Page 45 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 45 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
40
shared expectations among teachers, administrators, and students about what constitutes good work and a set of processes for observing whether these expectations are being met (Newmann and King, et. al., 2000; Little, 1993; Abelmann and Elmore, et. al, 1999).
Elmore (2002) also indicates that the most direct incentives for improved performance are those embedded within the work itself. The further away from the work, the less powerful and predictable is an incentive‘s effect on performance. He posits that school personnel are more likely to work collaboratively to improve performance if the work itself is rewarding and if the external rewards support and reinforce work that is regarded as instrumental to increased quality and performance. Given the atomized structure of most schools, it seems improbable that external rewards will, in and of themselves, transform these organizations into coherent, supportive environments for student and adult learning. It is more likely that teachers and administrators will learn the value of successful collaboration from experience then make the connection between this work and external rewards or sanctions. The work itself, then, is the primary motivator for learning and improvement. If the work is not engaging and if it is not demonstrably beneficial to student learning, then any incentives are likely to produce weak and unreliable effects (p.21).
Accountability systems, no matter how well designed, are only as effective as the capacity of the organization to respond. The purpose of the accountability system is to focus the resources and capacities of an organization toward a particular end. Accountability systems cannot mobilize resources that schools do not have. Accountability systems do not cause schools to improve; they create the conditions in
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 45 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 40 shared expectations among teachers, administrators, and students about what constitutes good work and a set of processes for observing whether these expectations are being met (Newmann and King, et. al., 2000; Little, 1993; Abelmann and Elmore, et. al, 1999). Elmore (2002) also indicates that the most direct incentives for improved performance are those embedded within the work itself. The further away from the work, the less powerful and predictable is an incentive‘s effect on performance. He posits that school personnel are more likely to work collaboratively to improve performance if the work itself is rewarding and if the external rewards support and reinforce work that is regarded as instrumental to increased quality and performance. Given the atomized structure of most schools, it seems improbable that external rewards will, in and of themselves, transform these organizations into coherent, supportive environments for student and adult learning. It is more likely that teachers and administrators will learn the value of successful collaboration from experience then make the connection between this work and external rewards or sanctions. The work itself, then, is the primary motivator for learning and improvement. If the work is not engaging and if it is not demonstrably beneficial to student learning, then any incentives are likely to produce weak and unreliable effects (p.21). Accountability systems, no matter how well designed, are only as effective as the capacity of the organization to respond. The purpose of the accountability system is to focus the resources and capacities of an organization toward a particular end. Accountability systems cannot mobilize resources that schools do not have. Accountability systems do not cause schools to improve; they create the conditions in |
