This paper will investigate the state's utilisation of higher education policy as 'compensatory legitimation' within the Cypriot context in the late 1980s. It argues that not only the establishment of the University of Cyprus in 1989 - after thirty years of strong nationalist opposition during the British colonial administration and another thirty years of state hesitation and postponement during political independence - but also the character of the established University (state-based and linked to the international community of scholarship) can be explained mainly as the result of the state's decision to utilise higher education in order to make up for its serious deficit in legitimacy. It also maintains that the state used the policy strategy of expertise and to a lesser extent the policy strategy of participation in order to legitimate the process that determined the character of both the University and the knowledge that it was expected to produce. ; peer-reviewed
This qualitative study examined the effects of a high-stakes, standardized test on teachers' instructional planning at a rural school. The research addressed this question: How do mandated curricular standards affect teachers' instructional planning and content selection? Ethnographic interviews (Creswell, 1998) examined four secondary teachers' perceptions of the effects of high-stakes standardized tests on their work. Case study methodology (Yin, 1994) guided the analysis of the data. Each participant had several years' experience teaching at Mollusk Island School, and each teacher had previously included place-based lessons (e.g. environmental studies, cultural history) in his/her repertoire. Ultimately, the study explored how a community maintenance function of small rural schools might be affected by state legislation for standardized accountability.
In an effort to identify strategies for strengthening the relationship between state government and public higher education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) has appointed a Task Force on Making Public Higher Education a State Priority. Comprised of leaders with extensive higher education experience at the campus and state level, as well as in elected office, the task force has sought to: explore the political context within which higher education operates; recommend strategies for establishing a new compact between states and their public colleges and universities; and identify strategies for advancing higher education as a state investment priority. The task force recommends that leaders from state government and public higher education create a new compact built on a foundation of mutual understanding, trust and accountability. With these principles in place, state and campus leaders must craft a shared public agenda that meets state needs, broadens college access, makes college more affordable, improves student outcomes and ensures academic quality. ; American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Caption title: State aid to and control of educational institutions in the AUnited States. ; Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia university, 1890. ; Mode of access: Internet.
The nature of the relationship between state government and higher education is problematic for both policy makers and students of higher education governance. The purpose of this study was to provide a better understanding of the position of Secretary of Education, one facet of the multi-faceted relationship between state government and higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The problem of this research effort, therefore, was to describe the historical context of the cabinet-level position and the authority and major areas of responsibility of the Secretary of Education in Virginia. The research methodology used to execute the study was that of an exploratory field study. The investigation was conducted in five phases, with the data collected by means of: (1) reviewing legal and historical documents, and (2) conducting focused interviews. Within the context of the historical development of the Virginia cabinet system, including the position of Secretary of Education, and the intention of the incumbent Governor to test the recommendations of the Hopkins Commission, it was not surprising that the area of budget emerged as the major responsibility of the Secretary of Education in the Dalton Administration. The assignment of budget targets was designated as the primary area of responsibility for the Secretary of Education in order to accomplish the intent of promoting effectiveness and efficiency in state government, including higher education, and controlling its growth. The creation and subsequent development of the position of Secretary of Education, with its attendant oversight and budgetary responsibilities in relation to higher education, modified the "self-denying ordinance" relationship between state government and higher education in Virginia. The cabinet-level education position will remain inthe higher education governance structure without significant alteration of its statutory authority, including budget authority which is formally less than that granted to other functional area Secretaries. The probable future role of the position of Secretary of Education will include developing and implementing policy, especially in the area of budget, and providing executive oversight of the total education function in the Commonwealth of Virginia. ; Ed. D.
"One of a series of papers written as part of the Postsecondary Education for a Changing Economy: Resource Agent for Policies and Practices Project for the National Institute for Work and Learning."--p. 1. ; Appendix consists of a reprint of The public investment in higher education: report of a policy briefing for legislators from Vermont. ; At head of title: Postsecondary Education for a Changing Economy Project. ; Cover title. ; Bibliography: p. 33-35. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Many public college and university leaders will enter the new decade with some hope and confidence in the policy arena, with the tailwinds of a strong national economy, healthier state budgets and state political environments more conducive to investments in higher education. This report examines the most prominent state higher education policy issues for 2020. This report not only includes topics of longstanding concern to state policymakers but also emerging issues that will be new to the state legislatures. ; American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Stamped on cover: ED234523. ; "Grant R-2868-NIE." ; "December 1982." ; Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche. ; "Performed pursuant to grant no. NIE-G-80-0048 from the National Institute of Education"--P. [2] of cover. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.
"Appendix I. Report of the survey of the schools under the control of the Board of education, City of New York": p.77-383. "Appendix II. Report of the survey of the colleges under the control of the Board of higher education of the City of New York": p. [385]-711. ; At head of title: Legislative document (1944) no. 60. State of New York. ; Includes tables. ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Each state has its own system of public higher education. States design, regulate, and fund the public colleges and universities that educate the states residents. In many states, local governments also provide funds, particularly for community colleges. At the same time, the federal government provides a growing share of the funding for these institutions, and with the funding come motivation and responsibility for monitoring quality and outcomes. This trend raises difficult questions about how federal and state governments should work together to ensure the efficient and equitable use of public funds to provide high-quality widespread postsecondary educational opportunity. This brief provides background information and perspectives to help foster a productive national conversation about the federal-state partnership. It asks what the main problems facing the current system are and what the goals of any efforts for reform should be. Drawing on three recent papers from the Urban Institute, this brief provides background for developing constructive strategies, focusing on potential pitfalls. The argument does not support wholesale reform or a shift to a more centralized, federalized system of higher education. But it does support a more conscious and nuanced role for the federal government and greater coordination across state lines to improve educational outcomes for students across the nation. ; Urban Institute
Published also as U.S. Advisory Committee on Education. Staff study no. 3. ; Thesis (PH. D.)--University of Chicago, 1940. ; Appendix A. Sources and methods used in the study: p. 213-227. ; Mode of access: Internet.
