Page 59 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 59 of 194 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
53
Considering that the team was able to interview personnel utilizing three different
interview models over a period of three months, the team determined that the data
collected was sufficient for identification of root causes to the problem.
A second limitation the project team faced revolved around concerns expressed
by administrators at some of the high school sites. At the beginning of this process, when
school sites were contacted to arrange the first round of interviews, administrators were
eager to help, offering assistance in gathering school site data and providing access to the
requested personnel. However, some administrators were wary of the purpose of the
team visits, which led to limited access to personnel and data. The concern was based on
the false belief that the project team was conducting evaluations for the school district
about performance, and repercussions could follow an administrator for their
forthrightness. As a result, the team was unable to arrange interviews with other
administrators, teachers, or counselors at some sites. Instead, the principal or the
principal’s assistant arranged interviews. The project team was concerned that selected
interviewees would not be candid with the project team.
A final limitation tied in the project team’s inability to interview students or
parents directly. Since this project was consultative in nature, our team was limited in
who we could contact and glean information from. The limitations on interview
sampling left the project team to rely solely on perspectives shared in interviews with
district administrators, school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. The ability to
interview parents and students directly would enable the team to more fully comprehend
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 59 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 53 Considering that the team was able to interview personnel utilizing three different interview models over a period of three months, the team determined that the data collected was sufficient for identification of root causes to the problem. A second limitation the project team faced revolved around concerns expressed by administrators at some of the high school sites. At the beginning of this process, when school sites were contacted to arrange the first round of interviews, administrators were eager to help, offering assistance in gathering school site data and providing access to the requested personnel. However, some administrators were wary of the purpose of the team visits, which led to limited access to personnel and data. The concern was based on the false belief that the project team was conducting evaluations for the school district about performance, and repercussions could follow an administrator for their forthrightness. As a result, the team was unable to arrange interviews with other administrators, teachers, or counselors at some sites. Instead, the principal or the principal’s assistant arranged interviews. The project team was concerned that selected interviewees would not be candid with the project team. A final limitation tied in the project team’s inability to interview students or parents directly. Since this project was consultative in nature, our team was limited in who we could contact and glean information from. The limitations on interview sampling left the project team to rely solely on perspectives shared in interviews with district administrators, school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. The ability to interview parents and students directly would enable the team to more fully comprehend |
