Page 36 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 36 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
24
standards are set so high that states would need to double, triple or quadruple investments
in education, other social projects would suffer.
Given that states receive more than $20 billion per year through ESEA and that
revamping standards is part of the current Blueprint for the reauthorization of the bill, it is
unlikely that the pressure to adopt common standards will dissipate. The final version of
the English-language arts and mathematics common core standards were released in June
2010, and all but two states ultimately adopted the common core standards. As it stands,
four of every ten new college students, including half of those at 2-year institutions, take
remedial courses and many employers comment on the inadequate preparation of high
school graduates (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a), which makes it even more
critical for states to reevaluate their current standards or adopt new ones in order to meet
federal performance expectations.
Trends in California. As the current reform climate suggests, federal
involvement in education—a responsibility delegated to the states long ago—is here to
stay. But the states’ role in public education changed dramatically as far back as World
War II (Timar, 2002). Increased state activism shifted the locus of decision making from
local school districts to the state level. Timar (2002) notes that the change from local to
central control has occurred without any clear vision as to how the K-12 system can best
foster high quality schools. While the federal government’s role has become increasingly
more significant in terms of setting policy and directing funds for education, still much of
the responsibility for educating America’s young people falls to the states. Particularly in
California, as the system of local control has been superseded by a system of centralized
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 36 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 24 standards are set so high that states would need to double, triple or quadruple investments in education, other social projects would suffer. Given that states receive more than $20 billion per year through ESEA and that revamping standards is part of the current Blueprint for the reauthorization of the bill, it is unlikely that the pressure to adopt common standards will dissipate. The final version of the English-language arts and mathematics common core standards were released in June 2010, and all but two states ultimately adopted the common core standards. As it stands, four of every ten new college students, including half of those at 2-year institutions, take remedial courses and many employers comment on the inadequate preparation of high school graduates (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a), which makes it even more critical for states to reevaluate their current standards or adopt new ones in order to meet federal performance expectations. Trends in California. As the current reform climate suggests, federal involvement in education—a responsibility delegated to the states long ago—is here to stay. But the states’ role in public education changed dramatically as far back as World War II (Timar, 2002). Increased state activism shifted the locus of decision making from local school districts to the state level. Timar (2002) notes that the change from local to central control has occurred without any clear vision as to how the K-12 system can best foster high quality schools. While the federal government’s role has become increasingly more significant in terms of setting policy and directing funds for education, still much of the responsibility for educating America’s young people falls to the states. Particularly in California, as the system of local control has been superseded by a system of centralized |
