Page 20 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 20 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
8
Four approaches to adequacy. School finance today encompasses not only
fiscal inputs but also their connection to educational programs and student achievement
(Odden, 2003). Under the adequacy framework, all districts and schools must spend an
adequate level on education, and states must determine what that adequate expenditure
level would be so that students can learn to the performance standards. There are four
approaches to making such a determination (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
The successful district approach identifies districts that have met proficiency
standards. It then sets the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditures per
pupil of those districts. One of the criticisms of this method is that identifying the
standard for success is complex and “success” can be defined in different ways, yielding
different amounts of required resources (Rebell, 2007). Additionally, critics argue that
per pupil expenditures do not match the needs of urban or rural districts (Odden, 2003).
The cost function approach relies on current spending and achievement patterns
across all schools in a state to predict optimum spending solutions for an average district
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). This method relies on regression analysis with
expenditure for pupil as the dependent variable and student and district characteristics
and desired performance levels as independent variables (Odden, 2003). For any district
not considered average, the adequate expenditure figure is adjusted. Critics note that the
technical complexity of this approach is problematic and, while some states have
conducted cost function research, no state currently uses this approach (Odden, 2003).
The first two approaches draw connections between spending levels and
performance levels, yet they fail to provide educational strategies that would bring about
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 20 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 8 Four approaches to adequacy. School finance today encompasses not only fiscal inputs but also their connection to educational programs and student achievement (Odden, 2003). Under the adequacy framework, all districts and schools must spend an adequate level on education, and states must determine what that adequate expenditure level would be so that students can learn to the performance standards. There are four approaches to making such a determination (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). The successful district approach identifies districts that have met proficiency standards. It then sets the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditures per pupil of those districts. One of the criticisms of this method is that identifying the standard for success is complex and “success” can be defined in different ways, yielding different amounts of required resources (Rebell, 2007). Additionally, critics argue that per pupil expenditures do not match the needs of urban or rural districts (Odden, 2003). The cost function approach relies on current spending and achievement patterns across all schools in a state to predict optimum spending solutions for an average district (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). This method relies on regression analysis with expenditure for pupil as the dependent variable and student and district characteristics and desired performance levels as independent variables (Odden, 2003). For any district not considered average, the adequate expenditure figure is adjusted. Critics note that the technical complexity of this approach is problematic and, while some states have conducted cost function research, no state currently uses this approach (Odden, 2003). The first two approaches draw connections between spending levels and performance levels, yet they fail to provide educational strategies that would bring about |
