Search

Advanced information, communication, computation and collaboration technologies, known as "cyberinfrastructure," have become essential elements for research, education, and innovation in the 21st century. A major challenge confronting the United States today is how to ensure that all colleges and universities, including those that have not traditionally benefited from leading-edge research infrastructure, can participate seamlessly in national and multinational cyberinfrastructure-enabled efforts. The minority-serving-institution community has unique expertise, knowledge, and resources to share. Western leaders from the fields of science, education and cyberinfrastructure recognize an urgent need for action. Participants in the 2006 "Lariat Summit on Minority Institutions and Cyberinfrastructure in the West" gathered in Bozeman, Montana to develop strategies and recommendations for connecting minority-serving institutions in the West to national advanced cyberinfrastructure. This document is a first step towards developing both the will and the resources to ensure that minority-serving institutions are among the "connected" institutions in the Western states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington. (Contains 2 figures and 11 endnotes.) [Financial support for this white paper was provided by the University of Washington, Internet2, and the Pacific Northwest Gigapop.]

This "Equity by Design" brief highlights equity issues that arise in the process of reopening schools during a global pandemic. The authors examine state plans and guidance for reopening schools across states in the Midwest & Plains Equity Assistance Center (MAP EAC) region which includes the 13 states of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The purpose of this paper is to provide explicit consideration of equity issues in the context of reopening schools and generate discussion about the topics addressed. The following topics are covered: (1) time spent in face-to-face instruction vs. virtual or hybrid learning environments and any calendar changes; (2) screening and reporting of COVID-19 symptoms and exposure; (3) social distancing, face masks and classroom set up; (4) ensuring more equitable learning for students with dis/abilities and multilingual learners; (5) access to technology; (6) opportunities and challenges in online learning, (7) communication with parent/caregivers; (8) addressing learning loss; (9) guidance on Social Emotional Learning (SEL); and (10) guidance on field trips and co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. Throughout this brief, the authors highlight equity issues that inevitably arise in the context of schooling where conditions of access are likely exacerbated by the pandemic and how one might approach and consider these issues in planning and policy. As school and district leaders review and revise policy implementation, the guidance outlined in this paper can inform the way that policy is implemented and can help highlight issues around equity that district and school personnel may not have considered in planning for reopening.

The United States leads the world in the number of incarcerated persons per 100,000. In today's global economy, these numbers represent huge wastes in human capital, especially when you consider the inequitable nature of the American criminal justice system, as witnessed by the disproportionate racial and ethnic composition, types of crimes, and length of prison sentences represented within this population. Regardless of the pathway to prison, most incarcerated people will eventually return to the communities from which they came, so one of the important questions may be, how does society want them to show up? Broken or made whole? Angry or hopeful? Employable or unemployable? Role model or counterexample? The essence of this paper is linked to a favored quote by the late Nelson Mandela, who said, "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." These words are as profound today as they were in 1990 when he addressed an audience of Boston high school students. Furthermore, education in America remains one of the best investments individuals and governments can make, which should include investment in prison-based education programs. These types of efforts are cost-effective, reduce recidivism, improve employment prospects, increase civic engagement, and can disrupt generational poverty. Despite Second Chance Pell programs and other evidence supporting the multilayered value of postsecondary (coursework beyond high school) education for incarcerated populations, barriers and challenges persist. Fortunately, leaders of state agencies and systems of higher education are increasingly exploring the feasibility of these programs for their states. This paper presents preliminary findings from a survey SHEEO administered to its members in 2018. It advocates for postsecondary education for incarcerated persons as a relevant policy issue at federal and state levels in current political environments. Key findings and recommendations were informed by responses from 38 percent of SHEEO's membership. States responding to the survey were Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Non-member organizations included Truckee Meadows Community College (NV); University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Bismarck State College (ND); and the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. The paper is organized around three main categories: access, program delivery, and reentry of program participants into society, with the following key performance indicators.

The purpose of this paper is to inform evaluators of a method of evaluating capacity building in educational programs. One definition of capacity building is helping an organization increase its ability to fulfill its mission (Wing, 2004). Evaluators of capacity-building efforts therefore must focus on evidence that the program has helped to build the capacity of the organization it serves, which can include evidence of increased knowledge and changes in practice. Here this evaluation method is presented in the context of an evaluation of one of the U.S. Department of Education Comprehensive Centers. The mission of the Comprehensive Centers is to provide technical assistance that builds the capacity of state education agencies to help districts and schools meet their student achievement goals and No Child Left Behind requirements. Evaluators created a logic model to organize the evaluation around a capacity building continuum, and then used surveys, focus groups, interviews, and artifact analysis to document capacity. This report presents findings from Comprehensive Center Year 4 for the state of Nebraska, and includes results from 351 participant surveys along with focus groups and interviews. Evaluation findings showed that participants not only reported that activities were useful, relevant, and of high quality--but that they perceived themselves as more knowledgeable and had begun to apply their knowledge towards improving services for their constituents. Evaluating capacity building allows evaluators to go beyond documenting project activities and outcomes to focus on cognitive and affective changes in participants and on behavior such as changes to services in schools and districts. Appended are: (1) Indicators of Capacity Building; (2) Activity Report; (3) Nebraska Project 3: Poverty Plan Participant Interview Questions; (4) Nebraska Project: English Language Learner Leadership Institute Focus Group Questions; and (5) NCCC [North Central Comprehensive Center] Participant Evaluation Form. (Contains 1 footnote, 2 figures, and 3 tables.)

This paper examines the graduation/dropout crisis among American Indian and Alaska Native students using data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Data from 2005 is drawn from the seven states with the highest percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native students as well as five states in the Pacific and Northwestern regions of the United States. Findings indicate that the number of American Indians and Alaska Natives who graduate continues to be a matter of urgent concern. On average, less than 50% of Native students in these twelve states graduate each year. (Contains 8 tables, 1 figure, and 22 footnotes.) [This paper was produced by the Center for the Study of Leadership in American Indian Education at the Pennsylvania State University.]

Career and technical education (CTE) programs of study are subject to rigorous state and federal accountability systems that provide information on key student outcomes. However, while these outcome measures can form a basis for identifying high- and low-performing programs, they are insufficient for answering underlying questions about how or why that level of achievement was attained. Given the variety of CTE program guidance and program quality frameworks currently available, the Regional Educational Laboratory Central (REL Central) partnered with members of its college and career readiness research alliance (CCRRA) consisting of state directors of CTE programs in the central region. This study was designed to address the following questions: (1) What CTE program components do state educational agency (SEA) policies and guidance focus upon in the central region? and (2) How are current national CTE program frameworks structured, and what program components are the focused on. To address these research questions, REL Central and ACTE conducted reviews of SEA and national framework documents, respectively. This study was designed to address the following questions: (1) What CTE program components do state educational agency (SEA) policies and guidance focus upon in the central region? (2) How are current national CTE program frameworks structured, and what program components are the focused on. To address these research questions, REL Central and ACTE conducted reviews of SEA and national framework documents, respectively. REL Central collected CTE program guidance and policy documents from the seven states composing the REL Central region: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc) provided additional policy documents they had previously collected from the central states. ACTE collected program frameworks developed by national organizations. REL Central and ACTE conducted a document analysis of state CTE program guidance and policies, as well as national program frameworks. These documents were examined to identify and summarize the various CTE program components focused on. Analysis of the two sets of documents revealed nine broad categories of content: (1) Course content; (2) Course delivery; (3) Guidance and counseling; (4) Stakeholder partnerships; (5) Student leadership; (6) Student assessment; (7) Program outcomes; (8) Administrative program guidance; and (9) Administrative guidance for CTE teacher recruitment and training. Examination of the frequency with which each content area was addressed showed state and national guidance most frequently addressed stakeholder involvement and partnerships, course content and delivery, student assessment, and career guidance and counseling. Many of the other areas focused upon were related to administrative requirements. [SREE documents are structured abstracts of SREE conference symposium, panel, and paper or poster submissions.]

With increasingly widespread calls to raise educational attainment levels without substantially growing public investment in higher education, policymakers and others have devoted growing attention to the role of financial aid programs in providing access to, promoting affordability for, and incentivizing success in college. Given relative levels of investment, most of that focus has been on federal financial aid programs. But for students enrolled in higher education, the vast majority of whom attend public institutions, the impact of federal aid policies is filtered through finance policies enacted at the state level. The wide differences in financing strategies among states mean that states ultimately determine to a great extent how college opportunities are distributed, costs are affordable, and students are successful. This concept paper takes a closer look at state financial aid programs and how they are uniquely well-positioned to address many of the financial challenges in college access, success, and affordability that stand in the way of achieving educational attainment goals. It advances a framework for the distribution of aid that is efficient with scarce public funds, encourages students to make progress and succeed, promotes institutional behaviors that are aligned with public needs and expectations, and integrates state policies with federal and institutional policies and practices. Informed by a set of guiding principles, the paper makes the following policy proposals: (1) States can adopt a Shared Responsibility Model (SRM) as the framework for determining the eligibility for a state grant, as well as the amount of the grant; (2) States can encourage well-designed, state-supported programs to assist students in meeting their student contribution; (3) States can embed demand-side incentives that promote student success; (4) States can embed supply-side incentives that ensure that institutions share in both the risk and rewards of student success; (5) States can leverage grant aid programs to encourage institutional aid expenditures that are aligned with state goals for student success, affordability, transparency, and predictability; (6) The federal government can recommit to its historic partnership with states in promoting well designed grant programs through a contemporary LEAP program; (7) States can ensure that their grant programs include an expectation that standards of academic quality are maintained; and (8) States can require that their financial aid programs are systematically evaluated.

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC or the agency) is a regional institutional accreditor that accredits (or preaccredits) over 1,000 degree granting institutions in 19 states, tribal institutions and including those programs offered via distance education within these institutions. Most of the institutions accredited by HLC use the Secretary's recognition of the agency to establish eligibility to participate in the Title IV, HEA student financial assistance programs. This paper presents the recommendations of the staff of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) concerning HLC's petition for continued recognition.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions that extension educators in the North Central region of the United States hold regarding selected educational strategies pertaining to livestock waste management education. Livestock waste management education has been recognized as one of extension's major initiatives in the United States. County extension educators' perceptions regarding the educational strategies for livestock waste management are lacking in the literature. Most importantly, how do perceptions of extension educators in the region influence the selection of teaching methods and tools for educating those responsible for livestock waste management? Design/methodology/approach: The authors developed and utilized a questionnaire with a Chronbach's alpha 0.75 mailed to 360 randomly selected extension educators from the North Central region. The response rate was 55.8% based on a total of 201 completed survey questionnaires. Early and late responses were compared using independent samples T-test. Analyzed data was summarized as the descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations and percentages of all variables of interest from the study and presented as tables. Findings: Extension educators who participated in this study were predominantly white males with a mean age of 47.2 years. The majority (68.2%) of respondents had agriculture and natural resources as their area of extension responsibilities. Respondents had positive perceptions regarding selected teaching methods and tools and believe that the teaching methods of demonstrations, individualized instruction, discussion, lecture-discussion and field days are effective for livestock waste management education. Very high intercorrelation result (r=0.706) exist between perceptions regarding the effectiveness of teaching methods and the effectiveness of teaching tools. Practical Implications: Extension educators' positive perceptions regarding selected teaching methods and tools have implications for in-service educational programming and staff development for extension educators in the North Central region to enhance their self-efficacy and improve self-confidence in the use of educational strategies for livestock waste management education. Originality/value: This paper is original and makes a compelling case for in-service training and professional development for extension educators in the North Central region.

This brochure offers descriptions of three Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL) programs designed to improve elementary and secondary education in the midwestern United States. "Project ACCESS" helps students explore career options. "Decisions About Technology" helps increase learning opportunities through the use of computer technology. "Rural School and Community Development" helps students and community interact to improve the economic health of the community. Clustering schools is a way of dealing with declining money and resources. Sharing teachers, students and equipment can be positive alternatives to reductions in staff, student enrollment, and equipment. Linkages through computer or video networks among schools successfully reach local colleges, employers, and community organizations. Capsule descriptions of 28 working rural programs, including rural school organizations, community study projects, and technology programs, are provided; the name and address of a contact person is included for each program. A list of related McREL publications concludes the document. (TES)

This collection of reports highlights the status of educational telecommunications in 13 western states during 1991. Topics addressed include distance education initiatives in Alaska; activities by members of the Arizona Education Telecommunications Cooperative, including colleges, public schools, and government agencies; groups active in the planning and implementation of technology in California education; activities of the Colorado Telecommunications Advisory Commission, colleges, and other organizations in Colorado; the infrastructure for Educational Telecommunications in Hawaii, as well as Department of Education, University of Hawaii, and legislative activities; telecommunications technology in Minnesota public school districts, community colleges, private colleges, the state university system, technical colleges, and the University of Minnesota; legislative initiatives in Nevada and activities of the University of Nevada; efforts by various organizations in New Mexico, including the state library, the board of education, and several colleges; progress made in North Dakota in the areas of interactive television, interactive video, public television, computer networking, satellite broadcasting, and emerging partnerships; legislative policy, networking, community college services, and activities of state agencies in Oregon; the South Dakota Governor's Telecommunication Task Force and uses of telecommunications technology in various educational settings in the state; activities of Utah state agencies and colleges; and initiatives in Wyoming, including legislation, distance education, interactive video, and community college programs. (ALF).

Any conclusions that community education concepts are "alive and well" were not supported in a study of the impact of state education policies on rural school districts with total enrollments of 350 students or less in the Great Plains Region (Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota). Survey instruments were mailed to 742 district chief school officers and 595 (80.4%) were returned. Respondents were randomly placed in five groups and responded to separate survey instruments. Eighteen to 21 policy options were listed in each of five areas: curriculum materials and development, pupil personnel services, resource generation and allocation, goal development and organizational structure, and personnel training and certification. In each of the five categories the impact of state educational policy options was perceived as negative. State policymakers were perceived as unable or unwilling to accept small rural schools as having individuality--an attitude which is counterproductive to the concepts of community education. Dealing with rural issues would require policymakers to initiate reforms to close the gap between current practices and local community expectations. The "one best system" concept is outmoded in state policy frameworks and new models should be developed to capitalize on strengths of each rural community and to provide for congruence of missions and outcomes. (BRR)

To determine perceptions of school board members, teachers, and principals in rural schools about the quality of their educational programs, the type of preparation they had received in preservice programs, and the inservice opportunities available to them, responses to questionnaires from 2,028 teachers, 119 principals, and 113 school board members throughout the states of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming were analyzed. Background data were broken down according to sex, school placement, linguistic fluency, ethnic origin, and educational attainment. More than 80% of teachers and principals and more than 65% of school board members were satisfied with selected aspects of their school program, 80% of teachers and 75% of principals had no specific preparation for service in a rural setting, and approximately 92% of teachers and 100% of principals had participated in inservice training. Inservice programs designed to upgrade rural school personnel may need to be different from those in the past. Such programs should include expanded off-campus, field-based graduate programs, rural school program models, leadership roles for rural teachers and principals in planning, directing, and presenting inservice workshops, procedures for multiple teaching activities, and increased understanding of rural cultural issues. (MM)