Page 47 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 47 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
35
Table 2.1, continued
School Element Elementary Schools Middle
Schools
High
Schools
Number of teacher work days 200, including 10
days for intensive
training
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
% Disabled 12% 12% 12%
% Poverty (free or reduced-price
lunch) 50% 50% 50%
% English Language Learner
(ELL) 10% 10% 10%
% Minority 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist teachers 20% or more: 4.8 20% or more: 3.6 33% or more: 8.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches 2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.25
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
5. Teachers for ELL students An addition 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.43
An addition 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.45
An addition 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.60
6. Extended day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer school 1.8 1.875 2.5
School Characteristics
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students $25/student $25/student $25/student
11. Vocational education N/A N/A No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
3.25 total
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
5.4 total
14. Non-instructional aides 2.0 2.0 3.0
15. Librarians/Media
Specialists 1.0 1.0
1.0 librarian
1.0 Library
technician
16. Principal 1 1 1
17. School site secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
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 47 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 35 Table 2.1, continued School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Number of teacher work days 200, including 10 days for intensive training 200, including 10 days for intensive training 200, including 10 days for intensive training % Disabled 12% 12% 12% % Poverty (free or reduced-price lunch) 50% 50% 50% % English Language Learner (ELL) 10% 10% 10% % Minority 30% 30% 30% Personnel Resources 1. Core teachers 24 18 24 2. Specialist teachers 20% or more: 4.8 20% or more: 3.6 33% or more: 8.0 3. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches 2.2 2.25 3.0 4. Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students: 2.16 One for every 100 poverty students: 2.25 One for every 100 poverty students: 3.0 5. Teachers for ELL students An addition 1.0 teachers for every 100 ELL students 0.43 An addition 1.0 teachers for every 100 ELL students 0.45 An addition 1.0 teachers for every 100 ELL students 0.60 6. Extended day 1.8 1.875 2.5 7. Summer school 1.8 1.875 2.5 School Characteristics 8. Students with mild disabilities Additional 3 professional teacher positions Additional 3 professional teacher positions Additional 4 professional teacher positions 9. Students with severe disabilities 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds 10. Resources for gifted/talented students $25/student $25/student $25/student 11. Vocational education N/A N/A No extra cost 12. Substitutes 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9 13. Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty students: 2.16 1 for every 100 poverty students plus 1.0 guidance/250 students 3.25 total 1 for every 100 poverty students plus 1.0 guidance/250 students 5.4 total 14. Non-instructional aides 2.0 2.0 3.0 15. Librarians/Media Specialists 1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian 1.0 Library technician 16. Principal 1 1 1 17. School site secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical 1.0 Secretary and 3.0 Clerical |
