Page 74 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 74 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
62
The ever-changing political and economic pressures require educators to make
important decisions about how to reorganize and reallocate resources to meet the
challenge of less money but increased demand to raise student performance. In
California, though, there are still questions about what priority education has in this state.
Loeb, Bryk and Hanushek (2007) point out that California spends below the national
average in terms of per-pupil expenditures, while still maintaining teacher salaries that
are far higher than the national average. Table 2.3 compares California with the U.S.
average and the top- and bottom-ranking in teacher salaries and expenditures per pupil.
Table 2.3: Average Teacher Salaries and Expenditures per Pupil, 2008-2009
California
Rank in U.S.
California
Average U.S. Average Highest Lowest
Teachers’
salaries
(2008-2009)
2 $68,093 $54,319 $69,118
(New York)
$35,070 (South
Dakota)
Expenditures
per pupil
(2008-2009)
43 $8,322 $10,190
$17,638
(District of
Columbia)
$5,912 (Utah)
(Source: NEA, 2009)
To rank near the bottom in per-pupil expenditures has frightened and astonished
many in the public. While the economic crisis has caused serious financial burdens for
the entire country, there are still concerns that California lacks the vision and funding
structures to assure education in the public school system will yield positive results in
student achievement.
Californians once again took the State to court on May 20, 2010 in a lawsuit
representing 60 individual student plaintiffs and parents and three statewide association
plaintiffs: the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School
Administrators and the California State PTA (California School Finance, 2010). The
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 74 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 62 The ever-changing political and economic pressures require educators to make important decisions about how to reorganize and reallocate resources to meet the challenge of less money but increased demand to raise student performance. In California, though, there are still questions about what priority education has in this state. Loeb, Bryk and Hanushek (2007) point out that California spends below the national average in terms of per-pupil expenditures, while still maintaining teacher salaries that are far higher than the national average. Table 2.3 compares California with the U.S. average and the top- and bottom-ranking in teacher salaries and expenditures per pupil. Table 2.3: Average Teacher Salaries and Expenditures per Pupil, 2008-2009 California Rank in U.S. California Average U.S. Average Highest Lowest Teachers’ salaries (2008-2009) 2 $68,093 $54,319 $69,118 (New York) $35,070 (South Dakota) Expenditures per pupil (2008-2009) 43 $8,322 $10,190 $17,638 (District of Columbia) $5,912 (Utah) (Source: NEA, 2009) To rank near the bottom in per-pupil expenditures has frightened and astonished many in the public. While the economic crisis has caused serious financial burdens for the entire country, there are still concerns that California lacks the vision and funding structures to assure education in the public school system will yield positive results in student achievement. Californians once again took the State to court on May 20, 2010 in a lawsuit representing 60 individual student plaintiffs and parents and three statewide association plaintiffs: the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators and the California State PTA (California School Finance, 2010). The |
