Student Decisions to Attend Public Two-Year Community Colleges

While the strategy of funding both systems provides an incentive for both school districts and community colleges to participate with dual enrollment, the current fiscal environment has drawn attention to the inefficient use of the dual funding structure. This article highlights the results of a case study on Florida's dual enrollment program documenting how over a 20-year period policymakers offered different financial incentives as an inducement to greater participation among districts and community colleges. The article documents how the current state fiscal condition has altered lawmaker's motivations for supporting dual enrollment. It concludes by describing the implications of this on community college participation with dual enrollment.     

Peter Effect in the Preparation of Reading Teachers

The Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004 Applegate, A. J. and Applegate, M. D. 2004. The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of teacher candidates. The Reading Teacher, 57: 554–563. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) claimed that one cannot be expected to give what one does not possess. We applied this notion to reading teacher preparation and hypothesized that teacher educators who do not possess an understanding of basic language constructs would not prepare teacher candidates with an understanding of these constructs considered essential for early reading success. Results from a survey of basic language constructs revealed similar patterns in performance between teacher educators and their respective teacher candidates, which served as initial validation of the Peter Effect in reading teacher preparation.     

On Going (Way) Beyond One’s Data: A Proposal to Restrict Recommendations for Practice in Primary Educational Research Journals

To counteract what we see as a growing research-reporting concern, we propose the following editorial-policy change regarding the content of primary research articles in educational research journals: Contributors should restrict their discussion and conclusions to their data and not offer recommendations for educational practice nor speculate about the educational policy implications of their research. We believe that this change will be beneficial for maintaining a separation between evidence and opinion concerning the legitimate warrants of empirical research. We suggest viable accompaniments and alternatives to authors offering practical recommendations and policy speculations in primary-research journal articles. Among these is to rely on all sources of evidence, including systematic research syntheses based on the aggregated contribution of multiple research studies from different sources, with recommendations for practice tailored to specific situations so that both their validity and utility will be increased. It is hoped that our proposed policy change will initiate a conversation among researchers, editors, reviewers, and educational-policy experts with respect to the scope and purpose of primary research journal articles.