The University Presidency: Do Evaluations Make a Difference?

High turnover and short tenures are the norm for state university presidents in the last part of the twentieth century. Depending on the type of institution, the average state university president stays in office about four years, some three years shorter than the national average of seven years for all higher education institutions. The article discusses this trend and relates length of tenure to the formal and informal evaluations of presidents. Beginning with a presentation of presidential tenure (time in office) data and a discussion of the benefits of longer terms, the article continues with a dialogue on the role of the president in state institutions of higher education. It is argued that the position of president necessitates constituent leadership with presidents often expected to please all constituencies. Included in this discussion are the nature, role, and effectiveness of evaluations of university presidents. The authors conclude that evaluations of presidents make little difference in decisions to retain or remove presidents. Even a good or great evaluation does not offset the impact of the unforseen event or changes in political leadership within a state or on a board. The authors agree that annual reviews or reports are valuable in improving a presidents performance and leadership. Evaluations make a difference when they are supervised by individuals with direct knowledge of the job, are fair in terms of expectations from often divergent constituent groups, and focus on maximizing the ability of the president to improve the institution.     

Two-stage screening for math problem-solving difficulty using dynamic assessment of algebraic learning

The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a dynamic assessment (DA) of algebraic learning in predicting third graders' development of mathematics word-problem difficulty. In the fall, 122 third-grade students were assessed on a test of math word-problem skill and DA of algebraic learning. In the spring, they were assessed on word-problem performance. Logistic regression was conducted to contrast two models. One relied exclusively on the fall test of math word-problem skill to predict word-problem difficulty on the spring outcome (less than the 25th percentile). The second model relied on a combination of the fall test of math word-problem skill and the fall DA to predict the same outcome. Holding sensitivity at 87.5%, the universal screener alone resulted in a high proportion of false positives, which was practically reduced when DA was included in the prediction model. Findings are discussed in terms of a two-stage process for screening students within a responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model.     

Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: what level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?

Response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches to disability identification are meant to put an end to the so-called wait-to-fail requirement associated with IQ discrepancy. However, in an unfortunate irony, there is a group of children who wait to fail in RTI frameworks. That is, they must fail both general classroom instruction (Tier 1) and small-group intervention (Tier 2) before becoming eligible for the most intensive intervention (Tier 3). The purpose of this article was to determine how to predict accurately which at-risk children will be unresponsive to Tiers 1 and 2, thereby allowing unresponsive children to move directly from Tier 1 to Tier 3. As part of an efficacy study of a multitier RTI approach to prevention and identification of reading disabilities (RD), 129 first-grade children who were unresponsive to classroom reading instruction were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of small-group, Tier 2 intervention. Nonresponders to this instruction (n = 33) were identified using local norms on first-grade word identification fluency growth linked to a distal outcome of RD at the end of second grade. Logistic regression models were used to predict membership in responder and nonresponder groups. Predictors were entered as blocks of data from least to most difficult to obtain: universal screening data, Tier 1 response data, norm referenced tests, and Tier 2 response data. Tier 2 response data were not necessary to classify students as responders and nonresponders to Tier 2 instruction, suggesting that some children can be accurately identified as eligible for Tier 3 intervention using only Tier 1 data, thereby avoiding prolonged periods of failure to instruction.     

A NEW LOOK AT PRESERVICE TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION: UNCOVERING COMPLEXITY AND DISSONANCE

This article examines preservice teachers' conceptions of classroom management and organization in light of their training and beliefs about good teaching. Students in their final year of a 5-year program discussed their definitions and conceptions of classroom management, organization, and rule systems through an open-ended questionnaire. Researchers analyzed responses using a grounded approach. Findings revealed a portrait of student perceptions more complex than those in previous studies, with conceptions often changing according to the nature of the question asked. Respondents exhibited a preoccupation with behavior management previously recognized in other studies; however, findings also revealed underlying conflicts between respondents' theoretical orientations and conceptions of management, a lack of attention to developing student independence, and a conceptual schism between organization and management. Findings suggest a need for teacher educators to clarify the role of management, clarify relationships between organization and management, and help students to bridge specific theory–practice gaps.     

Assessment Focus in Studio: What is Most Prominent in Architecture,Art and Design?

What can be learned about assessment from what educators in the creative practices focus their studio publications on? What should form the focus of assessment in architecture, art and design studios? In this article we draw on 118 journal articles on studio published over the last decade in three disciplines; architecture, art and design to inform the focus of studio assessment. We believe that what is published by educators themselves in these disciplines reveals what matters most to them. In addition, we argue that regardless of the primary emphasis placed in each discipline, assessment in studio should encompass a broad set of indicators. Within the wider literature including in architecture, art and design, a view of assessment is emerging that recognises the process and the person, beyond a view that positions the product or art/design arte‐fact above all else. Therefore, drawing on what educators in architecture, art and design mentioned most in the journal publications analysed, as well as the literature on good assessment, we offer a holistic model to guide and take studio assessment in the creative disciplines further.