Your search found 1979 results.

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Cultural Differences; Minority Groups; Citizenship Education; Migration; Social Theories; Cultural Pluralism; Self Determination; Immigration; State Action; Acculturation

Abstract:
Most societies today are culturally diverse. Increasingly, minority groups are demanding recognition and self-governing rights to protect their ways of life against that of the majority. These demands represent a serious challenge for the state: how is it to balance between the equally legitimate claims of the many cultures inhabiting its territories, all the while promoting a set of common practices and democratic institutions? In several influential publications, Will Kymlicka has offered persuasive answers to those questions. This article examines his theory, with particular emphasis on the distinction he draws between what he calls national minorities and polyethnic (or immigrant) groups. Given his hierarchical structuring of both groups, this article attempts to show that Kymlicka falls into somewhat contradictory positions, especially evident when considering the implications of his theory on how education is structured within multicultural states. (Contains 7 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:
Higher Education; Public Health; Governance; Neoliberalism; Foreign Countries; Educational Change; Public Policy; State Action; Commercialization; Case Studies; Labor Force Development; Knowledge Economy; Global Approach; Criticism

Abstract:
Market forces are being introduced in public spheres such as higher education and public health, which hitherto were closed to such forces. Ironically, it is the state that is responsible for this process of marketisation. Some see this state action as leading to a growing influence of the state in public policy while others see an attenuation of its role. Critiquing this market-state incompatibility thesis from a geo-spatial perspective on globalisation, this paper calls for an articulation of state-market relations that emphasises their interpenetration. Using Botswana as a case study, the paper argues that although on-going tertiary education reforms in the country are characterised by the state's promotion of market forces this does not mean that the state is retreating, leaving the sub-sector to the vagaries of the market. Contrarily, the state is employing marketisation to reform the sub-sector so that it is responsive to labour and skills demands of an economy aspiring to be knowledge-based. (Contains 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:
Postsecondary Education; Community Colleges; Academic Achievement; Educational Improvement; State Government; College Administration; State Action; Developmental Studies Programs; At Risk Students; Remedial Instruction; College Students; Educational Policy; College Readiness; Evidence; Measurement; Educational Innovation

Abstract:
Building on their work through Achieving the Dream, six states and 15 community colleges joined the Developmental Education Initiative (DEI) in 2009 to take on one of higher education's most daunting challenges: improving the success of students who enter community college academically underprepared. The states and Jobs for the Future, which manages the state policy effort for both initiatives, developed the ambitious, evidence-based DEI State Policy Framework to guide large-scale, multifaceted reforms in how community colleges remediate the academic deficiencies of underprepared students. The DEI State Policy Framework targets five policy levers for state action: data and performance measurement; developmental education innovation and redesign; aligned expectations with K-12; assessment and placement; and finance. Within those five policy levers, JFF and the DEI states selected 55 distinct priorities, representing collective thinking on the most promising steps that states could take to improve college success for students placing into developmental education as of the out set of DEI. Additionally, a three-part strategy--data-driven improvement, commitment to innovation, and policy supports--establishes the intended goals of state action on the five policy levers. Three years later, Connecticut, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia have made significant progress in adopting the DEI policy recommendations, thereby augmenting, accelerating, and spreading developmental education systems change across their community colleges. The Developmental Education Initiative is winding down, yet these states will continue their policy efforts to improve student success through participation in the Postsecondary State Policy Network, which includes states in Achieving the Dream, Completion by Design, and the Student Success Center Network. DEI Self-Assessment Tool is appended. (Contains 6 tables, 8 figures and 6 endnotes.) [For executive summary, "Ahead of the Curve: State Success in the Developmental Education Initiative. Executive Summary," see ED539875.] 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 (5299K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Teaching (Occupation); Unions; Role; National Competency Tests; Politics of Education; Educational Change; State Action; Comparative Analysis; Teacher Associations; Power Structure; Program Effectiveness; Interests; Collective Bargaining; Job Security; School Restructuring

Abstract:
In recent years, debates over school reform have increasingly focused on the role of teacher unions in the changing landscape of American K-12 education. On one hand, critics argue that these unions, using their powerful grip on education politics and policy to great effect, bear primary responsibility for blocking states' efforts to put into place overdue reforms that will drive major-league gains in the educational system. Such critics contend that the unions generally succeed at preserving teacher job security and other interests, and do so at the expense of improved opportunities for kids. On the other side, the authors find union defenders who stoutly maintain that these organizations are bulwarks of professionalism in education, that their power is greatly exaggerated, that their opposition to misguided reforms is warranted, and that they couldn't possibly account for achievement woes--considering that highly unionized states perform at least as well as any others (and better than many) on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other indicators. This debate has taken on an international aspect, too, as critics of U.S. reform initiatives (and defenders of unions) point out that teachers are unionized all over the world, including nearly all the countries that surpass the U.S. on comparative achievement measures such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Both sides agree that, for better or worse, teacher unions look out for teacher interests. This study sheds light on how they use politics to do this, by measuring teacher union strength, state by state, more comprehensively than any other study to date. It sought answers to three questions: (1) What elements are potential sources of a union's strength (i.e., inputs)?; (2) How might unions wield power in terms of behavior and conduct (i.e., processes and activities)?; and (3) What are signs that they have gotten their way (i.e., outcomes)? To gauge union strength at the state level, the authors gathered and synthesized data for thirty-seven different variables across five broad areas: (1) Resources and Membership; (2) Involvement in Politics; (3) Scope of Bargaining; (4) State Policies; and (5) Perceived Influence. Appended are: (1) Detailed Methodology and Rationale; and (2) State-Level NEA and AFT Affiliates. Individual state reports contain tables, footnotes and endnotes. [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli. Additional funding for this paper was provided by Education Reform Now.] 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 (2844K)

Descriptors:
Vocational Education; School Business Relationship; Career Academies; Workplace Learning; Career Readiness; College Readiness; Barriers; State Action; Educational Opportunities; Access to Education; Articulation (Education); Alignment (Education); Definitions; Program Descriptions; State Policy

Abstract:
In the summer of 2012, the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc) and the Alliance for Excellent Education conducted a survey of State Directors of Career Technical Education (CTE) to gauge state efforts to better connect CTE with a larger college- and career-readiness agenda. Survey questions spanned a range of issues, including whether each state had developed a definition of career readiness, the number of career academies in each state, and what states are doing to formally identify and remove barriers to work-based learning opportunities in policy and practice. This brief includes a short description of efforts from two states--Connecticut and Kentucky--to define work-based learning opportunities for youth participants, educators, and employers, and to create policies that provide greater access to these opportunities. (Contains 1 table and 11 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Community Colleges; Educational Change; College Administration; College Planning; Governmental Structure; Statewide Planning; State Action; State Standards; Success; Educational Practices; Intervention; Change Strategies; Institutional Autonomy; Educational Innovation; Trend Analysis; Educational Development; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Participative Decision Making; Leadership Styles

Abstract:
As the student success movement has come of age at America's community colleges, much effort has gone into state-level reforms coupled with college-level efforts, on the theory that relying on individual institutions alone to bring change at scale across states and the nation will take too long and cost too much. But if centralized authority is essential, the student success agenda is in peril. Most states exercise little direct control over their community colleges, instead delegating authority to local and county government. That is why Michigan--the quintessential "non-system" state--is of such great interest. Its 28 community colleges enjoy complete administrative independence, lacking even a state higher education executive officer to whom reports would be formally submitted. Perhaps the most important driver of Michigan's commitment to student success has been Achieving the Dream, a national nonprofit leading the nation's most comprehensive nongovernmental reform network for student success in higher education history. This is the story of how seven Michigan colleges that joined Achieving the Dream in its early years sought to realize the promise of student success in their classrooms, and how their hard-won lessons influenced peers and gelled into strategic statewide actions with support from the Michigan Community College Association. (Contains 2 tables, 3 figures and 6 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 (1022K)

Descriptors:
Accountability; School Districts; State Action; State Legislation; State Regulation; Policy Analysis; State Policy; State Government; Case Studies; Educational History; Intellectual History; Politics of Education; School Administration; School Accounting; Audits (Verification)

Abstract:
Michigan's Local Government and School District Accountability Act of 2011 empowers the governor to appoint emergency managers (EMs) in financially-troubled school districts. EMs assume all powers of the superintendent and school board. They can reshape academic programs, nullify labor contracts, and open and close schools. This paper analyzes the law's political origins and early implementation. Relative to prevailing accountability mechanisms applicable to all school districts, in what respects are EM districts are more accountable, and in what respects are they less accountable? Our analysis reveals that although the law concentrates control over school operations, it weakens most standard dimensions of district accountability. (Contains 15 footnotes. Work for this article was supported in part by the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.) 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 (621K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; College Graduates; Educational Change; Federal Legislation; Legislators; Hearings; Labor Force Development; Student Diversity; Part Time Students; Time Perspective; Time to Degree; Flexible Scheduling; State Action; Change Strategies; Career Choice; Student Educational Objectives; Graduation Rate; School Holding Power; Performance Factors

Abstract:
This paper presents Stan Jones' testimony before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. In his testimony, he talks about a new American majority of students that is emerging on campuses, especially at community colleges. These students must delicately balance long hours at jobs they must have with the higher education they desire. Even though this emerging majority has fundamentally different needs, American higher education in general has been slow to change, continuing to deliver courses and programs designed decades ago and best suited for full-time, residential students. Time, choice and structure are the essential optics through which all higher education reforms must be viewed in order to maximize the likelihood of graduating more of today's students. Successful, large-scale programs and systems around the country have proven that by utilizing informed choice and structured delivery, students can successfully balance jobs and school--and are much more likely to graduate. To achieve the substantial gains in college completion Americans must have to compete, must reinvent American higher education. To do so, requires significant shared responsibility by all stakeholders, including government. More of the same will not do. The Administration can seize key opportunities to encourage states, incent needed reforms, and signal its clear interest in more college graduates, not just enrollments. Appended are: (1) "College: The Unfinished Revolution" by James Rosenbaum, et.al.; (2) NGA/CCA Common College Completion Metrics; and (3) Complete College America's "Essential Steps for States." 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 (181K)

Descriptors:
Special Education; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Academic Accommodations (Disabilities); Systems Approach; Educational Improvement; Special Needs Students; Delivery Systems; Cost Effectiveness; Educational Quality; Integrated Services; State Action; State Policy; Educational Opportunities; Free Enterprise System

Abstract:
This report was written at the request of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio, to inform the discussion of state-level policy makers and other stakeholders on how to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided to Ohio's students with special needs. It is critical for Ohio to find ways to deliver high-quality cost-effective services given the state's and school districts' persistent fiscal challenges. Funding of special education is not a new topic for policy makers, but this report looks at it from a new perspective--applying systems thinking across all relevant funds, agencies, and service providers. Simply put, systems thinking views all the parts of a system in the context of and in relation to the other parts, rather than as isolated elements. Optimizing the entire system as a whole yields better outcomes with fewer unintended consequences than analyzing and improving each element on its own. When done well, systems thinking can create a reality in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This report suggests opportunities to create greater operational effectiveness and efficiencies by more formally integrating statewide agencies to serve children with disabilities. Appended are: (1) Selected funding data; and (2) About the research. (Contains 3 tables.) [Foreword by Bart Anderson and Terry Ryan.] 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 (729K)

Descriptors:
Teacher Effectiveness; Tenure; State Legislation; State Action; Elections; Laws; State Standards; Public Policy; Teacher Competencies; Persistence; Teacher Evaluation; Administrator Evaluation; Teacher Education Programs; Teacher Dismissal; Principals; Administrator Role; Teacher Salaries

Abstract:
During the 2010, 2011, and 2012 legislative sessions, a combination of federal policy incentives and newly elected governors and legislative majorities in many states following the 2010 elections sparked a wave of legislation addressing teacher effectiveness. More than 20 states passed legislation designed to address educator effectiveness by mandating annual evaluations based in part on student learning and linking evaluation results to key personnel decisions, including tenure, reductions in force, dismissal of underperforming teachers, and retention. In many cases states passed multiple laws, with later laws building on previous legislation, and also promulgated regulations to implement legislation. A few states acted through regulation only. In an effort to help policymakers, educators, and the public better understand how this flurry of legislative activity shifted the landscape on teacher effectiveness issues--both nationally and at the state level--Bellwether Education partners analyzed recent teacher effectiveness legislation, regulation, and supporting policy documents from 21 states that took major legislative or regulatory action on teacher effectiveness in the past three years. This analysis builds on a previous analysis of teacher effectiveness legislation in five states that Bellwether published in 2011. The author and her colleagues expanded analysis includes nearly all states that took major legislative action on teacher effectiveness over the past three years. To the extent that these states have also produced regulations supporting or implementing teacher effectiveness legislation, those documents are also included in their analysis. They have also analyzed regulations from a few states, including Rhode Island, that changed their teacher effectiveness policies primarily through regulatory action. This analysis is based on state policies and documents as of August 2012. Because policy and implementation continue to evolve, and some policies described here will change over t readers should take this into account in using this document. Their analysis focuses on states' teacher evaluation policies and legislative or regulatory provisions linking evaluation to key personnel decisions. They score each state's teacher effectiveness legislation and/or regulations against 13 criteria (see Appendix for additional details): (1) Are all teacher evaluated annually?; (2) Are principals, as well as teachers, evaluated?; (3) Is evidence of student learning a factor in educator evaluations?; (4) Do evaluations differentiate between multiple levels of educator effectiveness?; (5) Are parents and the public provided clear information about educator effectiveness?; (6) Are educator preparation programs accountable for graduates' effectiveness?; (7) Is tenure linked to effectiveness?; (8) Does state law or policy provide clear authority to dismiss ineffective teachers and a reasonable process for doing so?; (9) Is teacher effectiveness, rather than seniority, the primary consideration in reductions in force?; (10) In cases of teacher excessing, is there a process for teachers to secure new positions through mutual consent, and for those who cannot find a position to eventually be discharged from district employment?; (11) Do principals have the authority to decide who teaches in their schools?; (12) Does the law protect students from being assigned to ineffective teachers for two or more consecutive years?; and (13) Are effective teachers rewarded with increased compensation? State Laws and Regulations analyzed are appended. 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 (676K)