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.

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.]

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.

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 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 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 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.

This article examines institutional and demographic variables associated with successful joint partnerships between US and Chinese institutions of higher education. Understanding those variables requires an appreciation of overarching issues or catalysts bringing both nations together and, as well, how postsecondary environments differ and the implications of such differences for success. The authors do not assume complete alignment in the interests promoting cooperation between the U. S. and China, but a convergence of mutual interests. The paper discusses different operational realities leading to partnerships between smaller private and larger public institutions and the authors identify factors (forces promoting cooperation, need for alignment in organizational infrastructure, faculty support and what are referred to as "administrative nuts and bolts") associated with meaningful and long term agreements. Although it may sound trite, this paper argues an essential ingredient for success is leadership, but not in the traditional sense of the word as it is often used in academic environments. Leadership in this context entails using power and influence to change the status quo and assign resources to new ventures. The essay further argues that absent faculty support (which goes hand in hand with resources for faculty), partnerships will not flourish. Finally, the role of an "internal advocate" i.e., one who has the requisite organizational authority and stature, who can overcome organizational inertia, petty territorial jealousies and legitimize international cooperation using, in the best and fullest sense of the word, the "support" of the President or Chancellor, and sometimes the governing board, is fundamental to success. Bibliographic sources are provided.

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.

It's a familiar if not fully explained paradigm. A "World Class University" (WCU) is supposed to have highly ranked research output, a culture of excellence, great facilities, and a brand name that transcends national borders. But perhaps most importantly, the particular institution needs to sit in the upper echelons of one or more world rankings generated each year by non-profit and for-profit entities. That is the ultimate proof for many government ministers and for much of the global higher education community. Or is it? It is not that current rankings are not useful and informative. The problem is that they represent a very narrow band of what it means to be a leading, or what might be best called a "Flagship" university within a region, within a nation. Further, WCU advocates do not provide much guidance, or knowledge, on what organizational behaviors and methods can lead to greater productivity in research, teaching, "and" public service that can best help universities meet the needs of the societies they must serve. In this essay I attempt to advocate the notion of the "Flagship University" as a more relevant ideal--a model for public institutions, and perhaps some private institutions, one that could replace, or perhaps supplement and alter the perceptions, behaviors, and goals of ministries and universities in their drive for status and influence on society. It is a model that does not ignore international standards of excellence focused largely on research productivity, but is grounded in national and regional service, and with a specific set of characteristics and responsibilities that, admittedly, do not lend themselves to ranking regimes. Indeed, one goal here is to articulate a path, using the language of the "Flagship University," that de-emphasizes rankings and that helps broaden the focus beyond research to relevancy and responsibility. "Flagship Universities" are research-intensive institutions, or in the process of becoming so, but have wider recognized goals. The great challenge for the network of universities that are truly leaders in their own national higher education systems is to shape their missions and, ultimately, to meaningfully expand their role in the societies that gave them life and purpose. The "Flagship University" profile explored here includes an outline of mission, culture, and operational features, and is intended as a possible construct for this cause. An appendix presents the Assigned Characteristics of a WCU.

The Community Engagement Classification is an elective classification offered by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In order to be classified, campuses provide evidence documenting engagement through an application process. Campuses were classified in 2006, 2008, and 2010, and will be classified on five-year cycles from 2015 onward. (Information about the classification can be found on the Carnegie Foundation website.) This mixed-methods, two-part study sought to discover how institutions that received the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification in 2010 approached their application process and to examine the longer term outcomes of that process. How did they undertake a "full inventory" of their community engagement efforts, and what were the outcomes of undertaking such an inventory, beyond receiving the Classification? The study had two purposes: (a) To document the strategies and methods used by successful applicants for the 2010 Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, and (b) to document the cultural shifts experienced by institutions as they developed their successful applications for this Classification.

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures"™ in Education program in Stamford Public Schools (SPS). The purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Stamford Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures"™: (1) Internal constituency engagement: The district engages stakeholders at all levels of the system, and establishes common vision and buy-in for improvement efforts; (2) External constituency engagement: The district engages partner organizations and institutions, parents and the community; and effectively communicates about reform efforts; (3) Curriculum and instruction: The district communicates and supports a system­-wide vision for instructional improvement; (4) Professional development for instruction: The district delivers high-­quality professional development on curriculum, instruction, standards, and assessment; (5) Professional development for leadership: The district delivers high-quality professional development on leadership or management; (6) Management capacity: The district collects and uses data, attracts and develops talent, and evaluates staff performance; and (7) Evaluation: The district monitors and evaluates reform efforts. These seven reform elements were identified through a review of GEF program materials and documentation, and through a close analyses of each districts' reform trajectory over the life of the grant. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas. Each area was decomposed into a set of more specific, observable characteristics. Research instruments were designed to elicit evidence of these characteristics in descriptions of central office processes, functions, or overall capacity. Ratings were then assigned to each characteristic based on the prevalence of available evidence using a three-point scale. This report provides ratings for SPS for each indicator and its component characteristics, along with qualitative and survey evidence illustrating and supporting the ratings. Overall, SPS implemented strategies to address each of the indicators discussed in this report: Internal Constituency Engagement, External Constituency Engagement, Curriculum & Instruction, Professional Development-Instructional, Professional Development-Leadership, Management Capacity, and Evaluation. Progress in each of these indicators varied, with the district meeting with greater success in some areas than in others.

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures" ™ in Education program in Erie Public Schools (EPS). As described in the CPRE proposal and research design, the purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Erie Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures" ™. They include: (1) Internal constituency engagement. The district engages stakeholders at all levels of the system, and establishes common vision and buy-­in for improvement efforts. (2) External constituency engagement. The district engages partner organizations and institutions, parents and the community; and effectively communicates about reform efforts. (3) Curriculum and instruction. The district communicates and supports a system-­wide vision for instructional improvement. (4) Professional development for instruction. The district delivers high-quality professional development on curriculum, instruction, standards or assessment. (5) Professional development for leadership. The district delivers high-­quality professional development on leadership or management. (6) Management capacity. The district collects and uses data, attracts and develops talent, and evaluates staff performance. (7) Evaluation. The district monitors and evaluates reform efforts. These seven reform elements were identified through a review of GEF program materials and documentation, and through a close analyses of each districts' reform trajectory over the life of the grant. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas.

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures"™ in Education program in Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS). The purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Cincinnati Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures"™: (1) Internal constituency engagement; (2) External constituency engagement; (3) Curriculum and instruction; (4) Professional development for instruction; (5) Professional development for leadership; (6) Management capacity; and (7) Evaluation. These seven reform elements were identified through a review of GEF program materials and documentation, and through a close analyses of each districts' reform trajectory over the life of the grant. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas. Each area was decomposed into a set of more specific, observable characteristics. Research instruments were designed to elicit evidence of these characteristics in descriptions of central office processes, functions, or overall capacity. Ratings were then assigned to each characteristic based on the prevalence of available evidence using a three-point scale: (1) Strong implementation; (2) Moderate implementation; and (3) Weak implementation. This report provides ratings for CPS for each indicator and its component characteristics, along with qualitative and survey evidence illustrating and supporting the ratings. Overall, CPS has made significant progress in building system-­wide capacity for instructional improvement by facilitating collaboration, involving all stakeholders in planning and decision-­making, clarifying instructional expectations, and building a robust professional development system. The evidence suggests that instructional practice remains inconsistent in some cases, and that shifting standards and summative assessments pose a challenge for alignment and coherence.

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.

In recent years, "continuous improvement" has become a popular catchphrase in the field of education. However, while continuous improvement has become commonplace and well-documented in other industries, such as healthcare and manufacturing, little is known about how this work has manifested itself in education. This white paper attempts to map the landscape of this terrain by identifying and describing organizations engaged in continuous improvement, and by highlighting commonalities and differences among them. The findings classify three types of organizations engaged in continuous improvement: those focused on instructional improvement at the classroom level; those concentrating on system-wide improvement; and those addressing collective impact. Each type is described in turn and illustrated by an organizational case study. Through the analysis, six common themes that characterize all three types of organizations (e.g., leadership and strategy, communication and engagement, organizational infrastructure, methodology, data collection and analysis, and building capacity) are enumerated. This white paper makes four concluding observations. First, the three case studies provide evidence of organizations conducting continuous improvement work in the field of education, albeit at different levels and in different ways. Second, entry points to continuous improvement work are not mutually exclusive, but are nested and, hence, mutually informative and comparative. Third, continuous improvement is not synonymous with improving all organizational processes simultaneously; rather, research and learning cycles are iterative and gradual in nature. Fourth, despite being both iterative and gradual, it is imperative that improvement work is planned and undertaken in a rigorous, thoughtful, and transparent fashion. The following are appended: (1) Selected Continuous Improvement Methodologies; (2) Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework; (3) Examples of Improvement Artifacts from the School District of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin; (4) Examples of Improvement Artifacts from Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland; and (5) Examples of Improvement Artifacts from Strive Partnership Cincinnati.

For a long time, leaders have asked the question, where will the next generation of leaders come from? And for a long time the same formula has been applied: Identify those high potentials in high school, college or in the workforce and provide that select group leadership development opportunities. One focus of the Leadership Beyond Boundaries initiative is early leadership development. But what do we mean by "early"? One answer the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) has been hearing for years comes from senior leaders, as they leave CCL programs wishing they had been able to benefit from a leadership development experience much earlier in their lives. Couple this statement with comments from youth, leadership development practitioners (Van Velsor, 2011), principals, and educators in schools and universities and a fairly consistent theme begins to emerge--that leadership development could occur much earlier and be provided to a broader audience. Prompted by this theme of earlier and broader leadership development initiatives the authors began to ask several questions. When should leadership development start? What are the most important competencies to focus on in developing young leaders? Do current leaders see young people as having what is needed for success? Have young people been able to develop the competencies organizations need in their entry-level workforce or that they will need to lead organizations and society forward? What impact would a broad investment in younger audiences have? Would it help them learn more about themselves and others, and propel them on an increased path of purpose and impact? A subset of these important questions was the focus of a 2012 CCL Leadership Insights survey, the results of which are summarized in this paper. This online survey of business, government, nonprofit, and education leaders focused on: 1) the age a young person should commence his or her leadership journey, 2) whether leadership development should be part of the regular educational curriculum, 3) how widely it should be offered, 4) leadership qualities that managers want to see in young people entering the workforce, and 5) what excites managers and what concerns them about the young people they employ today. (Contains 2 resources.

Although academia is becoming more like business in many respects--not all of them positive--it has not borrowed one of the best attributes of business culture: its tradition of developing leadership through succession planning. As a result, much talent is underutilized. This includes, most prominently, that of women and minorities, who tend not to be perceived as leadership material. This paper makes a distinction between two levels of academic administrators: deans and above, who are professional administrators, and department chairs and below, who could be characterized as casual administrators, since all faculty members engage in managerial activities as directors of academic programs, principal investigators of grants, committee members or chairs. In Clark Kerr's terminology, casual administrators are members of the guild, while professional administrators are members of the corporation. At present, women and minorities are having considerable trouble moving from the guild to the corporation. This paper proposes that the connection between the guild and the corporation be strengthened and become more of a two-way street. As William J. Rothwell suggests, people should have dual-career ladders and be able to move back and forth between academic and managerial jobs. Such problems as recency bias, the halo or horn effect, the Pygmalion effect, and pigeonholing must be addressed head on. This will require courage, imagination and training. A bibliography is included.

To increase student learning and achievement, more and more states are pursuing reforms in "both" early care and education (ECE) programs and the K-12 education system. Many states are implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to promote all students' readiness for college and careers, while engaging in reforms prompted by the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTTT-ELC) grant competition to expand children's access to high-quality programs for early learning. Ideally, these initiatives would support and reinforce each other's goals and approaches to education--especially across the birth-to-grade 3 continuum, when research shows children acquire critical skills for academic success. Well-aligned ECE and K-12 reforms and policies would enable states to develop common expectations on what children need to know and be able to do as they transition from early childhood programs to the primary grades. Unfortunately, in most cases, aligning reforms in the early learning and K-12 systems is challenging. Typically, these efforts are led by different state entities and policymakers with limited knowledge of one another's goals and strategies. ECE and K-12 leaders also tend to have different approaches to teaching and learning and even different beliefs about the objectives. As policymakers who have the responsibility for the well-being and education of children of all ages, governors are uniquely situated to bring state agencies together and develop a coordinated strategy to align ECE and K-12 policies so they better serve all children, starting at birth. Doing so requires leaders from both systems to analyze what their respective goals, approaches, and reform strategies have in common and how they differ. This process can help governors, their staff, and other state policy leaders develop concrete action steps that promote greater alignment of ECE and K-12 reforms in key areas: (1) Leadership and Governance; (2) Learning Standards; (3) Child Assessments; (4) Accountability; (5) Teacher/Leader Preparation and Professional Development; and (6) Resource Allocation and Reallocation. (Contains 23 endnotes and 4 resources.)

The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify and describe some of the dimensions of scientific collaborations using high throughput computing (HTC) through the lens of a virtual team performance framework. A secondary purpose was to assess the viability of using a virtual team performance framework to study scientific collaborations using HTC. The authors chose to study two scientific collaborations, IceCube and the "Laboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics" (LMCG), that differed across a number of characteristics such as membership size, research purpose, and range of scientific disciplines. The authors adapted an IPO ("input-process-output") framework developed from a synthesis of virtual team performance studies (Powell et al., 2004), using it as the basis for their analysis of virtual teams using HTC. The IPO model offers unconstrained conceptual categories, facilitating an exploratory approach to specifying the dimensions of virtual team performance. The virtual team performance framework appears to be a viable tool for studying collaboration in distributed cyberinfrastructure teams. The responses of focus group participants fit within IPO framework categories, with the exception of "communication" and "cohesion". The group discussions related to communication and cohesion focused on communication technologies, coordination, and culture rather on the specifics of communication and cohesion in the team. It is possible that the retrospective character of focus group discussion is not conducive to capturing these elements; observation of group processes over time and in different settings might be more promising. Two new subcategories emerged within the design category: leadership and membership size. However, more research is needed to expand and eventually validate key performance dimensions across various types of teams. This work demonstrates some potential application to education reform. HTC is an extremely fault-tolerant system--that is, it performs well without significant human intervention or interaction--and school district systems such as data warehousing, accountability reporting, video encoding or re-encoding, and analytics (e.g., business intelligence in dashboards) need to be fault-tolerant and update regularly. One of the challenges facing districts is that their current infrastructure designs are outmoded, while at the same time they have a growing need to implement longitudinal data systems to collect, manage, and use student, school, and teacher data (Thorn, Meyer, & Gameron, 2007). HTC has the capacity to handle the demands for parallel processing and robust systems--core aspects of sound education infrastructure. Focus Group Protocol is appended. (Contains 1 figure, 5 tables and 4 footnotes.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the Children First Fund: The Chicago Public Schools Foundation and the New York City Teacher Data Initiative.]

Digital textbooks will soon be part of every classroom in the United States. This trend accompanies an imperative for schools to facilitate 21st century learning in which educators prepare students to learn and live productively in a global society where accurate and current information is a meaningful part of everyday learning. As technology and the Internet have gained presence in classrooms, instructional materials and activities have become digitally rich. The use of digital textbooks is rapidly gaining ground in education. While colleges and universities have moved headlong into digital textbooks as a means to reduce costs for students, K-12 education is venturing cautiously, but steadily, into using digital textbooks. State laws, many of which have been rewritten to include digital content as an acceptable use of state textbook funding, will serve as catalysts that spur the transition to digital textbooks School librarians can provide school-wide leadership to assist students, teachers, and parent concerns when transitioning to digital textbooks. Working in collaboration with teachers, school librarians promote comprehension through questioning, clarifying, seeking meaning, and discussion. Digital textbooks may represent a way to continue advocacy for the importance of reading as well as for the school librarian's leadership role in technology integration. (Contains 2 tables.) [This report was produced by the Florida State University PALM (Partnerships Advancing Library Media) Center.]

The purpose of this briefing paper is to conceptualize a social responsibility and public policy agenda for Montgomery College. The briefing paper provides (a) a well researched perspective to embed a College culture to actualize social responsibility and public policy as institutional practices; (b) examines some of the opportunities and challenges of such an agenda based on a past College initiative; (c) discusses the epistemology and pedagogy of outreach, social responsibility, and public policy; and (d) proposes an organizational structure for establishing an Institute or Center at the College to shepherd a social responsibility and public policy agenda. (Contains 2 figures.)