Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

A comparative analysis of school satisfaction and dropout risk of middle school students attending programs for students with emotional handicaps, severe emotional disturbance and general education students attending center schools and satellite schools

This study evaluated school satisfaction as an indicator of dropout risk of students with Emotional Handicaps (EH) and students with Severe Emotional Disturbance (SED). The students attended two different kinds of middle schools in a largely urban school district in South Florida. One hundred eight students in grade 8 (ages 13-16) participated in this study. Participants were administered the National Dropout Prevention Assessment (NDPA). Forty participants with EH and SED attended a special center school. Thirty-one participants with EH and SED attended satellite programs in a regular middle school. Thirty-seven general education participants attended the same regular middle school. Overall school satisfaction scores were generated, as well as three primary factors (school, environment and personal) and 16 subscales (school atmosphere, future income, difficulty level of classwork, teacher relationships, peer relationships, intrinsic interest in classwork, school hours, classwork stress, general attitude towards school, family influence, perceived opportunity for career, future goals, travel distance, leisure time, self-appraisal of performance, and self-esteem).^ Comparison of students with EH and SED revealed that both groups of students were rated at "low risk" of becoming dropouts on the Environmental factor and the Difficulty of Schoolwork subscale. Students with EH were rated at "caution risk" risk on the Travel Distance subscale. Students with SED were rated at "high risk" on this subscale.^ There were no significant differences in school satisfaction and dropout risk between different program delivery models. There were also no significant differences for category of students (EH, SED) by school type (center school, satellite program). All students were rated at "low risk" of dropping out of school.^ There were significant differences between general education students and students with EH and SED attending satellite programs. Students with EH and SED were rated at "caution risk" for dropping out on the Travel Distance and the Leisure Time subscales. Discussion of results, implications for practice and recommendations for further research are included. ^

Peer Support: An Intervention To Facilitate Second Language Acquisition In Students With Asperger Syndrome And Primary Language Deficits

This is a study of a peer support program to aid students in secondary school struggling to learn a second language (for college entrance requirements) who have Asperger Syndrone and primary language deficits.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.