Page 161 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 161 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
149
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL - SAMPLE SCHOOLS
This list of questions was standardized among the thematic dissertation group study
authors. The questions were provided to the sample schools’ administrators prior to the
interview and asked in the following order.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture the school’s strategies for
improving student performance. The questions will be asked in the order that they
appear. The principal’s answers will be recorded as she gives them and the focus will be
on the key elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the
process aspect.
Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the
strategy?
1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(e.g. reading, math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional
improvement effort? (e.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math,
etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (e.g. district recent review
for alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective
teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(e.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• If so, what types of assessments have been key? (e.g.
formative, diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part
of your reform efforts? (e.g. individualized instruction,
differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading
instruction)
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
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 161 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 149 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL - SAMPLE SCHOOLS This list of questions was standardized among the thematic dissertation group study authors. The questions were provided to the sample schools’ administrators prior to the interview and asked in the following order. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Following are open-ended questions intended to capture the school’s strategies for improving student performance. The questions will be asked in the order that they appear. The principal’s answers will be recorded as she gives them and the focus will be on the key elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process aspect. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance. A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy? 1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been? (e.g. reading, math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.) 2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement effort? (e.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.) • Is it aligned with state standards? • How do you know it is aligned? (e.g. district recent review for alignment) 3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort? • Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching? 4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort? (e.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework) 5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional improvement process? • If so, what types of assessments have been key? (e.g. formative, diagnostic, summative) • How often are those assessments utilized? • What actions were taken with the results? 6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of your reform efforts? (e.g. individualized instruction, differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction) • Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy? |
