Search

Today's labor market remains tight. Turnover is an ongoing, costly problem across many industries. To ensure their organizations are effective now and in the future, HR and talent development professionals have an important role to play in implementing programs that increase engagement, retention, and productivity. This white paper explains three keys to development that unlock employee motivation, reduce turnover, and build a pipeline of future leaders for any organization: (1) Focus on individual and organizational purpose; (2) Prepare the workforce to navigate change; and (3) Scale leadership development to all.

This report focuses highlights turnarounds at two Massachusetts schools, Worcester Technical High School and the Roger L. Putnam Vocational Technical Academy in Springfield, that were once known for high dropout rates and low graduation rates. The report shows that these schools now excel due to new leadership, community investment, and committed teachers. The report analyzes how Worcester Tech and Putnam Academy -- schools with high numbers of low-income and special needs students -- leapt from the bottom of Massachusetts voc-tech rankings to become leaders among local schools. The Pioneer paper includes interviews with administrators and presents several recommendations that could help transform struggling voc-tech schools.

This report summarizes the findings of MA DESE's 2020 review of the Boston Public Schools, highlighting key findings around the teaching and learning, operational, financial, and enrollment challenges the state identified. It also describes why, according to the report, BPS persistently struggles in these areas and how its struggles negatively impact students. Finally, the paper describes several options the district and the state have for rectifying the problems and helping BPS meet its constitutional and moral obligations to the students and families it serves. Ultimately, it recommends that the state place BPS in receivership, a controversial model that may be the district's best hope for recovery.

Calls for increased monitoring and evaluation of education policies and practices have not, so far, included widespread and consistent assessments of the inclusiveness of education settings. Measuring inclusion in education has proven to be a challenging exercise, due not only to the complexity and different uses of the concept, but also to its holistic nature. Indeed, measuring inclusion implies analysing a variety of policy areas within education systems, while also considering the different roles of the system, the school and the classroom. This paper discusses the application of the input-process-outcome model to the measurement of inclusion in education, and key indicators that can be adopted by education systems and schools to this end. It makes considerations relevant to policy makers when designing indicators to measure inclusion, such as the extent of their application, the constraints related to data disaggregation and the relevance of intersectional approaches to inclusion.

Research confirms that all students, including students of color and their white peers, benefit from seeing diverse teachers and school leaders working together to replace inequitable practices with school cultures anchored in respect, high expectations, and trusting relationships. This kind of leadership also creates the kind of conditions in which high-quality teachers want to stay in their roles, at their schools. School leaders who lead for equity are continuously learning and pushing themselves to grow into more effective change agents. This paper examines five proven equity-focused leadership actions that educators can start implementing in their schools. [For the executive summary of this series, "Closing the Representation Gap: A Series of Papers on Reshaping Educational Leadership for the Future," see ED625674.]

The uncertainty and disruption imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic are so extensive that they will far outlast the pandemic itself. It is difficult to scale leadership development when staff is constantly shifting and leaders are struggling just to keep up with the day-to-day challenges of their work and personal lives. HR and L&D (learning and development) professionals need tools and solutions that allow them to access research-backed content and deliver transformational development experiences across the enterprise. A strong leadership development partner can stay on top of the latest research and trends, anticipate needs, and help pivot quickly to scale large organizational changes in the timeframe needed. The key to successfully scaling leadership development is devising a strategy at the outset. Once the strategy is secured, it is imperative to have the processes and the talent in place to support the initiative and to be able to execute rapidly. When scaling leadership development, it's essential to focus on the following 3 principles presented in this white paper: (1) PLAN Your Leadership Strategy; (2) PROVIDE Access to Relevant & Flexible Leadership Content; and (3) LEVERAGE Internal and External Talent.

In assessing the current and future role of universities in the nation-states in which they are chartered and funded, it is useful to ask, When are universities societal leaders as societal and constructive change agents, and when are they followers, reinforcing the existing political order? As discussed in the book, "Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats and the Future of Higher Education," the national political history and contemporary context is the dominant factor for shaping the leadership or follower role of universities -- what I call a political determinist interpretation. We often think of contemporary universities, and their students and faculty, as catalysts for societal progress -- the Free Speech and Civil Rights movements, Vietnam War protests, the anti-Apartheid movement, Tiananmen Square, and more recently the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. Universities can be, and have been, the locus for not only educating enlightened future leaders, but also for opposing oppression and dictatorships. But universities have also proved over their history to be tools for serving the privileged, and reinforcing the social class divisions of a society; they also have been factories for errant theories that reinforce the worst of nationalist tendencies. Universities are both unique environments for educating and mentoring free thinkers, entrepreneurs, and citizens with, for example, a devotion to social change, or for creating conformists -- or all of the above. How might we assess whether universities are followers or leaders in their societies? This essay considers this question, offering a framework for evaluating the follower or leader role, and with particular attention to the emergence or, in some cases, re-emergence of neonationalist leaders and autocratic governments.

Professional societies (ProSs) are instrumental in shaping science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) cultural norms. Existing legacy structures designed to serve majority groups and constructed in service of dominant norms and values present a clear obstacle to attracting, retaining, and serving minoritized STEM professionals, such as women, particularly women with additional intersecting marginalized statuses (Solebello et al., 2016). In this perspective article, we in the Amplifying the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success project, known as ACCESS+, explain our development of an adapted diversity, equity, and inclusion assessment tool. ACCESS+ is an NSF ADVANCE Partnership that is adapting a pre-existing tool known as the Diversity and Inclusion Progression Framework, which was developed in the United Kingdom jointly by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Science Council (2021). As with the original version, the purpose of the U.S. adaptation--the Equity Environmental Scanning Tool, or EEST--is to provide STEM ProSs with a way to benchmark their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, discern areas of organizational strength, and identify foci for organizational remediation. In this piece, we share background information for EEST refinement, including content adaptations and structural changes.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional societies (ProS) are uniquely positioned to foster national-level diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) reform. ProS serve broad memberships, define disciplinary norms and culture, and inform accrediting bodies, thus providing "excellent leverage with which to design and promote change" (National Academy of Sciences et al., 2005). ProS could be instrumental in achieving the DEI culture reform necessary to optimize engagement of all STEM talent by leveraging disciplinary excellence resulting from diverse teams. Inclusive STEM culture reform requires that underlying "mental models'' be examined (Kania et al., 2018). The "Inclusive Professional Framework for Societies (IPF:Societies)" can help ProS change leaders (i.e., "boundary spanners'") and organizations identify and address mental models hindering DEI reform. "IPF:Societies" uses four "I's"--Identity awareness and Intercultural mindfulness (i.e., equity mindset) on which Inclusive relationships and Influential DEI actions are scaffolded. We discuss how "IPF:Societies" complements existing DEI tools. We explain how "IPF:Societies" can be applied to existing ProS policy and practice associated with common ProS functions (e.g., leadership, membership, conferences, awards, and professional development). Next steps are to pilot "IPF:Societies" with a cohort of STEM ProS. Ultimately, "IPF:Societies" has potential to promote more efficient, effective, and lasting DEI organizational transformation, and contribute to inclusive STEM disciplinary excellence.

This Policy Paper aims at analysing the most important aspects of Public Responsibility, Financing and Governance of Higher Educations while seeking to formulate a students perspective on the state of play within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In doing so it touches upon the very foundation of how and in which socio-political environment educational systems and higher education institutions work nowadays. The European Students' Union (ESU) believes that open access to all levels of education is the cornerstone of a socially, culturally and democratically inclusive society, and a prerequisite for individual and societal development and well-being. ESU sees higher education as a human right, which is guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. How education is seen in society, how it is funded and how it is governed are tightly interlinked areas. This policy paper focuses on: (1) Public responsibility of higher education (fundamental values; institutional autonomy and academic freedom; academic integrity; intellectual property; education for sustainable development; human rights and democratic citizenship education; digitalization, artificial intelligence, learning analytics and privacy; commodification; partnerships between higher education institutions and industry; internships; and internationalisation and international trade); (2) Financing of higher education (financing of higher education; the funding gap; optimisation of funding of higher education institutions; performance based funding; and education free of tuition fees); and (3) Governance of higher education (students participation; working conditions of academic staff; committees and ombudsmans and leadership, intersectionality and training). [For the 2016 version, see ED587168.]

This input paper presents a number of key issues and findings from recent literature on school leadership on sustainability and aims to open discussion on possible policy action in this area. For the purposes of this paper, school leaders are defined as holding a formal position of responsibility for the management of the school. School leaders are also teachers, as they are also still involved in learner development, both in and out of the classroom. 'School head' is the most senior school leadership position -- the person with overall responsibility for the pedagogical and administrative management of the school or cluster of schools. This role might also be referred to as 'head teacher', 'school principal' or 'school director'. They can also be included in the broad definition of 'school leader'.

This occasional paper is the seventh in a series on the National Quality Framework (NQF). It explores the quality of children's education and care services based on the socio-economic status of the area in which they are situated. The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to classify services by the level of relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage of their local area. This paper uses SEIFA as a proxy measure to identify services that are more or less likely to educate and care for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. This paper begins by highlighting contemporary research about the association between socio-economic status and developmental outcomes, and the impact of high quality education and care on children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. It then outlines the quality and availability of education and care in low socio-economic status areas, analysing service quality ratings and reassessment results. The paper also examines differences across service and provider management types, and remoteness classifications. The detailed analysis suggests that there are differences in the overall quality ratings of education and care services located in high and low socio-economic status areas. Services in relatively disadvantaged areas are slightly more likely to be rated Working Towards NQS and notably less likely to be rated Exceeding NQS than those in relatively advantaged areas.

When HR executives and buyers prioritize leadership development options for their senior leaders, corporate coaching is often at the top of the list. Particularly in times of profound change and disruption, executives and senior-level managers need the support of a coach who can help them filter through noise and make clear decisions that propel their organizations into the future. And with research from the International Coaching Federation (ICF) showing that 86% of organizations see an ROI on their coaching engagements, the benefits of corporate coaching are significant. But as the coaching industry continues to evolve under the influence of a 'new world of work' -- one that is increasingly digital, agile, and transformed for the post-pandemic world -- how will buyers expect corporate coaching to meet these new challenges? To lead their organizations through massive transformations, senior leaders will need coaches who are specialized -- not just in a particular industry, but on a specific topic. These specialized coaches must be familiar with relevant research and industry trends, and they must have the ability to analyze data to help leaders solve unprecedented challenges. The future will see corporate coaching that's focused on an organization's overall strategy, ultimately helping that organization achieve its mission by crafting senior leaders who are able to operate at peak performance.

This paper was written in 2018 by NCWD/Youth [National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth] to inform the development of the Guideposts for Success 2.0, an update to the original Guideposts for Success published in 2005. Since it was created in 2005, the Guideposts for Success has become nationally recognized as a valuable research-based framework to inform policies and practices designed to prepare and support youth in transition to adulthood. In 2012, NCWD/Youth began an in-depth process aimed at updating the Guideposts for Success to reflect the latest research studies and current professional standards of practice for supporting youth in transition to adulthood across multiple service systems and sectors. The process included reviewing literature related to youth transition from multiple disciplines.

Learning for Sustainability (LfS) is a key component of Scottish Education. However, policy interpretation and enactment is a complicated process and there can often be a difference between policy intentions and implementation. The following research explores how one campus (for pupils aged 2-18) in Scotland undertook a year-long all staff career long professional learning programme (CLPL) to develop a whole campus approach to Learning for Sustainability. The aim of this research project was to better understand the implications (opportunities and challenges) at a whole school / campus and teacher level when developing a whole school / campus approach to Learning for Sustainability. Three semi-structured interviews were carried out, with focus groups made up of a small group of teaching staff, members of the senior management team, as well as a follow up interview with the head teacher. A theoretical thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the data and applied to further explore the emergence of these elements from the CLPL discussion forums including contributions from all participating staff members. The three main themes identified were: collaboration and collegiality; processes of change; and attitudes to learning and to change. The study revealed a tension between the need for both teachers and management to have an identified person 'leading' the agenda, and the need for that agenda to develop in a culture of collegiately and shared responsibility. There was also an interesting contrast between deep and shallow learning for both teachers and managers. The study also provided useful learning for other organisations leading the agenda for change, which can be summarised into three key recommendations: (1) Organisational leaders should engage with suitable learning prior to developing a leadership of change model for their organisation, which includes a distributed model of leadership; (2) Methods of professional learning for all practitioners should include an engagement with reflective activities, which enables them to access deeper and more transformational learning; and (3) Large organisations should work with community-led groups and be sensitive to local contexts to establish a vision, which clearly articulates the imperative is the responsibility of all.

While more women than ever now participate in the paid workforce, it still can be hard to find women in top leadership positions. To understand why so few women are in top leadership positions, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) set out to understand what factors help women achieve leadership positions, what factors prevent it, and how organizations could add more women to their leadership ranks. In this paper, the authors raise five key questions that women should reflect on as they consider their ambitions. They summarize five key lessons that came up repeatedly in conversations with women leaders who had worked their way into leadership positions. The authors also discuss some of the changes organizations can make to increase the number of women leaders. These include policies and changes in organizational culture. Research was conducted two phases. First, the authors surveyed 204 women leaders from Singapore, Australia, India, and Korea. The authors gave them a list of reasons that might contribute to the lack of women in leadership positions and asked them to select up to five items they most agreed with and five they most disagreed with. In phase two, the authors conducted 27 face-to-face interviews with women leaders working in Singapore. Women told their personal leadership stories, shared their perspective on women leaders' career enablers and blockers, and also completed the phase 1 survey. The authors learned that there is no single reason or simple solution. Increasing the number of women in leadership positions will require aspiring women leaders to develop themselves professionally and, in some cases, adopt new behaviors. But the organizational context that women work within is also important.

State takeovers were an infrequently applied strategy to address the problems of financially and academically troubled schools for many decades. Although 23 states had the right to take over individual schools and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) required states to address persistently low-achieving schools, only five states had exercised their power by 2005. By 2006, a new state takeover model had emerged in Louisiana. Following Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, state legislation adopted in November 2005 brought the majority of the city's public schools under state Recovery School District (RSD) jurisdiction. Since 2006, the RSD has moved aggressively towards creating a portfolio management model by authorizing numerous charter management organizations (CMOs) to operate its schools. The opportunity for a more extensive state role in taking over troubled schools grew further with the announcement of the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program in 2009. RTTT required states to develop plans to turn around their lowest achieving schools. In this report, the authors examine how Michigan and Tennessee have developed and implemented plans for school turnaround districts partly inspired by Louisiana's RSD. The comparative case studies focus on Michigan's policies and involvement in Detroit schools through the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) and Tennessee's policies and involvement in Memphis schools through the Achievement School District (ASD). Although state-level, philanthropic, and charter school leaders in both states initially drew upon the RSD model, Michigan and Tennessee have diverged from the RSD--and from one another--in many respects. These differences highlight some challenges to replicating the RSD in other contexts and, more generally, raise questions about school turnarounds primarily led by networks of outside actors. The authors examine divergence in state legislation and leadership, resources (federal and philanthropic), engagement with charter schools, and district-level leadership. The EAA and ASD have faced additional challenges due to their policy and political contexts, including a city-county merger in Memphis and an ongoing fiscal crisis in Detroit. Local school leaders in both cities have also developed their own reform plans, and may be reluctant to expend political capital on controversial state-led efforts. The analysis sheds light on whether outside investment and leadership can spur sustainable reforms in urban districts. A table comparing the ASD and EAA is appended.

This literature review examines the research on early childhood education and care (ECEC) leadership and how leaders impact process quality in ECEC settings. Process quality refers to interactions and relationships between and among children and ECEC staff, and is a strong predictor of children's learning, development and well-being. Research suggests that leadership plays a central role in improving and sustaining process quality in ECEC settings. This literature review presents findings about: (1) the functions, roles and structures of leadership in ECEC settings; (2) factors that may support or hinder leadership and its effectiveness; (3) working conditions and professional development for staff; and (4) how these factors might impact process quality. The results suggest that supports for ECEC leadership may be needed to strengthen areas such as leadership recruitment, preparation and professional development, credentialing and compensation, job design and further research.

Based on a review of previous research, the paper describes the distinctive characteristics of rural areas and communities and the factors typically associated with shaping students' learning experience in rural contexts. Data from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 and the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 are analysed to examine differences in learning outcomes and education expectations between rural and urban students and to assess the extent to which challenges and opportunities in the provision of rural education are commonplace across OECD member and partner countries. To our surprise, some of the perceived challenges of providing rural education, such as an inadequate infrastructure or a lack of quality teachers, are far from universal. Rural-urban gaps in academic performance generally disappear after accounting for socio-economic status and rural students are less likely to expect completing a university degree than city students, but this gap in expectations persists even when rural students have a similar socio-economic status, on average across OECD countries. This highlights the importance of raising aspirations and creating opportunities for rural students. The paper concludes with ideas for policy and country experiences that governments may consider to ensure high quality learning for students in rural contexts.

The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 is an international survey of staff and centre leaders working in early childhood education and care (ECEC), administered in ECEC centres belonging to ISCED Level 0.2, and, as an option, centres providing services for children under the age of 3. The Conceptual Framework provides an integrated theoretical and analytical underpinning to the survey that articulates its research foci and links to existing knowledge and evidence and policy questions. The key themes include those mainly concerned with: ECEC staff-child interaction (process quality of staff-child interaction and monitoring and assessment of children's development, well-being and learning); ECEC centre characteristics (structural quality characteristics, pedagogical and administrative leadership, climate, and stakeholder relations); ECEC leader and staff characteristics (background and initial preparation, professional development, well-being, professional beliefs about children's development, well-being and learning, and self-efficacy); and the cross-cutting theme of equity and diversity in the child group.

We study the relationship between school organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement in New York City (NYC) middle schools. Using factor analysis, we construct measures of four distinct dimensions of school contexts captured on the annual NYC School Survey. We identify credible estimates by isolating variation in organizational contexts within schools over time. We find that improvements in school leadership, academic expectations, teacher relationships, and school safety are all independently associated with corresponding reductions in teacher turnover. Increases in school safety and academic expectations for students also correspond to increases in student achievement. These results are robust to a range of potential threats to validity, suggesting that our findings are likely driven by an underlying causal relationship. The following is appended: Raw Factor Loadings for School Context Dimensions.