79 research outputs found

    Districts Developing Leaders: Lessons on Consumer Actions and Program Approaches From Eight Urban Districts

    Get PDF
    Profiles eight Wallace-supported approaches to preparing future principals to succeed in improving troubled city schools, including establishing clear expectations so that university preparation programs can craft training accordingly

    Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons From Exemplary Leadership Development Programs

    Get PDF
    Presents eight case studies of effective school leadership training programs and provides the key characteristics of high-quality training to help states and districts address long-standing weaknesses in the way principals are prepared for their jobs

    Investing in Community Colleges of the Commonwealth: A Review of Funding Streams

    Get PDF
    Community colleges play a pivotal role in Massachusetts’ higher education system. They award associate’s degrees, offer an affordable pathway to a bachelor\u27s degree, and provide access to higher education for underserved populations. Community colleges also offer workforce development and industry certification for those entering the world of work, those who are currently employed but need more training or retraining, and those who have been dislocated from their careers by the global economic crisis. To increase access to both college credits and improved work skills, community colleges provide remedial or developmental education to ensure all students can pursue a program of study (Dougherty & Townsend, 2006; Mullin, 2010b)

    Du soulier Ă  la lucarne : oĂč, quand et comment les buts sont marquĂ©s au soccer

    Get PDF

    Developing Successful Principals: Review of Research

    Get PDF
    Reviews available research and literature on the design of principal preparation and development programs. Looks at elements of good leadership, effective program design, multiple pathways to leadership development, and policy reform and finances

    A Tri-Marker Proliferation Index Predicts Biochemical Recurrence after Surgery for Prostate Cancer

    Get PDF
    Prostate cancer exhibits tremendous variability in clinical behavior, ranging from indolent to lethal disease. Better prognostic markers are needed to stratify patients for appropriately aggressive therapy. By expression profiling, we can identify a proliferation signature variably expressed in prostate cancers. Here, we asked whether one or more tissue biomarkers might capture that information, and provide prognostic utility. We assayed three proliferation signature genes: MKI67 (Ki-67; also a classic proliferation biomarker), TOP2A (DNA topoisomerase II, alpha), and E2F1 (E2F transcription factor 1). Immunohistochemical staining was evaluable on 139 radical prostatectomy cases (in tissue microarray format), with a median clinical follow-up of eight years. Each of the three proliferation markers was by itself prognostic. Notably, combining the three markers together as a “proliferation index” (0 or 1, vs. 2 or 3 positive markers) provided superior prognostic performance (hazard ratio = 2.6 (95% CI: 1.4–4.9); P = 0.001). In a multivariate analysis that included preoperative serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade and pathologic tumor stage, the composite proliferation index remained a significant predictor (P = 0.005). Analysis of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves confirmed the improved prognostication afforded by incorporating the proliferation index (compared to the clinicopathologic data alone). Our findings highlight the potential value of a multi-gene signature-based diagnostic, and define a tri-marker proliferation index with possible utility for improved prognostication and treatment stratification in prostate cancer

    Global profiling of alternative RNA splicing events provides insights into molecular differences between various types of hepatocellular carcinoma

    Get PDF
    Protein families encoded by transcripts that are differentially spliced in various types of HCC. Table S2. Bioinformatical prediction of functional changes caused by some of ASEs identified. Table S3. List of tumor suppressors for which AS is dysregulated in various types of HCC. Table S4. List of oncogenes for which AS is dysregulated in various types of HCC. Table S5. List of kinases for which AS is dysregulated in various types of HCC. Table S6. List of transcription factors for which AS is dysregulated in various types of HCC. Table S7. List of genes for which AS is dysregulated in all types of HCC. Table S8. List of genes uniquely dysregulated in HBV-associated HCC. Table S9. List of genes uniquely dysregulated in HCV-associated HCC. Table S10. List of genes uniquely dysregulated in HBV&HCV-associated HCC. Table S11. List of genes uniquely dysregulated in virus-free HCC. Figure S1. Characterization of splicing mysregulation in HCC. Figure S2. Characterization of ASEs that are modified in HBV- and HCV-associated HCC. Figure S3. AS modifications in transcripts encoded by kinases and transcriptions factores in HBV- and HCV-associated HCC. Figure S4. Global profiling of ASE modifications in both HBV&HCV-associated HCC and virus-free-associated HCC. Figure S5. RNA splicing factors in HCC. Figure S6. Modifications to AS of 96 transcripts in response to knockdown of splicing factors with specific siRNAs (PDF 6675 kb

    A collaborative model to implement flexible, accessible and efficient oncogenetic services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer : the C-MOnGene study

    Get PDF
    Medical genetic services are facing an unprecedented demand for counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a context of limited resources. To help resolve this issue, a collaborative oncogenetic model was recently developed and implemented at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval; Quebec; Canada. Here, we present the protocol of the C-MOnGene (Collaborative Model in OncoGenetics) study, funded to examine the context in which the model was implemented and document the lessons that can be learned to optimize the delivery of oncogenetic services. Within three years of implementation, the model allowed researchers to double the annual number of patients seen in genetic counseling. The average number of days between genetic counseling and disclosure of test results significantly decreased. Group counseling sessions improved participants' understanding of breast cancer risk and increased knowledge of breast cancer and genetics and a large majority of them reported to be overwhelmingly satisfied with the process. These quality and performance indicators suggest this oncogenetic model offers a flexible, patient-centered and efficient genetic counseling and testing for HBOC. By identifying the critical facilitating factors and barriers, our study will provide an evidence base for organizations interested in transitioning to an oncogenetic model integrated into oncology care; including teams that are not specialized but are trained in genetics
    • 

    corecore