|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Cooperation; Strategic Planning; Innovation; Evaluators; Teacher Collaboration; Organizational Communication; Organizational Effectiveness; Team Teaching; Social Theories
Abstract:
Collaboration is a widely utilized strategy for addressing complex social issues and for facilitating organizational innovation and performance. Evaluators are uniquely positioned to empirically examine the development and effects of interagency and interprofessional collaboration. In this article, the authors present the Collaboration Evaluation and Improvement Framework (CEIF), an extension of earlier work in collaboration theory development. The CEIF identifies five points of entry to evaluating collaborations and suggests actions that evaluators can take to (a) define and describe the evaluand of collaboration, (b) measure the attributes of organizational collaboration over time, and (c) increase stakeholder capacity to engage in efficient and effective collaborative practices. Use of the CEIF to operationalize and assess the construct of collaboration can enable the evaluator to ascertain how collaborative efforts correlate with indicators of organizational impact and outcomes. (Contains 1 table, 4 figures and 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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Competition; School Districts; Total Quality Management; Educational Improvement; Teacher Student Relationship; Individualized Instruction; Student Evaluation; Achievement Gap; Educational Environment; Academic Support Services; Efficiency; Organizational Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation; Teacher Effectiveness; Program Implementation
Abstract:
The Race to the Top-District (RTT-D) competition asks districts to personalize education for all students in their schools, focusing on classrooms and the relationship between educators and students. To reach this bold goal, the competition calls for providing teachers with "the information, tools, and supports that enable them to meet the needs of each student and substantially accelerate and deepen each student's learning." Local education agencies must "have the policies, systems, infrastructure, capacity, and culture to enable teachers, teacher teams, and school leaders to continuously focus on improving individual student achievement and closing achievement gaps." In addition, the RTT-D competition requires that applicants identify 12 to 14 "ambitious yet achievable" performance measures, as well as a process for how the measures will provide rigorous, timely, and formative information and how the applicant will review and improve the measures over time if they are insufficient to support and gauge implementation progress. The anchoring system for this work is a continuous improvement process and a set of performance measures that drills down to the learner and classroom, focuses on the relationship between educators and students, and helps teachers, teacher teams, and school leaders to continuously focus on improving individual student achievement and closing achievement gaps. Section E of the RTT-D Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) requires that districts have a continuous improvement process that includes ongoing communication and engagement and a set of performance measures. The proposed continuous improvement process and measures support three conditions necessary for successful implementation of personalized learning: (1) effective learning environments, (2) effective student support, and (3) organizational efficacy. In this report, the authors describe a continuous improvement strategy and a rigorous application of performance measures at the district, school, classroom, and student levels. AIR's College Eligibility Index: A Sample On-Track Measure is appended. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [This paper is a companion piece to the "Race to the Top-District Action Brief: Establishing a Foundational Conditions for Personalized Learning" by Turnaround for Children.]
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 (489K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-08-24 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Position Papers; Readiness; Change Strategies; Organizational Change; Best Practices; Models; Organizational Effectiveness; Organizational Theories; Organizational Climate; Organizational Culture
Abstract:
This white paper by ICF International's Caitlin Howley discusses commonalities and differences among various understandings of readiness and highlights conceptualizations of readiness for change in selected change models. How leaders can use such theories to best to prepare their organizations--and the people enlivening them--for new ways of achieving goals is also addressed. Individuals and organizations undertake change for a variety of reasons--to improve the human condition, increase efficiency and productivity, respond to new or altered social and political contexts and priorities, achieve personal or collective goals, or correct earlier missteps. Across a variety of markets and disciplines, readiness for reform or organizational change is an important predictor of how successfully new policies, programs, or practices will be implemented. (Contains 47 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 (462K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-07-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative; Tests/Questionnaires |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Evaluation Utilization; Institutional Evaluation; Evaluation Methods; Stakeholders; Educational Planning; Self Evaluation (Groups); Technical Institutes; Governance; Community Colleges; Administrative Organization; Organizational Effectiveness; Case Studies; Improvement Programs; Coordination; Statewide Planning; Governing Boards; Educational Policy; Educational Finance; Public Agencies; Systems Approach; Strategic Planning; Politics of Education; Educational Environment; Policy Formation; Institutional Mission; Economic Factors; Questionnaires; Agency Role
Abstract:
Public organizations charged with coordinating higher education institutions face a complex set of tasks. Whether coordinating institutions within one sector or across sectors, such organizations play vital roles in promoting a state's capacity for policy leadership to meet the growing need for an educated citizenry. National experts have emphasized that effective policy capacity requires coordinating entities that can articulate mission and goals, devise strategies for meeting them, and use resources, including relationships with state leaders, to influence policy. The authors' case study subject, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, was selected because of its track record of focusing a diverse constituency on a valuable public mission and using its resources strategically to facilitate large-scale policy changes aimed at making progress toward the mission. Its effectiveness rests in large part on its continual attention to relationships in order to mediate and balance the needs of various state and local parties. For states interested in improving existing coordinating organizations or designing new ones, the authors suggest that an assessment of the current context can illuminate possibilities for improvement. Multiple factors interact to create forward momentum and can be leveraged in myriad ways. Thus, the self assessment questions are designed so states can more clearly understand the factors at play in their own situations and more strategically evaluate short-term and long-term opportunities. The self-assessment questions fall into three categories: the state political and economic context, the design of the coordinating body itself, and the organization and leadership strategies used by the coordinating body. These factors are generalized from the Washington experience. They do not reflect an exhaustive review of the research or experiences of other states. [For the main report, "On Balance: Lessons in Effective Coordination from the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges--An Organizational Perspective," see ED534114.]
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 (171K)
|
|