Your search found 3854 results.

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Stakeholders; Teacher Education; Foreign Countries; Budgets; Retrenchment; Economic Climate; Universities; Online Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Decision Making; Educational Policy; Educational Change

Abstract:
Background: Budgets for teacher education programmes have been substantially reduced as a result of the global economic crisis. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the teacher education budget cutting processes and procedures for universities in Romania versus one university in the United States. Sample: The data were collected from six Romanian universities that all have teacher education programmes. These universities represent the range of higher education quality in the country as indicated by their publication rates. Data from these universities were compared with those from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). UNR is the flagship university in the Nevada System of Higher Education, and Nevada has been harder hit by the recent global economic crisis than any other state in the United States and cuts to teacher education there have been substantial. Design and methods: Data about the budget cutting processes and decisions in the teacher education programmes of six Romanian universities were collected through an electronic survey. These data were compared with the processes and decisions made at the UNR. Results: The budget cutting processes in Romania were less transparent, and involved less input from stakeholders such as faculty and staff. Most decisions were made at a higher level of authority in Romania, and cuts in Romania were more likely to be across the board rather than more strategically targeted as they were in Nevada. Conclusions: These differences are discussed in terms of the historical legacy of structures and policies in Romania, and the resistance to reform inherent in those structures and policies. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Liberal Arts; Single Sex Colleges; Educational Change; Tuition; Loan Repayment; Budgets; Money Management; Males; College Admission; Student Attitudes; Alumni; Coeducation; Educational Trends; Retrenchment

Abstract:
Armed with data and projections about budgets and future enrollments, Wilson College, in Pennsylvania, considers a slew of changes, including men. Among other changes, the board approved cutting tuition by $5,000, starting a high-profile loan-buyback program, creating new offerings in the health sciences and other career-oriented disciplines, and consolidating some existing programs. The goal: 1,500 students and a deficit-free budget by 2020. Some alumnae and students, however, insist that the Wilson they love will die unless the trustees rescind a vote approving the most controversial of the commission's recommendations: that the 144-year-old college admit men as full-time undergraduates. Although Wilson has welcomed men to its adult-degree and graduate programs for years, the decision to make the undergraduate college coed has provoked howls of protest and vigils outside of board meetings. But the changes are also attempts to respond to trends buffeting liberal-arts colleges everywhere. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Stakeholders; Best Practices; Sustainable Development; Sustainability; Program Implementation; Educational Finance; Colleges; Money Management; Interviews; Institutional Characteristics; Educational Research; Models; Budgets; Budgeting; Financial Support

Abstract:
The goal of this introductory implementation guide is to provide practical guidance for designing, implementing, and managing a green revolving fund (GRF) at a college, university, or other institution. The GRF model is widespread in higher education, with at least 79 funds in operation in North America representing over $111 million in committed investment as of late 2012. GRFs have proven their ability to reduce operating costs and environmental impact while promoting education and engaging stakeholders. The number of GRFs in operation has increased 60 percent since 2010 and 15-fold in the last decade. In 2011, the Sustainable Endowments Institute (SEI) launched The Billion Dollar Green Challenge, an initiative that encourages colleges, universities, and other nonprofit institutions to invest in their own GRFs. As part of this initiative, SEI has researched GRFs at a wide range of institutions and has developed a suite of tools and resources to support GRF adoption. However, it can be difficult to establish and manage an effective GRF. There is a need for a guiding document that taps into the expertise of presidents, administrators, facility managers, sustainability directors, students, consultants, and other stakeholders with GRF experience to establish best practices. This Guide--a co-publication of SEI and the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)--is intended to fulfill that need. The Guide is informed by data and insights from schools that have already incorporated GRFs into their campus operations. It includes information from (1) interviews with dozens of stakeholders representing institutions that vary in size, setting, and wealth; (2) research conducted by SEI, AASHE and other organizations; (3) and the direct experience of its authors in implementing and advising on GRFs at a variety of institutions. A list of resources is included. (Contains 1 figure.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the David Rockefeller Fund, John Merck Fund, Merck Family Fund, Roy A. Hunt Foundation, and Wallace Global Fund.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (5060K)

Descriptors:
Budgeting; Educational Improvement; Children; Budgets; Retrenchment; Health Services; Education; Well Being; Elementary Secondary Education; School Funds; Funding Formulas; Patients; Child Health

Abstract:
For the first time in many years, the Administration's proposed state budget does not project a deficit. Painful budget cutting in recent years combined with voters passing Proposition 30 in November to generate revenues finally have put California on more stable fiscal ground. However, it is critical to recognize that kids have borne a disproportionate share of the cuts over time, and these cuts go largely unrestored in the 2013-2014 state budget proposal. As a result, all Californians will continue to pay for the long-term consequences of underinvesting in children's health, education, and overall well-being. This paper details these and other ways the January state budget proposal impacts kids. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (80K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Tennessee's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) revamped its approach to project management to ensure meaningful project oversight and revised project work plans and goals that focus on measuring project performance and impact at the State educational agency (SEA) level. The State also participated in partnership meetings with local educational agencies (LEAs) to build relationships focused on data and collaborative problem solving. These meetings reinforced the State's goal of transitioning from compliance monitoring to a more collaborative role as LEAs implemented their Race to the Top plans. Although Tennessee made excellent progress in Year 2, it still faced challenges as it rolled out the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), built data systems to support instruction, and expanded its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) network. Moving into Year 3 of its grant, Tennessee plans to build on its accomplishments and address its challenges from Year 2. The State is reassessing its implementation plans in several reform areas to ensure continuous improvement and effective implementation. For example, the State is making changes to its educator evaluation system to address feedback from teachers and principals. In addition, TDOE is enhancing its existing Field Service Centers (FSCs) to provide content-specific supports to LEAs and schools. The FSCs will now be called Centers of Regional Excellence (COREs) and will leverage the existing strengths of FSCs and add additional capacities to provide support to LEAs as they implement the CCSS and the new evaluation system. The State's plans for Years 3 and 4 rely heavily on effective CORE implementation, highlighting the need for the State to establish high-quality centers and mechanisms to assess their effectiveness. A glossary is included. (Contains 20 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529330.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1550K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Rhode Island's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and local educational agencies (LEAs) created curricular resources to assist educators in transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including 10 model curricula in core subjects. RIDE exceeded its goal of training 4,100 educators on CCSS; 5,800 educators attended Study of the Standards sessions during the first two years of Race to the Top implementation. Additionally, the State developed four modules to train educators in formative assessment practices and piloted these modules in six schools in SY 2011-2012. Although RIDE exceeded its CCSS training goals, it is unclear whether all LEAs will be ready to fully implement the CCSS by SY 2013-2014, particularly those LEAs that did not participate in the State's curricular development work. RIDE made revisions to the educator evaluation system to increase the weight of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) component, a change that will require RIDE to provide additional support to ensure that educators and LEAs implement SLOs rigorously and consistently. According to the State's Race to the Top plan, in Year 3 Rhode Island will continue to support LEAs and improve its Race to the Top program oversight and monitoring through EdStat and the CLO process. LEAs will take critical steps toward implementing the CCSS by developing CCSS-aligned units of study for use in classrooms. In addition, LEAs will fully implement new educator evaluation systems that use student growth data, differentiate educators into performance levels, and suggest professional growth supports for educators. The State will also take steps toward rewarding effective educators by developing and piloting new compensation structures. Additionally, it will place more educators certified through alternative routes in schools and will continue its efforts to transform persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools through interventions and support. A glossary is included. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Rhode Island Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529328.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1533K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Ohio's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Ohio built on its Year 1 successes. In its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the State created a high school and IHE committee to align college and career standards with colleges' and universities' entrance requirements. To improve educator data access and allow the State to track students once they exit the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) system, the State worked with an external vendor to assign statewide student identifiers (SSIDs) to all high school seniors and freshmen attending State public IHEs (institutions of higher education). The State also created structures to ensure that participating local educational agencies (LEAs) receive frequent Race to the Top updates. During Year 2 Ohio faced some difficulty aligning ODE (Ohio Department of Education) and OBR (Ohio Board of Regents) efforts, as well as developing comprehensive contractor oversight processes. In addition, the State grappled with how to provide support to non-traditional persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, namely community and virtual schools. Ohio continues to focus on ways to ensure sustainability of its Race to the Top reforms and high levels of LEA engagement. During Year 3, Ohio plans to assess and revise its structures to ensure quality implementation of all of its projects. As part of this work, Ohio developed an expanded statewide engagement strategy for educators and other stakeholders such as the general public and policymakers. In addition, Ohio plans to reevaluate its curriculum and assessment resources, as well as how LEA professional development plans are submitted, reviewed, and approved. Finally, in Year 3, participating LEAs will pilot or implement the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) and the Ohio Principal Evaluation System (OPES) to support full implementation of both systems no later than SY 2013-2014. A glossary is included. (Contains 18 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Ohio Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529325.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1444K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of North Carolina's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, North Carolina continued the progress it made in Year 1 in all areas of its comprehensive reform plan and reached several implementation milestones. North Carolina made progress in implementing a qualifying evaluation system for teachers and principals by modifying its existing statewide evaluation system, the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES). The State also continued to prepare its educators to fully implement the updated North Carolina Standard Course of Study in SY 2012-2013 by providing professional development and disseminating curricular materials. Delays impacted several of the State's Race to the Top initiatives. The Instructional Improvement System (IIS) and Virtual Blended STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Courses projects were delayed in order to refine project plans and requirements and as a result of lengthy procurement processes; these projects now have condensed implementation timeframes. The State's extensive Year 2 preparations laid the groundwork for full implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and NCEES in Year 3. The State's comprehensive professional development offerings, including more than 90 regional face-to-face sessions and online resources, will support educators as they implement these and other key initiatives. North Carolina will also continue to support teacher and leader pipelines through its Regional Leadership Academies, Distinguished Leadership in Practice program, Teach For America partnership, and the North Carolina Teacher Corps. North Carolina will continue to build readiness in the field for and begin implementing components of its two major technology initiatives, the Cloud and Home Base. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. North Carolina. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529322.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1373K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of New York's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. New York completed its first year of transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), encouraging educators to implement at least one CCSS-aligned unit each semester. It field tested items that it will use on CCSS-aligned Year 3 assessments and provided curricular documents through the EngageNY.org website, including thirteen LEA-developed exemplar curriculum modules. New York struggled to stay on track with timeframes in its approved Race to the Top plan in Year 2. The State made numerous adjustments to timelines and approach to account for delays and other issues, which are described in further detail in this report and in the approved amendment letters posted on the Department's website. By the end of its Year 2 budget period, June 30, 2012, the State reported expenditures totaling 7.59 percent of its Race to the Top grant. The slow pace of spending is reflective of delays in the work, and indicative of the accelerated pace that will be required for New York to complete key grant activities prior to the end of the grant period. In Year 3, all New York local educational agencies (LEAs) will implement new teacher and principal evaluation systems. The State's grades three through eight (3-8) English language arts (ELA) and mathematics assessments will reflect the CCSS. In school year (SY) 2012-2013, the State has asked high school teachers to implement two CCSS units each semester. In SY 2013-2014, the State's Algebra I, Geometry, and English high school Regents exams will reflect the CCSS. In SY 2014-2015, the State's Algebra II high school Regents exam will reflect the CCSS. New York State Education Department (NYSED) and LEAs will continue to develop curricular materials to support effective implementation. NYSED plans to launch the EDP and release EngageNY.org 2.0, an upgraded version of the current EngageNY.org website. Nine new clinically-rich graduate teacher preparation programs will join the two programs that launched in Year 2. A glossary is included. (Contains 8 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. New York Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529326.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1454K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
The State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Massachusetts' Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Massachusetts continued to implement strong systems to track progress of projects, assess risk, and provide support of project implementation as needed. The State fully implemented project management structures through the Delivery approach, which regularly assesses project progress and identifies potential problems based on predetermined goals and objectives. The Delivery process allows for a candid assessment of project risks and timely application of action plans for projects that may be getting off track. The State demonstrated a strong understanding of its progress and the areas that required additional support. Additionally, the State proactively collaborated with key stakeholders throughout the development of major components of its Race to the Top reform efforts, which resulted in greater buy-in from educators during implementation. While Massachusetts has put concerted time and resources into efforts to implement the schools interoperability framework (SIF) in order to improve the data collection process, there continued to be significant delays in this project. The State fell short of meeting its performance measure for this project for the first two years of the grant. In SY 2011-2012, the State reported that 100 percent of local educational agencies (LEAs) implemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which are incorporated into the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics. LEAs faced challenges finalizing local collective bargaining agreements in time to prepare for implementation of educator evaluation systems in SY 2012-2013. The State reported in October 2012 that 88 of the 236 participating LEAs had ESE-approved evaluation system plans that align with the State's regulations. Massachusetts plans to fully implement the 2011 Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, which incorporate the CCSS, in Year 3. In addition, all Race to the Top participating LEAs will implement new educator evaluation systems. The State will continue to develop data systems and curricular materials that support these initiatives and will provide further guidance to LEAs as they roll out their new curricula and evaluations. A glossary is included. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Massachusetts Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529318. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1467K)