ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
International Academic Mobility: Towards a Concentration of the Minds in Europe. Research &amp; Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.3.14
Author: van der Wende, Marijk
Date: 2015-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Mobility,International Cooperation,Higher Education,Foreign Countries,Human Capital,Educational Cooperation,Brain Drain,Qualitative Research,Scientific Research,Innovation,Research and Development,Financial Support,Talent,STEM Education,Labor Force Development,Universities,Profiles,Foreign Students,Graduate Students,Case Studies,Competition,Global Approach

The global competition and related international academic mobility in science and research is rising. Within this context, Europe faces quantitative skills shortages, including an estimate of between 800,000 and one million researchers. Within Europe skills imbalances and mismatches increase, with a growing divergence between countries and regions, in particular between the North and South, in terms of their ability to invest and attract human and financial capital for R&amp;D. As a result intra-European mobility is not only on the rise, but may easily turn from an intended brain circulation into a brain drain--brain gain situation. From a qualitative perspective solutions to the skills shortages and imbalances relevant to science and innovation require the training of a broad mix of skills, which is currently provided to only in a minority of students in European higher education institutions and programmes. Will the intra-European flows of human and financial capital for R&amp;D result in a further concentration of the minds in a limited number of regions or hubs in Europe? Is this (un)avoidable or (un)desirable? The further concentration of talent appears to be Europe's fate. These forces play out quite differently across the various disciplinary fields. In general the &quot;STEM fields&quot; (including engineering, natural, life and medical sciences) are already most internationalized and especially their experimental branches require the highest concentration of financial and human resources for large-scale and high-tech research infrastructure. The current combination of mobility and funding flows and trends seems to cause an increasing concentration of especially high-tech research capacity (in the natural and life sciences) in a limited number of regional hubs, which is likely to the detriment of the broad comprehensive profile of universities in certain weaker regions and countries in Europe. Those institutions may have to choose more specialized profiles, focusing more on less (human and financial) capital intensive fields in the social sciences and the humanities.
The NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Library Edition
Author: Johnson, L.
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Electronic Libraries,Academic Libraries,Research Libraries,Information Management,Publications,Telecommunications,Technology Integration,Access to Information,Information Technology,Interdisciplinary Approach,Research,Barriers,Librarians,Role,Technological Literacy,Information Storage,Change Strategies,Cooperative Programs,Computer Oriented Programs,Bibliometrics,Citations (References),Internet,Web Sites,Archives

The internationally recognized &quot;NMC Horizon Report&quot; series and regional &quot;NMC Technology Outlooks&quot; are part of the NMC Horizon Project, a 12-year effort established in 2002 that annually identifies and describes emerging technologies likely to have a large impact over the coming five years in every sector of education around the globe. &quot;The NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Library Edition&quot; was produced by the NMC in collaboration with University of Applied Sciences (HTW) Chur, Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) Hannover, and ETH-Bibliothek Zurich. This report, examines key trends, significant challenges, and emerging technologies for their potential impact on academic and research libraries worldwide. While there are many local factors affecting libraries, there are also issues that transcend regional boundaries and common questions; thus, it was with these questions in mind that this report was created. For the creation of this report, an international body of experts from library management, education, technology, and other fields was convened as a panel. Over the course of three months in the spring of 2014, the 2014 Horizon Project Library Expert Panel came to a consensus about the topics that would appear in this edition. The expert panel identified 18 topics very likely to impact technology planning and decision-making: six key trends, six significant challenges, and six important developments in technology. The discussion of trends and technologies have been organized into three time-related categories (Fast Trends, Mid-Range Trends, and Long-Range Trends); along with challenges within a similar three-part framework (Solvable Challenges, Difficult Challenges, and Wicked Challenges) related to the scope of the challenge.
Improving the Quality of Teachers and Principals. re:VISION No. 04, Part 1
Author: Jackson, Stephen
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Educational Change,Teacher Competencies,Educational Quality,Administrator Qualifications,Principals,Teacher Education,Teacher Qualifications,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Salaries,Compensation (Remuneration),Instructional Leadership,Evaluation Methods,Administrator Evaluation,Administrator Education,Elementary Secondary Education

Among international competitors, the U.S. is an economic leader but trails in many aspects of teacher preparation, investment, and continuous improvement. To change this situation requires a multi-part and comprehensive strategy. The good news is that examples of encouraging reforms exist in many places, and strong evidence shows that these reforms are lifting student achievement. This overview, part of a re:VISION special series on &quot;teacher effectiveness,&quot; is intended to provide state-level policymakers with a digest of existing research and current state efforts around teacher preparation, evaluation, compensation, and school leadership. Policymakers should consider each area of reform in context of the others. If they are addressed in isolation, old problems in some areas will hinder progress in another. For instance, effective compensation reforms require an evaluation system that is capable of producing accurate results that distinguish between good, average, and poor teachers. Each of the briefs in this series will provide a deeper exploration of the challenges states are facing in the area of educator effectiveness reform and offer considerations for policymakers. This issue provides a brief summary of the issues examined in the accompanying four briefs on teacher preparation, evaluation, compensation, and school leadership. [For Part 2 of this series, see ED559387; for Part 3, see ED559381; for Part 4, see ED559388; and for Part 5, see ED559391.]
Urban School Superintendents: Characteristics, Tenure, and Salary. Eighth Survey and Report. Urban Indicator, Fall 2014
Author: Council of the Great City Schools
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Urban Schools,Superintendents,Administrator Characteristics,Tenure,Salaries,Surveys,Accountability,Fringe Benefits,Work Experience,Public Schools,Elementary Secondary Education

Urban school superintendents hold one of the most important and challenging jobs in America's education system. In this era of accountability and standards, superintendents are charged with making visible and rapid improvements in the academic achievement of the nation's most vulnerable children. They must break down barriers to reform and build capacity for quality teaching and learning in their schools. They must unite parents, educators, school boards, and business and community leaders behind a clear and coherent vision of instructional purpose. Amidst the highly politicized environments of big city school districts, superintendents must serve as collaborators, visionaries, good communicators, and agents of change. Given this backdrop, the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) prepared this report to improve public understanding of employment patterns and demographic trends among the nation's urban superintendents. The organization has been surveying its member districts since 1997. This, the Council's eighth report on urban superintendents, presents the results of the 2014 survey.
Evaluating Teachers: Opportunities and Best Practices. re:VISION No. 04, Part 2
Author: Jackson, Stephen
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Best Practices,Teacher Evaluation,Educational Opportunities,Teacher Qualifications,Teacher Effectiveness,Academic Achievement,Outcome Measures,Context Effect,Evaluation Methods,Achievement Gains,Achievement Rating,Behavioral Objectives,Portfolio Assessment,Student Projects,Classroom Observation Techniques,Student Surveys,Systems Development,Database Management Systems,Teacher Competency Testing,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Federal Aid

Until recently, states focused on ensuring the presence of a &quot;highly qualified teacher&quot; in every classroom. Under the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), this title described a teacher holding at least a bachelor's degree and the appropriate state license and demonstrating subject matter competency. Research has shown that these &quot;input&quot; measures do little to explain differences in student performance. Thus, in recent years, the conversation has shifted to a focus on &quot;outputs&quot;--how effective a teacher is at improving student achievement. Knowing how well, or how poorly, educators are performing is critical to drive improvement strategies for individual teachers, schools, districts, and states and to inform accountability systems. High-quality teacher evaluation data can also be used to inform policies across the education system, including measuring the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs, informing performance-based compensation, ensuring students have equal access to highly effective teachers, and identifying professional development needs. The need for quality data on teacher performance is clear, and the reform of teacher evaluation systems must be considered in the context of other activities designed to improve educator effectiveness. This issue of re:VISION, part of a special series on teacher effectiveness, examines the evolution of teacher evaluation systems and the most commonly used evaluation measures, and offers considerations for policymakers who are examining teacher evaluation in their states. A glossary of common student achievement measures is provided. [For Part 1 of this series, see ED559385; for Part 3, see ED559381; for Part 4, see ED559388; and for Part 5, see ED559391.]
Getting Teachers Learner-Ready: Reforming Teacher Preparation. re:VISION No. 04, Part 4
Author: Jackson, Stephen
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Teacher Education Programs,Educational Change,Educational Improvement,Teacher Effectiveness,Educational Policy,Educational Practices,Change Strategies,Context Effect,Educational Research,Student Recruitment,Preservice Teachers,Pedagogical Content Knowledge,Experiential Learning,Student Teaching,Beginning Teacher Induction,Teacher Certification,Accountability,Educational Quality,Academic Standards,Learning Readiness

Improving teacher preparation is critical to long-term improvement in teacher quality. More than 200,000 new teachers enter classrooms each year. Increasing student enrollment, the retirement of baby boom generation teachers, and high attrition in their first five years (between 40 and 50 percent of new teachers leave the profession) have transformed the teacher workforce. As a result, first-year teachers are now the single largest cohort each year. While these numbers might cause alarm, they also highlight a huge opportunity to improve teacher effectiveness. Because states set requirements for certification and licensure and have the power to approve both traditional and alternative preparation programs, the means to transform teacher preparation is well within reach. Policymakers know that improving teaching in our schools requires a systematic review of the many policies that impact educator effectiveness. For example, to be successful, improvements in teacher preparation must be complemented by reforms in educator evaluation, compensation, and school leadership. This issue of re:VISION, part of a series on teacher effectiveness, examines teacher preparation and offers considerations for policymakers in this important area of reform. [For Part 1 of this series, see ED559385; for Part 2, see ED559387; for Part 3, see ED559381; and for Part 5, see ED559391.]
How and Why the University of California Got Its Autonomy. Research &amp; Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.4.15
Author: Douglass, John Aubrey
Date: 2015-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Institutional Autonomy,Universities,Educational Research,Educational History,Higher Education,Educational Policy,State Policy,State Legislation,State Regulation,Politics of Education,Educational Legislation,Investigations,Institutional Mission,Constitutional Law,Government School Relationship,Educational Change,Committees,Governing Boards,Land Grant Universities

The University of California became a &quot;public trust&quot; in 1879 as part of a larger revision of California's Constitution approved by California voters. The University henceforth gained the exclusive power to operate, control, and administer the University of California, becoming virtually a fourth branch of state government, a &quot;constitutional corporation . . . equal and coordinate with the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. It was a watershed moment in the history of California's land-grant public university, fundamentally shaping the state's subsequent development of the nations, and the world's, first coherent approach to building a mass higher education system. Status as a &quot;public trust&quot; set UC on a spectacular course, helping it to create an internal academic culture and drive to meet the socioeconomic needs of the state relatively free of the often contentious political interventions found in many other states. UC emerged as one of the most productive and prestigious university systems in the world. Yet over the past six or so decades, the unusual status of the university's governing board has been on occasions a source of frustration for lawmakers who have wanted to be more directly involved in controlling and formulating university policy, from admissions practices and tuition, to how funds are raised and spent, what academic programs UC should or should not provide, and proposals to revise the membership and authority of the Regents. The following provides an historical account of how and why the University of California gained this unusual level of autonomy. In essence, and in the context of 1870s California, delegates to the state's second and last constitutional convention in 1878 heard the complaints of UC's president Daniel Coit Gilman shortly before he left in frustration to become the head of Johns Hopkins University, and chose to protect it from further &quot;legislative control and popular clamor.&quot; Ultimately, the delegates and the voters chose the university's lay board with a representative mix of Californians and lawmakers, the Regents, over the legislature as the best way to organize and promote UC.
Beyond Test Scores: What NAEP Results Tell Us about Implementing the Common Core in Our Classrooms
Author: Council of the Great City Schools
Date: 2014-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Academic Standards,State Standards,Mathematics Achievement,Language Arts,Literacy,Academic Achievement,Item Analysis,Reading Achievement,Grade 4,Grade 8

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) requires the preparing of students for college and careers in a new way, equipping them with a deeper understanding of concepts and skills in literacy and mathematics. Under the new standards in both reading and math, students will be asked to demonstrate and apply what they have learned in ways that are fundamentally different from what was expected in the past. The Council analyzed items from the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that were similar in structure, rigor, and complexity to the requirements of the common core standards, as well as sample assessment items released by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). In this booklet, the Council analyses--two mathematics items and two English Language arts items--shows how students did on these questions, discusses what may have been missing from their instruction, and outlines what changes to curriculum and instruction might help districts and schools advance student achievement. It also poses a series of questions that district leaders should be asking themselves about curriculum, professional development, and other instructional supports with the goal of better articulating what needs to change in classrooms, schools, and central offices in order to realize the full promise of the common core. Appended to the report are: (1) Sample NAEP Reading Passages and (2) City-by-City NAEP Item Results.
Building Leadership in Schools. re:VISION No. 04, Part 5
Author: Jackson, Stephen
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Leadership Training,Leadership Qualities,Leadership Effectiveness,Educational Improvement,Principals,Administrator Characteristics,Administrator Effectiveness,Context Effect,Performance Factors,Educational Research,Nontraditional Education,Administrator Education,Management Development,Mentors,Teacher Leadership,Administrator Evaluation,Certification,Accreditation (Institutions),Evaluation Methods,Compensation (Remuneration),Merit Pay,Outcome Measures,Educational Change,Change Strategies,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Administration

Teachers have the greatest school-based effect on the achievement of any child in their classrooms, but highly effective principals can positively affect the achievement of every student in their schools. The difference between a highly effective principal and an average one is equal to two-to-seven months of extra learning per year for each child in the school. The effect is greatest in high-poverty schools. This confirms the conclusions drawn from case studies of schools where student achievement &quot;beats the odds&quot;: no low-achieving school has been turned around without a dynamic and effective principal. For better or for worse, school leaders shape the learning environment for teachers and students. Effective school leaders inspire their staff to improve and create conditions that enable high student achievement. Reforms to teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, and compensation will be less successful if attention is not paid to building and improving school leadership. The role of principals has evolved, and policy needs to ensure they are prepared and supported to meet the challenges schools face today. This issue of re:VISION, part 5 of a special series on teacher effectiveness, examines the qualities of successful principals and offers considerations for policymakers who are working to improve their preparation and effectiveness. [For Part 1 of this series, see ED559386; for Part 2, see ED559387; for Part 3, see ED559381; and for Part 4, see ED559388.]
Liberalizing the Academy: The Transformation of Higher Education in the United States and Germany. Research &amp; Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.1.15
Author: Schulze-Cleven, Tobias
Date: 2015-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Change,Commercialization,Higher Education,Foreign Countries,Educational Innovation,Comparative Education,Government Role,Intervention,Social Systems,Politics of Education,Institutional Autonomy,Competition,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,State Aid,Expenditures,Educational Attainment,Resource Allocation,Tuition,Institutional Research,Public Policy,Political Attitudes

Over the past two decades, public higher education has become widely recognized for its contribution to socio-economic adjustment. This paper probes its evolution in two large and affluent democracies, the United States and Germany, whose higher education systems represent distinct ideal types. The analysis argues that public authorities in both countries have liberalized their systems to spur innovation in the provision of higher education. Yet a broad convergence in associated market expansion has coincided with divergence in its modes and consequences. Tracing how the two countries' policy regimes have created path-dependent trajectories of reform, the paper contends that the institutions associated with each state's inherited role in higher education--&quot;enabling&quot; in the US and &quot;constitutive&quot; in Germany--have empowered different social groups to shape state action. Under the influence of investors and managers, institutional drift and conversion have pushed public higher education toward corporatization in the United States. In contrast, interventions by faculty and students have moderated the effects of institutional displacement and layering on the German system's stratification. Given the sector's growing importance, this analysis carries important implications for the comparative study of capitalist evolution. [A bibliography is included.]