Metareflection

What assumptions did you have initially about policy?

I initially did not have very many assumptions about policy.  In policies that I did not like, I thought they should be changed, but in many cases, I did not feel empowered to do so.  When I was a student within the university setting and administration, I was a strong self-advocate; however, this changed slightly when I went from being a student at a school to being an administrator at the same school.  I felt like in my new position, I could be less of an advocate and fight for change because my actions were not simply my own; they reflected on my office in the larger scheme of the university.

Upon moving to Williamsburg and started at William & Mary Law School, I was told that I was brought in for fresh ideas and to help initiate and implement change.  Yet, I have been here for over a year, and many of the changes I have suggested are still simply thoughts, and very little, except in the programs I coordinate, have come into fruition.  Change is hard, particularly when things have been one way for so long or when there is bureaucracy to hide behind. I did not realize how entrenched William & Mary Law School is in tradition and how hard change can be when people have been in their roles for decades.   

How have these changed over the course?

I do feel more empowered to fight the good fight.  Nonetheless, I am still concerned about what I am doing as a reflection on my employer.  My policy advocacy and reflection is a good example.  I have complained to co-workers, I have talked to our accounting office, and I have advocated for a change in travel policies via an email and some reminders, yet none of these yielded tangible results.  And now I am stuck—I should be doing something more, but I am not sure if I am in the right position to be advocating to the next level up.  Could this affect my position and livelihood?  I do not think so, but I do not want to put my boss, who is wonderful, in any uncomfortable situations. This is something I need to work on, to figure out how to be navigate these waters.

I still do feel more empowered as a whole.  Furthermore, I feel like I have better tools to look at policies and analyze and interpret them.  I have learned of the many lenses in which I can consider policies.  I am more careful in looking at language and the symbolism linked to that language.  In the way I write, particularly at work with prospective students and alumni ambassadors, my language has changed.  I am more purposeful with the words that I chose and how they can possibly be inferred and altered when received. 

What have you learned?

What have I learned? —so much, and it leads to more questions to ask and answers that I want to know.  I knew very little about funding for policies and how the federal government could issues polices but is not required to fund them.  I am now intrigued by budgets and funding.  I know what SCHEV is and Goals/Top Jobs and Race to the Top.  None of these were in my vocabulary before, and I can speak intelligently about them.  I think I might even contact SCHEV for data I believe they have collected, and I can analyze for my thesis.

I have read Fowler.  While I still need to reference the book for details, I believe I understand the salient points. I understand the political system a little bit more and the political culture and while things are so hard to push through legislation. Power is huge in policy development and implementation and individual values and ideologies. When I look at how organizations work together and apart, I think about loose and tight coupling.  I consider this, particularly with local adaptation in working at a law school, tied to a larger undergraduate campus, connected with a state college system.

My viewpoint is shifting on community colleges after listening to Chris Mullin in DC.  I lack faith in the Department of Ed after visiting, but I am energized by Illana and Kelly and their passion and activism.  I know what NCLB is all about and the controversy surrounding waivers.  Common Core Standards intrigue me, but I still am a little skeptical by how the federal government is tied to similar language but says it does not endorse the CCS specifically.

How does the class make you think differently about educational leadership?

I recognize even more than before than it is incredibly hard to be a leader, and a leader needs to have the pulse on everything in their worldview.  They need to know what is coming down the pipe from their government and organizations, and they need to be in touch (particularly with K-12) how they teachers are doing and feeling.  When a policy is enacted, they need to believe in it and get buy-in—all leaders should read Fowler since Fowler believes that we have the tools for successful policy implementation, and there is no excuse for failure.  I look at these leaders with a new found respect and cut some slack (in my mind) that I did not when I encountered them and unfair policies years before (particularly in high school—but not too much slack because of course when I was a high schooler, the world revolved around me).

What actions will you take now given what you have learned?

I will work on using the tools provided to me throughout this course.  I think of projects I need to start working on at work, and there is already resistance.  I’m going to go back to Fowler and read about buy-in and what are some of the barriers.  This is going to help me with redesigning the publications at work even if communications is not super excited right now.  I need to work to get them excited, and I am not better prepared to do that.

I am going to try to sit back and reflect before I act.  I am going to try to appreciate different opinions—I loved the conversations that people had in class and when classmates cited data and results and not just anecdotes and conclusions from personal experiences. Instead of jumping to conclusions, I need to consider the lens from which I am coming from and what are other lenses I should be considering?  What is the framework? I also need to be ready for all this to change as we go through time and priorities shift.  I feel much more informed than I need in the beginning of August.  I know what I have written just skims the surface, but even in writing this, my mind is going in all different directions in what I have learned. 

I want to get more involved with high school students and college access.  Talking about that in the last class, I almost forgot how passionate I was about it when I was in the thick in it.  I lost track of that a bit, and I want to feel like I’m making a difference, and sometimes I do not feel like I am in my current role.  I want to make a difference in individual lives—I believe in college access, and I am disappointed that results are not more positive—these are the kind of policies I want to fix and help.  

PART TWO-- Book Reflection-- State Postsecondary Education Research

Four-- Tracking How Ideas become Higher Education Policy and Practice

-- How policy implementation is now and important part of policy research.  Difficulties in putting together a database to truly understand policy implementation across six states (pg. 7)

pg. 77- "the ideas that drive higher education policy are often not ideas with which higher education practitioners are actively engaged"-- powerful forces like institutional beliefs developed at a federal or state level that are enacted at the local level, are often ignored

Implementation is often disconnected from literature and research.  For example, policies like financial aid and affirmative active have strong, direct effects on colleges BUT there is little know how this happens with implementation across states.

Importance of ideas of policy implementation

• law and incentives
• role as focal points and signals

Higher education can be seen as a private rather than a public good....with this, there are shifting dynamics with merit, diversity, and financial aid

The author pushed for building a comprehensive database that would allow for cross-state comparisons of policy implementations

-one of the concerns with changes as college has become more of a private good is access-- and understanding how college access had changed for the poor under the welfare reform-- with the idea of putting poor people directly to work would lead them out of poverty, rather than providing them access to higher education  BUT each state does things a little bit differently

Workforce Investment Act (WIA)-- should be a good way with data collection across states

BUT states are not consistent and it is very decentralized between states

Question that I thought about was meaning making and what does college mean to different people, things, agencies, and states??

Looking at actual implementation

high level of access-- Rhode Island

medium-- FL, MA, WA

low-- IL, PA --IL surprising because it is said and appreciated for having liberal policies for educational access to poor-- my question-- they how is it low in actuality?? liberal policy does not translate into liberal practice

Barriers to College Access

• Devil is in the details-- recognizing that some people need more support than others (like single women with children), helping to eliminate struggles for people to gain access-- class differences
• Triumph of Work-First Idea-- "the consistent message they get is caseload reduction, enter employment, and everything else is bullshit" (pg. 91)

Lessons to learn!

- designing a study should be selected based on available data

- collaboratively create definitions!

- attention to detail!!!

Five-- Challenges to Designing Cross-state Measures on State Resources for Higher Education

-- Analysis Measuring Up:  The National Report Card on Higher Education

Using this information, policy makers can make some objective decisions!  The study asked the question of how much it cost per year to education an undergraduate student?

Finances- questions and complexities

-undergrad, grad education and research are tightly linked, especially with funding

-establishing college costs nearly impossible is fungibility of funding

Levels of Measure-- State vs. Institution
-- Jones & Paulson wanted to provide assistance to provide accurate comparative data for state policy makers to make decisions in their own states
A take away from all of this is to use good, comparable data in order to make decisions!
-Performance measures-- preparation, participation, completion
-Resource measures- K-12 resources, state and local resources
-total resources (tuition, state and local)

Because it state does things differently, finding comparable data is difficult.  State to state comparisons is hard to do with differences in emphasis across states, especially with sources of revenue.
--also, different types of institutions within states-- public vs. private and varying tuition revenues.  States with more private institutions will generally require lower levels of state funding (My thoughts-- there is more reliance on private funding since public is become less and less each year-- in order to keep state higher ed afloat for the long-term, need more private funding and grant money).

How can there be consistent measurement?  A key is participation!!! and sharing resources.
How do things relate to K-12 funding-- the more states spend on students in K-12, the more they will spend per undergrad within higher education!
-- there needs to support from start to finish :)

Agenda for future-- better data needs to be collected, and more sophisticated analysis to answer where is the money going

Six-- Developing Public Agendas for Higher Education

-- Collaborative effort of three policy organizations

Quote to start the chapter (pg. 121)-- "ask not what your state can do for your institution, but what your institution can do for your state" - G. Davies.  This quote is awful!  The state should be supporting higher education and not using higher ed to provide revenue for other expenditures!

National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy-- purpose is to test a model in developing and implementing a state public agenda for higher education-- great learning experience for future research....

State's relationship with higher ed
-- maintain assets of higher ed
-- balance and shifting with the benefits of citizens and larger society with the price of services

Higher ed is increasing becoming a factor for quality of life and well-being-- for example-- Goals VA and having 100,000 college grads-- idea is to prepare more people for economy, job market, global market, etc-- not just individually but each state and the country as a whole.

pg. 123- "building a strong, high-status system of higher education- the purely institution-centered approach of the past-- does not necessarily result in production of services and benefits most needed by the state."  BUT do the ends justify the means?
--for example- with Kentucky, the higher ed system was not at a level sufficient to best serve Kentuckians...and CA is another example
--also, regional differences within a state can disguise what the state isn't doing broadly-- Virginia an example-- NOVA versus other parts of state like SW VA

Certainly limitations but the author of chapter six found that when working with states and stakeholders, they are able to get good preliminary data....is this data self-reported from the states?  how much sharing and cooperation is really happening?
--Their solution-- a policy audit to help remove barriers both real and perceived-- real versus perceived is not a small point!

Four step process recommended

1. collecting and analyzing data
2. engaging broad range of stakeholders
3. policy audit
4. developing an action plan

Final Thoughts

The chapters in the book did a good job is presenting different information from different viewpoints but still keeping the messaging consistent...importance of engaging all stakeholders, getting "good" data to provide commonalities, and to express the importance of higher education and how it is being mitigated for a variety of reasons (work instead, higher ed used for revenue versus a common good).  This tied into what we discussed in class but also providing additional lenses to look at policy in higher education. 

PART ONE-- Book Reflection-- State Postsecondary Education Research

I read State Postsecondary Education Research.  I read the book over the course of my fall travels-- it was the perfect book to read in airports and during take-off and landing.  I just regret not summarizing each chapter earlier :(  This book was edited by Kathleen Shaw and Donald Heller, and each chapter looked at different policies or studies.

In the acknowledgements, the editors indicated that this book came together as a result of a panel on the challenges of conducting state-level policy research.

Introduction-- The Challenges of Comparative State-Level Higher Education
US is distinct because it has very limited federal oversight and control of postsecondary education.  States differ greatly in governance and control of higher ed.  Researchers become excited with these because they are really able to research and see differences and what are the best practices.  The book provides good examples of cross-state higher education policy research.

One-- Incorporating Political Indicators into Comparative State Study of Higher Education Policy 
--Examine the conceptual, methodological, and practical opportunities associated with collecting political-system data and integrating data into comparative analysis (pg. 4). Review policy innovation and literature

Most research has been focused on policy effects rather than determinants, and ignoring these political determinants can be problematic.  The framework spelled out from the authors views states as individual policy actors and agents of influence in a larger social system-- shows theory of a loosely coupled system.

Policy innovation and diffusion-- states adopt policy because of demographic, socioeconomic  and political features, and their ability to influence one another's behavior.  --innovation and diffusion

In a linear model of 500 universities over 11 years, it was found that increased representation of African Americans and Latinos in legislatures positively influenced level of minority student enrollment at public universities ( pg. 17)-- this shows by changing those who have the power and make policies really does have an effect on who policies are made for

Regulatory coordinating boards-- Lowry found that states with these boards charge lower tuition!  Something for other states to consider perhaps??  Lowry's work also saw that with the principal-agent theory, certain government boards in higher education might advance interests of some stakeholders over others (example given-- academic over elected officials).  I think this is a good thing-- should academics be held higher than elected officials?

pg 26-- much research says that a policy is a policy is a policy, meaning that they think it's the same in each state.  BUT even if states adopt identical policies, they will be enacted in very different ways!

Huge analytic challenges-- why states do what they do

Two-- Can Access to Community Colleges for Low-Income Adults be Improved?
-- looking at Bridges to Opportunity Initiative-- examined project geared at improving education in two-year sector (pg. 5)

The first line of the chapter asks, "Is it possible to develop a single model of policy change that applies across multiple and diverse states?"  I wrote no right in the book.  This case study looks at the Bridges to Opportunity Program -- the model used for the research uses a broad range of stake holders-- from local to state level.  For the policy change process, the goal is to engage key stakeholders.

pg 39-- community colleges will best be served if state agencies worked closer with workforce development agencies-- so true!!  The model uses top-down and bottom-up approaches, so it emphasized the interaction between the different stakeholders.  A huge thing is to engage these stake holders.

One example that is also an exception is the state of Ohio-- they were able to do things very quickly due to strong legislative backing.  Where with Louisiana, the community college system was already weary of legislative influence, so what happened in the past certainly affected future policies.

From the research, it was determined that one model of change would not work as a generalizable model from state to state.  States that have a more-well established community college system have a stronger change of success in adopting these policies.

Three-- The Role of Higher Education in State Budgets?
-- Role of higher education in state budgets

This chapter mirrors much of what was discussed in Fowler and in class-- state budgets use higher education as a balance wheel.  When things aren't going well, less funding is given to higher ed because they know schools can make up this revenue with tuition.  When times are good, more money is put into higher ed as to make up for the difference.  However, who is this really hurting?  I think it's hurting those paying additional tuition when personal and family finances cannot really support the increases in tuition/additional loans and debt.

pg- 57-- interesting to note-- using competing interest theory, Medicaid competes with higher education, and when corrections funding increases, so does spending in higher education.

Hovey's hypothesis suggests that in good times, higher ed appropriations will increase more than other budget categories, and this will only occur for higher ed (as compared to other budget lines).  Other potential competitions are K-12 education, corrections, and healthcare.  Results show conformity to the balance wheel model.  Looking at the data, the hypothesis is correct!! (and provides general support).  However, the balance wheel test did not work for health care, corrections, and K-12 education.  For health care and corrections, it is a linear model BUT with K-12, it is much more complicated than the balance wheel model.

Takeaways from this is that public universities need to build reserves, and include discussions of stability across years in negotiations with the state for funding.

Class Reflection

Learned from the articles

Chrispeels- very well done study looking at implementation…..a little outdated. A lot has changed in California—how is this applied differently?

-used McDonough and Elmore—used as a frame in practice

Domina—can publish an article even if it doesn’t have the outcome desired….not desirable findings are still findings in themselves

Remember--Keep trying to tie back with earlier readings!!!!

STEM questions—group work.  Again-- love my seat and group :)

IROQUOIS case study

--do intermediaries take on a strong role because there is a swirl at the top (changing in superintendents often)

Revolving superintendents—someone gets it started but someone else has to finish it

--implications for implementation

·         Voicing concern, losing buy-in

·         Poor language—not putting positive spin on it

·         Said true feelings, but new superintendent will need to clean it up

--intermediaries

·         Stronger role because need buy-in

·         New guy needs all the information

--look back to chapter for unfunded mandates—Iroquois did apply for grant.  Understand disappointment but left a mess for the person after him.

--nowhere in the article do they talk about changing the current system and questioning the status quo

Are smaller districts put at a strong disadvantage because they don’t the resources to implement the right way?

Looking at things regionally—smaller, rural districts more likely to cooperate because they don’t have a lot of other resources

Domina: What Works in College Outreach

I am a huge proponent of college outreach programs, so the results of this survey and article were a bit disheartening.  I know all community based organizations are not the best run, but Upward Bound is supposed to be one of the best.  That students in those programs were not more likely to graduate high school is sad...

I have worked with several CBOs when I did undergrad admissions, with varying organization and structure.  Some programs picked the cream of the crop to graduate high school and get into selective colleges, and some even went further to help these students through college (like One Voice).  Still other organizations take any kind of students into their organizations and help them with the college process-- as long as students are intrinsically motivated (like MOSTE).  Others work directly with colleges/universities and do a CBO/school approach to provide support during the application process, college readiness after being admitted, and then support from the school (Posse Foundation).  Granted, Posse is expensive, with One Voice having paid staff, and MOSTE comprised of volunteers- with success of the programming in the same order.  Others are schools that have a college-prep emphasis, such as Yes Prep in Houston and Green Dot in Los Angeles.  These are all charter-type schools and have very extensive outside funding.

pg. 127-- 5% of all high school students are in college outreach program.  10% of poor in these programs.  We know very little about how well these programs work and is they are successful.

pg. 132-- discusses the Quantum Opportunities Program.  In each of the sites, half the students received services and half to a control group.  I understand why there is a control group BUT if this program is a success, aren't students missing a great opportunity for their future?

Upward Bound is talked about at length, and per student, it is costly.  Not only costly but  it does not seem to be successful :(  This is terrible that students in Upward Bound are no more likely to graduate from high school than non-participants.  It also discussed Talent Search Programs (like One Voice that I worked with in LA)-- these type of organizations too do not do better for enrolling in four-year colleges.  Again, terrible -- we all want to believe in these programs, but can we?

I am facebook friends with the two groups of students I admitted with One Voice at Bucknell, and most of them are struggling-- Bucknell is not the easiest place for low-socioeconomic, minority students, especially students who do not have the strongest academic background.  However, the second group is doing better than the first.  I mandated (and by mandated-- I made the students think it was required when it wasn't-- whoops) that these students were active in a mentoring program through multicultural student services.  The combination of support to college and in college helped.  But this article is just talking about the bridge to college.

Results found that the CBOs are not successful-- or as successful as they set out to be, but programs within a school have a much stronger probability of success.  This is yet another thing that disadvantages minority and low-socioeconomic students.  Schools that have the resources for college and career centers and other outreach programs will have higher graduation rates.  The research suggests that resources devoted to outside community based organizations should be diverted to building programs within the schools, perhaps with schools like Yes Prep (the most successful that I have seen of public/charter schools).

Sunderman- Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

I found this article really interesting and wish I could have read it sooner in the semester as I did not know too much about NCLB before starting this class.

Sunderman and the introduction written by Orfield show that many problems with NCLB were very predictable, but the right people were not at the table with the passage of this law to help legislators see this.  "These unforeseen circumstances are exactly what congressional oversight and good evaluation by administrators and researchers are supposed to discover and correct." pg. 6  Neither of which happened before NCLB was enacted.

He also continuously discussed the unlawfulness of NCLB as it is seen today and in the last administration by how individual states and even districts are exempt from parts of NCLB.  Orfieldfocused on states like Florida and Texas (Bush admin), but I think it can be applied more broadly, particularly with the waivers being granted to states now with the Department of Ed (see trip reflection from DC on how the executive branch is using too much of their power and not going through the proper channels). While it seems like Orfield does have a political bend, it does somewhat speak to Kelly (WM grad) on pg. 8.

NCLB is by no means perfect.  There are plenty of problems with it, and it does need to be changed (possibly be removed) but individual states getting waivers is not the way to do.  It's sad to think more care was not put into thinking about the consequences of the law and not bringing more of the right people around the table-- I know it was the right time politically to pass an education law, but really, was this the best our country's leaders could do? Reading this article was frustrating to see that special circumstances were not taken from the get-go for ESL students and students with disabilities.  I understand the idea of the law was for all students to be held to the same high standards, but in some cases- this just can't happen.  As I'm scanning through my notes in this 60 page document, there are more and more changes made to NCLB after it was enacted.  Minor changes I can understand but more at the state and district level with implementation, not at the national level.  I just think the whole law should have been thought through better.

Looking at implementation, we could in an optimistic world that NCLB was a good idea in theory....but in practice was not fleshed out/implementation when the policy was enacted, particularly for those who are working at the ground level.  I also had questions about what it means to be a highly qualified teacher-- what did that mean? each state/district had different requirements. can the federal government really dictate this?

I don't know if common sense wasn't in place when NCLB says that there needs to be 95% participation in state tests (pg. 21).  What was the percentage for state and federal testing normally?  How can teachers/schools be responsible for attendance-- I understand why NCLB wants such a strong representation for data purposes, but is 95% possible?

With the waivers, isn't it favoring states and districts with more resources?  Places with more money who can devote time and man-power to securing these waivers? I'm sure some states and districts did a better job at negotiating their waivers with the federal government.  It's also frustrating to see how states weren't pushing for their states to be better.  Georgia for instance (pg. 44) was able to change their graduation rates targets.  In one year, it was 61.8%.  The next year, GA set their goal to be 60%.  Really?  How did this get approved?  If NCLB is meant for students to achieve higher, why is one state lower their standards and being approved by the federal government to do so?

I don't think the goals of NCLB are even close to being achieved with vague language in the law, it not being thought-out, and all these waivers.  What is its point now besides for causing headaches? It's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint, and Sunderman does provide some relief with his suggestions to improve NCLB:
-reexamine core assumptions
-reexamine mechanisms used by NCLB to improve schools
- (most important)-- include educations in open and honest debate!!

This article is dated and even more compromise has been made to NCLB-- I wonder what Sunderman would suggest now?

Fowler: Chapter 10

Implementation-- how do we actually get policies implemented??
Implementation can never be taken for granted- p. 241.  Fowler goes on to say that educators need to be actively engaged in the implementation process, as their jobs are heavily tied to policy implementation.

Who are the players?
-Formal- government officials
-Intermediaries- formal implementer delegates responsibility-- will and capacity of intermediaries is what affects successful policy implementation

Reasons why implementations cannot work in educational policy? Implementation is difficult!

1. didn't understand change
2. didn't know how to use new pedagogy
3. materials needed to establish open classrooms not available
4. culture of institution not consistent with new policy
5. teachers became discouraged and lost motivation 

Examples from 1984 study by Hiberman and Miles- p. 247

Highly successful implementations-- administrators deeply committed to new program.  new policy fit with institution

Relatively successful-- crusading atmosphere among teachers-- helped each other

relatively unsuccessful- supportive at first, offered little assistance

failures- poorly designed and leaders never really interested in implementation

With implementation, there needs to be a good amount of cognitive dissonance-- people use their previous experiences and learning to develop new schemas, but it's hard to bring something new into that schema.  They want to understand bast on past experiences, and it is up to the leaders to lead the charge to help teachers and others to learn new schemas.

Scaling up-- deliberate expansion of externally developed school-restructuring design that previously has been used successfully in smaller settings.

--internal and structural changes the hardest.  culture of many schools does not support collaborative in the way that many reforms require.  external challenges also exist with testing and individual state mandates schools must adhere to.  

How to implement a new policy?

Mobilization

Must answer three key questions in the affirmative:

Do we have good reasons for adopting a new policy?

Is the policy appropriate for our school or district?

Does the policy we are considering have sufficient support among key state holders?

Planning for implementation

Planning is essential-- and whether is is a large or small steering committee, it must include building principals and teachers.

Forward mapping

Money-- most policies supported through grants

Time

Personnel-- espeically a project director or coordinator

Space

Equipment and Materials

Stages of Implementation

Early-- first months will be rough.  be careful in deciding to midgetizing-- by making some of the policy changes smaller, one can make it less worthwhile and meaningful.

Late-- depends on if early was successful.  Decide what works, what doesn't, and eliminate the ineffective components and replace with more effective ones.

Cross-cutting themes- monitoring and feedback, ongoing assistance, coping with problems

Resistance-- self-interest, conflicts with professional values-- exit, voice, and disloyalty
Coping with resistance is key!!!

Under final points, Fowler argues that there is no excuse for failure.  But then why does it still happen if we have the tools?

Educational Policy Implementation in Shifting Political Climate

Chrispeels' article looked at policy differences in California while the CLAS policy was in place and when it was vetoed after being in place for 10 years.  CLAS stands for the California Learning Assessment Program.  After reading the article and looking back to write this reflection, a line on pg. 454 stands out to me-- "this study shows how policies contribute to both organizational change and stability."       

In discussing implementation, policies must
-maintain system orientation
-address content and process
-use natural network of teachers
-focus on improving classroom practice

--A big point of focus that was I see from this article, the Fowler reading, and class last week is that coherence and understanding is so important for educators to make a policy seem worthwhile.

Other important pieces are
-mandates
-inducements
-capacity-building
-system-changing
-hortatory
**first three stand out to me the most

As Chrispeels discusses the electoral challenges, my notes in the article say-- stupid politics-- did a shift in politics create the window of opportunity to veto the program that seemed to be working?
It seems illogical to veto a program that is having success (even if limited) simply because it doesn't fit one person's political ideology-- at least look at the program, suggest changes, rather than eliminating it completely.

The study done by Chrispeel is a two-part longitudinal study.  However, the second part of the study was based on a self-selected targeted population-- this seems like a bit of a limitation.  These people were chosen because of their knowledge and leadership, but is this an all-inclusive group??

The original bill showed a bill policy shift where the curriculum was less prescriptive, and the vision was rapidly adopted; however, the language was vague in the law.  (pg. 462) The reform initiatives were bringing CA to a more coherent policy program, but some people believed that these changes were happening fast enough.  I wonder if this was due to vague language and compromising in the passing of the law.

We discussed how teacher buy-in was necessary to enact new policies. A quote on pg. 463 shows this where it says that teachers teach what they belief in and while they might go through the motions but this isn't a glowing endorsement from their teachers on this new policy.

What I thought was really interesting is that after CLAS was abolished and there wasn't a clear direction from the state, many school districts continued with CLAS policies at the local level.  This certainly shows that there was some buy-in from local constituencies.  Pg. 468 indicates that many teachers liked these alternative assessments because they were in line with teaching in the classrooms.  87% of teachers in the school district surveyed indicated that they used CLAS like assessment into the English and language arts programs since they "made sense" to local educators.

Many argued that CLAS just needed more time for it to work-- one quote said five more years.

What caused the demise?  Chrispeels says it was four factors:
--loss of leadership in state senate and state superintendent's office
--change in schooling policies, not "real school"
--poor test performance with CA compared to national groups
--with testing, failure to develop individual student results

Overall, the study evaluated what happened in California and ideas for the future.  My take-away was that language in CLAS policies and others like it should be tightened up and then tweaked during implementation to accomplish the overarching goals but then some of the quantitative benchmarks on the national level.  While the demise of CLAS did not help California, it provides an example of the importance of language (along with politics) and sure the language is clearer and tighter for policies in the future.
 

Class Reflection

Sometimes I think my focus is too narrow.  I started with a narrow college perspective and now it’s a little like all I know is law school….

The above is the only thing I have written in my word doc notes (I have more notes in the power point and on the group worksheet).  I leave class each week wanting to learn more and wishing I had access to more.  I know I do have access, but there's always the excuse of time-- I need to make time.  So right now, unfortunately, I'm adding it to the list.

When we were discussing contemporary issues, funding stood out to me, particularly with being at the law school (sometimes I feel like we're the ugly step-sister of main campus, particularly after sitting through meetings that we aren't paying enough for electricity, and we owe main campus more when I feel like the services provided to us from main campus--particularly if our requests are mostly on back burners- are not equal to what we are paying in return).  I though Virginia was bad, but there are certainly worse places.

--WM- 12% state funded, CO- 4% state funded (CO also had a huge program with vouchers, moving from public into private good realm)

Other challenges– organizational climate and pressures for accountability

-- Doing more with less

--Look at fowler chapter on implementation--- Resistance is a HUGE piece…almost it take more time to resist than to change.

--Assume certain things about learning, make assumptions that may/may not be true.  How do you even catch these assumptions to rethink and restructure what you are doing?

--If you are a new leader, how are you able to create space for creativity and safety in that space to come up with something new?  One of the challenges– how do we do this? I see this with my work.  My boss (who is wonderful and has been in her job for 30+ years) hired younger staff for new ideas, and I was excited for that.  Now, however, not much has been changed in the year I have been there due to resistance.  It can be frustrating, but part of it is taking baby steps.

It’s important to include people that have ideas that are different than yours (maybe even you don’t like….).  Transparency is also a big thing– let people know what you are doing.  This is something that Pam said that stood out to me-- yes, I should include people who have different opinions than me and really listen-- not let it go in one ear and out the other! :)

How do we help each other out?  We don’t know because we’re so focused on ourselves.

Always be able to ask

-who’s at the table?

-power sources?

-What are we assuming?

START with these and other things/assumptions will show up 

P.S.  Seat update-- I LOVED my seat this week.  I sat on the left side of the room and having teachers in the group was fantastic.  We had wonderful conversations in the class discussion that were inclusive of all members.  It was awesome-- I learned so much from this group and felt like I added a lot of value as well.

Fowler- Chapter 7

Fowler's chapter seven discusses issue definition and agenda setting.  Fowler used a great story to start the chapter with the moral of the story being that as human beings, "we have a powerful desire to perceive the reality we think we should perceive."  pg. 148.  This certainly has strong implications for policy as well as the idea of playing the game.  Education leaders need to play the game and be ahead of the game, so that they are not blind-sighted with new policies that require implementation.

Figures 7.1-7.3 discuss problems in schools, how they relate to policy, and how policies relate to student motivation.  The big thing that stands out to me is motivation, incentives, and morale--with morale crossing over with every point.

EPPRC- Education Policy Planning and Research Community-- loosely linked set of institutions, para private
Funding- outright donations, endowment, grants, contracts
***I knew the Gates Foundation was a big player, but I did not realize that in less than 10 years of its founding in 2004, it is the third most important education organization, after Congress and USDOE.

I liked when Fowler talked about research and how many say that basic research isn't practical-- BUT without basic research, there would be nothing to build on for the more advanced research (like applied and integrative research).

"Food is essential to a successful think tank" (pg. 156).  This applies not only to think tanks, but for anything.  Food is a good incentive to get people to show up.  Think about any community, work, or student related event.  Yes, the content is important but without the food, there would be barely anyone there to listen, discuss, and share.

Elements of Skillful Issue Definition

1. Claims
2. Evidence
3. Solution
4. Discourse-- powerful language
5. Broad Appeal-- but does this then water down the policy?

Policy Agenda-- systematic agenda (people outside government-- (1) professional agenda, (2) media agenda, (3) public agenda) and governmental agenda.

 **Access to policy agenda is highly competitive!

Nondecision-- failure to act.  Sometimes easier to push aside than to have an outright now-- at least for the government officials, not those this policies affects.  

From Fowler's text, attention to an issue is what helps a policy attract support and to keep it in the public eye.

Influencing Agenda Setting- knowledge, allies, organizational effectiveness

Class Discussion

The article critique portion of the class stood out to me the most! 

·         Research Design

o   Hypotheses based on type of government (conservative, social-democratic, liberal)—interesting they used regime versus government

o   Looked at indicators of participation and other indicators—seeing if it is grouped by government type

o   Where they got the date from is under the results section—from 2008 OECD Education­—supplemented with other information/data-- countries reported what wanted to, a lot of missing observations

·         Findings

o   Conservative regimes expanded less than liberal regimes

§  Same pattern with graduation rates

o   Policy makers should make decisions based on regime

§  Why do they have to do that?  Wouldn't they do that naturally?

§  How can they change outcomes if they’re only making policies based on your regime

·         Discussion/Conclusion

o   Useful that it was with four policy makers instead of one….multiple lenses

o   Interesting—sample age is 25-64—why so large?

o   Quote on page 22- why low achiever??  Does this mean tracking….

§  Conservative—people have their proper place I society—46

§  More extensive tracking….more money and resources

§  What about Fowler models….

o   Framework analysis helps with framing for article critiques

§  Also look at leadership and power—how are they being used

Take away from Article Discussion

·        You can always poke-- I really liked this language :)  

·        Can always cite Fowler and Smirch/Morgan—this will become second nature as you come along

o   Weick also with sense making

o   There is a cast of characters that you can start citing along the way

·         Soon—you will be able to see holes in anything and be able to increase your own writing

Pechar & Anders: Higher Education Policies

Pechar and Andres investigated and found that there is a convincing relationship between higher education and welfare regimes.  In order to do a meaningful comparative analysis, the authors had to understand the trade-offs each country is faced with.  The US, for example, used education often as a trade-off since it is under discretionary spending instead of mandated funding.

The three types are:

-Liberal welfare regimes (Canada, US, UK)-- low degree decommodification and strong role in markets

• high tuition fees

-Conservative welfare regimes (Austria, France, Italy)-- preserving social structures and hierarchies and the traditional family

• low/no tuition fees

-Social democratic (universal) welfare regimes--equal access to benefits and services of high standards

• no tuition fees

With welfare regimes and education, it is a system of give and take-- what each country prioritizes more.  pg 25--Countries that adhere to liberal welfare don't est equitable living conditions but they spend more money on higher education than other regimes.  Doesn't these seem a little counter-intuitive?

Conservative regimes provide better conditions for those who will not attain a degree-- great opportunity for vocational degrees.   However, I did not appreciate that implication that those who get vocational degrees are necessarily low achievers.

OECD-- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Fowler-- Chapter 9 and 11

Chapter 9
An important part of being a school leader is to look at policies and scrutinize them as administrators are the ones to develop policies in some instances and implementing others' policies in other cases.

Fowler presents three lenses in which to critically look at policies:

1. Lowi's Techniques of Control
• three basic types of policies-- distributive (bestow gifts such as goods and services to citizens), regulatory (formal rules applied to large groups of people), redistributive (shifts resources from one social group to another)-- each has its own political arena
• not one of Lowi's policies fits, in many cases they are overlapping.  Fowler argues that in the long term, all policies are both regulatory and redistributive (pg. 219).
• Lowi's policies help manage policy change in the long-term.  Fowler suggests that wise leaders shouldn't make too many changes at once and to ensure that many people are not at the end of too many changes,
2. McDonnell and Elmore's Policy Instruments
• mandates-- rules that consist of language and penalties for those who do not comply with the rules.  The MOST popular.  
• inducements-- money transferred to indiv/agencies in return for goods and services
• capacity building-- money given in purpose of investing in intellectual or human resources
• system changing-- transfers authorities among indiv/agencies
• persuasion (fifth added later)-- sends a signal that goals and actions are considered a high priority
• COMBINATION-- coherence is an effective combo of the above policy instruments
3. Cost Analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analyses
• combo of personnel, facilities, and required client inputs
• also consider tangible and intangible costs and benefits
• systematic way to compare alternative methods to reach goals

Chapter 11
This chapter considered evaluation and if policies really do work.  On pg. 278, Fowler discusses that many policies are never evaluated or at least not evaluated carefully, so no one is able to act on the findings.  Evaluations are "nervous making".

Important terms for policy evaluation-- evaluation, project, program, stakeholder

Basic steps

1. determine goals of policy
2. select indicators
3. develop how data will be collected
4. collect data
5. analyze and summarize data
6. write evaluation
7. respond to evaluators' recommendations

Methodologies that can be used

• quantitative
• qualitative
• holistic-- use both

Evaluations are almost always political :( and there are maneuvers to prevent a good evaluation 

Acting on an evaluation report-- a variety of options

• inaction
• minor modifications
• major modifications-- replacement, consolidation, splitting, decrementing
• termination

Online Class Reflection

I liked the online class and how we were still able to talk about the articles, but I did miss the face to face meeting.  The discussion board certainly has its pluses and minuses.

I liked hearing more voices, but I had a really hard time trying to remember who each person was.  I feel bad that I don't know as many people's names in the class.

However, this did help with understanding of the articles.  I did like how Pam helped to guide conversation, helped to get things deeper into the articles, and sometimes, we do not have that level of discourse about individual articles in class.

I would have liked to have the discussion board as a supplement to class discussion for some of the beginning, building block articles at the start of the semester.  I was frustrated with structure and how small the box was for threads—maybe smaller groups for next time if we use the discussion board again.  This wasn't the same as class, but it was an okay substitute :)

Leslie & Berdahl: The Politics of Restructuring in VA

This article discussed the changes that happened as a result of the "Big 3"- VA Tech, W&M, and UVa- wanted to become less dependent on the state.  They were looking for deregulation, privatization, and using the market.  Nevertheless, the state seems these institutions in particular as ways for the state to receive some revenue.

In 2005, the state allowed public schools to apply for this as long as they met 11 goals (it is not 12 and could be more over time depending on the legislature's wants).  Pg. 321 discusses that this could be part of some future "legislative mischief" by having options for additional amendments-- could this make the decentralization to hard to upkeep or make it just a pretense with all the check boxes schools might have to fill?

Garbage Can Model- three separate streams:  problems, policies (ideas/solutions), politics-- pg 311.  These streams come in with a window of opportunity for policy makers.

Here are some of the different streams that the Big 3 wanted to fix/have more control over:

• regulations from state bureaucracy-- rigid and inflexible
• competition for control over setting tuition
• inconsistent state appropriations (I am still working without a budget and have been doing this since July-- I hope I have the same funding as last year....)
• ambiguous strategic priorities
• incremental interdependence from state funds (but the schools want more interdependence 

Decentralization has been happening over the past 15 years, and having a new political player-- Gov Warner and his business background-- influence the legislature to think about this 2005 act. 

Nevertheless, this didn't work out for the Big 3 as intended-- but it did provide opportunities for all of the VA public four-year and community college institutions-- with those 11 clauses as indicated above.   

The schools were not completely unhappy with the 11 points, but I doubt anyone was entirely happy.

• "We also got something very different than we thought we were asking for...But we take the result as a fundamental state commitment to decentralization, and we feel all sides have entered new territory in good faith so far"  (pg. 319)
• More focused on output-- process can be intentional for each school

One of the continuing arguments/discussions is the ability for each school to determine tuition costs.  Schools have the authority to do this, in theory, but some of the proceeds go from the school directly to the state.  As a compromise, schools can set tuition, with six year projections.  I think this is good in theory; however, things can change during the course of the six year projections that might require an individual school or program not to increase tuition (like the intense competition between law schools-- some public like WM can't scholarship as well, but we can keep tuition low!)

A big thing with more decentralization is that each school can manage their own capital projects, human resources, etc all on their own, and allows each school to decide how to use state appropriations and to try to make individual institutions more efficient and stretch their budgets further. (pg. 317)

So what will ultimately happen with the decentralization?  Will quality and efficiency increase, better revenue streams?

The article starts and ends with questioning if this model can work for other states.  The authors don't want to say one example means it can be overarching for other state systems, and VA school admins also don't want to say this could work everywhere since each public system has such a different infrastructure.

DeBray & Houch: A Narrow Path

This article looks acts the possibility of reauthorizing ESEA, with an emphasis on traditional party politics, entrance of new players, and the stresses on the groups that normally would support education reform.

• Party politics- parties are traditionally highly polarized
• divided/unified party government-- seeing how this will affect party politics
• 2010 elections-- Republicans gained and bipartisanship with educ policy decresed.  Authors believe this will stay the same until after the 2012 election (assuming that Obama would have to win and Democrats would win the legislative branch....or vice versa)
• NCLB only passed during temporary partisanship due to 9/11 (we've talked about that in class before)
• RTTT-- says that it's fairly noncontroversial....this doesn't seem to be in line with what we heard in DC-- seems like there is more controversy  especially how this affects or has been affected by CCS
• with RTTT, creates competition and winners and losers.  The math coordinator from Isle of Wight (can't remember her name...) made some fantastic points about how this is beneficial for better for wealthier school districts and those that can hire grant writers, already have responsible incomes, etc
• graphs show that there is a growing divide between democrats and republicans, which makes a bipartisan effort even more difficult
• Mayhew-- 324-- suggests that partianship is not the only thing that matters.  For Obama, for example, other things are taking the forefront, like health care, foreign policy, financial/economy, etc.
• New players- increase in think tanks and other groups
• leadership changed in the HELP committee-- long time legislatures no longer in charge-- new people with different political ideologies have become the critical players
• More think tanks exist now-- more research, ton of more data available
• Stress on traditional coalition- policy landscape has changed
• Democrats are no longer seeing spending more money on education a safe bet, they are becoming more reform/market-oriented
• Pressure from teacher unions-- becoming more challenging

Very interesting!!!  They say that CCS aren't from the federal government, but (pg. 332) Pres Obama said that "Title I allocations to their adoption of the CCS".  This doesn't seem to fit what we heard from Margaret on Friday :(

• now talks about opposition-- Mike Enzi (Wyoming-- Kelly's old employer)

Conclusion-- educational arena more fluid and diverse!

Fowler Chapter Four

The Political System and Political Culture

We have a distinctive political system-- "clumsier" than parliamentary system, which is still considered to be more efficient.

pg. 63-- Political culture- particular pattern of orientation to political action in which a political system is embedded

Federalism-- several governments share sovereign powers among themselves.  It's a pendulum over time where more power is given to states than the federal government and vice versa.  With new federalism, "the overall effect...was to reduce the relative importance of the federal government in education policymaking, while increasing the relative importance of the states" (pg. 69)

--Although states normally give power to local school districts for education policy implementation and curriculum-- sometimes, state governments step in to take over for floundering school districts.  Of course, when the state gives money to local districts, they want to know where the money goes.  This struck a chord with what Kelly Hastings said (from Lou Baretta's office).  One of her complaints about Race for the Top is that money was given to states without having to account for it back with the federal government.

--Competition among governance bodies-- everyone wants money and power and will jockey to get more.  What else is new?

Elections- this compared the US (in constant state of election) to Parliamentary systems (elected officials serve as long as their party has public support).  I don't know which one is better-- I guess parliamentary systems make the party stronger than any individual-- do officials have to stay directly along party lines to stay in favor?
--Windows of opportunity- often with a change of administration there is an opportunity for innovative policy.  Know this will happen if Romney is elected-- what/will anything change if Obama is re-elected?  Networking is key-- taking advantage of windows of opportunity

Three political cultures (can be grouped by states in general but always pockets of different groups in an individual state)

• Individualistic
• dominant in south
• ambivalence toward market and unrestrained commercial enterprise
• government positive source in society
• local elite involved
• Moralistic
• New England
• favor activist government
• believe education is part of the common good
• also seen in college towns, more educated communities
• Traditionalistic  
• Mid Atlantic
• politics is a type of marketplace-- businesslike, pragmatic, economic orientation

Reflection from Class Trip

I am exhausted-- I had such an amazing time yesterday, but I am tired.  I wish DC was closer, and the metro temperatures weren't so temperamental :)  My drive to/from the train station was fascinating since I had the opportunity to travel with Aliaksandr.  Some of our conversation was lost in the language barrier-- or at least, I had a bit of a hard time understanding him.  I can only imagine the hardships that he and his family went through and now to be working for a university in exile-- it's hard to wrap my head around it.  International convergence is certainly seen with Aliaksandr traveling to the US and visiting WM, Oberlin, and Earlham (which is where Fran Branford went).  I hope I have a chance to talk to him more before he leaves!

The first speaker was Chris Mullin from the Association of Community Colleges.  I learned so much from him and even had some of my views changed by getting more information (my viewpoints were similar but not as harsh as Kelly from Lou Baretta's office prior to this talk).  Highlights from his talk:

• His job is to inform, educate, and advise
• 26.4% of cc students already have a completion degree
• 7% of the student body is under the age of 18-- dual enrollment (this was 1.7% in 1993)
• The for-profit schools are not part of "the six"-- Chris doesn't know why, but I think it's a great thing!
• Chris believes that HS GPA is a higher predictor that tests since the diagnostics are better with consistent, repeated measures.  I don't agree fully.  I think there is a correlation between GPA, test scores, and student success.  Although tests are biased in how they constructed, I think they should still be considered to a point

Next up was Margaret Reed Miller.  I had never heard of the Common Core Standards until hearing Margaret talk.  Takeaways:

• curriculum is NOT equal to standards.  This is state led, state adopted, and teacher/school control the curriculum
• intentional design that is about outcomes, not teacher inputs.  CCS is a floor, not a ceiling.
• 45 states have adopted/in the process.
• Exceptions-- VA (SOL very high quality), AK and MN (very similar/adopted part), NE (lower standards), TX (Texas is Texas and dropped out of virtually all common state organizations)
• CCS are college and career ready standards.  Federal law (Race to the Top) states that states need to have college and career ready standards.  Doesn't say that they need to adopt CCS but many states have opted for this
• Why Common Standards?  Consistency, equity, opportunity, clarity, economies of scale.  This is creating a marketplace focused on quality.  With military children, for example, quality increases or decreases depending on location.
• I learned a lot about why the opposition exists-- CCS seems great to me, but I can understand how there is opposition-- could appear to be fed gvt overreaching instead of coming from the outside
• LOVED the graph with how the US teaches math-- we do everything in math every year-- a mile wide, inch deep.  Thought it was really interesting that China is switching to our model-- happy that Hong Kong is sticking with the no tricks, just learn the math.

Lunch with Alumnae.

• I thought Christen Cullum Hairston was fantastic- she was so down to earth, and it was great to hear how her undergrad connects to her dissertation and then on to what she does at work on a daily basis.  A big plug for the liberal arts!  I also appreciated how her dissertation is taking a little longer than expected.  She got her stuff together, so it gives me hope that I will get my thesis in gear soon.
• I'm sure Cristin Toutsi is very nice, but she seemed a little too corporate for me.  I know we all work for the man in some way shape or form, but the ultimate "man" is college presidents and trustees.  I interned for my college president for a year, and I don't know if I could play that political game in education.  She was a little drier than the other Christen, and you could tell she worked at a corporate non-profit-- lots of money (ie-- she talked about all of her cab fares to be reimbursed-- I think it's the metro for almost all other groups).  
• The two were good for information but also for juxtaposition.  I don't mean to knock anyone, but it helped me frame that I would rather go toward student services than administration.  The hard thing though is in admissions, it's harder to get to more student services.  I want to be less like "the man" if I can.

Department of Ed.  For all the travel that we did there, I was sadly underwhelmed.  For all the travel, we went though, I was hoping for a little more....whatever that might be.  First of all, dress was surprisingly casual.  Second, none of their backgrounds were as strong with on the ground teaching or even policy as I would want the people making larger educational decisions.  The second speaker was stuck in the political machine.  He did not seem passionate about his work and was only placed in his position due to his political connections.  That was disappointing.  The third speaker-- focus on K-12-- was the best of the three.  Stronger background-- taught in a private school and then instructional aid (most likely-- no teaching certification ).  He at least was passionate and excited about his work and well-informed.  Will things change come January or will it be more of the same in the Dept of Ed?

It was wonderful to hear Ilana Brunner and Kelly ___ back to back.  Ilana represents Bobby Scott (Democrat) and Kelly represents Lou Baretta (Republican).  I wouldn't think that both ladies are not from the districts or event states that their bosses represent...but I guess you can believe in the people and find attachment to a geographic area while working with the constituents.  I really liked how Ilana talked about her background and how she wanted to work with the intersection between civil rights and education.

• Ilana was soft-spoken and addresses us in what seemed like more facts.  Kelly probably had facts on her side, but because she was speaking so impassioned, it almost seemed like she was doing a sales pitch.  But Kelly did want to hear more from us and our opinions and Ilana was just telling us stories.
• Different ideas on NCLB re-authorization
• Kelly- Congress set aside, Exec and Dept of Ed overreaching.  NCLB went through right process.
• Ilana- NCLB- "soft bigotry of low expectations". 
• Race to the Top and CCS
• Kelly- does not agree-- process concern.  states should decide own goals and receive funding once evidence of goal attainment.  She would prefer funded focuses on existing things, like IDEA and Title 1 school funding.  CCS came mostly from the outside and wishes employers were at the table.  She would be fine with CCS if it went through the right legislatively process.
• Ilana talked more about education in general and how education beginning at birth is too late-- she spend a lot of time talking about teen mothers and educating them to be better parents; therefore, things would be better for their children.  The Youth Promise Act seems like a great for more activities during the afternoon hours (most crime happens between 3-6 pm and 2/3 prisoners are HS dropouts).  She talked about future savings by investing money now-- I say let's do it :)  HS jobs are definitely much cheaper and more beneficial than incarceration.

GREAT TRIP!  Loved having a day full of speakers and on the ground policy makers!

Class Reflection- Week 6

I have a new favorite person, and her name is Fran Bradford.  I love that she is an outspoken woman who just says what's on her mind.  I imagine that she can't do that all the time, but I could see her saying what this thinks over what is necessarily pc/business, and I really respect that.

Thanks to Jess for asking Fran about her background because I always find it interesting to see the circular paths people take to get where they are.  A degree in art-- like my degree in political science and history-- I know how to "think" but it took some help to figure out how studying what I was interested in could help me find a job that I enjoy.  Also shows again that who you know is helpful-- yes, you need to make opportunities for yourself but a foot in the door never hurt.

Fran provided a great framework and discussion of the 2011 Higher Education Opportunity Act of Virginia and the 2005 Restructuring Act.  Language plays such a large role in these laws, especially who was initiating it and why.  Big differences—Restructuring was a ground up initiative while Higher Ed was top down  and much more political.   As a top down act, 100,000 more degrees are wanted from VA, and this comes from grow by degrees (if you multiply this number by 50, this is the amount of graduates encouraged by some federal law
• Mass differences across the state schools what they need to do—help with retention and grad (comm colleges) to take more students in (WM, already high graduation rates)

She also gave us some background into the process and the different laws-- to test drive the language of these acts before going in for a vote, public meetings were held.  I'm really interested in this.  In class and in the readings, we have talked about different laws and how the laws provide the framework but not the money or infrastructure to enact these laws.  Do the people at the public meetings know this?  That the law may not actually be enacted as written due to vague language and no funding?

My last bit of my notes from Fran's talk is:
SCHEV is drowning in data—great dissertation, would love to help.  THESIS topic??  SCHEV data compared to the student satisfaction survey that college seniors complete (would be interesting to compare the SCHEV data and graduation/job placement to college satisfaction from one school in the Commonwealth to the other, especially for WM as liberal arts school-- Fran's comment that WM grades don't make more than other recent grads in Commonwealth but have higher growth potential, potentially, but take advantage of opportunities of gap year, Peace Corp, etc).  I think I'm getting a little ahead of myself....

From the Fowler reading, here is my order of my social values:

1. Liberty
2. Equality
3. Efficiency
4. Individualism
5. Order
6. Quality
7. Fraternity
8. Economic Growth

I'm not sure why economic growth is last (since it drives so much of life around us), but I have somehow been okay when the economy has not been.  I guess I care about the other things more, but I imagine my list would change as my life circumstance alter.

Timmers, Willemsen, & Tijdens

Gender diversity policies in universities: a multi-perspective framework of policy measures

The article aimed to discover if policies utilized to increase women as university professors is effective.  They utilized a literature review and then a survey (questionnaire and interviews) to see what policies were used and how effective they are.

One method was using a gender equality policy for hiring.  As students, more females are enrolled than males in undergraduate institutions, and it is even said they graduate faster and with better grades (p. 720).  The how when it comes to becoming professors are there so little females in the profession?  Again, one answer is the gender equality policy.


Theory- three factors used to explain under-representation of women- individual, cultural, structural/institutional influences

• Individual- men and women are basically the same
• ImpoCultural- org's culture, history, ideology, and politics are related to women's limited success
• in some cases, gender discrimination still exists
• Company is not welcoming to women-- several studies suggest that having more women on the search committee helps with barriers limiting women in the hiring process
• affirmative action plans, equality committees and task forces are effective

Research Questions Authors are Trying to Answer

1. Can gender equality in academics fit within above factors?
2. Gender equality policy-- random or patterns?
3. Gender equality policies lead to more females in academia?

Case Study- 14 universities in Netherlands- mostly with HR

• Yes, the policies fit in with individual, cultural, and structural perspective
• Helpful-- mentoring and coaching female staff, women's network
• good to have it sponsored by university
• Important to note!! Does not include women working part time, pregnancy or maternity leave
• Also, exit interviews were not used on how to make things better for women, but they should be in future
• many initiatives- too short in duration, departments didn't comply with suggestions or even directives
• ex- "it doesn't fit our way of thinking, this policy is outdated" (p. 731)-- this makes me sad :(
• buy in is needed from everyone!  if not, doomed to not succeed 
• 
  

individual, cultural, and structural perspective correlations

-cultural and structural highest

-individual and structural lowest