human resource deficiency gap in the
complex would be reduced by 68% (i.e. reduced from 182 positions to 58 positions). These two
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

102
strategies combined would at minimum bring the Marshall Complex inline with total staff
allocations recommended by the EBM.
Although it is important to have a sufficient number of staff at each school, it is the
efficient placement and quality instruction of these staff that will have the largest impact on
student growth. In other words, quantity alone cannot make-up for quality. For the Marshall
Complex, this improved quality can be accomplished through more effective and frequent
professional development, more instructional coaches, realignment of all teacher categories, and
provide additional assistance for struggling students.
Professional Development
In order to improve student learning in the Marshall Complex, it is recommended that
there be an increase in the frequency and focus of professional development. Currently the
professional development in the Marshall Complex is heavily focused on teacher evaluations and
other administrative-type subjects. For example, some of the topics covered were Data Teams,
student learning objectives, educator effectiveness, and reaching Highly Qualified status for
teachers. These topics of professional development are more teacher-focused than student-
focused. This teacher-focused approach is in contrast to what Odden (2009) suggests, which is
that professional development should focus on curriculum and instruction in order to improve
student academic performance. The total amount spent on professional development in the
Marshall Complex was $975,058, which is $53,000 short of the EBM recommended amount.
According to several of the School Status and Improvement Reports (HDoE, 2013e), the
professional development mentioned above occurred at the beginning of the school year and on a
few waiver days (i.e. student-free work days) throughout the year. According to the EBM’s
recommendation on doubling student performance, professional development should occur
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

103
regularly throughout the school year and at least 10 days during the summer break. More
frequent and focused professional development will assist the Marshall Complex in seeing
marked results in student achievement.
Instructional Coaches
The next recommendation based upon the results of this study is to hire more
instructional coaches across the complex. The funds for these new hires can come from the
reallocation of certain surplus positions. The increase of instructional coaches goes hand in hand
with the previous recommendation of professional development, since one of the coaches’ main
duties is to ensure the implementation of strategies learned through professional development.
Instructional coaches ensure effective and quality professional development through a proficient
knowledge of the curriculum, one-on-one teacher collaboration, frequent classroom visits,
ensures coaching is conducted a regular basis, helps provide accountability for all involved in the
professional development.
According to the EBM, the Marshall Complex should acquire 19 new coaches, which
would result in nearly two new coaches per school. For some schools in the complex, this would
equate to a 100% increase in coaches, while in most schools it would be a 50% increase. Rather
than hiring new personnel to fill these 19 new instructional coaching positions, the complex
could reassign current teachers to fill the positions. For example, the EBM suggests that the
Marshall Complex has 25 more teachers (core and specialist) than are needed in the middle,
intermediate, and high school levels. Of those teachers, 19 could be reassigned as coaches to fill
that gap. With the increase of coaches, it is anticipated that curriculum development and
classroom instruction will improve noticeably.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

104
Teaching Positions
There are a few substantial teacher position gaps between the EBM recommendations and
the current allocations in Marshall Complex. In the elementary grade levels there was a deficit
of 107 core and specialist teaching positions while in the secondary grade levels there was a
surplus of 25 positions (19 of which were recommended to be reassigned as instructional
coaches), which results in a net deficit of 82 core and specialist teaching positions (after the
instructional coaches are reassigned, the net deficit would increase to 101). For the Special
Education and English Language teaching positions, there was a surplus across all grade levels,
resulting in a net surplus of 61 positions. Assuming 19 teachers are reassigned as coaches as
recommended, there is an overall deficit of 40 teaching positions (101 deficit of core and
specialist teachers combined with a surplus of 61 Special Education and English Language
teachers).
In order to close the gap of 40 teaching positions, it is recommended that the 10 surplus
assistant principals be reassigned as teachers, bringing the overall total deficit down to 30
teaching positions. This remaining gap will need to be closed through increasing class sizes in
the grade levels where the Marshall Complex is below the EMB recommended class sizes.
These are grades 4, 6, 9, and 12.
Struggling Students
The next recommendation is to provide a more focused effort in assisting struggling
students so that these students can meet high academic standards. Odden (2009) provides
several recommendations for helping these students, which includes after school tutoring. It is
proposed that staff be reallocated to place a larger emphasis on helping those students who are
not currently succeeding in the rigorous academic environment. One specific reallocation would
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

105
involve educational assistants and other aides. The Marshall Complex had 65 more educational
assistants than the EBM recommends, while other aide positions, such as instructional aides,
academic help staff, pupil support staff, and supervisory aides had a net deficit of 77 positions,
leaving an overall deficit of 12 positions. By reassigning a portion of the educational assistants
to other aide positions, the school and complex leaders will be better able to assign and monitor
specific groups of aides to specific duties that exist within their scope of duties.
In addition to reassigning the educational assistants, and in order to address the remaining
gap of 12 positions, it is recommended that the all schools in the Marshall Complex adjust their
bell schedules to allow for an advisory period each day. The high school currently employs this
type of bell schedule. Under this plan, each teacher would be given time each day to work with a
specific set of students to provide additional instruction and assistance. By utilizing teachers, no
additional personnel would need to be hired to fill the gap of 12 aide positions. Both the
reassignment of aides and the adjustment of the bell schedule are intended to provide struggling
students with frequent and consistent academic help.
Conclusion
The focus of this study was to collect and analyze data from the Marshall Complex and
identify any gaps between current human resource allocations in the complex and those of the
Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2014). The EBM was used as a
framework to determine if the Marshall Complex effectively allocated their human resources in
order to significantly improve student learning. In addition to the EBM, Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was used as a framework to determine which
strategies the Marshall Complex had implemented to improve student achievement.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

106
In light of the recent financial crisis and subsequent budget cuts in education, the schools
in the Marshall Complex were forced to make tough decisions on how to improve student
learning while receiving less resources. Nonetheless, the complex remained resolute in
maintaining high standards for student achievement. The EBM illustrated that the Marshall
Complex fell short in several areas of their human resource allocations, indicating further room
for improvement and the possibility of increased academic achievement through the reallocation
of resources.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

107
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on resources and resource
allocations in the Marshall Complex, compare the actual personnel allocations to the
recommended allocations of the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014), and identify the
differences between the EBM and actual with the goal of improving student achievement. The
Marshall Complex had resources that were below what the EBM recommends, which may serve
as one obstacle to reaching widespread improvements in student achievement.
Odden et al. (2005) identify four primary methods school organizations use to approach
adequacy. Each approach is used to estimate how much money is needed to improve education
to a level that is likely to ensure that all, or nearly all, students will meet their state’s learning
standards. First is the successful district approach, which identifies successful districts and
schools that allocate resources effectively and meet high academic standards. The second
method is a cost function approach that statistically identifies the optimum levels of allocations
to reach the desired outcomes. Third is professional judgment, which employs educators to
analyze the research and then use their best judgment for allocations. The fourth method is an
evidence-based approach that uses proven school reform models, like the Evidence-Based Model
developed by Odden et al. (2005) that improve school performance.
Data from each school’s budget were compared to the recommendations of the EBM in a
strategic budgetary framework in order to determine if the school resources were allocated
effectively to improve student achievement. This comparison of resource allocations served as a
lens into how the schools’ and the complex budgetary decisions affected student learning and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

108
academic growth. This study also utilized Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance to determine if the schools and complex were allocated resources in a manner that
would support best practices.
Although state funding levels for the Marshall Complex were below adequate levels as
identified by the EB model, this study provides an analysis of how complex-level funds were
used to support and enhance student learning. Data for this study were collected from publicly
available sources for each school in the complex. This study utilized a mixed methods approach
to answer the following research questions.
• How are human resources allocated across the Marshall Complex and its schools?
• Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
• How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Summary of Findings
The primary objective of this study was to determine how the Marshall Complex
allocated human resources to improve student learning. School level data were analyzed using
the EBM in order to identify any gaps in these allocations. Such gaps may serve as a hindrance
to the Marshall Complex’s efforts to increase student achievement. For this study, the identified
gaps were best analyzed by school type, rather than by individual schools. This level of analysis
was chosen due to the stark contrasts in data across school types, whereas the differences across
individual schools of the same type were minimal. For example, at the elementary school level,
there was a cumulative negative gap of 100 certified teaching positions, equating to nearly 14
positions per elementary school. This gap is in contrast to the middle and high schools where
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

109
each had a cumulative positive gap of 6.99 and 27.44 respectively. There appeared to be an
upward trend in allocations, meaning that each school type receives more resources than the
previous. In addition to these findings, there was a positive gap of five vice principals and 38
educational aides in the Marshall Complex overall, which will be discussed further in the
recommendations section. Specific findings for the elementary, middle, and high schools are
below.
In the discussion that follows, resource levels within the Marshall Complex schools are
described in terms of gaps, either positive or negative. These gaps exist when actual resource
allocations within the schools do not align with the recommended resource allocations of the
EBM. Negative gaps exist when a school’s resource allocations in a specific category are below
the recommended levels of the EBM, while a positive gap occurs when school resources exceed
those recommended by the EBM
Elementary School Findings
The majority of negative resource allocation gaps identified in this study existed at the
elementary school level. The position types where the largest gaps exist at the elementary school
level are core (language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science) teachers, specialist
(physical education, music, art, etc.) teachers, and special education teachers. After further
analysis of this shortage, it was discovered that that the majority, 71 out of 100, of these
positions were for core teaching positions. The large shortage of core teaching positions is of
concern for two reasons; first is the critical need for quality early childhood education, and
second is the need for student growth in the core subjects.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

110
Middle School Findings
Of all three school types, the middle schools in the Marshall Complex had the fewest and
smallest gaps. The only gaps were in the areas of instructional coaches, core teachers and
specialist teachers. For the instructional coaches, the gap between the current allotments and the
recommendations of the EBM was negative 4.28. The negative gap in the area of core teachers
was 2.2, and the positive gap in the area of specialist teachers was 12.76, which results in an
overall surplus of all teacher positions, compared to the recommendations of the EBM. In
relation to the other two school types, elementary and high school, the two middle schools had a
positive net gap was of nine certified teaching positions and three classified support staff
positions. It is recommended that future research identify potential reasons why the middle
schools were able to align their human resources so closely to the recommendations of the EBM.
High School Findings
In this study, the high school was the only school type to have a large positive gap for
overall teaching positions, in relation to the recommendations of the EBM. The high school had
a positive gap of 52 teaching positions, of which 51 were specialist and special education
teaching positions. According to the EBM recommendations, the high school’s high number of
specialist and special education teachers stands in contrast to the elementary schools where, in
relation to the EBM, there was a potentially large negative gap of core teaching positions. In
other words, the elementary and high schools had vastly different results, most particularly in the
gaps of overall staff positions as well as the type of positions constituting these gaps. For
example, the elementary schools had 100 fewer teaching positions than the EBM recommended
while the high school had 52 more than the EBM recommendations. The negative gap at the
elementary level consisted primarily of core teaching positions, while the positive gap at the high
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

111
school level was made up in large part of specialist and special education teaching positions.
These resource allocations seem to be out of line with the Marshal Complex’s emphasis on
student achievement, particularly in the skill areas of reading, writing, and math. These skill
areas were primarily taught in the core subjects, which at the time of this study, the elementary
schools were not receiving a sufficient level of allocated resources.
Recommendations
Several recommendations have been offered to close the gaps between the current
allotments in the Marshall complex and those recommended by the EBM. First, the excess
teachers in the middle and high schools could be reassigned to teach in the elementary schools.
Compared to the EBM recommendations, there was a surplus of 52 high school and 9 middle
school teachers, for a total of 61. This assumes there were 61 teachers in the middle and high
schools that are also certified to teach at the elementary school level. Second, the surplus of five
vice principals could be reassigned as classroom teachers. Third, the additional 38 educational
aide positions could be eliminated in order to free up needed resources to hire more teachers for
the elementary school classrooms. Although these recommendations do not close the entire gap,
they do bring the majority of the allotments inline with the EBM recommendations without
requiring additional resources.
Having a sufficient number of staff at each school is important, but it is the efficient
placement of and quality instruction by these staff that will have the largest impact on student
growth. In other words, quantity alone cannot make-up for quality. For the Marshall Complex,
this improved quality can be accomplished through more effective and frequent professional
development, more instructional coaches, and provide additional assistance for struggling
students.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

112
Limitations of the Study
Although notable effort was made to reduce the number of limitations to this study,
several did persist and are noted below.
• The resource allocations and expenditures data gathered for this study were from the
2012-2013 school year only, therefore the results and findings are limited to this time
frame and are not longitudinal.
• The data were tied specifically to the 10 schools in the Marshall Complex and
therefore the results and findings of this study are not transferable or applicable to
other complexes or schools outside of the Marshall Complex.
• The data collection was restricted to only publicly available sources, therefore an
explanation as to the decision process or rational regarding expenditures and resource
allocations were not available.
• The data used for identifying school and complex priorities were gathered from
Academic and Financial Plans generated by each school, but these reports may be
subjective and not accurately reflect what is actually occurring at each school.
Policy Implications
The frequency of financial troubles at national, state, and local levels requires
policymakers, school leaders, and the public to make difficult decisions regarding school and
education-related resources. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (2012)
there have been six national scale recessions since 1975. During this same time period,
according to Brass (2013), there have been 17 government shutdowns and in the same report it
warns that, “conflict is endemic of budgeting.” If this is true and history is any indication of
future results, then financially uncertainty may become the norm. Such an environment
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

113
compounds the difficulty of operating a school with limited funds and therefore reemphasizes the
need for an evidenced-based model to guide educational leaders in their resource allocations.
By employing a research-based framework for analyzing resource allocations policy
makers and education leaders will be better informed in making decisions that will enhance
student learning rather than hinder it. This study provided stakeholders with the research-based
framework of the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2014) as well as the Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009).
In addition to school-level leaders, this study provided complex-level leaders with a case
study of the Marshall Complex, which serves a high-needs diverse student population. This
study provided educational leaders with researched-based evidence for resource allocations as
well as strategies that have the potential to yield results in student learning. This evidence may
prove beneficial to state lawmakers as they face budget decisions and determine the DOE’s
annual allocations. Ideally state legislators will recognize the need for both an increase in
education funding as well as an improved system for allocating those resources in order to yield
the desired learning outcomes.
Concluding Comments
In surveying the landscape of obstacles to student achievement, one of the initial
solutions would be to increase resources at schools. Unfortunately, as this study has highlighted,
increased educational resources is uncertain at this time and in years to come. The amount of
complex and school resources is also, in large part, beyond the control of education leaders.
Therefore, all education stakeholders need to find a way to overcome the obstacles to student
achievement through the effective allocation of the current resources, which is something they
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

114
can control. With the proper framework, school and complex leaders can strategically allocate
their limited resources in order to align with targeted strategies to improve student achievement.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

115
REFERENCES
Aiginger, K. (2010). The great recession vs. the great depression: Stylized facts on siblings that
were given different foster parents. Economics E-Journal, 4(2010-18), 1-41.
Baker, B. D. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical assumptions
to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-287.
Brass, C. T. (2013). Shutdown of the federal government: Causes, processes, and effects.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done: Academic success in unexpected schools. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.
Chenoweth, K. (2009, September). It can be done, it’s being done, and here’s how. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(1), 38-43.
Chenoweth, K. (2010). Leaving nothing to chance. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 16-21.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional
learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

116
Duncan, A. (2010). Secretary Arne Duncan’s testimony before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
regarding the FY 2011 education budget. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-
testimony-senate-appropriations-subcommittee-labor-health-and-human-services-
education-and-related-agencies-regarding-fy-2011-education-budget
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011, September 19). Issues A-Z: No Child
Left Behind. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-
child-left-behind/
Estevão, M., & Tsounta, E. (2011). Has the great recession raised U.S. structural
unemployment? (IMF Working Paper WP/11/105). Washington, D.C.: International
Monetary Fund.
Hanushek, E. A. (2007). The confidence men: Selling adequacy, making millions. Education
Next, 7(3), 73-78.
Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2010). Quarterly
tourism data report. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2003). Accountability framework. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii
Department of Education, Planning & Evaluation Office. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/state/Accntblty%20Frmwrk%2011-24-2003.pdf
Hawaii Department of Education. (2004). Act 51: Reinventing Education Act of 2004. Honolulu,
HI: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2005). Weighted student formula/school financial plan
implementation manual. Honolulu, HI: Author.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

117
Hawaii Department of Education. (2011). Annual financial report. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2012a). Annual financial report. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2012b). Strategic plan, 2011-2018. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2013a). Superintendent’s annual report. Honolulu, HI:
Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2013b). Strive HI performance system summary. Honolulu,
HI: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2013c). Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment:
Elementary school principal’s guide. Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/hssra/hssra.html
Hawaii Department of Education. (2013d, October 30). DOE releases revised graduation rates.
Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/
PressReleases/Pages/DOE-releases-revised-graduation-rates.aspx
Hawaii Department of Education. (2013e). School status and improvement report. Honolulu, HI:
Author. Retrieved from http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/ssir/ssir.html
Herman, J. L., & Linn, R. L. (2013). On the road to assessing deeper learning: The status of
Smarter Balanced and PARCC assessment consortia (CRESST Report 823). Los
Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Koulish, J. (2008). Most states are cutting education. Washington,
D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

118
Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., & Rotherham, A. J. (2010). Conflicting missions and unclear
results: Lessons from the education stimulus funds. Sudbury, MA: Bellwether Education
Partners.
Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources:
Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
Miles, K. H., Odden, A. R., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S. (2004). Inside the black box of
school district spending on professional development: Lessons from five urban districts.
Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.
National Bureau of Economic Research. (2012). U.S. business cycle explanations and
contractions. Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Obama, B. (2009, February 24). Remarks of President Barack Obama: Address to joint session
of Congress. Washington, D.C.: The White House. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-
address-to-joint-session-of-congress/
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2),
120-125.
Odden, A. R. (2005). Key components of a strategic human capital plan. Madison, WI: Strategic
Management of Human Capital, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Odden, A. R. (2009). Ten strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

119
Odden, A. R., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance, 28(3),
323-356.
Odden, A., & Kelly, J. A. (2008, June). Strategic management of human capital in public
education. Madison, WI: Strategic Management of Human Capital, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from http://www.smhc-cpre.org http://www.smhc-
cpre.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/what-is-smhc-final.pdf
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2014). School finance: A policy perspective (5th ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R. C., Glenn, W., & Nelli, R. (2005).
An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming’s block grant school funding
forumula. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Retrieved from
http://picusodden.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/WY_Recalibration_report_Final_November_30_05.pdf
Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011). New school year brings steep cuts in state funding for
schools. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008, January 25).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming following
adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A., & Goetz, M. (2009). An evidence-based approach to estimating the
national and state costs of PreK-3rd (FCD Policy Brief, Advancing PK-3rd, No. 10).
New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

120
Roza, M., & Funk, S. (2010, January 25). Have states disproportionately cut education budgets
during ARRA? Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington.
Shambaugh, L., Kitmitto, S., Parrish, T., Arellanes, M., & Nakashima, N. (2011, May).
California’s K-12 education system during a fiscal crisis. Washington, D.C.: American
Institutes for Research.
Thompson, M. F. (2013). State revenue collection through the great recession. Indiana Business
Review, 3, 8-12.
U.S. Congress. (2009). One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America.
Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Race to the Top program, executive summary.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009b). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
Saving and creating jobs and reforming education. Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). The unemployment situation. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Williams, E., Leachman, M., & Johnson, N. (2011). State budget cuts in the new fiscal year are
unnecessarily harmful. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on resources and resource allocations in 10 schools and compare the actual personnel allocations to those of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) and identify the differences between the recommended and actual in order to improve student achievement. The analysis for this study focused on the Marshall Complex, in the Hawaii Department of Education. The Marshall Complex was selected in part because of the high population of Native Hawaiian and other minority students, as well as the large population of students that come from low-income homes. In comparison to Odden’s Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, the Marshall Complex was found, at varying degrees, to be implementing most of the 10 strategies. There was a strong sense of focus by the complex and school leaders on high academic goals for students and peer evaluations and reviews for the faculty. Although the sample schools did not have the level of resources recommended by the Evidence-Based Model, they did have some resources that could be reassigned to better align with the EBM recommendations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Nau, Isileli Moala, Jr. (author)

Core Title Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/29/2015

Defense Date 04/18/2015

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

Tag Education,education leadership,Hawaii,OAI-PMH Harvest,personnel resources,resource allocations

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Datta, Monique C. (committee member)

Creator Email isi.nau@gmail.com,nau.usc@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-569238

Unique identifier UC11299012

Identifier etd-NauIsileli-3454.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-569238 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NauIsileli-3454.pdf

Dmrecord 569238

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Nau, Isileli Moala, Jr.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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