Page 50 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 50 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
38
base revenue limit is the principal component (95%) of the general purpose fund (Timar,
2006). It is defined as the amount of general purpose funding per student (average daily
attendance figure). The remaining five percent of general purpose funds comes from
state “add-ons” such as incentive programs initiated through past legislation. In short,
general purpose funds pay for the general expenses of educating students—employees’
salaries and benefits, supplies, textbooks and regular maintenance (EdSource, 2000).
Categorical funds. Both the state and federal governments use the allocation of
categorical funds as a way to influence educational change by providing extra funds for
specific purposes or to serve specific groups of students. Timar (2004) enumerates a list
of categorical programs currently part of the state’s budget: funds for charter schools,
various provisions of the school accountability law, professional development, special
education, student services, school safety, vocational and occupational programs,
technology, curriculum and instructional improvement, class-size reduction and year-round
schooling. To ensure that these funds reach the students for whom they are
intended, districts and schools are held to strict spending rules and stringent reporting
requirements (Timar, 2004). Additional criticism of categorical funding centers around
issues like the politicization of categorical funding and the characterization of many of
these programs as pet projects (Timar, 2004). Picus (2006) reports that the categorical
funding program has led to considerable variations and inequities in the level of resources
available to children across districts. As a result, there are questions about whether a
relationship exists between the identified student needs and the targeting of these
revenues (Picus, 2006).
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 50 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 38 base revenue limit is the principal component (95%) of the general purpose fund (Timar, 2006). It is defined as the amount of general purpose funding per student (average daily attendance figure). The remaining five percent of general purpose funds comes from state “add-ons” such as incentive programs initiated through past legislation. In short, general purpose funds pay for the general expenses of educating students—employees’ salaries and benefits, supplies, textbooks and regular maintenance (EdSource, 2000). Categorical funds. Both the state and federal governments use the allocation of categorical funds as a way to influence educational change by providing extra funds for specific purposes or to serve specific groups of students. Timar (2004) enumerates a list of categorical programs currently part of the state’s budget: funds for charter schools, various provisions of the school accountability law, professional development, special education, student services, school safety, vocational and occupational programs, technology, curriculum and instructional improvement, class-size reduction and year-round schooling. To ensure that these funds reach the students for whom they are intended, districts and schools are held to strict spending rules and stringent reporting requirements (Timar, 2004). Additional criticism of categorical funding centers around issues like the politicization of categorical funding and the characterization of many of these programs as pet projects (Timar, 2004). Picus (2006) reports that the categorical funding program has led to considerable variations and inequities in the level of resources available to children across districts. As a result, there are questions about whether a relationship exists between the identified student needs and the targeting of these revenues (Picus, 2006). |
