Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Rural communities that envision a bright future for themselves and their children have become innovative out of necessity--they learn, and adapt, in order to flourish and to provide opportunities for their children. As the formal centers of learning, and often as the largest employer in the community, rural schools become the heart and symbol of learning and community identity. Unfortunately, their policy and legislative environments often lead to tensions between rural priorities/lifestyles and urbanizing/essentializing agendas which impact upon the quality of schooling they wish, or are able, to provide. This tension was the focus of a study on rural educational priorities and school division capacity, based on a provincial survey and four case studies of rural school divisions representing four educational regions in the province of Manitoba. Findings suggest that three educational priorities remain central to the creation of high quality learning environments in rural schools: Improving Student Outcomes, Quality of Teachers and Administrators, and Educational Finance. This paper elaborates on the challenges facing rural school divisions for these issues, and discusses some of the ways in which four Manitoba school divisions, the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents (MASS), the Manitoba Association of School Trustees (MAST), and Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (MECY) are working to address these difficulties in what has become a policy window (Kingdon, 1995) for rural education in Manitoba. (Contains 1 table.)

In "Creating Learning Environments in the Early Grades that Support Teacher and Student Success," the National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL) profiles three expanded-time elementary schools that leverage a longer school day to better serve young students. In particular, the report describes how a longer day opens up opportunities to foster children's development across cognitive, social, physical, and emotional domains by: (1) crafting a schedule around a robust educational program; (2) focusing on building strong child-adult relationships; and (3) enabling teachers to collaborate toward continuous improvement. For disadvantaged children, having more time in productive learning environments is vital for setting them on the right path to future success in school and life. The schools profiled are located in Revere, Massachusetts; Meriden, Connecticut; and Denver, Colorado.

In "Creating Learning Environments in the Early Grades that Support Teacher and Student Success," the National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL) profiles three expanded-time elementary schools that leverage a longer school day to better serve young students. In particular, the report describes how a longer day opens up opportunities to foster children's development across cognitive, social, physical, and emotional domains by: (1) crafting a schedule around a robust educational program; (2) focusing on building strong child-adult relationships; and (3) enabling teachers to collaborate toward continuous improvement. For disadvantaged children, having more time in productive learning environments is vital for setting them on the right path to future success in school and life. The schools profiled are located in Revere, Massachusetts; Meriden, Connecticut; and Denver, Colorado.

This article describes a new paradigm for accountability that envisions afterschool programs as learning organizations continually engaged in improving quality. Nearly 20 years into the era of results-based accountability, a new generation of afterschool accountability systems is emerging. Rather than aiming to test whether programs have produced desired youth outcomes, an increasing number of afterschool funders and sponsors are shaping more flexible, collaborative, and lower-stakes accountability systems. By designing accountability systems that fully embrace the notion of afterschool programs as learning organizations and by using research from organizational development, education, and youth development to create effective learning environments, funders and sponsors can help programs to improve quality--and therefore, to succeed in their goal of achieving better outcomes for young people. (Contains 6 figures.)

This article describes a new paradigm for accountability that envisions afterschool programs as learning organizations continually engaged in improving quality. Nearly 20 years into the era of results-based accountability, a new generation of afterschool accountability systems is emerging. Rather than aiming to test whether programs have produced desired youth outcomes, an increasing number of afterschool funders and sponsors are shaping more flexible, collaborative, and lower-stakes accountability systems. By designing accountability systems that fully embrace the notion of afterschool programs as learning organizations and by using research from organizational development, education, and youth development to create effective learning environments, funders and sponsors can help programs to improve quality--and therefore, to succeed in their goal of achieving better outcomes for young people. (Contains 6 figures.)

This article describes a new paradigm for accountability that envisions afterschool programs as learning organizations continually engaged in improving quality. Nearly 20 years into the era of results-based accountability, a new generation of afterschool accountability systems is emerging. Rather than aiming to test whether programs have produced desired youth outcomes, an increasing number of afterschool funders and sponsors are shaping more flexible, collaborative, and lower-stakes accountability systems. By designing accountability systems that fully embrace the notion of afterschool programs as learning organizations and by using research from organizational development, education, and youth development to create effective learning environments, funders and sponsors can help programs to improve quality--and therefore, to succeed in their goal of achieving better outcomes for young people. (Contains 6 figures.)

This article describes a new paradigm for accountability that envisions afterschool programs as learning organizations continually engaged in improving quality. Nearly 20 years into the era of results-based accountability, a new generation of afterschool accountability systems is emerging. Rather than aiming to test whether programs have produced desired youth outcomes, an increasing number of afterschool funders and sponsors are shaping more flexible, collaborative, and lower-stakes accountability systems. By designing accountability systems that fully embrace the notion of afterschool programs as learning organizations and by using research from organizational development, education, and youth development to create effective learning environments, funders and sponsors can help programs to improve quality--and therefore, to succeed in their goal of achieving better outcomes for young people. (Contains 6 figures.)

In 1987, Arizona State University initiated a national study of two-year college faculty behaviors that contribute to educational equity. During phase 1 of the study, field interviews and a literature review were used to develop an inventory of effective faculty behaviors. To determine the emphasis placed on these behaviors, phase 2 consisted of a survey of faculty at 52 community colleges nationwide, producing usable responses from 67% of the faculty. In order to identify the relationship between effective faculty behaviors and administrative policy and practice, phase 3 consisted of case studies of 12 community colleges, involving site visits, interviews, and an examination of college documents. Effective faculty behaviors were examined in the areas of outreach and student recruiting; mentoring and advising; academic support; campus climate; student assessment; good teaching practices; adaptive instruction; and emphasizing achievement. Study findings included the following: (1) at all institutions, faculty reported high involvement in student assessment, good teaching practices, and in emphasizing achievement; (2) faculty reported lower levels of involvement in mentoring and advisement, and campus climate activities; and (3) faculty members reported higher involvement in effective behaviors at colleges at which faculty and administrative values did not conflict. The report includes in-depth analyses of faculty working conditions, role definitions, evaluation and reward systems, organizational structure, governance, and professional development opportunities as they relate to effective faculty behaviors. Recommendations for achieving and maintaining effective learning environments, the survey instrument, and data tables are included. (PAA)

In 1987, Arizona State University initiated a national study of two-year college faculty behaviors that contribute to educational equity. During phase 1 of the study, field interviews and a literature review were used to develop an inventory of effective faculty behaviors. To determine the emphasis placed on these behaviors, phase 2 consisted of a survey of faculty at 52 community colleges nationwide, producing usable responses from 67% of the faculty. In order to identify the relationship between effective faculty behaviors and administrative policy and practice, phase 3 consisted of case studies of 12 community colleges, involving site visits, interviews, and an examination of college documents. Effective faculty behaviors were examined in the areas of outreach and student recruiting; mentoring and advising; academic support; campus climate; student assessment; good teaching practices; adaptive instruction; and emphasizing achievement. Study findings included the following: (1) at all institutions, faculty reported high involvement in student assessment, good teaching practices, and in emphasizing achievement; (2) faculty reported lower levels of involvement in mentoring and advisement, and campus climate activities; and (3) faculty members reported higher involvement in effective behaviors at colleges at which faculty and administrative values did not conflict. The report includes in-depth analyses of faculty working conditions, role definitions, evaluation and reward systems, organizational structure, governance, and professional development opportunities as they relate to effective faculty behaviors. Recommendations for achieving and maintaining effective learning environments, the survey instrument, and data tables are included. (PAA)