Your search found 2244 results.

Descriptors:
Employment; Visual Impairments; Education Work Relationship; State Agencies; Government Employees; Professional Personnel; Rehabilitation; Focus Groups; Content Analysis; Transitional Programs; Parent Participation; Skill Development; Communication (Thought Transfer)

Abstract:
Introduction: The study presented here examined rehabilitation providers' beliefs about services and service delivery strategies that are successful in facilitating the transition from school to competitive employment for youths who are blind or have low vision. Methods: Five focus groups were conducted, two with rehabilitation state agency personnel and three with members of professional organizations at their annual conferences. A protocol with four queries about transition services generated data for a content analysis by a team of three researchers. Results: The participants identified transition services before age 16, communication among service providers and families, assessment, and the development of specific skills as important factors in facilitating the transition to competitive employment. Parental involvement was also identified as a positive factor in the transition and career planning. Discussion: Transition services are not routinely provided before age 16, thus hindering the development of skills and careers. Improved communication among service providers and parents can promote advocacy and the successful transition to work. The qualitative research strategies used in the study did not generate results that can be generalized to other populations or settings or that can be used to evaluate outcomes. The results can be assessed for transferability and to understand the transition process. Implications for practitioners: Requiring specific documentation of collaboration between parents and service providers may increase communication among the stakeholders. Increased communication may lead to students' participation in transition-to-work activities at an earlier age, thus promoting successful transitions. 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:
State Programs; Data; Information Systems; Student Records; Higher Education; State Boards of Education; State Agencies; Elementary Secondary Education; Labor; Cooperation; State Surveys

Abstract:
In 2010, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association released the results of a national study of state level postsecondary student unit record (SUR) data systems in 44 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.). One section of the report, "Strong Foundations: The State of State Postsecondary Data Systems" (Garcia and L'Orange 2010), included information on the extent to which postsecondary coordinating and governing boards engage in a variety of data sharing practices with state agencies. This 2012 update focuses on those data sharing practices. In addition, the authors shed light on statewide, coordinated, multi-sector data sharing in which the postsecondary sector plays a role. Some states share data via a centralized state P-20 data system, but more states are "building" a federated data model that is more decentralized in nature. Regardless of the model used, there is a substantial and growing amount of statewide, coordinated multi-sector data sharing across the country, much of which likely has been influenced by the U.S. Department of Education Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant program. Appended are: (1) List of Respondents by State and Agency/Entity; (2) Data Collection Template; (3) Responses by Question; (4) History of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Awardees, FY2006-FY2012; and (5) Abbreviations Used for States with Multiple Agencies/Entities. (Contains 11 figures, 1 table, 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 (957K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; State Standards; Resource Allocation; Teaching Methods; State Agencies; Educational Change; Early Childhood Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Policy; Alignment (Education); Government Role; State Government; Academic Standards; College Readiness; Career Readiness; Educational Objectives; Goal Orientation; Educational Assessment; Student Evaluation; Accountability; Leadership; Governance; Teacher Education; Professional Development

Abstract:
To increase student learning and achievement, more and more states are pursuing reforms in "both" early care and education (ECE) programs and the K-12 education system. Many states are implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to promote all students' readiness for college and careers, while engaging in reforms prompted by the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTTT-ELC) grant competition to expand children's access to high-quality programs for early learning. Ideally, these initiatives would support and reinforce each other's goals and approaches to education--especially across the birth-to-grade 3 continuum, when research shows children acquire critical skills for academic success. Well-aligned ECE and K-12 reforms and policies would enable states to develop common expectations on what children need to know and be able to do as they transition from early childhood programs to the primary grades. Unfortunately, in most cases, aligning reforms in the early learning and K-12 systems is challenging. Typically, these efforts are led by different state entities and policymakers with limited knowledge of one another's goals and strategies. ECE and K-12 leaders also tend to have different approaches to teaching and learning and even different beliefs about the objectives. As policymakers who have the responsibility for the well-being and education of children of all ages, governors are uniquely situated to bring state agencies together and develop a coordinated strategy to align ECE and K-12 policies so they better serve all children, starting at birth. Doing so requires leaders from both systems to analyze what their respective goals, approaches, and reform strategies have in common and how they differ. This process can help governors, their staff, and other state policy leaders develop concrete action steps that promote greater alignment of ECE and K-12 reforms in key areas: (1) Leadership and Governance; (2) Learning Standards; (3) Child Assessments; (4) Accountability; (5) Teacher/Leader Preparation and Professional Development; and (6) Resource Allocation and Reallocation. (Contains 23 endnotes and 4 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:

 ERIC Full Text (407K)

Descriptors:
Educational Change; Nongovernmental Organizations; Educational Policy; Public Policy; Educational Legislation; State Legislation; Program Implementation; School Culture; Leadership; Interviews; Public Officials; Academic Achievement; Teacher Evaluation; Collective Bargaining; Charter Schools; School Turnaround; Politics of Education; State Agencies; School Districts; Educational Improvement; Accountability; Students

Abstract:
In 2011, Indiana's legislature reshaped the state's education policy landscape with a package of laws that enabled local leaders to make swift and potentially sweeping changes to district and school operations. The Hoosier State's reforms, dubbed by supporters as the "Putting Students First" agenda, provide a valuable case study of the crucial launch period that all reform agendas encounter. Although it is too early to judge the ultimate effects of these policy changes, in this paper the authors begin considering what challenges the reform package will confront as it moves deeper into implementation. They offer neither naive praise nor uninformed criticism of Indiana's efforts, nor do they judge whether legislators passed the right mix of reforms. Instead, they consider carefully how implementation has begun and likely will continue to unfold so that Indiana's officials, citizens, and observers elsewhere can begin learning lessons from the state's work. Indiana's experience so far shows that state-level leadership is invaluable for articulating, supporting, and advancing an education reform agenda but that eventual results depend on several things: local leaders and teachers using reforms to carefully, creatively, and properly reshape critical tasks and school cultures to improve students' experiences; state and local officials effectively leveraging resources from nongovernmental organizations to support that reshaping; and implementers inside and outside government having a clear understanding of the opportunities and consequences that will follow from their actions. Unless state and local implementers seize opportunities present in the law, efforts such as "Putting Students First" likely will prompt new rounds of compliance-oriented behavior, wasted money, bureaucratic busyness, frustrated teachers, and few or no substantive gains. After summarizing the essential elements of "Putting Students First," the authors offer several lessons about implementation based on the state, with broader observations and actionable suggestions about implementing ambitious multidimensional education reforms. Their discussion relies on interviews with Indiana state officials and others conducted during the spring of 2012, official state documents and data, and other publications. Data Sources and Research Methods are appended. (Contains 1 figure, 1 table, and 47 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Young Children; School Districts; State Agencies; Educational Technology; Early Childhood Education; Educational Cooperation; Computer Uses in Education; Influence of Technology; Technology Integration; Educational Policy; Educational Environment; Family Environment; Trend Analysis; Mass Media Use; Handheld Devices; Disadvantaged; Access to Computers; Television; Educational Resources; Teacher Effectiveness; Partnerships in Education; Public Libraries; Museums; Federal Programs; Guidelines; State Programs

Abstract:
Touch-screen technologies, on-demand multimedia, and mobile devices are prompting a rethinking of education. In a world of increasing fiscal constraints, state leaders are under pressure to capitalize on these new technologies to improve productivity and help students excel. The task is daunting across the education spectrum, but for those in early education (birth through 3rd grade), it is harder still. Until recently, most educators envisioned early learning as story time and hands-on activities with no technology in sight. Yet electronic media use among young children is growing, as are new digital divides between rich and poor, rural, and urban. Tech-savvy educators are incorporating technology in early learning lessons and experimenting with new channels of communication between parents and colleagues. A red-hot ed-tech marketplace is also creating a feeling of urgency among decisionmakers in state agencies and local school districts who are at risk of spending public dollars on products that sit unused, lock districts into specific brands or platforms, or get in the way of promoting the positive, face-to-face interactions with adults that young children need. How to ensure thoughtful adoption? State leaders will need to encourage collaboration across many sectors that typically sit in silos, including school districts, early learning programs, libraries, museums, afterschool programs, adult education, and health services. Research centers and post-secondary institutions will need to provide insights and expertise to support this collaboration while also preparing a next-generation workforce to execute it. This issue of "The Progress of Education Reform" looks at technology and how it has an essential role to play as a connector and content disseminator in the service of these collaborations--and ultimately in service of the families who are setting the foundation for their children's success in school and life. (Contains 22 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:
Transfer Policy; Technical Institutes; Universities; Community Colleges; Program Implementation; Change Agents; Institutional Role; Data Collection; Data Interpretation; Transfer Programs; State Agencies; Program Effectiveness; Success; State Legislation; College Transfer Students; STEM Education; Educational Opportunities; Educational Demand; Majors (Students); Educational Policy; State Policy; Improvement Programs

Abstract:
How did Washington create a clear organizational structure that assigns responsibility for each aspect of transfer policy to the group that is best suited to manage it (Kisker, Wagoner, and Cohen, 2011)? In this chapter, the authors will introduce the agencies, organizations, and entities that have played a key role in gathering information, analyzing data, negotiating interests, and implementing transfer policy in Washington State. They also describe the critical events that shaped Washington's successful 40-year history of transferring students from community and technical colleges to independent and public universities, as well as more recent policies that will shape its future. They end the chapter with a quick summary of some secrets to the state's transfer system success. (Contains 1 figure.) 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:
Transitional Programs; State Agencies; Nontraditional Education; Administrator Attitudes; State Programs; Mixed Methods Research; Program Descriptions; Youth Opportunities; Youth Programs; Articulation (Education); Program Effectiveness; At Risk Students; Juvenile Justice; Disadvantaged Youth; Accessibility (for Disabled); Interviews; Data Analysis; Program Attitudes; Adolescent Attitudes; Educational Quality; Quality Assurance; Quality Control

Abstract:
Students, a large percentage with disabilities, are at high risk for poor post-secondary outcomes in state agency education programs. This mixed-methods study describes the understandings of student transitions in state agency education programs from the perspectives of youth and administrators. Results indicated that: transition is more narrowly defined within alternative education programs; key strengths of transition practice are present in nontraditional schools; and the coordination barriers within this fluid interagency transition system are most apparent in students' frequent inter-setting transitions between nontraditional and home schools. (Contains 1 figure.) 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:
Vocational Rehabilitation; African Americans; State Agencies; Probability; Predictor Variables; Outcomes of Education; Regression (Statistics); Employment Potential; Best Practices; Educational Policy; African American Education; African American Influences; Racial Differences; Individual Characteristics; Data Analysis; Student Records; Audits (Verification); Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation

Abstract:
A review of vocational rehabilitation (VR) data from a Midwestern state was conducted to identify predictors of rehabilitation outcomes for African American consumers. The database included 37,404 African Americans who were referred or self-referred over a period of five years. Logistic regression analysis indicated that except for age and disability type, none of the other demographic variables were significant predictors of vocational rehabilitation for the individuals in the sample. However, as the amount of money spent on a case increased, the probability of gaining employment increased. Recommendations for VR practice with minority consumers are suggested. (Contains 4 endnotes, 1 table and 3 figures.) 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:
Kindergarten; Electronic Learning; Online Courses; Elementary Secondary Education; State Departments of Education; Virtual Classrooms; Delivery Systems; State Policy; Educational Opportunities; Interviews; Program Descriptions; Performance Factors; Government Role; Institutional Role; Access to Education; State Surveys; Educational History; Educational Development; State Agencies

Abstract:
This article explores the role of state education agencies in three states that have embarked on ambitious kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) virtual learning initiatives: Alabama, Florida, and Idaho. Subject to a rapidly changing environment influenced by factors beyond the jurisdiction of many state departments of education, the world of virtual K-12 education is relatively unregulated and fluid. Case studies describing the virtual learning initiatives of several states suggest that few, if any, state education agencies are currently equipped to regulate the rapidly growing number of independent for-profit and nonprofit organizations delivering online learning options. (Contains 1 figure and 24 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

Descriptors:
National Competency Tests; State Agencies; Probability; Accountability; High Stakes Tests; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Regression (Statistics); Educational Policy; Correlation; Intervention; Outcomes of Education; Trend Analysis; Achievement Gap

Abstract:
This study examines the impact of high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources under NCLB on reading and math achievement outcomes through comparative interrupted time-series analyses of 1990-2009 NAEP state assessment data. Through hierarchical linear modeling latent variable regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, the study addresses pre-NCLB differences in state characteristics and trends to account for variations in post-NCLB gains. While the states' progress was uneven among different grades, subjects, and subgroups, NCLB did not yet evidence sustainable and generalizable high-stakes accountability policy effects. Improving average achievement as well as narrowing achievement gaps was associated with long-term statewide instructional capacity and teacher resources rather than short-term NCLB implementation fidelity, rigor of standards, and state agency's capacity for data tracking and intervention. (Contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 12 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