5 results
Search Results
2. Communities of Practice: Improving Equity and Opportunity through Postsecondary Data
- Author
-
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), Colorado, Jessica, Klein, Carrie, and Whitfield, Christina
- Abstract
State postsecondary education data systems are vital assets for policymakers, researchers, and the public. The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association's (SHEEO) Communities of Practice project builds upon SHEEO's efforts to measure the capacity and effective use of state postsecondary data systems and provides states with opportunities to develop solutions to common system issues. The seventh Community of Practice convening, "Improving Equity and Opportunity through Postsecondary Data," was held September 28-29, 2022, in Denver, Colorado. The two-day meeting included more than 80 representatives from 17 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Teams included representatives from SHEEO agency academic affairs, workforce, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and research and data offices and their partners at state agencies and two- and four-year postsecondary institutions. Given the recent impacts on higher education from the COVID-19 pandemic, social justice unrest, and economic pressures facing the country, a focus on equity and opportunity was timely for this Community of Practice. SHEEO agency staff communicated a need to inform state attainment and economic goals through improved collection and use of postsecondary student unit record data. Within and across state teams, Community of Practice attendees were able to learn more about the nuances and impacts of equity-and opportunity-focused data collection, disaggregation, and visualization; to better understand how to effectively communicate and illustrate the need for and the contributions of equitable student success in their states; and to reflect on their capacity, partnerships, and resources available to effectively engage in this work. In this paper, SHEEO shares the presentations, resources, and team activities from the convening. This information can be used by SHEEO agencies to reflect on their current practices, plan and develop effective data policies, and better use data to improve postsecondary equity and opportunity outcomes in their states.
- Published
- 2023
3. Outcomes-Based Funding: Taking Stock
- Author
-
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), Complete College America, and Jones, Dennis P.
- Abstract
This is the third paper on the topic of outcomes-based funding written by Dennis Jones for Complete College America. The first paper, "Performance Funding: From Idea to Action" (ED535356), proposed a set of design and implementation principles to help states develop and implement their own outcomes-based funding models. The second paper, "Outcomes-Based Funding: The Wave of Implementation" (2013) described features of models being implemented in states and the extent to which they conformed to the principles presented in the first paper. This third paper documents the continued spread of adoption with an increased focus in the field on whether outcomes are equitable across populations, with states disaggregating results by race, ethnicity, age and income and reporting those publicly. The additional purposes of this paper are threefold: (1) To reinforce the point that outcomes-based funding is but one component of the overall financing model for higher education in a state. The power of outcomes-based funding models is enhanced if the other components are designed so as to strengthen the alignment between funding streams and desired results; (2) To once again revisit the lists of design and implementation principles presented in the earlier document and (slightly) revise them in light of states' actions and experience; and (3) To describe the models that are being employed in implementing states and to assess the extent of conformance with the proffered set of design and implementation principles. This for the purpose of identifying areas of non-conformance to catalog potential weaknesses in models and questioning the applicability of certain of the principles. As with earlier versions of the document, the ultimate objective is to provide clear, straightforward guidance to policymakers who are searching for ways to better align their approaches to resource allocation with the educational outcomes that are of highest priority in their state.
- Published
- 2016
4. State of the States 2017
- Abstract
On February 24, 2017, all of the authors of the state-of-the-state manuscripts published in the "Journal of Education Finance" met in Cincinnati, Ohio, to participate in a roundtable discussion focused on recent legislative actions in 38 states. A majority of those papers were revised to reflect a final report on legislative actions impacting the funding of P-12 and higher education. Overall, adequate funding for education continues to be an issue many states are struggling with. There is reason to be hopeful, as several states have seen increases in per pupil funding and teacher salaries. When facing funding shortfalls, some states have begun considering alternate sources of funding for public education. In complicated fiscal times like these, it is anticipated that an increasing number of states will look to novel forms of raising revenue for public schools. The following contents are included: (1) The Good, the Bad, and the Alarming: Commentary on the 2017 State of the States Submissions (Brittany Larkin, Christine Kiracofe, and Spencer Weiler); (2) Alabama (Philip Westbrook and Brenda Mendiola); (3) Alaska (Amy Dagley); (4) Arizona (David G. Martinez and Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos); (5) Arkansas (Steve Bounds); (6) California (Henry Tran); (7) Colorado (Gabriel R. Serna and Spencer C. Weiler); (8) Connecticut (Lesley A. DeNardis); (9) Florida (Megan Lane, Jolande Morgan, and R. Craig Wood); (10) Georgia (David G. Buckman and Tommy Jackson); (11) Illinois (Christine Kiracofe); (12) Indiana (Scott Rodger Sweetland); (13) Kansas (Thomas A. DeLuca); (14) Kentucky (Tyrone Bynoe); (15) Louisiana (Arvin Johnson, Venice M. Adams, and David G. Buckman); (16) Massachusetts (Tyrone Bynoe); (17) Michigan (Brett A. Geier); (18) Minnesota (Nicola A. Alexander); (19) Mississippi (Spencer D. Stone and Joshua A. Money); (20) Nebraska (Barbara La Cost); (21) Nevada (Deborah A. Verstegen, Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, and David Martinez); (22) New Hampshire (F. Frank Ayata and Jeremy M. Anderson); (23) New Jersey (Luke J. Stedrak); (24) New Mexico (David G. Martinez and Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos); (25) New York (Osnat Zaken); (26) North Carolina (Walter Hart, Jim R. Watson, and Lisa G. Driscoll); (27) Ohio (Barbara M. De Luca, Krystel H. Chenault, and Randall S. Vesely); (28) Oklahoma (Jeffrey Maiden and Channa Byerly); (29) Oregon (Michael C. Petko); (30) Pennsylvania (Jeremy Anderson and F. Frank Ayata); (31) Tennessee (Lisa G. Driscoll and Betty Cox); (32) Texas (Ken Helvey); (33) Virginia (William Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan); (34) West Virginia (Drew Milligan); (35) Wisconsin (Michael C. Petko); and (36) Wyoming (Joshua M. Cohen). [For the previous year, see EJ1170086.]
- Published
- 2018
5. Investigation of Combustion Properties and Soot Deposits of Various US Crude Oils.
- Author
-
Singh, Gurjap, Esmaeilpour, Mehdi, and Ratner, Albert
- Subjects
PETROLEUM ,RAILROAD accidents ,SOOT ,KEYSTONE pipeline project ,COMBUSTION ,LIQUID fuels - Abstract
The oil boom in the North Dakota oilfields has resulted in improved energy security for the US. Recent estimates of oil production rates indicate that even completion of the Keystone XL pipeline will only fractionally reduce the need to ship this oil by rail. Current levels of oil shipment have already caused significant strain on rail infrastructure and led to crude oil train derailments, resulting in loss of life and property. Treating crude oil as a multicomponent liquid fuel, this work aims to understand crude oil droplet burning and thereby lead to methods to improve train fire safety. Sub-millimeter sized droplets of Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado, and Bakken crude were burned, and the process was recorded with charge-couple device (CCD) and complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) high-speed cameras. The resulting images were post-processed to obtain various combustion parameters, such as burning rate, ignition delay, total combustion time, and microexplosion behavior. The soot left behind was analyzed using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). This data is expected be used for validation of combustion models for complex multicomponent liquid fuels, and subsequently in the modification of combustion properties of crude oil using various additives to make it safer to transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.