KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDL 9350 Economics of Education
Department
Educational Leadership
Degree Title (if applicable)
EdD in Leadership for Learning
Proposed Effective Date
Fall 2011
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
xx New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number:
EDL 9350
Course Title _
Economics of Education ____________
Credit Hours Three (3) credit hours
Prerequisites Admission to Doctoral Program in Education
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
Adequacy and equity in the provision of school services and support are crucial concerns
of the public school administrator. The course addresses the financial management of
education through the lens of basic economic theory and how the American economy
provides funding for public education. The focus is on how funds are administered and
the trends toward more efficient utilization of resources, including an introductory view
from a global perspective. The approach is a business management appreciation of the
complexity and magnitude of education as an important resource in the public sector.
III.
Justification
The course is framed within Distributed School Leadership Practice (DSLP), one of the
leading authors of which is James Spillane of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois.
Early in 2006, Spillane rejected the commonly held notion that leadership was either the act
of a heroic
individual or of several individuals who shared leadership responsibilities. In his book,
Distributed Leadership, Spillane postulates that “…leadership…is a practice…that is the
product of joint interactions of school leaders, followers and aspects of their situation such
as routines and tools” (p. 3).
The course is taught by faculty with expertise in school leadership, collaboration, and
diversity. Topics are presented in an integrated manner, such that school transformation is
seen as whole school reform initiative where performance-based practice is the hallmark
(Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006) and the tenets of Distributed School
Leadership Practice (Spillane, 2006), therefore, are embedded within all activities.
Program design supports team building and connections among school districts (building
and system), universities, and beginning leadership candidates. This design is consistent
with the Bagwell College of Education goal of providing a collaborative framework for
developing expertise in teaching, learning, and leadership within the EdS and EdD
program. It is anticipated that participants will mirror this expectation in their future
organizational settings. Residency module activities are problem-based and assist
individuals in developing an internal focus and disposition to meet the challenges and
opportunities within leadership practice in their respective career paths and organizational
settings.
Economics of Education
Understanding equity and adequacy issues related to education finance are the foundation
of school finance policies that produce higher levels of student achievement. By
understanding how to begin improving the productivity of the education dollar, a closer
examination is required in alternative state school finance structures, their costs, impacts
on different types of local school districts, and relationship to education reform.
Understanding current resource use patterns in education in the United States and how to
reallocate resources to better use is critical for the development and design of school
finance policies that improve equity and adequacy. Through familiarity with the school
finance system in Georgia and access to data from other states and a brief overview of
other countries, becoming familiar with the research literature on school finance, further
developing conceptualization, data acquisition and data analysis skills for education
policy analysis, school leaders will gain expertise in influencing school and district
decisions regarding effective resource allocation that impacts student performance.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: TBA
Text:
Odden, A.R. & Picus, L.O. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective, 4th Edition. Boston:
McGraw-Hill. ISBN – 13: 978-0-07-352592-1.
Guthrie, J.W., Springer, M.G., Rolle, R. A., & Houck, E.A. (2007). Modern education finance
and policy. (Peabody College Education Leadership Series) 1/E. Columbus, OH: Allyn &
Bacon.
Prerequisites:
Admission to Doctoral Program in Leadership for Learning
Objectives:
EDL Course Objectives (KSD)
1. To understand equity and adequacy issues
related to education finance and how to design
school finance policies to improve equity and
adequacy KS
2. To examine alternative state school finance
structures, their costs, impacts on different types
of local school districts, and relationship to
education reform KS
3. To understand current resource use patterns in
education and how reallocate resources to better
uses in ways that produce higher levels of
student performance KSD
4. To understand the productivity of the
education dollar and options for improvement
KSD
5. To become familiar with the education finance
system in Georgia KS
6. To become familiar with the research
literature on school finance K
7. To become familiar with the litigation on
school finance in the US and specifically in
Georgia K
EdS/EdD
GLISI Leader
PTEU
Roles
Performance
Outcomes
ELCC/
PSC
Standards
BOR
Strands
7
Operations
3
7, 8
4, 7
Process Imp.
Change
6
4
4
Process Imp.
Change
6
8
Data Analysis
4, 6
4, 6
7
6
Process
Improvement
Operations
7
6
8
6
8
3
8
Operations
7
8. To master basic terminology inherent in the
area of school finance (i.e., millage, Basic
Education Subsidy, assets, debt, various
formulas) KS
9. To identify areas associated with ethics
violations KSD
10. To generate strategies designed to
plan/manage district budgets, both short and long
term KSD
7
Data Analysis
8
Performance
1,2,3,4,7
Performance
3
8
5
8
3, 6
4, 7, 8
Instructional Method
-
The candidates and university supervisor will use WebCT Vista for communication and course
management. Please check daily for postings, mail, and announcements. Instructional methods
may include, but are not limited to:





Problem-Based Learning
Proficiency Examination
Cooperative Learning
Document-Based Inquiry
Case Study Analysis
Method of Evaluation
Evaluation:
Attendance and Participation
Choice Project
Exam
Journal
A= 90% -100%
-
B= 80% - 89%
5%
55%
20%
20%
C= 70% - 79%
F= 69% or lower
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
n/a
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
EdD Leadership for Learning
I.
COURSE: EDL 9350 Economics of Education
Credit: 3 Credit Hours
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
Office:
Phone:
III.
IV.
E-Mail:
Office Hours:
CLASS MEETINGS
Dates: TBA
Day/Times: TBA
Bldg/Room: TBA
TEXTS & READINGS:
Sugested Required Text:
Odden, A.R. & Picus, L.O. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective, 4th Edition. Boston:
McGraw-Hill. ISBN – 13: 978-0-07-352592-1.
Guthrie, J.W., Springer, M.G., Rolle, R. A., & Houck, E.A. (2007). Modern education finance
and policy. (Peabody College Education Leadership Series) 1/E. Columbus, OH: Allyn &
Bacon.
Supplemental Readings:
American Psychological Association (2010>. Publications manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed). Washington, DC.: American Psychological
Association.
Readings as assigned
Other information sources on school finance
Education Commission of the States Web site: www.ecs.org
National Center for Educational Statistics: Web Site: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/
General Sources:
Economics of Education Review, which is edited in the U.S., but with many international articles
as well as domestic ones.
Education Economics, which is edited in the UK, but with many U.S. and international articles.
The Journal of Human Resource
V.
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION
Adequacy and equity in the provision of school services and support are crucial concerns of the
public school administrator. The course addresses the financial management of education
through the lens of basic economic theory and how the American economy provides funding for
public education. The focus is on how funds are administered and the trends toward more
efficient utilization of resources, including an introductory view from a global perspective. The
approach is a business management appreciation of the complexity and magnitude of education
as an important resource in the public sector.
VI.
JUSTIFICATION
The course is framed within Distributed School Leadership Practice (DSLP), one of the leading
authors of which is James Spillane of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Early in 2006,
Spillane rejected the commonly held notion that leadership was either the act of a heroic
individual or of several individuals who shared leadership responsibilities. In his book, Distributed
Leadership, Spillane postulates that “…leadership…is a practice…that is the product of joint
interactions of school leaders, followers and aspects of their situation such as routines and tools” (p.
3).
The course is taught by faculty with expertise in school leadership, collaboration, and diversity.
Topics are presented in an integrated manner, such that school transformation is seen as whole
school reform initiative where performance-based practice is the hallmark (Leithwood, Day,
Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006) and the tenets of Distributed School Leadership Practice
(Spillane, 2006), therefore, are embedded within all activities.
Program design supports team building and connections among school districts (building and
system), universities, and beginning leadership candidates. This design is consistent with the
Bagwell College of Education goal of providing a collaborative framework for developing
expertise in teaching, learning, and leadership within the EdS and EdD program. It is anticipated
that participants will mirror this expectation in their future organizational settings. Residency
module activities are problem-based and assist individuals in developing an internal focus and
disposition to meet the challenges and opportunities within leadership practice in their respective
career paths and organizational settings.
Economics of Education
Understanding equity and adequacy issues related to education finance are the foundation of
school finance policies that produce higher levels of student achievement. By understanding how
to begin improving the productivity of the education dollar, a closer examination is required in
alternative state school finance structures, their costs, impacts on different types of local school
districts, and relationship to education reform. Understanding current resource use patterns in
education in the United States and how to reallocate resources to better use is critical for the
development and design of school finance policies that improve equity and adequacy. Through
familiarity with the school finance system in Georgia and access to data from other states and a
brief overview of other countries, becoming familiar with the research literature on school
finance, further developing conceptualization, data acquisition and data analysis skills for
education policy analysis, school leaders will gain expertise in influencing school and district
decisions regarding effective resource allocation that impacts student performance.
VII.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning & Leadership
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders
who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their
students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and
leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace
the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that
way, candidates at the doctoral level develop into leaders for learning and facilitators of the
teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes values and demonstrates
collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the
community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public
and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of
assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
Use of Technology: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional
Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated
throughout the program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student
learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates
will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media. They will master use
of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and they will develop
the confidence to design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
The students will be linked through WebCT Vista and via a listserv that will be utilized in
processing the comprehensive experiences of the doctoral program. The members of each cohort
will be linked in a similar way as they move through the program. The emerging technologies
will be utilized with the parallel expectation that participants demonstrate a high degree of
technological literacy in retrieving and sharing information and resources
Educational Specialist and Doctorate of Education
The knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD’s) of the graduates of the Doctorate of Education
program in the Bagwell College of Education reflect the unique aspects of this degree.
Collaboratively developed by faculty from across the university and in consultation with
community/school partners, these outcomes and proficiencies delineate the high expectations we
have for graduates who will be Leaders for Learning. Clearly, the proficiencies reflect the
complex nature of student learning in advanced degree programs leading to a terminal degree.
Consequently, many of the proficiencies listed below incorporate aspects of knowledge, skills
and dispositions within a single proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly linked to our
conceptual framework, The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning, and
Leadership.
VIII. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PTEU PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES:
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares school leaders who understand their
disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these
understandings to making decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of
the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these courses, participants will
demonstrate outcomes that embody the constructs of DSLP, the ten BOR Performance
Strands, the ELCC standards, the PSC standards for Residency, and the roles
recommended by Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement (GLISI). As
this course is outcomes-driven, successful individuals must provide evidence of meeting
the following complementary PTEU EdS/EdD Performance Outcomes:
1. Fosters an organizational culture that facilitates development of a shared
vision, school improvement and increased learning for all students.
2. Implements sustainable educational change and process improvement
3. Creates 21st century learning environments that advance best practices in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
4. Engages in applied research that supports data-driven planning and decision
making for the improvement of schools and learning.
5. Builds collaborative relationships, teams and community partnerships that
communicate and reflect distributed leadership for learning.
6. Embraces diversity by demonstrating intercultural literacy and global
understanding.
7. Facilitates professional learning and development that enhance and improve
professional practice and productivity.
8. Exercises professionalism and ethical practice.
http://www.gapsc.com/Rules/Current/EducatorPreparation/index.asp
http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf
EDL Course Objectives (KSD)
1. To understand equity and adequacy issues
related to education finance and how to design
school finance policies to improve equity and
adequacy KS
2. To examine alternative state school finance
structures, their costs, impacts on different types
of local school districts, and relationship to
education reform KS
3. To understand current resource use patterns in
education and how reallocate resources to better
uses in ways that produce higher levels of
student performance KSD
4. To understand the productivity of the
education dollar and options for improvement
KSD
5. To become familiar with the education finance
system in Georgia KS
6. To become familiar with the research
literature on school finance K
7. To become familiar with the litigation on
school finance in the US and specifically in
Georgia K
8. To master basic terminology inherent in the
area of school finance (i.e., millage, Basic
Education Subsidy, assets, debt, various
formulas) KS
9. To identify areas associated with ethics
violations KSD
10. To generate strategies designed to
plan/manage district budgets, both short and long
term KSD
EdS/EdD
GLISI Leader
PTEU
Roles
Performance
Outcomes
ELCC/
PSC
Standards
BOR
Strands
7
Operations
3
7, 8
4, 7
Process Imp.
Change
6
4
4
Process Imp.
Change
6
8
6
7
6
8
6
8
3
8
Data Analysis
4, 6
4, 6
Process
Improvement
Operations
7
Operations
7
7
Data Analysis
3
8
8
Performance
5
8
1,2,3,4,7
Performance
3, 6
4, 7, 8
IX.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Instructional Methodology:
The candidates and university supervisor will use WebCT Vista for communication and course
management. Please check daily for postings, mail, and announcements. Instructional methods
may include, but are not limited to:





Problem-Based Learning
Proficiency Examination
Cooperative Learning
Document-Based Inquiry
Case Study Analysis
Required Activities:
Select One Project: (55 % of Grade)
Adequacy and/or Equity Project – 15 page paper
Analyze the equity and/or adequacy of the school finance system in two states. Identify the main
school finance problem(s), and suggest a school finance reform to “fix” the issue(s) chosen.
Include appropriate simulation summary tables and research citations for equity and/or adequacy
numbers.
OR
Use of school resources – 15 page paper
Describe the resource use in a local school, together with a proposal on resource reallocation.
Identify at least 3 problems or goals in which members of an educational organization might be
interested. Include appropriate data to support your goals and support your reasoning with a
review of the literature.
OR
State Finance Reform – 15 page paper
Select 3 areas for reform in Georgia’s funding formula. Provide a clear argument for the need for
reform and suggestion(s) for improvement addressing the issues of equity and/or adequacy.
Include appropriate data to support your recommendations and evidence in literature review
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
.Garner (2004); Psacharopoulos & Patrinos (2004)
Tsang (2002); Hanushek (2003). Temin, (2003).
Loeb & Reininger (2004).
Holistic
All objectives
Final Exam: (20% of Grade)Candidates will demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions
through a comprehensive final exam that addresses the course objectives
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
Holistic
All objectives
Attendance and Participation: (5% of Grade.) Attendance and participation in all university
and school/system based activities is required for successful completion of module activities.
Candidates are expected to complete the assigned readings and/or assigned activities each week
and participate in class discussions demonstrating understanding of the readings.
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
X.
Holistic
All objectives
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Evaluation:
Attendance and Participation
Choice Project
Exam
Journal
A= 90% -100%
B= 80% - 89%
5%
55%
20%
20%
C= 70% - 79%
F= 69% or lower
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of
investigation associated with college-level studies. All work submitted that requires
documentation should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof read to ensure accuracy
in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Rubrics will be shared with candidates as a means of
establishing an understanding of expectation of graduate study in the BCOE and at KSU.
Every effort will be made by the instructor to be fair and equitable in the assignment of grades
through multiple processes noted above. In the final analysis, the assigned grade will be based
on the best professional judgment of instructor.
XI.
TENTATIVE COURSE OUTLINE and Suggested Readings
Date
Activity
INTRODUCTION: THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL
Week 1
FINANCE, AND SCHOOL FINANCE ADEQUACY
School Finance Overview: Introduction of Major School Finance Concepts
Odden and Picus (2008), Chapter 1.
SCHOOL FINANCE EQUITY AND ADEQUACY
Week 2
School Finance Litigation: From Equity to Adequacy
Odden and Picus (2008), Ch. 2
Vincent v. Voight, 1997 -- Wisconsin Supreme Court school finance court decision.
Lindseth, Alfred. (2004). Adequacy Lawsuits: The Wrong Answer for our kids.
Education Week, June 9 UW)
Guthre, James and Matthew Springer (2004). Courtroom Alchemy. Education Next
Vol. 7, no 1, see: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/4611792.html
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
A Framework for School Finance: From Equity to Adequacy
Odden and Picus (2008), Chapter 3.
Allan Odden. (2003). Equity and Adequacy in School Finance. Phi Delta Kappan, 85
(2).
III. IDENTIFYING ADEQUATE RESOURCES AND REALLOCATING SCHOOL FUNDS
TO THOSE RESOURCES
What is an Adequate Level of Resources?
Mark Fermanich, Michelle Turner Mangan, Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus ,
Betheny Gross & Zena Rudo. (2006). Washington Learns: Successful Districts
Study. Report prepared for theK12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns.
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-1106Final.pdf
Jennifer Imazeki & Andrew Reshovsky. (July 2004). Estimating the costs of meeting
the Texas educational accountability Standards. Report for the plaintiffs in West
Orange-Cove v. Neeley.
Resource Allocation: How Are Education Dollars Currently Spent?
Odden and Picus (2008), Chapter 6.
Karen Hawley Miles. (1995). Freeing Resources for Improving Schools: A Case
Study of Teacher Allocation in Boston Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 17(4), 476-493.
Amy Schwartz. (1999). School Districts and Spending in the Schools. In William
Fowler, Jr., Ed. Selected Papers in School Finance 1997-1999. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics. Available online at:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999334/text3.html
David Monk and S. Hussain. (2000). Structural Influences on the Internal Allocation
of School District Resources: Evidence from New York State. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 1-26.
Resource Reallocation: How Dollars Could Be Spent More Effectively
Odden and Picus (2008), Chapter 7
Allan Odden and Sarah Archibald. (2001). Committing to Class-Size Reduction and
Finding the Resources to Implement It: A Case Study of Resource Reallocation in
Kenosha, Wisconsin. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 9(30). Online journal:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n30.html.
Allan Odden, Sarah Archibald and Anita Tychsen. (1999). Farnham Elementary
School: A Case Study of Resource Reallocation. Madison: University of Wisconsin,
Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in
Education. Available online at:
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/research/reallocation.asp
PROVIDING ADEQUATE DOLLARS TO SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS
Getting Adequate Dollars to the Schools: District Budgeting
Guest Speakers: CFO from a school district
Odden and Picus (2008), Chapter 8.
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Weel
13
Week 14
Week 15
Week 16
XII.
Fund the Child. 2006. Report from the Fordham Foundation.
Rosalind Levacic, Kenneth Ross, Brian Caldwell & Allan Odden. (2000). Funding
Schools by Formula: Comparing Practice in Five Countries. Journal of Education
Finance. 25(4), 489-515.
Funding education in the United States
A Summary of Previous Research in Georgia on School Finance
US taxes, regressive and progressive, corporate taxes
Alternative funding for school construction and capital projects
Getting Adequate Dollars to Districts:
State School Finance Formulas and Their Various Impacts
Odden & Picus (2008), Chapters 9
Please bring your laptop computer to class, with the 20 district simulation
downloaded on it. We will show you how to use or download the 20 district and state
simulations
State Equity and Adequacy
Odden & Picus (2008), Chapter 11.
Please Bring Laptops to Class.
Guest Speaker: School Principal
Miller, L, Roza, M, & Swartz, C (2004). A cost allocation model for shared district
resources: A means for comparing spending across schools. Center on Reinventing
Public Education.
http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_sfrp_costall_sep04.pdf
New Approaches to Teacher Salary Structures
Odden and Wallace. (2007). How to Achieve World Class Teacher Compensation. St.
Paul: Freeload Press. Available for free at: www.freeloadpress.com.
Odden & Picus (2008), chapter 12
Putting it All Together: The Cost of Education
Odden, A, Goetz, M, & Picus, L. (2008). Using Available Evidence to Determine
Educational Adequacy. Education Finance and Policy. Summer 2008, Vol. 3, No. 3,
Pages 374-397.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., & Goetz, M. (under review). A 50-state strategy to school
finance adequacy. Journal of Education Policy.
Final Exam
Project Presentation
Final Class
Odden and Picus (2008), Chapter 7.
Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A., Stiefel, L (2006). Rethinking the intradistrict
distribution of school inputs to disadvantaged students. Paper presented for
“Rethinking Rodriquez: Education as a fundamental right. University of
California—Berkeley.
POLICIES
Diversity: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs
of the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as
well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective
instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is
raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause
candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in
employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are age,
disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race,
religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style
differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students
must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required. Please be aware there are
other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of
the multicultural variables outlined above. The development of an appreciation of diversity as a
core organizational value and its use as a resource will give direction to the activities of the
doctoral seminar and of the whole doctoral program. Consideration will be given to diversity in
developing the membership of the cohorts in the interest of ensuring that the collaborative
cohort experience contributes to the development of such personal and organizational core
values.
Professionalism- Academic Honesty: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Faculty of the EdS and EdD programs
abide by the policies and guidelines established by the university in their expectations for
candidates’ work. Candidates are responsible for knowing and adhering to the guidelines of
academic honesty as stated in the graduate catalog. Any candidate who is found to have
violated these guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action consistent with university policy.
For example, plagiarism or other violations of the University’s Academic Honesty policies
could result in a grade of “ F” in the course and a formal hearing before the Judiciary
Committee.
Papers should be a synthesis of information reported in your own words and with proper
documentation.
Professionalism- Participation/Attendance/Submission of Assignments/Use of Technology
During Class/Seminars: Part of your success in this course is related to providing peer reviews
and feedback to your colleagues regarding course assignments; participating and interacting in
course activities; collaborating and working equitably with colleagues; and treating colleagues
and the professor with respect both in and out of class. Furthermore, responding effectively and
appropriately to feedback from your peers and the professor/supervisor is another measure of
your professionalism. Please be prepared by bringing all materials and readings to meetings and
seminars. All readings assignments must be completed prior to meetings and seminars. We
depend on one another to ask pertinent and insightful questions.
Professionalism also includes appropriate audience behaviors during lectures and presentations.
When someone is speaking to the group or making a presentation, professionals do not engage in
conversations or other distracting behaviors that detract from the audiences’ attention to the
speaker.
Absences may be considered excused only in the case of personal or a professional emergency
and only if approved by the professor/supervisor in advance or as soon as possible after the
emergency event.
Using technology during class/seminar (laptops, cell phones, etc.) to check personal e-mail or
engage in activities not associated with course content is not acceptable and will likely result in a
reduction of course participation points. Engaging in personal conversations while
professor/supervisor or groups are presenting is not acceptable and will likely result in a
reduction of class participation points. A break will be provided for snacks and personal use of
technology.
In sum, a lack of professionalism will likely result in grade reduction.
XIII. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blau, F., & Kahn, L. M. (2000). Gender differences in pay. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
14, 75-99.
Garner, C.W. (2004). Education finance for school leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement (2008). Tools for planning and
improving leader performance.
Hall, R. (2002). The value of education: evidence from around the globe. In: Education in the
Twenty-first Century, ed. by E. Lazear, 25-40. Hoover Institution Press.
Hanushek, E. (2003). The importance of school quality. In Our Schools and Our Future… Are
We Still at Risk? ed. By Peterson, P. 141 – 173. Hoover Institution Press.
URL: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/osof.html
Kremer, M. R. (1995). Research on schooling: What we know and what we don't know: A
comment on Hanushek, The World Bank Research Observer, 10, 2, 247-254.
Leithwood, K., Day, D., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school
leadership. What it is and how it influences pupil learning. (Research Report 800).
University of Nottingham.
Levin, H.M. (1995). Raising Educational Productivity. In M. Carnoy, ed. The
International Encyclopedia of Economics of Education. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press
283-291.
Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets. Sections 1-6.
URL: http://www.epc.msu.edu/publications/publications.htm
National Council on Teacher Quality. The NCTQ square off: Are teachers underpaid? Two
economists tackle an intractable controversy.
URL: http://www.nctq.org/nctq/publications/debate.jsp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. Nation at Risk. Washington, D.C., pp.
5-36.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2002). Standards for advanced programs
In educational leadership.
\
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H.A. (2004). Returns to investment in education: A further
update. Education Economics, 12, 111-134.
Report of the US Department of Education Commission on the Future of Higher Education
(Draft). August 2006. The Promise: Higher Education has never been more important
to our country. pp. 1-5. URL:
http://insidehighered.com/index.php/content/download/78834/1073674/file/Report%20
Master%20Draft%20--%208-3-06%20w%20watermark.pdf
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Temin, P. (2003). Low pay, low quality. Education Next, 3, 8-13.
URL: http://www.educationnext.org/20033/pdf/8.pdf
Tsang, M. (2002). Comparing the costs of public and private schools in developing countries. In
Cost-Effectiveness and Educational Policy, ed. by Henry Levin and Patrick McEwan,
pp. 111-136.
Wolfe, B., & Zuvekas. S. (1997). Nonmarket Outcomes of schooling: External benefits of
education. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 491-502
URL: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/ed21st.html
Websites:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1427855/k.FAA3/Welcome_to_
the_Center_for_Public_Education.htm (The Center for Public Education)
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/pea_board.aspx?PageReq=PEABoardRules (Georgia State Education
Rules and Policies)
http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherEducation/Rules/505-3-.58.pdfhttp:///www.doe.k12.ga.us
(Georgia Department of Education)