Page 47 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 47 of 217 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
39
Table 2.2: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100 poverty students
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil
Student Activities $200 per pupil
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not included above
(Modified from Odden & Picus, 2008)
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 47 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 39 Table 2.2: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary School Element Evidence-Based Model School Size K-5; 432 Students Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25 Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Administrative Support Principal 1.0 FTE School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical General Personnel Resources Core Teachers 24.0 FTE Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE Extended Support Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE for every 100 EL students Extended Day 1.8 FTE Summer School 1.8 FTE Special Education Personnel Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds Other Staffing Resources Substitutes 10 days per teacher Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100 poverty students Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE Resources for gifted students $25 per student Technology $250 per pupil Instructional Materials $140 per pupil Student Activities $200 per pupil Professional Development $100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers, conferences, travel, etc. not included above (Modified from Odden & Picus, 2008) |
