Page 7 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 7 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
2
however, lacked sufficient or adequate direct guidance for effective development and implementation. Consequently, districts developed plans to improve student achievement independently through various changes in curriculum and by developing new programs.
In the late 1990s, additional federal and state mandates surfaced that increased pressure for standards-based instructional reform that held schools accountable for student achievement and focused on rigorous curriculum geared toward developing students‘ cognitive abilities by accessing students‘ higher level thinking skills and developing and delivering core content material in a manner that was relevant and meaningful to students within the framework of real life experiences and real world issues (McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995). Once again, these policy changes did not have a strong component for guidance in the implementation of these changes that could maximize success in increasing student performance. In an effort to meet state mandates, states and districts developed isolated programs to address specific curricular and instructional components, sometimes implementing programs that had detrimental effects on student achievement. Ultimately, these reforms resulted in minimal progress toward increasing student achievement in academic performance (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002).
The focus would soon shift with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which resulted in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. The No Child Left Behind Act added an accountability component to standards-based education that built upon the concept that states, districts, and schools would be held strictly accountable
Object Description
| Title | Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation |
| Author | Hasson, Monalisa |
| Author email | hasson62@sbcglobal.net; monalish@usc.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-01-19 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-19 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Rueda, Robert S. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Marsh, David D. Escalante, Michael F. |
| Abstract | Over the last decade, districts throughout the nation have been challenged with the goal of improving student achievement with the ultimate target of attaining 100% proficiency in the core subject areas across all student subgroups. This is an ambitious endeavor that most would agree should be the ultimate goal regardless of socioeconomic status, primary language, or ethnicity of the students which a district serves. The dilemma schools face is in the implementation of comprehensive school reforms that will move districts toward this goal.; This inquiry-based project investigated the Rowland Unified School District through a collaborative model of research using the gap analysis method developed by Clark and Estes (2002) to identify possible barriers to full and effective implementation of comprehensive reform efforts in the District. The body of literature identified components or elements of effective implementation. The research team used this literature research to inform the study of the District, the research team’s findings, conclusions, and possible solutions. |
| Keyword | comprehensive school reform; program improvement; goal alignment; decentralization; gap analysis |
| Geographic subject | school districts: Rowland Unified School District |
| Geographic subject (county) | Los Angeles |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| 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-m3758 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Hasson, Monalisa |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Hasson-4529 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume62/etd-Hasson-4529.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 7 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 2 however, lacked sufficient or adequate direct guidance for effective development and implementation. Consequently, districts developed plans to improve student achievement independently through various changes in curriculum and by developing new programs. In the late 1990s, additional federal and state mandates surfaced that increased pressure for standards-based instructional reform that held schools accountable for student achievement and focused on rigorous curriculum geared toward developing students‘ cognitive abilities by accessing students‘ higher level thinking skills and developing and delivering core content material in a manner that was relevant and meaningful to students within the framework of real life experiences and real world issues (McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995). Once again, these policy changes did not have a strong component for guidance in the implementation of these changes that could maximize success in increasing student performance. In an effort to meet state mandates, states and districts developed isolated programs to address specific curricular and instructional components, sometimes implementing programs that had detrimental effects on student achievement. Ultimately, these reforms resulted in minimal progress toward increasing student achievement in academic performance (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002). The focus would soon shift with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which resulted in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. The No Child Left Behind Act added an accountability component to standards-based education that built upon the concept that states, districts, and schools would be held strictly accountable |
