Page 236 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 236 of 271 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
224
Table I.4, continued
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 71.2 EBM suggests 112.8
2. Specialist teachers 33% or more: 8.0 29.2 EBM suggests 37.6
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches 3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.1
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
0 EBM suggests 15.4
FTE teachers
5. Teachers for ELL students An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.60
5.2 FTE teachers
8.0 FTE aides
EBM suggests 6.3
FTE teachers
6. Extended day 2.5 0 EBM suggests 11.8
7. Summer school 2.5 46.0 EBM suggests 11.8
School Characteristics
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
9.0 FTE teachers
3.2 FTE aides
EBM suggests 18.8
teachers
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
4.0 FTE teachers
4.8 FTE aides Based on need
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students $25/student $7,272 EBM suggests
$71,175
11. Vocational education No extra cost Included in FTE No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of personnel $150/day 5% of personnel
13. Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
5.4 total
5.0 Counselors
2.0 Psychologists
0.2 Nurse
1.0 Speech
1.0 Title I Coord.
(9.2 total)
EBM suggests 15.4
teachers and 11.4
guidance counselors
(26.8 total)
14. Non-instructional aides 3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.1
15. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library
technician
1.0 Librarian
EBM suggests 4.7
Librarian and 4.7
Library technician
16. Principal
1
1 Principal
1 Assoc. Principal
5 Asst. Principals
EBM suggests 1
principal and 4.8
Asst. Principals
17. School site secretary 1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary
15 Clerical
EBM suggests 4.7
secretaries and 14.1
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 236 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 224 Table I.4, continued School Element Evidence-Based Model Prototype High School CHS Actual Resource Allocation Comparison of CHS Resources to EBM Prototype Personnel Resources 1. Core teachers 24 71.2 EBM suggests 112.8 2. Specialist teachers 33% or more: 8.0 29.2 EBM suggests 37.6 3. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches 3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.1 4. Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students: 3.0 0 EBM suggests 15.4 FTE teachers 5. Teachers for ELL students An additional 1.0 teachers for every 100 ELL students 0.60 5.2 FTE teachers 8.0 FTE aides EBM suggests 6.3 FTE teachers 6. Extended day 2.5 0 EBM suggests 11.8 7. Summer school 2.5 46.0 EBM suggests 11.8 School Characteristics 8. Students with mild disabilities Additional 4 professional teacher positions 9.0 FTE teachers 3.2 FTE aides EBM suggests 18.8 teachers 9. Students with severe disabilities 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds 4.0 FTE teachers 4.8 FTE aides Based on need 10. Resources for gifted/talented students $25/student $7,272 EBM suggests $71,175 11. Vocational education No extra cost Included in FTE No extra cost 12. Substitutes 5% of personnel $150/day 5% of personnel 13. Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty students plus 1.0 guidance/250 students 5.4 total 5.0 Counselors 2.0 Psychologists 0.2 Nurse 1.0 Speech 1.0 Title I Coord. (9.2 total) EBM suggests 15.4 teachers and 11.4 guidance counselors (26.8 total) 14. Non-instructional aides 3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.1 15. Librarians/Media Specialists 1.0 Librarian 1.0 Library technician 1.0 Librarian EBM suggests 4.7 Librarian and 4.7 Library technician 16. Principal 1 1 Principal 1 Assoc. Principal 5 Asst. Principals EBM suggests 1 principal and 4.8 Asst. Principals 17. School site secretary 1.0 Secretary and 3.0 Clerical 1.0 Secretary 15 Clerical EBM suggests 4.7 secretaries and 14.1 clerical |
