Your search found 191740 results.

Descriptors:
Stakeholders; State Programs; Program Descriptions; Education Work Relationship; Training; Educational Improvement; Privacy; Longitudinal Studies; State Agencies; Student Records; Information Security; Confidentiality; Agency Cooperation; Educational Cooperation; Statewide Planning; Labor Force Development; Disclosure; Information Policy; Federal Regulation; State Regulation; Educational Policy; Data; Data Analysis; State Policy; Program Development; Program Implementation; College Readiness; Career Readiness; Educational Indicators; Postsecondary Education; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
To address key policy and programmatic questions and help improve student and system performance, states must work to link data across the early childhood, postsecondary and workforce (P-20/workforce) spectrum and share this information with appropriate stakeholders. This issue brief highlights current efforts in California, Florida, Indiana, and Texas to inform decisions, policies and practices by using data that are linked across multiple sectors. The lessons and experiences highlighted below are intended to help inform states' efforts to build interoperable data systems able to provide more robust, timely and actionable information to all stakeholders. There is no single way to use linked data; states are finding myriad ways to use these data to best meet their needs. As states continue to innovate around sharing and using linked data, this issue brief will be updated to reflect new developments. (Contains 2 footnotes and 10 resources.) 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 (385K)

Descriptors:
Stakeholders; Lifelong Learning; Graduation Rate; Industry; Skill Development; National Security; Engineering Education; Engineering; Labor Force Development; Workshops; Program Descriptions; Program Evaluation; Educational Environment; Politics of Education; Economic Factors; Educational Needs; Federal Programs; Educational Policy; Public Policy; Competition; Global Approach; Online Surveys; Interviews; Professional Continuing Education

Abstract:
The Lifelong Learning Imperative (LLI) project was initiated to assess current practices in lifelong learning for engineering professionals, reexamine the underlying assumptions behind those practices, and outline strategies for addressing unmet needs. The LLI project brought together leaders of U.S. industry, academia, government, and professional societies to assess the current state of lifelong learning of engineers; to examine the need for, and nature of, lifelong learning going forward; and to explore the responsibilities and potential actions for the primary stakeholders. The United States is facing a crisis in its engineering workforce just as global competition is becoming very intense. During the next several years there will be massive retirements of skilled and experiences engineers, and the United States has one of the lowest rates of graduation of bachelor-level engineers in the world: only 4.5 percent of our university graduates are engineers. The issue is especially acute in the national security industry because of citizenship requirements. Perhaps even more critical, the pace of technological change continues to accelerate, making the specifics of engineering education and skill development obsolete in short order. A critical part of our corporate and national strategy to address this looming crisis should be to ramp up the quality of engineers' professional life, improve their capacity to innovate, and widen their fields of opportunity. A project-framing workshop was organized by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in partnership with the National Academy of Engineering in June 2009 to examine the issues relevant to lifelong learning in engineering. A UIUC research team then conducted a survey-based assessment of the issues identified in the 2009 workshop. Preliminary findings from the UIUC study were examined more fully. "Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering" reflects the opinions of the authors based on the UIUS team's survey analysis and learning from the discussions at the 2011 workshop. 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Expertise; Labor Force Development; Human Resources; Educational Policy; Vocational Education; Educational History; Educational Development; Performance Factors; Barriers; Skill Development; Trend Analysis; Educational Needs; Educational Practices; Educational Research; Educational Theories; Technology Education; Technological Advancement

Abstract:
In an attempt to inform how to approach nanotechnology vocational education training (nanoVET), this article briefly discusses the history of the development of vocational education training (VET) in the United States during the past century. The history of nanotechnology development and the current advances in this emerging field are discussed in the context of workforce development and the challenges it poses to human resource development (HRD) professionals. Concerned with the lack of educators and educational policy experts in the dialogue on nanotechnology and the need for multi-, trans-, and inter-disciplinary employability skills curricula for nanotechnology, this article argues for a different approach to VET that endorses the democratic ideals proposed by Dewey, in preparing students for challenges in nanotechnology careers. The article argues that the multi-, trans-, and inter-disciplinary nature of nanotechnology require that nanoVET should be guided by history and be modeled within the comprehensive democratic approach advanced by Dewey. The article concludes with a discussion on the implications for HRD practice, research, and theory. 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 Technology; Leadership; Grants; Communities of Practice; Dropout Prevention; College Readiness; Career Readiness; Student Projects; Active Learning; Individualized Instruction; Cooperative Learning; STEM Education; Coaching (Performance); Mentors; Educational Assessment; Academic Standards; Data; Information Systems; Leadership Effectiveness; Technology Integration; Technology Planning; State Policy; State Programs; Educational Policy; Educational Change; Educational Trends; Program Implementation; Program Effectiveness; School Districts; Federal Legislation; State Surveys; Program Evaluation; Program Descriptions; Interviews; Content Analysis; Web Sites; Information Technology; Electronic Libraries; Web Based Instruction; Blended Learning

Abstract:
The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) is the principal association representing the technology leadership in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is SETDA's ninth annual report on select educational technology activities. This year's report includes details regarding state educational technology programs, the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant program for the federal fiscal year 2010 (FY10), and the EETT portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) Act of 2009. ARRA provided $650 million dollars for EETT, a significant increase in funds, which afforded the opportunity for states to scale up and develop robust, effective educational technology grant programs, and also increased statewide program evaluations. This report shares a broad scope of innovative educational activities that promote technology integration to help prepare students for the 21st century global economy. SETDA collected data through a variety of mechanisms: (1) detailed surveys of the states; (2) personal interviews with state technology directors and their staff; (3) analysis of education websites; and (4) review of public information. This report includes multiple examples of innovative, educational technology programs in states and districts that were funded by federal, state, local, and private sources and an analysis of the federal technology grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education to state educational agencies through the EETT grant program for FY10 and EETT ARRA funds. Appended are: (1) Technology Infrastructure; (2) Data Systems and Interoperability Standards; (3) Content Standards and High-Quality Assessments; (4) Education Resource Repositories; (5) Professional Learning Communities and Communities of Practice; (6) Technology Coaches/Mentors; (7) High-Access, Technology-Rich Learning Environments; (8) Personalized Learning; (9) Online and Blended Learning; (10) Digital and Open Content; (11) Project-Based Collaborative Learning; (12) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM); (13) Career and College Readiness Initiatives; and (14) Dropout Prevention/Credit Recovery. (Contains 3 tables, 6 figures, and 45 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:

 ERIC Full Text (1725K)

Descriptors:
Urban Schools; High Schools; Secondary Education; Global Approach; Labor Market; Young Adults; Educational Change; Employment Opportunities; Educational Opportunities; Educational Improvement; Educational Policy; Educational Trends; College Readiness; High School Students; Influence of Technology; Lifelong Learning; Policy Analysis; Relevance (Education); Dropouts; College Preparation; Career Development; Vocational Education; Case Studies; Vocational High Schools; Dual Enrollment; Virtual Classrooms; Educational Technology; Web Based Instruction; Standards; Role of Education; Economic Factors; Advanced Placement Programs

Abstract:
Pressing Forward: Increasing and Expanding Rigor and Relevance in America's High Schools is organized to place secondary education, specifically the goals of preparing young adults to be college and career ready, in contemporary perspective, emphasizing the changing global economy and trends in policy and practice. High school students must be equipped with tools they need during and beyond high school for mapping their futures in a global and flat world that demands workers prepared to take up 21st century careers. Following Thomas Freidman and other writers on the topic, this book takes as its core premise that the world has been irrevocably altered by technology and that technology takes a prominent role in shaping post-secondary education and career opportunities. The challenges facing education and educators in a flattened world can best be addressed by creating opportunities for students who are ready for a world in which they are expected to pursue learning throughout their lifetimes, understand and use technology, engage in active civic lives, function well in ethnically diverse workplace settings, and be willing to take risks. Most of all, however, these individuals must be very well prepared during high school by taking advanced level mathematics, science and other challenging coursework, while at the same time actively engaging in collaborative, creative endeavors that prepare them to continuously reinvent themselves to stay ahead of automation and outsourcing. The book will be a unique and useful contribution to the education reform and policy literature as it examines secondary education at an historical moment--the convergence of significant education spending and focus on high school reform. Developed from diverse authors' research programs on secondary education, the chapters in this volume highlight both changing and steadfast features of high schools, questioning if attempts to foster change--whether tinkering around the edges or inventing a new way--adequately address shortcomings in equity and excellence found in American high schools. This book begins with a preface and contains the following: (1) Pathways in America's High Schools (Becky Smerdon, Aimee Evan, Kathryn Borman, and Arland Nguema); (2) State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools (Jennifer Dounay Zinth); (3) Educational Policy in Practice: Implementing the "AP for All" Movement in Two Florida High Schools (Ashley Spalding, Aimee Eden, and Rebekah Heppner); (4) Adding "College-Ready" Coursework to a "Career-Ready" Pathway: Implications for Dropping Out of High School (Ben Dalton and Robert Bozick); (5) CTE Schools and Labor Market Outcomes in Young Adulthood: A Case Study in a Large Urban School District (Ruth Curran Neild and Vaughan Byrnes); (6) Dual Enrollment: A Bridge Between High School and College (Kellie Kim and Becky Smerdon); (7) Student Experiences in Early College Schools (Susan Cole, Helen Duffy, Kaeli Keating, and Andrea Berger); (8) Virtual High Schools: Forging Another Pathway with Web-Based Schooling (Kellie Kim); (9) From Sticks to Carrots to Getting it Done: How Converging Visions and Common Action are Generating New Standards of Practice for American High Schools (Kristine Kilanski, Becky Smerdon, Nettie Legters, and Aimee Evan); and (10) Preparing Students for Life after High School (Becky Smerdon, Kathryn Borman, and Aimee Evan). 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:
State Agencies; Student Records; Privacy; Information Security; Confidentiality; Federal Legislation; Agency Cooperation; Educational Cooperation; Statewide Planning; Labor Force Development; Disclosure; Information Policy; Federal Regulation; State Regulation; School Districts; Social Services; Educational Improvement; Educational Policy; Data; Data Analysis; State Policy; Longitudinal Studies; State Programs; Postsecondary Education

Abstract:
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) provide the information and tools needed to inform policies, practices and decisions at every level to improve student achievement and system performance. It is equally important that there are policies and practices to protect personally identifiable information and to ensure the confidentiality and security of this sensitive information. Linking limited data elements from different sectors is sometimes necessary to generate actionable information that can be used to realize efficiency, assess impact, and make informed decisions about education. Based on state experiences, comments, and ongoing conversations, the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) Partners have identified the following four areas of continuing confusion: (1) Sharing between Separate P-(or K-)12 and Postsecondary Data Systems; (2) Disclosures to a Former School/LEA for Evaluation and Accountability; (3) Research Studies Initiated by State Agencies; and (4) Disclosures to Workforce and Social Service Agencies. 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 (110K)

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Computer Assisted Instruction; Educational Policy; Politics of Education; College Faculty; Teacher Attitudes; Evaluation Methods; Educational Assessment; Government Role; Educational Change; International Education; Educational Technology; Commercialization; Educational Administration; Technical Institutes; Privatization; Neoliberalism; Global Approach; Technology Integration; College Instruction

Abstract:
In this article, the authors argue that educational technology is chiefly and increasingly being used as a tool for the privatization of education and the commodification of people by way of top down evaluative structures put in place by governments in collusion with neoliberal interests. This analysis began as a study that sought to illuminate the reasons why teachers in Taiwanese technical colleges have been reluctant to integrate educational technologies for actual instruction. However, what the authors actually found was that teachers in Taiwan are experiencing a forced obsession with top down evaluations and these evaluations are locking teachers in what may be called an amplifying causal loop. By looking up the proverbial food chain of the top-down evaluations, the authors found socio-political and economic forces at work that were less Taiwanese and more global in scope and character and less about teachers and classrooms and more about the rise of educational administration for neoliberal advancement. This article argues that a collusion between neoliberal interests, an obsession with evaluation, and the uninterrogated implementation of educational technologies are giving rise to processes that are wreaking havoc on the Taiwanese education system and similar processes are at work throughout the world. 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:
Foreign Countries; Vocational Education; Intellectual Disciplines; Educational Policy; Educational Quality; Teacher Education; Teacher Qualifications; Vocational Education Teachers; Surveys; Labor Force Development; Trainers; Adult Educators

Abstract:
This paper uses data from a recent national project on workforce development for vocational education and training (VET) practitioners in the service skills sector to examine the issue of teaching qualifications for VET practitioners in Australia. Data on the level of qualifications is limited and incomplete (Mlotkowski & Guthrie, 2010) and the continuing debate about what qualifications are and should be required of Australian VET practitioners is therefore proceeding in something of a vacuum. This paper provides some up-to-date empirical evidence about the level of qualifications of VET practitioners in teaching and learning (pedagogy) and in their industry area (or discipline). It then considers whether the qualification levels described are sufficient for the workforce and offers some suggestions about how the current situation has come about. (Contains 5 tables and 2 footnotes.) 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:
Academic Achievement; Alignment (Education); Career Development; Careers; College Bound Students; College Entrance Examinations; College Preparation; College Readiness; Consortia; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Legislation; Educational Policy; English Language Learners; Ethnic Groups; Exit Examinations; Federal Legislation; Graduation; Graduation Requirements; High School Students; High Schools; Low Income Groups; Public Schools; Readiness; State Programs; State Standards

Abstract:
Since 2002, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) has collected and reported data on state policies that require students to pass a state assessment in order to receive a high school diploma. The state policies associated with these assessments, also known as high school exit exams, have undergone a number of changes over the past ten years. For example, states have changed the graduation requirements attached to these assessments, the types of assessments they use, the subjects tested by these assessments, and the purposes that the assessments are intended to serve. However, exit exams are not the only assessments that states mandate for all high school students. In some states, a different assessment is administered in high school to meet federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) than the assessment administered as a graduation requirement. Additionally, some states require students to take college entrance exams, such as the SAT or ACT, and some states (sometimes the same states) require high school students to take exams that assess a student's readiness for college and career, such as the PSAT or ACT's PLAN or EXPLORE assessments. For CEP's 2011 study on state high school assessments, the author surveyed all 50 states on policies pertaining to all high school assessments, including high school exit exams, college entrance exams, and college and career readiness (CCR) assessments. Part 1 of this report provides an overview of state high school exit exam policies and discusses recent changes in these policies. Part 2 describes what the author learned from her state survey regarding college entrance exams and college and career readiness assessments. The author addresses the current national and state focus on college and career readiness and the extent to which this focus has affected state high school assessment policies. Part 2 also addresses state-led efforts in improving college and career readiness, such as the Common Core State Standards movement and the two state consortia developing assessments aligned to these standards, and how these efforts may impact state high school assessment policies. The author finds the following changes in state high school exit exam policies: (1) Twenty-five states have current or planned polices that require students to pass an exit exam in order to receive a high school diploma; (2) Three states requiring high school exit exams (Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee) have changed their policies so that students no longer have to pass an exam in order to receive a diploma; (3) More states administer or plan to administer end-of-course exams than comprehensive exams, as 19 states had current or planned policies to administer end-of-course exams in the 2010-11 school year; (4) Eighty-four percent of students of color, 78% of low-income students, and 76% of all public school students nationwide were enrolled in the 30 states with state high school exit exam policies in 2010-11; and (5) Due to policy changes in some states, fewer students were required to pass high school exit exams in order to receive a high school diploma in the 2010-11 school year than in the 2009-10 school year (65% of all public school students nationwide in 2010-11 compared to 74% in 2009-10). Findings on state high school assessment policies and college and career readiness include: (1) Twenty-seven of the 31 states with current or planned exit exams are participating in one or both of the state consortia to develop common assessments that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards intended to measure college and career readiness; (2) High school exit exams are currently used by potential employers or postsecondary education institutions in only one state (Georgia), despite many states citing assessment of college readiness (8 states) and career readiness (10 states) as a purpose of those assessments; (3) Eleven states require or plan to require students to take a college entrance exam (the ACT or SAT) in high school; however, none of these states require their students to meet a specific passing standard on the exam; and (4) Sixteen states administer, or at least offer to all students, assessments that are intended to assess students' readiness for college and/or a career. (Contains 3 tables, 4 boxes, 4 figures and 2 footnotes.) 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 (421K)

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Creative Activities; Creativity; Program Descriptions; Secondary School Curriculum; Technology Education; Design; Public Agencies; Web Sites; Asian Culture; Barriers; Teacher Attitudes; Educational Environment; Educational Theories; Educational Policy; Educational Change; Educational Philosophy; Educational Innovation

Abstract:
As creativity is likely to become a crucial aspect of living in the future, it is important for educators to teach students to think creatively when solving constantly evolving and increasingly complex problems. Supported by the idea that creativity can be taught and learnt, elements of creativity are now embedded in secondary school education. Among all school subjects, design and technology (D&T) is one of the best examples for fostering and cultivating students' creativity, as the subject offers creative activities that enable students to realize their ideas in the context of the real world. This paper analyzes the creative elements in the D&T curriculum in Hong Kong as seen in the exemplar projects on the Education Bureau website. Some problems and difficulties encountered in fostering creativity in the context of Hong Kong are identified, based on the current teaching environment. The paper also draws attention to East Asian beliefs and implicit theories, which greatly influence teachers' underlying assumptions about learning and teaching, and at the same time notes that these beliefs may be detrimental to the development of creativity among students. The paper then identifies the problems and inadequacies in fostering creativity in design at the secondary school level and expects to raise awareness of the importance of creativity in D&T. 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