Page 14 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 14 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
2
Gonzalez, 2003), educators at the local level are being asked to make investments in
educating students that take them to high levels with far fewer fiscal and human resources
than they had only a few years ago (EdSource, 2010f).
School districts are fighting to stay afloat financially, to keep class sizes
reasonable for the teachers they have not had to lay off and to avert public relations
nightmares that come with these challenges. At the same time, schools face the reality
that the driving education issue today is raising the levels of student achievement (Odden,
2003). Schools must set high and rigorous standards and teach students to those
standards. A question that policymakers and school leaders try to address is how to fund
this effort. Indeed, almost everything about public schools has become much more
public. Except for the perception of the world of school finance. There still exists much
confusion about where the funds originate, where they go and, ultimately, what it means
to provide funding for an equitable and adequate education.
This study was designed to identify effective educational strategies and resource
allocation practices in exemplary schools that improved student learning in the midst of
the current fiscal crisis and increasing accountability mandates. To better understand the
context in which schools currently find themselves, this chapter presents a chronological
history of school finance and the evolution of key issues that affect how money makes its
way to schools.
Background of the Problem
Until the 1950s, virtually all important decisions regarding K-12 schools and their
funding were made by elected officials of states and localities (Hanushek & Lindseth,
Object Description
| Title | Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011 |
| Author | Landisi, Brian Anthony |
| Author email | landisi@usc.edu; blandisi@charter.net |
| 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 | 2011-04-28 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Picus, Lawrence O. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Hentschke, Guilbert C. Nelson, John L. |
| Abstract | This study was conducted to examine instructional strategies and resource allocation in successful schools. The study was based on the analysis of three comprehensive high schools in one school district in Southern California. Each of the study schools increased students’ academic achievement over time as measured by sustained growth on California’s Academic Performance Index. The efforts of these study schools also contributed to narrowing the achievement gap.; Successful schools in this study were analyzed primarily through the lens of Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. In addition to effective organizational and instructional strategies, this study also analyzed human and fiscal resource allocation at the sample schools. The study used the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) to analyze how the schools allocated resources during 2010-2011, navigating a catastrophic economic crisis facing California and the rest of the nation. Interview data, student achievement data and information on school-level resource use were included in case studies on each of these successful schools.; The findings indicate that although the resource use patterns of the study schools were significantly fewer than what the Evidence-Based Model suggests, the improvement strategies showed many commonalities to those suggested in the body of literature on school improvement. Strong leadership from the district office supported the reform efforts at each of the school sites. This leadership came in the form of a single district focus combined with continuity of leadership, development and retention of talent within the district and a common school improvement framework.; A heavy investment of time and fiscal resources into professional development created a collaborative culture within and between the high schools in the study. The schools that were most successful in raising student achievement demonstrated a commitment to collaboration and embraced the role of teacher leaders. The most effective schools in the study had in place internal accountability structures to support the implementation of the school and district focus. It is the effective implementation of research-based strategies, not simply resource allocation that makes schools successful and contributes to further growth in student achievement. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. |
| Keyword | education finance; secondary education; educational leadership; budget crisis; instructional leadership; Odden and Picus; resource allocation; school finance; school reform |
| Geographic subject (county) | Los Angeles |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2010/2011 |
| 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-m3797 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Landisi, Brian Anthony |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Landisi-4355 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume14/etd-Landisi-4355.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 14 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 2 Gonzalez, 2003), educators at the local level are being asked to make investments in educating students that take them to high levels with far fewer fiscal and human resources than they had only a few years ago (EdSource, 2010f). School districts are fighting to stay afloat financially, to keep class sizes reasonable for the teachers they have not had to lay off and to avert public relations nightmares that come with these challenges. At the same time, schools face the reality that the driving education issue today is raising the levels of student achievement (Odden, 2003). Schools must set high and rigorous standards and teach students to those standards. A question that policymakers and school leaders try to address is how to fund this effort. Indeed, almost everything about public schools has become much more public. Except for the perception of the world of school finance. There still exists much confusion about where the funds originate, where they go and, ultimately, what it means to provide funding for an equitable and adequate education. This study was designed to identify effective educational strategies and resource allocation practices in exemplary schools that improved student learning in the midst of the current fiscal crisis and increasing accountability mandates. To better understand the context in which schools currently find themselves, this chapter presents a chronological history of school finance and the evolution of key issues that affect how money makes its way to schools. Background of the Problem Until the 1950s, virtually all important decisions regarding K-12 schools and their funding were made by elected officials of states and localities (Hanushek & Lindseth, |
