Page 39 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 39 of 217 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
31
The melding of policy and finance has led to a plethora of research trying to
determine the resources necessary to meet high minimum outcomes (Baker, et. al, 2008).
The shift to adequacy can be noted in the ever-increasing number of states conducting
studies (Baker, et. al., 2008; Rebell, 2007). By 2007, there were already over 30 states
engaged in adequacy studies (Rebell, 2007). However, even with the increase in studies,
there is no set standard or agreed upon amount or type of funding to achieve adequacy
(Baker, 2005). Rather, school districts, and in the case of California, the legislature is left
to decide what adequate funding is. According to Odden (2003), the legal test to
determine if a state is providing adequate resources is to see if an average school with
average students are meeting standards and students with special needs with additional
resources, meet the same expectations. Approaches to adequacy or costing-out studies are
not without criticism and some legislatures have expressed hesitance. Hanusheck (2006)
states that these studies cannot be scientifically valid because they are inherently flawed
and based on failed and inadequate uses of existing systems within education. Baker
(2005) states that because there is doubt around current methods of adequacy, legislatures
have been unwilling to adopt new ways of funding school systems and rely on current
funding structures.
Four approaches to adequacy. Odden & Picus (2008) contend that the end goal
of No Child Left Behind (2001), standards-based education reform, and court mandated
adequacy is the same—that students achieve and meet high educational standards.
However, as noted earlier, there is not just one approach to determining what resources
are needed to meet those goals and there is debate over what it will take to achieve
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 39 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 31 The melding of policy and finance has led to a plethora of research trying to determine the resources necessary to meet high minimum outcomes (Baker, et. al, 2008). The shift to adequacy can be noted in the ever-increasing number of states conducting studies (Baker, et. al., 2008; Rebell, 2007). By 2007, there were already over 30 states engaged in adequacy studies (Rebell, 2007). However, even with the increase in studies, there is no set standard or agreed upon amount or type of funding to achieve adequacy (Baker, 2005). Rather, school districts, and in the case of California, the legislature is left to decide what adequate funding is. According to Odden (2003), the legal test to determine if a state is providing adequate resources is to see if an average school with average students are meeting standards and students with special needs with additional resources, meet the same expectations. Approaches to adequacy or costing-out studies are not without criticism and some legislatures have expressed hesitance. Hanusheck (2006) states that these studies cannot be scientifically valid because they are inherently flawed and based on failed and inadequate uses of existing systems within education. Baker (2005) states that because there is doubt around current methods of adequacy, legislatures have been unwilling to adopt new ways of funding school systems and rely on current funding structures. Four approaches to adequacy. Odden & Picus (2008) contend that the end goal of No Child Left Behind (2001), standards-based education reform, and court mandated adequacy is the same—that students achieve and meet high educational standards. However, as noted earlier, there is not just one approach to determining what resources are needed to meet those goals and there is debate over what it will take to achieve |
