ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Why Now? Assessing Assessment. Commentary
Author: Stage, Frances
Date: 2010-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Educational Assessment,College Students,Student Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Outcomes of Education,Accountability,Politics of Education,Government School Relationship,Federal Legislation,Educational Environment,Discussion,Accreditation (Institutions)

Jaschik's January 2009 article, &quot;Assessing Assessment,&quot; describes initiatives designed to extend and broaden nascent assessment of college students learning. In the post-Spellings era of No Child Left Behind, many responded to the continuing discussion, &quot;Why now?&quot; He reports on two organizations, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment that is working to produce a national picture of the state of efforts to measure student learning and the New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability working for institutional and individual endorsements of the principles for assessment and accountability. It has been a year since establishment of these initiatives, and the web page of the first, the National Institute, is a gem for institutions and practitioners--with documents of presentations, occasional papers, and links to assessment resources. These initiatives are welcome because unfortunately much assessment of college students' learning has been measured at rudimentary levels by college officials as well as researchers. Did the students feel good? Did it seem like they learned something? Worse, much research that relates college student experiences to learning is based on these low levels measures. Individuals know from research based on self-efficacy that feeling good while learning and feeling confident about ability to learn can enhance learning (Bandura 1999). However, they also know that just because students feel as if they are learning it does not mean they are. This commentary opines that as soon as institutions begin to take assessment seriously, it is likely that faculty will as well. Finally, individuals need to view learning at the college level as a national agenda item as has been the case in other countries. Instead of a reactionary approach to governmental initiatives, they need proactive leadership in higher education that values regular assessment which, in turn, will make both learning and good teaching more recognized and appreciated. A list of references and suggested readings is provided. [This document presents a commentary on: &quot;Why Now? Assessing Assessment&quot; by Scott Jaschik published in &quot;Inside Higher Ed&quot; January 23, 2009. &quot;Why Now? Assessing Assessment,&quot; its commentary, a list of suggested readings, and discussion questions are included.]
Sports Subsidies Soar. Commentary
Author: Toma, J. Douglas
Date: 2010-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Discussion,Grants,Educational Finance,Financial Support,College Athletics,Fund Raising,College Programs,Institutional Characteristics,Discourse Analysis,Reader Response,Performance Factors,Barriers,Funding Formulas

Doug Lederman's article, "Sports Subsidies Soar," discusses the issue on institutional subsidies for sports program. His article invites an obvious question: why are so many universities willing to subsidize athletics through either a direct transfer of institutional funds, assessing a dedicated student fee, or a combination of these? This commentary on Lederman's article presents four sets of strategic advantages that prominent athletics affords universities (Toma, 2003). Each is connected to resource acquisition through effective external relations that enables the aspirations to national and international standing of otherwise local institutions. In other words, institutions leverage various intangible benefits connected with spectator sports in securing resources that serve broader institutional agendas. [This document presents a commentary on: "Sports Subsidies Soar" by Doug Lederman published in "Inside Higher Ed" January 19, 2010. "Sports Subsidies Soar," its commentary, a list of suggested readings, and discussion questions are included.]
Inside a Search. Commentary
Author: Cooper, Rosie
Date: 2011-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: College Faculty,Faculty Recruitment,Search Committees (Personnel),Collegiality,Evaluation Criteria,Writing for Publication,Research,Creativity,Ability,College Instruction,Urban Environment,Campuses,Philosophy,Intellectual Disciplines

Lou Marinoff's article, "Inside a Search," discusses the issues college search committees face in the pursuit of qualified faculty members that will be a good fit for their institutions. More often than not, faculty searches are more complex and challenging than the featured article suggests. The economic downturn facing the nation has resulted in a growing number of diverse student bodies and a decline in resources across America's college campuses; moreover, faculty turnover is rapidly becoming a problem as baby boomers are retiring (Murray, 2010). Higher education research being conducted during this period of growth and change provides for constructive best practice recommendations to make the hiring process run more smoothly for college personnel and job candidates. The search committee is vital to the selection process as they have an obligation to understand and to apply the vision and intentions of the individual department and organizational mission to the faculty selection process (Cole, 1995). A well crafted and managed search committee can be an asset if done correctly. This commentary suggests best practices for creating a search committee and presents criteria for developing the position description in the faculty recruitment process. [This document presents a commentary on: "Inside a Search" by Lou Marinoff published in "Inside Higher Ed" August 31, 2009. "Inside a Search," its commentary, a list of suggested readings, and discussion questions are included.]
Affirmative Action on the Docket. Commentary
Author: Chambers, Crystal
Date: 2012-03-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Race,Affirmative Action,Higher Education,Court Litigation,Racial Factors,Educational Policy,Admission Criteria,College Admission,Competitive Selection,Discourse Analysis

In signing off the majority opinion in "Grutter v. Bollinger," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor opined, "That 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today" (2003, p. 342). The Supreme Court's acceptance of "Fisher v. University of Texas," however, may signal an end to affirmative action, with or without an ending of need. This learning brief is divided as follows: (1) the Supreme Court and its case selection process, (2) the law related to affirmative action, and (3) the future of race conscious policies in higher education. A list of references and suggested readings is provided. [This document presents a commentary on: "Affirmative Action on the Docket" by Scott Jaschik published in "Inside HigherEd" February 21, 2012. "Affirmative Action on the Docket," its commentary, a list of suggested readings, and discussion questions are included.]
New Look at the Impact of Diversity. Commentary
Author: Leon, Raul A.
Date: 2010-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: College Environment,Student Diversity,Race,Longitudinal Studies,Social Environment,Student Attitudes,Racial Attitudes,College Housing,College Students,Proximity,Cultural Pluralism,Educational Benefits,Program Effectiveness,Sororities,Fraternities,African American Students,Student Unions,Intergroup Relations

Scott Jaschik's article, &quot;New Look at the Impact of Diversity,&quot; invites the reader to explore the dynamics of racial diversity on the college environment, discussing the findings of a longitudinal study conducted at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) that provides empirical evidence that documents student's racial attitudes. In a longitudinal study at UCLA, Sidanius and associates found that exposure to other races and ethnicities has a positive impact on the racial attitudes of students (Sidanius, Levin, Van Laar, &amp; Sears, 2008). Their research expands a growing body of literature (AASCU&amp; NASULGC, 2005; Harper &amp; Hurtado, 2007; Milem, Chang, &amp; Antonio, 2005) concerned with identifying educational benefits associated with a diverse college campus. On the other hand, findings of this study also revealed that membership in groups that are defined largely by race and ethnicity (e.g., Black student union, Latino student association, etc.), and in fraternities and sororities whose membership is dominated by one racial group, has a negative impact on intergroup racial attitudes. This commentary explores the implications of these two findings. A list of references and suggested readings is provided. [This document presents a commentary on: &quot;New Look at the Impact of Diversity&quot; by Scott Jaschik published in &quot;Inside Higher Ed&quot; December 19, 2008. &quot;New Look at the Impact of Diversity,&quot; its commentary, a list of suggested readings, and discussion questions are included.]
No Laughing Matter. Commentary
Author: Simmons, Steven
Date: 2011-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Colleges,Web Sites,Information Dissemination,Cartoons,Information Seeking,Organizational Communication,Navigation (Information Systems),Politics of Education,Community Colleges,College Choice,Decision Making,Student Recruitment

Steve Kolowich's article, "No Laughing Matter" (2010), highlights the disconnect between information found on university and college websites and information relevant to students. Using a carton by Randall Munroe, Kolowich points out that website designers and college marketing officials really do not understand what is important to prospective students. An institution's website is one of the most strategic and powerful tools to help students move from inquiry to enrollment. However, institutions of higher education, specifically community colleges, rarely engage in discovering what information and factors influence student college choice. With decreasing state allocations, community colleges are now more than ever dependent on tuition revenue to fund the open access mission of the college (Ritze, 2006). For these institutions, moving students from inquiry to enrollment is crucial for success. This process starts with understanding factors that influence prospective student's evaluation and decision making process. Scholars and researchers have conducted this type of investigation. Research conducted by Hossler and Gallagher (1987) and Perna (2006) focus on student college choice and is oriented toward all forms of higher education institutions. This commentary focuses specifically on community colleges. The results provide community colleges with a basic road map for understanding what motivates or drives student choice, what information should be included in a website, and how to effectively move a prospective student from inquiry to enrollment. A list of references and suggested readings is provided. [This document presents a commentary on: "No Laughing Matter" by Steve Kolowich published in "Inside Higher Ed" August 4, 2010. "No Laughing Matter," its commentary, a list of suggested readings, and discussion questions are included.]
What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: &quot;Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Longitudinal Educational Growth Study Fifth Year Report&quot;
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2012-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: School Choice,Educational Vouchers,Low Income Groups,Academic Achievement,Private Schools,Public Schools,Program Effectiveness,Longitudinal Studies,Educational Research

The study examined the effectiveness of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which provides vouchers for low-income students to attend private schools. The study examined the four-year academic achievement growth of more than 600 students who were given a voucher in the 2006-07 school year, compared to the academic achievement growth of a matched sample of students who had attended Milwaukee public schools. The study reported that students who began participating in the MPCP in the 2006-07 school year had statistically significantly higher reading achievement in the 2010-11 school year than comparison students, with an effect size of 0.15. There was no difference in math achievement. The study cannot &quot;meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards&quot; because it is not a randomized controlled trial. The study may be able to &quot;meet WWC evidence standards with reservations&quot; because the authors established that their quasi-experimental matching design resulted in equivalent groups of MPCP students and comparison students on test scores and demographic characteristics in 2006. However, because of a change in district policy in the final year that applied only to schools receiving voucher students, it is possible that the observed effects were not solely due to the MPCP. A more thorough review (forthcoming) will examine the issue further to determine the study rating. [The following study is reviewed in this What Works Clearinghouse Quick Review: &quot;MPCP Longitudinal Educational Growth Study: Fifth Year Report. SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report #29.&quot; To access this report, see ED530071.]
From Internationalization to Cosmopolitanism: Educators Taking the Global Turn
Author: Dentith, Audrey M.
Date: 2012-03-23
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Graduate Students,Student Experience,Adult Students,International Education,Curriculum Development,Ideology,Global Approach,Neoliberalism,Transformative Learning,Constructivism (Learning),Empowerment,Power Structure,Beliefs

This paper describes research conducted on the experiences of students enrolled in a graduate course that sought ways to internationalize the curriculum in K-12, higher education and community venues. The theoretical frame, curricular and instructional processes are described. Data was collected from students enrolled in the course from end-of-course reflective narratives and are included here. Fourteen students (100%) submitted reflective narratives for analysis. The course was held in the Fall semester, 2011 in a large Southern public university. The course was organized within an ideological approach, in which major theoretical constructs of globalization, post-colonialism, neoliberalism, and cosmopolitanism formed the central organizing content of the curriculum. The all-female group had diverse identities/backgrounds and a wide array of career interests and work responsibilities. Each class participant is an educator, working in some capacity across a broad spectrum of the educational field, ranging from pre-school through elder care. Data gathered from final student reflections was coded and comparative analysis generated themes across two separate meetings held one month after the course ended. Themes identified among the participants included: 1) confronting and negotiating knowledge; 2) intellectualism and empowerment of ideas; 3) curriculum &amp; learning formats; and, 4) learning power relations. The exploration of learning and self-reflection among these adult educators widened their thinking about the value and purpose of ideological study and offered opportunities to engage in and evaluate a format of sustained study on global, international and cosmopolitan issues. Recommendations include more concerted discussion in higher education regarding the content, purpose and outcomes of international graduate work among students in education. Additional similar studies need to take place and more systematic research on student outcomes needs to be incorporated into subsequent research. The full paper was completed March 1, 2012 and was presented at the International Conference of Cultural and Social Aspects of Research on March 22, 2012 in San Antonio, TX at the University of the Incarnate Word.
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Provision of No Child Left Behind: A Synthesis of Provider Effects. Research Brief
Author: Chappell, Shanan
Date: 2010-03-15
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Educational Improvement,Federal Programs,Academic Achievement,Educational Indicators,Supplementary Education,Synthesis,Low Income Groups,Academic Support Services,After School Programs,Educational Policy,Educational Assessment,Institutional Characteristics,Achievement Gains,Effect Size,Comparative Analysis,Meta Analysis

The 2001 renewal of the United States' Title I program instituted the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) program, in which schools in their third year of failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) are required to offer out-of-school-time tutoring in core subjects to low-income students. This study synthesized provider effects reported in the extant body of SES provider evaluations to generate an estimate of the overall effectiveness of the SES policy in terms of improving student achievement and to identify provider characteristics that are associated with variation in student achievement effects. (Contains 5 figures.)
End-of-Course Exams
Author: Zinth, Jennifer Dounay
Date: 2012-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Standards,State Standards,State Regulation,State Surveys,High School Graduates,High School Students,Graduation Requirements,Exit Examinations,Testing Programs,Achievement Tests,Statistical Data,Student Evaluation

This report identifies the states with current or pending state-level end-of-course assessment (EOC) programs, the subjects in which EOCs are administered in the states, and the EOCs (if any) students must pass to graduate from high school. Twenty-two states currently administer one or more EOCs to all students in an EOC course. This number will increase to 26 states over the next decade as EOCs are anticipated to be implemented in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii and Ohio. Eight states currently require students to pass one or more EOC assessments to graduate from high school. This number will likely increase to 15 states by 2020, with the anticipated implementation of EOCs as exit exams in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, Texas and Washington. Eleven states currently administer EOCs to all students in an EOC course, but do not require students to earn a passing score. These 11 states include California, New Jersey and South Carolina, which use another assessment as the state's exit exam. Finally, at least five states -- Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee -- require that the score on the EOC be factored into a student's final course grade. A sixth state, Texas, offers districts a deferral of a policy to incorporate EOC scores into students' final course grades, but for the 2011-12 school year only. (Contains 7 footnotes.)
A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents
Author: LaFaive, Michael D.
Date: 2007-06-26
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Privatization,Educational Finance,School Districts,Public Education,Delivery Systems,Food Service,Sanitation,School Maintenance,Student Transportation,Contracts,Commercialization,Cost Effectiveness,Outsourcing,Economic Impact,Incidence,Institutional Mission,Performance Factors,Administrator Guides,Guidelines,Institutional Characteristics,Vendors,Program Proposals,Educational Administration

The landscape of public education in Michigan has changed dramatically over the last 13 years. Most districts receive a majority of their operating money from state government, not local taxes. Charter schools and nearby districts lure students away from local schools and capture the state money that goes with them. Districts are even subject to new reporting and student testing mandates, with the results available in seconds through the Internet from almost anywhere in the nation. School districts have thus been forced to stand out from their neighbors, particularly through academic quality, the one product everyone expects schools to produce and the one quality everyone tries to quantify. Districts with unexceptional academic results are less likely to attract students, balance budgets and placate legislators. In this environment, privatization is a simplifier. The day-to-day responsibilities of transporting students, feeding them or keeping their schools clean are delegated to private firms that can be penalized or fired for failure, even as other firms wait to fill the breach. District officials become freer to help teachers with the difficult but central job of academic improvement and discovery. This primer thus focuses on privatization of schools' three major support services ---food, transportation and custodial--and discusses how frequently these services are privatized, how the contracting process works and how school officials can optimize the cost and quality of the services they receive. The primer also discusses the &quot;request for proposals&quot; used to solicit bids from private vendors and &quot;10 Rules of Thumb&quot; to help districts contract successfully. Appended are: (1) A Recent Privatization Court Challenge; (2) Sample RFPs, Company Responses and Contracts; and (3) Contractors Operating in Michigan School Districts. (Contains 7 graphics, 16 footnotes,  177 endnotes and an index.) [For &quot;Review of 'A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents,'&quot; see ED530881.]
Review of &quot;A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents&quot;
Author: Belfield, Clive
Date: 2008-02-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Privatization,School Maintenance,School Support,Public Policy,Student Transportation,Food Service,Delivery Systems,Sanitation,Contracts,Cost Effectiveness,Statistical Bias,Research Methodology,Validity,Educational Policy,Educational Practices,Evidence,Educational Administration

Issued by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, &quot;A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents&quot; examines the &quot;contracting out&quot; of public school support services--specifically food, transportation, and custodial services. The report describes the prevalence of contracting out and sets forth the practical steps in hiring a contractor and the benefits in allowing districts to focus on their core mission of instruction. This information may help districts already committed to contracting out. However, the report presupposes that the practice is beneficial. It relies primarily on testimony from district officials rather than direct data or research. And it does not consider the significant transactions costs associated with contracting out or the risks in ceding control to an outside vendor. Overall, the report is prone to overstatement and misleading contentions, resulting in a report that greatly over-simplifies how education systems operate and the purported benefits of contracting out education-related services. (Contains 9 notes and references.) [This paper reviews the following document: &quot;A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents&quot; (ED530880).]