Search

Delivering training in regional, rural and remote (RRR) Australia is not easy. Australia is a large, diverse country, and ensuring that training is suited to individual locations, which are unique in their landscapes, economies, industries and cultures, is challenging. There is an ongoing policy interest in making sure that the vocational education and training (VET) sector is serving the needs of regional, rural and remote Australia. VET has a key role to play in regional development through its dual function of developing individuals and providing skills to industry. This research investigates how the training sector could better meet the needs of regional, rural and remote (RRR) Australia. It explores how various stakeholders in the vocational education and training (VET) system understand local skills needs, along with the barriers faced by registered training organisations (RTOs) when delivering training in such locations.

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. Eight public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2021-2022. The eight colleges included: Casper College, Central Wyoming College, Eastern Wyoming College, Laramie County Community College, Northern Wyoming Community College, Northwest College, Sheridan College, and Western Wyoming Community College. The partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational (P-12 Education, University of Wyoming and Other Higher Education); (2) Community Participation (Community Organizations, Cultural, Human Services, Non-Profit Organizations, and Professional Organizations); and (3) Regional Development (Business and Industry, Economic Development, Workforce Training, and Government--Local, State, Federal). [For the 2021 report, see ED624687.]

The Framework is designed to support workforce boards in building regional data capacity to identify, coordinate, and track the impact of regional activities. In addition, the Framework outlines how workforce boards can strategically align to statewide goals focused on increasing equitable upward mobility. Demonstrating equitable economic growth requires the identification of key terms including equity, inclusion, and job quality, as well as associated metrics and a data infrastructure plan to ensure sustainability across mutually reinforcing investments. The California Framework for Regional Plan Implementation breaks down key decisions and provides conversation guides, a menu of metrics, and case studies to support workforce boards and their state leaders in implementing inclusive economic advancement for all Californians. [This report was produced by JFF for the California Workforce Development Board and the 15 Regional Planning Units.]

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. Seven public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2020/2021. The seven colleges included: Casper College, Central Wyoming College, Eastern Wyoming College, Laramie County Community College, Northern Wyoming Community College, Northwest College, and Western Wyoming Community College. The partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational (P-12 Education, University of Wyoming and Other Higher Education); (2) Community Participation (Community Organizations, Cultural, Human Services, Non-Profit Organizations, and Professional Organizations); and (3) Regional Development (Business and Industry, Economic Development, Workforce Training, and Government--Local, State, Federal). [For the 2020 report, see ED624686.]

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. Seven public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2019/2020. The seven colleges included: Casper College, Central Wyoming College, Eastern Wyoming College, Laramie County Community College, Northern Wyoming Community College, Northwest College, and Western Wyoming Community College. The partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational (P-12 Education, University of Wyoming and Other Higher Education); (2) Community Participation (Community Organizations, Cultural, Human Services, Non-Profit Organizations, and Professional Organizations); and (3) Regional Development (Business and Industry, Economic Development, Workforce Training, and Government--Local, State, Federal). [For the 2019 report, see ED609702.]

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. Seven public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2018. The seven colleges included: Casper College, Central Wyoming College, Eastern Wyoming College, Laramie County Community College, Northern Wyoming Community College, Northwest College, and Western Wyoming Community College. The partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational (P-12 Education, University of Wyoming and Other Higher Education); (2) Community Participation (Community Organizations, Cultural, Human Services, Non-Profit Organizations, and Professional Organizations); and (3) Regional Development (Business and Industry, Economic Development, Workforce Training, and Government--Local, State, Federal). [For the 2018 report, see ED590835.]

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. Seven public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2017. The seven college partnerships include: Casper College, Central Wyoming College, Eastern Wyoming College, Laramie County Community College, Northern Wyoming Community College, Northwest College, and Western Wyoming Community College. These partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational (P-12 Education, University of Wyoming and Other Higher Education); (2) Community Participation (Community Organizations, Cultural, Human Services, Non-Profit Organizations, and Professional Organizations); and (3) Regional Development (Business and Industry, Economic Development, Workforce Training, and Government--Local, State, Federal). [For the 2017 report, see ED590836.]

A singular vision has propelled higher education and ministries of education in Asia since the new millennium. It is a vision launched by the once rising tide of a globalized world order that spilled into higher education: in order to be competitive on the world scene, each Asian country had to build "World Class Universities," which could be compared and rank-ordered with the pre-eminent research universities of America, Britain and elsewhere. And if the pre-eminent American and British research universities could not be quickly surpassed, punctuated jumps up the status ladder of global higher education would establish an "heir-apparent" trajectory. Now, however, the rising tide of globalism has perhaps crested. Indeed, as some scholars of globalism and higher education point out, in certain aspects of national policy the rising tide is turning into a receding one. Nation-states are recoiling from an elite-driven, transnational world order into an "inside economy" that is concerned with its own issues of development and sustainability, quite apart from measuring itself against the rest of the world. In time, higher education in Asia is likely to follow suit. Globalism created the vision of "World Class Universities" ranked in an imitative hierarchical order; its demise suggests the need for other ideals that can drive the quest for excellence in higher education in Asia. The bedrock of educational quality for the New Flagship University in Asia is excellence in all of the forms of knowledge and understanding of human experience. The stronger the excellence in each form, the better the university's earned standing amongst its peers. But this is not a relative relationship, like the World Rankings, where worth is measured against other institutions in a game of winners and losers. Rather, it is measurement against the standards of excellence inherent in each form itself.

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. Seven public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2017. The seven college partnerships include: Casper College, Central Wyoming College, Eastern Wyoming College, Laramie County Community College, Northern Wyoming Community College, Northwest College, and Western Wyoming Community College. These partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational (P-12 Education, University of Wyoming and Other Higher Education); (2) Community Participation (Community Organizations, Cultural, Human Services, Non-Profit Organizations, and Professional Organizations); and (3) Regional Development (Business and Industry, Economic Development, Workforce Training, and Government--Local, State, Federal). [For the 2016 report, see ED573118.]

This report examines the structure of school transportation systems, the surrounding regulatory landscape, school transportation funding mechanisms, student safety, the impact of school choice, the growing need for school transportation data, and school transportation's effect on the environment. Drawing from these various perspectives, it asks whether the traditional system of district-provided school transportation is the best way to get kids to school in different district contexts, explores potential alternatives, and analyzes the practical and policy barriers and incentives around student transportation.

Through the collaboration of its business and academic partners, the Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF) launched the National Higher Education and Workforce Initiative (HEWI) to support business-higher education partnerships that co-design innovative community college and university pathways to careers, as well as maximize work-based learning for students to increase transfers, degree attainment, and connections to living-wage jobs. This case study examines how BHEF members, Washington University in St. Louis (Washington University) and The Boeing Company (Boeing), are collaborating with St. Louis Community College (STLCC) and the University of Missouri in St. Louis (UMSL) to develop a diverse regional engineering talent ecosystem.

The "Annual Partnership Report" catalogs partnerships that Wyoming community colleges established and maintained for each fiscal year. This partnership report fulfills statutory reporting requirement W.S. 21-18-202(e)(iv) which mandates the development of annual reports to the legislature on the outcomes of partnerships between colleges and the University of Wyoming and other entities. Each community college partner maintains numerous partnerships for the development and provision of academic, occupational-technical, workforce development, and enrichment educational programs. These partnerships are essential for colleges to meet higher educational needs of Wyoming's citizens and communities. The seven public Wyoming community colleges provided information for ten of their major partnerships during academic year 2015. The seven college partnerships include: Casper College; Central Wyoming College; Eastern Wyoming College; Laramie County Community College; Northern Wyoming Community College; Northwest College; and Western Wyoming Community College. These partnerships were divided into three partnering categories as follows: (1) Educational: P-12 Education; University of Wyoming; and Other Higher Education; (2) Community Participation: Community Organizations; Cultural; Human Services; Non-Profit Organizations; and Professional Organizations; and (3) Regional Development: Business and Industry; Economic Development; Workforce Training; and Government--Local, State, Federal.

For more than one hundred and fifty years, until 2008, California was an undisputed national leader in its commitment to adult education. The state's investment in adult learners topped $750 million, a sum greater than the combined total of every other state in the nation. However, for the past several years recession and fiscal crisis have left adult education battered and underfunded. Since the late 1960s California's adult education system has been shared between the K-12 adult schools (K-12 Adult) and the community colleges. This governance structure exists with little coordination or alignment of policy and practice. Institutional practices impede the transition of students from basic skills courses into postsecondary education and training programs. In response, the 2013-14 Assembly Bill 86, Section 76, Article 3 (AB 86) charged the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office with jointly implementing a planning process to integrate and improve adult education. The legislation appropriated $25 million to distribute to 70 regional consortia, composed of at least one community college and one K-12 district, as well as other partners, to assess their regions and develop shared plans. Under the leadership of State Superintendent Tom Torlakson and Chancellor Brice W. Harris, the CDE and Chancellor's Office engaged in a collaborative effort, created a Cabinet, appointed a Work Group, and established the principles that would guide the two year planning process: transparency, inclusion, and a focus on students. The unified response and commitment to creating an improved adult education system was shared by both the CDE and the Chancellor's Office. As directed by AB 86, this report details the needs that emerged from the 70 consortia's reports and the joint recommendations of the CDE and the Chancellor's Office. Senate Bill 173 (Liu) also required this report to address the following in the provision of adult education through the K-12 Adult and community college systems: accountability; assessment, evaluation, and data collection; and fees. The recommendations in this report are designed to strengthen the foundation for a new adult education system in California. Maps containing enrollment data submitted by the seventy AB 86 consortia in their 12/31/2015 reports for the 2012-13 school year are appended.

This report constructs a model public agenda to address the mounting challenges facing California higher education. It is intended to inspire broad discussion potentially leading to an official public agenda for California higher education. The report describes some of the structural barriers that are preventing more dramatic progress in meeting California's needs. The model public agenda envisions region-based planning and heightened collaboration at the regional level, guided by effective state-level policy leadership. (A list of resources is included.) [For accompanying reports, "State Policy Leadership in Higher Education: Six Case Studies," see ED574483 and "Average Won't Do: Performance Trends in California Higher Education as a Foundation for Action," see ED574485.]

The promise of a public education is that all students will have access to high-quality learning opportunities. Accomplishing this requires collective and coherent action to increase system effectiveness and produce results that are not predictable by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. On December 10, 2013, education stakeholders from around the Northwest and Pacific gathered at Education Northwest in Portland, Oregon, to participate in a forum to prioritize equity needs in these regions. Sponsored by Education Northwest, the Region X Equity Assistance Center, and the Northwest Comprehensive Center, the event marked the first-ever convening of leaders from across all of these jurisdictions. The forum aimed to identify common equity related issues, establish a regional agenda to collaboratively address the most critical issues, build regional relationships, and engage in ongoing dialogue with other educational leaders. This document captures the rich discussions from that day of learning and sharing, and demonstrates education and community leaders' renewed commitment to collective and coherent action for educational equity across the Pacific and Northwest. The following are appended: (1) Participants; (2) Participating Staff; and (3) Education Statistics in the Northwest and Pacific Regions.

On December 6, 2012, UC Berkeley's Center for Cities & Schools, in collaboration with the California Department of Education, California Department of Public Health, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Strategic Growth Council, and Health in All Policies Task Force, brought together leaders from across California to discuss the alignment of important policy agendas: ensuring high-quality, opportunity-rich schools in healthy, sustainable communities. This brief presents the key themes: (1) Collective Success Demands Collaboration; (2) Regional Planning Processes Help to Overcome Structural Barriers to Collaboration; and (3) School Facilities Lack a Sustainable Funding Source, but the Resulting Changes Will Present Opportunities from the conversation and outlines next steps: (1) Leverage the update of municipal General Plan Guidelines by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research; (2) Leverage the review and update of Title 5 (CA Code of Regulations on school facilities) by the California Department of Education; (3) Provide resources for local school districts on SB 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategies; (4) Leverage the inter-agency efforts of the Health in All Policies Task Force; and (5) Inform the State Allocation Board review of the School Facilities Program identified by participants.

The United States has posted more than 100 consecutive months of net job gains since the economic recovery began in 2010, making this the longest expansion in seven decades. Yet, for many, wage growth has lagged, leaving many families economically insecure. Meanwhile, job and economic growth continue to accrue in select corners of the nation, leading to disparate economic and social outcomes across the country. This uneven progress reflects, in part, a nation grappling with an accelerating pace of change. Powerful new technologies have enhanced people's and firms' ability to achieve unprecedented productivity and have made the global economy more interconnected than ever. At the same time, these forces are making some skills and knowledge obsolete. As demand for specific knowledge and skills rises, the people and places that can meet these demands thrive, while others lose ground. The main objectives of this report are to: (1) Review the main underlying causes of structural change in the national labor market--from automation to digitalization to global competition--and the nature of the policy responses to date in addressing these challenges; (2) Propose a tailored approach to helping policymakers and companies bring economic growth to their regions by applying data-driven network analytics to reveal industry and city growth patterns within the U.S.; and (3) Demonstrate how the network analytics approach can inform local economic development strategies that foster growth and good jobs through four city-specific case studies: Nashville, TN; St. Louis, MO; South Bend, IN; and Boise, ID. [This report is a collaboration between the Center for Universal Education and the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. Support from the MasterCard Center for Inclusive Growth.]

This policy brief presents some basic facts about the retention of recent college graduates and changes in retention over time, updating an earlier report on this topic. It shows, for example, how New England compares with other Census divisions, what factors affect its ability to retain graduates, and the reasons why recent college graduates choose to leave New England. These findings can help policymakers, business leaders, and college officials weigh the effectiveness of policy options and collective actions aimed at retaining recent college graduates. [This brief updates the findings from an earlier report NEPPC research report 08-1: "The Future of the Skilled Labor Force in New England: The Supply of Recent College Graduates," by Alicia C. Sasser.]

Today, the U.S. Department of Education joins the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, the American Commonwealth Partnership, and the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools in a new national call to action to infuse and enhance civic learning and democratic engagement for all students throughout the American education system. The Department is broadly supportive of the five priorities for action that these groups have developed. In abbreviated form, those priorities are: (1) Advancing civic learning and democratic engagement in both the U.S. and global contexts by encouraging efforts to make them core expectations for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students--including undergraduate and graduate students; (2) Developing more robust evidence of civic and other student achievement outcomes of civic learning, and of the impact of school- and campus-community partnerships; (3) Strengthening school- and campus-community connections to address significant community problems and advance a local or regional vision and narrative for civic engagement; (4) Expanding research and the range of public scholarship, with a special emphasis on promoting knowledge creation for the good of society; and (5) Deepening civic identity by sharing stories of civic work in social media and organizing deliberative discussions about the roles of higher education in communities across the country, and by creating initiatives in science, arts, and other fields to catalyze civic agency. In this report, the Department outlines directions for advancing civic learning and democratic engagement from grade school to graduate school, with special attention to the federal role and civic learning in higher education. It concludes by proposing nine steps that the Department can take to help expand and elevate civic learning. A bibliography is included. (Contains 3 footnotes.)

As rapid change threatens to outpace the skills of an ageing workforce and Europe developed towards a knowledge based society, the European Union, other European countries and the social partners have worked together to establish a policy framework for modernising education and training. In vocational education and training (VET), the EU has developed a platform for voluntary cooperation and coordination between Member States called the Copenhagen process. Under the Copenhagen process, Member States, with the social partners, have established common European tools and principles, namely the: (1) European qualifications framework (EQF); (2) the European credit system for VET (ECVET); (3) Europass; (4) European quality assurance framework for VET (EQAVET); (5) principles and guidelines for identifying and validating non-formal and informal learning; and (6) principles on lifelong guidance and counselling. These tools and principles constitute an integrated framework, the impact of which depends on their consistency and how they interact. Their implementation will increase transparency of qualifications, support mobility and benefit citizens by providing a systematic way to validate and document their knowledge, skills and competence. (Contains 3 boxes and 1 footnote.)

The powerful, reciprocal connection between school and housing segregation has long been recognized. The housing-school link was a key element in both the 1968 Kerner Commission Report and in the legislative history of the Fair Housing Act. The relation of school and housing segregation was also explored in a series of school desegregation cases beginning in the 1970s. Yet in spite of Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) duty to "affirmatively further fair housing," and the parallel "compelling government interest" in the reduction of school segregation, there have been few examples of effective coordination between housing and school policy in the intervening years. Instead, for most of the past 40 years, efforts to promote housing and school integration have proceeded along separate tracks. This report grew out of a "Research and Policy Roundtable" discussion sponsored by PRRAC in February 2011 that included leadership and staff from several divisions at Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education, along with representatives from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. In the six months since the roundtable concluded, HUD and USDOE have made some progress in linking school and housing integration policy, but much more needs to be done, and hopefully this report will continue this important dialogue. This report is divided into four main parts: (1) The "Reciprocal Relationship" Between Integrated Housing and Education; (2) The Housing Voucher Program as a Bridge to Better Schools; (3) Sustainable Communities and Choice Neighborhoods: Coordinating Schools, Housing and Transportation Planning in Support of Racial and Economic Integration; and (4) Conclusion and Policy Recommendations. Each part contains related articles. Each article contains figures, tables and endnotes.

The first-ever U. S. Department of Education summit on sustainability, "Sustainability Education Summit: Citizenship and Pathways for a Green Economy," was held on Sept. 20-21, 2010, in Washington, D.C. The Sustainability Education Summit (the Summit) brought together leaders from higher education, business and industry, labor, government, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to build shared visions and strategies for education's role in developing a sustainable and green economy. The Summit was mandated by the 110th Congress in the "Higher Education Opportunity Act" (Public Law 110-315, enacted Aug. 14, 2008). The overall goal of the Summit was to articulate a set of action steps for education, business and industry, government, and the environmental community to promote the transition to a sustainable, green economy. The dual themes of citizenship and pathways acknowledged that sustainability is valued in education both as a motivator for responsible behavior and as a factor in preparing tomorrow's workforce to meet the economic imperatives for sustainable industries. To capture the key points from thought leaders at the plenary and panel sessions and the actionable recommendations resulting from the breakout group sessions, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned this proceedings report. The information from this report was taken from notes, speeches, and transcripts of the plenary and panel sessions. The challenges and recommendations were taken from flipchart notes used in the breakout sessions. This report provides a brief synopsis of the Summit and is broken into three major sections, which include: (1) Brief descriptions of all Summit plenary and panel sessions, including highlights from key speakers; (2) Documentation of the challenges and barriers to advancing sustainability and sustainability education, as identified by groups in the breakout sessions; and (3) Specific actionable recommendations identified by the breakout groups. (Contains 7 endnotes.)

This report presents the deliberations of the Southeast Regional Advisory Committee (RAC), one of 10 RACs established by the U.S. Department of Education, identifying educational challenges across the six states in the region: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina. Committee deliberations took place May 23, 2011, through June 20, 2011, during which time the RAC members considered input from professional practice groups, public comments, and their own experiences and expertise. The Southeast RAC members noted that each challenge identified affects multiple stakeholders and represented multiple needs. To outline coordinated strategies for technical assistance to meet these needs, the RAC organized the highest priority stakeholder needs into three cross-cutting challenge categories: Providing customized instruction for all students; integrating appropriate, research-based practices into classrooms; and placing and retaining qualified and quality teachers in the most challenged and rural classrooms. Southeast RAC members recommended specific technical assistance to meet the needs for each category, and strongly advocate a global and coordinated approach to meet the interrelated needs and sustain systemic change. The RAC further believes that all the action items together form a cohesive, strategic approach to meet the overall challenges, and that such a strategic approach should inform any future assistance programs or centers provided by the U.S. Department of Education to the Southeast region. The cross-cutting challenges, priority needs, and the recommendations for technical assistance for the Southeast region are presented. Appended are: (1) Glossary of Abbreviations; (2) Regional Profile; (3) Challenges and Needs Identified by Southeast RAC; and (4) Public Comments. (Contains 4 figures, 25 tables and 6 footnotes.)

In this paper, the author describes an ethnographic study of a graduate-level practicum at a large Midwestern university in order to examine one of the ways urban planners develop expertise. The graduate students in the practicum were guided in the production of a site plan for a developing area by a planner with 34 years of planning experience. In the study, the author used epistemic network analysis to examine the presentation feedback sessions in order to explore emergent relationships between the teacher's planning expertise and the students' expertise. These results have the potential to influence the future design of professional practicum environments as well as the broader landscape of education. (Contains 3 tables and 12 figures.)

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) the federal government is pumping nearly $790 billion dollars into state and local coffers to strengthen the United States economy. In order to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible, states are being asked to invest much of this funding into regions within 30 days, and to have the funding obligated and spent within the next 18 months. In addition to getting the money out quickly, states and regions have the enormous challenge of having to figure out how to make the best and most strategic use of the funding. Most important, is how to do this so that low-income youth and adults can attain the postsecondary credentials they need to earn family sustaining wages. Presented in this paper are some basic steps states and regions might consider taking to determine how to use the stimulus. First, there are three points to keep in mind: (1) ARRA funding, and whatever system might be created with the stimulus and other available dollars, "are the means to an end"; (2) the goal is to get people jobs and jump start the economy; and (3) to have a sustained effect, short-term actions need to be part of a long-term plan.

In early 2006, The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) began an initiative called Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) to help regions create competitive conditions, integrate economic and workforce development activities, and demonstrate that talent development can successfully drive and transform regional economies across the United States. The use of a wide variety of public and private sector data and information sources described in this Catalogue of Workforce Information Sources can help in each step of the WIRED framework and assist WIRED regions to achieve their economic development vision and goals. The Catalogue of Workforce Information Sources, developed by the Employment and Training Administration in 2003 as an environmental scan, has been updated annually. It represents ETA's first effort to identify, capture, and organize the dynamic and expanding body of workforce and labor market information continuously generated by public and private sources. The intent of this catalogue is to better inform various information consumer groups including workforce, talent, and regional economic development specialists, education and training planners, and public policy makers about the large quantity of quality workforce and labor market information available to them. The catalogue is not intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia or exhaustive inventory of all that is being produced at the federal, state, and local levels. The catalogue is organized into three sections. The first section examines a mix of labor market and workforce information sources including those most widely and commonly consulted. The second part of the catalogue examines several web-based workforce and labor market information delivery systems. The third section of the catalogue highlights new and emerging data integration and analysis tools developed by the private-sector and federal government.

In June 2007 the Governor of Maine signed legislation that required the state's 290 school administrative units (SAUs) to seek partners for a reorganization that would reduce the number of SAUs to approximately 80 Regional School Units (RSUs) (Maine State Legislature, 2007). This policy initiative is the first reorganization of Maine's school districts since 1957. The planning for reorganization is to be done by Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) that consist of representatives of the municipalities, school boards, and the general public. This study examines the process and progress of school district reorganization, and perceptions of key actors about reorganization, drawing on data from case studies of five RPCs and RPCs statewide during the first year of the initiative. The findings to date from this study indicate that RPCs have been working diligently on the tasks required by legislation to reorganize Maine school districts. While there is compliance with the law and general agreement that more efficient ways of delivering high quality education programs can and should be found, the early findings of this study provide evidence that full support for reorganization is lacking in much of the education community. This lack of support appears to be related to several factors. Additional research is needed to validate these findings beyond the limited sample of this study. The findings from this research suggest that the lack of support for school district reorganization is rooted in four fundamental problems: (1) pressure from time constraints and mandates; (2) lack of confidence in the stability of the initiative; (3) lack of credibility of primary goals; and (4) threats to local values around governance and school choice. Overall, these factors describe threats to a policy initiative that, on the surface appears to be moving forward toward implementation. Seven appendices are included: (1) Table showing data sources for the study; (2) Tables showing the number of interviews and returned surveys from the first round of data collection (interviews from November 2007 to March 2008, surveys from November 2007 and January 2008); (3) Survey of RPC Members, Fall 2007; (4) Interview Protocol for RPC Members, Fall 2007; (5) Data tables showing the results of the RPC Member Survey; (6) Data table showing progress on elements of reorganization plans as of December 2007 and March 2008 for the five sample RPCs; and (7) Data tables showing some of the analyses of data from reorganization plans filed by districts statewide in December 2007. (Contains 25 tables.) [Funding for this research was provided by the Penquis Superintendents' Association.]