Preparing Aspiring Superintendents to Lead School Improvement: Perceptions of Graduates for Program Development

Changes in the design and delivery of educational leadership preparation programs are advocated in order to meet the needs of leadership for 21st century schools (Byrd, 2001; Cox, 2002; McKerrow, 1998; Smylie & Bennett, 2005). The changing needs of the 21st century, coupled with accountability standards and more diverse populations of students within school districts, create challenges for leaders who are attempting to increase student achievement (Firestone & Shipps, 2005; Schlechty, 2008). Further, student performance demands have increased at the state and national level because of the No Child Left Behind Act (Wong & Nicotera, 2007). These standards have thus increased the emphasis of the administrator\u27s responsibility to positively impact student achievement (Taylor, 2001). With the graying of the profession and the need for exemplary school superintendents, the preparation of school superintendents who can successfully lead school improvement is vitally important (Lashway, 2006). According to the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002), university preparation programs should seek current leaders\u27 perspectives of critical content components and the processes to be used in the preparation of educational leaders who can lead school improvement practices and processes

DeLeT: Graduates' Perceptions of the Program and Their Preparedness for Teaching: An Evaluation Report

This report focuses on how DeLeT graduates from both programs perceive their preparedness for day school teaching, as well as how they perceive the DeLeT faculty and the programs' strengths and weaknesses. It also examines similarities and differences between the two programs and offers possible explanations for the handful of differences we identified. Such an in-depth examination of graduates' perspectives provides valuable formative feedback to both programs. In addition, we anticipate that this report will be useful to funders and faculty at other Jewish teacher education programs who may be interested in using the evaluation tools and procedures we have developed to learn about their graduates and identify areas for program improvement

A Foundation Goes to School

Traces and analyzes the results of Ford's Comprehensive School Improvement Program to improve public education, which was developed to legitimize the concept of innovation in public school programs and test various kinds of innovation

Mary and Frances Youth Center

The Mary and Frances Youth Center opened in 2007 on Virginia Commonwealth University’s (VCU) Monroe Park campus in Richmond. Its facilities include two private tennis courts and a number of classrooms designed for youth-centered programming and training. The youth center’s flagship program since opening has been Lobs & Lessons, a nationally recognized tennis and learning program, but it also hosts and leads Discovery summer program, which provides middle-school students with in-depth experiences in science, technology, engineering, arts and health sciences. In addition to these programs, the youth center co-manages the implementation of the Youth Program Quality Intervention, a quality improvement process for out-of-school service providers across the region. VCU and the youth center are committed to maintaining a safe, supportive environment for minors participating in VCU programs. To that end, the Safety and Protection of Minors Policy was launched in March 2016 to ensure all youth programs and activities on campus meet specific requirements, including biennial background checks

Improving University Principal Preparation Programs: Five Themes From The Field

What is the state of university-based principal preparation programs? How are these essential training grounds of future school leaders viewed -- by themselves as well as by the school districts that hire their graduates? Do the programs need to improve? If so, by what means?This publication seeks to help answer those questions by bringing together findings from four reports commissioned by The Wallace Foundation to inform its development of a potential new initiative regarding university-based principal training. In addition to confirming close-to-unanimous agreement among university educators and school superintendents about the important role principals play in advancing student achievement, it finds five themes:District leaders are largely dissatisfied with the quality of principal preparation programs, and many universities believe that their programs have room for improvement.Strong university-district partnerships are essential to high-quality preparation but are far from universal.The course of study at preparation programs does not always reflect principals' real jobs.Some university policies and practices can hinder change.States have authority to play a role in improving principal preparation, but many are not using this power as effectively as possible.The publication offers insight into the obstacles that stand in the way of improvement and suggests the need for action in: redesigning principal preparation by building on what we know from research and high-quality programs; establishing stronger connections between universities and districts; and ensuring that state policymakers create structures that encourage the proliferation of high-quality programs.The good news, according to the report, is that many university programs seem to be open to change -- and they benefit from having a number of strong programs to look to as models

Superintendents and Professional Development: Voices from the Field

The primary task of the educational leader is to assure high quality learning environments for all students. Research (Gordon, 2004; Sparks, 2007) supports the proposition that effective professional development contributes to instructional improvement by building educator capacity. Much of the research on professional development focuses in principal leadership in improving instruction (Blase & Blase, 2004). But district level administrators, especially the superintendent of schools, also have a role to play in school improvement. Standards for the preparation of school leaders specify competencies for superintendents that include the design and implementation of professional development programs based on sound research, best practices, district-and school-level data, and other contextual information (National Policy Board, 2002). The National Staff Development Council\u27s Standards (2001) also describe a comprehensive set of activities to improve student learning that apply to both campus and district level personnel. But while the research on the instructional leadership role of principals is extensive, comparatively little is said about how superintendents meet their own responsibilities in this area (Dufour, 2000; Hirsch, 2009; Firestone, Manquin, & Martinez, 2005)

Peran Kepala Sekolah Dalam Upaya Mewujudkan Perubahan Sekolah

School change is every effort done by school community to improve their school quality. In Indonesia, school change is done by implementing School Based Management for Quality Improvement. Many school improvement programs and activities are planned, implemented, controlled, and evaluated continuesly. School change is successful if the change internalizes in people at school and instituzionalizes in school daily life. Therefore, the school change needs a principal roles as a catalyst, creator, facilitator, and stabilazator

Evaluation of an oral health training program for school nurses

Pediatric dental disease is a silent epidemic (Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2002). Dental decay is commonly unrecognized and under-treated, and can affect children\u27s growth and development as well as their ability to perform in school. Effective interventions to prevent dental decay include water fluoridation, dental sealants, pediatric dental screenings, and dental health education programs. This pre-experimental design study evaluated the effectiveness of an oral health training program for school nurses. This training program was designed based on the First 5 California \u3c;\u3eral Health Training Program (2003). A non-randomized sample of fourteen (N=l4) school nurses participated in the presentation. Pre and post test results indicated a statistically significant (p\u3c.O I) increase in oral health knowledge among the participants. As a result of this study, the researchers recommend that school nurses receive formal training in dental health assessments to effectively contribute to the improvement of pediatric oral health in the school setting

Putting It All Together: Guiding Principles for Quality After-School Programs Serving Preteens

Successfully navigating early adolescence depends, in large part, on the availability of safe and engaging activities and supportive relationships with adults, yet many preteens have limited access to positive supports and opportunities -- such as high-quality after-school programs -- that could put them on a path to success. Funders, policymakers and practitioners share the common goal of supporting strategies that will have the most long-lasting positive effects on young people.Recognizing this, the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health commissioned P/PV to identify the characteristics of quality after-school programs that are linked to positive outcomes for preteens. Based on the latest research and experience in the field, P/PV developed the publication, Putting It All Together: Guiding Principles for Quality After-School Programs Serving Preteens, along with a companion Resource Guide (http://www.lpfch.org/afterschool/resourceguide.html) that includes links to research and tools to strengthen programs.Putting It All Together focuses on six after-school program components associated with positive outcomes for preteens:Focused and Intentional Strategy: Programs have a clear set of goals, target specific skills, and deliberately plan all aspects of the program with a youth development framework in mind.Exposure: Programs are designed to: a) provide preteens with a sufficient number of hours per week over an extended period of time, that matches program outcome goals; and b) allow preteens to attend a variety of activities.Supportive Relationships: Programs emphasize positive adult-youth relationships regardless of the curriculum.Family Engagement: Programs strive to include families through various strategies, such as clear communication and a welcoming environment.Cultural Competence: Programs have diverse staff whose backgrounds are reflective of participants and who create practices and policies that: a) make services available to and inclusive of a variety of populations; and b) help participants understand and value a broad range of cultures.Continuous Program Improvement: Programs strengthen quality through an ongoing and integrated process of targeted staff training, coaching and monitoring, and data collection and analysis.While a host of factors, including organizational capacity, the needs of the youth served and the resources available, all play a role in determining a program's ability to achieve its goals, research suggests that these guiding principles are essential for program quality. That quality, in turn, is the foundation for positive results for youth.NOTE: This version of Putting It All Together contains a full list of endnotes and references, which we chose to omit from hard copies of the report, in the interest of brevity

Afterschool in Action: Innovative Afterschool Programs Supporting Middle School Youth

This report, released by Afterschool Alliance in partnership with MetLife Foundation, highlights the work of quality afterschool programs that support children, families and communities across the nation.This compendium is a compilation of four issue briefs examining critical issues facing middle school youth and the vital role afterschool programs play in addressing these issues. This series explores afterschool and: arts enrichment, parent engagement, school improvement and digital learning. The compendium also includes in-depth profiles of the 2012 Afterschool Innovator Award winners, as well as highlights from 2008-2011 award winners.The 2012 MetLife Foundation Afterschool Award winners are:The Wooden Floor, Santa Ana, CALatino Arts Strings & Mariachi Juvenil, Milwaukee, WIKid Power Inc., The VeggieTime Project, Washington, D.C.Parma Learning Center, Parma, IDGreen Energy Technologies in the City, Lansing, M