Page 17 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 17 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
5
California school finance. In its own educational finance journey, California
parallels the history of the United States by defining equity in public education through
court decisions and legislation. For example, in 1976, the California Supreme Court
ruled in Serrano v. Priest that the existing system of financing schools was
unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state Constitution
(EdSource, 2010c). As a result, this court decision mandated equalization of funding
across districts to eliminate disparities in educational access (Lindseth, 2006). The state
responded by instituting revenue limits to cap the amount of revenue districts could bring
in from taxes (EdSource, 2010c).
But the insistence on equity eliminated much of the incentive that local
communities previously had to tax themselves to support education and was one of the
factors driving California voters to approve Proposition 13 in 1978. Proposition 13
addressed tax inequities by limiting the property tax rates to 1% of the property’s
assessed value. As a consequence of passing, 60% of local property tax revenues were
lost (EdSource, 2010c). Considering that California’s public education system is
supported primarily by state sales and income tax revenue and by local property taxes,
the Legislature had to supplement the lost property tax dollars with money from the state
budget, including funds from categorical grants and the state lottery (EdSource, 2000).
In 1988, California voters brought another initiative to the ballot to improve and
stabilize funding for education. Proposition 98 earmarks a specific proportion (about 40
percent) of the state’s general fund revenues for K-12 schools and community colleges.
But when state revenues decline, the school-aid guarantee declines as well despite
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 17 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 5 California school finance. In its own educational finance journey, California parallels the history of the United States by defining equity in public education through court decisions and legislation. For example, in 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serrano v. Priest that the existing system of financing schools was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state Constitution (EdSource, 2010c). As a result, this court decision mandated equalization of funding across districts to eliminate disparities in educational access (Lindseth, 2006). The state responded by instituting revenue limits to cap the amount of revenue districts could bring in from taxes (EdSource, 2010c). But the insistence on equity eliminated much of the incentive that local communities previously had to tax themselves to support education and was one of the factors driving California voters to approve Proposition 13 in 1978. Proposition 13 addressed tax inequities by limiting the property tax rates to 1% of the property’s assessed value. As a consequence of passing, 60% of local property tax revenues were lost (EdSource, 2010c). Considering that California’s public education system is supported primarily by state sales and income tax revenue and by local property taxes, the Legislature had to supplement the lost property tax dollars with money from the state budget, including funds from categorical grants and the state lottery (EdSource, 2000). In 1988, California voters brought another initiative to the ballot to improve and stabilize funding for education. Proposition 98 earmarks a specific proportion (about 40 percent) of the state’s general fund revenues for K-12 schools and community colleges. But when state revenues decline, the school-aid guarantee declines as well despite |
