Your search found 6620 results.

Descriptors:
Public Agencies; State Government; Financial Support; State Aid; Smoking; Health Promotion; Health Programs; Program Evaluation; Training; Role; Evaluators; Technical Writing; Reports; Information Utilization; Attitudes; Stakeholders; Accountability; Program Effectiveness; Test Construction; Scoring

Abstract:
Nearly all private, government and non-governmental organizations that receive government funding to run social or health promotion programs in the United States are required to conduct program evaluations and to report findings to the funding agency. Reports are usually due at the end of a funding cycle and they may or may not have an influence on the continuation of program funding. The final evaluation report (FER), as the end-of-funding-cycle report is often called, generally relates the intervention and evaluation results of the funding period and has a dual purpose. It is considered an element of accountability and should give the program and its stakeholders direction for the future. All too often though, this is not the case. Evaluators have voiced myriad concerns about the many issues related to reports and their usage. In their study of a random sample of American Evaluation Association members, Torres et al. (1997) found that evaluators are generally discontent about reporting and about the fact that their reports are often misused or not used at all. Evaluation reports could be a valuable instrument for moving projects forward if stakeholders and project staff would make good use of evaluation findings. The Tobacco Control Evaluation Center (TCEC) (2006) at the University of California at Davis developed scoring measures for final report writing for over 100 local tobacco control projects in California but found 2007 reports lacking in quality. In 2010, it conducted a training campaign in the hope that the projects themselves, the funding government agency and TCEC may make better use of the reports. The response to the training call was overwhelming, and comparing scores from 2007 and 2010, participating agencies made statistically significant improvements but non-participants did not. Results relating to the mode of training were inconclusive. The pre- and post-score comparison proved to be a valuable measuring tool, and the 1-day face-to-face training was a useful training mode. (Contains 1 table.) 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:
College Students; Student Costs; Textbooks; Electronic Publishing; State Legislation; State Aid

Abstract:
Providing college students with free textbooks is no easy task. That seems to be the major lesson from several efforts to produce e-books that are low-cost or free to help reduce students' costs. Money pressures, slow adoption by professors, and quality concerns stand in the way as these projects hope to rival traditional publishing. Take Flat World Knowledge Inc., an upstart publisher that had been a key proponent of a so-called "freemium" model of giving away electronic copies of textbooks and asking students to pay for extras like flash cards or printed copies. The company announced a sudden move away from that model in November, stating that its free-content option will no longer be available starting in January. The reason for the change: Students were not buying as many printed copies as predicted because those who wanted one got a used copy rather than buy a new one from Flat World. Flat World will still offer textbooks at lower prices than traditional publishers do, but nothing will be free. The company's basic online books cost about $20 each. Flat World Knowledge is also pursuing a sponsored-licensing model with some colleges, where an outside company or foundation would enter into an agreement with Flat World Knowledge or the college to help pay for the cost of content. The e-book company will be able to judge the impact of its "free to fair" pricing transition by next year. Some see Flat World Knowledge's move away from the freemium model as a warning for other open-access textbook projects. Finding ways to support the production of free textbooks is not the only unresolved issue for open-textbook proponents. Another challenge is getting buy-in from instructors, who must be persuaded to adopt the textbooks. And when books are written by volunteers, keeping quality high can be more difficult than in the traditional model, where authors are paid by publishers. Producing free textbooks may sound like a good idea, but it is turning out to be easier said than done. 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; Educational Finance; Income; Public Policy; Enrollment Trends; Tax Allocation; Tax Effort; Tuition; Trend Analysis; Educational Trends; Predictor Variables; Educational Resources; Statistical Data; State Aid; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student; Financial Support; School Support; State Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Interstate Programs; Tables (Data); School Taxes; School Funds; Local Government; State Government; Student Financial Aid; Costs; Operating Expenses; Public Colleges; Medical Schools; Rural Extension; Economic Climate; Educational Policy

Abstract:
The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and non-tax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Media Tables; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) State Data Providers; and (4) SSDB Collection Instructions. (Contains 12 figures, 13 tables, and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2011," see ED530332.] 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 (15644K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Enrollment; Student Financial Aid; Organizational Objectives; Goal Orientation; Competition; Enrollment Management; Advantaged; Team Sports; Income; Public Policy; Student Recruitment; College Admission; State Aid

Abstract:
How colleges determine who is recruited, who merits admission, who receives student aid and of what variety, which classes are offered and when, and what kind of assistance is provided to students all comprise a complex system and an emerging field known as enrollment management. Outside of the world of higher education administration, however, the term enrollment management has little meaning. But as the United States looks to increase the percentage its population entering and graduating from college, this larger process must be more fully understood. That colleges manage their enrollments only makes sense. After all, enrollments make up the bulk of institutional revenue at universities and colleges and students bring the energy, diversity, and talent that comprise the potential for learning and academic success. So it is to be expected that colleges and universities will manage enrollments to meet their particular missions, needs, and interests. What can be said, however, about the way college enrollments are managed on behalf of the public and national interest? This paper addresses this question by examining institutional enrollment goals and the enrollment decisions and strategies that are used in service to them. Further, the paper addresses how institutional goals may be directed in greater measure toward the public interest. In doing so, a framework is provided for better public information and more informed public policy with respect to college enrollment in the United States. Specifically, this paper begins with a focus on the imbalance in higher education results in relation to the educational-attainment needs of the country. Next it identifies fundamental conditions to which institutions respond when establishing enrollment goals and highlights the strategies that enrollment managers employ in balancing the competing demands of equality of opportunity with institutional ambitions and revenue requirements. The paper establishes that enrollment strategies favor economically advantaged students and identifies public disinvestment, poor economic conditions, and the highly competitive positional marketplace of higher education as factors that drive enrollment strategies and lead to lopsided educational results for the nation. It then takes a novel turn by adapting the unlikely example of the National Football League as a promising model to moderate harmful competition, regain public trust, and focus on educational results as measures of quality, as opposed to the present rankings-centered emphasis on characteristics of the incoming student body. It's common knowledge that the NFL establishes rules that temper competitive practices that could harm the game of football and its member franchises. The intent of these rules is to focus competition on the field of play, contain costs, and permit small-market teams to compete with those teams with greater resources. Drawing on this example, this paper develops the concept of a "league" of member institutions to establish mechanisms of public information, public policy, and institutional goal setting in order to focus attention on educational results and broaden the service of higher education to the nation. It also calls on education policymakers and others to provide favorable conditions to allow such cooperation to occur. Specifically, this paper suggests that American higher education would be more inclusive and results driven if colleges and universities formed a league to establish rules of competition and progress in the public interest. The goals of this "Higher Education League" would be broader participation, increased rates of success, and reduced costs. This paper concludes by suggesting that higher education leaders, public policymakers, philanthropic foundations, corporate entities, and others engage in and support the exploration, formation, and start up of the league. (Contains 35 endnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Sandy Baum, Robert Frank, Don Heller, Don Hossler, David Kalsbeek, and William Tierney.] 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 (278K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Mass Media; Journalism; College Instruction; Educational Change; Multimedia Materials; Production Techniques; Skills; Integrated Curriculum; Critical Thinking; Thinking Skills; Curriculum Development; Teaching Methods; Best Practices; Urban Universities; State Aid; Focus Groups

Abstract:
In a time of dynamic changes in mass communication and the restructuring of communication programs, and in the face of shrinking education budgets, educators are being pushed to update their programs to include a new emphasis on multimedia production while sustaining traditional modes of mass communication. Through surveys (N = 121) and focus groups (N = 40) with students, this research explores how to update pedagogy to keep pace with the changes in industry. It is built around the experience of launching a multimedia class required for all students enrolled in a journalism and mass communication school at a large, urban, state-funded university. (Contains 19 notes.) 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:
Educational Finance; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; Community Colleges; Economic Climate; Accountability; Budgeting; Retrenchment; Graduation Rate; Tuition; Student Financial Aid; Educational Facilities Improvement; School Maintenance; School Buildings; State Aid; Private Financial Support; Endowment Funds; Salaries

Abstract:
With tax revenues beginning to rebound in most states and endowments on the rebound at many private and public institutions, colleges and universities are growing more hopeful about their financial outlook and instituting new strategies to take advantage of the opportunities. Yet as the economic recovery has slowed in the past few months, questions remain about the lingering effects of the recession and whether colleges need to be held to a more stringent level of accountability. On the whole, college finances have recovered slightly after several years of budget cuts, layoffs, and furloughs. As money flows toward colleges once again, so do demands that they prove they are providing value, and well-trained graduates. In this uncertain climate, legislators and accreditors are focusing more and more on completion rates as a quantitative measure of an institution's success. College retention and graduation have been central to President Obama's education policy, and states are increasingly focusing on these two issues by directly linking state appropriations to completion rates. Despite the challenges, the recent success of fund-raising programs and the slow but steady growth in the economy has allowed states and universities to develop new, innovative ways to manage their money and better serve their students. Colleges and universities are also trying to develop better measures to judge how they distribute aid. 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:
Public Colleges; Educational Finance; State Aid; State Legislation; Graduation Rate; Remedial Instruction; Educational Change; Transfer Programs

Abstract:
Before last year, public colleges in Tennessee had a very good reason to fill classroom seats through the first couple of weeks of the term. Each institution's share of the state appropriations for higher education was largely based on enrollment at that point in the semester. Now, however, those colleges stand to lose state money if students do not complete the courses they enroll in, as well as the degrees they are seeking. Under a 2010 law, Tennessee became the first state to appropriate nearly all of the state's tax dollars for higher education based on institutional outcomes, such as credit completions and graduation rates. That law puts the Volunteer State at the forefront of a movement to reward colleges that produce more degree holders. Just two years into the new policy, it is already changing how colleges work to retain students and produce graduates, with several institutions overhauling their approach to remedial education, for example. And despite assurances against grade inflation or lowering standards, some faculty members are feeling the pressure to make sure their students get through the course. Some colleges are also beginning to see the payoff from meeting the state's goals, but the new formula is also creating losers in terms of state dollars. Some higher-education leaders in the state fear that the legislature will be unable or unwilling to increase the overall appropriations for higher education, about $1.4-billion for the current budget. In that case, even colleges that improve could be faced with budget cuts rather than rewards for increasing their completion rates. Since the late 1970s, about half of states, including Tennessee, have passed laws to base at least a small portion of their higher-education support on performance measures. But the amount of money at stake was too little to drive a change--usually less than 5 percent of the state's contributions to colleges. However, the most recent economic downturn, the growing national demand for college-educated workers, and calls to make higher education more efficient and accountable are pushing state lawmakers to consider more aggressive policies to improve college attainment. In 2010, Tennessee lawmakers passed the Complete College Act, a law meant to raise the percentage of state residents with a college degree to the national average by 2025. The law eliminates the state's old system of doling out money based mostly on enrollment and instead rewards colleges based on measures that vary by the level of institution. 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; Educational Finance; Taxes; Federal Aid; State Aid

Abstract:
Higher education pays off handsomely for society. Yet on a nationwide basis, states' support for higher education per full-time-equivalent student has fallen to just $6,290, the lowest in 15 years. A dedicated source of funds for higher education is problematic. But what if state and federal lawmakers applied the impeccable logic of the gas tax to develop a consensus for a higher-education support strategy? For good measure, what if that gas-tax-style consensus also reflected the highest national priorities, like assuring that needy students aren't shut out of college because of their own or the institutions' financial strains, and holding colleges accountable for better educating students while keeping costs in check? It's a tall order, with as many paths to a solution as there are lawmakers, lobbyists, and advocates. The author discusses three principles that should be part of the considerations. 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; State Aid; Employment Opportunities; College Students; Online Courses; Educational Innovation; Student Costs; College Graduates; Enrollment

Abstract:
Last year, leading lights in for-profit and nonprofit higher education convened in Washington for a conference on private-sector innovation in the industry. The national conversation about dysfunction and disruption in higher education was just heating up, and panelists from start-ups, banking, government, and education waxed enthusiastic about the ways that a traditional college education could be torn down and rebuilt--and about how lots of money could be made along the way. The question few people want to grapple with is, For whom is college being reinvented? The punditry around reinvention has trumpeted the arrival of MOOCs (massive open online courses), badges, "UnCollege," and so on as the beginning of a historic transformation. Higher education does have real problems, and MOOC's, badges--certificates of accomplishment--and other innovations have real potential to tackle some of them. They could enrich teaching, add rigor, encourage interdisciplinarity, reinforce education's real-world applicability, and make learning more efficient--advances all sorely needed. But the reinvention conversation has not produced the panacea that people seem to yearn for. The furor over the cost and effectiveness of a college education has roots in deep socioeconomic challenges that won't be solved with an online app. Over decades, state support per student at public institutions has dwindled even as enrollments have ballooned, leading to higher prices for parents and students. State funds per student dropped by 20 percent from 1987 to 2011. Meanwhile, the gap between the country's rich and poor widened during the recession, choking off employment opportunities for many recent graduates. Education leading up to college is a mess: Public elementary and secondary systems have failed a major segment of society, and the recent focus on testing has had questionable results. 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:
Community Colleges; Budgeting; Retrenchment; Employment; Rural Areas; Counties; Expenditures; Trend Analysis; Evidence; Educational Finance; Multivariate Analysis; Federal Aid; State Aid; Resource Allocation

Abstract:
In the decades following World War II, a significant expansion of community colleges occurred throughout the United States. As the baby boom generation came of age, demand for higher education spiked, and policy makers allocated the requisite funding to expand institutions of higher education. This expansion, including vigorous funding from federal, state, and local units of government, was politically popular. This openhanded support ended in the latter decades of the twentieth century as hostility to paying taxes and to public spending mounted. In recent decades, community colleges have competed with other social expenditures, such as prisons and health care demands, for scarce public resources. And, in a number of states, community colleges have fared poorly in this competition. Using multivariate analyses and data gathered from several sources, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the authors examine the impacts of community colleges on local employment trends. Their research focuses on rural counties over four time periods between 1976 and 2004. This focus is important, as rural areas have faced severe and chronic economic decline over the study period. Their research (specifically for the 1976-1983 and 1991-1997 panels) provides evidence that established community colleges made a significant contribution to employment growth. However, for the most recent panel (i.e., 1998-2004), the coefficient for community colleges is negative. An examination of the interaction between community colleges and states' fiscal contexts provides evidence that this decline may be the result of states cutting back their funding levels for community colleges. (Contains 6 notes, 2 figures, and 3 tables.) 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