Page 182 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 182 of 217 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
174
Table I.2: Timothy Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Timothy Charter
School
Current Resource
Status
Timothy. Charter
Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-1; 203 School is 46% the
size the
prototypical school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 20
1: 20
K-1 25% larger
than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
190 instructional
days, (includes 10
days mandatory
summer school)
does not include up
to 3 weeks of PD
training
Instructional days
in alignment with
EBM. School
offers one week
more of intensive
PD than the model
to new and
apprentice teachers.
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
Same as
prototypical school
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
1.0 FTE operations
coordinator
School has double
the number of
administrators
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary 1 FTE Secretary
1 FTE Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 10.0 FTE 11.25 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 3 FTE 2.25 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 1.0 FTE Dean 1.0 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0 FTE 1.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0 FTE 1.38 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE .66 FTE .85 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE .5 FTE .85 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
Psychologist—as
needed
Speech/OT/PT—as
needed
1.38 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
n/a1 n/a1
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 182 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 174 Table I.2: Timothy Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison School Element EBM – Prototypical Elementary School Timothy Charter School Current Resource Status Timothy. Charter Based on Prototypical Model School Size K-5; 432 Students K-1; 203 School is 46% the size the prototypical school Class Size K-3: 15 4-5: 25 K: 20 1: 20 K-1 25% larger than EBM Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training 190 instructional days, (includes 10 days mandatory summer school) does not include up to 3 weeks of PD training Instructional days in alignment with EBM. School offers one week more of intensive PD than the model to new and apprentice teachers. Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Same as prototypical school Administrative Support Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal & 1.0 FTE operations coordinator School has double the number of administrators School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0 FTE Clerical 1.0 FTE Secretary 1 FTE Secretary 1 FTE Clerical General Personnel Resources Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 10.0 FTE 11.25 FTE Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 3 FTE 2.25 FTE Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE 1.0 FTE Dean 1.0 FTE Extended Support Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students 0 FTE 1.8 FTE Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE teacher for every 100 EL students 0 FTE 1.38 FTE Non-Instructional Support for EL Students 0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0 FTE Extended Day 1.8 FTE .66 FTE .85 FTE Summer School 1.8 FTE .5 FTE .85 FTE Special Education Personnel Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions Psychologist—as needed Speech/OT/PT—as needed 1.38 FTE Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds n/a1 n/a1 |
