Page 52 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 52 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
47
reform efforts in the District. This key informant became the liaison between our team and the District and provided the team follow-up contacts for interviews.
Administrators, Teachers, Ball Foundation Partners
Our key informant, RUSD‘s assistant superintendent, selected a combination of follow up contacts for our initial round of scanning interviews to be representative of the different levels of implementation within the District (Ball foundation partners, administrators, and teachers); including two Ball Foundation partners, three principals, and four teachers. The second round, month-long interviews, had the same informant composition, incorporating administrators; Ball Foundation partners; and teachers, which allowed the team to capture in-depth information about the extent of school reform implementation related to the root causes.
Inquiry Procedures
The main instruments in this investigation were 1) structured scanning, semi-structured stages of concern, and month-long interviews; 2) strategic plans; 3) district information meeting; 4) observational data; and 5) Ball Foundation surveys. All interviewees were assured of their anonymity and were advised that inquiry project results would be shared in a manner that would not jeopardize the integrity of the process as it relates to protecting the identity of individual participants. Scanning interviews were instrumental in understanding how each role group sees the implementation of reform strategies, perceived successful or unsuccessful strategies, District or individual goals, awareness/knowledge, and barriers (knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational culture). Stages of concern interviews were aimed at assessing the concerns at various
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 52 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 47 reform efforts in the District. This key informant became the liaison between our team and the District and provided the team follow-up contacts for interviews. Administrators, Teachers, Ball Foundation Partners Our key informant, RUSD‘s assistant superintendent, selected a combination of follow up contacts for our initial round of scanning interviews to be representative of the different levels of implementation within the District (Ball foundation partners, administrators, and teachers); including two Ball Foundation partners, three principals, and four teachers. The second round, month-long interviews, had the same informant composition, incorporating administrators; Ball Foundation partners; and teachers, which allowed the team to capture in-depth information about the extent of school reform implementation related to the root causes. Inquiry Procedures The main instruments in this investigation were 1) structured scanning, semi-structured stages of concern, and month-long interviews; 2) strategic plans; 3) district information meeting; 4) observational data; and 5) Ball Foundation surveys. All interviewees were assured of their anonymity and were advised that inquiry project results would be shared in a manner that would not jeopardize the integrity of the process as it relates to protecting the identity of individual participants. Scanning interviews were instrumental in understanding how each role group sees the implementation of reform strategies, perceived successful or unsuccessful strategies, District or individual goals, awareness/knowledge, and barriers (knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational culture). Stages of concern interviews were aimed at assessing the concerns at various |
