Page 38 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 38 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
33
school district both throughout the implementation process and as a result of the process (p. 61).
As stated earlier, the school reform process is one that cannot be simplified and it takes coordination between the central office and the school sites and collaboration between all internal and external stakeholders in order to achieve true and sustainable reform (Fullan, 2007).
Goal Alignment
Literature indicates that goal alignment is critical to successful implementation of school reforms. According to Cohen (1983) coordination between goals and content with performance measures occurs infrequently in schools. By the late 1980s, there was evidence to suggest that schools that were effective in improving student performance could be found and there was growing consensus on what effective schools looked like (Good & Brophy, 1986). Effective schools were distinguished from more typical schools in that they were better managed, and content and performance goals were coordinated so that resources were more directed to student achievement than in less effective schools (Good, Burross, & McCaslin, 2005). Datnow et al. (2002) conclude that many fundamental school reforms fail to become institutionalized because of such factors as: (a) flawed beginnings in the implementation of the reform within the district; (b) failure to build commitment and ownership among teachers; (c) inflexibility of the reform; (d) resource demands of the reform; (e) high stakes accountability systems; or (f) policy misalignments (p. 117). The team examined the various initiatives and driving reforms in Rowland including the Strategic Plan, Instructional Cabinet, and Communities of
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 38 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 33 school district both throughout the implementation process and as a result of the process (p. 61). As stated earlier, the school reform process is one that cannot be simplified and it takes coordination between the central office and the school sites and collaboration between all internal and external stakeholders in order to achieve true and sustainable reform (Fullan, 2007). Goal Alignment Literature indicates that goal alignment is critical to successful implementation of school reforms. According to Cohen (1983) coordination between goals and content with performance measures occurs infrequently in schools. By the late 1980s, there was evidence to suggest that schools that were effective in improving student performance could be found and there was growing consensus on what effective schools looked like (Good & Brophy, 1986). Effective schools were distinguished from more typical schools in that they were better managed, and content and performance goals were coordinated so that resources were more directed to student achievement than in less effective schools (Good, Burross, & McCaslin, 2005). Datnow et al. (2002) conclude that many fundamental school reforms fail to become institutionalized because of such factors as: (a) flawed beginnings in the implementation of the reform within the district; (b) failure to build commitment and ownership among teachers; (c) inflexibility of the reform; (d) resource demands of the reform; (e) high stakes accountability systems; or (f) policy misalignments (p. 117). The team examined the various initiatives and driving reforms in Rowland including the Strategic Plan, Instructional Cabinet, and Communities of |
