Author(s): |
Sander, Libby |
Source: |
Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-07 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Higher Education; Campuses; Veterans; War; Federal Programs; Females; Disproportionate Representation; Enrollment; Institutions; Reputation; Selective Admission; Institutional Characteristics; Educational Attitudes; Access to Education; Federal Legislation; Educational Opportunities; Student Financial Aid
Abstract:
About 16 percent of veterans use the GI Bill to attend private institutions, roughly the same proportion as students generally. But at the most highly selective colleges, veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill barely fill a single classroom--38 at Penn, 22 at Cornell, and at Princeton, just one. The sparse numbers do not go unnoticed, veterans say. Leaders of such institutions, meantime, are wrestling with how actively they should or could recruit veterans to their campuses. After World War II, roughly two million veterans went to college on the original GI Bill, which was credited with democratizing higher education in the United States. More than half of them attended private institutions. On some campuses, veterans accounted for the majority of students. Of course, times were different then: A far broader portion of the population had served in the military, and enrollment in higher education was considerably lower. Now veterans are a much smaller slice of the student demographic, representing about 3 percent of undergraduates. Decades ago, some educators wondered about veterans' place at elite colleges. In the 1940s, the president of Harvard, James Bryant Conant--who himself had served in World War I--warned that the GI Bill might result in "the least capable among the war generation ... flooding the facilities for advanced education." He later recanted and spoke glowingly of the federal program. But even now the question lingers: In the collegiate landscape, where do veterans belong? James Wright, president emeritus of Dartmouth College and author of "Those Who Have Borne the Battle: A History of America's Wars and Those Who Fought Them," is disappointed that the Ivy League in particular has not taken a stronger lead in recruiting veterans. Elite colleges, he argues, should view veterans no differently than they do prospective students from other underrepresented groups. The GI Bill and the Yellow Ribbon Program are meant to give veterans the financial means to go to the best institutions they can get into.
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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Professional Autonomy; Feedback (Response); Faculty Development; Disadvantaged Youth; Focus Groups; Surveys; Interviews; Teamwork; Preschool Teachers; Researchers; Interprofessional Relationship; Leadership; Risk; Educational Innovation; Trust (Psychology); Social Attitudes; Federal Programs; Early Childhood Education; Preschool Children; Qualitative Research
Abstract:
This qualitative study of three Head Start Centers analyzed surveys, interviews, and focus group data to determine how education coordinators, teachers, and teacher assistants believed professional development activities could support teamwork at their centers. The researchers sorted data related to teamwork into four categories: knowledge and understanding of teachers' trajectories, how teachers referred to one another, frequency and quality of communication, and evidence of shared philosophy. A climate of trust, respect, open communication and clear organization emerged as important for the risk taking necessary for teachers to learn together. This climate depended on leadership that was willing to take on challenges, innovate, and make room for teacher autonomy. Teamwork thrived in a program that purposely built relationships among staff through opportunities for communication, the development of a shared philosophy, and the possibility of being known and feeling known by colleagues and supervisors. When administrators solicited and used teachers' feedback about professional development, the teachers felt themselves a valued part of the teaching community.
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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Books; Collected Works - General |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Enrichment; Organizational Change; Teaching Methods; Interdisciplinary Approach; Learning Strategies; Problem Solving; Urban Schools; STEM Education; Educational Technology; Instructional Design; Educational Trends; Educational Research; Inservice Teacher Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Undergraduate Students; Computer Simulation; Student Teachers; Preservice Teacher Education; Mixed Methods Research; Writing Teachers; Writing Instruction; Curriculum Development; Energy; Military Schools; Educational Games; Citizen Participation; Case Studies; College Instruction; Partnerships in Education; Computer Science Education; English (Second Language); Second Language Instruction; Energy Management; Armed Forces; Federal Programs; Biology; Dental Health
Abstract:
Involving two or more academic subjects, interdisciplinary studies aim to blend together broad perspectives, knowledge, skills, and epistemology in an educational setting. By focusing on topics or questions too broad for a single discipline to cover, these studies strive to draw connections between seemingly different fields. Cases on Interdisciplinary Research Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Studies on Urban Classrooms presents research and information on implementing and sustaining interdisciplinary studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics for students and classrooms in an urban setting. This collection of research acts as a guide for researchers and professionals interested in improving learning outcomes for their students. Contents include: (1) Interdisciplinary Learning from a Student's Perspective (Marlene Hidalgo); (2) STEM Academic Enrichment and Professional Development Programs for K-12 Urban Students and Teachers (Cecelia Wright Brown and Kevin A. Peters); (3) STEM Learning Communities: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Teaching and Learning (Bernadette Kelley and Lisa McClelland); (4) Reengineering an Introductory Computer Education Course for Undergraduate Students (Farhat J. Lakhavani and April Rupp); (5) Communication, Culture, and Technology: Learning Strategies for the Unteachable (Ray Gallon); (6) Using Second Life to Support Student Teachers' Socio-Reflective Practice: A Mixed-Method Analysis (Melissa Burgess); (7) Virtual Interdisciplinary Experiences for Teachers of Writing: Considerations for Implementation (Christine Rosalia and Laura Baecher); (8) Energizing Interdisciplinarity: Addressing Army Energy Use through Curricular Reform at West Point (Bruce Keith); (9) Integrated Projects and the Development of Interdisciplinary Problem-Solving Strategies (Paul C. King); (10) Enhancing Diversity in STEM Interdisciplinary Learning (Reginald A. Blake and Janet Liou-Mark); (11) Development of Interdisciplinary Problem-Solving Strategies through Games and Computer Simulations (Candido Cabo and Reneta D. Lansiquot); (12) Integration of Civic Engagement of Pedagogies in the STEM Disciplines (Gwen Cohen Brown and Laina Karthikeyan); and (13) All Hands on Deck: Using Case Studies to Support Institutional Change (Cinda P. Scott, Bonne August, and Constanza Eggers-Pierola).
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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-02-25 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Evidence; Outcomes of Education; Preschool Education; Presidents; Public Policy; Disadvantaged Youth; Federal Programs; Preschool Children
Abstract:
Both science and public policy are best advanced based on impartial analysis of all the available evidence. No single study stands on its own, much less provides the definitive answers to policy questions on its own. This requires that scientists and policymakers consider all the evidence rather than simply select a few studies that fit their preconceived notions. The Obama administration's new universal pre-K proposal first announced in the State of the Union address comports conclusions drawn from a full review of the evidence, just as one would hope. Critics of the pre-K proposal in the ensuing debate have not followed the same approach. Their attacks on the President's proposal have been based on a few selected studies considered in isolation and when convenient, misinterpreted. This report from the National Institute for Early Education Research was prepared to set the record straight so that debate can proceed with accurate information. Specifically, the report reviews the research related to four key issues regarding the pre-K proposal. These four issues are in brief: (1) Does high-quality pre-K have lasting benefits?; (2) What is the evidence for the $7 to $1 return on investment in pre-K?; (3) Do non-disadvantaged children benefit from pre-K, and is a targeted or a universal approach to pre-K more effective?; and (4) Are large-scale public programs, including Head Start, effective?
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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-08-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Profiles; School Readiness; At Risk Persons; Teaching Experience; Kindergarten; Early Intervention; Reading Readiness; Low Income Groups; Early Childhood Education; Preschool Children; School Orientation; Teacher Student Ratio; Transitional Programs; Teacher Student Relationship; Parent Participation; Child Rearing; Comparative Analysis; Scores; Federal Programs; Disadvantaged Youth
Abstract:
This study is a population-based investigation of children's school readiness with a national sample of low-income children, utilizing data from the Family and Children's Experiences Survey (FACES; 2000-2003). Guided by a developmental ecological framework, we posed 3 research questions: (a) How do children's early school readiness skills in the social and cognitive domains overlap (as they enter preschool)? (b) Do these configurations of school readiness skills meaningfully predict children's school adjustment by the end of kindergarten? (c) In addition to the patterns of children's school readiness identified at the beginning of their first Head Start year, do relevant family and classroom context factors help to predict and/or moderate end-of-kindergarten outcomes? Results revealed 5 distinct patterns of school readiness for this national sample of low-income children. These profiles related in meaningful ways to end-of-kindergarten outcomes, such that children in more competent preschool profiles did better over time. Moreover, these patterns of school readiness identified at the beginning of the Head Start year were the most consistent predictors of end-of-kindergarten performance, controlling for demographic and context factors. However, results revealed that proximal contextual influences in the family (i.e., maternal education and parenting style) and classroom (i.e., teacher experience, teacher education, and adult-child ratio) further predicted end of kindergarten performance across preacademic and social domains. Findings illuminated significant within-group patterns and variability among an at-risk population, relevant for informing early childhood education and early intervention. (Contains 4 tables and 3 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
|
Author(s): |
Powers, Keith |
Source: |
Teaching Music, v20 n3 p38-40, 42 Nov 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-11-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Music; Observation; Teacher Evaluation; Music Teachers; Student Evaluation; Music Education; Federal Programs; Competition; Federal Aid; Educational Improvement
Abstract:
With teacher evaluation a nationwide concern these days, the race is on to determine the best way to track music educators' progress. For politicians and for the public, it boils down to this: Get the lousy teachers out so the kids can score well on standardized tests. An oversimplification, perhaps, but it goes a long way toward explaining why teachers of music and the other arts end up getting evaluated on student science scores or dropout rate or attendance. The truth is that right now, there is no other way to evaluate them. There are three types of teacher evaluations currently in practice, and they are easily distinguished in general terms: evaluations based solely on student achievement, evaluations based solely on teacher observation, and evaluations that use multiple measures, including the aforementioned as well as content knowledge, parent input, and others.
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
|
|
