Page 20 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 20 of 217 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
12
15. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national standardized
assessment administered to randomly selected students in an attempt to measure
and compare student achievement across the nation or against other states
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
16. Program Improvement (PI): Under NCLB, schools receiving Title 1 funds enter
Program Improvement when they don’t meet AYP benchmark goals for the same
subgroups two years in a row. If a school continues to stay in PI, increasingly
serious interventions and sanctions are implemented.
17. Similar Schools: A comparison group of 100 schools of the same type based on
similar demographics. API for the group is ranked into ten categories (deciles) of
equal size, one being the lowest group to ten being the highest group (California
Department of Education, 2009).
18. Single Plan for Student Achievement: All schools that participate in any state or
federal programs, a plan for improved student achievement must be developed by
the school site council.
19. Socioeconomic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family’s economic
and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
20. Title 1: Federal program that provides funding to school districts based on the
number of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch.
Object Description
| Title | Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools |
| Author | Patrick, Ramona Kay |
| Author email | rpatrick@usc.edu; ramonakaypatrick@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-28 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-05-04 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Picus, Lawrence O. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Hentschke, Guilbert C. Nelson, John L. |
| Abstract | Charter schools are growing at a rapid pace have significantly more flexibility in their allocation of resources in comparison to their traditional public school counterparts in California. Because of this, it is important to study how successful charter schools, with this increased flexibility, are utilizing their resources to achieve high results with their students in a time of fiscal constraint. There is a plethora of data and research on effective school practices to improve student achievement, but a dearth of research on the effective allocation of resources at charter schools. The purpose of this study is to analyze how four high performing charter schools, with high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in Los Angeles, California, are implementing school improvement strategies and utilizing resources at their school site to impact student achievement. The Evidenced-Based Model, (Odden & Picus, 2008) along with Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance were used as a lens in this study to compare resource allocation as well as school improvement strategies to best support student achievement at the schools. This study will describe each schools’ instructional vision and improvement strategy, how resources are utilized to implement their instructional improvement plan, how the current fiscal crisis is affecting their allocation of resources, and how actual resource patterns are aligned with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). |
| Keyword | charter schools; resource allocation; evidenced-based model |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3815 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Patrick, Ramona Kay |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Patrick-4438 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume51/etd-Patrick-4438.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 20 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 12 15. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national standardized assessment administered to randomly selected students in an attempt to measure and compare student achievement across the nation or against other states (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). 16. Program Improvement (PI): Under NCLB, schools receiving Title 1 funds enter Program Improvement when they don’t meet AYP benchmark goals for the same subgroups two years in a row. If a school continues to stay in PI, increasingly serious interventions and sanctions are implemented. 17. Similar Schools: A comparison group of 100 schools of the same type based on similar demographics. API for the group is ranked into ten categories (deciles) of equal size, one being the lowest group to ten being the highest group (California Department of Education, 2009). 18. Single Plan for Student Achievement: All schools that participate in any state or federal programs, a plan for improved student achievement must be developed by the school site council. 19. Socioeconomic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family’s economic and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). 20. Title 1: Federal program that provides funding to school districts based on the number of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. |
