Search results

The American people have set important social goals to improve the quality of American life. Although there is some evidence of progress toward these goals, there are few accurate indicators of the changes actually taking place and the problems encountered along the road to attainment. The development of statistics and other pertinent information is essential because of the rapid and reverberating changes that are taking place. Significant changes are being generated in the American educational system in terms of people, expendi tures, activities, and innovations. The educational indicators that are developed must take into account the variety of goals, as well as the changes in definitions and emphases of the goals. There is a need for both quantitative and qualitative data. Although some quantitative indicators exist, the data disclose little about the quality of the educational system or its products. New indicators relating to educational oppor tunities, the quality of education, fundamental human behav ior, and political and economic behavior are needed. The responsibility for developing these indicators must be shared by public and private interests—government, business, edu cators, labor unions, and civic and community groups.

Abstract
Prior research argues that lottery consumers consider how funds are to be used in making lottery purchase decisions. Possible explanations for this behavior include altruism as well as the desire of low-income families to provide educational opportunities within their community. This paper uses a panel of lottery sales for U.S. states covering the period 1980–2000 to test hypotheses regarding the impact of educational earmarking on lottery purchases. Our estimates suggest that states earmarking all or part of their revenue to education experience an increase in lottery sales between 11 % and 25 %, depending on the specification of state trends. Whether the propensity for earmarking to increase sales is viewed positively or negatively depends largely on one's ethical and moral views of lotteries.

This title makes sense of the United States system of school governance and considers where it might be heading. It discusses issues such as recruiting good teachers, school choice, the school's growing 'family ' role and who is, and who should be, responsible for schools and the consequences for the students

Higher education across much of Asia is a remarkable success story. It enjoys a high level of government support. Leaders understand that higher education is an important ingredient in the economic and social development of their countries. They recognize that the globalization of markets, the interdependency of international financial systems, the expanded role of technology, and high-speed communications have created an enormous need for highly skilled technical, professional, and managerial leaders. They understand that modern economies cannot be managed by only primary and secondary school graduates. Evidence of this support is quite tangible: Enrollments have grown, participation in higher education has diversified, new universities have been created, and universities are experimenting with new forms of instructional delivery. At the same time, higher education across the region faces a set of interwoven challenges. Many higher education institutions (HEIs) in Asia are coping with explosive enrollment growth; shortages of qualified instructional staff; widespread concern over instructional quality; and, in many cases, severe financial constraints. These issues are interwoven, and their solutions are interdependent. Efforts to address any one problem need to be undertaken with attention to the larger constellation of issues. Recognizing the important role that higher education plays in economic and social development, countries in the region are increasing investments in the development of higher education. A central issue is what investments are most likely to be effective in strengthening higher education systems and how development partners such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) can support countries and HEIs in their efforts.

Higher education across much of Asia is a remarkable success story. It enjoys a high level of government support. Leaders understand that higher education is an important ingredient in the economic and social development of their countries. They recognize that the globalization of markets, the interdependency of international financial systems, the expanded role of technology, and high-speed communications have created an enormous need for highly skilled technical, professional, and managerial leaders. They understand that modern economies cannot be managed by only primary and secondary school graduates. Evidence of this support is quite tangible: Enrollments have grown, participation in higher education has diversified, new universities have been created, and universities are experimenting with new forms of instructional delivery. At the same time, higher education across the region faces a set of interwoven challenges. Many higher education institutions (HEIs) in Asia are coping with explosive enrollment growth; shortages of qualified instructional staff; widespread concern over instructional quality; and, in many cases, severe financial constraints. These issues are interwoven, and their solutions are interdependent. Efforts to address any one problem need to be undertaken with attention to the larger constellation of issues. Recognizing the important role that higher education plays in economic and social development, countries in the region are increasing investments in the development of higher education. A central issue is what investments are most likely to be effective in strengthening higher education systems and how development partners such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) can support countries and HEIs in their efforts.

In this article I will first set out to problematise our common sense assumptions about the notion of "ability", on which subsequent defmitions of "achievement" at school are based. I will argue that this kind of critical reflection on the submerged theories we operate with is crucial, for it is through a better understanding of what we are about in schools and classrooms that we can best serve the interests of those entrusted in our care. The categorisation of pupils as "high achievers", "low achievers" , and "under achievers" depends on particular views of intelligence and ability, which have developed over time and which conceal political and economic ideologies that are often not immediately available to us for critique. Nevertheless, these views of the world, of the place of the school within thls world, and of the relative worth of different groups of children therein, have an extraordinarily powerful influence on the way we think and act, and therefore need to be unpacked. Otherwise, we risk perpetrating injustices on those we claim to represent. Having delved into the political etymology of the concept "ability", we will then explore what it is that can be done to interact more effectively with those who do not fulfill their potential in the school context. ; peer-reviewed

A new issue of public policy in America's higher education history is the state support of private higher education. As of January 1, 1980, all of the states except Wyoming and Nevada provide some type of aid to private higher education institutions. One state, North Carolina, began its efforts to provide state assistance to private higher education in 1971 and by 1981 had provided approximately 86 million dollars to its now 38 private colleges and universities. This study is an in depth description of (1) the current status of that aid; (2) the political evolution of that aid; (3) the several different interest groups and individuals involved with (a) the legislation authorizing the aid and (b) the subsequent litigation contesting the legislation; and (4) the issue of state aid to private higher education in a national context. Currently, there are three general programs of state aid to private higher education in North Carolina: (1) the North Carolina State Contractual Scholarship Fund, (2) the North Carolina Legislative Tuition Grant Program and (3) the North Carolina Student Incentive Grant Program. The North Carolina statutes authorizing these programs of aid were held to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in Smith v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina (1977). Those actors responsible for the legislation authorizing the programs of aid include former Governors Bob Scott, Dan Moore, and Jim Holshouser; Governor Jim Hunt; former and present legislators favoring aid to private higher education; the trustees, staff, faculty, and students of private higher education institutions; parents of students attending those institutions; representatives of the (now defunct) State Board of Higher Education; and representatives of the North Carolina Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. Those actors who are considered the primary forces behind the legislation are Duke University President Terry Sanford (former North Carolina Governor), Pfeiffer College President Cameron West (former Director of the State Board of Higher Education), Ben Fisher (former Executive Secretary for the Council on Christian Higher Education of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina), Virgil McBride (former Executive Director of the North Carolina Association of Independent Colleges and Universities), and John Henley (current President of the North Carolina Association of Independent Colleges and Universities). Proponents of the aid postulate that such aid is economical, i.e., the State saves money by utilizing available space at private institutions. They also posit that the aid provides access to and choice of higher education for North Carolina students. They are quite adamant in their belief that the aid is student aid, not institutional aid, although the funds are allocated directly to the institutions. For this study, the researcher utilized newspaper files, official reports, legal documents, letters, memoranda, related literature, House and Senate Journals, and Session Laws. Fifty interviews with principal actors were conducted. ; Ed. D.

Discussions on problems in higher education in Europe typically focus on rising enrolment rates, access, governance, underperformance in research and teaching, lack of internationalisation, the lack of private and public funding. Our proposals for reform are based on more autonomy for universities, higher tuition fees, more private funding, introduction of income-contingent loans, better governance, more competition and internationalisation. Taking a subsidiarity perspective, the role of the EU in reforming the higher education sector in Europe is providing mutual policy learning opportunities on higher education reforms across Member States and supporting the building of higher education infrastructure in Member States (through the Structural and FP Funds). But beyond the support to Member States policies, the EU should further develop the European dimension, through furthering the goals of the Bologna reforms, cross recognition of qualifications, funding and promoting intra-EU mobility of students, researchers and teachers. The EU should take more initiatives to facilitate global mobility and cooperation. Finally, consistent with the subsidiarity principle, the EU can develop "flagships" initiatives.