Sharing education through schools working together

Outline of the Sharing Education Programme and its work in developing and evaluating collaborative networks of schools in Northern Ireland in order to promote more effectiuve education and reconciliation. The paper outlines the numbers of shared classes achieved in the first two and a half years of the programme and provides data on the first pupil and teacher surveys.

Contact and context: sharing education and building relationships in a divided society

One approach to tackling problems of division in society has been to promote collaboration and engagement between schools separated on ethno-religious lines. Based on some variant of contact theory, the received wisdom is that inter-group encounters can contribute to prejudice reduction and promote more harmonious relationships. Evidence to support this analysis is convincing; however, relatively little is known about the environmental factors that impede or enhance the potential for contact in different contexts. The importance of understanding such factors is underscored in divided jurisdictions, where separate education has been linked to the perpetuation of division and hostility. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to exploring the impact of two inter-school initiatives in Northern Ireland. The projects are located in contrasting socio-political and demographic environments, and research findings point to very different contact outcomes for participants in each. Seemingly relevant factors include the degree of congruence between school and community norms and values, the opportunity to develop relationships outside the school context, the relationships developed between the schools and local communities and the historical, political and social referents used by individuals to navigate the contact experience. The paper concludes with some reflections on factors that may help foster social harmony and on potential policy implications of the findings.

Sharing Classes between Separate Schools: a mechanism for improving inter-group relations in Northern Ireland?

One manifestation of division and the history of conflict in Northern Ireland is the parallel education system that exists for Protestants and Catholics. Although recent decades have seen some advances in the promotion of integrated education, around 95% of children continue to attend schools separated on ethno-religious lines. In 2007 a programme for sharing education was established. Underpinned by intergroup contact theory, and reflecting educational priorities shared by all school sectors, the programme seeks to offer children from different denominational schools an opportunity to engage with each other on a sustained basis. In this article the authors adopt a quantitative approach to examining the impact of participation in the Sharing Education Programme on a range of outcomes (out-group attitudes, positive action tendencies and out-group trust) via, first, intergroup contact (cross-group friendships) and, second, intergroup anxiety. Their findings confirm the value of contact as a mechanism for promoting more harmonious relationships, and affirm the Sharing Education Programme as an initiative that can help promote social cohesion in a society that remains deeply divided.

Sustaining school partnerships: The context of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a separate education system in Northern Ireland

This study explores the current understanding of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a divided society. The paper provides the context surrounding inter-school collaboration in Northern Ireland then presents findings based on a qualitative study of five post-primary partnerships made up of schools from the various sectors in Northern Ireland (maintained/Catholic, controlled/Protestant and integrated sectors). Participants in the study are teachers and school leaders. Evidence from this study reveals a number of things: despite a separate education system made up of different sectors, schools on an inter-sectoral basis are willing to collaborate and those represented in this study appeared disposed to sustain partnership activities; schools recognised that collaboration and partnership while beset with a number of logistical challenges, is also beneficial for pupils and institutions. In all cases there remained evidence of sustainable collaborative practice; although some of this was more developed in some partnerships than in others. In effect this paper concludes by recognising that schools do require some level of funding to sustain partnership working but that sustainability should not be couched entirely around these terms; rather, sustainability is about creating the right conditions to allow schools to develop effective and strong partnerships. These conditions are outlined in the latter stages of this paper.

Navigating Grounded Theory:A critical and reflective response to the challenges of using grounded theory in an education PhD

This paper offers a critical reflection upon the use of a grounded theory approach within a doctoral study. As well as providing an outline of grounded theory, it begins by noting the existence of some powerful critiques of a grounded theory approach, in particular around the key concepts of ‘theory’, ‘discovery’ and ‘ground’. It is argued that, in some cases, grounded theory struggles to counter these challenges, especially in its ‘purist’ forms. However, with reference to research carried out as part of a PhD study of sharing education in Northern Ireland which employed a grounded theory approach, a case is made for an open and critical grounded theory based upon three principles: pragmatism; research as practice; and reflexivity. It is concluded that a reasonable case can be made for grounded theory where: grounded theory researchers maintain a balance between belonging to and critique of the grounded theory community; where there is an emphasis upon theorizing rather than the discovery of theory; and where the strengths of grounded theory as 'practice' and 'craft' are maximised.

Priority threat management of invasive plant species in the Lake Eyre Basin

This project is led by scientists in conservation decision appraisal and brings together a group of experts working across the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). The LEB covers a sixth of Australia, with an array of globally significant natural values that are threatened by invasive plants, among other things. Managers at various levels are investing in attempts to control, contain and eradicate these invasive plant species, under severe time and resources limitations. To date there has been no basin-wide assessment of which weed management strategies and locations provide the best investments for maximising outcomes for biodiversity per unit cost. Further, there has been no assessment of the extent of ecosystem intactness that may be lost without effective invasive plant species management strategies. Given that there are insufficient resources to manage all invasive plant species everywhere, this information has the potential to improve current investment decisions. Here, we provide a prioritisation of invasive plant management strategies in the LEB. Prioritisation was based on cost-effectiveness for biodiversity benefits. We identify the key invasive plant species to target to protect ecosystem intactness across the bioregions of the LEB, the level of investment required and the likely reduction in invasive species dominance gained per dollar spent on each strategy. Our focus is on strategies that are technically and socially feasible and reduce the likelihood that high impact invasive plant species will dominate native ecosystems, and therefore change their form and function. The outputs of this work are designed to help guide decision-making and further planning and investment in weed management for the Basin. Experts in weed management, policy-making, community engagement, biodiversity and natural values of the Basin, attended a workshop and agreed upon 12 strategies to manage invasive plants. The strategies focused primarily on 10 weeds which were considered to have a high potential for broad, significant impacts on natural ecosystems in the next 50 years and for which feasible management strategies could be defined. Each strategy consisted of one or more supporting actions, many of which were spatially linked to IBRA (Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia) bioregions. The first strategy was an over-arching recommendation for improved mapping, information sharing, education and extension efforts in order to facilitate the more specific weed management strategies. The 10 more specific weed management strategies targeted the control and/or eradication of the following high-impact exotic plants: mesquite, parkinsonia, rubber vine, bellyache bush, cacti, mother of millions, chinee apple, athel pine and prickly acacia, as well as a separate strategy for eradicating all invasive plants from one key threatened ecological community, the GAB (Great Artesian Basin dependant) mound springs. Experts estimated the expected biodiversity benefit of each strategy as the reduction in area that an invasive plant species is likely to dominate in over a 50-year period, where dominance was defined as more than 30% coverage at a site. Costs were estimated in present day terms over 50 years largely during follow up discussions post workshop. Cost-effectiveness was then calculated for each strategy in each bioregion by dividing the average expected benefit by the average annual costs. Overall, the total cost of managing 12 invasive plant strategies over the next 50 years was estimated at $1.7 billion. It was estimated that implementation of these strategies would result in a reduction of invasive plant dominance by 17 million ha (a potential 32% reduction), roughly 14% of the LEB. If only targeting Weeds of National Significance (WONS), the total cost was estimated to be $113 million over the next 50 years. Over the next 50 years, $2.3 million was estimated to eradicate all invasive plant species from the Great Artesian Basin Mound Springs threatened ecological community. Prevention and awareness programs were another key strategy targeted across the Basin and estimated at $17.5 million in total over 50 years. The cost of controlling, eradicating and containing buffel grass were the most expensive, over $1.5 billion over 50 years; this strategy was estimated to result in a reduction in buffel grass dominance of a million ha in areas where this species is identified as an environmental problem. Buffel grass has been deliberately planted across the Basin for pasture production and is by far the most widely distributed exotic species. Its management is contentious, having economic value to many graziers while posing serious threats to biodiversity and sites of high cultural and conservation interest. The strategy for containing and locally eradicating buffel grass was a challenge to cost based on expert knowledge, possibly because of the dual nature of this species as a valued pastoral grass and environmental weed. Based on our conversations with experts, it appears that control and eradication programs for this species, in conservation areas, are growing rapidly and that information on the most cost-effective strategies for this species will continue to develop over time. The top five most cost-effective strategies for the entire LEB were for the management of: 1) parkinsonia, 2) chinee apple, 3) mesquite, 4) rubber vine and 5) bellyache bush. Chinee apple and mother of millions are not WONS and have comparatively small populations within the semi-arid bioregions of Queensland. Experts felt that there was an opportunity to eradicate these species before they had the chance to develop into high-impact species within the LEB. Prickly acacia was estimated to have one of the highest benefits, but the costs of this strategy were high, therefore it was ranked 7th overall. The buffel grass strategy was ranked the lowest (10th) in terms of cost effectiveness. The top five most cost-effective strategies within and across the bioregions were the management of: 1) parkinsonia in the Channel Country, 2) parkinsonia in the Desert Uplands, 3) mesquite in the Mitchell Grass Downs, 4) parkinsonia in the Mitchell Grass Downs, and 5) mother of millions in the Desert Uplands. Although actions for several invasive plant species like parkinsonia and prickly acacia were concentrated in the Queensland part of the LEB, the actions involved investing in containment zones to prevent the spread of these species into other states. In the NT and SA bioregions of the LEB, the management of athel pine, parkinsonia and cacti were the main strategies. While outside the scientific research goals of study, this work highlighted a number of important incidental findings that led us to make the following recommendations for future research and implementation of weed management in the Basin: • Ongoing stakeholder engagement, extension and participation is required to ensure this prioritisation effort has a positive impact in affecting on-ground decision making and planning. • Short term funding for weed management was identified as a major reason for failure of current efforts, hence future funding needs to be secure and ongoing. • Improved mapping and information sharing is essential to implement effective weed management. • Due to uncertainties in the outcomes and impacts of management options, strategies should be implemented as part of an adaptive management program. The information provided in this report can be used to guide investment for controlling high-impact invasive plant species for the benefits of biodiversity conservation. We do not present a final prioritisation of invasive plant strategies for the LEB, and we have not addressed the cultural, socio-economic or spatial components necessary for an implementation plan. Cost-effectiveness depends on the objectives used; in our case we used the intactness of ecosystems as a surrogate for expected biodiversity benefits, measured by the extent that each invasive plant species is likely to dominate in a bioregion. When other relevant factors for implementation are considered the priorities may change and some actions may not be appropriate in some locations. We present the costs, ecological benefits and cost-effectiveness of preventing, containing, reducing and eradicating the dominance of high impact invasive plants through realistic management actions over the next 50 years. In doing so, we are able to estimate the size of the weed management problem in the LEB and provide expert-based estimates of the likely outcomes and benefits of implementing weed management strategies. The priorities resulting from this work provide a prospectus for guiding further investment in management and in improving information availability.

A practice-based culminating experience: Writing a HRSA grant application with Texas Organ Sharing Alliance for public education efforts to increase solid organ donation

In November 2010, nearly 110,000 people in the United States were waiting for organs for transplantation. Despite the fact that the organ donor registration rate has doubled in the last year, Texas has the lowest registration rate in the nation. Due to the need for improved registration rates in Texas, this practice-based culminating experience was to write an application for federal funding for the central Texas organ procurement organization, Texas Organ Sharing Alliance. The culminating experience has two levels of significance for public health – (1) to engage in an activity to promote organ donation registration, and (2) to provide professional experience in grant writing. ^ The process began with a literature review. The review was to identify successful intervention activities in motivating organ donation registration that could be used in intervention design for the grant application. Conclusions derived from the literature review included (1) the need to specifically encourage family discussions, (2) religious and community leaders can be leveraged to facilitate organ donation conversations in families, (3) communication content must be culturally sensitive and (4) ethnic disparities in transplantation must be acknowledged and discussed.^ Post the literature review; the experience followed a five step process of developing the grant application. The steps included securing permission to proceed, assembling a project team, creation of a project plan and timeline, writing each element of the grant application including the design of proposed intervention activities, and completion of the federal grant application. ^ After the grant application was written, an evaluation of the grant writing process was conducted. Opportunities for improvement were identified. The first opportunity was the need for better timeline management to allow for review of the application by an independent party, iterative development of the budget proposal, and development of collaborative partnerships. Another improvement opportunity was the management of conflict regarding the design of the intervention that stemmed from marketing versus evidence-based approaches. The most important improvement opportunity was the need to develop a more exhaustive evaluation plan.^ Eight supplementary files are attached to appendices: Feasibility Discussion in Appendix 1, Grant Guidance and Workshop Notes in Appendix 2, Presentation to Texas Organ Sharing Alliance in Appendix 3, Team Recruitment Presentation in Appendix 5, Grant Project Narrative in Appendix 7, Federal Application Form in Appendix 8, and Budget Workbook with Budget Narrative in Appendix 9.^

Built environment education and research : making connections

This conference is a landmark gathering of those from around the world concerned with the future of Built environment education and Research. It takes place at a time of great change and opportunity. Around the world the long-standing principles of what, how and who we teach for graduate entry into Built environment professions, is increasingly under review. The need for research and the way in which it is funded, conducted and knowledge shared is also under increasing pressure. Both changes are being triggered by a fast changing and increasingly challenging competitive environment for education and research. Competition for the highest quality of graduate entrants in the right numbers is becoming more intense. Competition between Universities, as funding for education and research comes under ever close scrutiny, is intensifying and we are all being forced to look for more effective and exciting ways of recruting, retaining, enhancing and maximising the achievement of our students and of our staff in their research activities. Competition amongst employees in industry is becoming more intense as professional employers increasingly recognise that people and knowledge are their key strategic resources. Universities are increasingly looking to partnerships with industry, the professions and other Universities to further improve their eduacation, research and innovation activities. These challenges are unfolding at a time of accelerating development in information technologies and systems and in our understanding of principles of knowledge management and pedagogical advancement. This environment presents both opportunities and threats to the world of education.