Administrators may face difficult decisions related to reallocating resources–including human resources–to support school reform. "A plan for school improvement will be no stronger than the allocation of resources that are attached to the plan," observes National Staff Development Council executive director Dennis Sparks.¹

Creating and maintaining a focus on improvements in teaching and learning will likely require major evaluations and shifts in how monetary resources are used, how personnel are distributed, and which programs are supported. The school district can play an important role in making certain schools have the resources and flexibility needed to implement the reform process. Ed Tobia, program associate in SEDL’s CSRD program, says it is imperative that the central office has personnel who are familiar with the reform model that is being adopted by a school, and who understand the model’s requirements and its role in the school’s overall reform program. For example, the curriculum coordinator of a medium-sized school district, admits that she often "runs interference," convincing the superintendent of a school’s need to reallocate resources to meet the needs of its reform program.

Superintendents can help principals coordinate the funds they already receive, such as Goals 2000 money, Title I allocations, Title VII funding, and state staff development funding. Superintendents and principals must often seize resource opportunities quickly and be aware of all the options available to them by thinking "outside of the box." Karen Louis and Matthew Miles advise that "congruence with vision is the critical screen," and that it is important to view assistance and coordination as ways to maximize resources. They write, "Good assistance and coordination will lead to better decisions on staffing, educational practices, and materials–and to a more productive process."²

Personnel

Allen Odden, a professor of educational administration, stresses that effective resource allocation may be a two-to-four year process, and suggests that schools analyze which personnel are necessary to implement a reform program.³ He notes that "Traditional schools have additional staff members, who, over time, have come to be assumed as necessary to run a school."

To support the new instructional focus that is being undertaken, a reform program may require the school to reallocate resources that have supported aides, paraprofessionals, and other specialists. This is often difficult to do because it means potentially giving up staff members, such as aides and specialists who are well liked and whose roles have been valued, to make room for new positions needed by a reform program, such as on-site facilitators or coordinators, or to acquire funds to implement a reform model. Also, many of the national models rely on inclusion of all students in a regular classroom, doing away with many of the positions such as Title I reading or math teacher.

Time

Time is often the resource scarcest to schools and the resource most difficult to obtain. Says Hord, "One problem schools face is they do not have time to do the kind of work needed to implement reform. We expect that they’ll be flying the plane and designing and building it at the same time. Finding time for planning and implementing change is a real barrier, a real problem."

Compounding the problem is that time needed for reform may conflict with district rules and regulations, parent and educator expectations, and collective bargaining agreements. It is a necessity, however, to provide teachers with time for adequate professional development, time to reflect upon the changes required for comprehensive school reform, and time to engage in collegial relationships. Katzenmeyer and Moller write, "If the time spent in meetings on school change is productive and fulfilling for teachers, they will contribute toward school reform." They point out that productive meetings aren’t accidental, but "are the result of someone taking time to plan carefully for expected outcomes."⁴

Schools involved in comprehensive school reform across the country have found they must be creative to meet the challenges of finding time for school reform. Some secondary schools have added as much as an hour and a half a day to their schedules to effectively increase instructional time by about 30 days a year. Others report extending their school hours 15-30 minutes a day in order to have a regularly scheduled early release day to spend time as a staff planning and discussing changes and to allow time for professional development. A word of warning, however: when districts and schools challenge well-established structures such as the hours of school operation, they are advised to involve all stakeholders in making the decisions.

Another option is for schools to make room in their budgets to hire substitutes for teacher release time; still other schools rely on a combination of substitutes and parent volunteers to provide teacher release time. The Clover Park School District in Washington state reallocated resources so that teachers could be paid $20 an hour during the summer to attend professional development sessions, thereby eliminating some of the need to take time during the school year for reform efforts.

Many schools rely on teachers volunteering their own time to dedicate to reform efforts. While this may work for a while, teachers may end up feeling resentful and burned out. Even at a school considered a "model" school in school reform literature–Hollibrook Elementary in Spring Branch, Texas–teachers remarked that they were often burned out despite their many successes.⁵

A different time problem arises when new teachers come on board after a school’s reform program is well underway. Many programs lack a plan for bringing these teachers up to speed, which can present a problem for the principal who must see to it that the new faculty are properly trained while being thrust into the middle of the program.

How Did Sierra Vista and Sunrise Measure Up in Resource Allocation?

Looking back at Sunrise Elementary, we see that the district office was often working against the school. Because of turnover in district office staff, the school lost its advocate for the reform project. There were no provisions made to provide time for teachers to spend on reform. At Sierra Vista Elementary, we see that although resource allocation was rocky at first because teachers did not have the time needed for reform, Ms. Martinez was able to overcome obstacles of time and money and successfully marshal the resources she needed for CSR.

As one superintendent advises, "Resources are everywhere," he says, "but you must be flexible and efficient in how you use them."

1 SEDL interview with Dennis Sparks, February 2, 2000.

2 Louis and Miles. (1990). Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why. New York: Teachers College Press, p. 258.

3 Odden, Allen, How to Rethink School Budgets to Support School Transformation. New American Schools Web site, publications "How To" series at http://www.naschools.org/resource/publications.html.

4 Katzenmeyer, Marilyn, and Gayle Moller. (1996). Awakening the Sleeping Giant. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., p. 67.

5 For example, see Jane McCarthy and Suzanne Still, "Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School" in Murphy, Joseph and Phillip Hallinger (1993), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Reform Efforts, p. 63-83 and The Uses of Time for Teaching and Learning: Studies of Education Reform (1996). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Office of Education Research and Improvement.