Page 36 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 36 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
31
organization to understand what capacity is, how to attain it with professional development, and the resources that are available or needed. If investments into capacity-building are intended to relate directly to improvement, the definition of capacity has to be rooted in instruction. Cohen, Raudenbush and Ball (2000) define capacity, as the knowledge, skill, and material resources that are developed to directly impact the interactions and linkages among students, teachers and content. They argue that none of these three elements can be treated in isolation from each other. For example, an organization cannot enhance teachers‘ knowledge and skill without also building knowledge of what teachers know about reaching individual students and the adopted curriculum that teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn. Conversely, school leaders cannot insist on the mastery of rigorous content without also asking whether teachers have the requisite knowledge and skill to teach it and identifying where students are in their own learning relative to the level of the content being launched. Finally, Elmore (2002) indicates that student achievement cannot be improved without understanding what students bring to the learning process and what teachers understand about student learning.
7. Organizations must stay the course through continuity of good direction by leveraging leadership. Fullan (2007) concludes that the mark of a principal at the end of his or her tenure is not just the impact on student achievement but on how many good teachers the principal leaves behind who can take the good work to the next level. There must be stability and continuity of effective leadership to
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 36 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 31 organization to understand what capacity is, how to attain it with professional development, and the resources that are available or needed. If investments into capacity-building are intended to relate directly to improvement, the definition of capacity has to be rooted in instruction. Cohen, Raudenbush and Ball (2000) define capacity, as the knowledge, skill, and material resources that are developed to directly impact the interactions and linkages among students, teachers and content. They argue that none of these three elements can be treated in isolation from each other. For example, an organization cannot enhance teachers‘ knowledge and skill without also building knowledge of what teachers know about reaching individual students and the adopted curriculum that teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn. Conversely, school leaders cannot insist on the mastery of rigorous content without also asking whether teachers have the requisite knowledge and skill to teach it and identifying where students are in their own learning relative to the level of the content being launched. Finally, Elmore (2002) indicates that student achievement cannot be improved without understanding what students bring to the learning process and what teachers understand about student learning. 7. Organizations must stay the course through continuity of good direction by leveraging leadership. Fullan (2007) concludes that the mark of a principal at the end of his or her tenure is not just the impact on student achievement but on how many good teachers the principal leaves behind who can take the good work to the next level. There must be stability and continuity of effective leadership to |
