Resource Reallocation at the School Level

At the school level, resource reallocation largely concerns a different use of staffing resources, as well as better uses of the smaller pots of discretionary resources that exist in some schools. A typical school's staff is divided among five categories:

1. Classroom teachers teachers who teach the core curriculum to students most of the day
   
   
2. Regular education specialists librarians and teachers of subjects outside the core curriculum, such as art, physical education, and music, who usually provide planning and preparation time for classroom teachers
   
   
3. Categorical program specialists teachers outside the regular classroom whose salaries are paid largely by categorical program dollars, including special education, compensatory education (Title I), and bilingual/ ESL funds
   
   
4. Pupil support specialistsprofessional staff members who provide nonacademic support services to students outside the regular classroom, such as guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers, and nurses
   
   
5. Aides paraprofessional staff who provide either instructional support (including working with children both within the regular classroom and in resource rooms) or noninstructional support (including clerical tasks and supervising the cafeteria and/ or playground)
   
   

In the paragraphs that follow, these staffing categories will be used to discuss the resource and staffing reallocation decisions at the schools studied. Depending on student needs, these practices could be duplicated in your school or district.

Classroom Teachers

Schools rarely tap this staffing category for reallocation. A number of schools actually increased the number of classroom teachers in order to reduce class size. Indeed, several studies have found elementary schools that pooled resources from nearly all other staffing categories to support a strategy of reducing class sizes to between 15-17 students all day long (Odden and Archibald, forthcoming; or see http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/). Research has shown reducing class sizes to this range has a positive impact on student achievement (Achilles, 1999).

Miles and Darling-Hammond (1998) studied high schools that did the same thing, providing class sizes of about 18. By also implementing an integrated curriculum strategy, these high schools reduced the teacher-student contact to just 36 students a day (compared to the typical 150 in most large high schools), thus making the learning environment more personal and potentially more effective.

These studies also identified a few elementary schools that allowed class sizes to increase somewhat in order to fund professional teacher tutors and full-time instructional facilitators. These schools believed it was more important to have somewhat larger classes (27-28 students) augmented by the intensive help provided by teacher tutors, than smaller classes (22- 24) without any tutoring help. The schools' faculties decided that the small negatives from the modest increases in class size were offset by the large positives of hiring tutors and providing substantially more professional development and coaching.

School Profile

School: K-2 school serving 400 urban students Student population: 38 percent minority, 23 percent qualify for ESL, and 35 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunch New strategies: Class size reduced to approximately 16, with inclusion of most special-needs students in the regular classroom How they reallocated resources: The school reallocated funds formerly used to pay five pull-out teachers for these programs: ESL, Title I, Minority Achievement, and Gifted and Talented. The school received a waiver to apply Title I funds to schoolwide programs. It also acquired a Comprehensive School Reform grant that paid for the professional development necessary to implement the new strategies. Additional initiatives: To ensure that all students' needs could be met in the regular classroom, the principal hired a local professor to teach on-site courses in ESL that would count toward a certificate in ESL. The school implemented a policy where all future hires would be dual-certified and, in the meantime, organized teacher pairs so that each had at least one teacher certified in both ESL and regular education. Flexible student grouping made it possible to make special accommodations for these students when necessary. The school hired two bilingual resource specialists as floaters to assist with translation when necessary. Results of the reforms: ESL students began to receive more language arts instruction (in terms of time) and they were served in smaller classes throughout the school day. Teachers report that ESL students are learning English quickly; they also appreciate the continuity of having all of their students in the classroom at one time. Early achievement test results also show progress.

Regular Education Specialists

Staffing resources for regular education specialists generally were not reduced either. The reasons were twofold. First, the schools valued the subject matter that these specialists taught. They also believed for the most part that these subjects required specialists and could not be covered as thoroughly by incorporating them into the regular education classroom. Second, usually the teacher contract required planning and preparation time for classroom teachers; this time was provided when students were with the regular education specialist teachers. Thus, regular education specialists were also viewed as necessary for fulfilling contractual obligations.

Categorical Program Specialists

The most extensive resource reallocations were within the area of categorical program specialists. Again, the reasons were twofold. First, this area is one in which schools had the most discretion for spending resources differently. Second, the schools were most unhappy with the results of the strategies they had been deploying in this area.

This staffing category has three different funding sources:

1. Compensatory education funding for remedial and resource room specialists who provide assistance to low-income students
   
   
2. Special education funds, which pay for the specialists who provide services for mildly to moderately disabled students both within and outside the regular classroom
   
   
3. English as a second language (ESL) funds for students who need to learn English
   
   

Compensatory education funds. Title I is the largest source of compensatory education funds, but several states also provide this type of funding. Schools that we studied reallocated both sources of compensatory dollars. One reason that this money could be reallocated so readily is that new regulations allow Title I funds to be applied to schoolwide programs if a school's student population is at least 50 percent low income. Many of the schools studied met this requirement; some that did not meet it applied for and received a waiver to use the funds for a comprehensive schoolwide program. Thus, many schools that had used compensatory education dollars for pull-out remedial specialists and instructional aides, began using the funds for more effective schoolwide strategies, including smaller classes, tutors, more professional development, and on-site instructional facilitators. This change was especially welcome because the effectiveness of pull-out programs and the use of instructional aides have been questioned by both researchers (Borman & D'Agostino, 1996; Vinovskis, 1999) and many practitioners. As Colleen Seremet states on the tapes, one of the biggest problems with pull-out programs is that they cause students to miss the instruction they need that is going on in the regular classroom.

Previous | Next