Page 32 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 32 of 194 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
26
The initiative provides consistent standards and assessments for English language arts
and mathematics so that no matter which state students live in, parents and educators
know and understand what each student should know. Although this initiative is
relatively new, the discussion for the need for universal standards such as college
preparatory curriculum for all students began prior to the signing and implementation of
NCLB. The core standards call for an alignment of curriculum so that high school
students will have met certain requirements and possess a depth of understanding and
ability to apply that understanding in a collegial and professional setting (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2010). In a speech to educators from around the country at the
AP National Conference in July 2010, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan stated that
the College Board was right “to hail that the Common Core state standards are a
monumental achievement in education”.
Although the common core standards address the two main subjects that students
often have challenges with, they do not address all the subjects within a high school
curriculum. Part of the reform movements has been to address curricular relevance to
student outcomes. All states have been working to create tougher state standards for
curriculum and according to Ed Source (2007); none is more rigorous than the California
state standards. However, California state standards may be rigorous and thorough, but it
is up to the discretion of the school districts to determine curriculum; the only
requirement is an adherence to the minimum high school graduation requirements (Ed
Source, 2007):
1. Social science (U.S. History; world history; one semester American Government;
one semester economics); Three years
Object Description
| Title | Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model |
| Author | Cassady, Dawn Marie |
| Author email | Kedwyn@aol.com; cassady@usc.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-01-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-29 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Marsh, David D. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Rueda, Robert S. Arias, Robert J. |
| Abstract | From the time of Brown v. Board of Education, the role of education has been on the forefront of our social, political and economic landscape. Legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind as well as publications like A Nation at Risk have all illustrated the lack of access, equity and achievement in American schools for the last fifty years. Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate, which varies between subgroups and of those students only 57% continue their education in college.; Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is a high-performing, large, urban school district that serves an economically and culturally diverse population. This project examined the root causes of the gaps in college going rates for all students as well as those of the underrepresented subgroups by applying the Clark and Estes (2005) gap analysis model. Gaps between goal achievement (college participation) and actual student performance were examined and then research-based solutions for closing the achievement gap and recommendations based on those solutions were recommended to the school district administrative team. |
| Keyword | secondary education; school reform; college access |
| Geographic subject | school districts: Glendale Unified School District |
| Geographic subject (county) | Los Angeles |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 1954/2010 |
| 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-m3806 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Cassady, Dawn Marie |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Cassady-4360 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume14/etd-Cassady-4360.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 32 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 26 The initiative provides consistent standards and assessments for English language arts and mathematics so that no matter which state students live in, parents and educators know and understand what each student should know. Although this initiative is relatively new, the discussion for the need for universal standards such as college preparatory curriculum for all students began prior to the signing and implementation of NCLB. The core standards call for an alignment of curriculum so that high school students will have met certain requirements and possess a depth of understanding and ability to apply that understanding in a collegial and professional setting (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). In a speech to educators from around the country at the AP National Conference in July 2010, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan stated that the College Board was right “to hail that the Common Core state standards are a monumental achievement in education”. Although the common core standards address the two main subjects that students often have challenges with, they do not address all the subjects within a high school curriculum. Part of the reform movements has been to address curricular relevance to student outcomes. All states have been working to create tougher state standards for curriculum and according to Ed Source (2007); none is more rigorous than the California state standards. However, California state standards may be rigorous and thorough, but it is up to the discretion of the school districts to determine curriculum; the only requirement is an adherence to the minimum high school graduation requirements (Ed Source, 2007): 1. Social science (U.S. History; world history; one semester American Government; one semester economics); Three years |
