ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Involving Teachers in Charter School Governance: A Guide for State Policymakers
Author: Sam, Cecilia
Date: 2008-10-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Charter Schools,Teachers,Governance,Governing Boards,Teaching Methods,Collective Bargaining,Laws,State Legislation,Teacher Role,Guides,Policy Formation,Teacher Participation,Participative Decision Making,Interviews,State Policy

This guide for state policymakers examines teacher involvement in charter school governance. Teacher involvement is defined to include the gamut of decision-making roles not typically afforded teachers in traditional public schools, including founding schools, serving on governing boards, and engaging in site-based collective bargaining. Different types of involvement pose specific challenges and opportunities. Based on a review of charter school legislation and interviews with state charter school administrators to identify policy options, the guide explores ways in which state laws and policies shape teacher involvement. Teacher involvement polices are intended to define the roles and responsibilities of teachers and vary across the 40 states and the District of Columbia with charter school laws. Teachers are required to be involved with the development of the school charter in four states. Six states require a teacher representative on a charter school's governing board, and one state requires charter schools to create a teacher-run grievance committee. Twenty-two state laws specify that charter school teachers are allowed to engage in collective bargaining separately from the district in which their school is located. The guide outlines the pros and cons of each policy option with illustrative examples from existing state law and practice. It raises issues that state policymakers may want to consider related to teacher involvement in charter school governance and aims to help them identify approaches that best meet the needs of charter schools in their state. (Contains 1 table, 6 resources and 7 footnotes.) [This paper was written with assistance from Joanna Smith and Priscilla Wohlstetter.]
Creating and Sustaining High-Quality Charter School Governing Boards. A Guide for State Policymakers
Author: Butler, Elizabeth A.
Date: 2008-11-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Charter Schools,Governing Boards,Recruitment,Politics of Education,State Legislation,Guides,School Law,Educational Policy,Educational Finance,Governance,Parents,Parent Role,Board of Education Role,Teachers,Teacher Role,Training

This guide for state policymakers examines the laws, policies, and programs that states are using to create and sustain high-quality charter school governing boards. In particular, the guide focuses on the two aspects of governing boards that interviews with state administrators revealed are most critical for a board's success: board composition and recruitment and board training. States address board composition and recruitment in three ways. First, charter school laws in 14 states require (or prohibit) each charter school's governing board to include specific types of people, most commonly, teachers or parents. Second, three jurisdictions have created pools of potential board members to help match schools with qualified board members who have the time, skills, and aptitude to serve. Third, in four states, authorizers appoint or approve board members rather than placing this authority with individual charter schools. Although board training is mandated by law in only one state, interviewees in eleven states reported that training requirements are imposed by the state department of education or charter school authorizers. In addition, numerous states provide voluntary board training opportunities. The guide outlines the pros and cons of the prevalent policy options related to board composition and recruitment and board training with illustrative examples from existing state law and practice. It also raises issues state policymakers may want to consider in adopting new policies and aims to help them identify approaches that best meet the needs of charter schools in their state. (Contains 1 table, 8 footnotes and 17 resources.) [This paper was written with the assistance from Joanna Smith and Priscilla Wohlstetter.]
Democratic School Turnarounds: Pursuing Equity and Learning from Evidence
Author: Trujillo, Tina
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Grants,Educational Change,Public Education,Democratic Values,Federal Aid,Low Income Groups,Minority Group Children,At Risk Students,Equal Education,State Aid,Educational Finance,Financial Support,School Policy,Teacher Competencies,Participative Decision Making,Change Strategies

In 2009, the Obama Administration announced its intention to rapidly &quot;turn around&quot; 5,000 of the nation's lowest-performing schools. To do so, it relied on the School Improvement Grant program (SIG) to provide targeted funding for states and schools, and to mandate drastic, school-level reforms. While the program channels grants to participating schools (up to $2 million a year per school), it does not maintain funding beyond three years, nor does it alter the basic, inadequate funding structures for public education. The SIG program's reforms require massive administrative and teacher replacement, particularly under the &quot;turnaround option.&quot; In the public debate about the SIG program, reforms such as this have been described as new and innovative. In reality, the nation has significant experience with these models, particularly over the past 40 years. Generations of research show that the SIG reforms are based on faulty evidence, unwarranted claims and they ignore contradictory evidence. The most prominent error is the claim that these corporate-based models can yield transformative results. The second most prominent error is the assumption that the drastic reconstitution of school staff will prove beneficial. Neither claim is supported by research. This report considers the democratic tensions inherent in the federal SIG policy's market-based school reforms. It concludes with a set of recommendations that re-center the purposes of public education for low-income students, students of color, and local communities in developing more equitable, democratic school turnarounds. These recommendations are: (1) Increase current federal and state spending for public education, particularly as it is allocated for turnaround-style reforms; (2) Focus school turnaround policies on improving the quality of teaching and learning rather than on technical-structural changes; (3) Engage a broad cross-section of schools' communities--teachers, students, parents, and community organizations--in planning and implementing turnaround strategies that are tailored to each school and district context; (4) Surround struggling schools with comprehensive, wrap-around supports that stabilize schools and communities; (5) Incorporate multiple indicators of effectiveness--apart from test scores--that reflect the multiple purposes of schools; and (6) Support ongoing, systematic research, evaluation, and dissemination examining all aspects of turnaround processes in schools and districts. (Contains 90 notes and references.)
Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking: Teacher Evaluation
Author: Mathis, William
Date: 2012-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Teaching Methods,Statistical Analysis,Educational Change,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Effectiveness,Test Results,Educational Policy

Teachers are important, and policies mandating high-stakes evaluations of teachers are at the forefront of popular school reforms. Today's dominant approach labels teachers as effective or ineffective based in large part on a statistical analysis of students' test-score performance. Teachers judged effective are rewarded, and those found ineffective are sanctioned. While such "summative" evaluations can be useful, lawmakers should be wary of approaches based in large part on test scores: the error in the measurements is large--which results in many teachers being incorrectly labeled as effective or ineffective; relevant test scores are not available for the students taught by most teachers, given that only certain grade levels and subject areas are tested; and the incentives created by high-stakes use of test scores drive undesirable teaching practices such as curriculum narrowing and teaching to the test. This paper presents key research points and advice for policymakers. (Contains 23 notes and references.)
The Need for the Quality Improvement Center on Early Childhood: Background Research and Evaluation Framework
Author: Center for the Study of Social Policy
Date: 2009-10-02
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Child Abuse,Prevention,Stakeholders,Technical Assistance,Infants,Toddlers,Young Children,Cooperation,Organizations (Groups),Knowledge Level,Child Development,At Risk Persons,Child Neglect,Problem Solving,Networks,Intervention,Delivery Systems,Measurement

In FY 2009, the Children's Bureau funded the Center for the Study of Social Policy, in partnership with ZERO TO THREE: National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, and the National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds, to create a National Quality Improvement Center on Early Childhood (QIC-EC) focused on child maltreatment prevention. The purpose of the 5-year QIC-EC is to promote knowledge development, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge integration in this area. Knowledge development focuses on program and systems strategies that contribute to the prevention of child maltreatment and to the promotion of increased family strengths and optimal development among infants and young children (birth-5) who are at high-risk for abuse, neglect, and abandonment. Knowledge dissemination is supported by facilitating collaborative information-sharing and problem-solving via a national QIC-EC Learning Network, the Children's Bureau Training and Technical Assistance network, and ongoing relationships with other stakeholders and partners. Knowledge integration is the culmination and desired impact of knowledge development and knowledge dissemination resulting in positive change for families and children and sustainable, systemic change at multiple levels of the child maltreatment prevention field. Integration happens as effective knowledge development and dissemination activities reinforce, support, and then translate new learning into practice and use. This paper contains the following sections: (1) Affirmation of the Need for the QIC-EC; (2) Designing the Delivery and Evaluation of an Intervention; (3) The Overarching Research Question for the R&D Projects; (4) Outcomes, Indicators, Measurement, and Instrumentation; and (5) Introduction to Evaluation Plans. (Contains 1 figure and 6 tables.)
Resident Engagement and Leadership to Improve Results for Children and Youth, Families and Communities: An International Toolkit
Author: Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, DC.
Date: 2004-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Children,Youth,Neighborhoods,Disadvantaged,Community Organizations,Community Change,Change Agents,Community Action,Citizen Participation,Leadership,Well Being

&quot;Engaging Residents to Improve Results for Children and Youth, Families and Communities&quot; is a &quot;Toolkit&quot; that is the product of an international working group composed of delegates from six participating nations--Chile, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. In 2002, the working group set out to identify and share the best examples of resident engagement in results-based work from their respective countries. Participants hoped the product of their work, this Toolkit, would achieve three goals: (1) To describe the overall &quot;results-based&quot; approaches on behalf of children and families that are being used in the participating nations, both at the local and national levels; (2) To share information about effective strategies that are being used to ensure that residents are at the forefront of these efforts; and (3) To make available the &quot;tools&quot;--i.e., the techniques, methods, processes and products--that have facilitated resident leadership and engagement in each country. The Toolkit is designed to assist residents and parents, as well as other practitioners and &quot;change agents,&quot; who are working in community change initiatives that use a results-based framework. The Toolkit suggests activities and resources that have proved useful on many levels for other communities that have sought authentic and sustained involvement of community residents. In addition, the Toolkit may be useful to policymakers, elected officials and members of public and private service agencies and community organizations who are promoting the well-being of children, families and neighborhoods; the case studies of projects and initiatives, in particular, may help them to see the value of working in partnership with residents. [This document was organized by The International Initiative for Children, Youth, and Families and The Center for the Study of Social Policy.]
Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2011; Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2011; and Graduation Rates, Selected Cohorts, 2003-2008: First Look (Preliminary Data). NCES 2012-174
Author: Knapp, Laura G.
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Colleges,Postsecondary Education,Data Collection,Enrollment,Educational Finance,Graduation Rate,Student Characteristics

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collects institution-level data from postsecondary institutions in the United States (50 states and the District of Columbia) and other U.S. jurisdictions (see appendix A for a list of other U.S. jurisdictions). This &quot;First Look&quot; presents findings from the preliminary data of the IPEDS spring 2012 data collection, which included four survey components: Enrollment at postsecondary institutions during fall 2011; Finance, for the 2011 fiscal year; and graduation rates of selected cohorts within 150 and 200 percent of normal program completion time. Data for all components were collected through the IPEDS web-based data collection system. Detailed information about the study methodology can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012293. This &quot;First Look&quot; using IPEDS preliminary data provides users with an opportunity to obtain access to IPEDS data soon after the close of data collection. Provisional data for this collection, containing fully imputed and adjudicated data, will be released approximately 3 months after the preliminary data. Final data, including revisions submitted by institutions after the close of data collection, will be available during the following collection year (2012-13). The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information. Selected findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information available when using the IPEDS data rather than to discuss all of the observed differences, and they are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. Not all data collected during the spring 2012 collection are displayed in this &quot;First Look&quot;; however, all data from the spring 2012 collection are publicly available through the IPEDS Data Center, found at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter. Appended are: (1) Data Collection Procedures; and (2) Glossary of IPEDS Terms. (Contains 4 tables, 4 footnotes and 8 endnotes.)
Demand for Higher Education, by Field. Policy Note. Number 5
Author: Group of Eight (Australia)
Date: 2012-03-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Educational Demand,Educational Trends,Enrollment Trends,Trend Analysis,Educational Finance,Program Costs,Student Costs,Delivery Systems,Expenditure per Student,Operating Expenses,Supply and Demand,Access to Education,Educational Development,Majors (Students),Intellectual Disciplines,Foreign Countries

Over the period 2001-2011, the number of applications for university places increased by 17.8%, or just over 37,000. At the same time, the number of offers increased faster in percentage terms (20.5%), while absolute growth was slightly smaller at just under 35,000. As demand for higher education has grown, there has been a trend towards Science, Engineering and especially Health disciplines. These are among the most expensive fields to teach. The shift towards more expensive fields, on top of bigger than expected growth across all fields, increases the potential cost of a demand-driven system. In a demand-driven funding system, universities have less scope to cross-subsidise more expensive (as well as less popular) courses. Current base funding rates are less than the cost of delivery in all disciplines, with the biggest shortfalls in more expensive fields. Without changes to funding, universities will have limited capacity and incentives to offer enough places in the fields that students want. The fundamental contradiction is that volume has been deregulated but price remains fixed. (Contains 2 figures, 3 tables, and 5 footnotes.)
The University-Innovation Nexus in Finland. Go8 Backgrounder 29
Author: Grabert, Martin
Date: 2012-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Innovation,Foreign Countries,Educational Change,Private Sector,College Role,Public Policy,Research,Job Skills,Skill Development,Government Role,Technological Advancement,Colleges,Technical Institutes,Postsecondary Education

The objective of this &quot;backgrounder&quot; is to better understand the contributions of universities to innovation in Finland, as a means of widening the consideration of policy options in Australia. Finland is a small but advanced industrial economy with limited resources and markets, dependent on external trade and the internationalisation of research and innovation. A major policy shift in the 1990s saw the Finnish state become an active player in innovation, which changed the research-innovation nexus substantially. This shift was characterised by the introduction of differentiated tertiary education qualifications (polytechnics and universities), the consequences of which were remarkable achievements in Finland's higher education and innovation sectors. The innovation policy developed by the Finnish parliament aims at keeping a highly skilled workforce satisfied through an active role by the state as an investor in emerging technologies. The Finnish example of a functioning university-innovation nexus demonstrates that the framework conditions are set in an appropriate way, closely linking the policies and funding opportunities. This framework is supported by the European Union through its programs. The responsibility for improving a nation's level of innovation, with the consequent benefits it brings to global competitiveness, jobs and enhanced productivity, is a task that the Finnish government shares with the private sector and the higher education sector. Within such a framework and focus, nations can make choices about where to allocate resources in a way which most potently enhances their industrial capability, their economic prosperity and their social wellbeing. (Contains 33 footnotes.)
University Admissions. Policy Note. Number 3
Author: Group of Eight (Australia)
Date: 2012-02-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Foreign Countries,Educational Change,College Admission,Financial Support,Government Role,Trend Analysis,Supply and Demand,Grade 12,High School Students,College Preparation,College Applicants,Standards

University admissions, like many other aspects of the higher education sector, are going through a time of significant change. From 2012, universities will receive full funding under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) for as many places as they offer. Previously, the Government limited the number of funded places, with a tolerance band for &quot;over-enrolments&quot; above the allocated number. The Government has moved towards a demand-driven system in stages, raising the over-enrolment cap to 10% in 2010 (up from 5%) before removing caps in 2012. The demand-driven system is intended to bring demand and supply into closer alignment, and in doing this, to increase participation. Since the Government announced in March 2009 it would make this policy change, higher education participation has increased. This paper uses data on university applications and offers, collated by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) to examine trends in demand and supply. The paper examines entry standards for school leaver applicants (for whom a simple measure of academic preparation, namely the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR), is available) and discusses the broader implications of the demand-driven system for university admissions. (Contains 4 figures and 5 footnotes.)
Research Performance of Australian Universities. Policy Note. Number 4
Author: Group of Eight (Australia)
Date: 2012-03-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Higher Education,Certification,Commercialization,Foreign Countries,Industry,Block Grants,Income,Intellectual Property,Public Policy,Research Universities,Trend Analysis,Research

Go8 universities account for over two-thirds of the research undertaken at Australian universities. Go8 universities attract the highest levels of industry and competitive government grant funding for research. This paper presents an analysis of trends in research performance for Go8 and non-Go8 universities including research income as reported by institutions to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) as part of the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) and the DIISRTE Research Block Grant Allocations as well as ERA outcomes and commercialisation data from the National Survey of Research Commercialisation. This analysis shows clearly that while the absolute amount of higher education research funding has grown significantly, the relative shares of research income (as reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collection) and research block grant funding of the major university groupings in Australia has been largely unchanged over the period 1992 to 2010 and 2002 to 2012 respectively with most redistribution of shares occurring between non-Go8 institutions. The National Survey of Research Commercialisation showed that in 2009 Go8 universities dominated in the number of invention disclosures and active licensing agreements as well as in licensing income and the number of patents issued. Based on the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2010 outcomes, research of the highest quality (ie research well above world average and rated 5) is predominately undertaken at Go8 universities. Government policy should focus on selectivity and concentration of the higher education research effort with the aim of ensuring that funds flow to the best research wherever it may be and that Australia's research universities can sustain international research excellence. (Contains 18 figures.)
Go8 Note: Student Visas
Author: Group of Eight (Australia)
Date: 2012-09-25
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Foreign Students,Foreign Policy,Immigrants,Study Abroad,Access to Information,Student Employment

An independent review of the Australian student visa program was completed in 2011. Several of the recommendations from the review have been implemented by the Australian government, including the introduction of streamlined visa processing for applicants enrolled at an Australian university and increased flexibility in working conditions for student visa holders. The Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship assigns assessment levels to reflect the risk posed by applicants from a particular country studying in a particular education sector, with Assessment Level 5 being the highest risk and Assessment Level 1 the lowest. The assessment level will determine the level of proof required by the applicant to qualify for a student visa. The purpose of this Note is to provide a summary of the student visa process including the recent changes.