The purpose of this study was to understand those factors that lead some community colleges to be more successful than others in pursuing and obtaining large grants. The impetus for the study derived from the experience of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its effort to increase grant submission rates and successful awards to community colleges. A key concern of the NSF was why a small sample of some 150 colleges, out of the universe of 1,200 community colleges, are repeatedly successful well beyond the norm in obtaining NSF grants. The primary research question addressed by the study is "why are some community colleges much more successful in winning large grants and what can be learned from them?" A case study of two successful colleges was conducted, one on a large urban campus and one on a small and rural campus. The case study methodology included a mix of qualitative techniques incorporating document analysis, focus groups, and individual in-depth interviewing across a broad sample of institutional staff, faculty and administrators. A survey was also employed across a larger sample of community colleges that looked at the perceptions of grants officers on factors pertaining to the winning large grants for their institutions. Statistical analyses of the survey responses are presented in tabular form. Two broad categories of findings are presented, the first pertaining to organizational leadership and the second pertaining to formal and informal organizational structures, policies and practices. Organizational leadership at successful colleges is characterized by the endorsement of grant development from the president, the deans and the department chairs. Effective leadership is seen in faculty empowerment and non-intrusiveness by enabling faculty to pursue grant work. Successful leadership is also seen in the promotion of community engagement and internal and external partnership and collaboration. Formal and informal organizational structures, policies and practices are characterized by structured opportunities for interdepartmental dialog and by an administrative grants office that supports faculty from the conceptualization of ideas through the actual submission of grant proposals.

Comparisons within states of school performance or student growth, as well as teacher effectiveness, have become commonplace. Since the advent of the Growth Model Pilot Program in 2005 many states have adopted growth models for both evaluative (to measure teacher performance or for accountability) and formative (to guide instructional practice, curricular or programmatic choices) purposes. Growth model data, as applied to school accountability and teacher evaluation, is generally used as a mechanism to determine whether teachers and schools are functioning to move students toward curricular proficiency and mastery. Teacher evaluation based on growth data is an increasingly popular practice in the states, and the introduction of cross-state assessment consortia in 2014 will introduce data that could support this approach to teacher evaluation on a larger scale. For the first time, students in consortium member states will be taking shared assessments and being held accountable for shared curricular standards – setting the stage to quantify and compare teacher effectiveness based on student test scores across states. States' voluntary adoption of the Common Core State Standards and participation in assessment consortia speaks to a new level of support for collaboration in the interest of improved student achievement. The possibility of using these data to build effectiveness and growth models that cross state lines is appealing, as states and schools might be interested in demonstrating their progress toward full student proficiency based on the CCSS. By utilizing consortium assessment data in place of within-state assessment data for teacher evaluation, it would be possible to describe the performance of one state's teachers in reference to the performance of their own students, teachers in other states, and the consortium as a whole. In order to examine what might happen if states adopt a cross-state evaluation model, the consistency of teacher effectiveness rankings based on the Student Growth Percentile (or SGP) model and a value added model are compared for teachers in two states, Massachusetts and Washington D.C., both members of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) assessment consortium The teachers will be first evaluated based on their students within their state, and again when that state is situated within a sample representing students in the other member states. The purpose of the current study is to explore the reliability of teacher effectiveness classifications, as well as the validity of inferences made from student test scores to guide teacher evaluation. The results indicate that two of the models currently in use, SGPs and a covariate adjusted value added model, do not provide particularly reliable results in estimating teacher effectiveness with more than half of the teacher being inconsistently classified in the consortium setting. The validity of the model inferences is also called into question as neither model demonstrates a strong correlation with student test score change as estimated by a value table. The results are outlined and discussed in relation to each model's reliability and validity, along with the implications for the use of these models in making high-stakes decisions about teacher performance.

In July 2022, the University of California (UC) permanently eliminated the standardized tests requirement for its freshman admissions in order to alleviate the severed socioeconomic gap and college access barriers that were heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. This critical policy analysis research explored the immediate effects of UC’s policy reform on higher education equity. All 14 participants were underrepresented minority (URM) students who applied to at least one UC campus for fall 2022’s freshman admissions and were enrolled in four-year universities at the time of this study. From demographic surveys, focus groups, and in-depth interviews, I applied critical race theory (CRT) tenets and internalized oppression theory to explore, interpret, and provide counter-narratives of URM students’ college planning and application experiences after the policy reform. From analyzing these students’ perceptions of the elimination of the standardized tests requirement and UC’s admissions equity, I identified the following four findings: 1. Insidiousness of Higher Education Racism: The Role of Standardized Testing in Admissions 2. Enduring Internalized Oppression: The Lingering Effects of the Legitimization of Standardized test requirement 3. Intersectionality of Race, Income, First-Generation College Students’ Status, and Pandemic Impacts 4. Increased Trust in the Higher Education Admissions System After application and identification, I critically discussed the research findings and provided implications for future policies, practices, and research directions for higher education admissions equity based on the four findings. In conclusion and alignment with the CRT tenet of interest convergence, UC’s policy has increased opportunities for all students and has benefited both White and underrepresented minority URM students in terms of their acceptance into highly selective, four-year universities.

Despite decades of research and promising strategies to ensure educational equity for all students, a significant disparity persists between the racial majority and marginalized students in the United States. Attaining educational equity is a complex problem illustrated by state-funded merit-based scholarships, including the State of Florida Bright Futures Scholarship. Since Florida's merit-based Bright Futures Scholarship Program's (BFSP) inception, the average percentage of black scholarship recipients has been minimal compared to other races. The equitable distribution of scholarship funds is critical to investigate since attaining a post-secondary education advances social mobility consequently breaking the cycle of poverty for lower socioeconomic students and closing the wealth gap for marginalized families. The Bright Futures case study utilizes a participatory policy analysis approach to help inform Legislators about policy alternatives to attain a more inclusive distribution of scholarship recipients. Data collection includes hosting four focus groups, two for Florida high school graduates and two for parents of Florida high school graduates. Additional data were collected through a facilitated conversation to identify policy alternatives to create a more racially inclusive scholarship distribution. The research concludes with a report on findings, discussion, and implications, along with recommendations to create a more inclusive Bright Futures Scholarship Program.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.