Your search found 27055 results.

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Educational Quality; Models; Stakeholders; Employer Attitudes; Questionnaires; Outcomes of Education; Resources; Sustainable Development; Educational Finance; Employment Potential; Training; College Graduates; Achievement; Research and Development; Theory Practice Relationship

Abstract:
The present paper proposes a theoretical model of institutional quality of a higher education institution (HEI) which, in addition to the internal dimensions of quality, incorporates also the external dimension, i.e. the outcomes dimension. This dimension has been neglected by the quality standards and models examined in our paper. Furthermore, the standards and models analyzed consider stakeholders as one of the quality factors of a HEI. The stakeholders' perspective is seen as a lens through which stakeholders define, control and assess the quality of a HEI. The proposed model therefore gives stakeholders greater significance compared to the dimensions of institutional quality of a HEI. The model has been validated from the employers' perspective. On the basis of 339 completed questionnaires or a 39.74% response rate we concluded that outcomes constitute the most important dimension of institutional quality of a HEI from the perspective of employers in Slovenia. The outcomes dimension is followed, in descending order, by the non-financial resources and inputs, sustainable development, value chain, and, finally, the financial resources and inputs dimensions. The results of the study have shown that of the 44 quality factors of a HEI the following data are of key importance to employers: information on the participation of students in practical training, achievements of graduates at the workplace, implementation of a HEI's research achievements in practice, graduate employability, and a HEI's responsiveness to the demands and changes in the environment. 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; Financial Exigency; Financial Problems; Higher Education; Financial Support; Undergraduate Students; Colleges; Income; Economic Development; Educational Finance

Abstract:
The accountants Grant Thornton (GT) do a welcome and nice piece of pro bono work by analysing the annual accounts of the UK's 160 (sic) HEIs and compiling a report on "The Financial Health of the Higher Education Sector"--this year entitled "The calm before the storm"! GT duly note that, if the US Department of Education's "ratio-based methodology" were applied to the UK HEIs, 104 of them would "fare well" under this way of assessing "the financial condition" of universities and colleges, while a not insignificant thirty-four would require "careful monitoring" and a worrying twenty-two "would be barred from Federal funding programmes". However, GT warn of the gathering storm clouds: notably the uncertainty over the recruitment of Home/EU undergraduates as the higher fees kick in, the impact on overseas student numbers of the UK Border Agency's increasingly stringent policy on (not) awarding immigration visas, and the massive cost of eventually having to catch up with a long-term backlog of infrastructure maintenance and ageing buildings. Thus, GT sees UK HE as "entering a period of uncertainty" in which Government HE policy will have "potentially devastating consequences" and in which some HEIs "may find it difficult to survive as autonomous bodies". 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:
Poverty; Disadvantaged Youth; Public Schools; Charter Schools; School Desegregation; Social Integration; School Effectiveness; Academic Achievement; Peer Influence; Student Attrition; Educational Finance; Faculty Mobility

Abstract:
In discussing socioeconomic integration before audiences, the author is frequently asked: What about high-poverty schools that do work? Don't they suggest that economic segregation isn't much of a problem after all? High-poverty public schools that beat the odds paint a heartening story that often attracts considerable media attention. In 2000, the conservative Heritage Foundation published a report, titled "No Excuses," meant to show that high-poverty schools can work well. The forward of the report proudly declared that the author "found not one or two ... [but] twenty-one high-performing, high-poverty schools." Unfortunately, these 21 schools were dwarfed by the 7,000 high-poverty schools identified by the US Department of Education as low performing. Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a chain of 125 schools educating more than 35,000 students in 20 states and the District of Columbia, is often cited as evidence that high-poverty public schools ought to be able to produce very positive results. The school program emphasizes "tough love": a longer school day and school year, more homework, and the explicit teaching of middle-class habits and norms. (Contains 21 endnotes.) 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 (130K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Evidence; Stakeholders; Expenditures; Voting; Tax Effort; Community Characteristics; School District Wealth; Operating Expenses; Political Attitudes; Consciousness Raising; Change Strategies; Multiple Regression Analysis; Data Analysis; Statistical Data; Input Output Analysis; Cost Effectiveness; Audits (Verification); School Budget Elections; Politics of Education; Schematic Studies

Abstract:
Using logistic regression, this study sought to understand the relationship between district characteristics, district finances, levy characteristics, and campaign expenditures with new operating levy outcomes. We found that employee benefits as a percentage of the district's budget were negatively associated with levy outcomes, while salaries were positively associated with levy outcomes, suggesting that voters may be more sensitive to retirement and healthcare benefits than salaries when voting. While campaign spending was related to levy success, types of expenditures were largely insignificant. School district personnel must be cognizant of the local conditions in crafting campaigns and recruiting community stakeholders. (Contains 4 tables, 1 figure, and 6 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:
School Schedules; Educational Innovation; Colleges; Online Courses; Transfer Students; College Freshmen; Study Abroad; Educational Finance; College Admission; Internship Programs

Abstract:
Some students at University of Florida can take classes only during the spring and summer semesters for as long as they are enrolled. Each year they will get a four-month break--the fall semester--when they can take online courses, study abroad, or do internships. Some may opt to work. Despite their schedules, the students are full-fledged undergraduates--not second-class citizens--a point the university has emphasized on and off the campus. At a time when colleges are rethinking their offerings, Florida's move represents a reinvention of the academic calendar. The idea was inspired by growing demand and a dwindling supply of seats. A few years ago, deep cuts in state appropriations prompted the university's leaders to shrink undergraduate enrollment. Although they were wary of limiting access further, they knew the campus was at capacity--at least during the fall. Florida, like many other institutions, has long offered spots to "January admits," first-year applicants who must wait for a semester before enrolling. Over the past several years, the university has quadrupled the number of freshmen admitted in the spring, when it also welcomes about 1,000 transfer students. Officials decided that the spring-and-summer option must come with an enticement, something distinctive. So they developed the Innovation Academy, a mandatory series of courses, including a senior-year capstone project, for all spring-and-summer students. Each student takes six courses--on creativity and entrepreneurship, for instance--as part of a minor in "innovation." The program offers seminars, guest lectures, and service-learning opportunities, all to encourage students to develop solutions to problems in their chosen fields. Participating students also get hands-on experience at the university's new business incubator. Florida plans eventually to enroll 2,000 students on the spring-and-summer schedule. 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:
School Choice; Research Needs; Tuition; Educational Legislation; Outcomes of Education; Economics; Educational Vouchers; Prediction; Educational Trends; Educational Finance; State Legislation

Abstract:
Legislators considering large scale school choice proposals want information on more than likely schooling outcomes. They look to their fiscal bureaus and economic studies to provide that information. The fiscal notes that must accompany all proposals with revenue or expenditure implications are especially important. Often, fiscal notes must be produced on short notice. The article assesses the fiscal notes that have accompanied the major U.S. charter law and tuition voucher proposals, and to highlight key issues and research needs it assesses fiscal and economic impacts of the proposed Texas (2011-HB 33) tuition voucher program. We assess fiscal notes in terms of research basis for predictions, predicted level of participation (# of choosers), and predicted basis for fiscal impacts, including time trend of effects. Finally, we propose how the fiscal notes might be improved; not just what legislative analysts should do, but also what could be done to make doing a better job easier. (Contains 6 tables and 10 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:
Military Personnel; Dependents; Paying for College; Federal Government; Veterans; Federal Legislation; Spouses; Fringe Benefits; Educational Finance; Public Policy; Costs; Program Descriptions

Abstract:
As a new GI Bill moved through Congress in 2008, a handful of influential politicians grew concerned. Would such a generous education program trigger an exodus of service members during two wars? At the Pentagon's urging, the lawmakers proposed a fix: Give troops the option to transfer their benefits to a child or spouse. That policy quickly proved to be one of the most popular provisions associated with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In 2009, when the law took effect, the Department of Defense announced that in exchange for four more years of service, education benefits could be passed on. In the following year, dependents of service members and veterans--most of them children--represented a fifth of the half-million users of the GI Bill. Service members, veterans' groups, and politicians laud the policy as a well-deserved benefit for military families, many of which have endured the strain of multiple deployments during a period of protracted conflict. That comes at a cost: The Department of Veterans Affairs has spent just shy of $26-billion on the Post-9/11 GI Bill; over the program's life span, it is projected to cost $90-billion. Given such investment, some educators have questioned whether the children of high-ranking officers in particular should benefit from the related Yellow Ribbon Program, which gives some GI Bill recipients even more aid--pledged by participating colleges and matched by the federal government. Of the 900,000 people who have pursued college or technical training on the Post-9/11 GI Bill so far, the VA has not shared what proportion, over all, are dependents. And it does not track whether transferred benefits are more common among officers or the enlisted ranks. But dependents are apparently getting a boost--from not only the GI Bill and Yellow Ribbon Program, but also a patchwork of related policies at the state and campus levels. 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:
Tenure; College Faculty; College Administration; Administrators; Data; Educational Finance; Cost Effectiveness; Higher Education

Abstract:
For years, faculty members have pointed to the sluggish growth in the number of tenured professors and complained that university payrolls are filled with too many administrators. This, they maintain, adds unnecessary costs and takes the focus away from teaching and learning. But whether such "administrative bloat" is really occurring and how much it matters on campuses are complex questions to answer. The proportion of administrative and other nonfaculty employees has grown, but the reality of "administrative bloat" depends on the data. 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:
Language Planning; International Schools; Bilingual Education; War; Monolingualism; Foreign Countries; Educational Policy; Chinese; Educational Development; Educational Change; English (Second Language); Indonesian; Language of Instruction; Language Variation; Educational Finance; Nationalism; Educational History; School Segregation

Abstract:
The two decades from 1950 to 1970 were a crucial period of educational reorganization in Malaysia that stemmed from the decolonization after the Second World War. This educational reorganization sought to address the perennial issue of nation building via educational language policy. The development of Chinese education was under severe threat as the British colonial government opted for a national school system that used English and Malay as the media of instruction in place of the segregated vernacular school system that had existed during the colonial period. Much to the relief of the Chinese, the national school system failed to materialize due to the lack of financial resources to reorganize the entire educational system. But the Chinese were unable to maintain the Chinese school system within the ambit of the national educational system advocated by the postcolonial Alliance government. The Alliance government had only allowed the Chinese to undergo Chinese education at the primary level. At the secondary level, it opted for a monolingual system of education based on Malay as the main medium of instruction in order to foster national integration through a common language. The Chinese had to switch to this medium of instruction if they wanted to remain in mainstream education. Such a system of transitional bilingual education was aimed at incorporating the Chinese into the nation building process. 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; Budgeting; Funding Formulas; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student; Public Schools; School Choice; Educational Equity (Finance); Student Characteristics

Abstract:
One way districts can enable funding portability is with the use of student-based allocation formulas that allocate funds to districts and schools based on enrollment of students and student types. The student-based allocation model enables "pocketbook power," creating incentives for schools to attract students, keep full enrollment, and demonstrate excellent student performance. Student-based allocation models (also known as "weighted student funding") have been around for two decades, but not always as a mechanism to enable choice and accountability. Some policymakers implemented these kinds of policies to create more financial equity across schools, or as a component of school-based decision-making. This brief explains the need for a student-based allocation system in the context of school choice, and provides an overview of the key features that enable student choice across schools within districts. Specifically, the brief covers: (1) How traditional staffing-based allocation schemes clash with choice policies; (2) How student-based allocation can enable more portable funding across schools; and (3) Whether it is feasible for schools to lose funds as students choose other schools. (Contains 6 figures and 9 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 (521K)