Your search found 2822 results.

Descriptors:
Governance; Review (Reexamination); Change Strategies; Organizational Change; Position Papers; Laws; Board of Education Policy; Governing Boards; Higher Education; Individual Characteristics; Institutional Characteristics; Organizational Objectives; Meetings; Administrators; Committees; Conflict of Interest; Resources; Legal Responsibility; Administrative Policy; Administrator Guides; Policy Formation

Abstract:
"Updating Board Bylaws: A Guide for Colleges and Universities" represents the latest thinking on good governance in higher education by providing a concise deconstruction of the essential clauses in college, university, and system bylaws. Written by Robert O'Neil, former professor of law and president of the University of Wisconsin System and the University of Virginia, this publication includes: (1) sample clauses; (2) insightful commentary; (3) practical tips for reviewing and revising bylaws; and (4) differentiated advice for public and independent boards. Individual sections contain additional resources. (Contains 10 exhibits and 9 general 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:
Outcomes of Education; Public Schools; Federal State Relationship; English Language Learners; Low Income; Disadvantaged; Grade 4; Grade 8; National Competency Tests; Governing Boards; Educational Assessment; Reading Achievement; Science Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Gains; Comparative Analysis; Statistical Significance; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas enroll close to 40 percent of the nation's public school students. The importance of these "Mega-States" goes beyond the sheer size of their population. They now serve more than half of the nation's English language learners (ELL), as well as some of the largest concentrations of children from lower-income families. As policymakers and educators look at the nation's changing demographics and explore ways to close achievement gaps, the educational progress of children in these states is of interest far beyond their state borders. That's why the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment Governing Board focused this special report on educational outcomes in the five largest states. This report provides a more in-depth look into the performance of specific student groups and performance by subject, including: (1) recent assessments; (2) comparisons to the nation and among the five states; (3) highlights of gains for student groups, including those that performed higher than their peers in the nation; and (4) student performance at or above the NAEP "Proficient level." The results presented by each subject area are for public school students only. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at 0.05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. Readers should note that writing results were not included in this report because the 2011 writing framework begins a new trend line. In addition, the 2011 computer-based writing assessment was not administered at the state level. Technical Notes are included. (Contains 19 figures, 7 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:

 ERIC Full Text (3890K)

Descriptors:
College Faculty; Publicity; Faculty Development; College Presidents; Department Heads; Deans; College Governing Councils; Trustees; Governing Boards; Outcomes of Education; Educational Administration; School Business Officials

Abstract:
Typically viewed as an academic issue, faculty development discussions too often take place between academic interests. The vice president for academics encourages deans or department heads to make their plans for enhancing the abilities in their areas. Funds are made available, and committees composed of representative faculty members decide who will be able to make what trip, what scholarly presentation will be supported, and what research will need to wait for new budgetary sources. Likewise, the arena for the publicity and professional adulation of successful accomplishments tends to be equally fixated on academic settings: (1) the faculty senate; (2) the faculty assembly; and (3) the faculty meeting. It is no wonder that those with only a casual appreciation of higher education "argo" would opine that the academy consists of "scholars writing for scholars." Beyond the dean and the faculty senate president, who is responsible for professional development of the faculty? In this article, three educational practitioners present a "hands-on" approach from outside the traditional academic circle and present their views as trustee, president, and financial officer regarding creating a campus-wide environment that promotes and achieves faculty development. 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:
Universities; Governance; Governing Boards; Trustees; Role; Influences; Administrative Change; Role Conflict; Ambiguity (Context); Foreign Countries

Abstract:
In this conceptual contribution to the study of university governance the authors will approach potential patterns of behavior of key decision-makers at central university level, i.e. roles of governance actors, as well as the set of factors that shape and constrain the governance actor's room of manoevre and provide avenues to explain varying role enactments through an actor analysis of members of the newly introduced university boards. In a first part the introduction and empowerment of university boards in European higher education institutions is described as a building block of the transformation of university governance. In the second part the main hypothesis derived is that, in governance practice, board members enact roles which are not only shaped and constrained by formal institutions, as given by the organizational context and regulatory structure, but also by conformable, appropriate and legitimate role expectations of central role senders. As a showcase analysis, the roles of university board members are conceptually explored. Especially in the context of recent reform processes, board members who tend to have a varied status set, very often find themselves in a troubling situation of conflicting role expectations, leading to high levels of role conflicts and role ambiguity. It is the aim of this paper to sketch and examine the factors that contribute to the different roles university board members may take. 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; Governing Boards; Tuition; Foreign Students; International Education; Community Colleges; Student Recruitment; Fees; College Presidents; Enrollment Trends

Abstract:
Jane Knight is most often credited with establishing the term "internationalization" as a process in higher education. Her seminal works in the 1990s established internationalization not as a state to be achieved, but as an ongoing process by which colleges could strive to increase the global learning of students (Knight, 1993, 1994). Many community colleges have readily moved toward recruiting and enrolling international students, encouraged in part by the double or triple tuition these students pay, which adds to the bottom line of the general operating fund. The increased reliance by U.S. higher education institutions on student tuition and fees to fund operations will only increase the number of institutions exploring the alternative revenue stream international students represent. This chapter describes how the American higher education system is about to witness unprecedented growth in the number of foreign students studying on U.S. campuses. Presidents and governing board members are challenged to leverage this threshold moment to achieve comprehensive internationalization. (Contains 1 note.) 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:
Teacher Persistence; Teacher Effectiveness; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS); Role Conflict; Foreign Countries; Principals; Job Satisfaction; Human Resources; Rural Schools; Interviews; Teacher Morale; Administrator Attitudes; Faculty Workload; Case Studies; Qualitative Research; Focus Groups; Educational Policy; Guidelines; Governing Boards; Decision Making; School Districts

Abstract:
Retaining quality teachers is a global challenge for schools, particularly those in rural districts. A nation-wide study conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) found that 55 % of teachers in South Africa would leave teaching if they could. Resignation was found to be one of the three largest causes of attrition (Hall et al. Potential attrition in education: the impact of job satisfaction, morale, workload and HIV/AIDS. Report presented to the ELRC by the Human Sciences Research Council and the Medical Research Council of South Africa, Cape Town: HSRC Press, 2005). This paper reports findings of a qualitative multi-case study of 15 schools in Moretele, part of a rural district--Bojanala--in the North-West province of South Africa. The aim of the study was to determine factors that influence teacher retention and the teacher retention strategies used by principals. The study also ascertained principals' perceptions of their effectiveness in managing teacher retention. Data were collected through individual and focus group interviews of purposefully selected school principals. Findings suggest that rural schools have unique challenges that tend to militate against teacher retention. Reported barriers to teacher retention relate to the policy and procedures framework, working conditions in schools, socio-economic push-pull factors, teachers' personal circumstances, and the role ambiguity of principals. The key recommendation made is that the staffing function as an aspect of Human Resource Management should be decentralized. School Governing Bodies must be empowered to make teacher-retention decisions and facilitate related activities of school principals. 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 Faculty; Governing Boards; Search Committees (Personnel); Leadership; Strategic Planning; Department Heads; College Administration; Budgeting; Teacher Attitudes; Decision Making; Governance

Abstract:
Colleges and universities looking to recruit leaders from within the faculty ranks will face more and more difficulty. From their respective positions--as a provost (Janel) and a search consultant (Dennis)--they often hear senior executives in higher education say that building a new generation of faculty leaders will be a major challenge in the next decade. They hear the same thing from trustees and members of search committees seeking college and university leaders. At stake is the effective governance of the academy. All too often in academe, taking an appointment as department chair is seen as a demotion or simply a temporary term of service. Those who do become chairs are thought to be sacrificing what they want for what the institution decides it needs. Department chairs see themselves as mere paper-pushers rather than leaders. That represents a lost opportunity, because they are on the first crucial step toward leadership on campus. Decision-making structures in higher education also contribute to limited leadership development for faculty members. Faculty members must accept that change is the norm. Higher education is going through significant changes at a fast pace. Some faculty members simply do not comprehend how challenging the times are. Governing boards may grasp that better, but they have difficulty understanding the decision-making culture of academe. The question is: Can faculty members lead in this context of rapid change? The times demand a different sort of academic leader, one adept at strategy. Can this culture be changed? The authors believe it can, but it will take intentional action on the part of the faculty and those in administration. Structures need to be developed that provide professors with meaningful opportunities to learn vision-setting, strategic planning, and budgeting at the departmental level. But it will also take a change on the part of faculty. What is needed are breed of professors who will not nurture antipathy toward leadership. Maybe the immediacy of the leadership dilemma will galvanize faculties and administrations alike to re-examine their prejudices. Then again, maybe this culture is too entrenched, and higher education will have to continue looking beyond the traditional faculty for its leaders. Either way, one thing is clear: Faculty members can lead. Everything they need is available to them. The future of leadership in the academy, then, turns on that latter question: Will they? 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 Faculty; Governing Boards; Trustees; Voting; Private Colleges; Public Colleges; School Policy; Meetings

Abstract:
It is easy to see why a college might want a big board. It is simpler to add trustees than to remove members who are no longer pulling their weight, and growth can be justified as an effort to broaden the diversity of opinions in a group. It is also true that there may be no better way to cultivate donors than to give them active policy-making roles at a college. Large boards are particularly prevalent at private institutions. According to the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, the average private college board has 29 voting members, and most boards have hovered around that range for the past three decades. But there are a fair number of boards that have twice the average membership. The University of Miami, for example, has 74 voting members. Syracuse University has 60. The typical public college board has about 12 voting members, but there are outliers among them, too. The board at Pennsylvania State University, a public institution that is often considered quasi-private, has nearly three times as many members as the average public-college board. In the wake of the recent sex-abuse scandal involving a former assistant football coach, the 32-member board was criticized for disengagement and poor communication. Those same shortcomings are commonly associated with large governing boards. Even in a group of well-meaning individuals, the basic mechanics of a meeting can be gummed up if a board gets too large. Over the past several years a few institutions have conceded that their large boards may be a problem. Johns Hopkins University is in the process of shrinking its board, and two small liberal-arts colleges in the Southeast recently completed similar restructurings. 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:
Governing Boards; Hispanic Americans; Tribes; Principals; Case Studies; School Districts; Alienation; Decision Making; Cultural Awareness; Cultural Background; Academic Failure; High Achievement; Recognition (Achievement); Transformational Leadership; American Indian Students; American Indians; Educational Finance; Meetings; School Community Relationship

Abstract:
This case study summarizes the leadership practices of Rosa Davis as she meets with community members and staff to discuss Hope Academy's growth over the past 5 years. Davis began her tenure needing to mend relationships with the local Tribe and community after the district's governing board decided to reconstitute the school. The school's previous principal and site council made decisions that alienated the community and Tribe. Through the implementation of culturally relevant leadership and drawing on community funds of knowledge, Davis transformed a failing school into a high achieving school; however, budget deficits risk tarnishing hard-won relationships and progress that was made. This study explores this dilemma. (Contains 3 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:
Academic Achievement; Data Collection; Information Dissemination; Grade 4; Grade 8; Grade 12; Educational Research; High School Seniors; Career Readiness; College Readiness; Student Placement; Postsecondary Education; Standardized Tests; National Competency Tests; Cutting Scores; Program Effectiveness; Governing Boards; Job Training

Abstract:
The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) oversees and sets policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Since 1969, NAEP has provided information to the public on the achievement of the nation's elementary and secondary students at grades 4, 8, and 12. As the only continuing measure of student achievement at grade 12, NAEP is uniquely positioned to report on the academic preparedness of 12th graders for college and job training. To transform NAEP into a valid indicator of 12th grade academic preparedness, NAGB is conducting a comprehensive program of research. The fall 2011 survey of postsecondary education institutions' use of tests and cut scores in college placement is one component of this larger research program. The survey's central two-part research question is: (1) Which national standardized tests are used by postsecondary education institutions to determine the need of entry-level students for remedial/developmental instruction in reading or mathematics?; and (2) What are the cut scores on those national standardized tests below which students are deemed to need remedial/developmental instruction in reading or mathematics and at or above which students would be just academically qualified for entry-level credit-bearing college courses? NAGB contracted with Westat to conduct the survey with a nationally representative sample of 2-year and 4-year public and private (both for-profit and not-for-profit) postsecondary education institutions. Slightly different survey forms were developed for 2-year and 4-year institutions. In August 2011, Westat contacted the office of the president at each sampled institution to identify the appropriate respondent and sent survey materials to these individuals. Follow-up for survey recruitment, nonresponse, and data clarification was conducted via telephone and email by experienced interviewers from September 2011 through January 2012. Appended are: (1) Westat Technical Report; (2) Standard Error Tables; and (3) Additional Tables. (Contains 26 tables and 11 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 (4666K)