Your search found 341983 results.

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Comparative Education; Public Sector; Higher Education; Stakeholders; Government Role; Commercialization; Role of Education; Educational History; Private Colleges; Equal Education; Public Policy; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Policy Formation; Educational Change; International Education; Politics of Education; Government School Relationship; Governance; Institutional Autonomy

Abstract:
The relationship between the state and higher education institutions has always been a complex one. The "state" itself in this context is a heterogeneous mix of elite people--bureaucrats, politicians, committees of co-opted academics and business leader--and it increasingly faces pressures from diverse stakeholders, including students (themselves an increasingly diverse community), staff, families, employers and businesses (local, regional and multinational). This volume explores the rapidly evolving relationship between the state and higher education in Europe and in East Asia through a combination of empirical studies, secondary analyses and personal observations from many of the leading scholars in the field of comparative education studies. A scenario emerges where the state seeks to encourage stakeholder influence, while, at the same time, acts to moderate such influence in order to ensure that wider objectives are satisfied; markets are controlled, elements of demand and supply are manipulated and funding is targeted to meet particular policy priorities through a model that is described as "controlled stakeholder steering" which offers a new explanation of the relationship between the state and higher education, certainly in the countries addressed in this book. Contents include: (1) The State and Higher Education Institutions: new pressures, new relationships and new tensions (John Taylor); (2) The Changing Roles of the State and the Market in Japanese, Korean and British Higher Education: lessons for continental Europe? (Roger Goodman); (3) Universities, the State and Geography: perspectives from the United Kingdom and Japan (Fumi Kitagawa); (4) State-Academy Relations in the United Kingdom, 1960-2010 (Ivor Crewe); (5) United Kingdom Higher Education and the Binary Dilemma: whatever happened to public sector higher education? (David Watson); (6) What Japan Tells us about the State and the Future of Higher Education in France (Christian Galan); (7) German Higher Education and the State: a critical appraisal in the light of post-Bologna reforms (Hubert Ertl); (8) Reforming Italian Universities: dynamic conservatism and policy change, 1989-2010 (Paola Mattei); (9) Japanese Higher Education and the State in Transition (Motohisa Kaneko); (10) The State and Private Higher Education in Japan: the end of egalitarian policy? (Aya Yoshida); (11) The State's Role and Quasi-Market in Higher Education: Japan's trilemma (Takehiko Kariya); (12) The (Un)changing Relationship between the State and Higher Education in South Korea: some surprising continuities (Terri Kim); and (13) Afterword (Ronald Dore). 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; College Administration; Governance; Postsecondary Education; Knowledge Economy; Research Universities; School Culture; Business Administration Education; Privatization; Educational Change; Global Approach; Institutional Autonomy; Leadership; Benchmarking; Educational Trends; Futures (of Society); Foreign Countries; Conferences (Gatherings)

Abstract:
The Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) at Hiroshima University, through special funding by the Ministry of Education and Science in 2008, has been implementing a research project on the reform of higher education in the knowledge-based society of the 21st century. Research into the design of the future higher education system, including university management, is a very important part of this project. Within this framework, RIHE hosted the fourth International Workshop on University Reform under the theme of "University Management, Present and Future: How and By Whom?" from 16 to 17 November, 2011, at Hiroshima University, which was followed by the 39th Annual Study Meeting on the same topic. The following papers are presented at the conference: (1) Challenges for Tertiary Education Governance and Management in the Knowledge Economy (Mary-Louise Kearney); (2) University Devolution: How and Why American Research Universities Are Becoming Even More Tribal (John Aubrey Douglass); (3) University Management in a Europeanised and Globalised World: Influences of Bologna and Ranking on Strategy Development in Higher Education Institutions (Don F. Westerheijden); (4) Major Challenges Facing Japanese Universities, and Their Responses (Masao Homma); and (5) What Kinds of Governance and Management Arrangements Should Be Made in Universities in the Future? (Futao Huang). Appended are: (1) Conference Program; and (2) List of Participants. Individual papers contain figures, references and 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:
Higher Education; Educational Change; Institutional Autonomy; Performance; Public Policy; Social Action; Government School Relationship; Foreign Countries

Abstract:
The main aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of organizational autonomy and control in higher education reform and related expectations as regards the performance of universities. Our analyses draws on principal-agent models as a normative theory of policy reform, and institutionalist approaches in public policy and institutional design as an analytical theory of policy reform. We discuss how the dominant narrative of political reform moves away from traditional beliefs in university autonomy that are built on institutional trust and linked to professional autonomy. In the emerging narrative of political change, autonomy becomes re-defined as the "new organizational autonomy" of universities as both strategic actors and as an addressee of governmental control. The concept of "regulatory autonomy" captures the use of organizational autonomy of universities as a tool of a new regime of governmental control. Exemplified by the Dutch case, we analyze autonomy policies for strengthening managerial discretion and internal control of universities that are combined with regulatory policies for external control that steer organizational choices. Regulatory autonomy thus aims at aligning universities more closely with governmental goals and improve respective performance. Our literature review shows, however, that there is scarce, inconclusive and methodologically problematic evidence for a link between "organizational autonomy and performance". We point at promising avenues for further research on autonomy and performance as two core concepts in the contemporary higher education debate. 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; Educational History; Latin American History; Historiography; Government School Relationship; Public Education; Elementary Education; Public Schools; Privatization; Citizenship Education; Culture; Sex Role; War; Violence; Educational Research

Abstract:
ISCHE 33 was convened in San Luis Potosi to re-examine a relationship--that between society, education and the state--that had been largely taken for granted in official histories of education of modern nations. This theme was inspired by the bicentenary celebrations of the relatively early nineteenth-century movements (from 1804 to 1824) that instated independent nations in most of Latin America. National educational systems, there and elsewhere, were created largely with the aspiration of building uniform, modern nations of equal, illustrated citizens, yet research has shown that they also organised diversity and reproduced inequalities, creating and separating categories of class, gender, religion, ethnicity, race, generation, status and ability. ISCHE 33 brought historical research to bear upon the very categories used to talk about education. In this article, the authors first present discussions on this theme that have emerged in the historiography of Mexico, the venue of the conference. They then examine alternative conceptual tools, with reference to the papers in this special issue, used to study the actual configurations that have joined or opposed actors identified with the "state" or "society". By historicising these concepts, rather than assuming them as constants, one may gain insight into the particular import and alignment of the social and political collectivities involved in education. (Contains 49 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:
Higher Education; Governance; Governing Boards; Educational Change; State Government; Trustees; College Administration; Government School Relationship; State Policy; Educational Practices; Accountability; Colleges; Partnerships in Education; Educational Legislation; Public Officials

Abstract:
Governance controversies have raised questions among policy makers and the public about how and why trustees are selected for public boards, to whom they are accountable, and whether current problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Having the right board in place can strengthen the higher education-state government relationship. Appointing effective governing boards, or sustaining existing ones, is critical to a successful higher education system, the pursuit of a successful state strategic agenda, and a successful governorship or legislative session. Today's challenges require the best possible boards, made up of leading citizens, selected with care and forethought, and supported with effective orientation and education programs. If states and their public higher education systems are going to make progress on issues of the public agenda--an agenda that will differ among the states but will likely include better college completion, cutting-edge research and innovation, K-12 school improvement, community and economic development, and workforce preparation--they and their institutions will need board members who can help develop, understand, support, and articulate that agenda. Sustaining strong institutions and university systems given today's fiscal challenges requires public governing boards that are engaged in the strategic work of the institution in partnership with their chief executives. Enlightened state leaders can make several positive changes by instituting some thoughtful practices that minimize counterproductive and unnecessary politics. Sustained changes may require legislation--effective public policies that will better align governing-board capacity with institutional and state needs. (Contains 2 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:

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

Descriptors:
Educational Change; Nongovernmental Organizations; Educational Policy; Public Policy; Educational Legislation; State Legislation; Program Implementation; School Culture; Leadership; Interviews; Public Officials; Academic Achievement; Teacher Evaluation; Collective Bargaining; Charter Schools; School Turnaround; Politics of Education; State Agencies; School Districts; Educational Improvement; Accountability; Students

Abstract:
In 2011, Indiana's legislature reshaped the state's education policy landscape with a package of laws that enabled local leaders to make swift and potentially sweeping changes to district and school operations. The Hoosier State's reforms, dubbed by supporters as the "Putting Students First" agenda, provide a valuable case study of the crucial launch period that all reform agendas encounter. Although it is too early to judge the ultimate effects of these policy changes, in this paper the authors begin considering what challenges the reform package will confront as it moves deeper into implementation. They offer neither naive praise nor uninformed criticism of Indiana's efforts, nor do they judge whether legislators passed the right mix of reforms. Instead, they consider carefully how implementation has begun and likely will continue to unfold so that Indiana's officials, citizens, and observers elsewhere can begin learning lessons from the state's work. Indiana's experience so far shows that state-level leadership is invaluable for articulating, supporting, and advancing an education reform agenda but that eventual results depend on several things: local leaders and teachers using reforms to carefully, creatively, and properly reshape critical tasks and school cultures to improve students' experiences; state and local officials effectively leveraging resources from nongovernmental organizations to support that reshaping; and implementers inside and outside government having a clear understanding of the opportunities and consequences that will follow from their actions. Unless state and local implementers seize opportunities present in the law, efforts such as "Putting Students First" likely will prompt new rounds of compliance-oriented behavior, wasted money, bureaucratic busyness, frustrated teachers, and few or no substantive gains. After summarizing the essential elements of "Putting Students First," the authors offer several lessons about implementation based on the state, with broader observations and actionable suggestions about implementing ambitious multidimensional education reforms. Their discussion relies on interviews with Indiana state officials and others conducted during the spring of 2012, official state documents and data, and other publications. Data Sources and Research Methods are appended. (Contains 1 figure, 1 table, and 47 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Standardized Tests; Unions; Educational Change; Labor Relations; Urban Schools; Presidents; State Legislation; Teacher Strikes; Class Size; Politics of Education; Time Factors (Learning); Public Officials; City Government; Job Layoff; Teacher Selection; School Closing

Abstract:
A strike last week by some 29,000 teachers in Chicago pushed long-simmering tensions over deeply divisive school improvement ideas--including changes in teacher evaluation and the takeover or closure of underperforming schools--into the national spotlight. A framework for a tentative agreement emerged last Friday, and the union's house of delegates was scheduled to meet this past weekend to vet a draft and vote on whether to call off the strike. Details of the agreement were still trickling out, but it appeared likely that the Chicago district had offered to restore some elements of a hiring preference for laid-off teachers, to slow the implementation of a new teacher-evaluation system, and to allow limited appeals under that system. Students are expected to be back in school at the beginning of this week. About 350,000 students in the district, the nation's third largest, were affected by the walkout. In Chicago's case, one such complication has been the volatile relationship between two powerful city players: (1) Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the famously combative former chief of staff for President Barack Obama; and (2) Karen Lewis, the equally outspoken president of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). The two have squabbled for months over Mr. Emanuel's desire to lengthen the school day, which was until recently among the shortest in urban school districts. The strike also raised delicate political questions for the White House during the tense run-up to Election Day. As in 2008, Mr. Obama is counting on the support of teachers, but his own education agenda has pushed for many of the reform ideas contested at the bargaining table. Such divisions were on display last week, as educators, clothed in CTU red, picketed in front of their schools after the walkout began on Sept. 10. Many motorists honked in support as they drove by. In the afternoon, thousands of the teachers flooded the city's downtown Loop area to attend rallies. Picketers stationed a giant, inflatable rat outside the school district's headquarters. They held up signs protesting large class sizes, too much standardized testing, and the perceived capitulation by Democrats to the education agenda of influential foundations and interest groups. But above all, the teachers took aim at their city's mayor, a testament to their frustration with his leadership of the schools, which the mayor controls under authority granted by a 1995 state law. The Chicago district has a history of contentious labor relations, but the strike was the first by the city's teachers in 25 years. 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; Institutional Autonomy; State Government; State Action; Program Proposals; Educational Legislation; Statewide Planning; State Regulation; Privatization; Governance; Board Candidates; Group Membership; Institutional Characteristics; Meetings; Federal Programs; Finance Reform; Change Strategies; Educational Change

Abstract:
The content of this edition of the State Governance Action Report was informed by newspaper reports, online reports, state and institutional Web sites, and conversations with state and higher education leaders. It is current through February 1, 2011. Much of this legislative activity comes at a time when the fiscal conditions of states are reaching their trough. Ramifications of budget cuts from the last two fiscal years have had a direct bearing on many of the proposals and developments described in this report, and it is likely that further changes will occur as states look to reduce spending and streamline government operations. Activities in the states mentioned within this report revolve around several issues, but most prominent are the inter-related themes of: (1) budget reductions for higher education; (2) the pervasive emphasis on degree production and college completion; and (3) redefined relationships between higher education and state government as seen in: structural governance changes; efforts to expand institutional autonomy and fiscal flexibility, especially around tuition setting authority; and an emphasis on funding institutions based more on college completion and less on enrollment and capacity-building. This summary and analysis of the issues, developments, and proposals percolating in several states is not intended to be comprehensive, but nonetheless provides a near complete view of higher-education-governance policy in the states. (Contains 12 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Academic Freedom; Foreign Countries; Educational Change; Plagiarism; Clergy; Universities; Doctoral Dissertations; Public Officials; Deception; Role; Educational Attainment; Doctoral Degrees; Supervision

Abstract:
Rarely do political scandal and academe collide so publicly as they have now, in Europe. In February, Germany's education minister stepped down after Heinrich Heine University, in Dusseldorf, revoked her doctorate because her thesis lifted passages from other sources without proper attribution. Her departure came after scandals over plagiarized work took down a German defense minister, the president of Hungary, and a Romanian education minister. But it is the storied German university system, not politics, that has suffered the real body blows. The front-page news has shaken higher education in Germany, where, in addition to the two former federal ministers, several other national and local political figures have been accused of academic fraud. The incidents have left many wondering: Is there something rotten at the heart of German academe, the esteemed heir of Humboldt and Hegel? For two centuries, the German university as envisioned by the 19th-century philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt has been the model for research institutions in Europe, the United States, and beyond. Humboldt's notions of academic freedom, the autonomy of the university, and placing scientific pursuit at the heart of higher education continue to carry weight today. But his legacy in Germany may be growing somewhat tarnished. In Germany academic titles play a role in politics far greater than they do in the United States. Doctoral and other titles, sometimes as many as three or four, are prominently displayed on the business cards, door plaques, and letterheads of politicians. Some call it posturing--a modern-day "nobleman's title"--while others defend it as a meaningful distinction based on merit. Whether one is impressed by the degree or not, the Ph.D. has become a facet of the German resume that lures ambitious politicians and professionals who have no intention of entering academe. That has led to a proliferation of Ph.D.'s--roughly 25,000 a year awarded since 2000, more per capita than any other country in the world, according to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany. By comparison, American universities award 50,000 doctorates a year, but in a country with a population four times as large as Germany's. Germany's output of Ph.D. recipients probably won't slow down, but the plagiarism cases have shined a spotlight on academe's time-honored methods for supervising and awarding doctorates, especially to candidates who are not full-time academics. 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 Policy; Higher Education; Foreign Countries; Public Officials; Universities; Reputation; Interviews; Educational Change; Policy Analysis; Government Role; Educational Quality; Excellence in Education

Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the Korean government's policies for building world class universities (WCUs) and their implications for Korean higher education institutions. Primarily through an extensive literature review, but also through a discussion of field interviews and the experiences of one of the authors as a public official in education policy making, this study examines the Korean government's policies to establish WCUs, as well as the outcomes and consequences of these policies. Using the framework suggested by Salmi (The challenge of establishing world-class universities. The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2009), the study seeks to answer the following research questions: (a) What policies has the Korean government implemented to build WCUs since the late 1990s? (b) How has the government's quest to build WCUs transformed the Korean higher education system? Specifically, how have HEIs in Korea responded to the policies implemented? (c) What issues and challenges has the Korean higher education system confronted in its quest to build WCUs? 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