Page 25 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 25 of 217 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
17
be “restored over time to the minimum guarantee level, beginning in the next year”
(EdSource, p.5, 2010c).
A consequence of Proposition 98 has been that categorical funding has grown
exponentially since passage because lawmakers have been reluctant to put money in the
general fund (Timar, 2004). According to the Fiscal Report (2010), due to the current
fiscal crisis and the jeopardy of education funding in general, pressures are mounting to
suspend Proposition 98. The funds received through Proposition 98 are largely
dependent on the health of the state’s economy and can be suspended with two-thirds of
the legislature’s vote (EdSource, 2010c).
Current funding structure. Currently, a district’s income is comprised of
general purpose funding, which includes the per pupil limit multiplied by the average
daily attendance, categorical funding, “miscellaneous” or other local funding, and lottery
funds (EdSource, 2010d). This seemly straightforward formula for a district’s income is
complicated based on the aforementioned propositions. Because funding is largely
dependent upon the health of the economy and directly linked to the state’s budget, the
economic crisis has affected schools particularly hard (EdSource, 2010c).
Funding for schools is comprised of federal, state, property tax, lottery and
miscellaneous sources and is distributed into two distinct segments: general purpose
funding or categorical funding. General purpose funding is a combination of base
revenue limits, revenue limit add-ons, and local property taxes. General purpose funding
fluctuates because, as noted in Proposition 98, it is linked to the economy. General
funding is the largest component of a school’s funding and comprises nearly 70% of the
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 25 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 17 be “restored over time to the minimum guarantee level, beginning in the next year” (EdSource, p.5, 2010c). A consequence of Proposition 98 has been that categorical funding has grown exponentially since passage because lawmakers have been reluctant to put money in the general fund (Timar, 2004). According to the Fiscal Report (2010), due to the current fiscal crisis and the jeopardy of education funding in general, pressures are mounting to suspend Proposition 98. The funds received through Proposition 98 are largely dependent on the health of the state’s economy and can be suspended with two-thirds of the legislature’s vote (EdSource, 2010c). Current funding structure. Currently, a district’s income is comprised of general purpose funding, which includes the per pupil limit multiplied by the average daily attendance, categorical funding, “miscellaneous” or other local funding, and lottery funds (EdSource, 2010d). This seemly straightforward formula for a district’s income is complicated based on the aforementioned propositions. Because funding is largely dependent upon the health of the economy and directly linked to the state’s budget, the economic crisis has affected schools particularly hard (EdSource, 2010c). Funding for schools is comprised of federal, state, property tax, lottery and miscellaneous sources and is distributed into two distinct segments: general purpose funding or categorical funding. General purpose funding is a combination of base revenue limits, revenue limit add-ons, and local property taxes. General purpose funding fluctuates because, as noted in Proposition 98, it is linked to the economy. General funding is the largest component of a school’s funding and comprises nearly 70% of the |
