University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

(USC Thesis Other)

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 1

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN A HAWAII SCHOOL COMPLEX

by

John A. Epstein

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 John A. Epstein

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Dr. Laura L Epstein, without whose continual and
loving support, none of my academic pursuits would have been possible. I also dedicate this
dissertation to my children, AJ, Johnathan, and Samuel, whose understanding of my time and
attention away from them on countless weekends and writing sessions sustained my efforts.
Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to my late brother, Ron, who inspired me to persevere despite
considerable medical issues.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 3

Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the stalwart support of my
dissertation chairperson, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus. My gratitude for your guidance in reviewing
early drafts, discussions providing clarity on writing about school finance, and your willingness
to listen to me during challenging stretches. Your mentorship and collegiality provided the
required motivational boost when my health issues presented obstacles for completing the
program. I hope that our professional relationship provides opportunities to collaborate in the
future.
Both Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr. Monique Datta offered guidance and support
throughout the program and dissertation for which I am grateful. Your professionalism and
personal style greatly enhanced my educational experience.
Lastly, I offer my thanks to the members of my dissertation group and fellow Hawaii
cohort members. I will forever recall fondly our weekends together in Hawaii Kai.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 8
Chapter 1 Overview of the Study 9
Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 21
Research Questions 21
Importance of the Study 22
Summary of Methodology 23
Limitations 24
Delimitations 24
Assumptions 25
Definitions of Terms 25
Chapter 2 Literature Review 27
Successful Schools’ Practices in Improving Student Performance 28
Four Recurring Themes in the Literature – A Theory of Action 43
Implementing Successful Resource Allocation 46
Figure 2.1 Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model 55
Gap Analysis 66
Literature Summary 66

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 5

Chapter 3 Research Methodology 69
Introduction 69
Research Methodology 69
Research Questions 70
Sample and Population 70
Instrumentation and Data Collection 73
Data Analysis 76
Chapter 4 Study Results 77
Introduction 77
Overview of the Complex Schools 77
Research Question #1 81
Research Question #2 90
Research Question #3 103
Summary 115
Chapter 5 Conclusions 116
Introduction 116
Summary of Findings 118
Implications for Practice 122
Recommendations for Future Research 123
Summary 125
References 126
Appendix A 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 135
Appendix B 11 Elements that Created High-performing Schools 138
Appendix C Six Methodological and Organizational Lessons 140
Appendix D Nine Core Components of Professional Learning Communities 142
Appendix E Core Instructional and Non-instructional Elements 143

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 6

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Hawaii State Education Budgets, Per-Pupil Funding, and HSA Proficiency 11
Scores
Table 1.2 Hawaii State Department of Education Budget 14
Table 2.1 McREL Researchers identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities that 33
are Significantly Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
Table 2.2 School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 50
Table 2.3 Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools 56
Table 2.4 HIDOE 2011 Budget 62
Table 3.1 Complex Enrollment and Teacher Demographic Data 71
Table 3.2 Complex Academic Achievement Data 72
Table 3.3 Pacific Complex Schools 73
Table 4.1 Demographics for Pacific Complex Schools (SY 2013-2014) 78
Table 4.2 Three-Year Student Proficiency Data in Reading, Math, and Science for 79
Pacific Complex Schools (SY 2011-12, 2012-2013, 2013-2014)
Table 4.3 Pacific Complex 3-Year Trend instructional Budget and Enrollment 80
(SY 2010-11 to 2012-13)
Table 4.4 Management Staff for Pacific Complex School (SY 2013-2014) 92
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 7

Table 4.5 Certificated Teaching Staff for Pacific Complex School (SY 2013-2014) 96
Table 4.6 Certificated Staffing Adjunct or Specialized Services for Pacific 99
Complex Schools (SY 2013-2014)
Table 4.7 Pupil Support Staff for Pacific Complex Schools (SY 2013-2014) 101
Table 4.8 Gap Analysis Pacific Complex Schools Certificated Teachers 106
(SY 2013-2014)
Table 4.9 Gap Analysis Pacific Complex Schools Academic Extra Help 107
(SY 2013-2014)
Table 4.10 Gap Analysis Pacific Complex Schools Overstaffed Compared to 110
EBM (SY 2013-2014)
Table 4.11 Pacific Complex Schools Tradeoff Summary 114
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 8

Abstract
This mixed methods study analyzed school resource allocation patterns of a single
Hawaii school complex with four elementary schools, one intermediate school, and one high
school in the Leeward district on Oahu. This study aimed to determine whether the sample
complex’s resources could be reallocated using the Evidence-based Model as a comparative
framework to increase efficiency and better support student achievement. The complex’s current
resource allocation patterns and those patterns recommended by the Evidence-based Model were
analyzed conducting a Gap analysis to measure the differences between.
This study’s findings revealed that the sample complex is understaffed in comparison to
the Evidence-based Model. Particularly the complex lacks core teachers, instructional coaches,
and support for struggling students. Recommendations offered proposals including explanations
to accomplish tradeoffs and other possible organizational changes to assist in closing the gaps
without additional resource allocation. Several positive gaps were discovered where the sample
complex allocates more positions than the Evidence-based model recommends. Positive gaps
present an opportunity to reallocate resources without the need of additional funding. This
study’s proposed recommendations would allow for closer alignment of the sample complex’s
resource allocations with those suggested by the Evidence-based Model

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 9

Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
Educational leaders in Hawaii manage school systems in a climate of continued
dwindling fiscal resources unseen in the state’s public education funding history. Eichengreen
(2010) cites economists comparing the 2008 United States Great Economic Recession with that
of the Great Depression of 1929. Although significant differences exist between the 2008 Great
Recession and the Great Depression of 1929, Aiginger (2010) notes similar economic challenges
with increasing unemployment, reduced economic output, monetary policies reactions, and
concludes that “our overall assessment is that the recent crisis (the Great Recession) and the
Great Depression can be seen as siblings” (p. 12).
With continued low revenues resulting from the recession negatively affecting state and
school budgets, Hawaii experienced significant reductions in its public school funding. Hawaii
ranks second to California in reductions of per pupil spending measured in dollars for public K-
12 school funding in fiscal years 2008 through 2011. When comparing the percentage change in
dollars spent across states, Hawaii ranks fourth with a 22.2% decrease in per pupil spending
(South Carolina 24.1% decrease, Arizona, 24.0% decrease, and California 23.0% decrease)
compared with the fiscal year 2008 levels in inflation adjusted dollars for 2011 (Oliff &
Leachman, 2011).
During this period of financial hardship, Hawaii’s total tax revenues decreased but the
percentage of those revenues allocated for public education remained level. As a result, the
dollars received declined but the Hawaii Department of Education’s share of those funds
remained nearly static. The state’s school budget represented approximately 30% of the total
general fund and the second largest single expenditure (Hawaii Department of Education, 2012).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 10

Although economic conditions and educational funding present the backdrop for this
portion of the study’s discussion, equally important are the links between the strategies for
human resource allocation practices in schools and quality education. Chapter two will examine
critical components involved with leading and staffing a school for academic performance. The
key factors include effective leadership, use of assessments and data-based decision making,
stakeholder collaboration, and professional development to achieve the task of meeting or
exceeding student performance targets.
Table 1.1 displays Hawaii school spending both as an overall budget and as measured by
per pupil spending from FY2008 through FY2011. The data indicate Hawaii’s 2010 public
school K-12 budget decreased by over 11 percent from 2009 yet the per pupil spending increased
by 4 percent in the same year. The data show per pupil spending dropping $1,323 in 2011, a 10.2
percent decrease. Despite the reductions in annual appropriations, the data in Table 1.1 support
Hawaii’s attempt to keep per pupil funding at the previous years’ rates for as long as possible.
Although the budget and per pupil funding experienced reductions in some years (2010 and 2011
respectively), the average academic scores on the Hawaii State Assessment improved in math
from 43% to 49% proficient and reading from 62% to 67% proficient from 2009 to 2011 (Hawaii
Department of Education, 2012). No clear pattern emerges linking HSA performance with total
budget or per pupil spending.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 11

Table 1.1 Hawaii State Education Budgets, Per-Pupil Funding, and HSA Proficiency
Scores
2008 2009 % Change 2010 % Change 2011 % Change
Budget $1.738B $1.860B 7.0 $1.652B (11.1) $1.798B 8.8
Per Pupil Funding $11,800 $12,399 5.1 $12,896 4.0 $11,576 (10.2)
Math HSA Proficiency 39% 43% 10.3 45% 4.7 49% 8.9
Reading HSA
Proficiency
60% 62% 3.3 65% 4.8 67% 3.1
Source: Hawaii State Department of Education Office of Fiscal Services and Hawaii Department
of Education (2012) Superintendent’s Report

In Hawaii, the state’s fiscal response to the recession pertaining to public education
funding included cuts to the number of school days and corresponding reductions in teachers’
salaries with furloughs on 17 Fridays in school years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 (Hawaii
Department of Education, 2010). State and county workers in a variety of other government
services also received furloughs. The budgetary cuts reduced school programs, limited extra-
curricular activities, and cut personnel by reductions in force or attrition through hiring freezes.
As a result of the budget cuts of the last five years, Hawaii’s K-12 public schools face the task of
providing improved student academic performance while receiving diminishing fiscal resources.
Hawaii compares unfavorably with other states in per pupil funding of public education.
According to the Hawaii Department of Education (2012) Superintendent’s Report, Hawaii’s per
pupil expenditures in FY2008 ranked 48th in the nation, and FY2009 expenditures ranked 50th.
Hawaii is the nation’s only statewide school district. Hawaii relies upon the state’s general
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 12

revenues to fund 87.4 % of the costs of the state’s K-12 schools with 12.6% of funding coming
from federal sources to meet the strict federal and state academic accountability demands
(Hawaii Department of Education, 2012). By comparison, Hawaii’s per pupil school funding
levels of $11, 906 ranks 17th and are above the national average of $10, 834 according to the
National Education Association report (December 2012).
From the perspectives of socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, cognitive
ability, and ethnicity, Hawaii educates a diverse mix of students. In 2011-2012, Hawaii’s K-12
public school enrollment of approximately 180,000 students represented a high degree of student
diversity. Over 50% of the students were categorized as Economically Disadvantaged, 10% were
in need of Special Education, and 10% were English Language Learners. Hawaii’s public
schools’ diversity added significant challenges to the state’s fiscal responsibility since the above
categories required greater per student expenditures (Hawaii Department of Education, 2012).
Hawaii’s diverse population also included a large majority of immigrant and indigenous
ethnicities including Part-Hawaiian (25%), Filipino (20%), Caucasian (15%), and Japanese
(10%).
This chapter will first provide a brief history of Hawaii school finance, describing the
difference between various funding sources and responses to fiscal crises for funding Hawaii’s
schools. Next, a concise statement of the problem, followed by a description of the purpose of
the study and its importance will be presented. Finally, the study’s limitations, delimitations and
assumptions will be discussed, along with a list of definitions for key terms that will appear in
this study.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 13

Background of the Problem
Potential causes of Hawaii’s school funding shortfalls. As a direct result of the 2008
Great Recession, Hawaii’s K-12 public education funding suffered as the increasing national
unemployment rates (Aiginger, 2010) reduced visitor travelers to the islands which constituted a
major source of revenue for the state’s general fund. Beginning with school year 2009-2010 and
continuing for school year 2010-2011, the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) endured
budget cuts of $473.7 million over two years for non-charter K-12 public schools
(http://lilinote.k12.hi.us, 12/22/2013). The challenging task of managing a school through
effective resource allocation focuses on how to maximize resources in an economy of drastic
budget reductions. Table 1.2 reflects the reduction in appropriation in years 2008 through 2010.
Although the total expenditures did increase slightly in 2009 compared with 2008, the overall
trend was down over the three years. This downward trend includes a large increase of over $100
million from the federal government in 2010 over the funding from 2009.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 14

Table 1.2 – Hawaii State Department of Education Budget

Source: Hawaii State Department of Education Office of Fiscal Services
Federal and state academic accountability. Hawaii operates under a system of both
federal and state frameworks of accountability. Federal accountability measures include the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates overseeing student performance metrics. The Hawaii
Department of Education’s (HIDOE) oversights include the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP)
2003, and the Hawaii State Act 238 (Session Laws of HI, 2000). These state mandates include
budgeting, program planning, and evaluation imperatives by requiring grade-level state
educational standards and common statewide performance assessments aligned to measure
proficiency with the standards. The state’s accountability system meets state law requirements as
Source: FY2008-09 FY2009-10 FY2010-11 FY2011-12 FY2012-13
General funds $1,394,564,070 $1,396,097,613 $1,253,433,452 $1,365,566,677 $1,348,108,657
Federal funds $261,847,302 $374,991,570 $305,716,386 $311,496,353 $284,547,256
Special funds $67,782,450 $75,406,544 $79,055,420 $88,045,223 $96,535,944
Trust funds $13,750,000 $13,750,000 $13,716,215 $32,990,000 $32,919,060
TOTAL $1,737,943,822 $1,860,245,727 $1,651,921,473 $1,798,098,253 $1,762,110,917
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 15

well as the required federal NCLB mandates (Hess & Squire, 2009). According to the Hawaii
Superintendent’s Strategic Plan (2011) three critical success improvement factors emerged;
standards-based education, sustaining a culture for lifelong learning, and continuous
improvement of the system. The federal bipartisan accountability portion enacted under former
President George W. Bush, NCLB, established academic performance goals, and remains the
most controversial piece of public education legislation in history (Christensen, Horn, &
Johnson, 2011; Rice, Monk, & Zhang, 2010).
At the state level, Hawaii legislators passed the Reinventing Education Act (REA) of
2004 also referred to as Act 51. School communities and principals received increased authority
under Act 51, specifically in the allocation of resources with goals to improve schools’ student
achievement. This was accomplished through adoption of a single statewide school calendar
(with exemptions for multi-track schools, which follow a different calendar), the weighted
student formula (WSF), and School Community Councils (SCC): and by transferring
responsibilities for the repair and maintenance duties, buildings and grounds, and human
resource functions to the HIDOE.
History of education funding in Hawaii in brief. Since being granted United States
statehood in 1959, Hawaii remains the only singular statewide school district in the nation.
Unlike most other states Hawaii does not use property taxes as a source of revenue for Hawaii
public schools. Instead the Hawaii State Legislature appropriates approximately 30% of the
state’s general funds and federal resources for the Department of Education annual operations.
The largest tax revenue sources include the state’s general excise tax, similar to a sales tax,
which generates 58% of the state’s revenues and the state’s income tax, which generates 29% of
the state’s revenues. The HIDOE Act 51 (2004) addressed the needs for balanced funding to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 16

improve instruction and calibrate the curriculum by providing means for equitable distribution of
funds for complex school budgets by implementing the WSF. This adjustment to resource
allocation provided more funds to disadvantaged schools with high percentages of
underrepresented students and students from with families with low socioeconomic status. The
primary goal of the weighted student formula focused on ensuring equity for all students while
providing equitable resource allocations to individual schools, complexes, and districts (Miles &
Roza, 2006).
Special education funding represents a substantial cost of education to any state. The
costs associated with implementation of the Felix Consent Decree warrant mentioning as a factor
affecting Hawaii’s educational funding history. According to Chorpita and Donkervoet’s (2005)
research, the state of Hawaii’s settlement of a class action lawsuit known as the Felix Consent
Decree required the state to provide services for youth certified as eligible under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or under Section 504–Subpart D of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended in 1974) their free and appropriate public education. The
annual costs associated with funding these services escalated from approximately $30.6 million
in 1995 to over $81.5 million in 1999 (Chorpita & Donkervoet, 2005). Despite the massive
infusion of funding for this system of care for eligible students, the state legislature and other
education stakeholders had significant concerns about the programs’ clinical outcomes and cost-
effectiveness. Chorpita and Donkervoet (2005) conclude with questioning the prudence of
creating the system required by the decree considering the initial costs of implementation and
limits to maintaining funding levels this system demanded. Regardless of the answer to the
authors’ questions, the Felix Consent Decree created lasting repercussions to resource allocations
in Hawaii’s educational funding.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 17

Hawaii also receives Federal sources for its K-12 education budget. Federal agencies
including the U.S. Departments of Education, Agriculture, Defense and Health and Human
Services combine to provide approximately $300 million dollars annually to fund Hawaii’s
schools. These funds assist low-income students, English language learners, and special
education students.
Hawaii also receives a variety of short-termed Federal grants to boost its educational
funding. As an example, one additional source of federal revenue includes Hawaii’s successful
August 2010 award of $75 million over four years from the federal government’s Race to the
Top (RTTT) program. The RTTT provides competitive grant awards for schools systems
targeting school-wide reforms to increase student academic performance. School systems willing
to pledge a commitment to provide educational excellence, and compliance to adapt effective
policies and practices applied for the Obama administration’s program. Hawaii will receive its
yearly portion of the $75 million award through September 2014. According to the stipulations
of the award, the majority of these funds will be spent on creating and maintaining the state’s
educator effectiveness system, a new process in which to evaluate the state’s schools,
administrators, and teachers.
The RTTT award was less fungible than other sources of revenue. The terms of the grant
required the execution of the following five initiatives, all of which are in various stages of
implementation: (1) Standards and Assessments: Tying High-Quality College- and Career-Ready
Standards and Assessments to a Statewide Curriculum, (2) Data Systems: Improving
Longitudinal Data Collection and Use, (3) Great Teachers and Leaders: Cultivating, Rewarding,
and Leveraging Effective Teaching and Leading, (4) Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving
Schools: Providing Targeted Support to Struggling Schools and Students, and (5) A Shared
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 18

Vision for Getting the Job Done: Aligning Organizational Functions to Support Reform
Outcomes (RTTT, 2011). The majority of the funding covered the personnel costs to establish
new systems of oversight. Therefore, the RTTT award resulted in no additional funding to cover
existing educational programs; the award covered only the costs of the programs identified in the
grant application (RTTT, 2011).
As the recent economic crisis demonstrated, Hawaii’s public education system needs to
use limited resources effectively and efficiently, especially considering the uncertainty of
continued improving state tax revenues and federal financial grant awards. Moving forward,
Hawaii needs a process that helps determine the appropriate level of school funding to meet its
student achievement goals. According to the Hawaii Department of Education (2012)
Superintendent’s Report less than half (49%) of Hawaii’s K-12 public schools in 2012 achieved
Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) federal
legislation. The student level data from the same report indicate that only 71% of students
demonstrated proficiency in reading and 59% of students demonstrated proficiency in math as
measured by the Hawaii State Assessment. This academic achievement gap underscores the
necessity of efficient and effective use of Hawaii’s educational funds to meet its educational
goals.
Statement of the Problem
Given the recent uncertainties regarding Hawaii school funding, Hawaii’s educational
state policy leaders face complicated issues regarding effective allocation of resources. The
decisions made by the educational leaders can significantly affect the quality of the educational
programs that these schools provide to their students and communities. The Hawaii Department
of Education (2012) Superintendent’s Report indicates that 29% of students failed to demonstrate
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 19

proficiency in reading and 41% of students failed to demonstrate proficiency in math as
measured by the Hawaii State Assessment. According to Odden and Picus (2014), resource
allocation, and school finance in particular, focuses on the distribution and use of money with the
goal of providing a myriad of educational services and attaining adequate student achievement.
Many of Hawaii’s educational leaders feel the challenge of the combination of limited resources
and federal constraints of academic performance expectations (Ash, 2009; Harold K. L. Castle
Foundation, 2012). The challenge requires effective use of the allocated resources to ensure
success in closing the academic achievement gap. As Monk (2010) stated, resources should not
create an impediment to success. As a result Hawaii’s educational leaders must develop strategic
resource allocation plans to ensure increased student academic performance.
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides a funding model designed to support states,
school districts, and schools by effectively allocating resources to improve student performance
(Odden & Picus, 2005). According to Odden and Picus (2005), the model contains numerous
benefits. First, it provides detailed references substantiating its effectiveness supported by
numerous states’ productive implementation. Second, schools that have doubled their academic
results from the Evidence-Based Model serve as a foundation of the model. Third, research from
randomized trials, quasi-experimental designs, and meta-analysis support the model’s efficacy
(Odden & Picus, 2005). Finally, the EBM establishes some constraints to ensure that schools use
key resources (e.g. instructional coaches, tutors, and formative assessments) in the data-based-
decision making strategy. Odden and Picus’ (2014) Evidence-Based Model provides a
measurable connection between school academic performance and the way in school leaders
allocate their resources.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 20

To frame the study, different approaches were considered for estimating adequate levels
of resources needed to reach achievement goals. Picus (2011) describes four approaches to
estimate adequate levels of resources to meet academic standards. One, the successful school
approach, identifies school districts that achieve high academic results within an effective
resource allocation process. Second, the professional judgment approach uses panels of
educators to advise upon which programs and strategies to implement. Third, a cost function
approach that statistically identifies the appropriate level of funding and resources required for
achieving academic proficiency. Fourth, the evidence-based approach uses current research that
guides educational leaders’ decision-making processes, which includes incorporating successful
school reform models such as Odden and Picus’ (2014) Evidence-Based Model. The Odden and
Picus’ (2014) Evidence-Based Model was selected for use in this study because of its
comprehensiveness.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 21

Purpose of the Study
This study has two main purposes. The first purpose of this study is to compare available
resources at a Complex school area in Hawaii (hereinafter referred to as the Pacific School
Complex – the name and that of all schools are pseudonyms) to what the Evidence-Based Model
would generate. The second purpose is to understand how the resources available compare with
models of resource allocation and use such as Odden’s top Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (2009). Odden’s strategies will be explained in chapter two. The two purposes of
this study combine to examine if the issue of poor academic achievement relates to personnel
resources or to how the resources are used.
This study focuses on three broad theories of action derived from the review of the
existing literature on effective school personnel resource allocation. Under effective school
leadership, these three theories of action include; (1) Provide schools the appropriate number of
core academic teachers to keep class sizes within the range suggested by the research to educate
students to high performance standards, (2) Develop a school-wide focus on a professional
development program to use data-driven decisions to drive high quality instruction for all
students, and (3) Provide additional classroom resources and support for struggling students. An
exploration of these three theories of action and supporting research follows in chapter two of
this study.
Research Questions
The research questions that guide this study of one Hawaii school complex are:
1. How are human resources allocated across Pacific School Complex and its schools?
2. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices in the Pacific
School Complex and what the research suggests is most effective?
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 22

3. How can human resources in the Pacific School Complex be strategically re-allocated to
align with strategies that improve student achievement?
This study provides a detailed analysis of how resource allocation at the Pacific School
Complex is used to support student performance at its four elementary, one intermediate, and one
high school sites. As a result, this study used a mixed methods design to assist in answering the
research questions. The data on instructional goals and academic plans was collected through a
review of the Pacific School Complex’s online public strategic plans. Requests were denied for
planned interviews with the Complex Area Superintendent office staff, other district
administration, and school principals. Additionally, data focusing on resource allocation was
gathered from the Accountability Resource Center for Hawaii (ARCH) website, complex
personnel regional office staff and analyzed through a gap analysis comparison using the
Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014).
The Importance of the Study
This study is important for several reasons. Beginning in 2008, the State of Hawaii
suffered a substantial economic depression comparable with the Great Depression of 1929
resulting in significant cuts to public K-12 education and furloughs of educational staff. Based
upon the above financial pressures, Hawaii schools require a careful analysis of their educational
resource allocations. It is hoped that this study provides educational leaders with an effective
resource allocation framework to support improving student performance as presented in the
Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009).
Additionally, this study provides state level educational stakeholders (e.g. policy makers,
their constituents, school board members, other complex area superintendents, district level
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 23

educational administrators, and school site leaders) with a case study of the Pacific School
Complex containing information on how to use a resource allocation model to meet the needs of
a diverse student population. Hawaii public educational leaders may find this study useful
because it presents best practices as the impetus for resource allocation decisions tied directly to
student academic performance that provide guidance in other complex’s resource allocation
decisions.
Finally, this study may also be advantageous to Hawaii state policymakers such as State
Representatives and State Senators who determine the legislative funding levels for public
schools. This research provides them relevant data and best practices on complex area resource
allocation with specific educational performance targets that may assist them in making informed
decisions on crafting funding policies to provide Hawaii schools the necessary resources to
ensure adequate educational achievement for all students.
Summary of Methodology
This study used a mixed methods approach to study one Hawaii School Complex
consisting of one high school, its feeder middle school, and the middle school’s four feeder
elementary schools in a rural district on the leeward coast on Oahu, Hawaii. Planned interviews
were not conducted with the complex area superintendent, school principals, and district
personnel. Publicly available documents were used to gather information regarding instructional
practices and school and district mission, vision and goals. Also, this study reviewed artifacts
including; master schedules, staff rosters, professional development schedules,
academic/financial plans, and school budgets were examined. Each school’s human resource
expenditures were input into a database, which generated funding recommendations as proposed
by the Evidence-based Model. For each school and across schools in the complex, a gap analysis
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 24

was performed and the Evidence-based Model’s recommendations were compared to current
practices.
Limitations
Data gathered for this study was limited to personnel expenditures and personnel resource
allocations in the 2012-2013 school year and are not longitudinal. The state changed their testing
for student academic performance in SY 2013-12014 from the Hawaii State Assessment to the
Online Bridge Hawaii State Assessment in preparation for the new Smarter Balanced Testing
coinciding with the adoption of new common core standards (State of Hawaii Department of
Education, 2014). This change limited the ability to review Hawaii State Assessment testing
beyond the SY 2012-2013 due to reliability concerns with the previous HSA data. The absence
of interview data from complex and school level leaders eliminated the opportunity to validate
the rationale for personnel allocation choices and program funding in the schools’ academic and
financial plans. Additionally, only Pacific School Complex data was used. Therefore, findings
will not be necessarily generalizable across other Hawaii schools.
Delimitations
There are two delimitations for this study. First, Pacific School Complex schools were
the only schools chosen for participation within this study. Second, the district was selected for
its culturally diverse demographics and kindergarten through twelfth grade configuration.
Findings can only be generalized to the Pacific School Complex or school districts of similar size
and demographic composition within Hawaii.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 25

Assumptions
It is assumed that all data collected for this study through artifact and school complex
online documentation reviews were true and reflective of current resource allocation practices at
the Pacific School Complex.
Definitions
Academic and Financial Plan (ACFIN): The Hawaii school or school complex document that
details the academic goals for the school and the financial plan incorporated to support the
academic objectives.
Act 51 (AKA – Act 238): The 2004 Reinventing Education Act (REA) implemented by the
Hawaii Legislature as the current centralized accountability system for Hawaii public schools.
Achievement Gap: The difference in performance between minority and low socio-economic
student groups and that of more privileged groups.
Adequacy: A financing construct that provides sufficient resources in program and curriculum
for all students to meet high academic performance standards with allocation adjustments made
for students with specific special needs (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Collaboration: Teachers working together in teams to build formative assessments, share best
practices, create lesson plans, and create plans for intervention.
Evidence-Based Model: A model of instructional improvement designed for schools which is
grounded in clinical research and peer-reviewed documentation providing effective practice
based upon using a resource allocation process associated with achieving targeted academic
performance (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Expenditures: Includes time, money, personnel, and equipment used to provide academic
services, instruction, and school facilities.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 26

Free Reduced-Price Meals: A federally funded program (Title I) offering students of families
who meet annual income eligibility guidelines a school breakfast and lunch at a reduced or free.
Gap Analysis: A tool for measuring the difference between actual and desired performance,
diagnosing causes, and proposing solutions (Clark & Estes, 2002).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). NCLB’s mandates United States public education K-12 institutions
academic progress in terms of accountability, assessment, and teacher quality.
Per Pupil Funding: A specific monetary allotment that is given to school systems for each
student that is currently enrolled.
Professional Development: Training of teachers in specific strategies for the purposes of
instructional improvement.
Resources: Includes the money, personnel, time, materials, and facilities required to run schools.
Weighted Student Formula (WSF): The amount of money given to each school based upon each
student’s individual need, in addition to raw enrollment numbers, assuming that students with
increased needs (e. g. IDEA, ELL) have an increased resource allocation need.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 27

Chapter 2
Literature Review
Expectations of the federal NCLB mandates and Hawaii’s acceptance of the $75 million
Race to the Top grant places high expectations on Hawaii’s K-12 educational stakeholders to
allocate resources ensuring all school students achieve rigorous academic proficiencies to meet
the associated performance standards. Investigating research-based strategies successful schools
use to allocate resources offers a reasonable process for examining how the difficult task of
effective resource allocation can be accomplished. This chapter provides a literature overview of
resource allocation methods used to meet the demands in a challenging economic climate.
Related educational research provides support for this study.
This literature review includes four related sections to resource allocation strategies. The
first one, Successful Schools’ Practices in Improving Student Academic Performance, uses the
framework of 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) that identified best
practices common to high performing schools. The first section includes examinations of the
bodies of work from several additional researchers who have studied improving academic
performance (c.f. Duke, 2006; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Miles, Odden, Fermanich, &
Archibald, 2004; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004; Reeves, 2003; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003; Fermanich, Mangan, Odden, Picus, Gross, Rudo, 2006). The section concludes
with a discussion about four themes that emerge from the research (Leadership, Use of data and
assessments, Collaboration, and Professional development). The second section, Implementing
Successful Resource Allocation, uses the resource allocation tool of the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2014) to further detail and integrate the research of resource allocation to meet
academic adequacy. The third section, Limitations of Fiscal Resources, examines the economic
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 28

challenges in Hawaii, the causes of the economic instability, and what Hawaii’s K-12 public
schools have done to overcome reduced funding for public education. The fourth and final
section, Gap Analysis, introduces the operational framework of Clark and Estes (2008) and
assesses the Pacific School Complex alignment of its resource allocation with its instructional
goals by using the model in evaluating the complex staff’s knowledge and skills, motivation to
achieve the goals, and the organizational barriers preventing achievement of the goals.
Throughout this literature review, three critical success factors, in addition to the
importance of effective leadership, emerge as necessary components to creating and maintaining
an effective academic program. Using the existing literature as an anchor, each of the factors will
be noted during the discussions of the current research. The three key ingredients efficient and
effective schools include; (1) Provide schools the appropriate number of core academic teachers
to keep class sizes within the range suggested by the research to educate students to high
performance standards, (2) Develop a school-wide focus on a professional development program
to use data-driven decisions to drive high quality instruction for all students, and (3) Provide
additional classroom resources and support for struggling students. The previous three theories
of action and the research supporting their use will be discusses in detail in this chapter.
Successful Schools’ Practices in Improving Student Academic Performance
Public K-12 schools’ limited resources demand educational leaders who competently
allocate funds and incorporate strategies that lead to improved academic performance. The full
breadth of research on improving student performance extends beyond the reach of this study.
Six themes emerge from the literature; each will be discussed in this section:
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 29

1. Strategies for dramatically improving student performance as exemplified by Odden’s
(2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, which presents case studies of
schools that has used research based strategies to improve student performance;
2. Improving low-performing into high-performing schools (Duke, 2006);
3. How school leadership affects student performance (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005);
4. The affect of professional development on student learning (Miles, Odden, Fermanich, &
Archibald, 2004);
5. Improving teaching and learning through the use of a professional learning community
model (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004);
6. Examining high achieving schools with high levels of poverty (Chenoweth, 2009).
Strategies for dramatically improving student performance. 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) introduces ten strategies developed through
Odden and his team of researchers on schools successful in increasing student academic
performance and his framework serves as the model for this study. Odden’s (2009) study
comprises one of many studies investigating school leaderships and policy decisions involving
the use of research-based strategies for improving student achievement (c.f. Odden, 2009; Duke,
2006; Reeves, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Fermanich, Mangan, Odden, Picus, Gross,
Rudo, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2002). Each of the previously noted studies will be examined in
subsequent sections in this chapter. This section explores the details of implementing Odden’s
(2009) ten strategies.
Doubling the percentage of students achieving academic proficiency or doubling the
students who were achieving below average scores to higher ranked scores fit Odden’s definition
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 30

of “doubling student performance.” By examining the research on schools that successfully
allocated resources to substantially increase student academic performance, Odden developed his
ten strategies. The full list (see Appendix A) comprises actions districts and schools incorporate
to make dramatic, measureable improvements in student academic achievement (Odden, 2009).
In brief, the actions include:
1. Understanding the Academic Performance Challenge,
2. Setting Ambitious Goals,
3. Adopt a New Research-based Curriculum,
4. Implement Data-based Decision Making,
5. Institute Extensive, Long-term Professional Development,
6. Efficient and Effective Use of School Time,
7. Provide Multiple Extra-help Strategies for Struggling Students,
8. Create Collaborative Professional Learning Communities,
9. Investing in Personnel for Widespread Distributed Instructional Leadership, and
10. Use of External Professional Knowledge.
The above ten strategies form a foundation of effective school leadership focused upon
academic achievement. From the strategies, three key theories of action necessary for
efficient and effective schools emerge. The first theory of action is the need to provide
schools the appropriate number of core academic teachers to keep class sizes within the range
suggested by the research to educate students to high performance standards. The appropriate
level of core teachers is supported by Odden’s strategies one, three, nine, and ten. The second
theory of action is developing a school-wide focus on a professional development program to
use data-driven decisions to drive high quality instruction for all students. Strategies number
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 31

four, five, and eight merge to support the need for professional development. The third
theory of action is the need to provide additional classroom resources and support for
struggling students. The rationale to provide additional classroom resources rests in strategies
two, six, and seven. The above three theories of action work in concert to elevate school
performance.
Improving low-performing into high-performing schools. Duke’s (2006) review of
five studies that identified factors that contributed to academic success found common
characteristics linked with improving low-performing schools into high-performing institutions.
After reviewing the schools in the studies, Duke (2006) identified the following 11 elements that
created high-performing schools from previous low-performing schools (see Appendix B). The
first seven of the below characteristics align with Odden’s (2009) ten strategies for doubling
student performance. The remaining four elements provide additional support to Odden’s (2009)
framework by including specific elements to create unity among the schools’ teachers,
administrators, and parents. Although Odden’s (2009) 10 strategies did not address these
additional four topics in his work, they provide consistency in creating supports for long-term
positive academic performance gains.
1. Collaboration,
2. Data-driven decision making,
3. Leadership,
4. Scheduling,
5. Staff development,
6. Assessment,
7. Assistance,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 32

8. Organizational structure,
9. High expectations,
10. Alignment, and
11. Parent involvement.
Similar to Odden’s (2009) ten strategies, Duke’s (2006) elements form a framework of
effective school leadership focused upon academic achievement. The above elements
coalesce to support the three key ingredients necessary for efficient and effective schools.
Elements three, eight, and ten (Leadership, Organizational Structure, and Alignment
respectively) anchor the need to provide schools the appropriate number of core academic
teachers to keep class sizes within the range suggested by the research to educate students to
high performance standards. Combining elements one, two, five, and six (Collaboration,
Data-driven decision making, Staff development, and Assessment) supports developing a
school-wide focus on a professional development program to use data-driven decisions to
drive high quality instruction for all students. Finally, elements four, seven, nine, and eleven
(Scheduling, Assistance, High expectations, and Parent involvement) prompt schools to
provide additional classroom resources and support for struggling students. Developing and
enacting the above three theories of action can boost student academic performance.
How school leadership affects student performance. In Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty’s (2005) book titled School Leadership that Works, the authors examined the impact of
school leadership on student performance. Marzano et al., (2005) work compliments Odden’s
(2009) research stressing the needs for shared leadership and creating collaborative learning
communities. Marzano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 69 studies from the past 35
years that met their criteria. They also performed a factor analysis, surveying more than 650 site
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 33

principals, measuring the effects of school leadership on student performance. Their meta-
analysis consisted of 2,802 schools, along with an estimated 14,000 teachers and included
1,400,000 students (Marzano et al., 2005). Mixing practical experience and professional advice,
Marzano et al. (2005) research blended the effects of school leadership. With an average
correlation of 0.25, their results corroborated leadership experts’ opinions over the past several
decades. Conclusions from their work identified list of 21 leadership responsibilities that have
significant effect on student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). Below in table 2.1 is a list of
the leadership responsibilities they identified, presented in order of significance.
Table 2.1 McREL Researchers identified the 21 Key Leadership Responsibilities that are
Significantly Correlated with Higher Student Achievement
Responsibility
The extent to which
the principal…
Average
r
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
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 34

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 of
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is knowledgeable
about current
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices
.25 10 368
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
.24 4 302
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 35

school's culture
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: School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty
2005)

Marzano et al. (2005) list of responsibilities compiled through their factor analysis of
what leads to successful school leadership further supports the three theories of action necessary
for efficient and effective schools. The responsibilities of Situational Awareness, Flexibility,
Discipline, Order, Knowledge, and Involvement promote the need to provide schools the
appropriate number of core academic teachers to keep class sizes within the range suggested by
the research to educate students to high performance standards. Responsibilities of
Monitoring/Evaluation, Input, Resources, Intellectual Stimulation, and Relationships prompt
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 36

developing a school-wide focus on a professional development program to use data-driven
decisions to drive high quality instruction for all students. The responsibilities of Outreach,
Change Agent, Culture, Ideal Beliefs, and Affirmation lead schools to provide additional
classroom resources and support for struggling students. The above three theories of action,
supported by Marzano et al. (2005), can increase student academic performance.
The effect of professional development on student achievement. Odden (2009)
included ongoing and effective teacher professional development as a key strategy for doubling
student performance. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gallagher’s (2002) research indicates
agreement with this strategy by affirming, “Research is beginning to link the key features of
professional development programs that change teacher practice an in turn boost student
achievement scores” (2002, p. 51). Although the above research finds that high quality
professional development constitutes an effective strategy to improve schools, scant evidence
confirms current professional development investments predictably lead to improved results
(Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and Archibald, 2004). The authors suggest school leaders need to do
three things to justify and find the necessary resources to support professional development in
order to improve school performance dramatically:
1. They must describe their professional development and improvement activities and
investments and demonstrate that it is organized strategically;
2. They must quantify the costs of the professional development and improvement
activities;
3. They must measure the effects of their professional development and improvement in
terms of changed classroom practice and ultimately improved student performance.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 37

To accomplish this, Miles et al. (2004) researched five urban school districts’ spending on
professional development. Miles et al. (2004) attempted to standardize the following three
components:
1. Define the professional development components;
2. Describe the professional developments’ purpose and organization; and
3. Track and describe the cost.
Miles et al. (2004) offer six methodological and organizational lessons as a direct result of
their comparisons of the five urban districts using the cost structure framework (see Appendix
C). Miles et al. (2004) conclude that their research is just the primary step in understanding the
“black box” of professional development. They encourage educational leaders to first map their
current professional development expenditures before policy makers target specific funding
levels. Schools need to incorporate policies to systematically capture professional development
costs and include district level resources aimed at professional development through salary
incentives. With improved student performance as the underlying goal, factoring the above data
into the decision-making process educational leaders and other stakeholders could provide the
organizational support to make the professional development expenditures matter for students
(Miles et al., 2004).
The above research substantiates the need for targeted and effective professional
development. The data further support the key critical success factor on the theory of action to
develop a school-wide focus on a professional development program to use data-driven decisions
to drive high quality instruction for all students. The evidence indicates that effective
professional development can lead to an increase in student academic performance.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 38

Improving teaching and learning by using a professional learning community
model. An important component in Odden’s (2009) 10 strategies for doubling student
performance envisions schools creating a culture of collaboration with the development of
professional learning communities. The major theme of DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek’s
(2004) book, Whatever it Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids
Don’t Learn, states the most promising and research-supported way for schools to promote
student learning requires operating as a professional learning community. Dufour’s et al. (2004)
theme supports Odden’s (2009) collaboration strategy. DuFour et al. (2004) examine
professional learning communities through three broad concepts that create a unified system of
schooling; 1) Fundamental purpose of a school is learning, not teaching; 2) Educators work in
collaborative teams interdependently, and they collaborate with a focusing on learning, and 3)
Professional learning communities realize all of their efforts must be assessed on the basis of
results.
Effective professional learning communities find avenues to support students in the
general education and special education setting who struggle with the learning objectives through
interdependent common goals. Rather than educators remaining in silos of special education,
general education, and gifted and talented departments, educators collaborate to incorporate
strategies for students who do not meet educational targets and create opportunities for those
students who need enrichment.
Educators operating in a professional learning community examine practices and
procedures of their schools to ensure alignment with a fundamental focus on learning (DuFour et
al., 2004). The instructional teams maintain a focus on learning in several ways. Educators
develop a shared sense of the school they envision. Teachers demonstrate their commitments as
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 39

they move the school toward their shared vision of success. Instructional leaders establish
specific, measurable goals functioning as targets to assess their progress. The professional
learning community identifies student learning strengths and weaknesses and use action research
to enable the continuous improvement processes for individual teachers and collective teams.
Professional learning communities provide more than a time to meet with colleagues, but
rather they provide a purposeful culture to engage in the continuous cycle improvements and
inquiry about the learning process that promotes a successful educational community. Teachers
collaborate and use evidence of student learning to set goals as part of an embedded continuous-
improvement process. Instructional leaders work with colleagues to build on their students’
strengths and address their academic weaknesses. Adams (2010) also argues that a concept of
system integration similar to the work of an effective professional learning community as a key
ingredient in educating students to high academic standards. To assist struggling students,
schools create and implement plans to provide additional time and support for learning in timely,
directive, and systematic ways. Each professional learning community member’s commitment to
the organization’s common purpose and how their performance relates to the goal of academic
improvement provides an internal level of accountability. DuFour et al. (2004) insist that
professional learning communities embody action-oriented education in that they “turn
aspirations into actions and visions into reality” (p. 4) and do so not for the purpose of raising
test scores but “for the sake of the dreams and aspirations of the children whose lives they touch”
(p. 192).
DuFour et al. (2004) nine components (see Appendix D) all support the theory of action
to develop a school-wide focus on a professional development program to use data-driven
decisions to drive high quality instruction for all students. Through the professional act of
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 40

collaboration, teachers can yield higher accountability levels by sharing data and instructional
strategies. The components suggest that effective educator collaboration can lead to an increase
in student academic performance.
Examining high achieving schools with high levels of poverty. Chenoweth (2009)
suggests qualities common to schools successful in educating minority and impoverished
students provide insights to generalize to a variety of public K-12 school settings. Odden’s
(2009) research focus on schools from urban (e.g. Milwaukee, WI), suburban (e.g. Kennewick,
WA) and rural communities, many with high concentrations of children from low income and
minority backgrounds, support the successful implementation of his 10 strategies for improving
performance. In her research findings, Chenoweth (2009) discovered that educators shared a
“sense of powerlessness [that] has been bolstered by what seem like endless data demonstrating
the correlation of achievement with poverty and race” (p.38). Chenoweth (2009) expresses a
concern that educators erroneously embrace the belief that poor, black, and Hispanic students
demonstrate lower academic performance, on average than white, affluent students, remains
inevitable. The key to the successful schools in her studies involved schools creating a culture of
student learning and reorganizing the school’s structures to support this goal (Chenoweth, 2009).
The schools she studied in Alabama, New York, and Virginia created research-based internal
mechanisms that supported student learning. Although the strategies may appear dramatic
departures from the traditional American organizational patterns, simplicity of mission guide the
changes: “helping students learn a great deal” (Chenoweth, 2009. p. 39).
Chenoweth (2009) noted four important steps these schools embraced to create academic
improvements. The steps resemble DuFour et al.’s (2004) research focus and their four essential
questions. These schools sought to articulate what student need to know and need to be able to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 41

do; establish a baselines of what the students already know and are able to do; analyze what
students have learned and whether they need further instruction, and create a relentless,
systematic review of learning by each grade, class, and student, on a month-by-month, and day-
by-day, basis for continual improvement.
Chenoweth’s (2009) research observed successful high-poverty, high-minority schools
creating common meeting times for teachers to build curriculum maps, develop common
assessments, and craft research-based lesson plans. The common theme discovered in each of the
schools’ studied highlighted “everyone has a stake in providing a safe, respectful, and
comfortable environment in which students can learn” (Chenoweth, 2009. p. 41). The
concentrated and coordinated efforts of the educational leadership and instructional staff meld a
collaborative team environment permitting students to achieve higher academic results than
typically expected. Chenoweth (2009) concludes with the notion that by embracing a
collaborative approach our nation’s diverse schools’ academic performances would soar.
Chenoweth’s (2009) research provides further support for the need of effective
professional development. The research supports the theory of action to provide additional
classroom resources and support for struggling students. The combination of the above two
theories of action, when united with goal to provide schools the appropriate number of core
academic teachers to keep class sizes within the range suggested by the research to educate
students to high performance standards, can work together to elevate school performance.
Three additional studies (Reeves, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Fermanich, Mangan,
Odden, Picus, Gross, Rudo, 2006) provide important contributions to the body of research
discussed above on school improvement strategies. The three studies will be discussed followed
by an analysis of recurring themes present in the literature.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 42

Reeves (2003) conducted a study of Milwaukee and Wisconsin schools whose
demographics included the following three criteria: 1) 90% or greater participation in free and
reduced lunch programs, 2) a minimum of 90% belonging to minority groups, and 3) 90% or
more of the students meeting district or state performance targets. These “90/90/90” schools
were examined to identify how these schools achieved academic success despite their at-risk
populations. The study’s findings identified common traits among excellent schools and
discovered that each school had focused on academic achievement and had chosen curriculum to
meet its needs. The schools also used frequent assessments to track student progress and
provided interventions for struggling students. Teachers collaboratively reviewed and assessed
student work.
Togneri and Anderson (2003) studied schools and districts in California, Texas,
Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island with minimum poverty rates of 25%, improvements in
math and reading scores over a three-year span, and demonstrated success toward closing the
achievement gap. The goal of the study was to learn how schools promoted good instruction
across the district. The study’s main assumption was that effective instruction was critical to
improved achievement. The schools studied, described as “islands of excellence schools,” and
districts executed the following actions: 1) acknowledged poor performance and had the will to
seek solutions, 2) established a system-wide approach to improving instruction, 3) instilled
visions that focused on student learning and guided instructional improvement, 4) made data-
based decision not intuition 5) adopted new approaches to professional development, and 6)
redefined leadership roles.
In the state of Washington, Fermanich et al. (2006) studied 31 successful schools in nine
districts across the state after a state level analysis. The researchers identified critical success
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 43

factors and investigated how resources were allocated in the schools that engaged a high
percentage of those factors. Key findings included the following elements of the successful
schools; a focus on educating all students to meet performance targets, the use of data to make
decisions, adoption of a rigorous curriculum aligned to state standards, support of instructional
improvement with effective professional development, restructuring the learning environment to
meet student needs, and provide struggling students with extended learning opportunities.
Four Recurring Themes in the Literature – A Theory of Action
The above review of these important studies and meta-analyses reveals four recurring
themes. Each study found the critical components of leadership, assessment and data-based
decision making, collaboration, and professional development necessary in accomplishing the
task of meeting or exceeding their student performance targets. The following explores each of
these themes and offers research to support their affect on school improvement and student
academic gains.
Leadership
Many studies have examined the significance of effective leadership in the operations of
successful schools (Marzano et al., 2005; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Northouse, 2010; Hallinger &
Heck, 2002). Competent leadership shapes the school’s efforts and channels staff efforts to
create a culture of continual student achievement. Effective school leaders establish clear goals,
provide vision, and maintain efforts to achieve overall student success (Odden, 2009; Duke,
2006; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Reeves, 2006). Creating an involved staff that embraces the
team concepts and shares in the decision-making leads to productive student outcomes (Odden,
2009; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2002). Improving student performance
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 44

requires effective school leadership that marshals all stakeholders to contribute efforts to meet
performance goals.
Use of data and assessments
Successful schools implement data-based decision making (Tilly, 2006; Hamilton et al.,
2009; Datnow et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2005) and use assessments (Black & William, 1998;
Baker, 2005) to drive instruction and reach achievement goals. Duke (2006) and Reeves’ (2006)
research demonstrated the importance of frequent formative assessments to narrow the
achievement gaps. Assessments become a functional tool to guide instruction to reach the needs
of all learners. Alternative assessment such as portfolios and projects offer additional measures
of student performance (Darling-Hammond, 2002).
Using assessments and data proved common to many successful schools that experienced
improved student achievement (Odden, 2009; Duke, 2006; Togneri & Anderson, 2003;
Fermanich et al., 2006). The data offered insights as to what teaching methods worked what
techniques did not, what concepts students were and were not grasping, and when and how
interventions should be implemented. The continuous nature of this process provides teachers a
means to consistently assist students to reach higher levels of academic performance.
Collaboration
Research indicates a link between professional collaboration and student achievement
(O’Day, 2002; Langer et al., 2006). Collaboration removes teachers from their silos and
provides opportunities for interactions (Odden, 2009; Duke, 2006). The opportunities to impart,
observe, and emulate best practices from fellow teachers improve the teaching corps and leads to
improved student outcomes (Odden, 2006). Reeves (2006) noted effective collaboration time in
assessing student work with fellow teachers thereby creating rubric norms. Using teaching teams
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 45

has been shown effective in improving student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Teachers
collaborate to share instruction and grading practices within subject groups. Interdisciplinary
instructional groups benefit by discussing the learning strengths and needs of common students.
Regardless of the form, collaboration provides useful tools for improving student performance.
Professional development
A large body of research exists regarding the positive affects of professional development
(Birman et al., 2000; Desimone et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Supovitz
& Turner, 2000). Effective professional development can improve instructional practices
yielding improved student performance. Odden (2009) encourages professional development for
comprehending state assessments, curriculum changes, new instructional methods, and properly
using formative assessment data. Successful and comprehensive professional development
require adequate time and funding (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Togneri & Anderson, 2003;
Fermanich et al., 2006; Odden, 2009). Odden (2009) suggests a multi-year approach with
between 100 and 200 hours of professional development annually. For a successful program of
professional development, an expectation of implementation of the training (Odden, 2009) and a
connection to the district’s academic goals (Togneri & Anderson, 2003) must exist.
An important component embedded in professional development involves the use of
instructional mentors (Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Fermanich et al., 2006; Odden, 2009).
Coaches provide the necessary support after training and ensure new instructional practices will
be implemented as a result of training. The instructional coaches play an important role because
often training focuses on subject specific needs (Odden, 2009), involve data analysis (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003), or focus on best practices (Fermanich et al., 2006). The mentors function as
colleagues, not administrators, with the goal to improve student outcomes, and not conduct
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 46

teacher performance evaluation. The process bridges the importance of both professional
development and collaboration, both important themes found in successful schools.
Summary
This section examined and synthesized a variety of studies on effective schools’ practices
in narrowing achievement gaps. Four practices, or themes, that emerged most often in the
literature were leadership, assessment and data-based decision making, collaboration, and
professional development necessary in accomplishing the task of meeting or exceeding their
student performance targets. The studies provide a framework for examination of schools in this
study. Additionally, the literature offers school leaders and policy-makers research-based
strategies to consider for both increasing student performance and allocating educational
resources.
Under the guidance of effective leadership, the literature supports three theories of action
for efficient and effective schools; (1) Provide schools the appropriate number of core academic
teachers to keep class sizes within the range suggested by the research to educate students to high
performance standards, (2) Develop a school-wide focus on a professional development program
to use data-driven decisions to drive high quality instruction for all students, and (3) Provide
additional classroom resources and support for struggling students.
Implementing Successful Resource Allocation
After emerging from several challenging years of economic crisis, effective resource
allocation in Hawaii’s public K-12 schools demands attention from educational leaders,
legislators, and policy makers. Whereas Odden and Picus (2014) suggest that each decade over
the past one hundred years saw increases in money allocated, they note little evidence
demonstrates the new monies effectively improved student academic performance. The purpose
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 47

of this section is to provide a perspective for effective personnel resource allocation in public K-
12 education. The resource allocation perspective will be presented in four parts; 1) An overview
of adequacy in education funding, 2) Strategic management of human resource capital, 3)
Resource use at the school level, and 4) the Evidenced-Based Model approach to school funding.
An overview of adequacy in education funding. According to Odden (2003),
“Standards-based education reform has been the focus of education policy for nearly 20 years”
(p. 120) and has thus become the focus of school finance. Adequacy, according to Odden (2003),
under the standards-based reform movement represents the sufficient funds school systems
receive to employ instructional strategies to achieve high academic performance. To accomplish
the task of determining adequate school funding, schools systems calculate an adequate
resources level for the typical student in the typical school, with adjustments made for students
with special needs (Odden, 2003). Odden (2003) points to a “leveling up” function that states use
to balance school finance as it creates fiscal equity with all schools and districts in a state,
especially lower-spending schools. The following suggestions should determine adequate
funding levels (Odden, 2003):
1. Identify effective programs and strategies costs;
2. Translate those costs into appropriate school finance structures, and;
3. Ensure that resources are used in districts and schools to produce the desired results (p.
21).
Although no dominant single approach to determining an adequate spending level exists
across the country, Odden (2003) presents four methods typically used to determine an adequate
foundation expenditure level:
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 48

1. The successful district approach: This model seeks to identify districts that have been
successful in teaching students to meet established proficiency standards and determines
the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditures per pupil in those districts
(p. 122);
2. The cost function approach: This model employs regression analysis with expenditure per
pupil as the dependent variable and student and district characteristics, as well as
performance levels desired, as the independent variables. The result produces an adequate
expenditure per pupil for the average district (p. 122);
3. The professional judgment approach: This approach asks a group of educational experts
to identify effective educational strategies for primary and secondary school levels and
special needs students. The experts specify the ingredients required for each, attach a
price to each ingredient, and sum everything to obtain a total expenditure per pupil (p.
122); and
4. The evidence-based approach: This approach, developed by Odden and Picus (2003),
identifies a set of ingredients that are required to deliver a high-quality, comprehensive,
school wide instructional program. Then, it determines an adequate expenditure level by
assigning a price to each ingredient and aggregating to a total cost (p. 123). A more
detailed discussion of the Evidenced-Based Model follows later in this section.
Examining successful schools can provide insights on effective personnel resource allocation
strategies. A qualitative study conducted by Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) provides a
framework for resource allocation from the Boston, MA area involving case studies of three high
performing elementary schools and two high performing high schools. The research findings
prompt the authors to offer six teacher resource allocation opportunities that lead to improved
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 49

student achievement. In concluding their study Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) found that
the models for resource allocation and instructional vision or strategies tightly connected. In
sum, they state, “restructuring makes no sense without an underlying educational design” (Miles
& Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 42).
Miles (2011) argues instead of schools declining in an era of trying to do more with less,
schools can transform into organizations focused upon improved academic performance. The
key to accomplishing this transformation lies in linking important academic priorities with a
resource allocation plan that reduces spending in the near term and provides long-term
educational improvement. She introduces a model that reallocates unproductive resources and
simultaneously introduces higher-performing designs for school systems. Although the
challenges of dismantling the traditional school structures appear daunting, the strategies present
a path in merging best practices, research, and academic performance with effectively allocating
scarce resources (Miles, 2011).
Strategic management of human resource capital. Odden (2008) offers the Strategic
Management of Human Capital (SMHC) plan with the goals of improving student academic
achievement and teachers’ instructional practice. The nature of implementing such a plan centers
upon school district/teacher union relationships and how the relationships affect proposed
changes. Some districts and union working relationships foster productive changes; in other
settings, the relationships appear more contentious. Despite these challenges, with talented
educational leaders, steadfast decisions, and political support, needed change seems achievable.
Four key critical success elements of the SMHC system include the challenges of
acquiring talent, developing and motivating the talent acquired, and, ultimately, retaining that
talent (Odden, 2008). Successful implementation of the strategic management of human capital
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 50

developed plan includes the following five core ideas of establishing an effective instructional
vision, recruiting top talent, creating effective leadership, providing instructional support,
creating a school culture of academic success. Odden’s (2008) SMHC plan when successfully
implemented yields continuous teacher practice improvement, higher levels of student
achievement, school’s reducing chronically large achievement gaps for underrepresented
students.
Resource use at the school level. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) found
consistent problems in their review of existing fiscal reporting systems in use designed with the
objective to help education leaders make better decisions about the educational financial
resources. The authors work propose an improved framework compared with the other models
reviewed in three fundamental areas; 1) the plan specifically designed to report school-level
expenditures, 2) the plan it can differentiate the spending of multiple educational units within a
single school building to reflect new organizational structures, and 3) the plan categorizes
expenditures by expenditure elements that reflect current thinking about effective instructional
strategies and resource deployment. (Odden et al., 2003, p. 327). Table 2.2 represents the nine
effective indicators of school resources identified by Odden et al. (2003).
Table 2.2 School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
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 Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 51

School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social
Studies
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
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
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 52

-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

Note: Adapted from Defining School-Level Expenditure Structures by Odden et al. (2003), pp.
330. Copyright 2003 by Journal of Education Finance.

Odden et al. (2003) include a detailed description of the core instructional and non-
instructional elements (see Appendix E).
Odden et al.’s purposefully selected a sample of two elementary schools to demonstrate
how their resource indicators provide an effective tool for analyzing and comparing resource
allocation among schools. One school reported professional development expenditures five times
the size of the other elementary school (Odden et al., 2009) Their research demonstrated
significant differences in personnel assignments and other resource allocations that illustrate
each school's educational strategy.
Odden and Picus (2014) provide a list of educational resource categories that divide
expenditures by their primary function. The following list summarizes each of the seven
categories with primary funding function:
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 53

1. Instruction: this category includes all resources allocated for providing instruction to
students. This category also includes teacher and instructional aide salaries, benefits,
services purchased, tuition, books, and other instructional supplies;
2. Instructional support: this category’s expenditures include curriculum development, staff
training, media centers, libraries, computer labs, including the salaries, benefits,
purchased services, tuition, and supplies dedicated to support the instructional program at
the school site;
3. Administration: this category includes salaries and benefits of principals, assistant
principals, other administrators, and secretarial staff at the school or the district office.
This category also includes purchased services, tuition, and supplies dedicated to this
expenditure at the district level;
4. Student support: this category includes salary, benefits, purchased services, and supplies
dedicated to guidance, attendance, speech pathology services, health, school-based
behavioral health services (e.g. social workers, psychologists, family outreach to
community resources), and other functions that support the instructional program of the
school or are focused on students’ well-being;
5. Operations and maintenance: this category includes the salaries, benefits, purchased
services, and supplies for custodians, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, groundskeepers
and other support personnel, and other expenditures for cleaning schools and grounds,
and operating, maintaining, heating, and cooling schools;
6. Transportation: this category include the salaries, benefits, purchased services, and
supplies dedicated to providing transportation to students; and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 54

7. Food services: this category includes the salaries, benefits, services, and supplies to
provide food to students.
Evaluating the effective use of educational resources requires collecting data on the
resource allocation at the school level to measure the “production units” (schools) in education
(Odden & Picus, 2014). To measure and evaluate the resource allocation of these production
units at their various levels (elementary school, middle school, and high schools), Odden and
Picus (2014) offer five types of data on resources and resource for data collection that include: 1)
staffing and expenditures by program—the regular instruction program, programs for special
needs students, special education, staff development, and instructional materials, 2) staffing and
expenditures by educational strategy—class size ratio, tutoring, professional development, pull-
out programs, and core versus elective subjects, 3) staffing and expenditures by content area, 4)
the interrelationships among these staffing and expenditure patterns, and 5) the relationships of
these staffing and expenditure patterns to student performance.
The Evidenced-Based Model. Odden and Picus (2014) developed a two-step resource
allocation evaluation model, the Evidence-Based Model (EBM), created by reviewing the
research evidence and effective best practice programs in education and studying schools or
districts that have substantially improved student academic performance within a three to seven
year period. The EBM helps identify school or district levels of adequate resources necessary to
enable schools or districts over time to dramatically improve student performance. The results of
studies from Wyoming, Wisconsin, Washington and Arkansas provide research-based support
demonstrating the successful application of the EBM in improving student achievement at the
school level. The research authors submit that the EBM delivers the most substantially sound
methodology in adequacy research (Odden & Picus, 2014). For the above reasons, the EBM
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 55

provides the theoretical framework for this study and represents the preferred approach. Figure
2.1 provides a pictorial representation with a detailed explanation for a more clear understanding
of the Evidence-Based Model.
Figure 2.1
Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model

The Evidence-Based Model draws its support from three evidentiary sources: 1) research
using randomized assignment to the treatment, 2) research implementing other types of controls
or statistical procedures that evaluate the effect of a treatment, and 3) best practices collected
from comprehensive school design or from studies of effects at the local district or school level.
The EBM provides suggestions for adequate resources for prototypical elementary, middle, and
high schools with adjustments for demographics and school size built into the model. By
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 ALLOCATION 56

example, a prototypical middle school from grades six through eight would have a school
population of 450 with an average class size of 25 students according to the EBM (Odden &
Picus, 20013. With 450 students, the EBM suggests 18 full-time core teachers in the middle
school. The EBM provides allocation for 3.6 (FTE) specialist teachers, 2.25 (FTE) instructional
coaches, and a technology instructor/coordinator. The primary functions of the coaches include
instructional support in classrooms providing constructive feedback to teachers, modeling
lessons, assisting or coordinate professional development, and instructional program oversight
(Odden & Picus, 2014). Table 2.3 summarizes the elements included in the prototypical
elementary, middle, and high school.
Table 2.3 Adequate Resources for Prototypical Elementary, Middle, and High Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6–8 9–12
Prototypic school
size
450 450 600
Class size K-3: 15 25 25
4–5: 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
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 57

% disabled 12% 12%
12%
% poverty (free and 50% 50% 50%
reduced-price lunch)

% 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
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
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 58

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 & Picus, 2014)
As noted above, the Evidence Based Model factors resources need the extra support and
staff providing services to disadvantaged and low-income students. The number of
disadvantaged students drives that number of support staff and services to meet the students’
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 59

needs. The EBM funds one credentialed tutor for every 100 students whose family qualifies in a
low-income status. These tutors provide specific addition instruction intended to augment the
regular curriculum with the intention of closing the achievement returning the students to the
regular classroom (Odden & Picus, 2014). Additionally, the model supports English Language
Learner (ELL) students and academically struggling students with one full-time teacher for every
100 identified students to provide supplementary academic support and assistance in the tutoring
program (Odden & Picus, 2014).
A recent example of the use of the Evidence Based Model includes Wyoming’s 2006
adoption of EBM approach to educational resource allocation commencing in the 2006-2007
school year. Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, and Goetz (2008) analyzed how Wyoming schools
used the funds they received during the first year the state implemented this funding model.
Picus et al.’s (2008) study included 189 elementary, 71 middle and 74 high schools representing
schools that educate 92 percent of the students in Wyoming. When the findings were reported to
the legislature in 2008, the conclusions noted “districts and schools employed staff resources in
patterns that varied considerably from the funding model” and suggested, “schools in
Wyoming may be relying on a different theory on how to improve student performance than the
one embedded in the adequacy model used to develop the funding system” (Picus et al., 2008 p.
44). Several schools in their study reported fewer core teachers, more specialist teachers, and
fewer instructional tutors than the EBM suggested. The study also revealed more resources
allocated for elective classes (e.g. art, music, physical education) instructional aides, strategies
that have low affects on student achievement (Picus et al., 2008). The authors note with
limitations of only one year’s implementation of the EBM, further research is required to gauge
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 60

the effectiveness of the EBM in Wyoming and about which strategies work best to improve
student learning (Picus et al., 2008).
In his review and critique of Odden and Picus’ (2006) Evidence Based Model, Hanushek
(2006) in his article Education Next noted that the evidence cited to support claims appeared
highly selected lacking the quality required upon which to base policy decisions. Hanushek
(2006) also argued that the researchers over estimated the cumulative effect size of adopting the
EBM’s recommendations. On the one hand, Hanushek’s (2006) critique appears valid. On the
other hand, Odden and Picus’ (2006) research never indicated nor implied a cumulative effect
size when adopting recommendations. A final point Hanushek (2006) raises involves the need
for improved and complete data collection encompassed in a stronger accountability systems.
Ongoing data collection and improved accountability measures reflect Odden and Picus’ (2006)
models intent, a continual process of checks and balances aimed at improved student academic
performance through effective resource allocation. Hanushek’s strong opposition to resource
allocation cost studies requires examination regarding his professional philosophical framework.
Although Hanushek’s (2006) Courting Failure claims that resource allocation studies completed
by consultants “who presume that simply doing more of the current practice (with the
commensurate addition to resources) will yield the desired outcomes” (p. xxviii), further review
of the Evidence-based model provides clarity. The EBM does not prescribe to do more of the
same; conversely the EBM ties the resource allocations to evidenced-based educational practices.
Using the Evidenced Based Model as the theoretical framework for this study based on a
Hawaii school complex presents several challenges. First, Hawaii does not currently use the
EBM to fund its public K-12 schools, and in light of recent economic crises, it remains
questionable if the state could afford to do so. Second, because Hawaii does not use the EBM but
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 61

relies on the Weighted Student Formula (WSF), it may be difficult to locate successful patterns
of resource allocation within the state beyond what the WSF discloses and broad discussions in
the school’s academic and financial plans (ACFIN) about personnel resource allocation.
Therefore, reviewing academic and financial plan narratives in this study provided crucial insight
into the rationale for making decisions. School level leaders combined with the input from
complex area administrators independently select personnel resource allocation strategies
without specific protocols from state level Hawaii Department of Education guidelines. The
outcome from the personnel resource allocation decision found in the schools’ ACFIN do not
reveal the specific strategies that guided their choices. Nevertheless, this study intended to assess
and compare resource allocations with the Evidenced-Based Model and provide suggestions for
how resources could be reallocated to implement the EBM recommendations should school
leadership choose to enact the suggestions.
Limitations of Fiscal Resources
According to the governor and Hawaii state superintendent of schools, Hawaii has started
recovering from its worst economic recession since statehood (http://lilinote.k12.hi.us, 2013).
This section briefly reviews the literature examining Hawaii’s recent fiscal challenges and how
public education and policymakers responded to budget reductions. This section also lists the
federal government’s fiscal response to educational needs during the recession. A brief
discussion about human capital issues provides further examination of constraints to enacting
change in resource allocation. Additionally, this section reviews local barriers to implementing a
lasting reallocation of resources. Lastly, this section concludes with reviewing possibilities for
positive change.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 62

Hawaii’s recent fiscal challenges. Hawaii educators recently endured the state's budget-
driven decision to effectively cut 11 school days from the calendar over 2008-2010 school years
placing thousands of teachers on unpaid furloughs (Ash, 2009). The budgetary cuts totaled over
$49 million in 2008 with an additional elimination of 239.5 (FTE) to help offset the state’s fiscal
woes (Hawaii Department of Education Budget Office, 2010). Visitor arrivals declined 13.1%
between FY 2008 and FY 2009. Visitor spending, a significant portion of General Fund taxable
revenues, dropped 15.1 % during the calendar 2009 (Hawaii Department of Tourism, 2010).
Hawaii’s 2009-2011 budgets experienced a $1.1 billion shortfall. The Hawaii Department of
Education share of the deficit required trimming $270 million. The department chose several
strategies to save money by enacting furloughs, imposing hiring freezes, limiting certain school
programs, and through reductions or eliminations. Despite the recent challenges, Hawaii’s
educational budget allocation model has seen no substantial changes. Table 2.4 summarizes the
state’s education $1.74 billion operating budget from 2011 by programs and services in
descending order (Hawaii Department of Education Budget Office, 2012):
Table 2.4 HIDOE 2011 Budget
Budget Category Amount in Millions Percentage of Budget
Weighted Student Formula $630 36%
Special Education $395 23%
Federal Programs $256 15 %
Food service $238 14%
Special programs $107 6%
Administrative costs $96 6%

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 63

Another summary indicates that the Hawaii Department of Education salaries for all staff
and benefits constitute approximately 88% or $1.5 billion of the Hawaii Department of
Education budget (Hawaii Department of Education Budget Office, 2012). Hawaii faces
challenges in providing the accountability measures and improved academic student performance
expectations from state and federal stakeholders without effective resource allocation methods.
Federal government’s fiscal response. In 2009, the Obama administration pledged $100
billion under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). A portion of the
ARRA included the Race to the Top (RTTT), an appropriation of $4.35 billion to states to assist
states dedicated to school wide reform, a commitment to excellence, and compliance to adapt
effective policies and practices. The RTTT’s competitive grant process awarded states that are
implementing significant school reforms in the four distinct areas: 1) enhancing standards and
assessments, 2) improving the collection and use of data, 3) increasing teacher effectiveness and
achieving equity in teacher distribution, and 4) turning struggling schools around (www.ed.gov,
2011). Erroneously some analysts expected education would be spared when states’ prioritized
their budget cuts. However, a study of the 36 states that received RTTT funding revealed that 13
states showed a shrinking portion of the state budgets allocated toward K-12 education (Rosa &
Funk, 2010). Although Mead et al. (2010) assert that the architects of RTTT “sought not just to
patch holes in state and local budgets due to the economic crisis and to save teacher jobs,” (p. 1)
the results remain unconvincing. Currently, Hawaii awaits its final disbursement of the $75
million award as a second round grant recipient and future research will provide insight on how
it was allocated.
Human capital issues. Substantial changes to personnel resource allocation involve many
compelling issues that require solutions. Odden and Kelly (2008) assessed the challenges in
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 64

human capital resource management in education that has limited the power of standards-based
reform. Confounding causes to reforms include ineffective leadership, inflexible employment
unions, insufficient funding, and inescapable ties to current policies. Odden and Kelly (2008)
provide details to these issues as listed below (p. 5):
1. Lack of a human capital management strategy and alignment of HRM practices to that
strategy;
2. The difficulty many districts have in staffing high-need (e.g., high-poverty, low-
achieving) schools with quality teachers;
3. High teacher turnover, particularly in urban districts;
4. Chronic shortages of qualified math, science, and technology teachers;
5. The difficulty nationwide some district have in attracting the “best and brightest” to
teaching and using nontraditional sources of teacher supply (e.g., career changers; people
wanting only a partial career in teaching, such as those in Teach For America; young,
smart adults disillusioned with the bottom-line focus of private sector employment, like
many recruited by the New Teacher Project);
6. Professional development systems that spend upwards of $6000-8000 per teacher per
year, with little impact on instructional practice; and
7. Compensation systems that pay for factors not linked to student learning gains.
In conclusion, Odden and Kelley (2008) envision a strategic human capital management system
in schools and districts that includes designing, promoting, and supporting a professional culture.
This system contains four characteristics: 1) high expectations for student learning, 2) a shared
understanding of effective instructional practices; 3) support for the district’s educational
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 65

improvement strategy and vision; and 4) collective responsibility for the student achievement
results of the system.
Possibilities for positive change. The Hawaii Legislature passed the Reinventing
Education Act (REA) of 2004, also known as Act 51; it included aggressive academic reforms
for the state’s public K-12 school system. Their optimistic initiatives included the following:
1. Establishing a weighted student formula;
2. Providing additional information technology;
3. Empowering principals through a Hawaii Principals’ Academy and other means;
4. Strengthening community involvement through school community councils and parent-
community networking centers;
5. Providing more mathematics textbooks;
6. Lowering class size in kindergarten, grade one, and grade two;
7. Providing full-time, year-round, high school student activity coordinators;
8. Providing support for students who need additional help to succeed in school;
9. Establishing a national board certification incentive program for teachers;
10. Enhancing teacher education;
11. Reducing the bureaucracy that hampers the effectiveness of the department of education;
12. Improving the educational accountability system; and
13. Requiring board of education members to hold community meetings in their districts.
The above agenda of improvements to the Hawaii school system requires prudent resource
allocation methods.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 66

Gap Analysis
This study analyzed personnel and resource allocation through a framework of a gap
analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) as the selected method to evaluate the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2014) to compare this proposed model of resource allocation with Pacific
School Complex’s current use of resources. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) present an
effective problem-solving framework for educational settings, a gap analysis, whereby one
examines the goals, the current performance, and the gap resulting between the difference
between the goal and the current performance. A complete gap analysis includes presumed
causes and solutions within the domains of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
factors (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The gap analysis provides a means to investigate
and validate the assumed causes of the gaps so that resources and solutions can be clearly
targeted to the relevant causes of the performance gap. By carefully researching and
investigating the potential causes the solutions proposed can directly target the root causes.
Literature Summary
This chapter included several important challenges to meeting schools’ educational needs
in an era of economic constraints and expectations for improved student performance. To begin,
Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was presented to explore how
schools could incorporate strategies to double student performance. Next, Duke’s (2006) article
about improving low-performing schools and Marzano et al.’s (2005) research on school
leadership affects on student performance offered examples of improvement strategies. Miles et
al. (2004) work on professional development spending, DuFour et al.’s (2004) research
professional learning community models, and Chenoweth’s (2009) research insights examining
high achieving schools with high levels of poverty demonstrated the important links between
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 67

effective resource allocation and the goals of improved teaching and learning. The chapter then
offered a discussion on Hawaii’s recent economic crisis and various attempts made to solving the
lack of educational funding. The final section introduced Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis as
this study’s selected method to evaluate the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014)
resource allocation framework and compare it with Pacific School Complex’s current use of
resources. The results of this analysis will determine if the Pacific School Complex’s resource
allocation currently meets its instructional goals by evaluating the complex staff’s knowledge
and skills, motivation to reach the goals, and any organizational structures preventing the
complex from accomplishing its goals.
Hawaii may be slowly emerging from the economic crisis that led to education funding
shortages, teacher furloughs, and reduced school calendar days. Despite these improving
economic prospects, the literature reviewed in this chapter provides methods of effective
resource allocations to align with the increasing expectations of improved academic performance
and accountability measures regardless of whether a school is struggling in a recession or
flourishing during an expansion.
The research findings from this section on Odden and Picus’ (2014) Evidence Based
Model demonstrate substantial support for implementing most if not all of the recommendations
found in this review. Incorporating the EBM would align resource allocation to best meet the
Hawaii Pacific School’s instructional goals of improved student academic performance and
greater school accountability. Odden and Picus’ (2014) Evidence Based Model provides a
research-based tool to measure if the Pacific School Complex’s resource allocation currently
meets its instructional goals. Also of interest to this study is the comparison of the proposed
strategies offered from the research finding in this section with the recommendations from the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 68

Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014). The next chapter examines the research methods,
research questions, and the sample selection process for this study.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 69

Chapter 3
Research Methodology
This study investigated how the Pacific School Complex uses its resources to support its
instructional goals and programs. The complex’s resource allocation strategy were compared to
the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014) to investigate if there was an effective
alternative strategy for allocating its resources. The EBM accounts for Hawaii’s diverse
population and provides a tested, effective resource allocation method for the Pacific School
Complex. Additionally, Odden’s (2009) framework using ten strategies for doubling student
performance was used as the lens to examine which of the strategies were effectively
implemented in the schools throughout the district. The ten strategies for doubling student
performance consist of: 1) Understanding the Academic Performance Challenge, 2) Setting
Ambitious Goals, 3) Adopt a New Research-based Curriculum, 4) Implement Data-based
Decision Making, 5) Institute Extensive, Long-term Professional Development, 6) Efficient and
Effective Use of School Time, 7) Provide Multiple Extra-help Strategies for Struggling Students,
8) Create Collaborative Professional Learning Communities, 9) Investing in Personnel for
Widespread Distributed Instructional Leadership; and 10) Use of External Professional
Knowledge.
The methodology for this study was a mixed-method approach. Qualitative data was
collected from the narratives from the academic and financial plans of the Pacific School
Complex. These documents allowed the researcher to focus on the processes that were occurring
and also investigate the products or outcomes. The primary source of financial and personnel
data was a document analysis of publicly available data regarding Pacific School Complex’s
resource allocation and budgetary information. Specifically, this study examined complex and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 70

school budgets, school teaching assignments, school mission and vision statements, master
schedules, professional development plans The data analysis section in chapter four provides a
summary of the resource allocation differences among the complex’s six schools compared with
the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014) through the gap analysis model created by
Clark and Estes (2008). This multi-method approach was appropriate because it allowed for the
analysis of personnel resource allocation data, to understand how the schools were using the
funds to implement strategies they believe would improve student outcomes, and to assess the
ways the school leaders determine which strategies make the most sense for their schools.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study of a particular Hawaii school complex
were:
1. How are human resources allocated across Pacific School Complex and its schools?
2. Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices in the Pacific
School Complex and what the research suggests is most effective?
3. How can human resources in the Pacific School Complex be strategically re-allocated to
align with strategies that improve student achievement?
Sample and Population
This study used a purposeful sample, a sample that meets a defined criteria and existing
research (Creswell, 2009), of one school complex containing six schools. The Pacific School
Complex was selected for this study because of its student diversity and being centered in a
suburban community. The Pacific School Complex also enrolls a high percentage of students
from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, which increases the availability federal and state
funding resources allocated to the school complex. This study examined the funding levels for
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 71

four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school that comprise the Pacific
School Complex in terms of all federal and state funding and how these monies were allocated to
support the complex’s instructional goals of improved student academic performance. This study
examined schools from a single school complex as the schools in a single complex report to a
single complex area superintendent whose responsibilities include resource allocation in meeting
the complex’s educational goals. See table 3.1 below for detailed enrollment and teacher
demographics and table 3.2 for complex academic achievement data.
Table 3.1 Complex Enrollment and Teacher Demographic Data

Source: http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/trends/2013/Leeward/Act51_Complex833.pdf

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 72

Table 3.2 Complex Academic Achievement Data

Source: http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/trends/2013/Leeward/Act51_Complex833.pdf
The rationale for selecting a complex area, rather than a set of random schools, was to
understand how resources can, or might be shared across schools within the complex and how
vertical integration might be helpful. Creswell (2009) describes a purposeful sample as one “that
will best help the researcher understand the problem and the research questions” (p. 178).
Purposeful sampling provides focus on the particular setting, actors, events, or processes
involved with the topic of research. All of the schools in this study were Hawaii public K-12
institutions.
All school names have been replaced with pseudonyms to respect the anonymity of the
school complex and its schools. Table 3.2 shows a list of each school by name, the type of
school, and the grade levels served:

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 73

Table 3.3 Pacific Complex Schools
School Name Type of School Grade Levels Served Enrollment
Lester School Elementary K-6 904
Mabel School Elementary K-6 956
Mack School Elementary K-6 640
Wallace School Elementary K-6 575
Winston School Middle/Intermediate 7-8 947
Warrior School High 9-12 1693
Pacific School Complex (2012-2013)
The Pacific School Complex is located in a suburban area in Hawaii’s island of Oahu,
within the limits of the city and county of Honolulu. Pacific School Complex, founded in 1957,
educates approximately 5,500 K-12 students in a diversely populated area on Oahu’s leeward
coast. This complex is comprised of four elementary schools, one intermediate school, and one
high school. All schools within the Pacific School Complex follow the state’s common school
calendar. Approximately 14% of the complex students received special education services and
about 77% qualified as economically disadvantaged students.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
This study was conducted within a thematic dissertation group at University of
Southern California’s Hawaii Cohort consisting of other researchers collecting data and creating
similar studies. In preparation for this study, the researcher and others in the cohort attended a
nine-hour training on December 13-14, 2013 led by Lawrence O. Picus, Dissertation Chair. The
training consisted of crafting research questions, reviewing recent dissertations, examining
theoretical frameworks, and establishing thematic group writing teams. We also reviewed the
steps to perform a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). The Hawaii cohort members were
permitted to use this model, which provides each researcher the opportunity to independently
enter all personnel resources allocated to each school site within their district of study. This
process allowed the researchers to input data into the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 74

2008) and generate proposals based on the model’s recommended resource allocations. Next,
using the model the model will permit the researcher to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes,
2008) to provide three outcomes of measurement to answer the research questions: 1) the current
process of resource allocation for the complex compared to the complex’s allocation needs to
meet instructional goals, 2) the current allocation versus the recommendations of Odden and
Picus’ (2014) Evidence-Based Model, and; 3) the researcher’s recommended allocation
compared to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2014).
During the spring and summer of 2014, the researcher gathered data from the publicly
available websites containing the necessary information to compare the Pacific School
Complex’s current resource allocation process with that necessary to meet its published
instructional goals. Next, the school level data was entered into the Odden and Picus’ (2014)
Evidence-Based Model for comparative results. Afterwards, these results were analyzed through
the gap analysis model created by Clark and Estes (2008). Lastly, complex and school level
academic and financial plan data and student academic performance data was collected.
Using the organizational and data collection model offered by Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich, and Gross (2003), the following elements were gathered (pp. 328-331):
1. Student enrollment: The total student enrollment of the school;
2. School unit size: The student enrollment of each instructional unit within a school
building (grade levels);
3. Percent low income: The percent of enrolled students eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program;
4. Percent Special Education: This measure shows the percent of students in the school with
an Individual Education Program;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 75

5. Percent ESL/bilingual: This item gives the number of students eligible for services
through the English as a second language program;
6. Expenditures per pupil: Per-pupil expenditures are calculated by dividing total school
operating expenditures from all funds and all sources by total student enrollment;
7. Professional development expenditures per teacher: This indicator is calculated by
dividing a school's total expenditures for professional development by the total number of
licensed teachers;
8. Special academic focus: The academic program focus, if any, of a school;
9. Length of instructional day: The number of hours per day that students are present for
instruction;
10. Length of class periods: The typical length of class periods in minutes;
11. Length of reading and mathematics class periods (elementary schools): The length of
math and reading class periods in minutes;
12. Reading and mathematics class size (elementary schools): The average number of
students per teacher in math and reading classes;
13. Regular class size (elementary schools): The size of the regular education, self-contained,
classroom;
14. Length of core class periods (secondary schools): The length of math, English/language
arts, science, and social studies class periods in minutes;
15. Core class size (secondary schools): The average number of students per teacher in
mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social studies classes;
16. Non-core class size (secondary schools): The average number of students per teacher of
classes other than mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social studies; and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 76

17. Percent core teachers: For elementary schools, this is the percent of all licensed school
staff except the principal and assistant principal(s) who are regular classroom teachers.
For secondary schools, this is the percent of all licensed staff except the principal and
assistant principal(s) who are mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social
studies teachers. This percentage provides a measure of core academic teachers to all
licensed staff in the school.
Data Analysis
The data analysis occurred immediately after collection of the data. The data consisted of
all authentic Pacific School Complex School Status and Improvement Reports, budgets, complex
area policies and procedures, Hawaii Department of Education enrollment documents, and
school personnel allocations related to the six schools in the Pacific School Complex. These data
were triangulated with the State Superintendent’s and Board of Education’s missions and goals,
the Complex’s School Renewal Plan, and accompanying narratives of the complex’s and
school’s academic and financial plans. A final, yet crucial, process in analyzing this data was
examining them in the following three manners:
1. Comparing the complex’ current resource allocation compared to an allocation to meet
their instructional goals;
2. Comparing the complex’s current resource allocation to the Evidence-Based Model; and
3. Comparing the researcher’s recommendations to the Evidence-Based Model.
Upon completion of this analysis, the researcher offered effective resource allocation strategies
in line with the complex’s goals improving student academic performance. The results are
discussed in chapter four of this study and final recommendations are offered in chapter five.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 77

Chapter 4

Study Results
Introduction
This chapter reports the study’s findings. An overview of the study’s sample schools in
the complex is included and the study’s questions are addressed. Those questions are:
• How are human resources allocated across Pacific School Complex and its schools?
• Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices in the Pacific School
Complex and what the research suggests is most effective?
• How can human resources in the Pacific School Complex be strategically re-allocated to
align with strategies that improve student achievement?
The results for each research question are analyzed including a discussion regarding contributing
causes.
Overview of the Complex Schools
This study researched four elementary schools, one intermediate school, and one high
school from the sample complex. This section provides context to the study’s findings providing
demographic, achievement, and funding conditions data.
Demographics
The sample complex stretches the leeward coast of Honolulu county on the island of
Oahu serving 5,700 students. The schools enroll an average of 6% English Learners, 13%
Special Education students, and 78% categorized “at-risk,” qualifying for Free or Reduced
Lunch program (see Table 4.1).

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 78

Table 4.1 Demographics for Pacific Complex Schools (SY 2013-2014)
School Name Enrollment EL SPED FARL
Lester Elem. 904 51 (5.6%) 72 (8.0%) 654 (72.3%)
Mabel Elem. 956 79 (8.3%) 89 (9.3%) 814 (85.1%)
Mack Elem. 640 9 (1.4%) 87 (13.6%) 555 (85.9%)
Wallace Elem. 575 27 (4.7) 73 (12.7%) 503 (87.5%)
Winston Int. 947 84 (8.9%) 158 (16.7%) 763 (80.6)
Warrior H.S. 1693 81 (4.8%) 285 (16.8%) 1176 (69.5%)
Total 5715 331 (5.8%) 764 (13.4%) 4465 (78.1%)

Student Achievement
The study’s sample complex schools measure academic achievement using several tools.
All of the sample schools were in restructuring per the federal accountability performance
requirements of NCLB. The state public schools report proficiency using the Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA) comparing students (4th, 8th, and 10th grade students) in the state using a
common assessment. The scores reported measure schools’ student proficiency rate percentages
in the content areas of reading, mathematics, and science with corresponding state averages in
parentheses. Although the data show some improvements in three-year trends in reading
proficiency rates for two of the complex elementary schools, the balance of the schools showed
declines. The math results demonstrate a similar trend with only two elementary schools gaining
in proficiency rates (see Table 4.2)

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 79

Table 4.2 Three-Year Student Proficiency Data in Reading, Math, and Science for Pacific
Complex Schools (SY 2011-12, 2012-2013, 2013-2014)
Percent Proficient (%)
School Name 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Three-Year
Trend (%)
Reading Scores
Lester 66 65 55 -16.6
Mabel 48 56 43 -10.4
Mack 43 46 50 +16.3
Wallace 40 35 45 +12.5
State Avg. 72 73 73 +1.4
Winston 53 47 51 -3.8
State Avg. 72 73 73 +1.4
Warrior 60 49 59 -1.7
State Avg. 69 69 68 -1.4
Math Scores
Lester 65 62 49 -24.6
Mabel 40 53 41 +2.5
Mack 41 39 42 +2.4
Wallace 43 40 51 +18.6
State Avg. 63 65 64 +1.6
Winston 42 36 40 -4.8
State Avg. 58 59 60 +3.4
Warrior 31 30 37 +19.4
State Avg. 45 45 43 -4.4
Science Scores
Lester 25 35 43 +72.0
Mabel 15 14 09 -40.0
Mack 27 31 35 +29.6
Wallace 06 03 31 +416.7
State Avg. 45 45 54 +20.0
Winston 23 16 9 -60.9
State Avg. 31 29 28 -9.7
Warrior 19 13 16 -15.8
State Avg. 22 24 22 0.0

Funding Conditions
Between the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, the sample complex schools’
instructional budgets remained relatively unchanged (see Table 4.3). The 2012-2013
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 80

instructional budget increased more than 9% over the previous year’s budget. The increase in the
2012-2013 instructional budget represents two contributing factors, a modest increase in school
enrollment with the corresponding funds that follow the students, and the increase in the number
of credentialed teachers eligible for a higher base salary per the existing teacher contract. The
table below compares the three-year trend by displaying salaried school instructional
expenditures. The rationale for displaying instructional expenditures stems from these functions
comprise the financial metric within the direct control of either the school principals or the
Complex Area Superintendent. Other functions not displayed in Table 4.3 including operations
and management fall under the state budgeting process, and school-based behavioral health
services (school psychologists, behavioral health specialists, autism specialists, deaf/blind
services) are found in district level budgets and therefore are not included (see Table 4.3).
Table 4.3 Pacific Complex 3-Year Trend Instructional Budget and Enrollment (SY 2010-11
to 2012-13)
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Budget in Millions $* 33.8 33.4 36.6
Budget Change _ -1.2% 9.6%
Enrollment 5,568 5,589 5,715
Enrollment Change - 0.4% 2.3%
Instructional
Expenditures per Pupil
$6,070 $5,976 $6,404
Complex Schools’
Teachers
377 370 376
Complex HQT Schools’
Teachers (% of total)
309 (82%) 333 (90%) 350 (93%)

* Dollars reported include only school instructional expenses (Hawaii Department of Education,
2014, School documents online)
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 81

The complex’s demographics, student achievement data, and funding conditions serve as
background to help with interpretations of this study’s research questions. The research questions
and the study’s findings are presented in the next section of this chapter.
Research Question #1
Research Question #1: How are human resources allocated across Pacific School Complex and
its schools?
This portion of the study reviews the schools’ apparent theory of action and compares it
to successful schools’ theories of action presented in the literature in chapter two. The links
between the strategies and human resource allocation practices in the complex’s sample schools
are examined and described as to whether or not the schools are implementing each strategy. The
critical components include leadership, assessment and data-based decision making,
collaboration, and professional development necessary in accomplishing the task of meeting or
exceeding student performance targets. A review of each component will be discussed next.
Leadership in the Pacific School Complex
The research examined in chapter two of this study suggests the significance of effective
leadership and its impact in the operations of successful schools. Competent leadership prompts
staff efforts to create a culture of continual student achievement. Effective school leaders
establish clear goals, provide vision, and maintain efforts to achieve overall student success.
Human resource allocation strategies accomplish these goals by hiring and retaining an engaging
staff that embraces the team concepts and participates in the leadership process to produce
positive student outcomes. Improving student performance requires effective school leadership
that rallies the faculty to contribute efforts to meet achievement targets. Also, effective leaders
provide professional development for all stakeholders on ways to increase educational outcomes,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 82

and they empower teachers to embrace leadership opportunities to assist in the improvement
process through active participation.
The sample complex employs several of these important action steps. Review of each of
the schools in the Pacific School Complex academic and financial plan narratives describe the
process used to create the schools’ comprehensive plans (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and
Financial Plan Narrative). For example, the complex leaders collaborate and distribute the
schools’ annual academic and financial plans. The process used to create these documents
engages teachers from all levels, offering leadership opportunities for staff to share in the
creation of the schools’ vision and goals. The academic and financial plan process embraces an
iterative process, whereby revisions made to the plan require faculty involvement and often
provide for staff approval.
The literature review indicates the importance of effective leadership utilizing human
resource allocation strategies to attract and hire the best candidates for key roles. Ideally, strong
leadership recruits, trains, deploys, and retains an excellent staff. The Pacific School Complex,
like many other school complexes, experiences recruitment and hiring challenges as noted in the
2012 Hawaii Department of Education’s report (Highly Qualified/Highly Effective Teacher and
Administrator) on personnel hiring practices. The report indicates several process improvements
for the selection and retention of teachers and school leaders. The complex’s personnel
operations in need of improvement include similar enhancements to their hiring and retention
practices described in the above HIDOE 2012 report. The HIDOE hiring process permits
complex level leaders little flexibility in selecting the candidates for open leadership positions
they seek to fill. First and second round applicant screening processes take place within the
statewide personnel resource departments. Complex leaders receive lists of eligible candidates
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 83

only after the personnel departments’ vetting process. This process potentially eliminates
prospective candidates because of the length of the hiring process, often six or more months, and
discourages others needing immediate gainful employment.
In addition to effective hiring strategies, this study’s literature review suggests effective
leaders actively engage in retaining highly effective teachers and staff to sustain school
improvement efforts. The complex faces difficulties in retaining teachers, especially in typically
hard to fill disciplines such as mathematics, low SES communities, and special education.
Teachers receive compensation based upon collective bargaining agreements that currently do
not include incentives to remain in high-need positions or to serve in high-poverty schools. Many
of the complex’s schools face higher than average turnover rates with faculty averages of eight
years of teaching experience compared to the state average of over 14 years of experience (State
of Hawaii, 2013).
The above concerns mirror the same leadership and personnel challenges presented in
Odden and Kelley’s (2009) report on the need for strategic management of human capital in
education. Specifically, the complex experiences challenges to recruit, train, deploy, and retain
the top leaders and teachers. Although Pacific School Complex serves a largely rural community,
the complex’s management practices mirror the typical urban districts Odden and Kelley report
discuss, likely as a result of the statewide systems in place from the single district configuration.
Effective school leadership includes providing instructional oversight for student success
as noted in this study’s chapter two literature review. According to the complex schools’
Academic and Financial Plans (State of Hawaii, 2014), school level leaders implement schedules
to allow for PLCs, data teams, instructional leadership team meetings, Peer Review processes to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 84

engage in data analysis, teacher professional development and articulation, and planning for
appropriate student supports. Successful leaders also engage the staff, parents, and community in
open dialogue about the school’s progress. The complex schools’ Academic and Financial plans
describe expectations for school leaders to provide effective parent communication and
information to promote parent awareness and partnerships within the school community (State of
Hawaii, 2014). Specific ways in which research informs school level leaders practices to
effectively manage successful schools follow.
Use of Data and Assessments in the Pacific School Complex
This study’s examination of the research demonstrates that successful schools implement
data-based decision making, use a variety of assessments to monitor student progress and inform
instructional practice to reach achievement goals. Research findings support the frequent use of
formative assessments to narrow the achievement gaps. Assessments provide a useful tool to
guide educational practice to reach the needs of diverse learners. Alternative assessment,
including portfolios and projects, offer further measures of student performance.
The sample complex schools use assessments and data common to many successful
schools that experienced improved student achievement. The complex established school-level
data teams to track student performance and guide instructional needs (State of Hawaii, 2014,
Academic and Financial Plan Narrative). Schools began the process of creating common
formative and summative assessments through multi-school curriculum meetings. The data
offered insights as to what teaching methods worked what techniques did not, what concepts
students were and were not grasping, and when and how interventions should be implemented.
The continuous nature of this process of data collection and analysis provides teachers a
consistent tool designed to help their instruction lead to students reaching higher levels of
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 85

academic performance according to the Pacific Complex schools academic and financial
narratives (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and Financial Plan Narrative).
Although the tool provides consistent data, teacher understanding of what to do with the
data and how to leverage the information to inform instruction remains an area of concern as
noted in the needs expressed for additional teacher training on how to effectively use student
data to inform their instruction to improve academic progress (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic
and Financial Plan Narrative). The complex lacks a comprehensive training program tailored to
the information presented from the data collection to offer teachers methods to analyze and
implement strategies based upon the collected data.
The student achievement three-year trend report provides indications suggesting some
schools may have been more successful in interpreting and acting upon the data based upon the
higher than state average results from the School Quality Survey domain “Focused and Sustained
Action” reported in the School Status Improvement reports for the Pacific Complex schools
(State of Hawaii, 2014). Although further studies might determine any actual correlation between
the perceived increased attention to student needs and the use of data, the schools demonstrating
the greater academic gains also reported the highest positive responses in the area of “Focused
and Sustained Action” on their school surveys.
Collaboration in the Pacific School Complex
Research identified in the literature review suggests a link between professional
collaboration and student achievement, by removing teachers from their silos and providing
educator interactions. Instructors need the opportunities to impart, observe, and emulate best
practices from colleagues to improve the teaching corps and increase student performance.
Schools need to prioritize collaboration time in assessing student work with fellow teachers
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 86

thereby creating rubric norms. Teachers may collaborate to share instructional goals, grading
criteria, and project designs both within subject groups and across them. As a resource allocation
component, the complex leaders can offer stipends, substitute teachers, or extended day meetings
to facilitate the collaboration. The additional time can result from extended school years with
scheduled collaboration days or altering instructional coverage to facilitate common planning
and preparation times.
The complex schools’ academic and financial plans established Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) (DuFour, 2004) to provide teachers time during the school day for
data/student work analysis, planning, refinement of curriculum maps/pacing guides, and
professional development (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and Financial Plan Narrative). Some
of the complex school’s PLCs time involves training sessions for establishing instructional
learning teams. Other schools have focused on response to intervention strategies as a focus of
their collaboration time. The lack of a complex wide training for the collaboration leaves the
PLCs operating without a unified structure or purpose from one school to another. An improved
resource allocation decision could include creating, developing, and implementing a standard set
of expectations and procedures on how to initiate and maintain a PLC within each of the schools.
The above noted improvements remain largely revenue neutral as the costs associated for
the PLCs already exist in the financial plan. The Pacific Complex schools’ Academic and
Financial Plan Narratives (State of Hawaii, 2014) indicate the training and use of Data Coaches
and Student Success Coaches as members of the PLCs tasked with ensuring that the continuous
improvement cycle of plan, check, do, and act functions well at each academic level. A
consistent goal in the plans describes teachers gaining a clear learning focus for students as
evidenced by classroom observation records. Additionally, district funding for substitute teachers
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 87

allow teachers to be involved in targeted peer observations. The Academic and Financial Plans
(State of Hawaii, 2014) indicate quarterly PLC meetings, largely funded by an outside source,
Kamehameha Schools. The expressed intent of the PLCs provides for school-based monitoring
of curriculum implementation and effective strategies in all classrooms (State of Hawaii,
Academic and Financial Plan, 2014).
Professional Development in the Pacific School Complex
The fourth component of effective personnel resource allocation supported by this
study’s Chapter Two literature review involves professional development. Specifically, the goals
of professional development include learning strategies that improves instructional practices,
promotes effective curriculum changes, introduces new instructional methods, and instructs one
on the proper use of formative assessment data. Successful professional training systems require
adequate time and funding involving a multi-year approach, with an expectation of
implementation of the training tied to the complex’s academic goals. Instructional mentors
provide the necessary support after training, ensure new instructional practices will be
implemented, play an important role involving data analysis by training teachers how to collect
and use information, or focus on best practices. The coaches serve as colleagues with the goal of
improving student outcomes through a process that bridges professional development and
collaboration, two important themes found in successful schools.
The complex’s professional development strategy varies from school to school, and
focuses on different strategies from elementary, intermediate, and high school levels. A
substantial portion of the trainings provided involved implementation and understanding the
process of the new Educator Effectiveness System (EES), the state’s new teacher evaluation
program (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and Financial Plan Narrative). Although these
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 88

trainings provided teachers the information needed to comprehend their new evaluation program,
the trainings reduced the time available for Common Core Standards implementation sessions,
grade level and content level specific instructional workshops, and personal or professional
growth pursuits. The complex’s instructional coaches tasked with supporting professional
development trainings maintain offices off school campuses thereby reducing their daily access
to faculty. Schools must schedule coaches to assist faculty, often weeks in advance. On the one
hand the complex’s professional development programs and instructional coaches align with the
research findings of providing ongoing professional development. On the other hand, the lack of
connection between the complex academic improvement goals and the trainings and the
inconsistent availability of the mentors/coaches fail to align with the research findings.
Summary: Research Question #1
This study’s first research question asks how human resources are allocated across
Pacific School Complex and its schools. In order to investigate this question, the following
documents were collected and reviewed; Pacific School Complex Academic and Financial plans,
School Status and Improvement Reports, school personnel directories, HIDOE enrollment
reports, Hawaii State Superintendent Strategic Plan and Annual Report, Pacific School Complex
School Trend Reports, Results from the Evidence-Based Model. The answer to this question, as
examined through this section of the study, demonstrated that the four themes of leadership,
assessment and data-based decision making, collaboration, and professional development
combine to offer significant roles in accomplishing the task of meeting or exceeding student
performance targets. Although the complex studied demonstrate personnel resource allocation
strategies to implement the four critical components, areas in need of improvement surfaced. The
most significant area of improvement surfaced in this study involves the leadership practices at
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 89

both the complex and school level. The underlying theory of action of this study proposes that
leadership is the foundational component that enables the three other critical success factors.
Effective leadership provides the platform for an assessment and data-decision making school
culture, sets the tone for a collaborative environment, and establishes professional development
plans anchored to meeting the schools’ academic achievement goals.
Perhaps the best measurement of effective leadership results from the congruence of each
school’s Academic and Financial Plan, with each plan structured with similar components
addressing common concerns across the complex (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and
Financial Plan Narrative). The uniformity in each of the complex schools’ academic plans
designs and stated goals may indicate too much attention to bureaucratic detail or strong
leadership at the Pacific School Complex Area Superintendent’s office. A breakdown of school
level instructional and leadership staff follow. The complex’s hiring and retention practices
suggest areas requiring improvement. Additional alignment among the complex schools’
professional development and collaboration programs represents an additional area in need of
refinement. The coaching and mentoring programs would provide greater support if moved from
offsite locations to school-based services. Although these suggestions require funding, and
additional funding remains elusive with Hawaii’s economic climate, realignment of personnel
resource allocation decisions may offer some possibilities. The balance of this chapter explores
the current resource allocation practices and if or how changes could enable these
recommendations.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 90

Research Question # 2
Research Question #2: Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices
in the Pacific School Complex and what the research suggests is most effective?
This portion of the chapter explores personnel human resources allocation practices in the
complex across the four elementary schools, intermediate school, and high school. To begin the
examinations of the staffing trends the study reports on each of the following positions from the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2014); management, certificated teaching staff,
certificated staff providing adjunct or specialized services, pupil support, and classified staff. The
definitions for each category follow the EBM definitions except as noted.
School Level Management Allocation in the Pacific School Complex
Management of a school involves the roles of the principal and assistant principals. With
the adoption of the new Hawaii State Teachers Association contract, school administrators’ roles
have changed to encompass a variety of additional tasks and oversight that will be explained in
detail below. Broadly, the new expectations shift responsibilities away from stereotypical
functions like deans of students, and instead envision school administrators to increase
commonality and consistency between learning academies, develop and monitor data teams,
review common assessments, reinforce student expectations, monitor grading policies, that lead
to improved attendance, assessment scores and graduation rates (State of Hawaii, 2014,
Academic and Financial Plan Narrative). The sample schools employ six school principals and
18 assistant principals (see Table 4.4). Each school has their own principal, with assistant
principal assignments varying with school enrollment, school level, and the weighted student
formula. The average student to administrator ratio in the complex is 229 to one.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 91

When disaggregated, the average student to administrator ratio by school type is 308 to
one in the elementary school, 237 to one in the intermediate school, and 170 to one in the high
school. The Academic and Financial Plan (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and Financial Plan
Narrative) for Warrior High School high explains the purposes of the high number of Assistant
Principals (9, or 188:1 student/AP ratio). The plan mentions the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges accreditation process, requiring additional administrative needs including creating a
monitoring system for at—risk students for each grade level, implementing the Charlotte
Danielson observational model for instructional feedback and improvements, and creating and
monitoring smaller learning communities within each grade level to emphasize college and
career readiness for the students. Additionally, the HIDOE implementation of the new Educator
Effectiveness System quintupled the number of classroom observations required by the
administration team to twice evaluate every teacher on campus, a shift from evaluating only non-
tenured teachers annually and tenured teachers once every five years. Lastly, the assistant
principals manage the grade level “Focus on Learning” initiative described in the Academic and
Financial Plan, creating and monitoring key assessment indicators aligned with the new
Common Core Standards and the newly formed Data Teams. Other Hawaii high schools allocate
similarly larger numbers of administrators (compared to elementary and intermediate schools) to
accomplish these tasks with higher numbers assistant principals concentrated in schools serving
lower SES populations (State of Hawaii, 2014) (see Table 4.4).

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 92

Table 4.4 Management Staff for Pacific Complex School (SY 2013-2014)
School Name Enrollment Principals Assistant Principals Total Admin
Lester Elem. 904 1 2 3
Student Ratio 904:1 452:1 301:1
Mabel Elem. 956 1 2 3
Student Ratio 956:1 478:1 319:1
Mack Elem. 640 1 1 2
Student Ratio 640:1 640:1 320:1
Wallace Elem. 575 1 1 2
Student Ratio 575:1 575:1 288:1
Elem. Schools’ Student
Ratio
3,075 769:1 513:1 308:1
Winston Int. 947 1 3 4
Student Ratio 947:1 316:1 237
Warrior H.S. 1693 1 9 10
Student Ratio 1693:1 188:1 170:1
Total 5715 6 18 25
Average per site 5715 1 3 4.17
Complex Student Ratio 5715 816:1 317:1 229:1

School Level Certificated Teaching Staff Allocation in the Pacific School Complex
Core teachers in the Pacific School Complex
Core teachers instruct in the areas of math, English language arts, social studies, science,
and world languages. Many teachers at the high school level teach more than one subject, and
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 93

their course load consists of both core and non-core courses (electives, co-curricular, or social
skills). For the purpose of this study, teacher course loads were divided in no less than one-tenth
units, using the standard rounding method. For example, a teacher who instructs math 40 percent
of the day and teaches music 60 percent of the day would represent a four-tenths core teaching
and six-tenths as a specialist teacher.
The sample complex has 240 core teaching staff among the four elementary schools, one
intermediate school, and one high school, with a core teacher ratio of one core teacher for every
24 students. Instructional staff typically receive one free period for instructional planning and
preparation per day. Core teachers represent 67.6% of the certificated faculty in the sample
district. When disaggregated by school type, the elementary schools, intermediate school, and
high school, variations emerge. The elementary schools employ 68.2% to 84.5% of their faculty
as core teachers. Since most teachers in the K-6 settings receive a generalist teaching license, the
high number of core teachers may reflect this licensing process. The intermediate school
employs 55% of its staff as core teachers, with the high school employing 56.6% of its teaching
staff as core teachers. The lower numbers of core teachers in both the intermediate and high
school setting may reflect the greater diversity in subject offerings above grade school settings
(see Table 4.5)
Specialist teachers in the Pacific School Complex
Specialist teachers instruct courses outside of the five core subject areas. Previously
known as elective teachers, specialists routinely teach art, music, physical education, career-
technical education, or co-curricular activities. The sample complex has 27 specialist teachers
across its six schools, with an average ratio of 212 students to every specialist teacher.
Specialists make up 10.1% of the certificated teaching staff in the sample district and, like core
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 94

teachers; they receive an average of one hour of preparation time per day. The complex’s
elementary schools employ few specialist teachers representing less than 3% of their faculty. The
low need for specialist teachers results from the generalist function of elementary teachers. The
elementary school specialists provide health and physical education services. According to the
Academic and Financial Plans (State of Hawaii, 2014) all teachers are provided time during the
school day for data or student work analysis, planning, refinement of curriculum maps or pacing
guides, and professional development funded by an outside source, Kamehameha Schools. At the
intermediate and high school settings, the schools employ between 17% and 20% of their faculty
as specialist teachers. Again, these variations remain consistent with the teacher licensing
specialization that occurs above the K-6 setting (see Table 4.5).
Special education teachers in the Pacific School Complex
Special education teachers work with students with disabilities and offer accommodations
and modifications for students according to the students’ Individual Education Programs (IEPs).
Special education teachers frequently pair with instructional aides who can provide assistance to
students or monitor students in small group activities. The sample complex employs 76 special
education teachers in the six schools. This creates a ratio of 75 regular education students and 10
special education students to one special education teacher.
Typically, the sample complex special education teachers receive twice the amount of
preparation and planning time to create student IEPs and monitor student progress. They average
two periods of IEP and preparation time per day to provide opportunity prepare for IEP meetings
with parents, completing IEP paperwork, and monitoring their caseloads. In the sample district,
special education teachers make up 21.4% of all teachers. Lester Elementary School employs a
far lower percentage of their staff as special education teachers, 12.4%, most likely as a result of
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 95

their atypically low special education population of less than 7% of their student population
compared to the other complex schools between 10% and 14% (see Table 4.5).
English learner teachers in the Pacific School Complex
English learner (EL) teachers provide instruction in English as a second language. EL
teachers commonly use instructional aides to provide translation of content to students. In the
sample complex, there are five EL teachers in the six schools. This creates a student teacher
ratio of 1,143 regular education and 66 EL students to every EL teacher. Typically, EL teachers
receive one hour of preparation and planning time per day. Some schools employ an EL
coordinating teacher who may receive an additional one to two hours per day for coordinating
the school’s EL program. EL teachers make up 0.14% of the complex’s overall school
instructional staff (see Table 4.5).

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 96

Table 4.5 Certificated Teaching Staff for Pacific Complex School (SY 2013-2014)

School Name Core Specialist Special Ed EL Totals
Lester Elem. 41 1 6 .5 48.5
% of Staff 84.5% 2.1% 12.4% 1.0%
Student Ratio (904) 22:1 904:1 151:1 1808:1 19:1
Mabel Elem. 46 1 12 .5 59.5
% of Staff 77.3% 2.4% 28.2% 1.2%
Student Ratio (956) 21:1 956:1 80:1 1912:1 16:1
Mack Elem. 29 1 12 .5 42.5
% of Staff 68.2% 2.4% 28.2% 1.2%
Student Ratio (640) 22:1 640:1 53:1 1280:1 15:1
Wallace Elem. 30 1 6 .5 37.5
% of Staff 80.0% 2.7% 16.0% 1.3%
Student Ratio (575) 19:1 575:1 96:1 1150:1 15:1
Winston Int. 33 12 14 1 60
% of Staff 55.0% 20.0% 23.3% 1.7%
Student Ratio (947) 29:1 79:1 68:1 947:1 16:1
Warrior H.S. 60 18 26 2 106
% of Staff 56.6% 17.0% 24.5% 1.9%
Student Ratio (1693) 28:1 94:1 65:1 847:1 16:1
Total 240 27 76 5 355
% of Complex Staff 67.6% 7.8% 21.4% 0.14%
Average per site 40 4.5 12.67 .83
Complex Student Ratio 24:1 212:1 75:1 1143:1 17:1

Certificated Staff Providing Adjunct / Specialized Services in the Pacific School Complex
This portion of the study presents data about teachers who support student academic
achievement by providing services outside the context of traditional classroom instruction.
Teachers in this category include instructional coaches, academic extra help staff, librarians, and
extended day and summer school staff.
Instructional Coaches in the Pacific School Complex
Instructional coaches give in-class coaching primarily to teachers who require support
with the implementation of instructional strategies. They often provide model lessons, conduct
observations of fellow staff’s teaching, provide post-observation feedback, or team-teach with
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 97

colleagues. The instructional coaches (mentors) assist in incorporation of new instructional
practices and regularization existing practice with newer faculty.
The sample complex employs 18 instructional coaches in its six schools. Of the 18
instructional coach positions, only two service the complex’s intermediate and high school (see
Table 4.6). The average instructional coach per site (three) represents a skewed measure of
central tendency as each of the elementary schools employ four coaches and the intermediate and
high school share two coaches. The Academic and Financial Plan Narrative mentions the
purpose for sharing instructional coaches between the middle school and high school serves to
strengthen the scope and sequence of curriculum for student transition from middle school to
high school. The coaches focus their efforts on reinforcing the instruction of foundational skills
necessary for an effective transition (State of Hawaii, 2014). From the description of the tasks
the additional Assistant Principals perform (see State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic and Financial
Plan Narrative), the Pacific School Complex attempts to use the additional administrators as de
facto instructional coaches by partnering them in meetings for data analysis and Focus on
Learning teams. Although using the assistant principals as instructional coaches confuses the
purpose and function of instructional coaches, this use may explain why the high schools employ
greater numbers of assistant principals than the EBM proposes. Interesting.
Academic Extra Help Staff in the Pacific School Complex
Academic extra help staff function as tutors, intervention specialists, or reading support
staff for struggling students. Instead of teaching traditional classes during the school day, they
work with students one-on-one or in small groups to remediate gaps in their learning. Academic
extra help staff members temporarily remove students from their general education setting to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 98

provide targeted instruction, and then promptly return students to general education classrooms.
The available data do not disaggregate Title I reading and math teachers and aides.
The sample complex academic and financial plan does not indicate academic extra help
staff (see Table 4.6). The data may mask these staff in the special education staff previously
reported.
Librarians in the Pacific School Complex
Librarians organize and facilitate use of the school’s library. They maintain the library’s
cataloguing system and assist teachers and students with research techniques. In the sample
complex, there are six librarians, one at each of the complex’s six schools (see Table 4.6).
Extended Day and Summer School Staff in the Pacific School Complex
Extended day teachers facilitate programs or tutor after school in order to provide
additional academic support to struggling students. Summer school teachers provide similar
school year curriculum during the summer months exclusively for the purposes of remediation.
In the sample complex, summer school teachers instruct special education students the same
curriculum they do during the school year as an accommodation of extended school year services
per the student’s IEPs. The sample complex typically offers a summer school program to failing
students for remediation. The academic and financial plans do not track teaching staff for this
function. This function typically results from a voluntary group of students requesting such
services and the HIDOE soliciting teachers statewide to perform the instructional tasks (see
Table 4.6).

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 99

Table 4.6: Certificated Staffing: Adjunct or Specialized Services for Pacific Complex
Schools (SY 2013-2014)
School Name
Instructional
Coaches
Extra
Help
Staff Librarians
Extended
Day
Summer
School
Lester Elem. 4 0 1 0 0
Mabel Elem. 4 0 1 0 0
Mack Elem. 4 0 1 0 0
Wallace Elem. 4 0 1 0 0
Winston Int. 0 0 1 0 0
Warrior H.S. 2 0 1 0 0
Total 18 0 6 0 0
Average per site 3 0 1 0 0
Student Ratio 318:1 816:1

Certificated Pupil Support Staff in the Pacific School Complex
This section presents staffing data for sample complex school’s certificated positions that
provide non-academic support for students. The services include school nurses or health aides,
guidance counselors, and school psychologists.
School Nurses or Health Aides in the Pacific School Complex
Nurses and health aides provide health care to students and first responder services for
health emergencies. The sample complex has one full time nurse or aide at each elementary
school and two at the intermediate and high school (see Table 4.7). This position represents a
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 100

fulltime position in each of the schools. The nurse or aide supports the health needs of students
requiring daily medications and assists the administrative staff by completing required
documentation.
Guidance Counselors and School Psychologists in the Pacific School Complex
Guidance counselors provide socio-emotional, academic, and career and college
counseling. School psychologists also provide socio-emotional counseling in some cases, but
primarily provide eligibility testing and consultation for special education services. There are 19
counselors and school psychologists shared among the complex’s six schools, or providing an
average of one professional for every 300 students. Excluded from this study are other non-
academic pupil support staff members since these positions are budgeted at the district or state
level and therefore remain beyond the scope and access of this study (see Table 4.7).

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 101

Table 4.7: Pupil Support Staff for Pacific Complex Schools (SY 2013-2014)
School Name
Nurses/Health
Aides
Guidance
Counselors/Psychologists
Lester Elem. 1 2.25
Mabel Elem. 1 2.25
Mack Elem. 1 2.25
Wallace Elem. 1 2.25
Avg. per Elem. 1 2.25
Elem. Student Ratio 769:1 342:1
Winston Int. 2 3.5
Avg. per Int. 2 3.5
Int. Student Ratio 474:1 271:1
Warrior H.S. 2 5.5
Avg. per H.S. 2 5.5
H.S. Student Ratio 847:1 308:1
Total 8 19
Average per Complex 1.33 3.17
Student Ratio 714:1 300:1

Summary: Research Question #2
This study’s second research question asks is there a gap between the current human
resource allocation practices in the Pacific School Complex and what the research suggests is
most effective. This portion of the chapter reported staffing information in partial answer to this
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 102

question, compiling total complex counts, per site counts, and student-to-staff ratios for positions
categories of management, certificated teaching staff, certificated staff providing adjunct or
specialized services, pupil support, and classified staff. These data provide the basis for the
proceeding examination of gaps between the sample complex’s staffing patterns, its stated
academic goals, and proposed personnel allocations from the Evidence-based Model (EBM) for
effectively increasing student achievement. Recommended strategies follow the gap analysis to
suggest greater alignment with the complex’s current personnel resource allocation practices and
those proposed by the research and the results of the EBM. Although a complete gap analysis
provides substantial benefits, for the purposes of this study, the gap analysis limits the area
analyzed to the four themes or theory of action for effective schools. These areas include
leadership, use of data and data-driven decision-making, collaboration, and professional
development. Accordingly, the gap analysis focuses on leadership positions, certificated teachers
instructing core content and specialist teachers, instructional coaches and mentors, special
education staff. The previous categories represent key components in the theory of action that
effective school leadership results in personnel resource allocation decisions that provide
continual improvement. Since many of the key indicators explored in the Pacific Complex for
effective school leadership demonstrate differences of school current resource allocation
strategies compare to what the Evidence-based Model suggests, the next question examines
potential reallocation strategies.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 103

Research Question #3
Research Question #3: How can human resources in the Pacific School Complex be strategically
re-allocated to align with strategies that improve student achievement?
The following section of this chapter analyzes the gaps between the complex’s current
resource allocation practices and the Evidence-based model’s (Odden & Picus, 2014) proposed
research-based proposed strategies. Ideally, the Evidence-based model would have included a
desired personnel allocation level. However, this study’s researcher was unable to gain
permission to interview key personnel to obtain those data. Salaries for the positions used in the
below comparisons come from the calculations derived by the Hawaii Department of
Education’s Weighted Student Formula (State of Hawaii Department of Education, Committee
on weights: Weighted student formula for schools: Office of fiscal services, 2013). The analysis
begins with identified negative gaps, areas where the EBM proposes more personnel than the
sample complex’s current or desired allocation. Next, a review of the positive gaps involving
areas where the sample complex provides overstaffing compared to the EBM staffing allocations
is provided. The gap analysis, a framework developed by Clark and Estes (2002) for determining
potential causes of a problem, provides the analytical structure to examine the possibilities of a
insufficient of knowledge or skills, a deficit in motivation, or the presence of organizational
roadblocks.
Negative Gaps Between Current Allocation and the EBM
The study’s results demonstrate substantial negative gaps comparing the complex’s
current personnel resource allocation practices and the Evidence-based Model’s proposed
allocations (see Table 4.8). This study focuses on the largest negative gaps between the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 104

complex’s current allocation levels and the EBM’s proposals that relate to improved student
achievement (see Table 4.8).
Certificated Teachers in the Pacific School Complex
The largest gaps are among certificated teachers in this study’s analysis. The EBM
proposes significantly more core teachers, specialist teachers, and instructional coaches.
Examinations of the three categories follow.
Core Teachers in the Pacific School Complex
Core teachers comprise the largest single gap in this study, with the complex lacking
nearly 42 teachers compared with the EBM proposals (see table 4.8). Disaggregated by school
level, the EBM suggests 29 more elementary teachers, five more middle school teachers, and
eight more high school teachers.
Specialist Teachers in the Pacific School Complex
Specialists instruct classes that extend beyond the core subjects like art, music, and
physical education. The gap for the specialist teachers comprises approximately 31 teachers (see
table 4.8). The EMB results indicate 31 more specialists in the elementary schools, four fewer in
the middle school, and four more in the high school. From the perspective of Clarke and Estes’
(2002) gap analysis framework, the core and specialist teacher shortage may stem from
organizational barriers: the Hawaii State Teachers Association may impose impediments to
moving teachers from one teaching line to another without the risk of substantial recourse
(Hawaii State Teachers Contract, 2014). Regardless, the EBM’s recommendation, along with the
historically poor academic performance on key academic achievements tests, provide compelling
reasons to adjust the current resource allocation practices to narrow this gap.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 105

Instructional Coaches in the Pacific School Complex
Instructional coaches provide an instrumental role implementing new instructional
practices by modeling, co-teaching, and offering feedback. The complex employs only two
instructional coaches in the intermediate and high school as compared to the EBM’s proposed
allocation of 10.58 (see Table 4.9). In the subsequent section (Proposed Trade-offs), this study
proposes ways of narrowing or closing this gap using realignment strategies of current resource
reallocations.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 106

Table 4.8: Gap Analysis: Pacific Complex Schools Certificated Teachers (SY 2013-2014)
Complex Total
Gap Revenue Difference
Position Counts
Current -
EB Position
Current -
EB
Title Current EB Cost

Core
teachers 238.00 279.61 (41.61) $55,104 ($2,292,877)
Specialist
teachers 34.00 64.73 (30.73) $55,104 ($1,693,346)
Coaches 18.00 28.58 (10.58) $55,104 ($583,000)
Total 290.00 372.92 (82.92) $55,104 (4,569,224)
* Red font in "Gap" and "Revenue Difference" columns indicates current staffing below EBM
proposals.
Academic Extra Help in the Pacific School Complex
Academic extra help personnel function as academic tutors, intervention supports, or
reading specialists, represent a significant gap between the complex’s current resource allocation
and the EBM’s recommendations (see Table 4.9). The complex’s school’s academic and
financial plan lacks funding evidence for academic extra help (State of Hawaii, 2014, Academic
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 107

and Financial Plan Narrative). This substantial gap between what the EBM suggests (45) and
what the complex currently employs (0) warrants further discussion (see Table 4.9). Therefore,
this gap will be addressed when resource allocation tradeoffs are proposed.
Table 4.9: Gap Analysis: Pacific Complex Schools Academic Extra Help (SY 2013-2014)
Complex Total
Gap Revenue Difference
Position Counts
Current -
EB Position
Current -
EB
Title Current EB Cost

Academic
Extra
Help 0.00 44.60 (44.60) $55,104 ($2,457,638)
* Red font in "Gap" and "Revenue Difference" columns indicates current staffing below EBM
proposals.
Positive Gaps Between Current Allocation and the EBM
This study also discovered several positive gaps where the sample complex allocates
more positions than the Evidence-based model recommends. The positive findings present an
area of interest. Unlike the substantial negative gaps discussed in the previous section, positive
gaps present an opportunity to reallocate resources. Positive gaps represent a substantial change
from the sample complex’s resource allocation deficits described previously, and may indicate
the complex’s motivations and values of specific position types. These positive gaps include
special education teachers, special education instructional aides, and assistant principals.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 108

Special Education Teachers in the Pacific School Complex
Special education teachers represent a sizable gap. The EBM recommends 38 fewer
special education teachers than the complex currently employs (see Table 4.10). Therefore the
district funds twice the special education teachers EBM suggests. Potential causes of this gap
involve the considerable time special education teachers require for IEP planning time. Many
special educators miss instructional time to attend required IEP meetings and progress
monitoring activities. Schools face substantial sanctions should they fail to maintain compliance
with Federal regulations. Therefore causes of the gap involve both organizational and
motivational origins. Additional planning time creates an organizational barrier reducing
effective use of the complex’s staff. Additionally, special educators may lack the motivation to
give up the additional prep time, which would present another roadblock to closing this gap.
Special educators represent the largest positive funding gap of this study with $2,088,422 in
excess resources beyond the EBMs recommendations.
Special Education Instructional Aides in the Pacific School Complex
Special education instructional aides work assisting special education students in small
groups or one-on-one settings. The sample complex employs 62 of these staff working in its six
schools, roughly three times what the EBM recommends, 19.05. Special education aides
represent the second largest positive funding gap of this study, with $1,241,685 being spent
beyond what the EBM would fund (see Table 4.10). This suggests that the large positive gap
results from a lack of knowledge and skills. The complex leaders may lack the understanding
that research does not support the use of special education instructional aides to close
achievement gaps. Additionally, the administration by assigning one-on-one aides impedes
students’ access to the least restrictive environment. Finally, the complex’s use of these positions
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 109

could result from the reliance of emergency hires filling instructional roles unprepared to manage
special education classrooms without addition support. Regardless, these roles represent a
significant variation of personnel resources
from the recommended allocations in the EB model.
Assistant Principals in the Pacific School Complex
Assistant principals provide principals support by managing the daily school operations.
The sample complex currently employs 18 assistant principals in its six schools, representing the
third largest positive finding of this study with 11.24 or 166% more than the EBM proposes (see
Table 4.10). The large number of assistant principals result from the increasing tasks of
classroom observations in the educator effectiveness system (EES) rather than a deference to
effective school leadership. This gap originates from organizational concerns. The EES structure
increases classroom observations threefold compared to the previous teacher evaluations.
Additional administrative demands include reviewing two unit plans from each teacher and
monitoring data teams. Whether these tasks warrant the need for the additional assistant
principals remains obscured by the fact as most were hired in anticipation of the aforementioned
changes. The complex’s allocation of the assistant principals represents another significant
departure from what the EBM suggests.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 110

Table 4.10: Gap Analysis: Pacific Complex Schools Overstaffed Compared to EBM (SY
2013-2014)
Complex Total
Gap Revenue Difference
Position Counts
Current -
EB Position
Current -
EB
Title Current EB Cost

Sped
Teachers 76.00 38.10 37.90 $55,104 $2,088,422
Sped
Aides 62.00 19.05 42.95 $28,910 $1,241,685
Assistant
Principals 18.00 6.76 11.24 $74,977 $842,783
* Red font in "Gap" and "Revenue Difference" columns indicates current staffing below EBM
proposals.

Proposed Trade – Offs for Realigning Allocation Closer to EBM
This section continues with proposed tradeoffs to reduce gaps between the sample
complex’s current resource allocations the Evidence-based Model’s recommendations. The
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 111

proposals include explanations to accomplish the tradeoffs and offer possible organizational
changes to assist in closing the gaps without additional resource allocation. The proposals
incorporate two principles of strategic budgeting supported by research to reallocate school
resources for improved student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2014). The two strategies include
1) the importance of prioritizing first best instruction in the core subject areas and 2) the value of
providing support for struggling students so that they can meet rigorous performance standards.
First Best Instruction
The data illustrate significant negative gaps between the sample complex’s resource
allocation practices and the EBMs proposals. These gaps reveal that instructional staffing deficits
affect the delivery of first best instruction in the complex’s core subject areas. Specifically, the
complex lacks core teachers, instructional coaches, and support for struggling students. By
reallocating complex resources, instructional coaches can provide teachers classroom support
modeling and co-teaching effective instructional strategies. Increasing the number of core
teachers reduces class size in important content areas and enables greater teacher-student
interactions. This section proposes resource shifts from positive gaps between the EBM’s
recommendations and the complex’s current allocations to fund the proposed changes.
More Core Teachers in the Pacific School Complex
If the excess 51.3 special education teachers are cut the ability to fund additional core
teachers improves significantly with the availability of $2,088,422 to hire additional core faculty,
instructional coaches, or academic support for struggling students (see Table 4.11). Another
strategy recommended for adding core teachers involves conducting credentialing analysis to
determine if any special education teachers possess core content certification. The sample
complex could then place those teachers who posses dual core and special education subjects
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 112

into core courses, converting its excess special education teachers into core teachers.
Credentialing analysis extends beyond the scope of this study, therefore core teachers the sample
complex may yield from this proposal remains unknown. However, the EBM’s proposed funding
for core teachers exceeds the sample complex’s current fiscal capabilities. Therefore,
instructional coaches and academic support may offer more cost effective solutions. The
complex may gain positions through reallocation, however the purpose of these
recommendations hopes to equip the sample complex with potential choices devoid of new or
additional funding.
More Instructional Coaches in the Pacific School Complex
The complex’s current allocation of Special Education instructional aides exceeds the
EBM proposal by 42.9 positions, which represents approximately 18 teaching positions. The
first tradeoff proposes cutting all 51.3 of these Special Education aides and reallocates the funds
into first best instruction with instructional coaches. The proposed trade-off still meets IEP
requirements as IEP Special Education aides are funded by district budgets, not school level
budgets. The sample complex could hire 8 additional instructional coaches 4 each for the
intermediate and high school to assist teachers with improved instructional strategies. The reason
for hiring three fewer instructional coaches than the EBM proposes stems from two possible
advantages when reallocating the staff. One, although this proposal falls short of the EBM
recommendations, the increased numbers of core content teachers should mitigate the need in the
near term. Two, some of the excess special educators may possess the knowledge and skills to
effectively assume instructional coaching roles. This strategy leaves the option open to the
school leadership to promote teachers to instructional coaches from within, or seek additional
supports through the hiring process (see Table 4.11).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 113

Adding Academic Extra Help Staff in the Pacific School Complex
The sample complex could benefit from reallocating resources to provide adequate
support to its struggling students to increase academic achievement. Should the complex enact
the previous tradeoff recommendation of cutting 42.9 special education instructional aides,
hiring eight instructional coaches, and adding 42 core teachers, be fulfilled, then the remaining
savings from cutting the aides and the excess assistant principals would yield 14 additional
teaching positions. This proposed tradeoff reallocates those 14 positions as academic extra help
staff, providing each complex school two such staff members to establish and maintain services
(see Table 4.11).
Another proposed tradeoff for increased academic extra help staff involves effective use
of the current schedule. This recommendation converts homeroom from an attendance only
function to add an academic component for students to receive additional teacher support. By
altering the bell schedule to include a slightly longer homeroom period, academic intervention
could occur. The sample complex can look to other HIDOE complexes implementing similar
strategies. One example involves altering their bell schedules for longer homerooms for student
advisories or homework help purposes. Another example involves college and career readiness
counseling. Each of the complex schools’ academic and financial plans discuss Advancement
Via Individual Determination (AVID) which is a separate class to prepare at-risk students for a
college-bound academic track. This class could be offered in the morning homeroom sessions
instead of a separate class. This suggestion aligns with the Complex’s high percentage of at-risk
students, and provides a proactive means of addressing intervention needs. This strategy remains
an ideal process providing academic support even with the addition of academic extra help staff.
Both of these tradeoffs provide academically struggling students with extra help early and often,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 114

ensuring them the opportunity to meet their academic potential. Although these proposals do not
completely eliminate the gap between current practices and the EBM’s recommendations, the
proposals do offer feasible and practical means for the complex narrow the gap.
Table 4.11: Pacific Complex Schools Tradeoff Summary
Position
Position
Cost Tradeoff Type
Number
cut/added Savings
CUTS
SpEd Teachers $55,104 Position Cuts 37.9 $2,088,422
SpEd Instructional
Aides $28,910 Position Cuts 42.95 $1,241,685
Assistant Principals $74,977 Position Cuts 11.24 $842,783
Total Savings $4,173,890
TRADES
Core Teachers $55,104 New Hires 42 $2,369,472
Instructional Coaches $55,104 New Hires 10 $551,040
Academic Extra Help $55,104 New Hires 14 $771,960
Total Expenditures $3,691,472

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 115

Summary: Research Question #3
Proceeding with the suggested tradeoffs would align the complex’s spending patterns
with the Evidence-based Model’s recommendations. Additionally, these proposals may increase
the effectiveness of the district’s first best instruction and may increase its ability to provide
intervention strategies for the complex’s at risk students. Trading surplus special education
teachers, special education instructional aides, and excess assistant principals for instructional
coaches, core teachers, academic extra help staff provide the complex revenue neutral paths to
increase recommended staffing. Lastly, trialing bell schedule changes like adding a homeroom
period to the school day and converting dually certified special education teachers back into the
core content classrooms offer students the instructional support they require at no additional cost
to the complex.
Summary
This chapter examined the results of this study. First, the chapter presented an overview
of the sample complex’s demographics and student achievement data. Then, the chapter offered
answers to each of the study’s three research questions. The sample complex’s current resource
allocation process, gaps between those existing process, the complex’s desired process, and the
proposed pattern of the Evidence-based Model followed. Finally, the chapter concluded with
proposals offering reallocation strategies using areas of positive gap, where the district spends
more than the EBM recommends, offsetting reallocation tradeoffs to close negative gaps, where
the district spends far less than what the EBM proposes. Chapter five will address the
implications of these findings and how they might inform future research.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 116

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to compare available personnel resources at a Complex
school area in Hawaii to what the research findings deem best practices to effectively student
achievement to uncover any gaps. The Evidence-based Model (EBM), a strategic template that
transforms research on student achievement into effective resource allocation patterns for
prototypical schools (Odden & Picus, 2014), was used as the primary framework for a
comparison with the sample complex’s current and desired human resource allocation systems.
An additional objective was to understand how the resources available compare with models of
resource allocation and use models such as Odden’s top Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (2009). The two purposes of this study combined to examine if the Pacific Complex
Schools’ personnel resource allocation practices aligned with research supporting effective
resource allocation (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2014) and to offer suggestions to reduce any
resulting gaps from examining the resource allocation strategies.
This study included publicly available data from several levels of the Hawaii school
funding system process upon which to base its findings. The researcher collected, examined, and
analyzed data from the state level (Superintendent’s Reports, State School Budgets, Hawaii
Weighted Student Formula, Hawaii Strategic Plans, Educator Effectiveness System), the
complex level (Complex Student Enrollment Data, Complex Student Performance Data,
Complex Academic and Financial Plans, Complex Support Staffing) and school level (Academic
and Financial Plans, Financial Plan Narratives, School Status Improvement Reports, School
Trend Data, School Budgets, School Master Schedules, School Teaching Assignments). The
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 117

aforementioned documents, the scope of which not evident in previous studies, provided the
researcher with data, when disaggregated, allowing the research to ascertain answers to this
study’s three research questions. The comprehensive nature of the data contained in the
documents mitigated concerns regarding the researcher’s inability to obtain permission to
include complex and school leadership interviews. Although the inclusion of qualitative data
from leadership interviews would have provided additional answers to questions as to why
personnel resource allocations were made, the depth and breadth of information contained in the
documents collected and analyzed provided significant and multiple measures for answering how
the Pacific Complex allocated their resources. The findings remain within the base of the data.
This study focused on three broad theories of action derived from the review of the
existing literature on effective school personnel resource allocation. These three theories of
action include; (1) Provide schools the appropriate number of core academic teachers to keep
class sizes within the range suggested by the research to educate students to high performance
standards, (2) Develop a school-wide focus on a professional development program to use data-
driven decisions to drive high quality instruction for all students, and (3) Provide additional
classroom resources and support for struggling students.
In order to analyze personnel and resource allocation gaps, the framework of gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008) was the selected method to evaluate the EBM to compare the proposed
model of resource allocation with Pacific School Complex’s current use of resources. Clark and
Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) present an effective problem-solving framework for educational
settings, a gap analysis, whereby one examines the goals, the current performance, and the gap
resulting between the difference between the goal and the current performance. The analysis
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 118

includes presumed causes and solutions within the domains of knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational factors.
The Sample
The sample complex, the Pacific School Complex, is located in a suburban area in
Hawaii’s island of Oahu, within the limits of the city and county of Honolulu. Pacific School
Complex, founded in 1957, educates approximately 5,700 K-12 students in a diversely populated
area on Oahu’s leeward coast. This complex is comprised of four elementary schools, one
intermediate school, and one high school. All schools within the Pacific School Complex follow
the state’s common school calendar. Approximately 14% of the complex students received
special education services and about 77% qualified as economically disadvantaged students.
Limitations
This study’s limitations included its small sample size that made the findings less
generalizable to other complexes or beyond the state of Hawaii, especially districts with different
demographics. In addition, this study did not include interviews with complex level or school
level leaders in the human resource allocation practices data collection process because of
bureaucratic hurdles. Finally, the time constraints of this study made its findings susceptible to
volatility. This study was conducted over nine months of substantial organizational change with
HIDOE implementing a new educator effectiveness system and piloting new statewide student
achievement assessments. For the above reasons, this study may not accurately reflect sample
complex’s typical personnel resource allocation patterns.
Summary of Findings
This study explored and found answers to three research questions examining the
connection between the sample complex’s personnel resource allocation practices and how to
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 119

effectively reallocate current patterns to improve student academic achievement per the research
literature.
Research Question #1
How are human resources allocated across Pacific School Complex and its schools?
Research literature supports four key elements for schools to improve student academic
achievement. The four critical components include leadership, assessment and data-based
decision-making, collaboration, and professional development.
Leadership
The study’s findings related to leadership and personnel resource allocation found
strengths in the complex leaders’ ability to collaborate and distribute the schools’ academic goals
and offering leadership opportunities for staff to share in the creation of the schools’ vision. The
complex’s areas for growth include hiring and retention practices, often stymied by bureaucratic
processes and struggles with the unionized aspects of selecting competent candidates.
Assessment and Data-based Decision-making
The findings regarding assessment and data-based decision-making demonstrated the
sample complex schools use assessments and data common to many successful schools that
experienced improved student achievement by establishing school-level data teams to track
student performance and guide instructional needs. Although the new processes provide
consistent data, teacher understanding of what to do with the data and how to leverage the
information to inform instruction remains challenging without a comprehensive training program
to train teachers to analyze and implement strategies based upon the data.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 120

Collaboration
This study found collaboration a strength in the complex schools’ academic and financial
plans established Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) (DuFour, 2004) to provide avenues
for data/student work analysis, planning, refinement of curriculum maps/pacing guides, and
professional development. Other schools in the complex focused on intervention strategies. The
lack of complex wide training for collaboration leaves the PLCs operating without a unified
structure or purpose from one school to another, an area in need of growth.
Professional Development
The complex’s professional development strategy varied from school to school, and
focused on different strategies from elementary, intermediate, and high school levels.
Considerable professional development agendas involved trainings on the Educator
Effectiveness System (EES), the state’s new teacher evaluation program, at the expense of
reduced trainings for Common Core Standards implementation sessions. Although the complex’s
professional development programs and instructional coaches aligned with the research findings
of providing ongoing professional development, they lacked connections between the complex’s
academic improvement goals with inconsistent availability of the mentors/coaches.
Research Question #2:
Is there a gap between the current human resource allocation practices in the Pacific
School Complex and what the research suggests is most effective? The study’s findings found
several significant gaps between the current human resource allocation practices in the Pacific
School Complex and what the research suggests is most effective. The study uncovered
significant shortfalls in the areas of core content teachers, academic support staff, and specialist
teachers. Overstaffed positions included special education teacher, special education
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 121

instructional aides, and assistant principals. These data provided the basis for examining the gaps
between the sample complex’s staffing patterns, its stated academic goals, and proposed
personnel allocations from the Evidence-based Model (EBM) for effectively increasing student
achievement. In addition to the above variances, many of the complex’s personnel resources
allocation patterns fell within a slight range of the EBM’s recommended staffing patterns.
Research Question #3
How can human resources in the Pacific School Complex be strategically re-allocated to
align with strategies that improve student achievement? The gaps discovered through this
study’s analysis of the sample complex’s personnel resource allocation patterns, revealed
through the second research question, offers insights on how to reallocate the staffing to meet
academic improvement needs. The proceeding proposals provide revenue neutral means of
balancing the understaffed and overstaffed positions through a tradeoff process. The suggested
tradeoffs would more closely align the complex’s spending patterns with the Evidence-based
Model’s recommendations. Additionally, these proposals could increase the effectiveness of the
district’s first best instruction and could improve its ability provide intervention strategies for the
complex’s at risk students, two principles of strategic budgeting supported by research to
reallocate school resources for improved student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2014).
The first recommendation involves strengthening first best instruction by trading surplus
special education teachers, special education instructional aides, and excess assistant principals
for instructional coaches, core teachers, and academic extra help staff. Each of the additional
staff provides student level support in the classroom, for their teachers, and for extended learning
periods either after school or summer breaks. Piloting bell schedule changes like homeroom
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 122

period for study help and converting dually certified special education teachers to core content
classrooms instructors offer students additional supports without additional cost to the complex.
Although the study’s proposals do not eliminate the gaps between the complex’s current
personnel resource allocation practices and the suggested patterns of the EBM, they provide a
substantial change in narrowing the gap, with the changes aligned with research-best best
practices to increase student academic achievement.
Implications for Practice
Implications for the Sample Complex
This study provided the sample complex information regarding their current personnel
resource allocation patterns and compared it with the research literature. The study’s list of
research backed structures, policies, practices aligned with improving student achievement can
offer guidelines for the complex to measure its academic and financial plans efforts to improve
student academic achievement. The complex can review the resource allocation gap analysis to
explore how the complex’s patterns match their academic plans desired plans and uncover any
gaps in their execution of their plans. Similarity, the complex can implement the EBM for each
academic and financial planning session to narrow the complex’s gaps with the EBM’s
recommendations. The revenue neutral options offered in this study could provide guidance in
closing the staffing shortages and overages by prioritizing its own initiatives. Lastly, the complex
could use the EBM and this study’s process to ensure effective use of resources in light of recent
budgetary challenges and an uncertain financial future.
Implications for Other Hawaii Complexes
Other Hawaii school complexes can use this study’s findings to benchmark their own
personnel resource allocation patterns against the sample districts choices and the EBM’s
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 123

recommendations. Many Hawaii complexes share similarities in demographics with the sample
complex allowing these districts to use the data and findings to guide their personnel resource
allocation decisions. The other Hawaii complexes can implement the same research-based
strategies proposed in this study to construct their academic and financial plans to meet both
human resource needs and student performance improvement plans.
Implications for Policy Makers
This study offers policy makers an understanding of the challenges complex level and
school level leaders face in balancing the academic needs of their student with the bureaucratic
processes of the hiring processes and teaching assignments. The sample complex’s inability to
replace overstaffed positions to staff critical core content vacancies illuminate a serious dilemma
for effective complex and school leadership. Policy makers can use this study to craft legislation
that permits staffing changes to meet the instructional needs of the complex while balancing the
rights of the teachers. The policy makers, through this study, have a list of research-based
personnel research allocation tools (c.f. EBM), leadership practices, and school-level initiatives
to inform such legislation to ensure the best practices find its way into the new laws. The policy
makers could incentivize the use of the personnel resource allocation patterns that effectively
manage Hawaii’s resources while meeting the educational expectations.
Recommendations for Future Research
Sample Complex
The researcher recommends two area of future research for the sample complex. One, the
complex should investigate the process of converting the over abundance of special educators to
teach in their critical shortage content areas. Considering the confluence of the largest positive
(far too many special educators) and negative (far too few core teachers) gaps discovered in the
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 124

EBM’s recommendations for this study, this suggestion to investigate teacher conversions
warrants exploration. Also, since improved student academic performance establishes a key
expectation in the sample complex’s academic and financial plan, and incorporating first best
instruction comprises a key principal in allocating human resources to boost student
achievement, investigating this potential could maximize student performance and personnel
funding allocations. Two, the complex could identify the excess special educators who possess
the requisite skills to function as instructional coaches to recruit them into the vacant positions.
Student and staff would benefit from a teaching corps that ensures both children and faculty have
the opportunity to reach their maximum potential.
School Finance Researchers
School finance researchers should build on this study’s findings by researching other
Hawaii complexes using the EBM to study whether the other complexes effectively allocate
personnel resources as recommended by the EBM. The school finance researchers’ findings
would add to the scant school finance analyses investigating Hawaii public schools. The State of
Hawaii warrants a public school investigation using the EBM to guide state level, complex level,
and school level leader to make effective and prudent personnel resource allocation decisions
given the high cost of living in the state and the limited capacity to recover from inefficient use
of school finances.
Another avenue of future school finance research could involve determining who makes
the key personnel resource allocations decisions and at what level are they made. Such an inquiry
would examine whether state, complex, or school level leaders control human resources and
could include how the administration’s union (HGEA) and the teachers’ union (HSTA) assist or
hinder effective personnel resource allocation. Findings from such studies could inform both
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 125

policy makers and complex leaders as to the rationale upon which staffing decisions are made
and to what extent the complex and schools’ leadership could make strategic resource decisions.

Summary
Since the economic meltdown of 2008, school budgets have faced greater scrutiny.
Odden and Picus’ (2014) Evidence-based Model provides a comprehensive model to assure
personnel resource allocation patterns align with fiscal responsible means to support student
learning. The State of Hawaii suffered a severe economic depression akin to the Great
Depression resulting in significant cuts to public K-12 education and furloughs of educational
staff. This experience demonstrates the need for effective school finance management, especially
in the most costly area, personnel resources. This study examined the personnel resource
allocation patterns of one sample complex, and compared its patterns with the recommendations
of the EBM. Proposals offered in this study attempted to narrow the staffing gaps through a
series of tradeoffs by shifting resources from areas of overstaffing to areas of critical shortage
need. The sample complex could benefit from enacting the proposals offered in this study, and
could align their practices with those deemed most effective in improving student academic
achievement by the research literature. Other complexes can benefit from this study by reviewing
their own personnel resources practices and comparing them with the sample complex’s patterns
and modify their allocation choices to improve their processes. Lastly, policy makers can
leverage this study’s findings to craft legislation to focus on the effective use of school finance to
meet fiduciary responsibilities and meet organizational student learning objectives. The balance
of incentives and sanctions could encourage the broad use of effective personnel resource
allocation tools, like the Evidence-based Model, to achieve the goal of Hawaii’s public schools:
preparing children to reach their aspirations through college, career, and citizenship.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 126

References
Act 51: Reinventing Education Act of 2004 as amended by HB2002, HD2, SD1, CD. The Senate
22nd Legislature, 2004 State of Hawaii S.B. NO. 3228
Aiginger, K. (2010, May 25). The great recession vs. the great depression: Stylized facts on
siblings that were given different foster parents. Economics-Ejournal, 4(2010-18), 1-41.
Ash, K. (2009, September 30). Hawaii braces for educational impact of furloughs. Education
Week, 29 (5), 15-16.
Baker, E. L. (2005). Technology and effective assessment systems. In J. L. Herman & E. H.
Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement
(Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 104, Issue 2, pp. 358-
378). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Distributed by Blackwell
Publishing.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., &Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, Oct.). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Fieldwork. Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Fourth edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice,
and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chenoweth, K. (2009, September). It can be done, it's being done, and here's how. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(1), 38-43. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 127

Chorpita, B. & Donkervoet, C. (2005). Implementation of the Felix consent decree in Hawaii:
The impact of policy and practice development efforts of service delivery. In R. G. Steele
& M. C. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of mental health services for children, adolescents,
and families (pp. 317-332). New York: Kluwer.
Christensen, M., Horn, M., & Johnson, W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation
will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn. (pp. 148-176). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles:
Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern
California.
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhenek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes how professional
learning communities respond when kids don't learn. Bloomington, Indiana: National
Educational Service.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 128

Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Eichengreen, B. (2010, September). The great recession and the great depression: Reflections
and lessons. Central Bank of Chile.
Fermanich, M., Turner Mangan, M., Odden, A., Picus, L., Gross, B., Rudo, Z. (2006).
Washington Learns: Successful School District Study. Study prepared for Washington
Learns, September 2006.
Garet, M. S. Porter, A., Desimone, L. Birman, B. & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of vision,
mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwoodand P.
Hallinger & Colleagues, (Eds.). The handbook of educational leadership and
administration (2nd ed.).Dordrecht, South Africa: Kluwer.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S. S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A., & Wayman, J. C.
(2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. IES
practice guide. NCEE 2009-4067. National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance,76.
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges’ Good
Intentions and Harm our Children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Hanushek, E. (2006). September 2007. Education Next, Summer 2007, 73-78.
Harold K. L. Castle Foundation. (October, 2012). Instructional leadership team initiative: Kailua
complex case study. Honolulu, HI: Storyline Retrieved from http://castlefoundation.org
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 129

Hawaii Department of Education (2012). Highly qualified/highly effective teacher and
administrator (Equity plan for effective teaching and leading). State Department of
Education Office of the Superintendent, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/OHR%20Employment/Equity_Plan
_Effective_Teaching_Leading_Mar2012.pdf
Hawaii Department of Education (2014). School documents online. Office of Information
Technology Services, Information Systems Services Branch, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved
from https://iportal.k12.hi.us/sdo/afpviewp.aspx
Hawaii Department of Education (2012). Strategic plan 2011-2018 (2012 update). State
Department of Education Office of the Superintendent, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/VisionForSuccess/AdvancingEducation/StrategicPla
n/Pages/home.aspx
Hawaii Department of Education. (2010). Superintendent’s 21st Annual Report: Overcoming
Challenges. State Systems Accountability Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.
http://arch.k12.hi.us.state/superintendent_report/annual_report.html
Hawaii Department of Education. (2012) Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report. State Systems
Accountability Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.
http://arch.k12.hi.us.state/superintendent_report/annual_report.html
Hawaii Superintendent’s Strategic Plan. State Department of Education Office of the
Superintendent, RS11-0712, January 2011.
Hawaii’s Race To The Top Executive Summary. State of Hawaii Department of Education, June
2010.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 130

Hess, F. M., & Squire, J. P. (2009). “Diverse Providers” in action: School restructuring in
Hawai`i. AEI Future of American Education Project. Working paper. 1-44.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student Achievement through Staff Development (3rd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. S. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work:
Improving teaching and learning. Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Levin, J., Chambers, J., Epstein, D., Mills, N., Archer, M., Wang, A., & Lane, K. (2013, June).
Evaluation of hawaii’s weighted student formula. American Institute for Research. San
Mateo, CA. Retrieved from www.air.org.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., & Rotherham, A. (2010). Conflicting missions and unclear
results: Lessons from the education stimulus funds (Bellwether Education Partners, pp. 1-
28).
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, K. H. (2011, October). Transformation or decline? using tough times to create higher
performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 42-46. Retrieved from
http://www.kappanmagazine.com
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 131

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. & Roza, M. (2006). Understanding student-weighted allocation as a means to greater
school resource equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 39–62
National Education Association. (December 2012). Rankings of the States 2012 and Estimates of
School Statistics 2013.
http://www.nea.org/assets/img/content/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates-2013_(2).pdf
No Child Left Behind. PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1425
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Fifth edition. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293-329.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. (2008, June). Strategic management of human capital. Retrieved from:
http://www.smhc-cpre.org.
Odden, A. (2009). Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A cost framework for
professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-74.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 132

Odden, A., 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., Femanich, M., & Picus, L. (2003, February). A state of the art approach to school
finance adequacy in Kentucky (Lawrence o. Picus and Associates, pp. 1-52).
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., et al. (2005). An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy
in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Legislature.
Odden, A.R. and Picus, L.O. (2014). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 5th Edition. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011, October 7). New school year brings steep cuts in state funding
for schools. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Picus, L., 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 (Lawrence o. Picus and Associates, pp. 1-
54).
Race To The Top (2011). Retrieved December 23, 2013, from www.ed.gov.
Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. Center
for Performance Assessment, 20.
Rice, J., Monk, D., & Zhang, J. (2010). School finance: An overview. In Brewer, D. and
McEwan, P. (eds.) Economics of Education. pp 214-220. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Roza, M., & Funk, S. (2010, January 25). Have states disproportionately cut education budgets
during ARRA? early findings (Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington, pp. 1-6).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 133

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
State of Hawaii Department of Education. (2013). Committee on weights: Weighted student
formula for schools: Office of fiscal services. Retrieved from
https://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/Minutes.nsf/c54b06cccb384eda0a25659f007e3f81/
cf1dd6abc300f3d80a257bff00022af1/$FILE/08202013_FIC_VB_Discussion-
Committee%20Action%20on%20the%20Committee%20on%20Weights%20VIII%20Re
commendation%20on%20the%20Weighted%20Student%20Formula%20.pdf
State of Hawaii Department of Education. (2011). School accountability: School status and
improvement report [Accountability resource center of Hawaii data set].
State of Hawaii Department of Education. (2013). Superintendent’s 23rd annual report: Office of
the superintendent systems accountability office. RS-13-1271. [Accountability resource
center of Hawaii data set].
State of Hawaii Department of Education. (2014). SY 2013-2014 online bridge hawaii state
assessments. Student assessment section. Retrieved from
http://sas.sao.k12.hi.us/STATE/SAO/SASWebsite.nsf
Statement by Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi on Governor Neil Abercrombie’s release of
$67M in Hurricane Relief Funds. Retrieved December 22, 2013 from
http://lilinote.k12.hi.us.
Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science
teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(9),
963-980.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 134

Tilly, D. (2006). Response to intervention: An overview. what is it? why do it? is it worth it. The
Special Edge, 19(2), 1-5.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do
some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving
low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 135

Appendix A
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009)
1. Understanding the Academic Performance Challenge: The instructional staff and
leadership team conducts initial data analysis, reviews summative end of year testing
results, then analyzes data that can lead to change, and identifies the nature and scope of
achievement gaps to bridge over the course of the year;
2. Setting Ambitious Goals: Educational and instructional leaders set higher academic goals
for all students, with specific, numeric goals that are ambitious. The educational
stakeholders embrace a belief in student achievement that seems too high compared to
most traditional approaches;
3. Adopt a New Research-based Curriculum: Educational leaders create a vision of effective
instruction or pedagogy aligned with the new instructional materials for increased rigor
and academic achievement. Schools can use existing textbook budgets to accomplish this
step;
4. Implement Data-based Decision Making: This step requires benchmark testing (generally
quarterly) and formative assessments (for shorter curriculum units, either week-long or
month-long instructional periods) to plan curriculum and evaluate instructional goals.
This strategy allows teachers to tailor instruction to exactly what students know and do
not know;
5. Institute Extensive, Long-term Professional Development: This strategy is required for
the new curriculum and data based decision making to train educators to turn formative
assessments into instructional strategies and analyze the common end-of-unit
assessments. The four essential resources required to implement this strategy of effective
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 136

professional development include: 1) planning and prep time during the school day, 2)
summer institutes for teachers or other pupil-free learning opportunities, 3) instructional
coaches in schools, and 4) adequate funding for training and trainers;
6. Efficient and Effective Use of School Time: Although traditionally considered a fixed
resource, educational leaders can implement strategies to use time more effectively and
efficiently. An example of implementing this strategy involves revise schedules to reduce
seven and eight period day schedules to six periods and turn saved teaching resources
into coaches and tutors, thus expanding instructional minutes;
7. Provide Multiple Extra-help Strategies for Struggling Students: This step requires staff
dedicated to assisting all students in reaching academic proficiency. The additional
learning time required to meet the academic goals should occur during double periods
during the regular school day, during extended-day programs, during summer school, and
during extensive assistance with special needs students;
8. Create Collaborative Professional Learning Communities: This strategy evolves from all
the collaborative work of analyzing state tests, reviewing formative assessments and
creating instructional units, assessing end-of-unit common summative assessments to
identify effective/ineffective teachers, and creating standards-based curriculum units.
This step leads strongly held expectations for high levels of student learning and taking
responsibility for results of instruction. This step does not negate the leadership
importance of the principal. Instead this strategy empowers teachers to assume
instructional leadership in their classrooms and departments;
9. Investing in Personnel for Widespread Distributed Instructional Leadership: To
accomplish this step, schools must attract and retain the best teachers (e.g. team leaders,
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 137

coordinators, instructional coaches, etc.), school principals, district personnel, and
effective school board members to tap their combined expertise and knowledge.
10. Use of External Professional Knowledge: This strategy involves observing the successful
practices at other school organizations, the use of professional consultants, examining
research-based curriculum programs, and implementing practice-based research findings
to improve student academic performance.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 138

Appendix B
11 Elements that Created High-performing Schools Duke (2006)
1. Collaboration: Expectations for teachers to work together at various levels to plan,
monitor student progress, and provide assistance to struggling students;
2. Data-driven decision making: Educational leaders used data on student achievement on a
regularly to support decisions regarding resource allocation, student needs, teacher
effectiveness, and other instructional matters;
3. Leadership: Principals and teacher leaders created a continual school improvement
process climate;
4. Scheduling: Schools’ daily schedule adjustments enabled increased time for academic
work, particularly in the critical areas of reading and mathematics;
5. Staff development: Teachers participated in continuing training that supported and
sustained school improvement objectives;
6. Assessment: Regular assessments determined student progress in their mastery of
required academic content;
7. Assistance: Prompt assistance provided struggling students with additional academic
supports;
8. Organizational structure: Adjustments to the schools’ organizational structures including
roles, teams, and planning processes supported efforts to raise student achievement;
9. High expectations: Educational and instructional leaders expected high-quality student
academic performance;
10. Alignment: Assessments aligned curriculum content, and curriculum content aligned with
instruction;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 139

11. Parent involvement: School personnel kept parents apprised of their children's progress
and enlisted parents to support continued school improvement efforts.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 140

Appendix C
Six Methodological and Organizational Lessons (Miles et al., 2004)
1. Districts invest significant, but widely varying, resources in professional development.
Numerous departments managed these resources (p. 17): Ranging from 2.2-6.9%. Most
of these were far larger professional development expenditures than the district
considered when reporting costs;
2. Estimates of spending should explicitly account for cost of contracted time for
professional development (p. 18): Since professional development costs signify the
importance of this investment, districts should include the cost of professional
development days in spending totals. Comparisons in total dollars present challenges
because the sums are large and vary from one district to another. Examining the
percentage of operating budget ranging from 2.2% to 4.1% in the districts studied yields a
better comparison;
3. District spending to provide teacher time for professional development is significant, but
highly variable in size and composition (p. 19): The five districts studied spent between
21% and 51% of their professional development funds to purchase teacher time (Miles et
al., 2004, p. 19). The above percentages represent the buying of time through stipends
and release time by allocating funds for substitute teachers. Again, a direct dollar
comparison is not feasible due to the district sizes and administration cost variability;
4. Most districts target professional development toward school-level capacity building, but
none had formal strategies for coordinating or integrating these investments (p. 22). Four
out of five districts spent more funds to build school-level capacity and less to build
individual teacher (Miles et al., 2004). The results found an inequity of allocated
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 141

resources at the school level, and school site administrators struggled to effectively
integrate resources from a variety of sources;
5. Districts use common delivery strategies for professional development, but in different
mixes: more deliberately (p. 23). Total spending levels of the five districts studied mask
large discrepancies in the level of investment in the different kinds of professional
development offered. The variety of strategies employed by a district may reflect a blend
of past practice, a history of politics and, possibly a deliberate strategy for some; and
6. Districts rely on external sources of funding for almost half of professional development
that is provided (p. 24): “All five districts relied heavily on non-local revenue sources to
fund their professional development programs” (Miles et al., 2004, p. 24). Federal
funding sources such as Title I accounted for approximately 33% of their professional
development budgets of four of the five districts studied. Grants from corporations and
foundations ranged from 5-17% of the districts’ funding.

PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 142

Appendix D
Nine Core Components of Professional Learning Communities (DuFour et al., 2004)
1. Embracing a schools-wide, fundamental belief that all students will learn (clarity of
purpose);
2. Teachers communicate high expectations for student achievement (collaborative culture);
3. Teachers focus on learning rather than on teaching (collective inquiry into best practice
and current reality);
4. Working smarter, not harder (action orientation);
5. Effective common formative assessments drive inquiry (commitment to continuous
improvement);
6. All educational stakeholders work collaboratively on matters directly related to quality
teaching and learning (strong principals who empower teachers);
7. Teachers collaborate to monitor and examine student learning each day in individual
classrooms (focus on results);
8. Protocols provide guidance for students understand their learning targets and the criteria
to monitor the quality of their work (commitment to face adversity, conflict and anxiety);
and
9. The use of norms provides structure to collaborative teams and students (the same
guiding phrase).
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 143

Appendix E
Core Instructional and Non-instructional Elements (Odden et al., 2003)
1. Core academic teachers: The licensed classroom teachers tasked with teaching the
school’s core academic subjects (e.g. reading/English/language arts, mathematics,
science, history/social studies). In an elementary school, core academic teachers usually
consist of the teachers in the self-contained classroom. In middle schools, high schools,
and any other departmentalized school, core teachers would consist of those teachers who
are members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies
departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes
in these subjects. The cost of a core academic teacher is calculated by multiplying the
number of full-time equivalent (FTE) by the teachers’ salary and benefits;
2. Specialist and elective teachers: These are licensed teachers who teach non-core
academic classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers such as:
a. Specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical education teaches, who
usually provide regular classroom teachers with planning and preparation time;
b. Teachers who provide instruction in a subject area that represents the special
academic focus of the school. For example, if a school offers a foreign language
magnet program, the foreign language teacher would fall into this category;
c. Vocational education teachers;
d. Drivers’ education teachers;
e. Licensed librarians or media specialists;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 144

3. Extra help: This category mainly consists of licensed teachers using a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to learn a
school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers deploy are
generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom. Teachers deploying
the following instructional strategies are included in this expenditure element:
a. Tutors who are licensed teachers and provide one-on-one help to students.
Tutoring is most often used in elementary schools;
b. Extra help laboratories, which generally provide extra help in reading and
mathematics for students struggling to meet academic performance standards
through additional classes. Such extra classes are used most often in secondary
schools;
c. Resource rooms that provide small groups of students with extra help, usually
remedial reading or remedial mathematics that are not directly related to the
school’s regular curriculum or standards. Resource rooms have been the typical
use of compensatory, bilingual, and special education funds;
d. Inclusion teachers who assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed
students who have physical or mental disabilities, or some learning problem.
These students generally have less severe disabling conditions;
e. Teachers of English as a second language (ESL) who work with non-English
speaking students to teach them English;
f. Self-contained special education classrooms in which teachers and instructional
aides work with severely disabled students for most or all of the school day.
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 145

These teachers provide a modified version of the school’s curriculum or other
learning goals required by their students’ Individualized Learning Programs;
g. Extended day or summer school programs. This strategy provides students with
extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum;
h. District alternative programs located in a school. These alternative programs serve
students who have trouble learning in traditional classrooms. These programs are
often administratively and instructionally separate from the host school although
they may be located in the school building or reported as part of the school’s
operating budget;
4. Professional development. This expenditure element includes the spending on the
professional development of a school’s staff. The expenditures include the costs of the
teacher time for professional development; trainers and coaches; professional
development administration; materials. Equipment, and facilities; travel and
transportation; and tuition and conference fees;
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff. Included here are licensed and non-licensed
instructional staffs that support a school’s instructional program, such as program
coordinators, (e.g. curriculum or technology coordinators), substitutes, and instructional
aides other than those working in self-contained special education classrooms;
6. Instructional material and equipment. This category includes books, instructional
supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and software for all instructional
programs, including regular education and all extra help programs;
PERSONNEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION 146

7. Student support. This expenditure element consists of school based student support staff
such as counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, attendance monitors, or parent
liaisons, as well as school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics.
8. Administration. This expenditure element consists of all expenditures pertaining to the
administration of a school, including the principal, assistant principal(s), clerical staff,
administrative office supplies, equipment and technology, and school reserve funds;
9. Operations and maintenance. This expenditure element includes the cost of staff,
supplies, and equipment for custodial services, food services, and security, as well as
utilities and building and grounds maintenance charged to a school.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This mixed methods study analyzed school resource allocation patterns of a single Hawaii school complex with four elementary schools, one intermediate school, and one high school in the Leeward district on Oahu. This study aimed to determine whether the sample complex’s resources could be reallocated using the Evidence-based Model as a comparative framework to increase efficiency and better support student achievement. The complex’s current resource allocation patterns and those patterns recommended by the Evidence-based Model were analyzed conducting a Gap analysis to measure the differences between. ❧ This study’s findings revealed that the sample complex is understaffed in comparison to the Evidence-based Model. Particularly the complex lacks core teachers, instructional coaches, and support for struggling students. Recommendations offered proposals including explanations to accomplish tradeoffs and other possible organizational changes to assist in closing the gaps without additional resource allocation. Several positive gaps were discovered where the sample complex allocates more positions than the Evidence-based model recommends. Positive gaps present an opportunity to reallocate resources without the need of additional funding. This study’s proposed recommendations would allow for closer alignment of the sample complex’s resource allocations with those suggested by the Evidence-based Model.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Epstein, John A. (author)

Core Title Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/29/2015

Defense Date 01/05/2015

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

Tag allocation,evidence based model,finance,funding,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource,School

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 jae03753@yahoo.com,jaepstei@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-527193

Unique identifier UC11297439

Identifier etd-EpsteinJoh-3143.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-527193 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EpsteinJoh-3143.pdf

Dmrecord 527193

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Epstein, John A.

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