The Need for Comprehensive Evaluation in Science Education

This article argues for policies regarding the implementation of evaluation as an integral part of science education reform. Approaches to evaluation should be made comprehensive enough to include multiple methods and, through their use, to gain in‐depth information on large‐scale science education programs and projects. There must be a sustained commitment from stakeholders such as the National Science Foundation to support the training of specialists in the evaluation of science education. Specialists who are able to arrive at independent conclusions that are meaningful and beneficial for science teaching and learning are needed. Evaluation recommendations posited by the authors should be put through careful analysis and feasibility testing before moving to widespread adoption.     

DOES POLITICAL CHANGE AFFECT SENIOR MANAGEMENT TURNOVER? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF TOP‐TIER LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND

In many political systems the political neutrality of senior managers' tenure is often cherished as a key part of the politics-administration dichotomy and is subject to formal safeguards. We test hypotheses about the impact of political change on senior management turnover drawn from political science, public administration and private sector management theory. Using panel data to control for unobserved heterogeneity between authorities, we find that changes in political party control and low organizational performance have both separate and joint positive effects on the turnover rate of senior managers. By contrast, the most senior manager, the chief executive, is more sheltered: the likelihood of a chief executive succession is higher only when party change and low performance occur together. Thus the arrival of a new ruling party reduces the tenure of senior managers, but chief executives are vulnerable to political change only when performance is perceived as weak.     

TWO WORLDS FAR APART: BLACK‐WHITE DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS ABOUT WHY AFRICAN‐AMERICAN MEN ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPRISONED*

Analyzing The Washington Post, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University 2006 African American Survey, the current project focuses on three related issues. First, I examine whether African Americans and whites share a common “sensibility” or “cognitive landscape” when considering why African‐American men are disproportionately imprisoned. Second, the current research investigates whether the sensibilities held by African Americans and whites are collectively held. Third, I investigate whether the relative subordinate position of African Americans—as manifested in their personal experiences with racial discrimination—shapes the opinions that they have about why black men are disproportionately incarcerated. Findings reveal that African Americans and whites significantly differ in their opinions about why black men are imprisoned. They also show that deep divisions exist among whites, whereas African Americans tend to share a common sensibility as to why black males are disproportionately incarcerated. The results reveal that the cognitive landscape that African Americans collectively hold about why black men are incarcerated is shaped by their personal experiences with racial discrimination.