Page 15 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 15 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
3
2009). In the early 1900s, schools in the United States received 80% of their funding
from local sources, but this fell to 50% by the end of the Second World War (Hanushek,
2006). Eventually, a shift in power became evident as the federal government became a
major participant through funding of programs for disadvantaged and special needs
students and through accountability systems like No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While
its role in policy creation and accountability structures has been enhanced over the years
through landmark court cases and legislation, the federal government now only
contributes 10% to the California education budget (EdSource, 2009a). Thus, the
complicated nature of school finance continues to evolve.
National trends in school finance. There have long been debates—even to this
day—about providing equal access to quality education in the United States. The 1954
United States Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education raised awareness of the
unequal performance of students of color, and the courts focused on dismantling the
system of unequal, racially segregated schools (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Not much desegregation took place in the decade following the Brown decision,
and the black-white achievement gap persisted. In 1964, the federal government funded
the Equality of Educational Opportunity report, also known as the “Coleman Report”,
which was eventually published in 1966. This report asserted that the apparent test score
gap was attributable to the widely varying social and economic conditions of black and
white citizens (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Around the same time, President Lyndon
B. Johnson’s War on Poverty took root. In one of his first pieces of legislation, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I funding on the federal level
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 15 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 3 2009). In the early 1900s, schools in the United States received 80% of their funding from local sources, but this fell to 50% by the end of the Second World War (Hanushek, 2006). Eventually, a shift in power became evident as the federal government became a major participant through funding of programs for disadvantaged and special needs students and through accountability systems like No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While its role in policy creation and accountability structures has been enhanced over the years through landmark court cases and legislation, the federal government now only contributes 10% to the California education budget (EdSource, 2009a). Thus, the complicated nature of school finance continues to evolve. National trends in school finance. There have long been debates—even to this day—about providing equal access to quality education in the United States. The 1954 United States Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education raised awareness of the unequal performance of students of color, and the courts focused on dismantling the system of unequal, racially segregated schools (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Not much desegregation took place in the decade following the Brown decision, and the black-white achievement gap persisted. In 1964, the federal government funded the Equality of Educational Opportunity report, also known as the “Coleman Report”, which was eventually published in 1966. This report asserted that the apparent test score gap was attributable to the widely varying social and economic conditions of black and white citizens (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Around the same time, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty took root. In one of his first pieces of legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I funding on the federal level |
