Students in preservice teacher preparation courses are instructed, assessed, and graded by either regular full-time faculty members or adjunct part-time instructors. The assessment practices utilized by individuals from these two different instructor levels may be inconsistent and differ significantly, thereby affecting the thorough preparation and training of preservice teacher credential students. There was a two-fold purpose for this study. The first was to determine what the assessment practices of regular faculty and adjunct instructors are in preservice teacher education courses. Specifically, the study did so by administering a survey to determine the course assessment practices; i.e. class attendance, class participation, quizzes, other written papers or assignments during a course, final exams (written in class, take home, oral, or none at all), utilized by the two different instructor levels. The second purpose for the study was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the assessment practices of regular instructors compared to adjunct faculty members. The subjects chosen for this study were the entire preservice teacher education full-time faculty or regular instructors, a total of 40 individuals, and 97 preservice course teaching adjunct or part-time instructors (selected at random) from a private university. Together this constituted a total sample population of 137 individuals that were included in the survey utilized for this study. The results of this study showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the utilization of 3 (or 15%) out of 20 assessment practices (Class Attendance, Portfolios, and Final Exam: Oral) between regular and adjunct instructors in preservice teacher education programs. Since the possible effects of differences in the utilization of assessment practices or teaching between full-time and part-time instructors has not been conducted at the higher education level, research in this area may make an important contribution to the future preparation of preservice teacher education students.

This dissertation examines the prevalence rates of students with disabilities in grades kindergarten through twelve in the 115 special education local plan areas (SELPAs) in the state of California. California moved to a new, population-based funding model in 1998, assuming that the prevalence of students with disabilities requiring special education is equitably distributed. Special education services and funds will flow through the agencies known as SELPAs based on 10% of the SELPAs' total student population. No prior study was undertaken to validate the assumption of equitable distribution of students with disabilities in California by their SELPA of residence. This study attempted to provide data and examine the prevalence of students identified as needing special education based on their SELPA of residence as a basis for accurate statewide policy development. This study examined the total number of special education students as well as the number of special education students in each of the 13 disabling categories as a percentage of the total student population in each of 115 SELPAs in California to determine if such students were equitably distributed. Descriptive statistics for each disability and the total number of special education students in the SELPAs are provided. This study also examined four factors of the SELPAs which contributed to differences in prevalence rates. These factors are: percentages of low-income students; percentages of limited-English proficient students; percentages of students from ethnic minorities; and geographic location (rural, suburban, urban). Data from this study showed that special education students as a percentage of the total seudent population are not equitably distributed; the distributions for each of the disabling categories are quite different; and the various characteristics ofthe SELPAs are correlated with the prevalence rates of the disabilities in a variety of ways.

This study examined methods and practices utilized in planning residential learning communities at three large, state-funded, research-oriented universities. Much research has been conducted on the ability of residential learning communities to enhance student learning and retention but little research has been done on how these programs are initiated. This study focused on interviews with founders and initiators and archival documents from the Residential College at the University of Michigan, Freshman Interest Groups program at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and the Residential Freshman Interest Groups program at the University of Oregon. Rogers' organizational decision of innovations theory provided the conceptual framework for this qualitative study. This study found four critical elements for initiating residential learning communities: (1) the utilization of a representative planning committee (2) shared beliefs and faculty-faculty interaction, (3) campus champions with authority or expertise acknowledged by others (4) willingness among planning committee to adapt to changing circumstances. One unanticipated finding was the impetus for residential learning communities. While all three campuses sought to improve student connectedness, successful residential learning communities originated from fiscal concerns about underutilized campus housing as well as a desire to strengthen the rigor of undergraduate education. A second unanticipated finding was the relatively small role that institutional goals and missions played in initiating this innovation at the three sites. Initiators and founders of residential learning communities were less influenced by formal institutional mission statements than by an immediate fiscal or student development concern. Residential learning communities are one approach to integrating the resources of a large university with the intimacy of a small residential college. As large institutions strive to embrace academic as well as personal development for students, this research can guide campuses in effective planning.

The purpose of this study was to identify dimensions of synergy in the College Going Initiative of Imperial County, California. The instrument through which this intersegmental partnership was examined was the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool. This study found that leadership is the strongest contributor to synergy, and that leadership facilitates the use of other dimensions, such as administration/management activities and the efficiency and sufficiency of resources in a partnership. This study identified how leadership spans organizational boundaries to filter and combine information from each educational segment in a manner useful and appeasing to all segments. This study extended existing research by identifying a new model, the Three Phases of Synergy, which describes how the activities and outcomes produced in a synergistic partnership occur in three distinct phases: the convening phase, the implementation phase, and the sustainability phase. Each phase requires leaders take special consideration regarding how to influence the administrative activities and resources of the partnership. The ultimate goal of this three-phase continuum is to maximize and sustain results in a synergistic partnership. This study recommends educational professionals maximize the benefits of partnership by developing their boundary spanning abilities. Such recommendations are made for educational professionals engaging in partnership during each of the three phases of synergy identified in this study. In addition, the benefit of creating educational policy which reinforces synergistic partnerships and recommendations for implementation are discussed. Finally, this study makes recommendations regarding replicating this study, utilizing the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool in education, and future research of boundary spanning activities and synergistic partnerships.

On the continuum of special needs students, gifted students are often under-served. Research suggests the lack of services reported for these learners is similar across gender, grade level and type of school. However, much of the existing literature regarding differentiation of instructional practices for gifted learners is limited to the elementary level. This study sought to identify administrative and teacher practices regarding differentiation for gifted students in the regular education classroom in middle schools. More specifically, quantitative questionnaires were developed to identify the types of differentiated instructional activities classroom teachers utilize, describe programs offered to gifted students and identify factors which school administrators believe to be important to their role in addressing gifted programming. This exploratory study utilized quantitative, non-experimental methodology. The sample included teachers and administrators in public middle schools in Alameda and Sacramento counties in California in which gifted learners are taught in the regular classroom. While middle school teachers who instruct gifted learners in the regular education classroom employ differentiated strategies in the areas of enrichment, curriculum and grouping, teachers also engage in non-differentiated practices in the areas curricular materials, assessment and acceleration. Results reveal that the use and application of the strategies devised for gifted learners is uneven. Differentiation in the instructional program does not occur with consistent frequency and limited opportunities are presented in the areas of enrichment, differentiated curriculum and grouping. Whereas administrators indicate enrichment, self-selected projects, subject acceleration, enrichment and flexible grouping, should be provided to all gifted learners, actual services provided school-wide as reported by both administrators and teachers focuses significantly on enrichment, differentiated curriculum and grouping. Data shows that the activities reported to be beneficial to students by administrators which include participation in enrichment activities, differentiated curriculum and grouping, are generally reported to be in use by teachers. Although administrators report many activities to be essential to their role in addressing gifted programming, limited training hinders administrators from providing adequate support to teachers and conducting appropriate evaluations.

The purpose of this research study was to investigate instructional leadership in the area of reading at the elementary school level. Specifically, this study investigated elementary principals as instructional leaders in reading, In order to determine if elementary principals were perceived as instructional leaders in reading, teachers were asked to provide their perceptions of their principals in this area. This study also examined the relationship of teachers' perceptions of their principals as instructional leaders in the area of reading and student reading test scores. The study was conducted in San Joaquin County in California. The researcher developed a survey instrument entitled, Principals Leadership Reading Inventory, which consisted of 30 questions. Surveys were distributed to elementary school teachers from randomly selected schools within San Joaquin County. The teachers' responses to the survey provided the researcher with their perceptions of their principals as instructional leaders in the area of reading. Additionally, school reading test scores for each school site participating in the study were obtained and used in part of the data analysis. This study found that instructional leadership in the area of reading had specific behavioral descriptors, identifiable characteristics, and positively related to the leadership subscales of encouraging, enabling, inspiring, and challenging. This study did not find that based on teachers' perceptions a principal's leadership in the area of reading significantly correlated to the reading test scores at the school site.

Purpose . The purpose of this descriptive ex post facto study was to identify leadership strategies utilized by elementary principals to increase the academic achievement of African-American students in schools identified as Title I. Procedure . This study utilized qualitative research methods to determine the effectiveness of strategies used in schools to improve the achievement levels of African-American students in Sacramento County. Principal interviews were conducted in schools with free and reduced lunch counts of 70% or higher, enrollment of more than 33% African-Americans, and a principal who was assigned to the site for three or more years. Of the six Sacramento County elementary schools examined, three were high-achieving and three were low-achieving. Initial interviews were followed up with observations, and follow-up interviews. School and district documents were then reviewed to complete the triangulation process. Findings . The outcome of the study listed practices used in high-achieving schools and compared those practices to those used in low-achieving schools. Those commonly mentioned strategies found to be effective, as evidenced by improved test scores in low-achieving schools and implementation in high-achieving schools, were defined. The result was a comparison to determine whether the leadership practices were labeled as effective or ineffective. Evidence used to determine the effectiveness of leadership practices with African-American students included 1999 and 2002 schoolwide Academic Performance Index, 2002 Academic Performance Index scores for the African-American subgroup as compared to those of the Caucasian subgroup, and compared proficiency levels on the California Standards Test. Those practices found to be most effective in schools, whether they were low-achieving or high-achieving, were then categorized and listed. There were several common strategies found in the most effective schools. Schools that were most effective in improving achievement levels for African-American students shared some strategies, which were labeled as high impact strategies. Moderate impact strategies were shared by two of the three most effective schools, and low impact strategies were found in the most effective school solely. Additionally, it was determined that while principals felt that specialized training was necessary to truly serve the needs of the African-American student, none of them have provided such a training at their sites. Principals either felt that poverty was the true issue, or were afraid or hesitant to discuss issues related to race.

Purpose . The purposes of this study were to (a) examine and describe the purpose and characteristics of responsibility center management (RCM) systems at two institutions of higher education, (b) describe the RCM system used at each institution at the school level of the organization, (c) examine and analyze the implementation of RCM at each institution, (d) identify the advantages and disadvantages of RCM systems at each institution, (e) examine and describe the impact of the RCM system on various constituencies affected by implementation of the process at each institution, and (f) provide data which may assist institutions of higher education in determining whether or not to institute a RCM model to assist administrators in the budgeting process. Procedure . The researcher conducted 12 interviews. Respondents included one provost, one chief financial officer (CFO) and one dean from each institution, and six faculty (three from each institution) who had knowledge of, in varying degrees, and/or responsibility for the school-level implementation of RCM systems. These individuals provided information regarding their perceptions of their respective RCM systems and related activities associated with the implementation process at each institution. Twelve content analyses were developed; two provost content analyses, two CFO content analyses, two dean content analyses, and six faculty content analyses. Two case studies were developed from the content analyses: one case study between the faculty and the administration at each institution. In addition, the researcher developed a cross-case summary from the case studies. Conclusions . The administrators in this study felt that RCM systems were implemented at each institution whereas; the faculty reported that this was not the case. Other significant findings included: (a) all the respondents indicated that each person or office might assume different roles depending on the stage of the RCM process however, good budget planning and performance was facilitated by stable environments; (b) ten out of the twelve respondents reported they could be responsible for their programs and accountable for fiscal integrity if they acted upon accurate and timely information; (c) four out of the six faculty pointed out that RCM implementation was more difficult at smaller institutions primarily, in increasing efficiency and reallocation of resources; (d) two administrators and six faculty raised concerns that information usually flowed downward in the authority hierarchy; (e) two administrators and six faculty indicated that tension resulted from the academic centers wanting more decentralization than the administration; (f) four out of the six faculty reported RCM implementation had occurred on paper only, without sufficient faculty input, and with insufficient information regarding the system's implications; and (g) all the respondents further indicated that they reserved judgment on the implementation of RCM systems until decentralization and autonomy for the academic centers is embedded in the institutional culture.

This study examined how four provosts dealt with a range of financially related problems to reposition their universities in the current higher education environment. The four provosts agreed to in-depth interviews. A quantitative profile of each institution was developed to provide a meaningful context for the interviews. All four universities benefited from a rising economy at the time, so the findings may not apply in different circumstances. The methods of the provosts fell along a continuum that linked three distinctive styles. Each institution began with an Analytic style that responded in a reactive way to the problems that demanded immediate attention. Two of the institutions exemplified this style. As one provost began to get control of issues, he began to examine how to prepare for the future. The combination of dealing with immediate issues and restructuring administrative decision-making was termed a Transition style. One provost functioned in a Strategic style; i.e., he had used opportunities to professionalize his staff to gather important data, use strategic indicators, and orient decision-making toward consolidating and enhancing the university's position. The role of stakeholders in the university changed as universities moved along the continuum. Faculty were very important and involved in the Analytic style, and critical to the survival of the university. Transitional style faculty objected to the change in mission as professional programs were added to the liberal arts curriculum, but generally supported redirection efforts. In the Strategic style, decisions tended to be data-driven and made by professional staff, with faculty having a limited role, if any, especially in long range planning. Administrators relied heavily on faculty in the Analytic style, and progressively less in the Transitional and Strategic styles. Recent Association of Governing Board positions suggest that trustees will impose mission and direction on administrators, so the balance among stakeholders in the university will continue to shift.

This study examined the effects of experience on the ethical decision making of elementary school principals through the use of personal interviews. Five beginning principals (two or less years of experience) and five veteran principals (greater than ten years of experience) were asked to respond to a set of ethical dilemmas based on realistic administrative situations. Each interviewee was asked to provide a course of action and explanation for each dilemma or situation. Interview results were analyzed and compared within the two groups, beginning and experienced, and between the two groups as well. Results were classified according to Roche's Framework. Results showed a strong pattern of similarity between the responses of the two groups. While responses or choices for courses of action were similar between the groups, differences were noted in the rationales for the solutions between the two groups. Beginning principals tended to be more rules based in their responses because of their lack of experience and knowledge of potential consequences. Because they possessed a depth of experience and knowledge of consequences, veteran principals tended to be more ends based in their thinking and decision making.