Page 32 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 32 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
27
curriculum throughout the 1950s and 1960s labeled the ―adoption era‖ of reforms. Vast sums of funding was poured into major curriculum reforms in the content areas of physical and biological sciences; social sciences; and into organizational innovations including flexible scheduling and team teaching (Fullan, 2007).
By the early 1970s there was growing evidence that the outcomes of these reforms were minimal and confined to isolated examples (p.5). Goodlad, Klein, et al (1970, Sarason (1971), and Gross, Giacquinta, and Bernstein (1971) all corroborate the absence of change at the classroom level. At this point, the term implementation came into the vocabulary of reform, and in the first major review of research, Fullan and Pomfret (1977) documented the massive failure of reform. There was the newfound realization that transferring the ideas into practice was a far more complex process (Fullan, 2007).
Little progress has been made since the 1960s, despite renewed interest in the 1980s in large-scale reform focusing on accountability. The pressure for reform has increased, however; the understanding of real school reform implementation has not increased at the same pace (p. 6).
One of main dilemmas in large-scale reform is creating a balance between centralization and decentralization which Fullan labels the ―too tight/too loose‖ problem. Top-down change does not work because it fails to garner ownership, commitment, or even clarity about the nature of the reforms and bottom-up change does not produce success on any scale. He likens the bottom-up approach as allowing a thousand flowers to bloom except that a thousand flowers do not bloom and those that do are not perennial
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 32 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 27 curriculum throughout the 1950s and 1960s labeled the ―adoption era‖ of reforms. Vast sums of funding was poured into major curriculum reforms in the content areas of physical and biological sciences; social sciences; and into organizational innovations including flexible scheduling and team teaching (Fullan, 2007). By the early 1970s there was growing evidence that the outcomes of these reforms were minimal and confined to isolated examples (p.5). Goodlad, Klein, et al (1970, Sarason (1971), and Gross, Giacquinta, and Bernstein (1971) all corroborate the absence of change at the classroom level. At this point, the term implementation came into the vocabulary of reform, and in the first major review of research, Fullan and Pomfret (1977) documented the massive failure of reform. There was the newfound realization that transferring the ideas into practice was a far more complex process (Fullan, 2007). Little progress has been made since the 1960s, despite renewed interest in the 1980s in large-scale reform focusing on accountability. The pressure for reform has increased, however; the understanding of real school reform implementation has not increased at the same pace (p. 6). One of main dilemmas in large-scale reform is creating a balance between centralization and decentralization which Fullan labels the ―too tight/too loose‖ problem. Top-down change does not work because it fails to garner ownership, commitment, or even clarity about the nature of the reforms and bottom-up change does not produce success on any scale. He likens the bottom-up approach as allowing a thousand flowers to bloom except that a thousand flowers do not bloom and those that do are not perennial |
